China's population declines...

China's population forecast to peak at 1.44bn in 2029

POLITICS
China's population forecast to peak at 1.44bn in 2029
'Unstoppable' decline to begin following year, say government researchers

JANUARY 05, 2019 20:16 JST

Visitors throng the Bund, Shanghai's waterfront, on the second day of the "Golden Week" holiday on Oct. 2, 2018. © Reuters
SHANGHAI (Reuters) -- China's population is set to reach a peak of 1.442 billion in 2029 and start a long period of "unstoppable" decline in 2030, government scholars said in a research report published on Friday.

The world's most populous country must now draw up policies to try to cope with a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population, according to the summary of the latest edition of the "Green Book of Population and Labor" published by the China Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

Despite the relaxation of the historical one-child policy, China's population continues to decline and China is very concerned about this. So much so, in fact, that one province is considering do this:

Chinese province considers 'three-child policy' to halt population decline

SHANGHAI - China's northeastern province of Liaoning is planning to loosen birth restrictions and allow some couples to have a third child in a bid to improve dwindling fertility rates and stop its workforce from declining.

China introduced a controversial "one-child policy" in 1978, but relaxed restrictions in 2016 to allow all couples to have two children as it tried to rebalance its rapidly ageing population.

However, experts have called for more radical measures, with birth rates still in decline and China's health services and pension funds expected to come under increasing strain as the number of elderly people increases.

I mean, seriously, by 2029? That is a very, very slow "increase" (it's actually a decrease, taking into account birth rates and death rates etc).

I think one of the major concern here is the declining labour force and a huge increase in the population of the elderly...

In the long run this is good news. Hopefully India can get it's population explosion under control too (and everyone else for that matter including the USA).

Having more people is detrimental to the global situation in many ways. All these factories and pollution, the demand for food and resources, etc. I can't see anything good coming from a overcrowded world. Crime would skyrocket, you'd have to stand in line forever, the govt can't hear out your problems because everyone's got problems and they don't have time to listen to the full story or think it through properly, etc.

Look at those photographs of the mega overcrowding. Who in their right mind wants to live in that mess?? I don't. I like having room to stretch my arms and being able to breathe fresh air. I also love nature and historical buildings and things like this which overpopulation demands for it to be bulldozed to make new room for them.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

It isn't just China facing this problem.

Japanese may actually go extinct because they have stopped reproducing to the point where race extinction has become a real possibility. The Japanese young people say they aren't interested in sex, even with the ubiquitous porn in Japan. They also aren't interested in marriage. Children are so costly in terms of money and time that many Japanese just can't afford children.

www.japantimes.co.jp...

(Japanese becoming extinct)


Europe also has a big declining birth rate. So does the US. This is why we are stealing immigrant poor from other nations. Without the immigrant poor flooding the countries the social structure would fail. Europe and the US native populations are just not reproducing enough to even stop their eventual (albeit very long term) extinction without injecting young blood.

worldview.stratfor.com...

(both articles are about rapidly declining fertility and birth rates)

www.forbes.com...

So Europe and the US are stealing young workers from poor countries. Since many of those countries are also entering the birth dearth, they will suffer the most from a lack of young workers to support their elderly population.

Instead of helping the poor countries improve, the west is stealing their young in the guise of helping them. This policy is further reducing those poor countries to poverty ridden holes from which the west draws out the best, most healthy, and brightest to keep the rich countries thriving. To add credence to this, recently it was proposed that all foreign students in PhD programs be given green cards automatically and allowed to stay indefinitely.

We’re losing 18.7 million acres of forests annually, equivalent to 27 soccer fields every minute.

In the Amazon, around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching. Deforestation in this region is particularly rampant near more populated areas, roads and rivers, but even remote areas have been encroached upon when valuable mahogany, gold, and oil are discovered.

Now how does China's population contribute to that?

deforestation and desertification

Chinese demand for wood is consuming foorests around the globe. The rain forest of the Congo and Cameroon in central Africa, the Amazon basin and the islands of Indonesia are all being heavily logged to supply China's growing demand for wood and its rapidly-growing furniture industry.

Clear cutting and overgrazing have turned large areas of Qinghai province into a desert. Deforestation is blamed for the 4 percent decline in rainfall, 15 percent in the dry season, in the Xishuangbanna area of Yunnan, where 50 percent of local forest have been deforested.

About 28 percent of China is covered by desert and that amount of desert in China is getting larger every year. Deserts are being created faster in China than anywhere else in the world, with old deserts expanding and new deserts being formed. The rate of desertification nationwide is around 900 square miles a year, an area nearly the size of Rhode Island, with an area the size of New Jersey becoming desert every five years.

“Millions of Chinese eco-refugees have been resettled because their home environments degraded to the point where they were nolonger fit for human habitation," Jonathan Watts wrote in The Guardian. “The government says more than 150 million people will have to be moved in the future.

Yes they (and most nations) are doing things to combat deforestation and desertification, but we are still losing the battle against ourselves because motivation. The path of least resistance is to chase profits and the more difficult path is to sacrifice profits in order to improve our future situation. This is how it works in all of our lives with even the simplest decisions - pleasure now often overrides concerns of tomorrow.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You may not know it but the world will begin a major decline in population beginning in 2029. (read the links in my previous post)

The western world is already in trouble with a birth rate so low that the population is not replacing itself. That is what the massive immigration push is really about.

If the birth dearth doesn't stop, AOC may get her way. The projection is that within several hundred perhaps thousand years, if the birth rate continues its precipitous decline, we may be looking at not just Japanese extinction, but human extinction.

www.preservearticles.com...

( article about Low birth rate in India)

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: muzzleflash

You may not know it but the world will begin a major decline in population beginning in 2029.

No one knows the future and a lot of factors can play into it leading to multiple possible outcomes. Given that no massive ELE occurs, there are various projections/scenarios that could play out:




This Link provides statistical data based on these varying projections.

There's some 34 million more men in china than there are women. Roughly the same in India as well.

Some 8 million people die in china every year.

They need to change policy so they are growing again.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Honestly, the world is better off with a massive human decline in population. Humans will never go completely extinct due to low birth rates, but less of us is better for the overall welfare of our oceans, our forests, our food supplies, our arable land, our weather, and the rest of our human counterparts.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

I just wish they would make quality products like Japan used to in the 80's.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I'm not disputing that population will rise, it will. But then the scientific projections are for a rapid and worldwide decline in population.

principia-scientific.org...

(article from principia scientific 2019 - New shock global population collapse looms)

Is a dangerous population explosion imminent? For decades we’ve been told so by scientific elites, starting with the Club of Rome reports in the 1970s. But in their compelling book “Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline,” Canadian social scientist Darrell Bricker and journalist John Ibbitson lay out the opposite case: “The great defining event of the twenty-first century,” they say, “will occur in three decades, give or take, when the global population starts to decline. Once that decline begins, it will never end.” Their book is a vital warning to the world that the risks associated with population have been catastrophically misread: Governments and activists have spent decades fighting the specter of overpopulation, but now face the looming demographic calamity of global population collapse. Fewer people participating in the economy will mean slower economic growth, less entrepreneurship, rising inequality an d calamitous government debt.

principia-scientific.org...

(article - global population falling as human fertility declines)

The latest data from the UN refers to 2005-2010. 80% of the world population lives in countries where women have on average fewer than 3 children. The global average fertility rate is 2.5. This means that global fertility is barely higher than the global replacement fertility. The replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which the population size stays constant. If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years, the replacement fertility would be exactly 2. With the current level of mortality the global replace fertility is 2.3 – the narrow gap between the current global fertility and the global replacement rate means that the increase of the world population is due to the increasing length of life and population momentum.1

I wasn't able to put their charts in, but please go there and read the articles. We are probably headed to eventual human extinction if things continue on the current projectory.

Pulling examples from extensive on-the-ground research in settings as disparate as São Paulo favelas, Seoul universities, and Nairobi businesses, the authors combine a mastery of social-science research with enough journalistic flair to convince fair-minded readers of a simple fact: Fertility is falling faster than most experts can readily explain, driven by persistent forces. In Brazil and China, astonishing numbers of women opt for permanent sterilization well before the end of their fertile years (half of Chinese couples take this route). In South Korea and Japan, women delay childbirth until their 30s or forgo it altogether. There even has been an unexpected collapse in fertility among Hispanics in the United States: They, like most of America’s other ethnic groups, now have below-replacement birth rates. The drivers of global fertility decline are here to stay.

yaleglobal.yale.edu...

(article- Yale - Replacement fertility declines worldwide)

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I disagree, I think humans may go extinct.

As technology improves, there will be less and less need for humans and after the big struggle with aging populations recedes, the economy and world will adjust to declining world wide populations.

Add to that the increase in sexbots that are gradually gaining acceptance. The sexbot makers are striving to make more and more realistic robots with AI. As this industry makes the breakthrough in "realistic" human looking robots infused with AI, more humans may prefer robots tailored to their preferences in body types, personality, sexual desires, etc to messy, aging and eventually wrinkled and saggy human partners.

I have already read that sexbot buyers who eschew human partners say their "partner" will stay young, fit, and sexy while a human "partner" grows old, needy, wrinkly and saggy. A portent of things to come.

Once robots become the humans preferred partners, and the robots are capable of "reproducing" themselves and repairing themselves, (which WILL come). Humans may become extinct.

I think it is entirely possible. We see more and more young people saying they are not interested in sexual encounters with other humans. I read articles about this often. I do think as technology improves, and it will, exponentially as it as the last 50 years, humanity will begin to die out of their own accord and selfishness. timesofindia.indiatimes.com... .cms www.latimes.com...

There is even a voluntary human extinction movement among young people. I suggest you google it.

The rise of disinterest in sex seems to be coinciding with the rise in acceptance of porn and the lessening of the definition of porn. Just last week on television I saw full body male and female nudity, on a show merely marked TV MA. Every night/day on broadcast TV you see more and more graphic simulations of intercourse.

Reminds me of the "well turned ankle" that used to turn men on in the late 1800's. Now ankles are so commonplace, men laugh at the idea of an ankle turning them on. Overexposure killed desire. Just a thought I have, is overexposure to intercourse and other sexual activities becoming so common it has quit exciting desire? I know I just ho hum at the sight on intercourse on TV and just want them to get back to the story.

a reply to: The2Billies


Does the book take into account automation and AI in regards this excerpt?

Fewer people participating in the economy will mean slower economic growth, less entrepreneurship, rising inequality and calamitous government debt.

Depopulation agenda well under way.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Kindly see my reply to kelbtalfenek above. Thank you, it answers your question.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
In the long run this is good news. Hopefully India can get it's population explosion under control too (and everyone else for that matter including the USA).

Having more people is detrimental to the global situation in many ways. All these factories and pollution, the demand for food and resources, etc. I can't see anything good coming from a overcrowded world. Crime would skyrocket, you'd have to stand in line forever, the govt can't hear out your problems because everyone's got problems and they don't have time to listen to the full story or think it through properly, etc.

Look at those photographs of the mega overcrowding. Who in their right mind wants to live in that mess?? I don't. I like having room to stretch my arms and being able to breathe fresh air. I also love nature and historical buildings and things like this which overpopulation demands for it to be bulldozed to make new room for them.

We are long overdue for a cleansing plague/sickness, I'd wager that a global pandemic is coming sooner than later.

Hopefully its Zombies, if it's going to happen it might as well be something awesome. I'm at the foot of the Rockies in Canada so I'll be able to watch the Boogaloo with very little risk to myself lol.

Of course. It's self-regulating. That's why all the angst about a booming population is so silly. As countries move away from agrarian economies, they need fewer children to tend the crops. It gets too expensive to have them. Coupled with birth control, populations decline. This is a good thing. Worries about the "labor force" declining are also silly. In the same breath the same people talk about automation taking over jobs. Well? So as the population declines let the robots do it. Win/Win.

originally posted by: The2Billies
K
indly see my reply to kelbtalfenek above. Thank you, it answers your question.

Anything on transhumanism? Which is where I think our species is heading.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I personally don't think we will enter transhumanism. But that is my personal opinion. I think humans will go extinct, or be bred by AI and kept like we keep dying species, if we have programmed that into AI.

People are messy, people eliminate waste products that must be sterilized, people age quickly, people are fragile, people all get ugly in the end, people are unpredictable. I'm not sure AI will value human life as they improve and evolve.

originally posted by: The2Billies
People are messy, people eliminate waste products that must be sterilized, people age quickly, people are fragile, people all get ugly in the end, people are unpredictable.

Transhumanism eliminates nearly all of those concerns.

Gee. I don't know how I'll come to terms with the news that people might be starting to smarten up.