China demographics thread.

[manqiangrexue]

Interesting; your take seems to be that the low fertility rate is mostly due to societal expectations an self-perceived interpretation of the "ideal life" rather than practical barriers such as cost and personal sacrifice.

This is absolutely correct and we've been saying it for a while now. Poor countries where life is harder have more babies. Chinese people had more babies when our lives were more difficult and the country in shambles. We've never had it better than we do now and we've never have less kids than we do now.

China demographics thread.

Also media representation is important, I don't watch Chinese TV shows, but I think they need to increase messaging about how kids are an important part of Chinese life. Apparently the recent change in media culture in Korea is increasing the birthrates.

www.sinodefenceforum.com

For a country that forced its population to have only one child, there's no doubt that they would implement drastic measures to force the inverse if things are dire enough.

That's the million dollar topic.

 

[tygyg1111]

Then you should be much more concerned that the first posthumans might emerge outside China, because I assure you that even if Chinese fertility rates returned to the Mao era highs of 7+, China would be subordinated if not crushed by them. That's far more plausible than Australians reclaiming the "European mantle" and launching some campaign of global conquest.

Also, of course genetically engineered intelligent beings developed in China would be "Chinese." Chinese identity is what the people (including people more broadly understood) in China are; that's the definition. It's not some static idea from an arbitrarily chosen historical period belonging to a narrowly understood homo sapiens.

This would be my main concern as well; as not doing so would be worse than missing a once in a millennium opportunity

 

[tygyg1111]

Generally agreed, although it will be very difficult to instill the "family = happiness" belief in young people, especially when Chinese society is developing at such a rapid pace - this is where things like egg freezing could potentially have a place, since that would minimze the risk of health problems that arise when women naturally give birth when they are older.

By AI robots I mean those that are involved in the undertaking of everyday chores and errands rather than childcare itself - the idea is that the robot (or whatever) might free up time for the mother to spend time with her kids.

I believe it mostly lies with parenting - good parents will instill the right values in their children, where bad parenting does the opposite. And where bad parenting takes place, you can have social role models deliver that message for you, such that even the most misguided child knows deep down what he or she should be doing in life.

Post 90's kids don't listen to their parents when it comes to having children, because their parents literally lived like peasants - a different mentality of a different time - and they can't (or don't want to) relate. Either that or their parents are less successful than their children and the children recognized that they get better advice elsewhere. In both these cases, strong successful role models providing the right messaging sets the scene.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

This would be my main concern as well; as not doing so would be worse than missing a once in a millennium opportunity

This is the point I try to get across, often to no avail. Technology is advancing far faster than demography and people are very poor at judging its cumulative effects.

For example, I clown LLMs and the hype around them, but I have no doubt whatsoever that true, superhuman-level AI is not only possible, it's certain. The Silicon Valley broligarch idea that AGI and ASI would allow them to subjugate the planet forever and extract rents to the end of time is fundamentally correct, their mistake was overestimating the technology they had. Even with this limited technology, we are beyond fortunate that the absolutely mental group of giganerds at DeepSeek released their model to the world for free and torpedoed Thiel/Altman/Musk's wet dreams.

If it had been ASI and if China weren't there with its own systems, China would have been shoved right back into the Century of Humiliation. Only this time it wouldn't be a century, it would be an eternity.

I have confidence that China understands the table stakes and is playing to win. I forget the exact quote, but a high official in China's space program said something to the effect that China missed the first age of exploration and that people haven't forgiven their ancestors for that. If they failed, future generations wouldn't forgive them.

This is why China must be at the forefront of biotechnology, AI, and related fields, and be willing to do work people today would balk at because it's technically infeasible or ethically abhorrent.

 

[Eventine]

Are you really trying to spin this like it isn't about your singular obsession with birth rates? Even if "demographics" were a wider field, that's nothing you have any interest in.

Because there's only one thing that currently needs fixing in China and that's birth rates. If there was an impending risk of cultural dilution via too much immigration, I'd be talking about that, too.

Then you should be much more concerned that the first posthumans might emerge outside China, because I assure you that even if Chinese fertility rates returned to the Mao era highs of 7+, China would be subordinated if not crushed by them. That's far more plausible than Australians reclaiming the "European mantle" and launching some campaign of global conquest.

I'll worry about that risk when it materializes. In reality, post-humans are a threat to every human society and so no country is in a hurry to open that box. Perhaps post-collapse America will be the first to risk it since American elites are becoming more Nazi by the day; if so, the responsible government / organizations will need to be eliminated by an UN coalition.

Also, of course genetically engineered intelligent beings developed in China would be "Chinese." Chinese identity is what the people (including people more broadly understood) in China are; that's the definition. It's not some static idea from an arbitrarily chosen historical period belonging to a narrowly understood homo sapiens.

That's just ridiculous. Chinese is a cultural identity, not a geographic one. If Chinese were replaced by Indians tomorrow, the country would no longer be Chinese.

That's not what this is about, you seem to have great difficulty understanding this. Anybody can extrapolate a straight line assuming conditions remain constant and that's the core of the dispute. The conditions are certain to change in any number of ways that forecasting over the time period demographers do is entirely useless.

I'd rather worry about what can be extrapolated, than what can't be.

"Conditions are certain to change" - nope, for the vast majority of history, conditions were fairly static. There were centuries during which basically nothing happened (in terms of conditions), and all events were due to political maneuvering between elites.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

That's just ridiculous. Chinese is a cultural identity, not a geographic one. If Chinese were replaced by Indians tomorrow, the country would no longer be Chinese.

Indians replacing Chinese is what you got from this.

"Conditions are certain to change" are often said by people who don't even want to think about the possibility that they won't. Fact is, for the vast majority of history, conditions were fairly static.

You remind me of a group of people I used to get into it with a long time ago: peak oil doomers. No matter what evidence you put in front of them, they cling to their monomaniacal doom fetish. Eventually I got that it was a waste of time.

"Demographics" is a doom fetish for you, so I won't waste my time discussing it any further. Continue "extrapolating."

 

[Eventine]

Indians replacing Chinese is what you got from this.

You remind me of a group of people I used to get into it with a long time ago: peak oil doomers. No matter what evidence you put in front of them, they cling to their monomaniacal doom fetish. Eventually I got that it was a waste of time.

"Demography" is a doom fetish for you, so I won't waste my time discussing it any further. Continue "extrapolating."

Nobody has a doom fetish. I clearly believe that demographic trends can be changed, and that low fertility can be reversed, with sufficient political will. Or else I wouldn't be posting because why concern myself with what can't be changed?

The issue is people who either don't even recognize there's a problem, or think there's nothing that can be done. The lack of action is the greatest threat, not the inevitability of population collapse. It's not like people have lost the ability to reproduce. If everyone in a country decided tomorrow they wanted to restore TFR, they could.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Because there's only one thing that currently needs fixing in China and that's birth rates. If there was an impending risk of cultural dilution via too much immigration, I'd be talking about that, too.


I'll worry about that risk when it materializes. In reality, post-humans are a threat to every human society and so no country is in a hurry to open that box. Perhaps post-collapse America will be the first to risk it since American elites are becoming more Nazi by the day; if so, the responsible government / organizations will need to be eliminated by an UN coalition.


That's just ridiculous. Chinese is a cultural identity, not a geographic one. If Chinese were replaced by Indians tomorrow, the country would no longer be Chinese.


I'd rather worry about what can be extrapolated, than what can't be.

"Conditions are certain to change" - nope, for the vast majority of history, conditions were fairly static. There were centuries during which basically nothing happened (in terms of conditions), and all events were due to political maneuvering between elites.

We can actually guess what each country is going to do for their future based on scientific effort. Resources are finite so effort (time and money) goes to whatever the national authorities believe to be the greatest return on investment.

China is clearly betting on silicon and steel while US is betting on bio.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US has 2x and 4x the index number in biology and health vs China.

China is almost 3x the index number in chemistry and 2x in physics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

My guess, based on what the publication effort says, China would rather reorganize society than try for a biotech solution.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

We can actually guess what each country is going to do for their future based on scientific effort. Resources are finite so effort (time and money) goes to whatever the national authorities believe to be the greatest return on investment.

China is clearly betting on silicon and steel while US is betting on bio.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US has 2x and 4x the index number in biology and health vs China.

China is almost 3x the index number in chemistry and 2x in physics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

My guess, based on what the publication effort says, China would rather reorganize society than try for a biotech solution.

I think it's too early to write off China in biotech. The government prioritized other fields first because they were lower-hanging fruit and more strategic. I think attention will turn toward biotech in a big way once China sorts out the semiconductor mess, it's already starting with Wuxi Biologics.

Something often overlooked in the demographics discussion is the Noahide flood of STEM graduates China will produce over the next 20 years (this is all people who have already been born) due to much higher college enrollment rates among the new generations and their higher preference for STEM. Glenn Luk and Steve Hsu on Twitter have some excellent material on this.

This flood of STEM grads will power China's rise in biotech just like current graduates are powering silicon and steel.

 

[Biscuits]

I think it's too early to write off China in biotech. The government prioritized other fields first because they were lower-hanging fruit and more strategic. I think attention will turn toward biotech in a big way once China sorts out the semiconductor mess, it's already starting with Wuxi Biologics.

Something often overlooked in the demographics discussion is the Noahide flood of STEM graduates China will produce over the next 20 years (this is all people who have already been born) due to much higher college enrollment rates among the new generations and their higher preference for STEM. Glenn Luk and Steve Hsu on Twitter have some excellent material on this.

This flood of STEM grads will power China's rise in biotech just like current graduates are powering silicon and steel.

I think mainly because biology and health tends to be publicised by altruistic healthcare workers that spread the knowledge all around. China isn't dumb honorable enough to turn down an invitation to freeload.

Whereas physics and material science is a lot more secretive and have more transformative power in overall society. So China smartly spearheaded that.

Bio research in US is so big largely because of the bloated healthcare industry which also means a lot of research funding, it's a bit of a two edged sword where the government probably wants to spend less on bio research, but can't because of how the healthcare system is set up.