FriedRiceNSpice
Major
Wrong Jin. Your Jin came 700 years after the fall of Rome. Had some really impressive heavy calvary, unparalleled in world history. My Jin is the successor to Wei.
Last edited:
China demographics thread.
- Thread starter gadgetcool5
- Start date
- Status
No, the bigger scale experiment the rat population collapsed far before reaching capacity of the space. A space built for 4000 rats peaked at around 2000 before societal collapse.
Pre-industrial societies could never grow enough food to reach population densities that would cause such stress in people. Population worldwide exploded after the green revolution + modern sanitation. The greatest cities Pre-industrial societies never grew past 1M in population. There are more than 100 cities with more than 1M people in China right now.
Rome got destroyed because it was an imperialistic expansionist empire, with a reward system based on enslaving and giving conquered land to its armies. When it reached the limit of logistics from the capital and there is no further they can go, the system collapses from infighting and corruption. Blaming the people they genocide and enslaved seems like a convenient cop out, historic China retained its culture despite changing dynasties and invasion of foreigners because at its core there is a competent government and system of power in place that does not rely on conquest to sustain itself.
China was repeatedly an empire like that of Rome from the Qin onward. The Celts suffered most from Roman invasions not the Germanics and then suffered more from the Germanic invasions.
Relevance to this thread is demographic decline is far less dangerous than demographic replacement. If you want immigration to increase the population then allowing controlled immigration of historically associated groups (like the border Tungusics to China and Celts to Rome) is far safer for a society than aliens from disparate and unrelated cultures.
This doomday shit about China's demographics ignores that all the other competitors are going through the same issues and their situation is often far worse with some of the solutions they enacted.
晉 instead of 金
【翟东升谈“中国+1”战略：牺牲中国就能换来美国的低关税？Naive！】
Professor Didongsheng, who is well-known on the Chinese internet, gave a speech at the Asia Pacific Roundtable (APR) to refute the issue of "overcapacity" in China. And talked about the topic of China's expansion of domestic demand, with a focus on China's ultra-low birth rate and the need to provide welfare to encourage young people to have children. He was not particularly concerned about the issue of fertility a few years ago, but recently he has clearly stated the need to boost fertility, which may indicate that the Chinese government's internal documents have placed high priority on boosting fertility.
Professor Didongsheng, who is well-known on the Chinese internet, gave a speech at the Asia Pacific Roundtable (APR) to refute the issue of "overcapacity" in China. And talked about the topic of China's expansion of domestic demand, with a focus on China's ultra-low birth rate and the need to provide welfare to encourage young people to have children. He was not particularly concerned about the issue of fertility a few years ago, but recently he has clearly stated the need to boost fertility, which may indicate that the Chinese government's internal documents have placed high priority on boosting fertility.
Demographic replacement typically follows demographic collapse, as the latter causes a vacuum into which new populations can move.
You may not know this, but the Five Barbarians referred to earlier were invited into China because the Three Kingdoms & early Jin dynasty had a significant labor & soldiers shortage due to the devastating civil wars following the fall of the Han. It was during this period that a lot of northern Chinese families fled to southern China causing population collapse in northern China, and subsequently a significant amount of replacement by “barbarian” populations ushering in the rule by “barbarian” kings like the Tuoba.
Several centuries later, this pattern would repeat itself during the Sui & early Tang dynasties as millions of nomadic populations (mostly Turkic & Mongolic but also some Indo-Europeans) were invited to settle in northern China, again as a result of population loss due to the bloody wars during the Age of Fragmentation. Each of these migrations led to wide scale mixing & demographic changes in the Chinese population and were triggered by general demographic weakness in the heart land regions. Granted, the populations that mixed into Han Chinese were overall still relatively close genetically so contrary to what happened in other places there wasn’t as much of a visible difference. But the consequences were still large - Buddhism would’ve arguably never overtaken native Chinese religions if not for the long centuries of “barbarian” rule & migrations.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I don't think so. It's not living conditions, or stress, or price. It's whether or not culture influences Chinese people into thinking if having a child is a source of pride and currently, Chinese people are in the cultural trend of flexing money and cars and luxury items rather than large families. That's the problem. Without the right culture,
1. The right price is too high. Can you subsidize the entire price to raise a child? It's not $25K or even $250K. Then add the labor burden for parents to care for a child, which is enormous and a massive destructive force to anything they enjoyed as DINKs. You just can't pay them enough; you'd have to pay in the millions for every child.
2. Children born because of financial incentives aren't likely to be taken care of or educated properly. If parents want a child to pour the continuation of themselves and the family legacy into, any amount will do. $0, $25K, $2.5 million, whatever. They will even pay a child tax to have one. But if parents have a child due to financial incentives, they are likely to neglect him/her and not teach right from wrong and quite frankly, they themselves likely don't know right from wrong.
China wants many children to be born, but that is only the first part. The ultimate goal is to have them become well-adjusted contributors to Chinese society. If the second part is not realized, the first part is moot or possibly even detrimental.
Last edited:
This is an important point. Australia had a baby bonus until 2014 of about $5000 in a combination of lump sum and instalment payments for 1 year. I think it did cause an uptick in fertility but it most affected those already least able to afford having children. So the end result was a lot of babies born into families with broken family structures, single parents, drug using parents, criminal parents, or just simply too money and time poor to give good upbringing. These are less likely to be well adjusted contributing members of society in the future. Those families already able to afford raising children would likely not have had their decision affected by this monetary incentive.
It seems we're back to pre Year of dragon trend
- Status