China's population falls for first time since 1961

[Nearly Sane]

Be interesting to see if this leads to any change in policy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-64300190

[Sriram]

I would think that was good news at a time when we are worried about the population explosion and food shortages. Infrastructure and services would also be less under stress. 

But no.....everyone is worried about the economic fallout of reduced labor! There is never any such thing as good news anymore, it seems...

I would be thrilled if Indian population declined.

[ProfessorDavey]

Be interesting to see if this leads to any change in policy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-64300190

There already has been an easing of the policy a few years back.

But in a broader sense China often gets a lot of flack for its commitment to tacking climate change, particularly over its use of coal.

But actually China recognised years ago that unchecked population growth was unsustainable and was prepared to put in place draconian measures to deal with it - measures that have actually been successful. In many respects the one child policy is the most forward looking and environmentally important policy that any nation has proposed, let alone implemented. Just think about how much more challenging the climate change goals would be if there were perhaps an additional one billion people on the planet which could easily have been the case had the one child policy not been adopted over 40 years ago.

Sriram is correct that India needs to get a grip on its population and its impact on climate change. The nightmare scenario is rapidly increasing populations, within a society that is developing rapidly economically, but using non sustainable infrastructure (e.g. coal) to support that economic development and population growth. Every nation needs to get a grip on at least one of those elements, and quite reasonably we shouldn't target improvement in quality of life which leave either population or sustainable infrastructure, or both (both being the case for most developed economies now).

[Nearly Sane]

There already has been an easing of the policy a few years back.

But in a broader sense China often gets a lot of flack for its commitment to tacking climate change, particularly over its use of coal.

But actually China recognised years ago that unchecked population growth was unsustainable and was prepared to put in place draconian measures to deal with it - measures that have actually been successful. In many respects the one child policy is the most forward looking and environmentally important policy that any nation has proposed, let alone implemented. Just think about how much more challenging the climate change goals would be if there were perhaps an additional one billion people on the planet which could easily have been the case had the one child policy not been adopted over 40 years ago.

Sriram is correct that India needs to get a grip on its population and its impact on climate change. The nightmare scenario is rapidly increasing populations, within a society that is developing rapidly economically, but using non sustainable infrastructure (e.g. coal) to support that economic development and population growth. Every nation needs to get a grip on at least one of those elements, and quite reasonably we shouldn't target improvement in quality of life which leave either population or sustainable infrastructure, or both (both being the case for most developed economies now).

The problem is that the one child policy didn't deal with us being in an economic Ponzi scheme where medicine has extended life expectancy to include many non productive years, often in ill health. Oh and it's enormously authoritarian, and wasn't  a measure to avoid climate change.

They've already switched to policies trying to encourage 2 children, I suspect that that number may be expanded. Falling populations with an aging population create huge problems of their own. This has been 'dealt with' in the UK for example by immigration which has caused its own issues.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem is that the one child policy didn't deal with us being in an economic Ponzi scheme where medicine has extended life expectancy to include many non productive years, often in ill health. Oh and it's enormously authoritarian, and wasn't  a measure to avoid climate change.

They've already switched to policies trying to encourage 2 children, I suspect that that number may be expanded. Falling populations with an aging population create huge problems of their own. This has been 'dealt with' in the UK for example by immigration which has caused its own issues.

Sure there are downsides, but I was thinking specifically from a sustainability/climate change perspective. So the downsides of reducing birthrates in China largely fall on China - the upsides benefit the whole world I guess and we should be grateful that we don't have an additional 1 billion people on the planet now.

On Ponzi scheme - realistically the most Ponzi is the notion that you need higher birthrate to create the wealth to deal with costly old people, but then in 50 years time you need more people again to deal with those people who were earning the wealth and are now old and frail. And bang goes the planet.

[Nearly Sane]

Sure there are downsides, but I was thinking specifically from a sustainability/climate change perspective. So the downsides of reducing birthrates in China largely fall on China - the upsides benefit the whole world I guess and we should be grateful that we don't have an additional 1 billion people on the planet now.

On Ponzi scheme - realistically the most Ponzi is the notion that you need higher birthrate to create the wealth to deal with costly old people, but then in 50 years time you need more people again to deal with those people who were earning the wealth and are now old and frail. And bang goes the planet.

Thank you for explaining my point about the Ponzi scheme to me
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Thank you for explaining my point about the Ponzi scheme to me

But I read your point as implying that the one child policy somehow contributed to the Ponzi scheme, rather than being a route out of it eventually.

[ProfessorDavey]

They've already switched to policies trying to encourage 2 children, I suspect that that number may be expanded.

But that isn't what is happening - if you look at the graph in the link the birth rate in China has actually fallen since 2016 when the one child policy was replaced with a two child policy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Falling populations with an aging population create huge problems of their own.

But one of the ways this can be dealt with in a developing country is through rapid growth when that results in significantly increased GDP per person. So even if your working population is proportionately smaller the increase in overall wealth can be sufficient to cope with an ageing and economically inactive population. This is what allowed many developing countries to improve life-span and health span even as growth rates fell - the UK and other western countries did this some time ago.

This has been 'dealt with' in the UK for example by immigration which has caused its own issues.

True, but that is because it is much harder for a mature developing country to significantly grow GDP per capita compared to a rapidly developing country.

[Nearly Sane]

But I read your point as implying that the one child policy somehow contributed to the Ponzi scheme, rather than being a route out of it eventually.

  The use of the term 'us' would make that an odd reading. However, I was more gnomic than necessary.

I don't see how the one child policy is a route out of the Ponzi scheme. Indeed the move away fron it is indocative that it isn't for China. The increase in life expectancy combined with a falling birthrate is not really being addressed anywhere in a coherent manner.  The rises in pension age in the UK are a blunt one pronged approach and are more specifically related to one aspect of the problem. The whole issue is now being exarcebated by the trend that has happened over the last couple of years for people to leave the workforce. This has lead to a number of quite frankly bizarre suggestions such as abolishing tax for over 50s or people returning to work. No political party really seems prepared to work on this other than purely reactive policies 



Tomorrow there will be a huge general strike in France over the raising of the pension age to 64. This is despite this being the policy that has been voted in with Macron and his grouping in the last 2 elections, and that the average retirement age in France is 64.5. As with so much govt now, we seem to apply solutions that might once have worked before on different problems, HS2 springs to mind.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is what is happening - if you look at the graph in the link the birth rate in China has actually fallen since 2016 when the one child policy was replaced with a two child policy.

Yes, I meant expanded from 2.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I meant expanded from 2.

I'd be sceptical - if expanding from one to two hasn't increased birth rate - indeed it has fallen, then I wonder why increasing from two to three would have an impact. It looks as if the chinese population has become accustomed to self regulation of birth rate. This is what we've seen in developed countries all across the world, so perhaps China is simply following suit.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd be sceptical - if expanding from one to two hasn't increased birth rate - indeed it has fallen, then I wonder why increasing from two to three would have an impact. It looks as if the chinese population has become accustomed to self regulation of birth rate. This is what we've seen in developed countries all across the world, so perhaps China is simply following suit.

Agree but if you have a ceiling of 2 and a fallung population which you don't want, keeping it seems pointless. Also they may look to ude further methods by increasing the tax benefits. Though I would be sceptical of those as well but doing nothing doesn't seem like an option if they want tk change this. I am reminded that falling birth rates was a problem in Augustus's opinion for the senatorial classes in ancient Rome


 I think it's a mistake to suggest that Chima is simply following suit given the vastly different approaches on this in recent history.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree but if you have a ceiling of 2 and a fallung population which you don't want, keeping it seems pointless. Also they may look to ude further methods by increasing the tax benefits. Though I would be sceptical of those as well but doing nothing doesn't seem like an option if they want tk change this. I am reminded that falling birth rates was a problem in Augustus's opinion for the senatorial classes in ancient Rome


 I think it's a mistake to suggest that Chima is simply following suit given the vastly different approaches on this in recent history.

You may be right, but all sorts of societies that may be very disparate in many respects, have seen their birthrates fall as they develop and their populace becomes more prosperous. And that applies to countries with a long-standing societal and religious view that expected big families.

[Nearly Sane]

Japan's Ponzi population scheme about to go bust


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-64373950

[jeremyp]

It's a bit of a conundrum isn't it. We want the human population to stop growing but most (all?) human societies require population growth because they are basically a ponzi scheme. i.e. young productive people are paying for the old unproductive people.

[Nearly Sane]

My suspicion that there might be a further loosening of the child policy in China has proved correct.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-64457367

[Nearly Sane]

And further measures possible


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-64594469