Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

China overtakes Japan as No.2 economy, US next by 2025.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    inst,

    populations human and animal tend towards Malthusian collapse, not an orderly reduction in birth-rate as resource pressures mount. In this case, I think that China's population policy in the post-Mao era has been positive as a China with 2-3bn population would quickly implode due to resource scarcity.
    not really-- how many cases of malthusian collapse can you name? instead, we see how european birthrates went down dramatically in approximately 50-75 years as people became wealthier. the world population should peak around 2030-2050, and then start a long decline.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Inst View Post
      Regarding global warming, you've simply stated that global warming is a myth. Care to state why? And I'm ambivalent about anthropogenic global warming; the L-curve theory where a small spike in greenhouse gases can lead to run-away warming is not tautological, but we have been experiencing what is historically a warm spell. Aside from that, over the past millennium, we have spent most of that time in a cold spell so this warming deviation suggests that there is real (but not necessarily anthropogenic) global warming.
      Check our "science and technology" section. I won't bother to rehash 4 years worth of posts and hundreds of pages of facts and discussions here. Suffice to say, the globe is not warming beyond the normal planetary fluctuation. The data is cherry-picked. Humans have nothing to do with it.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #78
        I think that's a separate case, where the high cost of raising children in developed countries encourages population reduction; people end up expecting more amenities and expecting these amenities for their children, so population increase is reduced. In contrast, in developing countries the poor quality of medical care and low expectations for child amenities results in a privileging of "r" reproductive strategy over K reproductive strategy, r being where having many offspring and hoping some will survive to viability. I'm not with the people who advocate population reduction in rich countries simply because rich countries are almost all in population decline. It's the developing world which has a population problem.

        Malthusian collapse:

        -Partial contribution to Ming Dynasty collapse, as splitting land equally between male descendants resulted in pitifully small plots of land, although climate changes (global cooling, in this case, and obviously not anthropogenic) was another major factor.
        -Easter Island civilizational collapse, where competition between tribes denuded all the woodland off the island, making advanced civilization impossible.
        -Sumerian civilizational collapse, where constant irrigation in an unfavorable climate led to increased salinity in agricultural land and eventually declines in agricultural output. Part of the issue was that competition between Sumerian city-states meant that no energy was available to deal with the problem of agricultural output collapse; reclaiming saline land is as easy as letting the land go fallow, then diverting water sources to flush the land for an extended period of time.
        -I'm not too familiar with either the Mayan or Olmec collapses, but I read somewhere to the effect that they ran through their water resources and had a magnificently spectacular collapse.

        Gunnut:

        I'm refusing to address in this thread whether global warming is anthropogenic (man-made), but statistics show a real phenomena of global warming since the previous cold spell in, oh, 1640, I believe.

        And normal fluctuations? You do realize that "normal" fluctuations in global temperatures killed off the Norse Greenland colonies, right? It doesn't matter if it's natural or anthropogenic, if it severely affects human agricultural output or human access to natural resources it's a problem.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Inst View Post
          Gunnut:

          I'm refusing to address in this thread whether global warming is anthropogenic (man-made), but statistics show a real phenomena of global warming since the previous cold spell in, oh, 1640, I believe.
          And those statistics from 1640 are as reliable and gather with the same methods as today's temperature? That right there, affects the model.

          Originally posted by Inst View Post
          And normal fluctuations? You do realize that "normal" fluctuations in global temperatures killed off the Norse Greenland colonies, right? It doesn't matter if it's natural or anthropogenic, if it severely affects human agricultural output or human access to natural resources it's a problem.
          It doesn't affect agricultural output. It affects regional output. If the earth warms up, the really cold region will become more mild and thus better for plant life. We can grow stuff there. Greenland colony failed long ago because they could not import enough food. How do people live there today? Do they grow all their food right on the spot?
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • #80
            inst,

            -Partial contribution to Ming Dynasty collapse, as splitting land equally between male descendants resulted in pitifully small plots of land, although climate changes (global cooling, in this case, and obviously not anthropogenic) was another major factor.
            note that despite the little ice age, the qing population boomed far beyond what it ever grew during the ming.

            -Easter Island civilizational collapse, where competition between tribes denuded all the woodland off the island, making advanced civilization impossible.
            -Sumerian civilizational collapse, where constant irrigation in an unfavorable climate led to increased salinity in agricultural land and eventually declines in agricultural output. Part of the issue was that competition between Sumerian city-states meant that no energy was available to deal with the problem of agricultural output collapse; reclaiming saline land is as easy as letting the land go fallow, then diverting water sources to flush the land for an extended period of time.
            in both cases, you're talking about relatively isolated, few resource areas with limited room for expansion. seeing as how the chinese population has just about peaked, the problem here isn't malthusian collapse, but a lesser threat of finding energy sources to power the western lifestyle everyone wants. the interesting thing is that had mao not instituted the one-child policy, the population would probably be closer to 1.5 or 1.6 billion, probably not 2-3 billion.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Mao, I believe the one-child policy was Dengist not Maoist, as Mao was actually responsible in part for Chinese overpopulation as he, like certain other Communist leaders, wanted large populations for industry and war. I was going to discuss counterfactuals about Jiang Jieshi, but that's a very complex subject that I'm not really informed in. Regarding population counts, census is due in November and I'm expecting them to catch a lot of unauthorized births and spike up the population count. 1.5 bn is a common informal estimate for China's actual population despite the one-child policy.

              Re: Little Ice Age in Qing Dynasty

              Importation of New World crops increasing the total agricultural output available due to increase in nominally arable land? There's also the case to be made that the Ming was caught in an agricultural technology trap where attempts at agricultural innovation would result in devastating famines due to technology risks, so further improvements in productivity would simply cease. Somewhat similar to how the Sumerians couldn't leave their land fallow to clean up salinity as it would be a fatal disadvantage in inter-city state competition.

              Comment


              • #82
                inst,

                Re: Mao, I believe the one-child policy was Dengist not Maoist, as Mao was actually responsible in part for Chinese overpopulation as he, like certain other Communist leaders, wanted large populations for industry and war. I was going to discuss counterfactuals about Jiang Jieshi, but that's a very complex subject that I'm not really informed in. Regarding population counts, census is due in November and I'm expecting them to catch a lot of unauthorized births and spike up the population count. 1.5 bn is a common informal estimate for China's actual population despite the one-child policy.
                good catch, i misremembered there. considering how much cheating has been done on the 1-child policy, i wouldn't be surprised if the population was indeed closer to 1.5 billion.

                Importation of New World crops increasing the total agricultural output available due to increase in nominally arable land?
                that helped, but ming famines were also caused by extremely poor governance. climate change was serious but not the main factor, as the qing had to deal with it as well-- and more than succeeded in turning around the situation.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #83
                  I think that the Qing had an advantage considering that they started with a moderately depopulated China; modernity and economic strength comes from having agricultural population growth exceed population growth. With Li Zicheng and others killing off tons of Chinese, and the Qing dynasty's banner armies being able to put down rebels for resisting queue orders, deaths in the Ming-Qing transition gave the Qing enough lee-way to institute agricultural reforms.

                  From the sources I was reading, the Ming-era was unusually plagued by climatic problems, with constant droughts, locusts, flooding, and cold snaps. I should look up more climatic history, but I'm fairly sure the Qing didn't have to put up with as much as the Ming did regarding climatic problems. Their cold snap started around 1450, iirc, with droughts before hand.

                  One other factor I disagree with you on, regarding China's population relative to the United States; currently China has a 1-4 population ratio with the United States, perhaps 1-5 if you use the 1.5bn estimate. In the year 2070, where, at present rates, the Chinese will match the United States in per capita GDP, the relative population should be about 1.5bn according to current projections to 480 mn, or a ratio of about 1:3. It's not really close to the 1:2 you guys were proposing, but at the same time I continue to assert that the United States can sustain much more population pressure than it does right now, especially in comparison to China.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Inst View Post
                    From the sources I was reading, the Ming-era was unusually plagued by climatic problems, with constant droughts, locusts, flooding, and cold snaps. I should look up more climatic history, but I'm fairly sure the Qing didn't have to put up with as much as the Ming did regarding climatic problems. Their cold snap started around 1450, iirc, with droughts before hand.
                    Qing existed nearly entirely within the Little Ice Age, starting in 1650 with the first climatic minimum.

                    Ming failed due to crappy policies. The emperors all seemed to suffer from paranoia, and most likely, stupidity and egotism.

                    Originally posted by Inst View Post
                    One other factor I disagree with you on, regarding China's population relative to the United States; currently China has a 1-4 population ratio with the United States, perhaps 1-5 if you use the 1.5bn estimate. In the year 2070, where, at present rates, the Chinese will match the United States in per capita GDP, the relative population should be about 1.5bn according to current projections to 480 mn, or a ratio of about 1:3. It's not really close to the 1:2 you guys were proposing, but at the same time I continue to assert that the United States can sustain much more population pressure than it does right now, especially in comparison to China.
                    "At present rate" is the key phrase in catching up to the US in per capita income. Do you really think China can sustain 10% growth for another 60 years? Where did this 10% growth come from over the last 20 years? What policies generated it? Will it work for the next 60 years?
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Is this post about China's economy or China's population issue?

                      An aging population is just one of the less important and possible problem (it's not yet happening). There are just so many other more urgent problems to take care of.

                      For example, the demand for increasing wages and other welfare from labours in the coastal area? So this led to another question: how to transform China' labour intensive economy to a technology and innovation intensive one? New energy and new industries? Don't forget the social and political problems which may as well damage the economic growth, if not well taken care of.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Fivestars View Post
                        Is this post about China's economy or China's population issue?
                        They are kinda related. Population affects economy.

                        Originally posted by Fivestars View Post
                        An aging population is just one of the less important and possible problem (it's not yet happening). There are just so many other more urgent problems to take care of.
                        But it will. It's only a matter of time.

                        Originally posted by Fivestars View Post
                        For example, the demand for increasing wages and other welfare from labours in the coastal area? So this led to another question: how to transform China' labour intensive economy to a technology and innovation intensive one? New energy and new industries? Don't forget the social and political problems which may as well damage the economic growth, if not well taken care of.
                        Very good points. The labor intensive industries (meaning need cheap labor) will gradually move inland. The living standards in the interior are still crap compared to the coastal areas, therefore labor will be cheap. The coastal regions with their expensive labor will transform into a high tech and financial economy.

                        Energy will be interesting. China has a lot of coal but not much oil. There are things that need oil to run. China will need compete with established world powers for oil.

                        I think social problems are the wild card. Specifically the imbalance of male/female ratio. The will stunt population growth, which is good, but a lot of men who can't find mate is not a good thing to have in a society. I don't think this has ever happened before. Usually there's a lack of men in a society due to warfare and the more dangerous occupations men take up.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          The male/female ratio is one of the most overblown issues in the media. Unfortunately, people still buy it.

                          First off, there are more girls than what the official number tells you for well known reasons. Secondly, anyone who's recently been to China knows there is abundant love in the urban area for guys poor and rich. The new fad is to get mail brides from Southeast Asia, it's going to be their problem, not China's. And I see more Russian-Chinese couples in the northeast region as well. Pakistan is next, their women are beautiful with a very exotic Persian touch.

                          Post WWII Soviet Union had a humongous imbalance of male/female ratio, too, but more females. That didn't stop them being aggressive. So even if China had more males, so what?

                          I'd be more worried about the income inequality than anything else.

                          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          I think social problems are the wild card. Specifically the imbalance of male/female ratio. The will stunt population growth, which is good, but a lot of men who can't find mate is not a good thing to have in a society. I don't think this has ever happened before. Usually there's a lack of men in a society due to warfare and the more dangerous occupations men take up.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by cdude View Post
                            The male/female ratio is one of the most overblown issues in the media. Unfortunately, people still buy it.

                            First off, there are more girls than what the official number tells you for well known reasons. Secondly, anyone who's recently been to China knows there is abundant love in the urban area for guys poor and rich. The new fad is to get mail brides from Southeast Asia, it's going to be their problem, not China's. And I see more Russian-Chinese couples in the northeast region as well. Pakistan is next, their women are beautiful with a very exotic Persian touch.
                            I guess there's always "mail order brides" to solve the problem.

                            Originally posted by cdude View Post
                            Post WWII Soviet Union had a humongous imbalance of male/female ratio, too, but more females. That didn't stop them being aggressive. So even if China had more males, so what?
                            It's harder to replace women than men in a population. Men are more outwardly aggressive. There are many biological reasons that a population with more men than women is more unbalanced than a population with more women than men.

                            Originally posted by cdude View Post
                            I'd be more worried about the income inequality than anything else.
                            That can be fixed in 2 ways, a right way and a wrong way. The right way is to have social mobility. There will always be poor people. We just have to make sure those poor people don't get stuck there. Which means we have to allow people to succeed as well as fail.

                            The wrong way is to take money from the rich and pay the poor.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              There are many biological reasons that a population with more men than women is more unbalanced than a population with more women than men.
                              That explains why the Buddhist Temples are the most violent places on earth.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by cdude View Post
                                That explains why the Buddhist Temples are the most violent places on earth.
                                Now you're confusing "free will" with "unmet biological needs."

                                Perhaps prisons are a better example.
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X