By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Regarding overpopulation in China
I'll preface this question by stating clearly that I am not an expert in any relative field. Okay, here it goes: is China truly overpopulated, or just poorly mismanaged? I read that perhaps the problem is actually that too many people are trying to live in just too few regions in the mainland, sort of like Japan. Again, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I want to know what your general impression has been.
I reckon that there is a problem with overpopulation, but also an issue with this population focusing on the Eastern regions.
However, right now there is a bigger problem as the share of the population that is older and retired is going to increase to a point where it will be hard for the younger generation to support/fund those who aren't contributing to the economy economically.
One-child policy reform came too late!
DrMonkey:
Even when using simple population models, short and large changes have long-lasting, painful effects. A lot of birth in a short-time, and drastic reduction of birth too... India and Vietnam also implemented population reduction schemes, but they used a more progressive approach : 2 kids per family. Doing so introduce a smoother change in demography, creating less perturbations. Trying to go faster (1 kid per family) might sound like a quick solution, but it generates so much side problems (like work force size, funding of welfare, etc.) that the side problems pretty much kill the advantage in speed. Going faster is damn expansive, going too fast is self-defeating...
RiriRiri:
Why d'you all see the aging population as a problem?
As far as I have witnessed here, there is a dehumanizing workaround to every social issue. Seriously, there isn't many domains where they can surprise me, but this is one of those.
Won't even make a ripple.
DrMonkey:
@Riririri So far, the answer is "Kids are the retirement fund of their parents. Yes, while they are caring for their kids at the same time.". See, that's a simple human solution !
Travel in the provinces west of the East Coast, and the problem will become clearer : it's dusty desert where water is rare and precious. China have plenty of space, but most of it is not usable for agriculture, or marginally usable if major irrigation works are done. Also, the climate is brutal (check out the temperatures in Lanzhou and anything on the West of Lanzhou). There are pockets with water here and there (some lucky valleys, a thin strip along rivers), but overall it's all dust and stones. And it worsen with times, desertification is an acute problem in China. Overgrazing in Northern China, overuse of water in western provinces magnify the problem.
Both over population and mismanagement. China also has some bad lands. Only 10% of China's land can be used for farming and it has a low water reserve.
RiriRiri:
With good environmental management and decent infrastructures, they could have at least 30% useable and maybe more.
Maybe in a parallel universe.
China has inefficient farming and crappy city planning. Even new cities like Shenzhen are fairly difficult to get around compared to e.g. very old European cities that have grown dynamically.
As a matter of fact I have a different oppinion. I think that considering the population size and diversification (to the extent in Europe unheard of) so China is doing incredibly well. On top of that for more than 20 years the quality of life for vast population majority is rapidly increasing (and again in the speed in Europe unheard of - even though this is to certain extent caused by comparatively lower starting level).
China is currently facing growing social problems (the first 'one child' generation was called 'emperrors' while the other one already 'snow flakes' - the shift because it's generally believed that the 'snow flakes' generations must be not only prioritised but also protected) but apparently China is aware of this situation and tries to actively solve it (and as I consider Chinese quite pragmatic so they are using the economical tools to change the situation).
As a remark let me say that reading the latest news from Europe - especially what concerns the latest announcement of British prime minister concerning the imigration quotas, French government economical incentives to promote French business and overall European situation in the field of couping with still ongoing economical crisis (including Germany's approach to it) so I tend to see China as the 'island of stability'.
DrMonkey:
The link between current European economic problems and overpopulation in China is ... ? It's easy to have a large export industry if you are willing to:
1) Not giving a damn about your own environment
2) If the larger part of the population is underpaid and have not much rights (they have to suck-it up and work, financial insecurity and not much welfare)
3) Don't invest much of those gains nto welfare for your own population
To assess how well China deals with population size and land usage issues, I would compare with Japan and South-Korea : Asian nations, similar climates, similar population densities, similarities in their respective cultures, both started from rumbles by bootstrapping an export industry. And then China is not that shiny.
gouxiong:
DrMonkey, I do not see it this way. If, so I would rather suggest to compare China with India or Indonesia. Even though Korea and Japan may have similar population densities so due to the economy of scales principles I do not see them comparable to China what concerns of population issues. I also do not find exactly proper to blame China for being, sometimes, a bit too 'brutal' to the environment. It's clearly bad and will have to be changed but generally each and every country went through the same phase in their economical history. On top of that China is clearly starting to be aware of the environmental problem and start to adjust its steps accordingly (even though there is still the long way to go ...). Coming back to comparing China with Indian and Indonesian situation I am convinced that China is doing overhelmingly better when couing with the social problems than these two countries ...
DrMonkey:
Regarding environmental issues => If the problem is acknowledged (which is not much of an effort) and addressed (now we are talking serious), then
Why 300 coal-fired power plants are under construction ?
Why so little power plants use coal desulfuration ?
Why pollution regulation are not seriously enforced *at all* ? (my answer : because China's economy competivity is obtained at this price) ?
Why so much littering, if people recognize a problem with littering ? Either they don't care, or people don't recognize the problem, or just don't want to recognize it.
Comparisons => I look at the population density, not at the population size. Population density creates challenge, yes. Population size, given that you have the space for it, unless you are sticking to purely centralized government, why is it an issue ? If you give some level of autonomy to local authorities, you don't have to spend so much resources to control & micro-manage everything. I'm looking at China with each province as one instance of Japan/South-Korea. Those provinces interact with each other, with very little in the way of borders. Why that wouldn't be a valid model ?
gouxiong:
DrMonkey, I do not have a precise statistics but I know that many newly planned and built powerplants are combined cycle (it means also using gas). On top of that there are a lot of nuclear powerstations. But certainly there are also a lot 'classical ones' - if the bus is going forward with the speed exceed 100 miles per hour and you sharply turn it to the site (not talking about abruptly stopping it ...) so majority of the passengers will not survive it in full health. What concerns of the density and size so it's exactly the economy of scales scheme which demonstrates the difference. And it has not much to do with central government - it has something to do with much bigger population which may more or less freely (thanks to steeady decrease of 'hukou' importance) move within the given teritorry. It can then create, depending on the actual amount, create totally different qualities. Further emphasized by the chalenges with logistics solutions of humans as well as materials (including food etc.) transfer.
This is a thing China shares with Japan. Nihilism about its own population. Rather than improve themselves to make life more livable, be considerate of others on the streets, noise pollution, social trust and services, people prefer to throw their hands in the air, cop out and declare the situation unsolvable due to "overpopulation".
How many Chinese could live in China 1000 years ago, with the farming techniques, infrastructure and technology of the time? Fewer, a LOT fewer than are alive today. 1000 years before? Even fewer. Same goes everywhere in the world.
Populations grow, and they wouldn't if there wasn't the means in existence to sustain them. Perhaps Chinese populations are closer to the current carrying capacity of the land than 'lets-feed-these-farming-subsidised-strawberries-to-the-cows-to-keep-prices-high' Europe, but definitely not starving due to lack of resources.
Yes, there is localized starvation, but it's compensated by growth elsewhere, and this is more a product of bureaucratic inefficiency and unequal distribution of resources, which is a socio-political matter, not a population demographic one.
There is room for billions more on planet Earth right now, and given time there we'll have the ability to sustain tens of billions more. If your social-philosophical musings start out with a baited question of population, inexorably leading to the presupposed conclusion that the only way to solve things is to "reduce population", then you are not thinking straight.
Genocide is a patchwork; a temporary solution to an ongoing issue that leaders are too shortsighted to address effectively. Don't be a genocidal nihilist; try to be patient. People have been panicking about overpopulation since the beginning of history, and all it has led to is advancement in warfare technology.
I don't like the thought of becoming part of this shoddy patchwork solution offered up by shallow minds, and you don't want to get killed either, I assume. You and I may not have all the answers, but we can at least encourage the development of more humane solutions: Pension plans, education, expanding job-creating service industries, environmental actions (conservation jobs?), improving social capital by engendering good behaviour and trust in yourself and others. It's really not that hard to do.
gouxiong:
I would more or less agree with you with one big exception - your last statement it's not hard to do. I am of the opinion it's incredibly hard to do and so far there is not a single long term successful entity which succeeded to implement the fair (I intentionally avoid the word equal as I consider it to be directly contradicting the word fair :) ) distribution of the wealth. And then let me also add that after satisfying the 'materialistic needs' more or less any human being aims for satisfying of their 'non-materialistic requirements'. It then becomes even harder because it looks like it's not common human nature to accept easily that we are all equal, but we are not all the same - what then leads to certain potential instability of the society. But this is just a remark - I generally agree with your point. :)
coineineagh:
@gouxiong: Fair or equal distribution isn't even the goal. Keeping people from dying of neglect is, and only 3rd world nations fail in this. It's why China teeters on the brink of this definition. It shouldn't be that hard to do - open up some more Mao worshiping academies, feed people a basic meal a day and get a devoted minion in the process.
RiriRiri:
Interesting remarks, but I'll partially disagree to the statement that China is sustainable.
It is, since people stay alive and arguably do not starve, but it is not, since China is nowadays mainly fed on chemistry and pharmaceutics, not on agriculture. Which is another time bomb waiting to blow.
Or to go pshit, regarding the levels of not giving a shit they manage to reach, which is a limitless source of fascination for me.
I don't think China is over populated. I read some where that there is 500 women per square mile in China. I never found that square mile.
I think it's just that the areas that matter are relatively small. You look at most densely populated countries China's not even in the top 25...and tons of great places to live are.
Netherlands is 5, Belgium 9, Switzerland 19
I don't think it's even 100% just that a greater portion of China is uninhabitable than most either...if you took away 60% of their land they'd still be outside the top 10 for density. Lower than Holland and Belgium.
I think it's just that so few places here actually matter economically so everyone tries to pile into them with no regard for quality of life. Spring festival is awesome in any big city cause it fixes that imbalance and becomes much more livable.
RiriRiri:
Top that with the fact most of those piling up do contribute in anything to the place. Except in terms of noise and smell.
The problem in China is that people will always try to move in areas that are already settled and never go on their own in more remote areas. They do this for cultural (feeling safer) and economic reasons (easier to become rich in the big city).
There are huge areas that are almost empty in China and no I am not talking about the deserts or extreme peaks. Western Sichuan for e.g., vast plains surrounded by mountains with pine trees forests as far as the eye can see, clean rivers and lakes, a lovely place that remain devoid of major settlements.
Population in China has already started contraction.
I'll say it's both overpopulation and poorly mismanaged.
I'll say it's both overpopulation and poorly mismanaged.
