Above is a chart (from the UN Family Planning Administration) of how many have three or more children in other countries. China has fallen into the low fertility country level. Like Japan or Spain, China might have 10-16% of women willing to have a third child. If China had started this policy back when they had medium-fertility a third child policy might have had 30-40% of women willing to have a third child.
Very low fertility does not reflect very low family size preferences. Women across Europe and other highly developed regions persistently express a strong preference for having two children; the mean ideal and intended family size stays at or above two children per woman. Countries with very low fertility often display a wide gap between fertility aspirations at younger ages and achieved fertility later in life, signaling that many women, men and couples face obstacles in realizing their fertility plans.
Under the new dual-earner model, rigid and demanding labor market, characterized by long working hours and limited work flexibility, negatively affects parenthood decisions. This is especially the case in East Asian countries and territories (Japan, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, and Taiwan Province of China), where long work hours, particularly among men, clash with extensive responsibilities mothers shoulder in relation to their children’s education and upbringing.
China’s birthrate is now less than half of the level from 1978-1900.
China’s policymakers are still unwilling to lift the birth policies entirely. They do not want too many rural children.
“If we free up policy, people in the countryside could be more willing to give birth than those in the cities, and there could be other problems,” a policy insider had earlier told Reuters, noting that it could lead to poverty and employment pressures among rural families.
The South China Morning Post reports that the three child policy is too little too late.
China needs to have a crash program to make childcare facilities, provide free childcare support and subsidize all aspects of birthing and raising children.
US child tax credits provide a present value benefit of $7000-17000 per child depending upon income level. There were proposals to increase the present value of the US child tax credits to $25000-30000 per child.
Taiwan and China are two separate countries. However, I will talk about the demographics of Taiwan as well. Taiwan is more economically developed than China on a per capita basis. Taiwan is view into a population that was unified about 70 years ago but Taiwan did not have the one child policy.
China should have completely flipped to pro-child policies over ten years ago. Taiwan had similar demographics to China. In 1951, the average Taiwanese woman would have seven children. In 2010, the fertility rate was 0.89. The population is expected to start shrinking in the next 15 years. Equally worrying is its rapid aging. About 14% of citizens are over 65. Within two decades, that will double. On current trends, it will become the oldest country in the world.
In his 2011 New Year’s Day Address, then-President Ma Ying-jeou declared the 0.89 TFR to be a national crisis. From 2011-2012, the Taiwan government introduced subsidies for childcare. The childcare subsidies were insufficient and better quality care was needed. Mothers gained the right to return to work after up to three years off.
Taipei, which has the lowest birthrate, went furthest. There are free tests to identify fertility problems; parental advisers; a “baby bonus” of 20,000 Taiwanese dollars (£430); and a childcare allowance for under-fives worth up to 150,000 dollars a child. To encourage marriage, the city organizes matchmaking day trips for singles and free courses on handling relationships. It even subsidizes companies to lay on dating activities for employees.
In 2019, the Taiwan fertility poliy includes a cash bonus for the new baby, a maternity leave pension, childcare allowance, daycare subsidy, and privately managed public infant care centers. Total policy expenditure is estimated to cost around 7.2 billion NT dollars per year (approximately GBP 177 million). Most of the expenditure comes from the Ministry of Labor as maternity leave for parents.
Another important policy is the one-time maternity bonus. This was first implemented in Jinmen in 1997, an offshore island from China’s Fujian province, because of the extra revenue generated from the famous Jinmen sorghum liquor. Some local governments adopted this maternity bonus measure over the next two decades, and local governments have their own policy measure according to local demographic structures and financial conditions. For example, Hsinchu City launched the maternity bonus policy in 1999 and the bonus increases by parity: it is NTD 15,000 (GBP 370) for the first-born child, NTD 20,000 (GBP 490) for the second-born child, and NTD 25,000 (GBP 610) for the third child and subsequent children.
Local governments also provide an allowance for children aged up to 5 in a bid to boost birth rates. Generally, parents can receive a monthly payment of NTD 2–3,000 (GBP 50–75) for each child aged 4 and under, and some more resourceful local governments provide an additional amount for the third child. Daycare costs place a huge burden on parents in Taiwan. More than 90% of infant daycare centers are privately owned, and charge around NTD 15–20,000 (GBP 370–490) depending on the locality, roughly 65% to 87% of the minimum monthly salary (NTD 23,100 (GBP 570) as in 2019). As the small amount of subsidy provided by local governments is not enough to support daycare costs, the measure of increasing public daycare facilities to meet the demand had become the top priority for some local governments.
SOURCES- UNFPA, BBC, SCMP, Taiwan Government
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
irrelevant. We are heading toward environmental disaster with too many human beings and some argue that China shouldn't contract in size? For economic reasons? What? Classic case of missing the forest for the trees?
Brian, you are willing to ponder genetic modification of fetus etc. eugenic policies. So you have no problem considering such ideas. Try to look into theories of group selection for humans. Depending on environmental pressures different character traits are thriving, and people have different fertility patterns. Quality of people changes with the environment. Perhaps China's continuing suppression of its birth rates is better than the bad worlds. High IQ is positively correlated with lower birth rates, pro-social behavior, and gratification delay. In the past high IQ meant high survivability of your children; with birth control, high IQ is correlated with negative birth rates. Poverty is correlated with low IQ. China may be consciously following crude eugenics here in the following bid: if we lift limits, we will have moderate growth of population 30+years in the future; but 30+years in the future people with high IQ will become a smaller portion of the population as result; whereas there is no reversing of the aging of the population in that time frame even with restrictions lifted. Thus pehraps what they want to do is to "burn out" the 600+million rural population, use them as internal reservoir of cheap labor and consumption market, and concentrate on urban areas in a bid to maintain high productivity, high IQ environment for the next generation, when multiple new technologies should be ripe to use to reverse the negative fertility trends or make them inconsequential.
Not good enough. You need to remove the phrasing "Taiwan Province of China" reference in its entirety. I'm extremely offended that you'd characterize my home country as a part of China. It never has been and never will be. This is simply disgusting and disregards the independence and culture of my country. Why on earth would you adopt the propaganda of the CCP?
This is why Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge, drove everyone out into the countryside of Cambodia after the capital fell. He then proceeded to kill anyone who could read, anyone who had ever been seen talking to foreigner, anyone who wore glasses, and so on. (He, himself, had been educated in France.)
He claimed it was to eliminate foreign corruption, whereas it was obviously intended to eliminate anyone that might possibly be anything other than an ignorant, terrified, and obedient peasant.
The people that died in the killing fields did not get the government they deserved. Government is meant to be the instrument by which society does what it feels it should do. But all too often it can become Frankenstein's monster.
Go full out Brave New World. That, along with Geroge Orwell's 1984, ought to be required reading for anyone examining China these days.
Well…they can have LA and San Fran as long as we keep the rest of the unpolluted state.
For the CCP, not a problem. They have no compunction about killing off undesirable populations. They're quite good at it actually. (And you thought the engineered covid virus that overwhelmingly affects older people is a coincidence? )
"Taiwan province of China…" ugh. Another kowtow to the CCP.
It is, ~1 billion people that were living on <$2/day are no longer living in extreme poverty, they're now living on $3 a day.
we are not China. No one is.
"… a large percentage of the population is retired and drawing government benefits.." well that of course is the problem. People who work for 25 to 35+ years, then expecting to maintain a 60 – 75%+ wage-pension for the likely 15 – 20+ years they have remaining post-retirement… ridiculous. No more defined pensions or unlimited payout periods. If you're healthy enough to live 15 years past your retirement you can continue to work or self-support. Not negotiable.
So basically just do what China did by determining the "right size" for a couple?
Yea, worked so well. Can't wait for this train wreck in China to come to fruition when you have twice as many seniors to working adults to support them.
" Increasing numbers of productive women and their current or previous mates have regrets about having as many children, timing their children as they did, or even choosing to 'settle down' as they did "
Increasing numbers per what studies?
If you don't have a society with a replacement rate, then you'll have either a disaster or no society at all eventually.
You have put the cart before the horse.
China’s huge economic growth the past three decades took place within, demographically speaking, a very unusual, possibly even unique, set of circumstances. But that is coming to an end. By 2008 there were only 300,000 primary schools, as opposed to 750,000 in 1990.
Â
A collection of factors can contribute to economic growth. Granted, it got foreign capital, foreign technology (never mind how), markets (western economies fat from the dot.com boom, as well as labor. The economic growth that took place would still not have occurred on that scale without a young, productive labor force.
Â
Due to a unique set of historical factors, this labor force was available just as China's growth was ready to go. But China has pretty much used up its demographic good fortune (measured by support ratio between effective producers and effective consumers). Because of the very low fertility (one child policy and urbanization among its principle causes) the enormous supply of young, cheap labor is soon to be history.
True enough, but in china the issues surrounding filial piety really send this deep into "sin" territory.
The one child policy was never a particularly communist goal, much as they tried to tie the two together. They just realized their birth rate was too high and felt they had to do something drastic to avert disaster. The birth rate had already fallen drastically and almost certainly would have continued to do so if they'd just left it alone. Unclear if they hoped to eventually level off at 1.4B, or if they always expected their population to shrink but didn't foresee any unmanageable problems with that.
Which is not to say that the policy had no impact, though births per woman apparently never fell below 1.6. It probably did give them a period of time in which less financial and social investment went into children than otherwise would have, allowing them to expand and modernize their economy a bit more rapidly.
Even in the West, your parents very much want you to have grandkids, even if they are too polite to pressure you to have them, even if you have a brother or sister that has 'filled' that role.
Not only do they want to see their own lives continued through them, but they know that at a certain age you their child likely will regret not having any children or grandchildren to carry on after them, and they don't want that bit of emptiness for their child.
Wishing China good luck. One positive example is Hungary, which has gone from 1.22 TFR in 2010 to 1.62 TFR in 2020. I saw China has begun to deprecate feminism. It will be interesting to see if that works.
Here's an interesting cultural tidbit I was educated about recently. In china, it's still generally considered a cultural/social sin to not provide your parents grandchildren. So the social pressure to have one child is unlikely to change. Which suggests, that unlike western countries where childless couples are rapidly increasing, china should be focusing on measures that help the step change from 1 child to many. If the implication of government policy wanting to reduce rural births, then the policies that assist multiple children would focus on measures that bias towards cities and urban areas.
For example, more/free large scale daycare facilities, which centralize in urban population centers. Keeping subsidies for the second child the same as for the first would even out pressures for everyone (reducing the barriers to a second child), but engineering a special urban second child subsidy might tip the balance that way (split the second child subsidy as national, the urban second child subsidy as a municipal effort).
A more extreme effort would be an underage UBI available to urban dwellers.
Carry on my wayward son… There'll be peace when you are done.
Countries are concerned with future productivity, particularly if a large percentage of the population is retired and drawing government benefits.
For government officials, it's all about the economics, not conservative culture.
An alternative is to have policies that allow older people to "semi-retire", especially as health in old age improves. Many would be willing to work at least part-time if they can still keep some of their benefits. In the U.S. that would include health-care benefits.
I guess this is as close to an admission of a mistake the communist government is capable of making to the Chinese people.
That is one cause, I don't think it's the primary cause. Especially if you read the part that most people still want at least 2 kids, but it just doesn't happen. Other causes:
* Movement to urban areas, driven by mechanization of agriculture. When you don't need as many people to work the fields or do the chores, then kids aren't as useful. Particularly if you have to pay for education, sports, childcare, a bigger house/apartment, etc. Kids go from being a financial benefit on a farm to a burden off the farm.
* Social security – it used to be family (primarily kids) were the only support you would have in old age. Obviously some people fell in the gaps with this approach, so now most governments provide support for seniors.
* Crazy work hours, particularly in places like Japan. No time for a person to be a parent, it definitely works best to have two actively involved parents.
Wokeism, nationalism, professional sports, pursuit of the almighty dollar, lots of tribal affiliations that can rival religion.
Yes but China would not now be so prosperous if it was not for the one child policy. That one child received the attention of 2 parents and 4 grand parents, it never went hungry and no expense was spared on education (little emperor syndrome was a good thing). The result a highly educated workforce that helped pull off China's economic miracle. As for the gender imbalance, I guess they'll have to remain celibate, maybe we can call them 'involuntary celibates'.
Gee it's easy to accidentally hit up or down vote. I didn't actually care about that point.
I've said it here before. What is happening in China now and, most especially, what is going to happen, is demographic destiny. The car has already gone through the guard rail and over the cliff. It has a ways to fall, but it is far too late to steer it back onto the road, no matter how hard people try.
Creating large clone creches à la Brave New World isn't really an option (besides, they are already going full bore on George Orwell's 1984, instead). Placing minorities in concentration camps (and destroying the country of Tibet through forced relocation and scattering of its people) is not going to win them any immigrants except from tiny little North Korea.
In 2015 China had 7.6 workers for every elderly person, in 2060 it will be 1 for 1, thanks to practically doubling life expectancy in only 50 years. Robots are not going to be able to take up the slack, especially as China seems rather prone to extremes of income inequality (like several other countries). Bear in mind that the children born during the one child policy, being expected to take care of a multitude of parents and grandparents, are not going to be terribly well placed to start a family and have kids. Births could fall even faster than predicted because of this alone.
The one child policy also resulted in tens of millions of men who will never find mates because, let's face it, an awful lot of people, faced with having only one child, chose to have it be male, even if their first-born was female.
Not to mention losing jobs, and being publicly humiliated(losing face).
Now that China's government only pays lip service to communism, and depends on commerce with the capitalist western powers, it's policy can change from a one child policy, to a three child policy. Does anyone else find this fact revealing?
If China would move to a true free market economy, where success is determined solely by product/service quality, and price, there is no telling how many children each family could support! In such an economy, the proper role of government is to protect consumers from fraud, and safety issues, and to take initiatives to ease trade, such as establishing weights, and measures, or encouraging the creation of transportation infrastructure. Just so you know, the US economy is not nearly a free market one, and becomes less so every day.
Agreed. Far too few advocating 'optimum' resources and the 'infant raising' environment to maximize child potential – perhaps too risky to stigmatize parents, communities, cultures, and countries by calling them examples of 'bad parenting'. Parenting style judgment- one of the few remaining unexamined parts of society – since we have already stigmatized various other underprivileged (or under-performing) groups.
Ridiculous rationalization of the universality of traditional dating, family structure, and its alleged fundamental purpose to an organized, modern society. There have never been more happy and content singles and 'non-productive' couples as is now and that trajectory increases. Increasing numbers of productive women and their current or previous mates have regrets about having as many children, timing their children as they did, or even choosing to 'settle down' as they did — often pressured by old school relatives and conservative-flavored-common culture. There is no reason to believe that a majority of persons being in nuclear-type families or even producing children at full replacement rates is the fundamental key to a high-tech and wealthy civilization, well-spread worldwide. What percentage of children have access to a primary education, nutrition levels, and other resources that allows them the choice to enter university level education, in full, competitive health, at late teens, early twenties?? What if we instead determined the 'right-size world' population, one that ensured that the type of communities, families (or other unit), and the nation-state would have the resources to contribute so that every child had 1-3 adult ratio pre-reading, 1-6 elementary, 1-10 secondary, 1-10 university. A 2-5 year internship for every grad. Can you imagine the 'resources per pre-citizen' and the average 'quality' that would produce?? I am not saying 1B or 5B or 20B is best.
Oh, I don't think it is. That part will stabilize.
What's going to be a problem is supporting a massive senior citizen population with a relatively smaller one. Also seems a lot of the viable women are leaving for other nations (no figure that I can quote though).
millions paid heafty fines for a second or third child…. hope will they get a medal soon
I do not think that the CCP will just accept this low birth rate.
In principle, there are minorities that would have a very high TFR if they would have been allowed to have as many children as they wanted to. The chinese state, however, has consistently suppressed their nativity. We all know about the concentration camps for Uighurs…
My guess is that the chinese state will employ professional surrogate mothers and raise children in large orphanages. And I also think that the CCP will select whos eggs and sperms will be used. From the track record so far, Uighurs and other minorities will probably not be eligible as well as criminals. They may even use "social points" for this purpose. Other totalitarian regimes have in similar situations selected donors from the ruling party, which in this case would be the CCP….
Let us see if this is an acceptable format of the idea…
A China with too few young people would leave the CCP and the Chinese state unable to project power abroad, both economically and militarily. It would lessen the influence of the CCP and chinese nationalism, which honestly are two forces that are at diametrically at odds with values of the west and of freedom in general.
In this light a low TFR in China seems like the least bad option. It is a peaceful solution to a problem that either ends up with the Chinese state as the dominant global power, or a weakened Chinese state that allows the west and developing countries to keep and develop their freedoms.
The other "solutions"/outcomes to this problems are worse; military action (bound to fail), sanctions (also bound to fail), political persuasion (bound to fail) and democratization of China (extremely unlikely) or world domination by the totalitarian regime of China.
We co-evolved with religion, have a sort of neural "socket" for one to fit into. If you don't have one slotted into it, something else finds a home there.
It's not that the 'non-religious' lack any religion, they've just seized on some substitute religion without a long track record of survivability. Wokeism, or whatever.
The name of the polity that exists on the island of Taiwan calls itself The Republic of China.
Our base each year is higher, and yes it's accelerating
Here's how it works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY_3SZc_mUY&t=81s
Can economies be changed – or will they perhaps automatically adapt if left alone – so that a declining population does not in any major sense mean a declining nation, any more than an increasing population necessarily means a nation will get richer and more powerful.
Automation of manufacturing, distribution and sales is one obvious potential component/trend we're already heavily into, that can help adapt to declining population.
Also, if some factories shut down because of declining demand and increasing labor costs, doesn't that mean that a valuable resource has been released for potential alternative uses? Perhaps convert them to make more electric scooter chairs and walk-in tubs and those motorized chairs that help an elderly person stand up.
I think the troll farms only get a very shallow version of US politics to work off of.
Look, Brian, the reason people thinking that, is that "(Japan, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, and Taiwan Province of China)" in the OP.
Only people who are either afraid of, or on the take from China, pretend that Taiwan is a province of China. It's not like it's Taiwan's name, after all. The official name, amusingly, is "Taiwan, Republic of China". On account of Taiwan being ruled by the Nationalist government of China in exile.
But, as I related above, China lost control of Taiwan in the late 1800's, and only nominally got it back for a few years after WWII, (And barely even nominally!) which is why the Nationalist government had to actually invade the island, not just move.
I'd assumed that you had copied and pasted that from somewhere else, and just not noticed that "Province". Is that not the case?
But it does indicate a stable solution – the young men just have to work hard, build up their finances, probably get a house and car and stable job – and eventually they they too become attractive mates. Frustrating/depressing for them, but it isn't a civilization killer as some made out.
Also, it means that women will have a better chance to have more children, since they'll be more financially stable earlier in life- so it could somewhat allieviate the fertility rate issue.
The fact that our privacy is being eroded by AI and big tech in the West is no excuse for the CCP style of oppression. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Today, there is already the "soft" influence of China on what is allowed to be said in the West. The NBA self sensors their coaches and players regarding Hong Kong. Got to keep those yuan flowing.. Senators and congressmen have economical interests in China, so they are partly corrupted. The "treatment" of Uighurs and the suppression of Hong Kong are non events in western media, for obvious reasons. And even though the CCP would be a near perfect villain in a movie – just like the CSPU was at its time – there are no movies with such a plot. Even for local consumption in the West. Zero. Do you have a theory why, qq?
I also have the unproven suspicion publishing houses would be very reluctant to publish a book with CCP as the main villain in a book…
I fear that with growing Chinese economical influence there will be legislation in the pipeline. Ostensibly to prevent "hate speech", but it would reality be the result of back office negotiations with the most powerful economic power. Without a constitution that protects free speech, European countries would be the first to fall. Indeed, some people are even helping this process by equating criticism of the CCP and China with "racism". Or what do you think, qq?
Are you saying that China fears Taiwan and that is a legitimate reason for China to either conquer Taiwan or just bully it to becoming a part of China?
people get the government they deserve… I doubt few dictators would exist if they already had top populations outperforming other countries and bringing glory back to the homeland (if individually left alone)… its the countries with populations of low productivity, high resentment to all authority figures, natural skepticism but high entitlement, mistrust of individualism and keenerism, etc…. that tend to constantly revolt and show malcontent with any kind of order. At what point of wealth do governments no longer wish to interfere in people's lives since it will detract from their productivity… the key is to not care what the gov't (or others think) and do your own thing…. spreading self-reliant, entrepreneurialism with a bit of rationality, when dispersed to many people, quickly undoes totalitarianism… its a chicken-egg thing… malcontent, sheep-people tend to attract a hierarchy, then a leader… which tries to motivate the sheep, which is impossible since they self-govern by removing would-be individuals within their ranks, but this leads to insufficient abundance amongst the flock, so they rebel…. so the leader suppresses…
it's all about how early you can separate the mother from the child for independent development. Preemies are what? 20 weeks minimum? I suppose it comes to cost – supporting semi- or fully-working parents to raise the child on the side as opposed to starting a kid from scratch in a lab/ creche/ institution — even if all were 150+IQs, is it worth it at many, many times?
well. that was a twist on simply increasing child rates…. government-sanctioned population pods.
oryx and crake and the aggressive pig creatures? way too dystopian. That being said, can you believe that the Chinese wouldn't undertake an 'idealized' child development program over just throwing money at mass production of lower-mid and less- income families knowing that such is a hot bed for revolution, continued slum growth, and huge infrastructure development of childcare and schools… a culture that would prefer a system of augmented super-soldiers instead of just bulk recruits, would likely lead toward a culture of augmented super-citizen-babies – especially having the development planned from the embryo. I don't think anything in chinese culture frowns upon government birthing and indoctrination facilities… just have to develop the tech and its efficient roll-out…
very cultural-regional. Not sure where test-tube-type baby tech, 3rd party fertilization schemes, and genetic testing/ nudging will most likely prosper, but upper-middles in the more secular G20 countries may embrace 'family planning' – 21st century style. It wouldn't be a huge step to franchise such in the same way much adoption is deregulated and widespread. With increased housing costs in desirable areas, the 'group'/ institutional family may become more widespread with a baby ordered per spec. Throw in a pediatrician-directed rubric for development. Why would genetic testing for defects pre-birth be any less moral than genetic testing/ nudging for increased benefits/ advantages. Not a far step to Wards of 'straight out the tube' child centres. Bulk benefits to encourage everyday parents to upsize their family unit is probably a less effective way to bring 'quality children rather than quantity children'. Further, we need to move away from early 20th century ideologies of having as many kids as possible to maximize the chance of the survival of each in otherwise mediocre-resource families.
I think the analogy you are after is the Philippines.
Claimed by the USA for some decades, but now independent for well over half a century and no chance of wanting to return.
Nuke family is like songbird, suburbs' houses are territorial nests. Before this was practical, matriarchal clans were the plan for most of human evolution. I think. "It takes a village".
You think Trump supporters would be angry if California decided to leave the USA?
You really haven't been following US politics, have you?
Here is a graph of world GDP growth.
I don't see any acceleration in the world getting richer.
Are the Chinese smart enuf to understand Primal Science?
Taiwan was originally a colony of Holland. Well before that it was completely independent.
Bezos warehouses would be far more what Bezos wants with no humans at all. Same for Space plans, where humans very expensive. Here we go!
CCP's refusal and/or inability to educate its rural population is half the problem. Farmers and ranchers are smart people and in many ways are vastly more capable than their urban peers (seriously, a farmer is simultaneously: farmer, ecologist, accountant, marketer, mechanic, often also employer and landlord).
For CCP to continue thinking of its subjects as burdens rather than opportunities is the real fundamental indicator that they haven't learned from their past mistakes.
Again, Taiwan has not been part of China for more than a couple of years in over a century.
Taiwan's proper designation will continue to be 'complicated' for as long as both government's are on record as affirming that their is only one China and one legitimate government of China: namely, theirs.
Taiwan's designation as a separate country rests entirely off the books. The was neither a formal end to China's civil war nor a cease-fire; it just petered out.
Would _you_ want a friendly government with your global and increasingly hostile competitor sitting just off your shore, with a virtual call for regime change written into the preamble of it's Constitution?
Don't get me wrong: I wish a democratic Taiwan could just peacefully coexist with China, just as I wish China was on the other side of a successful transition to a stable and more democratic Republic( crashing halfway through the transition would be worse than the situation as it stands). But that stance is entirely base on preference. There's nothing 'formal' to decisively back it.
Yep. That right there.
It is ironic that despite everyone bashing religions as primitive, they might have been one of the main things keeping human society going for so long- any doubters then look at the difference between religious vs non-religious groups' breeding rates.
Yep. Nevermind that the younger women are going for older men, leaving the already highly disproportinately larger young male population even worse off for female suitors.
Time to get out of the urban jungle.
Tell me, would you like, if most if not all left wing states in US separate and create their own country, so righ wing states can do the same and be govern for a long time by conservative type of leader like Trump?
There's this bizarre argument being tried out right now, that saying anything critical of the CCP is "racist" because? I guess the unstated premise is that the CCP is a proxy for all Asians, or something equally stupid.
I get the impression that the CCP's troll farms are trying out 'woke' rhetoric, but a stupid version of something that's stupid to begin with just won't work.
Connectivity is the future, not the other way around
I predict that in time…US will merge with Canada, Mexico, maybe even whole Latin America and became some kind of new country/federation. As the time goes by whole world will merge and create one "country"
Era of "big tribes" will end, there will be only one human "tribe", one human civilization. Brain computer interfaces in future can teach us any language fast by uploading knowledge (even teaching everyone just english would be enough, althouth maybe uploading 200 languages will be almost as easy and take just few hours)
Language barrier is one of the main barriers to make it happen at this moment. Other factors may be energy scarcity(achieving fusion may change that) and we're making good progress, 3rd are finite resources on Earth. Figuring out cheap access to space, developing space mining tech, faster spaceships will change that and we're making fast progress in this domain also
Self governing, with it's own military sufficient to deter any effort by the rest of the US to bring them to heel, I suppose.
Again, Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.
They aspire to make it one, but it isn't one.
How is that a reasonable analogy? Taiwan didn't secede from China. Taiwan was independent from China from the late 1800's, except for a few years immediately after WWII.
It would be more like we got Mexico handed to us for a few years, then lost it, and spent the next three quarters of a century insisting everybody pretend Mexico was part of the US.
California is a sovereign nation also
No, I understand why you discussed them, just taking exception to that phrase, "Taiwan Province of China".
Just because a totalitarian nuclear power insists that a neighboring country they wish to conquer is a 'rogue province' doesn't mean we should humor them. Taiwan isn't a province of China, it is a sovereign nation.
I wonder what those guys who obviously don't care about Taiwan ( I bet most of them can't even find it on a map, they only care for China collapse and bad things happen to China) would say if Trump or some other conservative win next election and California decided to separate and few other countries let's say Arab world, China, Russia and others would start calling them country from that moment
I am 100% sure that they would be as annoyed as Chinese are with Taiwan separatists. Separatism is not good, future of the world is hyper connectivity, cooperation. Separatism can happen everywhere and consequence almost always is war and death, nothing good, therefore I don't approve any kind of separatism, anywhere, including in US
I just want to say that you also have readers here who agree with your first version of statement in the article, you don't need to surrender to "pressure" to correct it just because few guys don't agree and write some comments. Those guys are most active and loudest but this doesn't mean there are lot of them. All the time there are the same few voices
They don't like anything positive about China and love everything negative, which is quite pathetic in my view. I like China articles, so please inform us about China tech and science news. It's interesting subject
it is
Not true, just typical worldview held by all racists based on "data" from bbc, cnn etc mostly ango media reports. I encourage you to start reading various sources(western but at the same time chinese, arabic, russian, even african point of view, more the better) and then compare, analyse, not mindlesly just one source cause, this leads to radicalization.
You won't be free as we understand this concept today, but China won't have anything to do with that, but your own goverment. West is criticizing China but they are spying on us on similar scale if not bigger than in China. I just can't stand this hypocrisy. We're not that different.
AI soon will be tracking your every move, but if you're good boy you don't need to worry about anything. Privacy? Forget it, we're already past this point, era of privacy, fake freedom is gone.
Faster the progress (with help of China) the better, because eventually we reach Singularity and this current system based in some sense also on scarcity will collapse, something new, better will emerge
Unfortunately, low TFR has much less to do with income than with culture. That is, much less than people — especially, in the ruling elites — are willing to admit. Female emancipation is the primary cause of the situation.
We haven't reach that point yet. And the fact that people are uneducated is a indicator that society is failing people.
I agree with the title that it is too little and too late. Urban couples won't be able to or willing to have more than two children, if even that many. There is also the imbalance between women and men. Then the reluctance for men to marry women above them and for women to marry men below them.
You forget the most important part which is that many people 80 and over usually need looking after.
World is getting richer each year. This process of getting richer is accelerating.
Automation itself and advanced AI could easily pay for very high standard of living for everyone. We will be able to generate many times more wealth anually than now using 20-100x less people in next decade.
so. we think that a traditional-ish nuclear family will be the near-exclusive form of child-rearing unit in 20 – 40+ years? doubts! surrogates. out-of-womb tech. creches. government-sanctioned Handmaid's Tale (or more possibly Oryx and Crake)
I get no money from China.
I added the paragraph: Taiwan and China are two separate countries. However, I will talk about the demographics of Taiwan as well. Taiwan is more economically developed than China on a per capita basis. Taiwan is view into a population that was unified about 70 years ago but Taiwan did not have the one-child policy.
Explaining why I discussed Taiwan in relation to China's population policy.
I added the paragraph: Taiwan and China are two separate countries. However, I will talk about the demographics of Taiwan as well. Taiwan is more economically developed than China on a per capita basis. Taiwan is view into a population that was unified about 70 years ago but Taiwan did not have the one-child policy.
Explaining why I discussed Taiwan in relation to China's population policy.
I added the paragraph: Taiwan and China are two separate countries. However, I will talk about the demographics of Taiwan as well. Taiwan is more economically developed than China on a per capita basis. Taiwan is view into a population that was unified about 70 years ago but Taiwan did not have the one-child policy.
Explaining why I discussed Taiwan in relation to China's population policy.
Are you aware of the South Chinese Sea and China has done there? I don't care if we get maglevs a few years earlier because of China, I care about our freedoms, our right for self determination. More prosperity in China means that the South Chinese Sea will be repeated with many variations in numerous fields, again and again.
Wow, apologist for a totalitarian state, AND historically inaccurate, too!
In fact, Taiwan was independent for most of its history, and has gone long stretches when it wasn't a subject of China.
China lost control of Taiwan in 1895, 126 years ago, and aside from a few years after WWII, prior to the communist takeover of the mainland, never regained it.
"Always"; Sure, and Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.
Until you have 1 billion people above the age of 60 who need to have their pensions and cost of living paid for, and only 500 million people below that age to support them.
What part of that was racist? the part about the Uighur camps?
Right. The dude must be shilling for John China Cena as well
Well, why doesn't China go over there and start telling them what to do?
Oh right, the Taiwanese military that will shoot at them.
Doesn't sound very provincial to me,shill.
Taiwan, "PoC"?
Oh, right, UN. Well, at least they didn't just add it into the China numbers, like they did to Hong Kong.
Oh, I see you echoed that. Brian, please. Taiwan is NOT a province of China, though they certainly have ambitions in that direction.
Taiwan is and always was province of China.
Brian statement is correct.
You need to educate yourself better mate
It won't be a problem for China, Europe, Japan, Korea
Automation and AI are progressing so fast nowadays that most jobs will be automated in next 10-15 years either way. Small percentage of people will be scientists and engineers and they will be moving world into the future, more of them country will have, more it will contribute to this process. Even in worst case demographic scenario China in absolute terms will have largest number of STEM people and resources(money) for them for many decades
I don't agree
China will take world into the future, they already started doing it
You obviously only get gloomy "China bad" info from manipulative western media. No wonder you have this typical view of them..like most naive sheeps…which is far from true
-nuclear fusion 100second record few days ago
-1000km per hour super train being build
-they just build artificial eye
More educated genius Chinese = more stuff like this coming from China and benefiting whole world, taking us into the future, solving problems faster
China is not West, they're not selling and preaching their system into the world, like West. If you wanna live in stone age China will let you, I am quite sure they won't care much for people who prefer to be left behind, those who don't want on the other hand, China will help and those people will create together great future/system
Grow up and abondon this silly tribal mentality
"Taiwan Province of China"
Please China gimme money…
"Taiwan Province of China"
…sickening
All this worry about a shortage of workers seems silly when automation is making them unnecessary. I saw a story about a large, fully automated farm being set up in Australia as a prototype.
They should have chosen the path of stability and left it at 2.
We're in the beginning of the age where the labors of the poorly educated masses are no longer necessary. The approaching problem of this age is how to humanely deal with large unwanted populations that serve no useful function, the depraved economic imperative encouraging endless population growth by those that can't cope with change should be resisted.