Wtf is this website and what is their goal? I couldn’t find anything on there, who are they??
Why would you even want to stop population decline? It’s, like, actually very beneficial for the ones who then live in a less crowded world : |
It’s on their weird about page
“The crazy thing is, despite all this, people still want kids. The economy and social challenges—are the real culprits for the drop in birth rates, not a shift in attitudes. Countries with austerity measures, like the US, UK, Germany, Italy, and Greece, have lower birth rates than Denmark and France.”
But you have to admit that still is weird. I don’t believe this is their primary goal, setting up a website and writing articles without a more clearly stated goal.
It’s weird, but everything is well researched, verified, and cited.
If you want I can give you the Reddit user who originally posted the site and you can ask him if he is David
Yeah I’ll ask!
Thanks
Long term, yes, great for the planet. But shorter term, a shrinking pool of working aged adults are going to have to care for a growing pool of elderly. Additionally, the overall economy is going to contact before the age cohort imbalance takes care of itself. Same thing is happening across most of the developed world, but it’s happening faster in China, and they’re less developed to start with.
Liberals believe in infinite growth, and for that to happen you also need infinite demographic growth to get an ever increasing work force and mass of consumers.
They are just a bunch of weirdos.
And conservatives don’t?
Capitalism is built on infinite growth.
Get out of here with your political bullshit, especially when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.
They are referring to those who hold liberal market beliefs. Not liberal social beliefs. Also known as conservatives in the US.
The majority of liberals other than politicians want the population to stabilise or decrease slightly, so I’m not sure what you’re even talking about.
Every article is by “David Demos” which is clearly a pseudonym. I’m not disagreeing with the conclusions, but it’s definitely a red flag for me when info about the author is so obscured. Like it’s fine to be anonymous of course, but there is no establishment of who this person is other than an About page that uses weirdly upbeat language to advocate for anti-austerity measures to support population growth which is itself a strange take and I would want to know more about who is making it and why.
deleted by creator
Yup I agree
I don’t know, I found this on Reddit when the guy came after Michael Deacon for blaming for millennials and pleasantly surprised it was for increasing social spending and building homes rather than some right wing nonsense.
This is just a really weird click-bait listicle type post with a couple facts and a couple incorrect assumptions.
The remarks were made by Qiao Jie, deputy of Peking University Health Science Center and a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, at a conference on Tuesday.
The population in the Chinese mainland fell for the first time in 61 years in 2022, decreasing by a total of 850,000, data released by the National Bureau of Statistics showed.
Doesn’t sound like clickbait at all to me. The viewpoint appears quite honest and genuine, and they go on to give sources for why they believe this matters. If you have contradicting stats, please share.
For starters, the article is very anti-China, albeit in a more subtle way than many articles from western sources. The headline itself also grabs in people ostensibly worried about population growth. The facts presented may well be true, but they are missing context which cannot be provided in a bullet points format. The author simply ignores parts of their own sources in order to present their own contradictory point. For example, the line “Wedding registrations in 2022: 6.83 million, the lowest since the 1970s.” links to an article from Tsinghua University, which only mentions the declining marriage rate in the last paragraph of the article. It’s primarily about how China is well positioned to manage their demographic changes.
Li Daokui, director of the Academic Centre for Chinese Economic Practice and Thinking at Tsinghua University, said in the same seminar that it is a common misunderstanding that a decrease in total population will set back demand and erode innovation power and economic growth. “It’s not total population size that determines the long-term growth potential of China’s economy, but whether the ample human resources could be enhanced and fully taken advantage of,” he said.
Another example: the author quotes from the Global Times article that quotes Qiao Jie. What the Stop Population Decline author fails to note is that their source explains some of what China is doing to raise its fertility rate.
China’s National Healthcare Security Administration announced in February the inclusion of labor analgesia and assisted fertility technology in the coverage of medical insurance as part of broader efforts to safeguard people’s reproductive rights and willingness to have children. Healthcare authorities have always attached great importance to population issues, the administration said, adding that eligible fertility support medicine, including bromohentine, triprelline and clomiphene, are already covered by medical insurance, which has helped many patients. None of this context is provided in the article, as it is intended to dig in to existing anti-China sentiment while also concern trolling over falling birth rates.
The author also projects problems onto China which are only inherent to declining populations in neoliberal countries. In a people’s state such as China these same topics are essentially irrelevant, as quoted above for example. An ageing population certainly is a challenge in terms of healthcare demands, but none that cannot be solved by a nation that prioritizes the well being of its people over arbitrary economic indicators or the further enrichment of its capitalist class.
Anti China?
You mean critical of the government. They also been critical of the UK, US, and Korean governments. Not to mention why they are most critical of isn’t the traditional reasons, but by the fact they need to ramp up social spending but hasn’t
Also it seems they are cynical of the numbers coming out, which is a fair point considering the Chinese researchers has a history of overcounting, inflating numbers, and sugarcoating CCP policies
At worse you can say they are anti CCP like other western sources like you said, but at best they just critical of any government who doesn’t increase social spending
You’re talking to someone from lemmygrad. Anything that isn’t praising china is just racist propaganda to them. Don’t waste your time.
Good to know, I thought it was in good faith!
“Anti-CCP” is anti-China. The whole “hate the government not the people” charade is just a lame cover for racism and imperialism. Even the simple use of the incorrect “CCP” rather than the correct CPC is enough to indicate a person’s stance.
The sources linked even discuss how China is increasing social spending in a multitude of ways, but all that information is left out and instead the spectre of “overcounted or inflated numbers and sugar-coated CCP policies” and western concern trolling tells the story.
I’m Chinese. Fuck that CCP = China bullshit.
You pointed out how well China will be able to combat their declining birth rates and what they are doing to raise fertility rates. That’s great. You disliked the format of the article and didn’t feel it expressed their point adequately. Awesome. But you’re coming at the comments section with an intensity that seems disproportionate to how banal the article is. Birth rates are plummeting across the world, and every other country has their turn to have attention drawn to it, complete with their own set of uninvited suggestions regarding potential impact and what to do about it. It’s okay for people to disagree on the impact of stats like this. It’s normal and healthy when done in good faith.
Regarding your other post: “Anti-CCP is anti-China” is a tactic to try to deflect away criticism entirely. It is dangerous for a population to be stripped of the right to criticize their government. I criticize my own government all the time, and others as well when I think they’re making poor decisions. The CCP doesn’t get to be above this on an international scale because racism. The old stigmatizing the critic into silence approach is not conducive to open dialogue, and it’s ultimately a way of shooting yourself in the foot. 欲蓋彌彰
Commends me on engaging some of the content in good faith.
Then makes bad faith arguments based on strawman arguments, demonstrably false information, and racist concern trolling to shut down my other salient points and project deflection on to me.
Sorry I just can’t with the hypocrisy here. Maybe I am shooting myself in the foot, but I just can’t with this kind of western bullshit. All for open dialog until someone challenges their worldview.
欲蓋彌彰
I just can’t with this western bullshit!
I’m sure if someone remarked about “eastern bullshit” that you would cry racism, and you wouldn’t be wrong. Thanks for at least being amusing by calling me a racist and then immediately acting like one yourself. Don’t feel too bad about it, you’re one of countless to prove that wise saying which predates the CCP by 1400 years.
Hard disagree; when I read it, all the links are working, seem to verify what the writer is saying, and all information can be collaborated with other sources
Edit: I seen this style before, Axios and Morning Brew does something similar
The information may well be true, but it is missing vital context presented in the articles linked. I went into this in my other reply on this thread.
They’re about page is a bit of a trip and seems like it’s all about being anti-austerity? At which point why not have an anti-austerity website instead of one about stopping population decline?
Why not, as long it means being against austerity?
Hell, the article is critical for the CCP not spending more on social services.
Am all against austerity, but that page name reeks of weird brainworms. OK I’m gonna read it just to sample their insanity.
You just gave me a killer name for a community!
AllAgainstAusterity
Edit: I made the community https://lemm.ee/c/allagainstausterity
Academics admit births could fall to 7 million
He noted that the number of newborns this year could be as low as 7 million.
Kinda subtle but the original source just lists 7 million as a lower limit, but this weirdo website cites it as the prediction. They also use the pronoun “he,” but as far as I know the more famous Qiao Jie from Peking University is a woman. Might want something straight from that conference, which the Global Times doesn’t provide even a name.
deleted by creator
Jokes on the CCP, who is going to spend the cash to raise them?
Not to mention we saw this play out in Soviet Romania, and it was a shit show for that government in terms of political stability
7 million new humans in a single country per year is A LOT of goddamn people.
Imagine a major city’s worth of people suddenly appearing every single year. It’s completely unsustainable.
It’s not so weird when that country has about 1 out of every 6 humans on earth, and when 10.56 million people died in China in 2022. They’re experiencing decline not growth.
I didn’t say it was weird. The numbers are still incredible.
And with nearly 1.5 BILLION people, it’s not like they’ll run out of people.
This isn’t a Children of Men situation.
The number of people is irrelevant in the context, only the birth vs death rate. For context, there were about 10.5 million deaths in China last year. For social stability, you’d want the population to at most have a slight decline. A 50% higher death rate than birth rate is NOT slight.
Again, adding over 7 million people is what’s important, and it’s a huge number.
We’re talking about a loss of 3 million once you factor in deaths. If it was a country like Canada, with a population of less than 50 million people, that would be problematic.
But with a population pool of 1.5 billion, what’s the actual concern? What social instability does this cause that a population of 1.5 billion already doesn’t?
There will never be too few people in China, and a slow population decline from 1.5 billion allows for a more sustainable future.
adding over 7 million people is what’s important
It is not. When dealing with statistics, percentages are the only thing that matter.
If it was a country like Canada, with a population of less than 50 million people, that would be problematic.
Losing 15% of your population on a yearly basis isn’t problematic, it’s species-ending catastrophic.
But with a population pool of 1.5 billion, what’s the actual concern? What social instability does this cause that a population of 1.5 billion already doesn’t?
To put it in perspective, that’s the same population loss ratio that japan is currently experiencing. Japan, the country that’s teetering on the brink of cultural and societal collapse from an aging population.
There will never be too few people in China
Yeah this sums up the problem fairly well. You’re so stuck in your personal opinion of china’s population that you can’t imagine for a moment the situation changing, regardless of what the data might be saying. You’re no better than the people who refused to believe climate change was occurring. Fuck your gut instinct, pay attention to the actual numbers.
Bro, the actual numbers (3 mil loss a year) is insignificant when your population has 1.5 billion people in it. What demographic will catastrophically collapse?
You’re getting 7 million babies (i.e. young people) to replace 10 million old people… this is actually quite good and the way it’s supposed to be.
And is this coming from a country that had a one child policy for decades, then increased it to two and then three kids. *They literally don’t want more people! *
It’s not unsustainable, it’s below the replacement rate. Even if it were slightly above, China has proven to be more than capable of increasing everyone’s quality of life while managing a rising population.
That’s about 0.5% growth of the national population, or 5 births per thousand people. Less than a third of the global average of 18 births per thousand. Put into that perspective, it’s really quite small.
Replacement rate for people or resources? Because people are extracting resources at way higher rates than they’re being replaced.
Replacement rate for people.
Unsustainable resource extraction rates is another problem that nations like China are working hard to mitigate. In general, unsustainable consumption is a problem inherent to capitalism and the ways it distributes resources and rewards waste.
It must also be said that Malthusianism was never meant to be an accurate theory of the relationship between population and resource use, and has never made an accurate prediction of reality.
Well, they also could be having 90% of a major city’s worth of people dying every year, but I haven’t looked up the exact number.
Someone said around 10 million die per year. But old people die. Everywhere.
But they are “replaced” by 7 million+ babies.
Let’s not forget that China STILL limits the number of children you can have, and limited families to one child for decades before the limit was raised to two, then three. They don’t really want more people.
Scale matters.
w0rLd NeWz
