China Considers Ending Birth Limits as Soon as This Year

[Mista]

AI and robots are the key to shrinking manpower. Trust me, less population will not be a problem but blessing in next 10 years time.

人口对科技和经济发展的意义绝不只是劳动力。庞大的人口规模，更能保证需求的多样性和供给的规模效应、雄厚的资金的支持，也更能孕育出各种杰出人才。在14亿人的中国，一项技术只要有1%的人感兴趣，就会出现一个千万人口的市场。在人才方面，其他条件相似，14亿人中最有创造力的人有更大概率会比1.4亿人最有创造力的人更有创造力。

而且伴随着交通和通信的便利，同一语言文化或政治边界内的交流频度，与该体系人口规模成加速正比关系。人口越多，社会的复杂程度越高。其他条件相似，人口多一倍，整体力量可能多1.2倍。因此，人口规模也比以往更为关键。

实际上，现代科技的发展乃至整个人类文明的生活方式，都高度依赖庞大的人口规模。假定现在全球不是75亿人，而只有10亿人，其中发达国家按比例不到2亿人，那我们目前所享受的各种现代科技，如计算机、互联网、高铁很可能都不存在；即使存在也不能以这么快的速度更新迭代。

人工智能有可能会导致部分群体失业，成为一个棘手的经济和社会问题。但需要指出的是，低生育率下的人口萎缩，不是改善而是恶化就业形势。这是因为减少的是孩子和年轻人，而他们恰恰是生活方式和工作技能更能适应变化的群体。人口萎缩带来的不仅是工作机会成比例减少，也因降低需求和技能的多样性乃至社会复杂性，让人们更难找到适合自己的工作。如果中国人口只有现在的1/5, 那么教师、零售人员、出租车司机等职位只有现在的1/5，但航天、高铁这些由人口大国才能支撑的行业可能会消失。

http://pit.ifeng.com/a/20180213/56016666_0.shtml

One of the reasons why technology exploded in the last century is because of population explosion and globalization, which combine different markets together for new technologies to be viable.

 

[Beast]

人口对科技和经济发展的意义绝不只是劳动力。庞大的人口规模，更能保证需求的多样性和供给的规模效应、雄厚的资金的支持，也更能孕育出各种杰出人才。在14亿人的中国，一项技术只要有1%的人感兴趣，就会出现一个千万人口的市场。在人才方面，其他条件相似，14亿人中最有创造力的人有更大概率会比1.4亿人最有创造力的人更有创造力。

而且伴随着交通和通信的便利，同一语言文化或政治边界内的交流频度，与该体系人口规模成加速正比关系。人口越多，社会的复杂程度越高。其他条件相似，人口多一倍，整体力量可能多1.2倍。因此，人口规模也比以往更为关键。

实际上，现代科技的发展乃至整个人类文明的生活方式，都高度依赖庞大的人口规模。假定现在全球不是75亿人，而只有10亿人，其中发达国家按比例不到2亿人，那我们目前所享受的各种现代科技，如计算机、互联网、高铁很可能都不存在；即使存在也不能以这么快的速度更新迭代。

人工智能有可能会导致部分群体失业，成为一个棘手的经济和社会问题。但需要指出的是，低生育率下的人口萎缩，不是改善而是恶化就业形势。这是因为减少的是孩子和年轻人，而他们恰恰是生活方式和工作技能更能适应变化的群体。人口萎缩带来的不仅是工作机会成比例减少，也因降低需求和技能的多样性乃至社会复杂性，让人们更难找到适合自己的工作。如果中国人口只有现在的1/5, 那么教师、零售人员、出租车司机等职位只有现在的1/5，但航天、高铁这些由人口大国才能支撑的行业可能会消失。

http://pit.ifeng.com/a/20180213/56016666_0.shtml

One of the reasons why technology exploded in the last century is because of population explosion and globalization, which combine different markets together for new technologies to be viable.

I disagree, the sharp increase of population also result in turmoil due to shortage of resources. Everything is a double edge sharp. The world population has already reached a peak point. World World I and World War II are all result of sphere of resources which led to turmoil and great war. Unless the world can control human lifespan like setting age of 75 years old before being terminated. Keep increasing the world population while lifespan keep increasing is not a good trend.

A control population while keeping the GDP per ratio increase is the key with robots and AI.

 

[Mista]

I disagree, the sharp increase of population also result in turmoil due to shortage of resources. Everything is a double edge sharp. The world population has already reached a peak point. World World I and World War II are all result of sphere of resources which led to turmoil and great war. Unless the world can control human lifespan like setting age of 75 years old before being terminated. Keep increasing the world population while lifespan keep increasing is not a good trend.

A control population while keeping the GDP per ratio increase is the key with robots and AI.

Well you claimed that a shrinking population is good for China because AI destroy jobs, and I disagree with that. Because the human being is not only a producer but also a consumer. Your consumption increases if your productivity increases too. And a huge consumption and productivity base has allowed for division of labor and possibilities for new technologies, like the last Chinese paragraph in my previous post has stated.

True. If you're from a resource point of view, a greater population will put a greater strain on the environment. But the improvement in technologies has also allowed the Earth to support a greater human population, especially with the advent in urban farming and renewables in coming years.

One good thing about very low birth rates (<1.5) is the prevention of war. As every generation is going to shrink by 30%, the young is too precious to be lost in a war. You will basically head for a dramatic fall in population with a very deformed population pyramid if there isn't enough young to produce the next generation and to support the older generation.

 

[ILC]

Hello, my first post.
I don't know how NBS puts China TFR at such low base, It could be a different definition maybe. I agree with NHFPC that in 2016 China TFR was about 1,6.

In 2017 China had 17,230,000 live births, now let's find out how many women by age 15-49 are in China. If the graphic is correct there are approximately 360m women or a bit more.

Considering the 17,2m births and the 360m of women the TFR should be about 1,5 to 1,55.
I may be wrong, but that's mine estimates. If you know better how to count the TFR please correct.

 

[Mista]

Hello, my first post.
I don't know how NBS puts China TFR at such low base, It could be a different definition maybe. I agree with NHFPC that in 2016 China TFR was about 1,6.

In 2017 China had 17,230,000 live births, now let's find out how many women by age 15-49 are in China. If the graphic is correct there are approximately 360m women or a bit more.

Considering the 17,2m births and the 360m of women the TFR should be about 1,5 to 1,55.
I may be wrong, but that's mine estimates. If you know better how to count the TFR please correct.

How do calculate the TFR with just these 2 figures?