• @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    -69 months ago

    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.

    • wrath-sedan
      link
      fedilink
      119 months ago

      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.

      • @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        -39 months ago

        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.

        • @wahming@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          29 months ago

          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.

          • @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            -29 months ago

            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.

            • @wahming@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              09 months ago

              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.

              • @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                19 months ago

                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! *

    • @knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      109 months ago

      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.

      • @BeefPiano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 months ago

        Replacement rate for people or resources? Because people are extracting resources at way higher rates than they’re being replaced.

        • @knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          09 months ago

          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.

    • @Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      49 months ago

      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.

      • @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        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.