China's population is projected to decline to 800 million, while US goes to 450 million.

[That Guy]

If you want sources, hear the WEF debate on Chinese demographics.

I can't emphasize enough, how much of a blunder China is doing, giving up its demographic strength.

In comparison, even Pakistan would have a higher population if the low case scenario were to be taken to be true.

Do you realize number of people is perhaps the most appropriate way to measure the size of the country?

@AndrewJin @Shotgunner51 @cirr

Also, people here were talking earlier about total strength. It seems India will exceed in total economic strength compared to China, since India's population will be anywhere between 3-4 times that of China. Even today China has per worker GDP that is around 3 times that of India.

The difference in per worker GDP would only decrease, making Indian GDP around 2-3 times that of China.

This is probably one of the worst threads I've seen in a while.

First of all, China's population, while it will decline, will not decline to 600 million. Most projections still show China's population to be above 1 billion by 2100.

https://populationpyramid.net/china/2095/

And about Pakistan, its population isn't going to go above 400 million

https://populationpyramid.net/pakistan/2095/

Now, your comment about China "giving up its demographic strength", population is very hard to control, plus having a large population isn't necessarily a good thing; large populations just means more people you have to feed and keep off the streets.

"Do you realize number of people is perhaps the most appropriate way to measure the size of the country?"

It is not.

Also, people here were talking earlier about total strength. It seems India will exceed in total economic strength compared to China, since India's population will be anywhere between 3-4 times that of China. Even today China has per worker GDP that is around 3 times that of India.

Population doesn't necessarily indicate economic strength, there are a large amount of factors that need to be taken into consideration. Plus, having a trillion dollar economy doesn't mean you have a stable and strong economy.

 

[TeesraIndiotHunter]

You are quoting two different things. You are citing China's largest population estimate for 2100, with India's lowest one for 2100.

If you look at the median estimates for both, you would have China at around 800 million people, and India at around 2 billion people.

Wrong.

Median estimates for India and China were given.

Go check for yourself

www.populationpyramid.com

As for your reasonings:
1. It is not only poverty that gives low fertility rates. It is also education, child-rearing expenses, women empowerment and independence.

Poverty gives HIGHER fertility rates, idiot. Atleast read before you respond and reveal your child-like lack of comprehension.

2. LOL. Firstly, there aren't any significant Islamic world countries that are rich or middle income

Islamic World itself is Middle-income as a whole with $11,000 gdp per capita on average. Just because you live in a sh!t hole doesn't mean that world hasn't moved past you

. And even among them, they are rich due to resources, mainly oil, not education. For example Saudi Arabia. They may be rich, but their folks are ultimately uneducated, skill-less people, where women are still caged for the standards of more (real) civilized world like the West, India, or China.

You slipped 'india' in the same leage as West and China?

india is more 'civilized' and developed than Islamic World??

Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Malaysia, UAE etc etc are all more developed, civilized, and richer places than sh!thole called india where majority of population doesn't even have toilets available to them. And no, all of these nations aren't oil nations. UAE for example has only 25% of its GDP coming from oil and gas sector. Turkey and Indonesia have shipping industries, car industries, electronics industries etc that surpass anything india has on per capita basis. Average productivity in these countries is much higher than in india.

Please..don't humiliate yourself.

There is nothing called an Islamic Civilization. There is either Persian, or Arabic, or Egyptian, or Indonesia, or Turkish Civilization.

Wrong again.

Just like there is a European civilization with its individual countries/cultures...similarly there is an Islamic Civilization with its individual countries and cultures.

As Bernard Lewis (one of the most influential historian of United States) puts it...There have been thousands of cultures/civilizations in human history---but only two have been global civilizations.

1- Islamic Civilization
2- Christendom (West)

Just because you belong to a small, regional, defeated, humiliated, and irrelevant civilization of india that was conquered, raped, and ruled over by superior global civilizations of Islam and West--it doesn't mean that you get to deny the reality.

Why do you think all the experts in the field, anchors, and even people say the word "Islamic World" and use it in academics? Yeah, because unlike you, they realize that Islamic World is a civilization of its own similar to "Western World"...even though individual countries and cultures do exist within the global fold of Islam and West.

You wouldn't hear "indian world, chinese world, buddhist world" etc---because those aren't global civilizations.

 

[BetterPakistan]

China population would be slightly over 1 billion in 2100. Anyone having common sense can go and check population pyramids to have idea about China population in 2100.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

A decline in population is one of the best thing that can happen to China as it will help to alleviate all the future problems faced by the rest of the world e.g. clean water, pollution, food supply, living standards, etc.

Only thing then is to be on guards and restricts all the USELESS MIGRANTS from the other overpopulated and lesser developed states esp. Africa and the South as face by Europe today.

 

[Mista]

All countries have to face a declining population in the distant future anyway, even India. It's just impossible to grow infinitely. At a 2% growth rate annually, a country's population will multiply by 50 times in 200 years.

With the advent of new technology and skills, quality is going to be more important than quantity as time goes by. Foxconn just replaced 60K workers with automation in China. It's increasingly difficult for poorer countries to catch up as automation replaces cheap labour.

2- Superior cultural traits and discipline (Sexual discipline, strong family structure, decent marriage rates, and so on---this is most visible in Islamic World where average income is $11,000 per capita (PPP) but healthy population growth still happening due to superior cultural traits and discipline).

Islamic Civilization has been the largest, most global, and one of most influential civilization of human history. Going forward, the gap between Islamic World and others will only increase as Islamic World is on path to have around 30% of total humanity living within its rule/borders.

No one else really considers the Islamic world to be a superior civilization. The reason why they have a higher TFR despite being more developed is simply because of oil. These countries got rich not because of higher education levels but rather because of natural resources. Just educate the population and you will see TFR dropping like all other countries.

TFR:

132

Qatar 2.0
145

Iran 1.8
167

Brunei 1.6

And these countries aren't even that educated.

The Islamic civilization aren't even united, you guys are killing each other just because of a slight deviation of the faith. The Confucian civilization is the largest in the world, while the Western civilization is the most global and influential.

 

[TeesraIndiotHunter]

No one else really considers the Islamic world to be a superior civilization.

I didn't say 'superior civilization'...

I said superior cultural traits in respect to fertility levels. Let me explain, since you definitely aren't very well versed or educated.

Traits like strict family values, premarital sexual discipline, higher marriage rates, and so on etc are directly correlated with healthy fertility rates.

Islamic World shows these cultural traits more than other peoples out there such as Europeans or Chinese etc.

Now, this alone doesn't make Islamic World "the best" because there are so many other variables (West is the best right now).

I was just talking about fertility rates and why some societies have better fertility rates than others.

Just educate the population and you will see TFR dropping like all other countries.

Muslims in America are more and better educated in secular institutions than 90% of the world's population.

Muslim fertility rate in United States: ~3 kids per woman (very healthy!).

Hell, even Palestinians have 90% literacy rate and they still have healthy fertility rates (Same goes for Israelis btw!).

The Islamic civilization aren't even united, you guys are killing each other just because of a slight deviation of the faith. The Confucian civilization is the largest in the world, while the Western civilization is the most global and influential.

Yes, Islamic Civilization isn't united and going through internal strife...but that doesn't take away the fact that Islamic Civilization IS a civilization of its own. Europeans fought like dogs for centuries, so did Chinese etc. You think just because of internal stife--a civilization ceases to be a civilization with its own distinct identity and culture?

And "Confucian Civilization"? LOL..what is that? Confucianism is no way a civilization of its own...albeit may be have lots of influence in China etc (that too is doubtful).

Islamic Civilization is the largest and most global civilization humanity has ever seen. It dominated the planet for around 1000+ years out of its 1400 years of existence (From 7th century to mid 17th century...Muslim Empires were the biggest economies and militaries of the world as a general trend. There were Mongols but they ended up converting to Islam itself and taking the rule of Islamic World even further). After 17th century, West took over.

Chinese or Indian civilizations---although very rich and prosperous--were never able to "expand" out of their immediate geographic constraints. While Islamic Civilization and Western Civilization were the only global civilizations that have maintained their presence and ruled over vast territories across multiple continents!

Western civilization is most influential/powerful right now. Agree.

 

[Sky lord]

The single greatest determinant of the number of children per family ( other than direct government involvement like in China) is the education level and autonomy given to women.

The less educated a woman, the more children she will have. College educated women have far fewer children than high school.

The only effect that culture has is if the culture gives women less control over their own lives, or educates them less than equivalents elsewhere, then expect higher fertility rates.

The greatest population growth is going to be in Africa. Unless governance in that continent improves, we are going to see a tsunami of African refugees pouring into every corner of the globe in the near future.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Will make world a better place. Anyway, fertility rate is going down in urban areas. In not so distant future, natural baby birth will be nothing short of miracle.

 

[beijingwalker]

The size of population matters less than the quality of the population. China works hard on improving the overall quality of the population, no brainer jobs can be left for foreign workers in the future, What China isn't lacking is numerous overpopulated neighbors.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

The size of population matters less than the quality of the population. China works hard on improving the overall quality of the population, no brainer jobs can be left for foreign workers in the future, What China isn't lacking is numerous overpopulated neighbors.

Both the size and quality matter. After certain quality, it is difficult to add more quality, and gets increasingly tougher. Ask Japan, or Korea.

Also, an ageing population, takes away vigor, dynamism, and creativity from the country. Again, ask Japan.

 

[beijingwalker]

Both the size and quality matter. After certain quality, it is difficult to add more quality, and gets increasingly tougher. Ask Japan, or Korea.

Also, an ageing population, takes away vigor, dynamism, and creativity from the country. Again, ask Japan.

Young people will get old, that's a vicious circle by adding more and more people to this planet. You have to fix it at some point.

 

[xunzi]

800-900mil is a perfect size. Lean and mean is what we need to strive.

 

[beijingwalker]

Robotic revolution is another alternative
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1dbd8c60-0cc6-11e6-ad80-67655613c2d6.html

 

[Mista]

I didn't say 'superior civilization'...

I said superior cultural traits in respect to fertility levels. Let me explain, since you definitely aren't very well versed or educated.

Traits like strict family values, premarital sexual discipline, higher marriage rates, and so on etc are directly correlated with healthy fertility rates.

Islamic World shows these cultural traits more than other peoples out there such as Europeans or Chinese etc.

Now, this alone doesn't make Islamic World "the best" because there are so many other variables (West is the best right now).

I was just talking about fertility rates and why some societies have better fertility rates than others.

Muslims in America are more and better educated in secular institutions than 90% of the world's population.

Muslim fertility rate in United States: ~3 kids per woman (very healthy!).

Yeah sure, saying I'm not educated just because I don't agree with you is certainly a 'superior cultural trait' of your civilization. I have just shown you those 'Islamic countries' are rich simply because of oil, and there examples of Islamic countries having TFR below 2.1.

Can I see the statistics that the average Muslims are at least educated as the average American and that they have higher TFR?

Yes, Islamic Civilization isn't united and going through internal strife...but that doesn't take away the fact that Islamic Civilization IS a civilization of its own. Europeans fought like dogs for centuries, so did Chinese etc. You think just because of internal stife--a civilization ceases to be a civilization with its own distinct identity and culture?

And "Confucian Civilization"? LOL..what is that? Confucianism is no way a civilization of its own...albeit may be have lots of influence in China etc (that too is doubtful).

The Arab world have been in strife for centuries. They can't even unite to take down a small Israel.

I'm talking about population size.

What does it mean to be an Islamic civilization anyway? Do they have the similar language, culture, or under the same political entity? Or do you simply judge base on religion? By the same standard, can I say Japan and Myanmar are in the same Buddhist civilization just because they share the same religion?

Islamic Civilization is the largest and most global civilization humanity has ever seen. It dominated the planet for around 1000+ years out of its 1400 years of existence (From 7th century to mid 17th century...Muslim Empires were the biggest economies and militaries of the world as a general trend. There were Mongols but they ended up converting to Islam itself and taking the rule of Islamic World even further). After 17th century, West took over.

I think I should just stop.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Young people will get old, that's a vicious circle by adding more and more people to this planet. You have to fix it at some point.

And old people will die. We are talking here about who are alive. And to replace the workforce of today, you need enough children for the work force of tomorrow, which is simply not happening.

800-900mil is a perfect size. Lean and mean is what we need to strive.

This is largely logic made up to fit what is happening. Do you think Japan is getting lean and mean? (China due to one-child policy will face even harsher climate compared to Japan)

Of the 700-800 million people, the ratio of aged will be pretty high, and the overall population will easily have a median age of above 40.

Not really lean or mean.

Robotic revolution is another alternative
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1dbd8c60-0cc6-11e6-ad80-67655613c2d6.html

Except that is not coming. Trust me, I work in this area to an extent, and robots are not even close to the capabilities of humans despite all the hype.

It take a specially programmed computer, which is HUGE, with a HUGE algorithm, fed with HUGE dataset to just make the computer recognize images, where it is getting increasingly better.

And this is just one task. The algorithm, and computer designed and optimized for image search doesn't do anything else.

The reality is that we simply do not understand the nature of intelligence and consciousness right now, so any machine would not be even close to the capability and versatility of humans anywhere soon enough.

Japan was also hoping that there will be a robotic revolution since 1990s, one of the biggest mistakes it ever made.