It Will Remain 200-million Population in China 100 Years Later.

[welcomeJason]

As some researches from official population statistics,chinese population will reduce to 0.2 billions one hundred years later supposed that people die when they are about 80-year old and only less 1 million as a small city 200 years later under the Family Planning policy. The main group Han will reduce to about 80 percent.
More importantly,the labor market will shrink to nearly 60 millions and the growth of economics would be maintained by the immigrant foreigners.

 

[tranquilium]

Yeah, these "research" is based on the assumption that political policy, environmental condition, technological progress all remains static which anyone with half a brain knows is not true. Heck, the revised policy for family planning has been out for a year already. Have these supposed "researchers" been living under a rock?

Look, please don't post stuff that assumes the readers are morons. Granted, there are people putting crap on the internet all the time, but that is their problem and there is no reason for you to recite them.

 

[The Huskar]

100 years from now,0.2 billion is a sufficient population given the advancement in robotics.Manual labour will be extinct by then given the world is not taken to the dark ages by a cataclysmic event.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Earth is too small to afford a population of 7 billion. For a sustainable future, population has to be around 2-3 billion in the next century or so.

 

[Hyperion]

One logical comment kills an absurd thread!

Yeah, these "research" is based on the assumption that political policy, environmental condition, technological progress all remains static which anyone with half a brain knows is not true.

 

[Hyperion]

Nah mate. This statement of yours, I don't agree with. With concurrent technological progress, we can easily sustain our growth rate.

Earth is too small to afford a population of 7 billion. For a sustainable future, population has to be around 2-3 billion in the next century or so.

 

[Aepsilons]

Nah mate. This statement of yours, I don't agree with. With concurrent technological progress, we can easily sustain our growth rate.

Correct, and who's to say that we would not have colonized distant plants in say 200 years.

Given, people in the 19th century would have never thought it possible the discoveries we've acquired in just the past 40 years.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Nah mate. This statement of yours, I don't agree with. With concurrent technological progress, we can easily sustain our growth rate.

Do you call this present form of living as sustainable?

 

[Aepsilons]

Do you call this present form of living as sustainable?

@Skull and Bones , from reading your view, which i am sympathetic to, leads me to believe you've read the works of Thomas Robert Malthus.

 

[Hyperion]

Well, for the rest of the world (minus Africa), I can sort of say, yes!

Tell me something, what was the population of the world, say 300 years ago, and what was the situation on malnutrition front.... I'm only looking at it from 'food-security' point of view....... minus anything else that maybe in your mind.

Do you call this present form of living as sustainable?

 

[ranjeet]

Earth is too small to afford a population of 7 billion. For a sustainable future, population has to be around 2-3 billion in the next century or so.

nukes? just do it !!!

 

[Aepsilons]

Well, for the rest of the world (minus Africa), I can sort of say, yes!

Tell me something, what was the population of the world, say 300 years ago, and what was the situation on malnutrition front.... I'm only looking at it from 'food-security' point of view....... minus anything else that maybe in your mind.

The sci-fi lover in me can't help but see the next foray of humanity is in space.

For one, the colonization of Mars is the first step in this galactic colonization program:

Mission - Mars One

 

[qamar1990]

Earth is too small to afford a population of 7 billion. For a sustainable future, population has to be around 2-3 billion in the next century or so.

not true….its not that simple… earth can sustain 7 billion even 8 billion quite easily..

 

[Aepsilons]

not true….its not that simple… earth can sustain 7 billion even 8 billion quite easily..

It would be a strain on the already depleting number non-renewable resources, as consumption increases. Solution is to reduce population strain, and or finding an alternative source of energy. The only viable option is colonization of the heavens.

 

[qamar1990]

It would be a strain on the already depleting number non-renewable resources, as consumption increases. Solution is to reduce population strain, and or finding an alternative source of energy. The only viable option is colonization of the heavens.

nope…. urbanization is the best solution…