Large population decline expected in China and India

[Kailash Kumar]

Large Population Decline Expected in China and India

Katharina Buchholz

Aug 13, 2020

While experts have long agreed that the world has already set the course for a future population decline, there has been disagreement about just how fast and where exactly the number of people on this Earth will shrink.

Medical journal The Lancet recently published research by the University of Washington suggesting that population decline could be more rapid than previously thought, especially in the world’s most populous nations China and India. The researchers assume that world population will peak already just after the middle of the century, earlier than projected by the U.N. Population Division. They pointed out that models of populations growth have proven to be very stable while those dealing with population decline were much less reliable.

In their base scenario, researchers assumed growing access to education and contraception for women would catapult Indian and Chinese fertility below replacement levels quickly, leading to population levels of just 1.1 billion and 731 million people in India and China in 2100, respectively. The researchers did not see the same factors at play in most African nations, where population growth would continue to 2100 and beyond, according to the model. This would make Nigeria the second-largest nation on Earth ahead of China by 2094.

The U.S. would remain the fourth-largest nation in 2100, despite below-replacement levels of fertility. Here – similar to the situation in Canada and Australia – positive net migration would keep population levels semi-stable. Also by 2100, current growth nations Indonesia and Pakistan would have entered a slight population decline per the model, with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia overtaking them in size around the turn of the new century.

https://www.statista.com/chart/22564/change-in-population-by-country/

 

[dani191]

people stop having children the progress did worng to the human natural to get children

 

[dani191]

in china make a huge mistake with the 1 children policy

 

[Figaro]

This model sounds like complete BS to me ... the UN one is much more realistic.

 

[vi-va]

in china make a huge mistake with the 1 children policy

there was no 1 child policy. To be accurate, only Han ethnic urban Chinese has this recommendation. If you break the rule, a penalty. My family break the rule because of me, not a big deal, several Chinese Yuan penalty every month for quite a few years.

 

[Salahuddin Ayyubi]

people stop having children the progress did worng to the human natural to get children

In English please [emoji120][emoji23][emoji23]

Yeh Meera waali angrezi se behtar hai Urdu mey hi type Kar lo mate.

 

[dani191]

there was no 1 child policy. To be accurate, only Han ethnic urban Chinese has this recommendation. If you break the rule, a penalty. My family break the rule because of me, not a big deal, several Chinese Yuan penalty every month for quite a few years.

its was mistake goverment cant tell the people how many children to have

 

[Indos]

Nigeria is like that because the Muslim and Christian are in competition, they are 50:50 now and each side want to be the majority, it is why IMO they see having more children is like Jihad by either Muslim and Christian.

To avoid that huge population to happen, Nigeria should be split, Muslim and Christian should have their own country.

 

[flameboard]

Nigeria stepping up

 

[Agha Sher]

Nigeria is like that because the Muslim and Christian are in competition, they are 50:50 now and each side want to be the majority, it is why IMO they see having more children is like Jihad by either Muslim and Christian.

To avoid that huge population to happen, Nigeria should be split, Muslim and Christian should have their own country.

That is not at all the reason, my friend. The religious co-existence is actually working remarkably well in Nigeria (the environment taken into consideration). Like many other African countries, Nigeria has a booming young population with a high fertility rate.

 

[Mista]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/worlds-population-likely-to-shrink-after-50-years.676163/

 

[Mista]

This model sounds like complete BS to me ... the UN one is much more realistic.
View attachment 660858

You're going by 'feeling' and not by logic. You didn't rebut me in the other thread btw.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/worl...nk-after-50-years.676163/page-2#post-12611907

The UN one is the one which looks BS to me. Have you seen the assumption they made for China?

人口预测的关键假设是对未来的总和生育率的设定。根据联合国中预测方案，中国2010~2015年的总和生育率被假设为1.55，2015~2020年为1.59，2020~2030年为1.66，2045~2050年为1.74，2095~2100年为1.81。

　　李建新、王广州认为，这组数据明显高于中国的实际生育率水平。易富贤、黄文政则认为即使强力鼓励生育也不可能将生育率提升到如此之高。

　　那么中国现在的生育水平到底是多少呢？根据国家统计局的数据，中国在2010、2011、2012、2013年的总和生育率分别为1.18、1.04、1.26、1.24。

　　黄文政分析，联合国在2010年报告中对2010~2015年中国生育率的低、中、高预测值分别为1.31、1.56、1.81，即使是其低预测值1.31，也比国家统计局2010~2013年数据最高值的1.26还要高。

https://www.yicai.com/news/5035388.html

The UN assumes that China's TFR will keep on rising all the way till 2100 with a TFR of 1.8. That looks BS to me; the pressure for TFR should be downwards as China continues to urbanize and woman get more educated, and stabilize around other developed East Asian countries' TFR level.

The assumption by the UN is also significantly higher from the previous recorded TFR of 1.05 in 2015 by the National Bureau of Statistic in China. Current estimates of TFR put it at ~1.2 after OCP is relaxed in 2016, but the number of births continue to fall in the second and third year of relaxation.

It is not rising as assumed by the UN.

On the other hand the assumption in The Lancet is more realistic, with TFR assumption at 1.42-1.47 for the rest of century. Heck, even that might be a bit optimistic, considering other current ethnic Chinese society (SG/HK/TW) have a TFR of around 1.2.

China's TFR was forecasted to decline moderately to 1·42 (1·04–2·04) around 2030, increasing slowly afterwards to 1·47 (0·96–2·55) by 2100.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext

 

[Figaro]

You're going by 'feeling' and not by logic. You didn't rebut me in the other thread btw.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/worl...nk-after-50-years.676163/page-2#post-12611907

The UN one is the one which looks BS to me. Have you seen the assumption they made for China?


https://www.yicai.com/news/5035388.html

The UN assumes that China's TFR will keep on rising all the way till 2100 with a TFR of 1.8. That looks BS to me; the pressure for TFR should be downwards as China continues to urbanize and woman get more educated, and stabilize around other developed East Asian countries' TFR level.

The assumption by the UN is also significantly higher from the previous recorded TFR of 1.05 in 2015 by the National Bureau of Statistic in China. Current estimates of TFR put it at ~1.2 after OCP is relaxed in 2016, but the number of births continue to fall in the second and third year of relaxation.

It is not rising as assumed by the UN.

On the other hand the assumption in The Lancet is more realistic, with TFR assumption at 1.42-1.47 for the rest of century. Heck, even that might be a bit optimistic, considering other current ethnic Chinese society (SG/HK/TW) have a TFR of around 1.2.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext

View attachment 660869

I wasn't just talking about China, although its population decline is very severe (over 50%). More surprising is the decline of the Indian population whose drop from 1.65 billion to 1.093 billion (over 550 million!) sounds very far fetched IMO. Just because it is from the Lancet does not make the study automatically credible ... please use your logic and explain to me why India's population will undergo an implosion similar to that of China under the UN study? Just does not make any sense to me.

 

[Mista]

I wasn't just talking about China, although its population decline is very severe (over 50%). More surprising is the decline of the Indian population whose drop from 1.65 billion to 1.093 billion (over 550 million!) sounds very far fetched IMO. Just because it is from the Lancet does not make the study automatically credible ... please use your logic and explain to me why India's population will undergo an implosion similar to that of China under the UN study? Just does not make any sense to me.

Look at the reply in the other thread, I have already crunched the numbers for you.

India's TFR is already at replacement levels today and will very likely continue to decline as she develops. India's population will probably decline in a generation's time, and there's still 80 more years which is around 3 generations.

But I agree that their estimates for India may be a bit too pessimistic; they assume India's TFR will fall till 1.29 in 2100. I don't know about that since there are no developed South Asian countries so far to take reference from, but TFR of ethnic Indians in developed Singapore are indeed low at 1.0.

More surprising is the decline of the Indian population whose drop from 1.65 billion to 1.093 billion (over 550 million!) sounds very far fetched IMO.

Losing 1/3 of the population in 3 generations isn't far fetched at all. Do you know how TFR works?