4 ms·

That's an interesting point. I just checked, and China is about 56% urbanized, whereas the United States sits above 80%. If we assume that China will reach the

That's an interesting point. I just checked, and China is about 56% urbanized, whereas the United States sits above 80%. If we assume that China will reach the same levels, that leaves another 250 million people yet to move to urban areas. Even with the aging population, then, it may be able to use those spaces. Otherwise, it may be able to take advantage of anti-immigrant sentiment in the developed world. That's what intrigued me about your point. China has started to invest in African infrastructure, so why not leverage that to supplement its population when the aging curse kicks in?

coldtea 10y ago
>China has started to invest in African infrastructure, so why not leverage that to supplement its population when the aging curse kicks in? Perhaps because the entity is not "China", a state, but China, a culture and a specific population with a shared history etc? So arbitrarily supplementing the population as a means to keep it going doesn't make sense?
- __derek__ 10y ago
  It seems that you're assuming that there is some Real Chinese Culture that has never evolved or integrated another population or culture. Maybe I've heard wrong, and there are in fact no substantial differences between Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong (let alone Xinjiang[1]). That seems incorrect, though. Edit: Anyway, it's besides the point: we were clearly talking about China the state (the same one that built those empty cities). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >It seems that you're assuming that there is some Real Chinese Culture that has never evolved or integrated another population or culture. I'm only recognizing that there is a Chinese culture that has been shaped by various forces (including population migration, trade, and even war and invasion) over long historical periods (keyword: long). Which doesn't translate to some "Since we had e.g. the Mongols in the 13th century, and they are now part of Chinese culture, it's no biggie to just get some hundreds of millions of people that don't share our culture to replace our aging population" -- any more than "Since we were subjects to the Queen before 1776 it's no biggie to subject ourselves to being a UK colony again". >Maybe I've heard wrong, and there are in fact no substantial differences between Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong That only matters if they are also more substantial than those between "Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong" to Berlin, Phoenix, Santiago, Accra or London. Otherwise, all, or almost all, countries have regional differences within the country's culture. Beijing and Shanghai are not more different than, say, New York and Savannah or New Orleans and the Quad Cities. As for Hong Kong that has been, for over a century, shaped from being a UK colony.

coldtea 10y ago

>China has started to invest in African infrastructure, so why not leverage that to supplement its population when the aging curse kicks in? Perhaps because the entity is not "China", a state, but China, a culture and a specific population with a shared history etc? So arbitrarily supplementing the population as a means to keep it going doesn't make sense?

__derek__ 10y ago
It seems that you're assuming that there is some Real Chinese Culture that has never evolved or integrated another population or culture. Maybe I've heard wrong, and there are in fact no substantial differences between Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong (let alone Xinjiang[1]). That seems incorrect, though. Edit: Anyway, it's besides the point: we were clearly talking about China the state (the same one that built those empty cities). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang
- coldtea 10y ago
  >It seems that you're assuming that there is some Real Chinese Culture that has never evolved or integrated another population or culture. I'm only recognizing that there is a Chinese culture that has been shaped by various forces (including population migration, trade, and even war and invasion) over long historical periods (keyword: long). Which doesn't translate to some "Since we had e.g. the Mongols in the 13th century, and they are now part of Chinese culture, it's no biggie to just get some hundreds of millions of people that don't share our culture to replace our aging population" -- any more than "Since we were subjects to the Queen before 1776 it's no biggie to subject ourselves to being a UK colony again". >Maybe I've heard wrong, and there are in fact no substantial differences between Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong That only matters if they are also more substantial than those between "Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong" to Berlin, Phoenix, Santiago, Accra or London. Otherwise, all, or almost all, countries have regional differences within the country's culture. Beijing and Shanghai are not more different than, say, New York and Savannah or New Orleans and the Quad Cities. As for Hong Kong that has been, for over a century, shaped from being a UK colony.