4 ms·

GDP/productivity scaled with population PRE-INDUSTRIALIZATION. It's why China historically occupied greatest share of global GDP, it simply had greater proporti

GDP/productivity scaled with population PRE-INDUSTRIALIZATION. It's why China historically occupied greatest share of global GDP, it simply had greater proportion of global population. GDP then was also proportionally accounted by subsistent farming. Civilization was built on the little bits of surplus left over. Post-industrialization, capital has been gradually accumulating line share of productivity. It's how US accounted for 40% of global GDP with 6% of world population post-war. Post-automation, you simply do not need that much labour for large scale widget factories. Nor do you need that many farmers. There is now a curve where excess people becomes a drain. In China's case, even at the height of pre-automation manufacturing economy, the manufacturing sector accounted for 400M jobs. 300M work in agriculture, kept deliberately deindustrialized (until recently) specifically as a jobs program. Today, 600M subsist on less than 2000 USD per year. These are excess people. What do these numbers mean? World demand was/is literally not enough of uplift 1.4B Chinese out of poverty. That's simply too many people. The sooner China can settle at 800M (2100 estimate) the better. There's literally not enough resources in the world for China to consume much above middle income, let alone high income like the west. If everyone consumed like US we would need 5 earths. China is 1/5 of global population. Long term, One Child Policy was the better moral calculus despite social ramifications, i.e. demographic bomb, which TBF is blown out of proportion. It's better to be less populous and rich than the alternative. At minimum wealth allows you to import cheap surplus labour to take care of aging populations, which China should be able to arbitrage internally due to income disparity. Family Planning and crudely, millions dead under Mao worked in China's favour (well minus purging experts). The alternative is geometric population explosion to support successive generations. We know from overpopulation studies that this is fundamentally a self terminating system that will exceed carrying capacity of Earth.

betwixthewires 6y ago
It is impossible to exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. Let me explain why. Every human being alive is made up of biomass, which means that the meat that people are made up of was once animals and plants, also eating, also drinking water. So the idea that food and water shortages are caused by increase in human population is simply not possible. It is not possible for there to be more people than there are resources to create them in the first place. The only real difference is that human beings consume industrial goods and excess consumption caused by increase in standard of living (for example flushing toilets, something animals and plants do not do). But even considering these things, they're due to an increase in standard of living which can only come from an increase in production. In aggregate, humans cannot consume more than we can produce. So it follows that an increase in population that causes resource shortages can only lead to a reduction in living standards, and only down to the living standards of a subsistence agrarian society. Overconsumption of resources then is a self correcting problem. Now, suppose human beings could exceed the earth's carrying capacity, which I have just showed you is not possible. This would cause many human beings to die from starvation, as the decrease in living standards would take us below the standard of living of subsistence agriculture in this hypothetical scenario. Even in this extreme case, it is still a self correcting problem. There is no need to artificially correct it. Any and all problems that appear to stem from overpopulation are actually resource allocation problems, inefficiencies in resource distribution. The problem with China is not that the resources cannot be produced to support the population, the problem is that the resources are inefficiently distributed, in part because a centrally controlled economy cannot possibly distribute resources more efficiently than a distributed (or free market) economy, but that is a different discussion.
- imtringued 6y ago
  >Even in this extreme case, it is still a self correcting problem. There is no need to artificially correct it. You're forgetting the most extreme form of self correction... People killing each other in a coordinated fashion AKA war. The problem with your argument is that you consider wars to be an acceptable solution.
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    Well, first of all, I demonstrated how this extreme case is impossible, but let's address war. In such a world where there are too many people, we get suggestions such as instituting a one child policy, forced sterilization, outward extremists even discuss culling populations. What's the difference between that and war? The difference is, in war you have agency. War happens organically between people. An authoritarian solution takes agency away entirely. People are not free to be people, but you wind up with, best case scenario, the same result with regard to resource management. So yes, even in extreme circumstances where war is a response to resource shortages, it is still a preferable outcome to authoritarianism.
    - salawat 6y ago
      >It is impossible to exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. Let me explain why. >Well, first of all, I demonstrated how this extreme case is impossible, but let's address war. Did you happen to be an engineer working on the design or marketing of the Titanic in a past life? You sure sound like it. You also sound like you have not once ever grown a plant. You can go from perfectly green and healthy to dead in a week if you don't pay attention. A seed can flourish just fine, only to eventually die as the energy burden required for it to thrive is no longer met. If this happens before you go to seed, congratulations, your population of plants just went extinct due to breaching the carrying capacity of their environment. Try raising an orchid some time. I guarantee you'll learn something. One of the Vanilla ones in particular is best. Your arguments are naive and reek of "not my problem" type thinking. You may believe that carrying capacity is a a priori defined as "I'm here, therefore not exceeded" but it isn't. We're all hot-house flowers who are facing the possibility of the gardener (humanity collectively) just saying "screw it" and destroying our chances at continued success. And war... War'll happen, and calling that a systemic self-correction is both callous and wretched beyond all reason. Nevermind that no one tends to factor in environmental damage that occurs as a result of warfare.

betwixthewires 6y ago

It is impossible to exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. Let me explain why. Every human being alive is made up of biomass, which means that the meat that people are made up of was once animals and plants, also eating, also drinking water. So the idea that food and water shortages are caused by increase in human population is simply not possible. It is not possible for there to be more people than there are resources to create them in the first place. The only real difference is that human beings consume industrial goods and excess consumption caused by increase in standard of living (for example flushing toilets, something animals and plants do not do). But even considering these things, they're due to an increase in standard of living which can only come from an increase in production. In aggregate, humans cannot consume more than we can produce. So it follows that an increase in population that causes resource shortages can only lead to a reduction in living standards, and only down to the living standards of a subsistence agrarian society. Overconsumption of resources then is a self correcting problem. Now, suppose human beings could exceed the earth's carrying capacity, which I have just showed you is not possible. This would cause many human beings to die from starvation, as the decrease in living standards would take us below the standard of living of subsistence agriculture in this hypothetical scenario. Even in this extreme case, it is still a self correcting problem. There is no need to artificially correct it. Any and all problems that appear to stem from overpopulation are actually resource allocation problems, inefficiencies in resource distribution. The problem with China is not that the resources cannot be produced to support the population, the problem is that the resources are inefficiently distributed, in part because a centrally controlled economy cannot possibly distribute resources more efficiently than a distributed (or free market) economy, but that is a different discussion.

imtringued 6y ago
>Even in this extreme case, it is still a self correcting problem. There is no need to artificially correct it. You're forgetting the most extreme form of self correction... People killing each other in a coordinated fashion AKA war. The problem with your argument is that you consider wars to be an acceptable solution.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  Well, first of all, I demonstrated how this extreme case is impossible, but let's address war. In such a world where there are too many people, we get suggestions such as instituting a one child policy, forced sterilization, outward extremists even discuss culling populations. What's the difference between that and war? The difference is, in war you have agency. War happens organically between people. An authoritarian solution takes agency away entirely. People are not free to be people, but you wind up with, best case scenario, the same result with regard to resource management. So yes, even in extreme circumstances where war is a response to resource shortages, it is still a preferable outcome to authoritarianism.
  - salawat 6y ago
    >It is impossible to exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. Let me explain why. >Well, first of all, I demonstrated how this extreme case is impossible, but let's address war. Did you happen to be an engineer working on the design or marketing of the Titanic in a past life? You sure sound like it. You also sound like you have not once ever grown a plant. You can go from perfectly green and healthy to dead in a week if you don't pay attention. A seed can flourish just fine, only to eventually die as the energy burden required for it to thrive is no longer met. If this happens before you go to seed, congratulations, your population of plants just went extinct due to breaching the carrying capacity of their environment. Try raising an orchid some time. I guarantee you'll learn something. One of the Vanilla ones in particular is best. Your arguments are naive and reek of "not my problem" type thinking. You may believe that carrying capacity is a a priori defined as "I'm here, therefore not exceeded" but it isn't. We're all hot-house flowers who are facing the possibility of the gardener (humanity collectively) just saying "screw it" and destroying our chances at continued success. And war... War'll happen, and calling that a systemic self-correction is both callous and wretched beyond all reason. Nevermind that no one tends to factor in environmental damage that occurs as a result of warfare.