52 ms·

I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want

I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. Xi Jinping may be a rather dull person, but his most famous saying is “Lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets.” As for building roads — the Belt and Road Initiative speaks for itself. We’ve built bridges in Croatia, in Bangladesh, in Mozambique, and roads and railways all over the world. That slogan is probably engraved in every Chinese person’s memory.

uvaursi 1y ago
My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I ride a Mercedes, my son rides a Land Rover, and my grandson is going to ride a Land Rover…but my great-grandson is going to have to learn Mandarin.
- yanhangyhy 1y ago
  LOL. Probably no longer needed. China currently has no real solution for the low birth rate. I guess they are 99% relying on industrial robots and household robots(in the future).So China will desperately invest in the robotics sector. (The recently released 15th Five-Year Plan likely includes this). By then, language likely won’t be an issue—AI can replace everything.
  - uvaursi 1y ago
    Enlighten me - hasn’t Xi and the government recently demanded 2-3 children from each woman? I imagine they’ll push heavily for births again.
    - yanhangyhy 1y ago
      the government is trying to encourage more births through subsidies and other measures. In fact, experience from developed countries has already shown that this approach doesn’t work. Moreover, the subsidies the Chinese government provides are far lower than in developed countries and far below the actual cost of raising a child. The most common nationwide subsidy is 3,600 RMB per child per year, which is basically ineffective. For a woman on maternity leave, the government will subsidize her based on her salary, which can be substantial—in places like Shanghai it could reach 200,000–300,000 RMB—but still not enough to stimulate population growth. To put it in a darker perspective: the only way to truly boost birth rates would be to reduce women’s rights or compensation, which is unlikely in any civilized country. A historical example is Romania. So in my understanding, China has only two viable paths: solve the cost of raising children through household robots or by means of coercion, the government could require state-owned enterprise employees and Communist Party members to have children. China has 100 million Party members and roughly tens of millions of SOE employees. SOE employees usually have stable benefits and income, so childbirth could be tied to salary, benefits, or promotion opportunities. To some extent, this could be argued as reasonable—after all, they are supported by taxpayers and arguably should contribute to society. But it still counts as a rather dark idea, and I imagine it would be a last-resort option.
      - onethought 1y ago
        Immigration would be another option… but not sure how willing China is to adopt that
        yanhangyhy 1y ago
        I’ve actually thought a lot about this issue. My conclusion is that it’s not feasible. China has never been good at integrating other ethnicities and races. Even managing the 56 recognized ethnic groups within mainland China hasn’t gone very well; it has copied many mistakes from the Soviet Union, which has now led to a certain degree of backlash. So I’ve always felt that China’s ambition extends only to Taiwan, and Taiwan is the endpoint. After all, the people on Taiwan are Chinese too, sharing the same culture and ethnicity. Another point that people might overlook is that China’s approach to incorporating outsiders is based on cultural identity rather than racial identity, which is the opposite of the U.S. In the U.S., you can come in, bring your own culture, help reshape American culture, and still become an American. In China, you can only be considered Chinese if you adopt Chinese culture. Of course, sometimes we discuss online hypotheticals like whether it would be good for China to annex Mongolia or Myanmar. From a purely military perspective, it would be very easy for China. But almost no one supports it, because our way of thinking dictates that it would require an enormous cost to transform those populations into Chinese culture, and that cost is simply not worth it. Trade and cooperation are the best approach.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
andrewflnr 1y ago
I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.
- onethought 1y ago
  Imperialism? Expand.
  - z2 1y ago
    The most charitable interpretation I can think of, if OP didn't misuse the word, would be, the generic "China bad" narrative being applied to things like equating the Belt and Road (loans, infrastructure projects) to centuries of old-fashioned exploitation of Africa. After all, it takes one to know one.
    - AniseAbyss 1y ago
      To be fair China challenging white people rule is kinda bad if you are white. I suppose us Westerners can now kinda feel how the Ming must have felt in the 19th century?
    - lwansbrough 1y ago
      It’s not that hard to find examples. Chinese incursions in the south China sea and the development of artificial islands to project power and control over the region. Their plans for Taiwan. The annexation of Tibet. Xinjiang ethnic cleansing. Erosion of democratic freedoms in Hong Kong SAR. And yes the entire Belt and Road initiative which is basically loan sharking.
      - z2 1y ago
        No. That list shows coercive or authoritarian behavior, not classical imperialism. Imperialism means establishing colonies or directly ruling foreign territories for economic extraction. China today doesn’t occupy or govern other sovereign states. The South China Sea, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan are all disputes within--except Taiwan + the South China Sea--undisputed national boundaries.[1] Belt and Road loans, while allegedly predatory, are contractual and do not create colonial rule. So it’s perhaps aggressive nationalism and coercive influence, but not imperialism. 1. Yes, looking way back, the occupying Qing dynasty established said boundaries through quite a lot of imperialism about a century before the US got busy manifesting its destiny.*
devsda 1y ago
> a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Why call it propaganda though ? That doesn't sound like a biased, deceptive or misleading policy. It hasn't been thought through much which is universally common for some govt policies everywhere, but it results have been positive for the most part ?
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  > That doesn't sound like a biased, deceptive or misleading policy. Propaganda doesn't imply any of these things; it just implies a polemic.
- londons_explore 1y ago
  Not all propaganda is deceptive. The best propaganda is 100% true and still achieves it's goal.
  - devsda 1y ago
    So, the term is mainly used to convey an author's opinion on the subject of the topic and not necessarily related to the topic itself ?
  - steve_adams_86 1y ago
    Propaganda is deceptive or misleading by definition.
    - nextaccountic 1y ago
      You can deceive while telling the truth, like this ad from a Brazilian newspaper (dubbed in English) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShbxd42JN8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShbxd42JN8 Truth needs to be put in context. Truth needs to be interpreted. There is no such thing as objective truth. Effective propaganda is like a filter that is everywhere you look. You don't know it's there because you never see the world without it.
    - msl 1y ago
BurningFrog 1y ago
"Have fewer children" implies that people are a burden, which can be true in a dysfunctional society, like perhaps China under Mao. But in a well functioning system, more people get more things done and make society wealthier. The old idea was that the planet can only produce enough food for a certain number of people. But it turned out that people produce the food, not the planet!
- yanhangyhy 1y ago
  So most people believe it was a mistake. We were misled by some so-called experts at the time. Conspiracy theorists claim that many of those experts weren’t Han Chinese, since the one-child policy only applied to the Han population.
  - scoopertrooper 1y ago
    The policy last about 35 years and didn’t end till 2015. Even today there a limit on procreation as the cap was only increased to three children in 2021. At some point the CCP has to own its mistakes. The problem isn’t that China instituted the policy (although its use of forced abortions to enforce was… problematic), it’s that its system of government prevented open discussion, reflection, and self-correction.
    - yanhangyhy 1y ago
      at least on this topic, i agree with you
- goatlover 1y ago
  There's only so much food people can grow on planet Earth, so it remains true, even if the number varies depending on the means available for producing that food. So yeah we can grow more food than people thought decades ago, but the Earth and the energy available to it, along with arable land are still finite.
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
yndoendo 1y ago
Are low birth rates a problem? The job market keeps being published about lack of employment. Recent was this UK having a 1,200,000 plus college graduates and less than 100,000 job placements. The USA market is also bad with very limited economic mobility based on years past. Is the job market too restrictive with maximize profit over maximum knowledge transfer and upkeep? Not properly balancing older and newer labor. That is the reason for "low birth rate problem"? ML is being pushed to condense the labor market even more. Along with growth of larger and more powerful businesses. Number of businesses are pushing to be an oligopoly and more to a duopoly or monopoly. The current and future labor market with modern business ideology does not seem to match the statement _low birth rate problem_. The problem seems to be elsewhere.
- seizethecheese 1y ago
  The relationship between the job market and employment is not so straightforward as you presume. After all, fewer people means less demand for labor as much as it means more supply. In general a falling population is considered an economic risk.
- yanhangyhy 1y ago
  Based on my understanding, that’s still the case. I think the problems you mentioned are currently beyond what any government can handle, even one with extremely strong control like China. China is now facing both rising unemployment and a low birth rate. In the past, when China’s birth rate was higher, unemployment was not this high. The fundamental problem is not that there are too many people, but that the economy lacks vitality. Moreover, a declining birth rate will cause systems like pensions and healthcare—which rely on the next generation to support the previous one—to collapse.
- hollerith 1y ago
  >Is the job market too restrictive with maximize profit over maximum knowledge transfer and upkeep? Victor Shih (China scholar) says that employers in China mostly don't care about profit margins nor do the banks that lend to them.
  - 1y ago
shubhamjain 1y ago
> Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. They haven't, imo. I am from India, and I have been hearing for the last two decades how we have avoided same mistakes as China and the latter is headed for a demographic collapse. China is only marching forward, and focusing more on automation to hedge its bets. While overpopulation in India has choked almost every city in India. I honestly don't know what will happen as more people migrate from rural to urban areas. India's population will peak in 2065, while China's already has. It's depressing to imagine that 250-300M more people are left to be added before we finally see a decline. Just like 1970s claim "overpopulation will destroy the planet" turned out to be exaggerated, the modern idea that “a large population is a blessing” feels equally misguided.
- unglaublich 1y ago
  The nice thing about being a growing, underpopulated country, is that you're very attractive to immigrants. China can just fill the demographic gap with migration policies.
- GolfPopper 1y ago
  >Just like 1970s claim "overpopulation will destroy the planet" turned out to be exaggerated <looks at the world today> Seems to me like that prediction is pretty on track.
  - shubhamjain 1y ago
    Partially, yes! Population is #1 strain on resources. However, the political climate around 1970s was more like population would create large scale food shortages, famines, and without interventions, population would keep on growing forever. We at least now know that population peaks with prosperity, and food is largely a solved problem.
    - catmanjan 1y ago
      >food is largely a solved problem It really isn't...
iberator 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
selfmodruntime 1y ago
Not to glaze unelected uniparty governments, but this is what you can actually achieve if you don't have to focus on your new election the moment you enter office.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  This. Also, China has always taken the long view, and has, historically, leveraged experience. I’m no expert in their culture, and am rather worried about their influence, but I can’t but admire their incredible strategic vision. Also, as a retiree, I’m rather saddened by some of the discussions, here.
  - yanhangyhy 1y ago
    Maybe this topic is too hot. I originally just wanted to mention it in passing, since these are all slogans ingrained in our minds. Everyone's discussion is about groups, not individuals. It's about government policies. Just like in China, our generation basically doesn't expect to have a pension, nor to retire before 70. Our elderly enjoy life in the parks, benefit from free public transport and cheap tickets to attractions, while we work day after day, until we die. Any normal person would be dissatisfied.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      Well, one of the issues, is that younger folks look at retired older folks, and think “unproductive leech,” while ignoring wrecked hands, shattered spines, and cancers. I also know many veterans, and they provided a Service that I definitely benefit from, today. Also, speaking only for myself, I live off of investments and savings, created from 40 years of living frugally and sensibly. Every few months, I have to chase off people that try to steal those savings. It’s not surprising, but is annoying. There’s a huge industry, based completely around stealing money from older folks (usually ones without the means to defend themselves). Back when I was young, there was this rather silly movie, called Logan’s Run. Besides a brief flash of Jenny Agutter naked, it offered a vision of a culture that literally kills off anyone over 30. The interesting thing, was that the culture still had strategic vision, but that vision was supplied by a machine.
HexPhantom 1y ago
Wild how slogans from school can stick with us for life
matheusmoreira 1y ago
I'm envious of China's ability to define long term goals and execute them somewhat competently... In democracies politicians only care about reelection, and most people's voting patterns do not take long term strategy into account. Quite the opposite: short term profits and benefits are favored above all else.
- vbezhenar 1y ago
  That's why democracy is wrong path. Crowd is stupid and easy to manipulate. There should be hierarchy. 100 men should vote for one who will rule over them. 100 level one rulers should vote for one who will rule over 10 000 men. And so on. Imagine all Amazon workers to vote for Amazon CEO. It does not happen.
  - kakacik 1y ago
    Interesting idea. Trying to find an angle where it could all go wrong but it seems vastly better than crap we get now. More personal responsibility it seems. I would add that rotate those every 2 years maybe. But then there needs to be mechanism for some long term efforts to sustain velocity.
    - Bolwin 1y ago
      This just sounds like middle managent hell.
- yanhangyhy 1y ago
  China’s rare earth strategy was formulated roughly 40 years ago — this in itself is an advantage of a one-party system. Almost all nations that experienced rapid economic takeoff were built on one-party rule, strongman leadership, or authoritarian governance — such as South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Singapore... Taiwan had Chiang Ching-kuo, South Korea had Park Chung-hee, and Singapore had Lee Kuan Yew. At least in Asia, this pattern seems to hold true.
  - tw1984 1y ago
dzonga 1y ago
why would you say xi jinping is dull ? I thought his works on xi jinping thought are enlightened, someone who is pragmatic. btw i'm not chinese so I read these things in english.
- yanhangyhy 1y ago
  Compare to jiang. jiang is more open and funny. We like to make fun of him before.
wslh 1y ago
In Midas World, The Servant of the People, by Frederik Pohl [1] robots gain voting rights and outnumber humans in elections. Also, in the context of this thread there is a famous quote by Pohl: "Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World [2] https://pit.begghilos2.net/Sayings/Laws-Other.html https://pit.begghilos2.net/Sayings/Laws-Other.html
throw0101c 1y ago
> “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Having fewer children followed "naturally" as child mortality dropped and women's education and workforce participation rose. You can quite clearly see China's birth rate dropping before the one-child policy was enacted: * https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/will-the-end-of-chinas-one-child-policy-shift-its-boy-girl-ratio/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/will-the-... * https://populationmatters.org/news/2021/06/chinas-changing-child-policy-what-does-it-mean/ https://populationmatters.org/news/2021/06/chinas-changing-c... Even India, which has also been growing in prosperity, has seen a declining fertility rate without a heavy handed government policy: * https://archive.is/https://www.economist.com/china/2015/07/11/tales-of-the-unexpected https://archive.is/https://www.economist.com/china/2015/07/1...
Fade_Dance 1y ago
>If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees That's funny, because the supposedly widely repeated quote that I heard in the past that stuck with me is the exact opposite message on demographics: "We have a saying in China to describe this situation –“Wei Fu Xian Lao” that we will get old before we get rich."

uvaursi 1y ago

My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I ride a Mercedes, my son rides a Land Rover, and my grandson is going to ride a Land Rover…but my great-grandson is going to have to learn Mandarin.

yanhangyhy 1y ago
LOL. Probably no longer needed. China currently has no real solution for the low birth rate. I guess they are 99% relying on industrial robots and household robots(in the future).So China will desperately invest in the robotics sector. (The recently released 15th Five-Year Plan likely includes this). By then, language likely won’t be an issue—AI can replace everything.
- uvaursi 1y ago
  Enlighten me - hasn’t Xi and the government recently demanded 2-3 children from each woman? I imagine they’ll push heavily for births again.
  - yanhangyhy 1y ago
    the government is trying to encourage more births through subsidies and other measures. In fact, experience from developed countries has already shown that this approach doesn’t work. Moreover, the subsidies the Chinese government provides are far lower than in developed countries and far below the actual cost of raising a child. The most common nationwide subsidy is 3,600 RMB per child per year, which is basically ineffective. For a woman on maternity leave, the government will subsidize her based on her salary, which can be substantial—in places like Shanghai it could reach 200,000–300,000 RMB—but still not enough to stimulate population growth. To put it in a darker perspective: the only way to truly boost birth rates would be to reduce women’s rights or compensation, which is unlikely in any civilized country. A historical example is Romania. So in my understanding, China has only two viable paths: solve the cost of raising children through household robots or by means of coercion, the government could require state-owned enterprise employees and Communist Party members to have children. China has 100 million Party members and roughly tens of millions of SOE employees. SOE employees usually have stable benefits and income, so childbirth could be tied to salary, benefits, or promotion opportunities. To some extent, this could be argued as reasonable—after all, they are supported by taxpayers and arguably should contribute to society. But it still counts as a rather dark idea, and I imagine it would be a last-resort option.
    - onethought 1y ago
      Immigration would be another option… but not sure how willing China is to adopt that
      - yanhangyhy 1y ago
        I’ve actually thought a lot about this issue. My conclusion is that it’s not feasible. China has never been good at integrating other ethnicities and races. Even managing the 56 recognized ethnic groups within mainland China hasn’t gone very well; it has copied many mistakes from the Soviet Union, which has now led to a certain degree of backlash. So I’ve always felt that China’s ambition extends only to Taiwan, and Taiwan is the endpoint. After all, the people on Taiwan are Chinese too, sharing the same culture and ethnicity. Another point that people might overlook is that China’s approach to incorporating outsiders is based on cultural identity rather than racial identity, which is the opposite of the U.S. In the U.S., you can come in, bring your own culture, help reshape American culture, and still become an American. In China, you can only be considered Chinese if you adopt Chinese culture. Of course, sometimes we discuss online hypotheticals like whether it would be good for China to annex Mongolia or Myanmar. From a purely military perspective, it would be very easy for China. But almost no one supports it, because our way of thinking dictates that it would require an enormous cost to transform those populations into Chinese culture, and that cost is simply not worth it. Trade and cooperation are the best approach.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

andrewflnr 1y ago

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

onethought 1y ago
Imperialism? Expand.
- z2 1y ago
  The most charitable interpretation I can think of, if OP didn't misuse the word, would be, the generic "China bad" narrative being applied to things like equating the Belt and Road (loans, infrastructure projects) to centuries of old-fashioned exploitation of Africa. After all, it takes one to know one.
  - AniseAbyss 1y ago
    To be fair China challenging white people rule is kinda bad if you are white. I suppose us Westerners can now kinda feel how the Ming must have felt in the 19th century?
  - lwansbrough 1y ago
    It’s not that hard to find examples. Chinese incursions in the south China sea and the development of artificial islands to project power and control over the region. Their plans for Taiwan. The annexation of Tibet. Xinjiang ethnic cleansing. Erosion of democratic freedoms in Hong Kong SAR. And yes the entire Belt and Road initiative which is basically loan sharking.
    - z2 1y ago
      No. That list shows coercive or authoritarian behavior, not classical imperialism. Imperialism means establishing colonies or directly ruling foreign territories for economic extraction. China today doesn’t occupy or govern other sovereign states. The South China Sea, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan are all disputes within--except Taiwan + the South China Sea--undisputed national boundaries.[1] Belt and Road loans, while allegedly predatory, are contractual and do not create colonial rule. So it’s perhaps aggressive nationalism and coercive influence, but not imperialism. 1. Yes, looking way back, the occupying Qing dynasty established said boundaries through quite a lot of imperialism about a century before the US got busy manifesting its destiny.*

devsda 1y ago

> a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Why call it propaganda though ? That doesn't sound like a biased, deceptive or misleading policy. It hasn't been thought through much which is universally common for some govt policies everywhere, but it results have been positive for the most part ?

MangoToupe 1y ago
> That doesn't sound like a biased, deceptive or misleading policy. Propaganda doesn't imply any of these things; it just implies a polemic.
londons_explore 1y ago
Not all propaganda is deceptive. The best propaganda is 100% true and still achieves it's goal.
- devsda 1y ago
  So, the term is mainly used to convey an author's opinion on the subject of the topic and not necessarily related to the topic itself ?
- steve_adams_86 1y ago
  Propaganda is deceptive or misleading by definition.
  - nextaccountic 1y ago
    You can deceive while telling the truth, like this ad from a Brazilian newspaper (dubbed in English) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShbxd42JN8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShbxd42JN8 Truth needs to be put in context. Truth needs to be interpreted. There is no such thing as objective truth. Effective propaganda is like a filter that is everywhere you look. You don't know it's there because you never see the world without it.
  - msl 1y ago

BurningFrog 1y ago

"Have fewer children" implies that people are a burden, which can be true in a dysfunctional society, like perhaps China under Mao. But in a well functioning system, more people get more things done and make society wealthier. The old idea was that the planet can only produce enough food for a certain number of people. But it turned out that people produce the food, not the planet!

yanhangyhy 1y ago
So most people believe it was a mistake. We were misled by some so-called experts at the time. Conspiracy theorists claim that many of those experts weren’t Han Chinese, since the one-child policy only applied to the Han population.
- scoopertrooper 1y ago
  The policy last about 35 years and didn’t end till 2015. Even today there a limit on procreation as the cap was only increased to three children in 2021. At some point the CCP has to own its mistakes. The problem isn’t that China instituted the policy (although its use of forced abortions to enforce was… problematic), it’s that its system of government prevented open discussion, reflection, and self-correction.
  - yanhangyhy 1y ago
    at least on this topic, i agree with you
goatlover 1y ago
There's only so much food people can grow on planet Earth, so it remains true, even if the number varies depending on the means available for producing that food. So yeah we can grow more food than people thought decades ago, but the Earth and the energy available to it, along with arable land are still finite.
- BurningFrog 1y ago

yndoendo 1y ago

Are low birth rates a problem? The job market keeps being published about lack of employment. Recent was this UK having a 1,200,000 plus college graduates and less than 100,000 job placements. The USA market is also bad with very limited economic mobility based on years past. Is the job market too restrictive with maximize profit over maximum knowledge transfer and upkeep? Not properly balancing older and newer labor. That is the reason for "low birth rate problem"? ML is being pushed to condense the labor market even more. Along with growth of larger and more powerful businesses. Number of businesses are pushing to be an oligopoly and more to a duopoly or monopoly. The current and future labor market with modern business ideology does not seem to match the statement _low birth rate problem_. The problem seems to be elsewhere.

seizethecheese 1y ago
The relationship between the job market and employment is not so straightforward as you presume. After all, fewer people means less demand for labor as much as it means more supply. In general a falling population is considered an economic risk.
yanhangyhy 1y ago
Based on my understanding, that’s still the case. I think the problems you mentioned are currently beyond what any government can handle, even one with extremely strong control like China. China is now facing both rising unemployment and a low birth rate. In the past, when China’s birth rate was higher, unemployment was not this high. The fundamental problem is not that there are too many people, but that the economy lacks vitality. Moreover, a declining birth rate will cause systems like pensions and healthcare—which rely on the next generation to support the previous one—to collapse.
hollerith 1y ago
>Is the job market too restrictive with maximize profit over maximum knowledge transfer and upkeep? Victor Shih (China scholar) says that employers in China mostly don't care about profit margins nor do the banks that lend to them.
- 1y ago

shubhamjain 1y ago

> Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. They haven't, imo. I am from India, and I have been hearing for the last two decades how we have avoided same mistakes as China and the latter is headed for a demographic collapse. China is only marching forward, and focusing more on automation to hedge its bets. While overpopulation in India has choked almost every city in India. I honestly don't know what will happen as more people migrate from rural to urban areas. India's population will peak in 2065, while China's already has. It's depressing to imagine that 250-300M more people are left to be added before we finally see a decline. Just like 1970s claim "overpopulation will destroy the planet" turned out to be exaggerated, the modern idea that “a large population is a blessing” feels equally misguided.

unglaublich 1y ago
The nice thing about being a growing, underpopulated country, is that you're very attractive to immigrants. China can just fill the demographic gap with migration policies.
GolfPopper 1y ago
>Just like 1970s claim "overpopulation will destroy the planet" turned out to be exaggerated <looks at the world today> Seems to me like that prediction is pretty on track.
- shubhamjain 1y ago
  Partially, yes! Population is #1 strain on resources. However, the political climate around 1970s was more like population would create large scale food shortages, famines, and without interventions, population would keep on growing forever. We at least now know that population peaks with prosperity, and food is largely a solved problem.
  - catmanjan 1y ago
    >food is largely a solved problem It really isn't...

iberator 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

selfmodruntime 1y ago

Not to glaze unelected uniparty governments, but this is what you can actually achieve if you don't have to focus on your new election the moment you enter office.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
This. Also, China has always taken the long view, and has, historically, leveraged experience. I’m no expert in their culture, and am rather worried about their influence, but I can’t but admire their incredible strategic vision. Also, as a retiree, I’m rather saddened by some of the discussions, here.
- yanhangyhy 1y ago
  Maybe this topic is too hot. I originally just wanted to mention it in passing, since these are all slogans ingrained in our minds. Everyone's discussion is about groups, not individuals. It's about government policies. Just like in China, our generation basically doesn't expect to have a pension, nor to retire before 70. Our elderly enjoy life in the parks, benefit from free public transport and cheap tickets to attractions, while we work day after day, until we die. Any normal person would be dissatisfied.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    Well, one of the issues, is that younger folks look at retired older folks, and think “unproductive leech,” while ignoring wrecked hands, shattered spines, and cancers. I also know many veterans, and they provided a Service that I definitely benefit from, today. Also, speaking only for myself, I live off of investments and savings, created from 40 years of living frugally and sensibly. Every few months, I have to chase off people that try to steal those savings. It’s not surprising, but is annoying. There’s a huge industry, based completely around stealing money from older folks (usually ones without the means to defend themselves). Back when I was young, there was this rather silly movie, called Logan’s Run. Besides a brief flash of Jenny Agutter naked, it offered a vision of a culture that literally kills off anyone over 30. The interesting thing, was that the culture still had strategic vision, but that vision was supplied by a machine.

HexPhantom 1y ago

Wild how slogans from school can stick with us for life

matheusmoreira 1y ago

I'm envious of China's ability to define long term goals and execute them somewhat competently... In democracies politicians only care about reelection, and most people's voting patterns do not take long term strategy into account. Quite the opposite: short term profits and benefits are favored above all else.

vbezhenar 1y ago
That's why democracy is wrong path. Crowd is stupid and easy to manipulate. There should be hierarchy. 100 men should vote for one who will rule over them. 100 level one rulers should vote for one who will rule over 10 000 men. And so on. Imagine all Amazon workers to vote for Amazon CEO. It does not happen.
- kakacik 1y ago
  Interesting idea. Trying to find an angle where it could all go wrong but it seems vastly better than crap we get now. More personal responsibility it seems. I would add that rotate those every 2 years maybe. But then there needs to be mechanism for some long term efforts to sustain velocity.
  - Bolwin 1y ago
    This just sounds like middle managent hell.
yanhangyhy 1y ago
China’s rare earth strategy was formulated roughly 40 years ago — this in itself is an advantage of a one-party system. Almost all nations that experienced rapid economic takeoff were built on one-party rule, strongman leadership, or authoritarian governance — such as South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Singapore... Taiwan had Chiang Ching-kuo, South Korea had Park Chung-hee, and Singapore had Lee Kuan Yew. At least in Asia, this pattern seems to hold true.
- tw1984 1y ago

dzonga 1y ago

why would you say xi jinping is dull ? I thought his works on xi jinping thought are enlightened, someone who is pragmatic. btw i'm not chinese so I read these things in english.

yanhangyhy 1y ago
Compare to jiang. jiang is more open and funny. We like to make fun of him before.

wslh 1y ago

In Midas World, The Servant of the People, by Frederik Pohl [1] robots gain voting rights and outnumber humans in elections. Also, in the context of this thread there is a famous quote by Pohl: "Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World [2] https://pit.begghilos2.net/Sayings/Laws-Other.html https://pit.begghilos2.net/Sayings/Laws-Other.html

throw0101c 1y ago

> “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Having fewer children followed "naturally" as child mortality dropped and women's education and workforce participation rose. You can quite clearly see China's birth rate dropping before the one-child policy was enacted: * https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/will-the-end-of-chinas-one-child-policy-shift-its-boy-girl-ratio/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/will-the-... * https://populationmatters.org/news/2021/06/chinas-changing-child-policy-what-does-it-mean/ https://populationmatters.org/news/2021/06/chinas-changing-c... Even India, which has also been growing in prosperity, has seen a declining fertility rate without a heavy handed government policy: * https://archive.is/https://www.economist.com/china/2015/07/11/tales-of-the-unexpected https://archive.is/https://www.economist.com/china/2015/07/1...

Fade_Dance 1y ago

>If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees That's funny, because the supposedly widely repeated quote that I heard in the past that stuck with me is the exact opposite message on demographics: "We have a saying in China to describe this situation –“Wei Fu Xian Lao” that we will get old before we get rich."