6 ms·

A staggering migration – 250M people into Chinese cities in 12-15 years [video]

63 points by jaysonelliot 13y ago

milfot 13y ago
http://johnquiggin.com/2013/06/16/urbanization-in-china/ http://johnquiggin.com/2013/06/16/urbanization-in-china/ clarification by a guy who does numbers for a living..
leke 13y ago
We can kiss the global environment goodbye now. Why are we even trying to save it?
- raldi 13y ago
  Are you kidding me? Cities are far more eco-friendly than the same number of people living in the countryside.
  - icegreentea 13y ago
    Cities -can- be more environmentally friendly than the equivalent population living in a more rural setting -IF- you're comparing roughly equivalent standards of living. And there lies the rub. A) It is entirely possible that China will screw up something in their planning resulting in poorer environmental outcomes. B) This demographic shift will almost certainly come matched with an economic uplifting, and regardless of efficiencies of scale and density (which is what a city gives you), the increase in standard of living (and therefore energy and other related 'products') can result in increased environmental damage. It really comes down to a question of execution.
    - raldi 13y ago
      For starters, what are these people currently burning to keep warm and cook their food? And how will that change if they become middle-class city-dwellers?
      - austinz 13y ago
        It depends. Coal, charcoal, wood. The house where my father grew up vented smoke/exhaust from the fires in the kitchen under a hard clay bed built into the house to keep the family warm in the winter. You can see the effect of years of exposure to soot on the faces of people who live in rural China (and, I daresay, anyone who lives in similar circumstances). These people are not living particularly environmentally clean lives right now (although, to be fair, they probably do consume far fewer manufactured goods than their city-dwelling brethren). Something of interest is the prevalence of solar water heaters, both in urban and rural areas. They are surprisingly common, much better than heating water using fire or electricity, and affordable even to those outside the cities.
- gotrythis 13y ago
  That video doesn't tell us much, but I think this could be an incredible opportunity to rethink what cities are. If they're making them all anyway, why not create them sustainable? It's a bunch of farmers, so give them plots of land to feed themselves with. Make self-sufficient earthships instead of houses that require utilities. Sadly, the video says this is meant to increase the economy, get them buying more stuff. I imagine that there will be a very efficient system for shipping all these people into massive factories to make plastic crap, so that all these newly converted consumers can buy more plastic crap, 98% of which ends up in landfills within 2 years, which I suppose is what they'll be using their old farmland for! lol. I agree with leke.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Education of girls and urbanization are the most effective ways to slow the birth rate. Without doing that, environmental preservation is not going to be possible.
  - rdl 13y ago
    China doesn't have a huge problem with birth rate now. It just has a huge population.
    - yareally 13y ago
      Yep, I believe India is going to overtake China in Population in another 15-20 years.
    - leoc 13y ago
      In fact it has the other kind of birth-rate problem, a looming demographic crunch due in large part to the one-child policy. And of course a mysteeerious gender imbalance to go with it.
  - userulluipeste 13y ago
    Yes, urbanization seems to be especially important since it urban population is subjected to more restrictive rules regarding family planning.
- robryan 13y ago
  You are suggesting that people in China must be afforded a much lower average carbon footprint than somewhere like America or Australia?
ohazi 13y ago
If the Chinese government can pull this off effectively, without doing anything too stupid (splitting up families, letting people starve to death, destroying their inner city economies), then I would see this as a good thing. The most efficient farming and food-production systems today produce a unit of food using far fewer resources (people, labor, energy, etc) than were required in previous decades. The people who continue to live in rural areas should focus on farming efficiently for large populations rather than for subsistence. If you can move the subsistence farmers into cities, and if (this is a big "if") they can work and earn a decent wage without obliterating the current economy, then they will more than likely be better off personally, and will consume fewer resources globally. I happen to think that this is a very difficult thing to do, and that their timeline is probably way too optimistic, but I don't think China should be criticized for trying. They stand to gain tremendously if they can pull it off.
- austinz 13y ago
  I'm glad to see someone with this point of view. A lot of people don't seem to realize that there is a huge difference between the idealized American farmer and the lives of real peasants living in rural China. It's extremely difficult to run roads, electricity, and water to all these villages, or to provide them with modern schools and clinics (and corresponding staff) necessary to implement social welfare that extends beyond the cities.
  - reeses 13y ago
    A tour of some of the planned urban areas of China (Chengdu, mentioned in the article, is a fine example, plus pandas!) along with some of the smaller villages makes it very clear that the 'average' Chinese farmer is far worse off than one might expect. I'm not really sure I have an example for the contemporary United States that even comes close. I suspect you'd have to change the definition of 'farmer'. Perhaps a family living in a dilapidated trailer, unemployed, growing cheap, starchy foods in what little land they can rent, in an area with poor or nonexistent utilities, would be a more accurate comparison. Comparing a planned city such as Chengdu with a similar effort elsewhere, say in India, is another surprise. Ahmedabad is a pretty good example. I have come to the conclusion that communism is an impediment to human excellence.[1] However, seeing the extreme levels of poverty that the central government is trying to resolve, and has resolved to a certain degree, I can understand the difference in prioritization. There was a link to a book on cooltools years ago http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/461 http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/461 that I just noticed was available on the Kindle. Poverty is so outside the understanding of most of us that it's not just about not having nice things. Poverty in the developing world and in the undeveloped world is so much worse that it's almost as if an impartial, uninformed observer would wonder if we are the same species, and I don't base that on skin color, eye shape, gender, etc. [1] I don't care if you disagree on this point. I grant you a perpetual, irrevocable, license to do so.
dcc1 13y ago
You are all missing the point, China is in a construction boom, construction is the best way to achieve double digit GDP growth, construction and sale of apartments and houses also lines the pockets of the Party But of course all of the comments so far have been about the environment, the Chinese do not give 2 shits about pollution and sustainability, the motive is clear KEEP THE PARTY IN CONTROL AT ALL COSTS
- Volpe 13y ago
  Oh I'm glad there is now a spokemen for "The Chinese People". Didn't realise you had a single voice, who frequented HN. In all seriousness, some tips: - Stop being racist - go and learn a little bit about Chinese political landscape, and modern history - Reduce your ignorance. The Chinese (government) care greatly about the environment and the people, and that is why they have year-on-year improved hundreds of millions of lives in both health and wealth for the past 60 years. Yes, they are a 1 party communist political system... but so what, judge by action, not ideology.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Don't mind Volpe, he calls everyone who talks about China a racist. Its his way of being friendly on hackernews. Parent is wrong though, the CCP most definitely cares about the environment; it has gotten so bad that they are in crisis mode right now. Xi just made a speech about it this weekend, the gov is taking it very seriously and people do care, especially here in Beijing. Corruption, economy, and pollution (include food safety) are the biggest threats to the CCP's grip on power.
    - Volpe 13y ago
      > the Chinese do not give 2 shits about pollution and sustainability Are you saying that isn't racial prejudice? I understand you may have a grudge, but how would you describe that?
      - untog 13y ago
ferdo 13y ago
Because population control always works out so well for the population. /s
krob 13y ago
if people thought Beijing was polluted, wait till this happens. It will be a permanent fog/smog cloud hovering indefinitely over this plane. If the focus is on making sure that there are long term "green" goals of making sure people use human-powered transportation w/ large public transit systems like subways, trains, bussing systems, then there is potential for this to happen and be maintainable. Generally speaking the Chinese have done much better than than Indians have with their supposed democracy in moving their economy along. India on the other hand has been a general failure, especially in raising the general population into a better life-cycle. If china does this, and is successful, it will be a foundation for other large countries to follow. I'm presuming they are doing something good, and not considering all the cons that will ensue.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  I doubt those people are coming to Beijing, it just can't take anymore people, and you have only a limited capacity for jobs and such. More likely they are going to 2nd/3rd tier cities where crowding/pollution issues are still severe, just not as bad as Beijing.
Jack000 13y ago
Some of my poorer relatives still live on subsistence farms. When I visit my grandmother she would kill a chicken and cook it for us. as land values rise in these rural areas some people have become rich very quickly. People in my hometown have started to fence up land that was previously unmarked (and worthless). It's an interesting phenomenon. Not sure what conclusions to draw from the video, just an interesting anecdote. Things are happening quickly in China, for better or worse - there are huge differences every time I visit.
blaeks 13y ago
hehe, source: open street map ^_^

63 points by jaysonelliot 13y ago

http://johnquiggin.com/2013/06/16/urbanization-in-china/ http://johnquiggin.com/2013/06/16/urbanization-in-china/ clarification by a guy who does numbers for a living..

leke 13y ago

We can kiss the global environment goodbye now. Why are we even trying to save it?

raldi 13y ago
Are you kidding me? Cities are far more eco-friendly than the same number of people living in the countryside.
- icegreentea 13y ago
  Cities -can- be more environmentally friendly than the equivalent population living in a more rural setting -IF- you're comparing roughly equivalent standards of living. And there lies the rub. A) It is entirely possible that China will screw up something in their planning resulting in poorer environmental outcomes. B) This demographic shift will almost certainly come matched with an economic uplifting, and regardless of efficiencies of scale and density (which is what a city gives you), the increase in standard of living (and therefore energy and other related 'products') can result in increased environmental damage. It really comes down to a question of execution.
  - raldi 13y ago
    For starters, what are these people currently burning to keep warm and cook their food? And how will that change if they become middle-class city-dwellers?
    - austinz 13y ago
      It depends. Coal, charcoal, wood. The house where my father grew up vented smoke/exhaust from the fires in the kitchen under a hard clay bed built into the house to keep the family warm in the winter. You can see the effect of years of exposure to soot on the faces of people who live in rural China (and, I daresay, anyone who lives in similar circumstances). These people are not living particularly environmentally clean lives right now (although, to be fair, they probably do consume far fewer manufactured goods than their city-dwelling brethren). Something of interest is the prevalence of solar water heaters, both in urban and rural areas. They are surprisingly common, much better than heating water using fire or electricity, and affordable even to those outside the cities.
gotrythis 13y ago
That video doesn't tell us much, but I think this could be an incredible opportunity to rethink what cities are. If they're making them all anyway, why not create them sustainable? It's a bunch of farmers, so give them plots of land to feed themselves with. Make self-sufficient earthships instead of houses that require utilities. Sadly, the video says this is meant to increase the economy, get them buying more stuff. I imagine that there will be a very efficient system for shipping all these people into massive factories to make plastic crap, so that all these newly converted consumers can buy more plastic crap, 98% of which ends up in landfills within 2 years, which I suppose is what they'll be using their old farmland for! lol. I agree with leke.
Zigurd 13y ago
Education of girls and urbanization are the most effective ways to slow the birth rate. Without doing that, environmental preservation is not going to be possible.
- rdl 13y ago
  China doesn't have a huge problem with birth rate now. It just has a huge population.
  - yareally 13y ago
    Yep, I believe India is going to overtake China in Population in another 15-20 years.
  - leoc 13y ago
    In fact it has the other kind of birth-rate problem, a looming demographic crunch due in large part to the one-child policy. And of course a mysteeerious gender imbalance to go with it.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  Yes, urbanization seems to be especially important since it urban population is subjected to more restrictive rules regarding family planning.
robryan 13y ago
You are suggesting that people in China must be afforded a much lower average carbon footprint than somewhere like America or Australia?

ohazi 13y ago

If the Chinese government can pull this off effectively, without doing anything too stupid (splitting up families, letting people starve to death, destroying their inner city economies), then I would see this as a good thing. The most efficient farming and food-production systems today produce a unit of food using far fewer resources (people, labor, energy, etc) than were required in previous decades. The people who continue to live in rural areas should focus on farming efficiently for large populations rather than for subsistence. If you can move the subsistence farmers into cities, and if (this is a big "if") they can work and earn a decent wage without obliterating the current economy, then they will more than likely be better off personally, and will consume fewer resources globally. I happen to think that this is a very difficult thing to do, and that their timeline is probably way too optimistic, but I don't think China should be criticized for trying. They stand to gain tremendously if they can pull it off.

austinz 13y ago
I'm glad to see someone with this point of view. A lot of people don't seem to realize that there is a huge difference between the idealized American farmer and the lives of real peasants living in rural China. It's extremely difficult to run roads, electricity, and water to all these villages, or to provide them with modern schools and clinics (and corresponding staff) necessary to implement social welfare that extends beyond the cities.
- reeses 13y ago
  A tour of some of the planned urban areas of China (Chengdu, mentioned in the article, is a fine example, plus pandas!) along with some of the smaller villages makes it very clear that the 'average' Chinese farmer is far worse off than one might expect. I'm not really sure I have an example for the contemporary United States that even comes close. I suspect you'd have to change the definition of 'farmer'. Perhaps a family living in a dilapidated trailer, unemployed, growing cheap, starchy foods in what little land they can rent, in an area with poor or nonexistent utilities, would be a more accurate comparison. Comparing a planned city such as Chengdu with a similar effort elsewhere, say in India, is another surprise. Ahmedabad is a pretty good example. I have come to the conclusion that communism is an impediment to human excellence.[1] However, seeing the extreme levels of poverty that the central government is trying to resolve, and has resolved to a certain degree, I can understand the difference in prioritization. There was a link to a book on cooltools years ago http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/461 http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/461 that I just noticed was available on the Kindle. Poverty is so outside the understanding of most of us that it's not just about not having nice things. Poverty in the developing world and in the undeveloped world is so much worse that it's almost as if an impartial, uninformed observer would wonder if we are the same species, and I don't base that on skin color, eye shape, gender, etc. [1] I don't care if you disagree on this point. I grant you a perpetual, irrevocable, license to do so.

dcc1 13y ago

You are all missing the point, China is in a construction boom, construction is the best way to achieve double digit GDP growth, construction and sale of apartments and houses also lines the pockets of the Party But of course all of the comments so far have been about the environment, the Chinese do not give 2 shits about pollution and sustainability, the motive is clear KEEP THE PARTY IN CONTROL AT ALL COSTS

Volpe 13y ago
Oh I'm glad there is now a spokemen for "The Chinese People". Didn't realise you had a single voice, who frequented HN. In all seriousness, some tips: - Stop being racist - go and learn a little bit about Chinese political landscape, and modern history - Reduce your ignorance. The Chinese (government) care greatly about the environment and the people, and that is why they have year-on-year improved hundreds of millions of lives in both health and wealth for the past 60 years. Yes, they are a 1 party communist political system... but so what, judge by action, not ideology.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Don't mind Volpe, he calls everyone who talks about China a racist. Its his way of being friendly on hackernews. Parent is wrong though, the CCP most definitely cares about the environment; it has gotten so bad that they are in crisis mode right now. Xi just made a speech about it this weekend, the gov is taking it very seriously and people do care, especially here in Beijing. Corruption, economy, and pollution (include food safety) are the biggest threats to the CCP's grip on power.
  - Volpe 13y ago
    > the Chinese do not give 2 shits about pollution and sustainability Are you saying that isn't racial prejudice? I understand you may have a grudge, but how would you describe that?
    - untog 13y ago

ferdo 13y ago

Because population control always works out so well for the population. /s

krob 13y ago

if people thought Beijing was polluted, wait till this happens. It will be a permanent fog/smog cloud hovering indefinitely over this plane. If the focus is on making sure that there are long term "green" goals of making sure people use human-powered transportation w/ large public transit systems like subways, trains, bussing systems, then there is potential for this to happen and be maintainable. Generally speaking the Chinese have done much better than than Indians have with their supposed democracy in moving their economy along. India on the other hand has been a general failure, especially in raising the general population into a better life-cycle. If china does this, and is successful, it will be a foundation for other large countries to follow. I'm presuming they are doing something good, and not considering all the cons that will ensue.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
I doubt those people are coming to Beijing, it just can't take anymore people, and you have only a limited capacity for jobs and such. More likely they are going to 2nd/3rd tier cities where crowding/pollution issues are still severe, just not as bad as Beijing.

Jack000 13y ago

Some of my poorer relatives still live on subsistence farms. When I visit my grandmother she would kill a chicken and cook it for us. as land values rise in these rural areas some people have become rich very quickly. People in my hometown have started to fence up land that was previously unmarked (and worthless). It's an interesting phenomenon. Not sure what conclusions to draw from the video, just an interesting anecdote. Things are happening quickly in China, for better or worse - there are huge differences every time I visit.

blaeks 13y ago

hehe, source: open street map ^_^