[ngcc_hk]

Having less people (other than the temporarily aging issue) is good for the country. You really do not need 1.4 billion people. Each couple should be free to make decision. And most developing countries has couple decided to do less birthing.

The strange thing is a census need to be waited. Is it a fact or ...?

China.

Btw I am not thinking about the rumour there is usual amount of death as well. Can’t be ... can it?

[QuarterReptile]

Having fewer people is only good in the scenario where you cannot organize people and intermediate disputes effectively. Having more people leads to things like electricity, transportation technology, computers, modern medicine, and space travel. It also results in weapons development (see first sentence.)

China has GDP per capita below Costa Rica[0], and yet can determine actions and statements made by enormous US organizations like NBA [1], and in knock-on effects, statements made by Disney-owned ESPN about statements made and subsequently disowned by NBA [2]. Multi-national organizations don't think twice about Costa Rica.

Matthew Yglesias makes the case in a recent book that the US should embrace all the ways that the country is able to continue growing while China's, and many other countries', populations stagnate and decline.[3]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/10/31/774985504/the-nba-and-hong-ko... [2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/22/is-disney-relation... [3] https://www.econlib.org/reflections-on-one-billion-americans...

[nonameiguess]

Not sure why this has gotten so much backlash. Sure, growth is generally a good thing and plenty of places are badly underpopulated, notably all of North America. I don't think this is the case with China. Much of the country is the fairly uninhabitable Gobi Desert and Himalaya Mountins. They've got a very large number of people crowded into a fertile river valley and the coast and it isn't all that great ecologically. They're seemingly well past the point nationally where the tail chance of producing more Einsteins and Teslas is worth it, even if the entire world isn't. I don't see how Matt Yglesias arguments apply here. Matt is making that argument for the United States, which outside of I guess Australia is by far the least dense of all developed countries. He wants the US population in another 80 years to still be 2/3 of what China's population is right now and they're roughly equal in land mass.

[T-A]

https://www.newsweek.com/china-u-s-economy-gdp-capital-econo...

[TylerLives]

Why is having less people good for the country?

[hedora]

Among other things, they’re facing imminent ecological collapse due to overpopulation.

Only half the population has access to safe drinking water, and only 10% has access to household sewage treatment. 43% of the waterways are unfit for human contact, and 90% of the cities have poisoned their own water tables. The following article has pages of statistics like this.

http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat10/sub66/item391.html

The air pollution is at least as bad.

China is a large enough percentage of the earth’s surface area to make these global problems.

[TylerLives]

Do you think large populations are inherently bad for the environment, or is this problem specific to China and their laws? Also, do you think there are any benefits to having a larger population(with regards to technological progress and the future of humanity) and how should that be taken into account?