Where did the chinese century go?
The body was too short or empty.
OKThe body was too short or empty.
On The body was too short or empty.
OK
No war but celibacy war
>>2656823They need to unite with India to form Indochinese Dharmic State where its like one country two administrations.
what's up with the malthusians on this board
last i checked china is still there
>>2656832what would this do other than create The Most Right Wing Country In The World
>>2656827>Every single country outside of Africa has low birthrateit's only low if it's <=2. Anything above 2 means growth, however slight. Even 2 would be sustainable if it weren't for the occasional childhood mortality event.
Towards the bottom of this page you can see that a lot of the Global South
in general, not just Africa, has fertility rates >2. Vietnam has the lowest fertility rate >2 and Georgia has the highest fertility rate <=2. So Vietnam/Georgia is the tipping point.
https://www.macrotrends.net/datasets/global-metrics/countries/wld/world/fertility-rate Hot take: Imperial core infertile couples adopting children from the global south is objectively an indirect form of wealth redistribution even if a lot of people dislike the optics of it and some of the social consequences of it.
>>2656904By creating another member of the imperial core.
>>2656907Yes, muh wealth redistribution. I know that's not what muh communism is about but a lot of people wouldn't say no to it if it came their way.
>>2656931I am a second worldist. The core will be brought low by stagnation and the periphery will be brought high by development. Long term aspirations for Communism aside, multipolarity will in the short term upend the asymmetry of imperialist development and force the nations back into great power competition. It is in the context of great power competition that the class struggle was historically strongest, and it is in the context of unipolarity that it was historically weakest. The core will be brought low by the intensification of "inter imperialist" warfare as prerequisite for the reintroduction of pre-1917 style class struggle.
>>2656904It's the same shit with open borders. A slavocracy with underpaid migrant workers is objectively more historically progressive than a slavocracy with underpaid workers in the external colonies of the periphery.
There's only so far you can go when your country isn't really socialist.
Pretty obvious that this is mostly irrelevant. The only problem to mind with declining birth rates is the cost of covering old age care.
>>2656823Going to be another crackdown on the alphabet mafia in the future
Aren't the birthrates pitiful in the entire world except for Africa thoughbeit
>>2657966Yea, the future is Black Maoism, unironically
>>2681892
>China is liberal
No its not
>Where did the chinese century go?
nowhere
>>2656823>Country develops>Birth-rates declineLiterally a universal trend observed everywhere except for Israel (mostly due to their unique cultural and economic dynamics). If they had remained underdeveloped they would still be badly overpopulating themselves like India.
>>2656827soon to be a robot society automatically producing EVs for no one!!!
>>2682105Yes. It is a problem everywhere.
>>2682110collapsing birthrates is yet one of the reasons why we need to overcome capitalism. We are running out of people precisely at a time period when we need as many labour as possible (climate change)
>>2682112and although i disagree with anarchists who think that we need to replicate ancient hominid sexuality of promiscuous orgies all the time, we are all in agreement that no matter what your conception of an optimal relationship is, social reproductions can no longer happen under capitalism
>>2682112you can't send manpower into the "climate change" hole until it gets fixed,we have ZERO options to do anything about it
>>2682119
hope the BRI is just an excuse to build concentration camps in africa and fix the problem at its root
>>2682168that is wrong and stupid. We can fight climate change by reverting back to more labour-intensive infrastructure and building methods. Prioritize scrap steel recycling with electric arc furnance. Normalize using wooden elements in construction. Normalize using manpower to build and carry shit instead of using diesel trucks. Normalize labour intensive farming instead of automated monoculture fertilizer intensive farming.
All of this requires people. You can't automate your way out of this shit because AI has hit the efficiency wall in their coding, and thus any improvement in automation would require (massive!) energy investments.
>>2682171black people will save the world from climate change because they are the only people that still breed today. Retarded americans who use microplastics in everything they eat and drain half of the world's groundwater to fuel their AI stupidity blaming africans for climate change will never not be funny
>>2682171Sorry, 5 billion BBCs will come to your country by 2050.
Less people is good actually
>>2682174africans would do exactly the same stupid shit as americans if they could
>>2657708Yeah, it's not like China lacks population density anyways.
>>2682109It will take until 2100 for China's population to decrease by even 50%. At that point they will still have 700 million people - close to the current population of the US and EU combined. It's really not a problem.
>>2682223Ofc they will have to stop the decline at some point but I think 75 years is probably long enough for the government to figure out and solve the issues causing low birth rate.
>>2682172I disagree, we can replace electronic vehicles with EVs and nuclear energy, and we can replace monoculture fertilizer farming with hydroponics. And automated work is probably more efficient than human work in terms of CO2-emissions-per-x-produced or whatever on account of those machines being purpose-built and inactive when they're not working rather than a human that consumes luxuries and entertainment and continues operating outside of work.
>>2682223Anon, do you fucking understand what a 50% of decline in population means? Japan already had bears returning to cities because nobody is living there anymore, and they still had 120+ million people. It is PEOPLE who maintains the water pipes so it doesn't burst out during winter, it is PEOPLE who maintain roads, who cut weeds and control population of mosquitos and alligators and transport food and detect gas leaks. Decrease in birthrates means a gradual and eventually total collapse of infrastructure and distribution, first in the countryside, then in the cities
>>2682228>we can replace electronic vehicles with EVs and nuclear energyEVs have less footprint than combustion engine yes, but it still has very high embodied carbon, you need raw earth materials to build EVs and to build the renewable energy grid that will fuel those EVs. Eventually we will return to the same dilemma that faced biodiesel where the macroeconomic of mass production of a renewable technology makes it only slightly less bad for the environment. Nuclear might be but i doubt that there is much political will among the people to massively increase the number of nuclear plants we have, not with the ghost of Fukushima
>we can replace monoculture fertilizer farming with hydroponicsman, we aren't just farming weed here, there are lots of food crops that aren't suitable for hydroponics, and the sheer amount of energy and technology you need to do mass hydroponic farming means that it is going to be very carbon intensive
>automated work is probably more efficient than human work in terms of CO2-emissions-per-x-produced or whateverthis is not just about how much CO2 emissions you create per unit, this is also about embodied carbon. Humans are natural organisms. We fuck, we are born, we eat, we shit, we die, we get recycled into nature. For automation, you have to mine things, then craft the pieces individually, then assemble them, then ship them, then scrap them, then recycle them. All of the above practices are extremely energy and time consuming, this is the difference between having an ox and a tractor
>>2682172how does any of this "fight" climate change ?
and how is this even supposed to happen ever ?
>>2682174every african country wants to industrialize
>>2682229Actually in China it would happen in the cities first since urban birth rates are the lowest while rural-to-urban migration is decelerating. And since the largest cities are honestly pretty overcrowded(entire countries' populations live in Beijing or Shanghai alone), this won't produce serious problems except some more empty residential buildings.
>>2682233>Eventually we will return to the same dilemma that faced biodiesel where the macroeconomic of mass production of a renewable technology makes it only slightly less bad for the environment. Look at the stats, it's objectively like 6 times less bad. We don't need absolutely zero emissions, that's not viable, we just need to make less than the plants can absorb. At the very least global warming will slow to such a crawl that we'll have plenty of time to further advance technology.
>Nuclear might be but i doubt that there is much political will among the people to massively increase the number of nuclear plants we have, not with the ghost of FukushimaThis is China not Germany bruh, it's already building like 40 plants at this very moment. China is also developing thorium reactor technology which looks promising.
>the sheer amount of energy and technology you need to do mass hydroponic farming means that it is going to be very carbon intensiveIIRC the Chinese grid already has a capacity double that of the current usage. It can probably handle the needs of mass hydroponics, and the carbon emissions of that will depend on the greening of energy generation.
>>2682233>this is the difference between having an ox and a tractorI don't have a study for this but I'm 90% sure an ox would produce more emissions than a tractor per unit of land plowed. Because organisms, apart from being less efficient for a specialized task than machines, also have lengthy gestation and growth periods that require energy and CO2 emissions while said organism is doing nothing. Though, production/disposal CO2 "cost" is generally always less important than the "cost" of less efficient lifetime operation(once again, see le gas vs EV bar graph)
>>2681895If a bourgeois exists in your country, it’s liberal, look at the Chinese flag, two of its stars are bourgeois
Unique IPs: 25