Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 666 posts

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#461

Post by grumpy-de-sre »

yanhangyhy wrote: post #450
grumpy-de-sre wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, nationalism isn't something you can turn on and off at will. For an example I'm reminded of the recent public backlash to the K visa scheme [1]. 1. https://www.ft.com/content/01a0029c-9f7c-4b31-a120-d1652f198...

This question is actually quite interesting. It’s basically connected to almost every issue China faces today — the national confidence born out of a century of humiliation, population decline, the rise of Han nationalism, soaring unemployment, and so on. The overall domestic response has been quite negative, though I don’t have a clear personal view on it. It’s somewhat like the Tang dynasty at its most prosperous —…

I have no idea from where I sit, but I wonder how much of this is down to the increasing demographic share of Guang Gun [1] vs the older conservatives.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guang_Gun

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#462

Post by blashyrk »

jopsen wrote: post #287
picture wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point but, they're really not selling much more than golf carts and drones. If they go all-out with selling their actual military hardware (which they have a large stockpile and production capacity of), it would be get much more difficult for Ukraine to keep up the balance without increasing support from the west. It's really quite interesting to see China being labelled as imperialist mean while the weste…

Everybody makes mistakes. The US is able to mention its past mistakes. China still can't talk about students it murdered over 30 years ago. Yet, recent American presidents have no problem admitting that Afghanistan and Iraq wars weren't the best of ideas.

Okay and how many years is George Bush Jr and his entire administration serving currently?

What good is mentioning past mistakes if there's strictly zero consequences

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#463

Post by yanhangyhy »

grumpy-de-sre wrote: post #461
yanhangyhy wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question is actually quite interesting. It’s basically connected to almost every issue China faces today — the national confidence born out of a century of humiliation, population decline, the rise of Han nationalism, soaring unemployment, and so on. The overall domestic response has been quite negative, though I don’t have a clear personal view on it. It’s somewhat like the Tang dynasty at its most prosperous —…

I have no idea from where I sit, but I wonder how much of this is down to the increasing demographic share of Guang Gun [1] vs the older conservatives. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guang_Gun

Well, I actually know this issue quite well. China’s “bachelor problem” isn’t really that serious, although it is one of the reasons for the declining birth rate. While the main cause of China’s low fertility rate is the soaring cost of having children, it’s also strongly related to the rise of feminism and the growing hostility between men and women. In China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, this problem is among the worst in the world. Basically, men hate women and women hate men; the marriage system has managed to make both sides unhappy, so people just stop getting married.

As for the “bachelor problem,” it roughly falls into two categories. One group consists of older men — they’re actually quite fortunate, since they’re a key target of positive government assistance. In rural areas, for instance, the government often helps them build houses and provides them with monthly living stipends so they can survive without working. China’s living costs are relatively low, so this policy can be sustained.

The other group is younger men. Their solutions are either marrying foreign women or staying single and enjoying life. With modern technology, single life isn’t really difficult anymore. In recent years, the number of cross-border marriages has surged, mainly involving women from Southeast Asian countries. Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos’ red-light districts are also frequent destinations for these men. Currently, influencers who promote foreign marriages are very popular on Chinese websites.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#464

Post by tcfhgj »

kakacik wrote: post #454
tossandthrow wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue with a demographic decline is that fewer people can live of their wealth. This is in particular a problem for the older generation. But if you are not a big believer in retirement, then there are no issues with demographic shifts.

Old people all have massive long term health issues. That's where most of the healthcare costs in universal healthcares go. Change the balance way more towards old instead of young being generally still healthy and feeding the system financially, and it just doesn't work anymore and becomes unsustainable. There are partial solutions, ie adding some small fees for each visit (since a lot of retirees are lonely and go…

a better solution would be imo to move resources from mindless consumption to healthcare

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#465

Post by tossandthrow »

coldtea wrote: post #456
tossandthrow wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From me what you mention seems to be derivative of the retirement argument where you clearly state that those not being able to work as much and have higher maintainance needs are the ones at disadvantage. Living of wealth does not only mean your own wealth. That is also state wealth as in getting services redistributed to you.

> From me what you mention seems to be derivative of the retirement argument where you clearly state that those not being able to work as much and have higher maintainance needs are the ones at disadvantage. I state the opposite: the younger people, who are being able to work as much, are the ones at a disadvantage. That's regardless if the older people live off their wealth, have state services redistributed to them…

This is simply not correct.

The "the young people have to work more" argument is only valid as they are working for the older generation.

If we follow your proposal to euthanize every one over 60 then there really is no additional work.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#466

Post by simsla »

shubhamjain wrote: post #333
yanhangyhy wrote: post #233

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…

> 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 Ind…

European here.

One of the problems is that many of our society's systems are predicated on a growing population. Social security and pensions, for example, are structured not unlike a pyramid scheme: for every old person we should have more than one working young person. People take more than they give. Fixing that will be painful, but possible.

More worrying is how many countries' birth rates have fallen below the replacement rate. Some SE Asian countries are interesting case studies here (Japan, S Korea), but it's not looking good, and much of western Europe is heading in the same direction. Maybe the worry is overblown and populations will eventually stabilize at a lower point, but currently it seems like a declining population will just add to the stressors that are putting people off from having children, so it could just as well keep snowballing.

All that's to say, I don't worry too much about over/underpopulation, but I do worry about a shrinking population.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#467

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #417
yanhangyhy wrote: post #233

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…

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.

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.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#468

Post by sdoering »

reeredfdfdf wrote: post #459
shubhamjain wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"We at least now know that population peaks with prosperity, and food is largely a solved problem." Solved problem for now. A large part of world's agriculture is dependent on stable rainfalls and temperatures. If climate change gets bad enough, a big collapse in world's food production capability might happen.

"Solved problem for now." With "now" being the important word here.

We should not forget the significant amount of soil erosion. Not only, but especially in already vulnerable regions. While I will probably not get to feel it, the next generation will.

There are quite relevant studies already showing how the erosion of soil is already impacting agricultural yields. And that it is likely only getting worse from here on out.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#469

Post by galangalalgol »

throwup238 wrote: post #421
Unearned5161 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you to revisit what you know about the club of rome and what was actually published in the Limits to Growth paper. We have been disturbingly on track for a lot of the variables that were of interest back then in the “business as usual” model. People tend to dismiss anything and everything around resource constraint thinking by doing the quick Ehrlich quip, and never really dig deeper into where people lik…

What were those variables?

I don't know the work in question, but the extremes of agriculture we have gone to aren't sustainable simply from a soil destruction standpoint. We may figure that problem out too, but just assuming our ingenuity will get us out of any predicament we create will eventually leave us with a catastrophe. Carefully planning demographics is going to be necessary for stable long term well-being. Doing that in a way that isn't dystopian is a good problem to point our ingenuity at.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#470

Post by Ekaros »

tcfhgj wrote: post #464
kakacik wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old people all have massive long term health issues. That's where most of the healthcare costs in universal healthcares go. Change the balance way more towards old instead of young being generally still healthy and feeding the system financially, and it just doesn't work anymore and becomes unsustainable. There are partial solutions, ie adding some small fees for each visit (since a lot of retirees are lonely and go…

a better solution would be imo to move resources from mindless consumption to healthcare

And why would people work if they do not get to consume? Okay some amount of self-actualisation. But doing some real work say manufacturing goods used in health-care. The factory part of that?

With such move, there would like to be move to general welfare as well. So enough people might just cut down their labour to match the minimum level they would be getting anyway. And then you have no more surplus for healthcare...

Post reply on HN