The real news is that it's also slightly happening in other developed countries too, another rhetoric point towards Steven Pinker's concept that as nations get richer they become more environmentally conscious, cause they can afford to care about it.
I'm not sure it's environmentalism. It's efficiency. From the article.
> In richer countries, where farming has become more efficient, deforestation has slowed or even reversed
You simply don't need as many people living in villages, farming marginal land. New England re-forested because the land was never that good for farming, and it made a lot more sense to work in factories.
I think in this case it's more of a correlating factor. The countries struggling with deforestation have very little state capacity to enforce property rights or any sort of environmental regulations. Whereas in the developed world it's much easier to stop illegal logging or homesteading.
People like nature - all things held equal we want to live in a beautiful natural world... but if that world comes at the cost of having food on the table. Whether that inefficiency is technologically, environmentally (e.g. New England's poor soil) or conflict driven doesn't significantly change public opinion.
Thus far, getting rich has been dirty business. This is what leads people to care more so than them being able to afford to care. Their richness is a side effect of their pollution, thus, caring is a side effect of richness but that's not the root cause. Pollution -> Money -> Caring. If you removed the money, people still care they just can't afford to do anything about it.
I'm not familiar with Pinker or this theory, just poking at it :)
China is following this path and we will celebrate it. As always, do not do what the developed nations say you should. Instead do what they did. After all, Norway did not become prosperous by keeping their oil in the ground.
Sure if you need to bootstrap to the 18th century. It’s much faster and cheaper to skip a few hundred years ahead by importing equipment.
The deforestation goes back much further than that. Europe experienced significant deforestation in the middle ages. It was a major issue for many countries long before industrialism.
Either way, you need to fit the needs of the same number of people. If they're in a dense city near everything they need, they use less space.
Policies to limit urban sprawl just an expensive way to create more sprawl elsewhere - and roads to it.
It is. I have seen the data
But I live in a rural area of New Zealand and I also see how people moving onto farm land greatly increases tree cover (not forrest) and biodiversity, I assume because people plant gardens, and closely husband them
In New Zealand farmers are grossly damaging to the environment. They clear everything and plant mono cultures and treat water as exhaustable and rivers as waste dumps
So yes people in cities is a good thing, but people in rural areas are good, to
For residential, solar + batteries straight up beats legacy infra on cost, and with the upcoming cheap sodium batteries, things are only going to get better.
You'll read about some 70 year old woman/man in an obscure village who's reforested thousands of acres on their own, or resuscitated a lake (e.g. the lake guy in Bengaluru).
But there's little effort to harness their knowledge in a systematic way, add knowledge from others into the knowledge bank, do peer review, and then systematically dispense the knowledge in the form of a kit to environmentalists and bureaucrats across the country. China did this, and that's why they're so successful.
Because I know of several organisations doing this and are organising projects state-wide (they focused in Bihar and surroundings).
The number of planted tree grows but benefit not seen, except for the group doing it. People are too into feelings, by seeing the headlines they need to feel good that's why so much publicity is needed, so many banners everywhere, ads in news-paper spending billions by gov.
If you don't, readers of this comment are going to assume there aren't any, and you're just doing an ego-defense of Indian "capability".
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you seek evidence you must put good faith efforts in finding the evidence or evidence of absence before asking others to waste time nullifying your claims for which you have produced no evidence.
> India State of Forest Reports (ISFR)
Published every 2 years shows strong growth in India's forests. Though their methodology, methods of calculation have been questions the general trend of forestation is not questioned by anyone.
Indian government has had many programs for forestation. I am not familiar with all regions but I am specifically aware of western Ghats in India. These very ghats were once nearly destroyed by "experts" writing in "peer reviewed" journals who introduced non-native fast growth trees in the region as replacement for native trees. These trees such as Acacia etc. were very detrimental for local wildlife and rest of the ecosystem.
While I am skeptical of government initiatives in general, they have worked for India's western ghats pretty well mostly due to urbanization. These initiatives pay local communities and farmers to grow and plant trees. A lot of scams happen and money gets stolen. Survival rate of trees remains at 30% instead of expected 60%. Trees planted are often of only 3-4 varieties and sometimes non-native but all things considered it works out positively.
Environmentalists and bureaucrats are epitome of evil in India. Where I lived in India, the forest officials themselves hunted the wild game and gifted it to environmentalists and vice versa. Need exotic meat to eat ? The forest officer or the local wildlife activist is the guy who can make it happen. Want to eat Olive Ridley Turtle eggs ? The officer incharge of their conservation can sell it to you.
India's forests, rivers, beaches have been inhabited by their native people for thousands of years. Over years they did figure out what works and what does not. For example ban on fishing during breeding season was a traditional system. Not hunting in "God's forest" was essentially a wildlife preserve. Religion, way of life and sustainability was part of the society in an organic way. Need to build a checkdam seasonally ? we had a local process for that. The dam was built on new moon day of X month and taken down with the first rain etc.
I am not romantacizing the poor people's life in India. Their systems had problems. Unscrupulous people took advantage of religious beliefs, some systems were based on exploitation etc. etc. But with growth in population and urbanization required a seamless transition of these traditional systems into governance structures of local bodies.
That did not happen because of Indian Government. They adopted the British I*S system and airdropped young and corrupt idiots as the overlords of the areas. Activists who wrote papers in "peer reviewed" journals then wrote reports on how these babus gotta civilize the villagers and put in new system in place.
Once you ban hunting entirely, the hunters go back to their life and poachers take over. Hunters understand concept of wild life preserves. Poachers don't. Hunters now out of business don't have incentive to stop poaching. Before you know it the poachers and babus have formed a nexus to sell game meat.
Same goes for trees. Government banks cutting down trees entirely as if it is murder. Entire wood logging industry is killed off under the sheer weight of red tape. Since I come from wood logging family, the red tape meant we could not sell our trees profitably anymore. I had to look for altnerative occupation for myself and sell the land to wood mafia who now use the land for a "pretend forest" while they actually steal wood from national parks and public lands.
For example if you go from Cumberland Gap to Virginia Beach, a distance of 499 miles, it will take you 10 hours and 25 minutes.
North America does this with South America readily.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/04/europe/china-ukraine-eu-war-i...
"Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union’s top diplomat that Beijing can’t accept Russia losing its war against Ukraine..."
Reforestation alone doesn't matter. What matters is total result of deforestation and reforestation. Russia reforests only about 1Mha/year :
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1059300/russia-reforeste...
while the total resulting loss is
https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/RUS/?ca...
"In 2020, Russia had 748 Mha of natural forest, extending over 44% of its land area. In 2024, it lost 5.59 Mha of natural forest, equivalent to 816 Mt of CO₂ emissions."
>But export of Baikal fresh water? That’s fake news. Didn’t happen and won’t happen
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/parched-chines...
in Russian, that another waterpipeline - from river Ob' was approved at some Russian Parliament "roundtable on strategic projects with China and Kazakhstan".
https://topwar.ru/159671-bajkal-xxi-veka-druzhba-druzhboj-a-...
and there were strong leaks, not officially dispelled, that Baikal water was raised during the most recent Putin/Xi meeting.
You may read it whatever way you like. If we look at the facts - statista and globalwatch is some Western sites/orgs, topwar is straight Russian and Guardian is Great Britain.
>Kind reminder - this is not reddit.
This is why you're using that offensive "404" notation (an expression of the Russian propaganda point that Ukraine isn't a sovereign independent state) when referring to Ukraine?
Like Ukranians a number of nations - for example Hungarians, Chezh, Finnish, Latvians, Estonians, etc. - for centuries didn't have their own state and were parts of larger empires and got their own states only relatively recently.
Like any other, the Russian propaganda thrives on people's ignorance. In this case "Ukranian people and Ukraine don't exist and never have existed, it is just an inferior kind of Russians on historically Russian territory". That is why nor Russian textbooks nor wide Russian info space never mention the 1651 book by French engineer D'Beauplan "Description of Ukraine, a Province of the Kingdom of Poland situated between Moskovia and Transilvania" where he clearly describes in detail a separate Ukrainian ethnicity living on their own separate territory (which is pretty close to the territory of modern Ukraine. Also note that Russia din't even exist back then, it was just a "Moscovia" duchy).
>and never will be. Geopolitics is a ruthless game and those in the middle sometimes get crushed. Which is why you generally want natural borders (mountains, coast, etc).
The same applies to all the above mentioned nations, and this is why they joined NATO, and why Ukraine is trying to.
Regarding you Guardian and Topwar links, you are citing the sources that speculate about rumors about some science fiction projects. Russia does not export water from Baikal or Ob River and won’t export it.
Official state news https://ria.ru/20160503/1425318933.html
"Moscow invited Bejing to discuss fresh water transfer project from Russia to China - stated the Russian Minister of Agriculture"
and the further description of the proposed project is exactly the second project described in the topwar link.
It isn't article itself that counts here. The official statement of the Russian Minister of Agriculture is the fact here. Whereis you so far stated only your personal opinion.
>there’s no such plans
You contradict the above mentioned official statement of the Russian Minister of Agriculture.
some materialized, some haven't.
>This is one of them.
how would we know that? For example, nuclear powered cruise missile is beyond bizarre, yet they did it. Water transfer project is much more practical thing (and they already do have oil transfer pipelines, so why would they not do a water pipeline - if anything, unlike the oil, the water is a renewable resource), and there has been official interest on both sides, and adding your bizarrity indicator - we can conclude it is much probable thing to happen than the missile.
>If you still insist this thing is real, you should prove it with specific parameters of this project. Construction start, volume, length of pipe etc.
Where that info would come from? I pointed officially available facts. You have so far provided only blind statement "it wouldn't happen" and no facts to counter my facts.
As it happens simple Google has even more facts, including info you've been asking for:
https://www.rbc.ru/business/16/05/2019/5cdbde629a7947f8534b0...
"The government will consider $88B water transfer project to China.
Russian MP Alexey Chepa asked to approve construction of the largest in the world water pipeline.
...
Government sent the project down to various government agencies for working out further details of the project.
...
first stage by 2026 - 1200-1500km, 600-700 millions m3/year. second stage by 2040 - 1.8-2.4B m3/year.
"
I think more fascinating has been Russia's surge in forestry growth, also very notable in the report. Unlike China their forests have expanded almost completely accidentally. Communist-era collective farmlands have slowly been getting abandoned. Their frontier has been shrinking and the forests have crept in, tree growth being aided by longer growing period and thawing permafrost.
One of their projects is allowing them to undertake infrastructure projects in the desert. They simply stick bales of straw into ditches to stop soil being blown away by wind. The straw traps soil, water, and breaks down over a few years allowing plants to take hold. It's a simple approach that works. Very pramatic, dig a ditch, stick in some straw. Done. Repeat.
Outside of China, the green wall in Africa is a very pragmatic approach that involves digging a lot of half moon shaped ditches to trap rain water. Simple and effective.
Other approaches involve using fences to stop sheep and other grazers from preventing anything vaguely green tinted shoots from being eaten and giving them a chance to actually turn into trees.
What I like about these approaches is that some relatively simple measures can have big effects. People spend a lot of time hand wringing over seemingly insurmountable problems. The Chinese are showing that in addition to the power to destroy landscapes, we also have the power to remake them. It works. They aren't tree huggers. Better landscapes also mean local economies benefit. Deserts don't feed people. Water retention means agriculture gets a second chance.
What I admire in the Chinese is the pragmatic can do attitude. Their motivations are of course self serving. They value having clean air in their cities, clean drinking water, and a landscape that can support agriculture and infrastructure. And in the end that's the best kind of motivation you can get. It's something worth copying. Whenever economy, science, and environment align, everybody wins.
A lot of areas in the rest of the world that are subject to desertification, pollution, etc. are fixable. And there's value in fixing them that needs more attention. I don't see this as a green/left topic. If you exist on this planet, why wouldn't you want something to be done to clean up the mess we've all created in the last centuries? Breaking out this topic from the usual left/right day to day politics is key. The rest is just work. The Chinese put the rest of us to shame with hard work.
A few good ones that I watched:
- Inside Africa's Food Forest Mega-Project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbBdIG--b58
- China Buried Tons of Dead Plants Under the Desert Sand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev8DsPH_82Y
- Green Gold: Regreening the Desert | John D. Liu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3nR3G9jboc
There are way more. One channel that I might call https://www.youtube.com/@MossyEarth. They basically use donations to take on projects to do smalls scale nature restoration. I am actually considering making a donation to them because I like what they do. There are more examples of such channels.
Not everything on this front is without controversy of course and I'm not blind to that. But I like the positive, constructive nature of these approaches. Just the simple notion that it's fixable with a bit of cleverness and lots of hard work. China is of course an autocracy that you can criticize for a lot of things. But they are doing a few things right as well. And it's worth calling that out and learning from them.
Most of these ditches are dug out by the locals with shovels. We're talking subsistence farmers here in areas where people are more or less trying to live off the land. Their hands and some primitive tools is all that's there.
I would still call people using bigger stuff to be doing manual labor. For the same reason that using a lawn mower is still a manual labor job.
I imagine they /want/ it, it would just be a massive issue because they do not have equal supply chains to more developed nations, and them having to pay to make up the difference makes the cost-to-benefit ratio not make sense
It's an ancient practice that was forgotten and rediscovered. The beauty of this approach is that it shows results within a few short years. Basically in Africa if there's water, nature shows up and consumes it. So you get lush growth and rapid soil restoration. Trees, vegetables, etc. on what was a heavily eroded flood plain before.
It's easy to explain, the locals get why it works. And they get a very fast response from nature and all the produce and riches that come with that. And all they need is shovels and some elbow grease.
No nonsense, an actual practitioner, and not very "YouTubey"
Edit: for the downvoters
They build 10x more solar power (total numbers compared, in percentages solar nearly tripled since 2021, nuclear had a 10% increase)
That seems more like a modest increase.
Honestly solar seems to have an exponential growth, nuclear linear at best.
Numbers from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
There's a lot of work to be done and there's a lot of friction, corruption and economic pressures constraining that work but there seems to be a genuine desire to do that work.
My home country we are only 40 million. I am sure they consume much more than us.
Was pretty obvious, but I wrote it down for you as you seem to be having trouble understanding the concept.
"Per capita consumption-based CO₂ emissions" (emissions adjusted for imports/exports)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
"Imported or exported CO₂ emissions per capita" (shows the effects of imports/exports alone, as tons)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/imported-or-exported-co-e...
"Share of CO₂ emissions embedded in trade" (shows the effects of imports/exports alone, as percentage of total)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-tra...
Spoken like somebody that never stept a foot in China.
Sure, manufacturing for the West is part of it, but up to a few years ago, entering Beijing alone resulted in your naval cavities burning, the moment the airplane door opened.
Because of the usage from coal in households. It was only until a few years ago, that they banned the usage of wood/coal around the city. Outside the city, its coal everywhere for the normal class people who own their (country)house. Near other large cities its still very coal centric in the winter.
And the heating (communal for apartments) is mostly coal and while the coal may burn a bit more clean, and there is some filtration going on, its not a ton. So while open coal burning was reduced directly in the cities like Beijing, they simply moved a lot of it outside the 6th ring.
All those EV's ... great, no more gasoline/oil usage but ... wait, where does a lot of the electricity come from? Oeps...
But wait, all that crypto mining, where do you think that electricity comes from?
And now AI...
And the consumer goods.
Your statement ignore a large part of the coal consumption in the country.
Thanks.
The US is fairly high but below Canada, Russia, and many Middle Eastern countries. US emissions have also consistently fallen for the past 25 years or so.
They aren't relevant to the climate, but they are relevant to how much energy and wealth you allow each person to have.
Does a person in China deserve to have less energy or wealth than a person in America?
There is some per capita carbon emissions budget such that if each human on earth stayed within that budget, climate change could be mitigated[0]. The average Chinese person exceeds that budget, but does so by significantly less than the average American. So the average American is more at fault for climate change than the average Chinese person is.
Of course, your second claim, that this is a global issue, is correct. But if we solved the global issue in a fair way, China would still emit a few times more CO2 than the US.
0: “Mitigated” rather than totally solved, because to go back to pre-industrial temperatures the budget would have to be negative. But let’s say we’re talking about staying within 2C or some similar goal.
Why are some people entitled to more than others based on where they live?
The US is the world leader in per capita CO2 emissions. Has been for over a century. Only in 2021 China has reached 8t per capita. Do you know when the US reached that figure? 1899.
The inhabitants of the US, and of the UK before it, have been enjoying the benefits of energy-intensive industry for hundreds of years. But the externality of that process - the emissions - is a burden shared with everyone else in the world. As others have mentioned, the planet does not care who emitted CO2.
None of those countries is in a position to criticize the emissions of China or India or Brazil or whatever other country.
I would expect air conditioning to also be among the easier energy uses to match with solar power as we go forward. Better building design and more efficient AC devices also make a huge difference.
China is currently building out all of this renewable energy and EVs, when the early industrial powers didn't, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it is now the easy way.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-c...
The shallow decline in 2015 and 2016 was due to a slump that followed a round of stimulus measures, while zero-Covid controls caused a sharper fall in 2022.
(Or not, there's at least theoretical paths to make those examples better, this is just meant to moderate hope rather than to deny it entirely).
If we focus on rates of growth, China is building much more solar and nuclear than the US per-capita. And they don't have as much available domestic gas which with shorter carbon chains makes much less CO2, and that's the big problem. The US has twice as many natural gas reserves as China, with 1/4 the population, so, post-dissemination of fracking technology, that's largely down to geographical luck.
There's going to be big spikes in data center energy consumption in both countries. It's still somewhat marginal at the moment at a little over 4% here and less there but it is going to be a main driver of energy consumption growth going forward.
Banning China from leading nodes may result in doubling or more their consumption in this area as a direct US policy outcome.
The lack of a single world government is why.
Agreements between nations are only enforced by honour, and while that's more than nothing, it's not great.
The practical outcome of this is that who is "allowed" to do anything is dynamic, and who may do something the most can be inverted extremely quickly.
Indonesia: 275M / 650M ton / 2.3 ton
Pakistan: 240M / 225M ton / 1 ton
Nigeria: 220M / 110M ton / 0.5 ton
Brazil: 215M / 475M ton / 2.2 ton
I can go on and on about the countries that are emitting less than the US. People and animals live in areas that are liveable. So countries near the equator and fertile countries will always be more populous. So how else do you propose we compare countries? Which are themselves mostly arbitrary lines as far as the earth is concerned - so why chunk by countries? It has to be per person right?
dCO2/dt
"My maths" is that countries cannot use per captia stats as an excuse to produce tons of pollution. Would it be acceptable for every country to pollute as much as China if every country in the world had 1.5b people? No it wouldnt we would say thats to many people.
If a country wants to have 5million people and produce 15(units) of co2 per captia thats fine that is not globe threatening levels of pollution its living within their means. However if that country were to have 2 billion people and had a per captia of 10(units) I would say they need to significantly reduce that to about 2.5(units).
Whereas you'd be making the argument that the country is actually doing a lot better even though they produce 20billion(units) total.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...
The propaganda aspect is comparing absolute emissions of China to the absolute emissions of some smaller nation. That's only done to confuse people and delay the transition to emission free energy production.
> Over the last three and a half decades China has planted roughly 120 million acres of forest, according to U.N. figures, much of it added to contain the spread of deserts. Last year China completed a project, begun in 1978, to plant a 2,000-mile-long belt of trees around the Taklamakan Desert in the west. Work continues on a belt of trees around the massive Gobi Desert in the north.
It was the entirely predictable result of the policies we adopted. You don't get to be sloppy and shortsighted and then sail off into the sunset without consequences.
Kicking the industrial layers of the economic pyramid overseas and telling people to learn to code is what you do when you want a quick win and don't care if people will rightly hate you in a couple decades (IMO it's a miracle we're discussing this now and not in 2002).
Behaving that way isn't socially/politically sustainable and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Our children’s generation will never forgive us for abandoning nuclear energy abundance. Truly a crime against humanity.
My other glib thing about nuclear is that France, a much denser nation than the US (though of course density is a local property...), has a bunch of nuclear, but even with "full" buy-in it's hard to make the whole thing profitable, and a lot of the nuclear reactors are running at like 80% capacity.
Electricity is pretty fungible at smaller scales but when you start building reactors you need water and you need consumers of a lot of electricity to be close by, and that does cause its own sets of constraints.
Would still be better if the US had built a bunch more nuclear reactors, but my assumption has often been that there are limits to how much it could be expanded in the US given those constraints.
This is presumably intentional. Beyond longevity, being able to shift one plant to 0 and take up the load across other plants allows for continued uptime even with a plant down (or just below capacity).
> it's hard to make the whole thing profitable
Considering France had the second-cheapest electicity for industrial use in the EU (in 2015, the most recent date from Wikipedia), this feels more regulatory-bassed than a properly fair shot at "Look how expensive nuclear is"
It's intentional in that people are making decisions to do things, but the people running the power plants really would rather run at much higher capacity
I get what you're saying, but the line of comfort for these plants is above where it's at. I think the target is like 90% or something?
> Considering France had the second-cheapest electicity for industrial use in the EU (in 2015, the most recent date from Wikipedia), this feels more regulatory-bassed than a properly fair shot at "Look how expensive nuclear is"
Well... the State is present to make the whole thing work. This isn't a bad thing per se, though I think it goes against some US narratives of "well if the state didn't put in a bunch of regulations then nuclear would just be everywhere".
It's more I guess a point about how there's unlikely to be magical economies of scale that make this whole thing work out.
And the industrial use electricity point goes hand in hand with the reactor usage levels: there's a lot of electricity that EDF would like to sell but have few buyers for! It's a buyer's market!
I like nuclear stuff in general, just think it's worth being clear eyed that nuclear power generation has Real Problems that even full state and societal buy in didn't solve in France's case. Though they did get cheap power for trains etc from the deal, so not like France's situation is bad by any stretch of the imagination.
Recently, I wonder if a nuclear winter (I mean this in the cold war context) is likely enough to make renewables massively less efficient. If the current administration were more competent, I'd assume that they are pushing non-renewables for that reason.
But then again, after a nuclear winter, our energy consumption will probably drop to near zero (the population being near zero), so it probably wouldn't matter either way.
It's kinda fitting that NOW trump jumps on board with nuclear, once the data says it isn't really necessary anymore. It's possible we can maybe build some useful small reactors for some stuff, but yeah.
IMO, the old style regulated public utilities were cheaper and more reliable.
If you have a strong central governance authority that can ensure proper maintenance and remediation then they're wonderful... France and China have these advantages - Japan was often held up as a paragon of this approach until massive internal mismanagement was revealed with Fukushima.
I am excited to see my country (Canada) investing more into Nuclear energy as we have a track record (ignore our uranium mining please) of doing this responsibly. I don't think America could safely manage this especially with the destabilization the current administration and lack of legislative backbone has demonstrated is possible.
We can probably agree that renewable is a misnomer, sine yesterday's sunlight isn't magically showing up again - it's new light from the same sun. Once the sun dims, we are in big doo-doo.
But for fission: fission end products are either useless for future energy production, or require fairly messy breeder reactors that, as I understand it, do not lend themselves to nice modularization and reconditioning that stuff isn't particularly easy (Sellafield may be a good example of how horrifyingly costly all this is). And the end fission products are never the same as the input, so I would like to understand better how you see fission as a "renewable" source.
Also, just to understand the logic in:
"Nuclear is a renewable, and of course it still makes sense to build it out."
Why? A lot of "renewables", like underwater tide plants, should probably not be built out, at least right now, because the economics are just not supporting it. Just because something is "renewable" does not automatically mean we should "of course" building it. that would be the real 70s hippie attitude we so eschew on hacker news.
Both are over their fair share, but the US is over by a larger factor so is farther behind on getting to where they need to be.
(This is not taking into account trade. Divvying up the world emissions budget by population gives the fair amount for each country if there is no trade. If there is trade the best way to handle it is probably to count the emissions for making things in country X that get consumed in country Y as being emissions in Y. With that correction China comes out even better).
For now. Look at the rate of growth on their per capital carbon emissions. Then compare it with that of the USA.
Why?
Its like saying that you are 0 emissions because you have an electric car with no tailpipe while ignoring where the electricity is coming from.
We can't claim we rose them from poverty while also denying culpability for the consequences thereof...
Though I think everyone is just saying Chinese emissions should be counted, proportionally, against the people they're making products for. And the US is one of their biggest customers.
Who is "We" here? I am speaking from a global perspective. Chinese industrialization has internal agency, drivers and motivation, the US did not force China to industrialize. Secondly Global Demand is not US-Specific, Europe, Japan and other markets contributed with their own agreements so the claim that the US is "responsible" is overstated here.
>Though I think everyone is just saying Chinese emissions should be counted, proportionally, against the people they're making products for. And the US is one of their biggest customers.
That's not what anyone serious is saying because it's just splitting hairs. Everyone buys from China, the US accounts for 15% of China's total imports so clearly their role here is exaggerated again. China also consumes much of their own manufacturing, while the US also exports many services elsewhere, so should US emissions be counted in other countries? And then there are also structural dynamics in how surplus economies intentionally suppress their demand to run surpluses.
In a world of comparative advantage, I don't see the particular value in performing funny calculations to divy up moral blame according to shifting trade dynamics, just much easier to point it out as shared global responsiblity in the path for Modernity.
Whether Chinese workers benefit economically from manufacturing exports doesn't change the fact that when a US consumer buys a product made in China, we could reasonably count those manufacturing emissions as US consumption-based emissions rather than Chinese production-based emissions.
This is really a question of "but for" causation: but for US consumer demand for these products, would these specific manufacturing emissions have occurred? If the answer is no, then there's a strong case for counting them as US emissions regardless of where the factory happens to be located.
Your point about global emissions sidesteps the question entirely. Of course all emissions are ultimately global in their climate impact, but for policy and measurement purposes we still need accounting frameworks. The question is whether production-based or consumption-based accounting gives us a more accurate picture for policy decisions.
The unemployment and poverty argument, while valid for other discussions, doesn't really bear on which accounting method better reflects responsibility for emissions.
The only thing moving the needle is renewables and nuclear generating power more cheaply than fossil fuels, so it becomes stupid to not switch to them even if you have no regard for the long term health of the environment.
Per capita emissions give us a better idea of which groups of people require the largest change in their lifestyle in order to hit net zero. The current numbers suggest that the typical person in the US will have to do a lot more to hit net-zero than the typical person in China. Obviously, you can do better and estimate per capita emissions for each province/state/city or by wealth level. For instance, in many poor countries, most of their emissions come from the top 5-10% of the population. Everyone else emits basically nothing.
On the other hand, the total emissions of a country, absent other information, has little actionable value. It can only be uses to assign blame, so quite useless.
The environmental impact from these would be immense, I'd imagine.
A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
1 second = 1 month
IIRC from assessments of the US military's carbon footprint, cumulative footprint of nuclear weapons infrastructure is probably significantly less than .1%
There's a hundred other things to worry about first IMO.
> A bomb on its own does not emit carbon dioxide… It’s the infrastructure, the construction (cement emits a lot), fossil fuel use, manpower, consumption, supply chains etc that all contribute.
> A study published in the Energy & Environmental Science journal has documented that using 1/1000 of the total capacity of a full-scale nuclear war weaponry would induce 690 tonnes of CO2 to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere. This is more than the annual carbon footprint of the United Kingdom.
[1] https://lakenheathallianceforpeace.org.uk/carbon-footprint-o...
It's the massive infrastructure to do the things profitably at scale that is often the problem with much of the stuff we consume and use. Then the "cost" of the environmental damage down the line. The "intangibles" get split up.
Then we see these insane figures when these intangibles are all lumped together. This further disconnects people's brains from the real scale of what's going. Cuz our brains suck with big numbers.
1. China 26.16%
2 United States 11.53%
3. India 7.69%
4. Russia 3.75%
5. Brazil 3.16%
6. Indonesia 3.15%
7. Japan 2.15%
8. Iran 2.06%
9. Saudi Arabia 1.60%
10. Canada 1.54%
The top 10 countries account for about ~60% of global CO₂ emissions.
Better context can be found here[1] (countries by emission per capita). It's still not great because it shows a lot of small countries at the top. For example: Palau is the first, but it has a population of a few thousand people, so their emissions are a rounding error when compared to other countries.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Per capita emissions is a way to assign relative sin by those who feel guilty about living large.
Bill Gates today, "This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people.”
How about GDP per emission? And that would make China way higher than US.
What is more important is efficiency.
Otherwise the logical argument is “the US should have remained poor with more human suffering because our carbon footprint would be smaller”
That’s an insane statement
Americans produce 2-2.5x more output per ton of carbon emitted than the average country. And this despite the fact that the US is (1) the second largest manufacturer in the world, (2) one of the largest agricultural producers in the world, and (3) the largest oil producer in the world.
The US has a surprisingly low per capita carbon footprint given its vast per capita carbon-intensive production.
If you compare emissions/export volume, then the US is behind lots of European countries, like Germany (or even Italy). Comparisons with the Netherlands (heavy agriculture) or Norway (big oil producer) are looking really bad, too: US is around 15 (tons CO2/capita/year), while China is at 8, Europe at 6ish and India at ~2.
The only countries I would classify as "surprisingly low" is France (at 4.5, thanks to massive past investments into electrification and nuclear energy) as well as India (at 2, mainly a result of low industrialization, and likely to rise sharply).
US + Canada is doing quite badly at CO2 emissions, even compared to wealthier nations like Luxembourg or Switzerland (!!). While part of it may be low population density, that is not the full story either (compare Norway).
Glad they are trying to do good things though.
China is by far the leading emitter. Over double of the US as of 2023 (latest available data I can find). China's emissions also aren't falling, they are skyrocketing. The US emissions ARE falling.
The US dominates in cumulative, which is essentially the measure of the total damage done to the planet. The US is doing something about it though. Yearly emissions have been dropping since 2007.
If China is the factory for all of these products sold in the US (and elsewhere of course), then isn't China just accounting for even more US emissions?
In that sense, some sort of eco-Trump could put all the tariff money into green tech or something, to balance out the exporting of emissions.
Though to be fair, I gotta imagine that... a lot of chinese emissions are purely for domestic purposes.
If the US put a 1000% tariff on Chinese goods tomorrow, emissions in China would likely go down a decent amount, right? But is that an indicator of their production needs? Or the US's consumption patterns?
Not that this is some bilateral thing, there's a lot of people buying a lot of stuff from many places. Just thinking about a very simple example, and how I would like to see quantification on this front, but I don't know how doable it really is.
Whereas the US is trying to increase its fossil fuel industry and cancelling renewable projects.
Who cares about mental gymnastics. It's a win for literally everyone and I hope you ca see it that way instead. Competition is good. It drives others to keep up.
Despite what the current US govt wants, the economics of solar and other renewables will drive it. Worst they can do is slow it down a bit.
China can't have it both ways, they are glibly blaming the rest of the world for their emissions while reforesting due to importing timber from rest of the world illegally.
> The Environmental Investigation Agency says: "The immense scale of China's sourcing [of wood] from high-risk regions [of the world] means that a significant proportion of its timber and wood product imports were illegally harvested." And research by Global Witness last year said there were "worrying" levels of illegality in countries from which China sources more than 80% of its timber.
It's probably fairly unknowable what percent of emissions are for products that will be exported back out from China, but I think it's reasonable to say that when I buy some random wooden table from China and import it into Australia (for example), that I am at least somewhat responsible for those emissions, even if per-country emissions data doesn't reflect that!
I don't think this is some free pass for Chinese ecological behavior overall. My general hypothesis has been that at least some part of emissions reductions in the US and Europe are due to outsourcing. I just don't know how much of it is that.
Or actually, if per capita doesn't matter. Then China could fracture into 10 separate nations, and their output would sudenly be negliable?
> Then China could fracture into 10 separate nations, and their output would sudenly be negliable?
Don't you see the argument goes both ways? If the US merge with a few Africa countries, does it count as an "improvement" in regard of carbon emission?
Yes? I fail to see what your point is?
But seems both unworkable and likely to fail/lose its positive effect in less than a decade anyway.
You are incorrect that China isn’t doing anything to lower its impact. It’s emissions would be much much much worse for the standard of living increases it achieved without investments in clean energy and EVs, tech that it is exporting abroad to the benefit of the world and to the dismay of America’s petro dollar dependence.
With such thinking, I now get why the rest of the world is beginning to hate America so much.
I actually disagree a bit on the first part. I think developing countries have a right to have higher per capita emissions as they raise their standard of living and economy where they can get to the point of widely adopting clean energy.
The o the thing to consider is that China isn’t really a full on consumption economy yet, that they develop a lot of infrastructure and make a lot of stuff for export, all that would be counted in per capita emissions even if it wasn’t to the benefit of a per capita member. The infrastructure building is going to slow down someday (like it did in Japan), China should seriously consider its exports next (especially rare earth refining which is really dirty and resource intensive).
But trees are nice.
Source: https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.918
I'm saying: perhaps we shouldn't be giving that country such acclaims when in addition to adding lots of trees, they're also burning an absolutely colossal amount of carbon just with their coal use alone. Two things can be true at the same time, and we can be even handed in our appraisals.
Your take is uncharitable and inaccurate.
If I helped an old lady across the street right after robbing a corner store, I probably shouldn't be given accolades.
We shouldn't consider the fact China did much more deforestation to start with and even after all this reforestation China has lesser forest area than the US despite being larger in size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_ar...
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54719577
> The US claims: "China is the world's largest consumer of illegal timber products." > And, according to studies, that is true.
> The Environmental Investigation Agency says: "The immense scale of China's sourcing [of wood] from high-risk regions [of the world] means that a significant proportion of its timber and wood product imports were illegally harvested." And research by Global Witness last year said there were "worrying" levels of illegality in countries from which China sources more than 80% of its timber.
It may also take into account the viable land area, lest we also want to condemn Australia for having so much less forest area despite being similar in size to the US.
By the "forest baddies index", South America is the baddies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_by_continent#/me...
> “the doomsday outlook [on climate change] is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.”
I guess it's cool there's something to be hopeful about, westerner's just seemed excited to make money off of melting ice in Greenland.
China isn't following a particularly unique path, they just did a speedrun of economic development - they had nearly everyone living in extreme poverty in the 1980s. Before long, they'll be looking for cheap markets to outsource manufacturing and extractive industries to... which is why they're lending money to forgotten African nations. Keeping Russia an international pariah and making them economically dependent on China is probably up their alley too.
India 22 million acres,
Russia 52 million acres - an area about the size of Kansas.
https://news.agu.org/press-release/a-century-of-reforestatio...
Honest questions how much forest the US and UK added since they are probably the loudest in the issue of deforestration?
It's also hard to balance afforestation without causing scarcity of water and displacement of native forest habitats. For example, instances where shrubs are misclassified as forests inflate the report figures. China seems to be the global leader in biodiversity loss, with about 80% of its coral reefs and 73% of its mangroves gone since 1950. Everyone knows their abusive fishing practices, and the millions of tons of plastic pollution into the ocean every year.
So, keep up the good environmental efforts, China, and hope you do even better.
If the world had 25% less GHG emissions to date, warming may well still be sub 1C, and the reefs might be fine.
source from Global Carbon Project, is this reliable?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?t...
They've been around for over half a billion years.
They survived the Great Dying, which killed 80-95% of marine species.
And now the ocean gets 0.9 C warmer and it's game over for coral?
Coral and coral reefs will surely exist for the next few hundred million years but e.g. the Great Barrier Reef as an example of a vibrant reef ecosystem might not. We don't know exactly where the tipping point for these extremely complex systems lies, but we know that it's some point in the direction we're heading and we're starting to see examples of the outcomes that scientists predict to see near those tipping points.
For example, South China Sea coastlines from Vietnam and China side are basically completely dead. There zero ocean environmental awareness in both countries and it's all about just devouring all ocean creatures with no self awareness.
This is especially apparent if you take a look at the other side of the same sea. Philipines coasts are absolutely beautiful, full of life (well as much as you can get these days). Huge conservation efforts and really strong indigenous culture that respects the ocean made much more difference than global warming ever could.
Completely different views from two vastly different regional activities.
Is that not a bit of a non-sequitur though?
From the reforestation reports I've read, bringing back trees was also coupled with bringing back springs, water and rain to the local environment.
Do you mean that it can cause water scarcity in the original planting and nursing stages before the biotope becomes self-sustaining?
Yes, I thought about that when I wrote it. I was trying to bring validity to their efforts, without fully dismissing the issues.
> Since 2005, the FRA has relied on data provided by a network of officially nominated national correspondents...
My understanding is that these reports are heavily based on data reported by respective governments. I think "officially nominated national correspondents" means bureaucrats of different governments.
But the governments of Russia, India, China are all known to lie. A lot. About a lot of things. I would know.
My default stance is to be skeptical of such claims based on national reports. Independent verification using satellite imagery seems like a better approach.
About 130 million.
> Over the last three and a half decades China has planted roughly 120 million acres of forest
Where did the rest come from?
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.
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.
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.
Or Beijing could ban birth control and rely on the natural human sex drive to increase the birth rate.
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.*
If the argument is that Tibet was not a country, then the same applies to Taiwan. Taiwan is not internationally recognized as a country, except for a few nations.
It's really quite interesting to see China being labelled as imperialist mean while the western powers have been colonizing and meddling in all kinds of affairs for generations... (see Operation Northwoods as one example)
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.
The entire point of being able to mention past mistakes is for future generations to be able to learn from them and avoid making the same mistakes. It seems, in recent times, that while this liberty is "afforded" to US/Europe, they're not able to use it effectively, if at all. Meanwhile, even though the Chinese might not be able to talk about their mistakes publicly, it seems evident from their progress and events that they have not forgotten them, and that it is in their minds, at the very least.
Edit: Not to mention, looking at how your current president is going after Canada just because of an ad, don't keep your hopes up on US citizens being able to "mention" things either.
What good is mentioning past mistakes if there's strictly zero consequences
This isn’t some gotcha. This article is about china, so chinas issues are relevant.
It works well when the government is pursuing welfare maximising initiatives, but limits self-correction when the government goes off track.
A small example of it going wrong, was when Mao convinced peasants to exterminate Sparrows and other ‘pests’ only to severely disrupt the ecosystem and cause a famine.
> I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist said the quiet part out loud in 2001, but conservatives have been running that playbook since the New Deal.
I think one of America's many failures is allowing a radically revolutionary right-wing (that is currently headed full speed to fascism) to keep calling themselves "conservatives" when that label is about as incorrect as can be. They don't "conserve" anything. They're not actually reactionary, although they often pretend to be. They are not trying to be defenders of Chesterton's Gate[1]. They're radicals, who want to reshape society to their own whims and prejudices. And they ought to be address and treated as such.
The main reason is probably that US never had the major socialist movements of 20th century Europe. Before those liberals were the left in Europe too.
And after his assassination everything went downhill fast with divide and conquer, all alongside global self destructive geopolitical nonsense that continues to this very day. We have spent, just since 2000 upwards of a very conservative baseline of $10 trillion on war and military related expenses. That's a starting point of about $30,000 for every single man, woman, and child in America. Think about all of the amazing things we could have done with that money. Instead we just blew it on pointless wars and have literally less than nothing to show for it since they not only made the US far less safe, but made the world far less stable.
Reagan changed the game, Newt Gingrich destroyed cooperation, and now we're living in the world they created.
It just so happens that systems of dependency can also be framed positively as 'solving hunger' or whatever. The fact that 60 years later 'solving hunger' has translated to having more than 41 million people completely unable to feed themselves without government assistance is not a coincidence. It a third stanza of that old saying 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Give a man a fish every day and he'll do whatever you want to keep getting that fish.'
There's countless ways we could have spent that war money (no different during LBJ times with Vietnam) to help create ways for people to be able to genuinely provide for themselves. But I don't think this was ever the goal.
This is complete nonsense. Certain demographics that depend the most on welfare oppose it the most. Mitch McConnell responded to concerns about the political impact of Medicaid cuts saying that voters would "get over it".
LBJ was certainly motivated by power, but he also genuinely cared about social issues as well. He knew that the Civil Rights Acts would overall cost him far more politically than he gained in terms of support from newly enfranchised black voters.
So then he passes the Civil Rights Act in July 1964, then the Food Stamps Act on August 31st 1964, and then there's the election. The black turnout for the election ended up being 58% with something like 94% of their vote going to him, giving him a landslide of an election victory. So what he was saying wasn't just trying to convince people, as it's often been reframed - he was simply being a realist and was 100% correct.
The guy was a massive racist and segregationist for most of his entire political career. But more than anything he was a professional politician who wanted power. And he did what he thought could get that power. This [1] Snopes article includes many of his 'greatest hits' and tries to conclude with an argument claiming that he wasn't mostly fixated on claiming the black vote, but it makes no sense. Apparently in reading the headlines about the Civil Rights Act he was found in a melancholy state and when asked why he said, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come." That was obviously him being worried that his calculations might been wrong, but they weren't - he won 44 states in the election.
[1] - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-voting-democratic/
Yeah it is a coincidence. The last 60 years also coincided with massive deindustrialization, job losses and reducing labor power, and multiple drug epidemics. I'm much more inclined to believe it was those factors, and not "welfarism".
This isn't true. I cannot recommend Robert Caro's works on LBJ enough. Johnson had plenty of flaws, but he cared deeply about people, especially the poor. He taught immigrant schoolchildren and saw their plight. He grew up before the Hill Country had electricity and saw the reality of true poverty, and when he had power he used every bit of his skills and connections to get things like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, Medicare, and Medicaid - and so many more.
You can't (and shouldn't) separate LBJ and his administration from atrocities in Vietnam, but if he had been able and willing to extract America from Vietnam, he would be without dispute the greatest president in history and it's not close.
There's been a large effort to reimagine LBJ because having an exploitative racist as the progenitor of many of these things (which you mentioned) is kind of awkward, but reality is always so much more interesting than fiction, precisely because of such things.
---
In the future you'll see something similar with the Amish. There's about 400k Amish in America growing at about 2.5% per year, thanks to healthy fertility rates. And they do, when they see it as necessary, vote (as they did for Trump). As their population continues to swell, and election margins continue to narrow, they're going to be capable of deciding elections in the US in the foreseeable future.
And so you're going to see a Republican suddenly become a hero for everything the Amish care about. Is it because he cares about the Amish? No, but that's certainly how it'll be framed. As an aside, I find the idea of the Amish as kingmakers hilariously appropriate. I guess the meek truly will inherit the Earth!
That’s not true! Some guys got really really rich with it. So, working as indented.
Europe prospered under democratic governments after the second world war. My particular region of Germany was rural, agrarian and piss poor before the war. Now it is an industry hub and one of the richest regions in Germany, all thanks to a democratic government, which prioritised development of rural areas.
The wealth we now enjoy is incomparable to what we had under authoritarian rule before.
Let's also not forget, that the Cold war divided Europe in two halves, one with democratic governments and one under authoritarian rule, an A/B test so to say. The end result was, that they needed a wall in Berlin to keep the people from fleeing to the west.
> Look around the world and see how many countries managed to achieve similar success using the same liberal principles
Beside the whole of Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Uruguay and Taiwan come to mind. Taiwan has a per capita GDP 2.5x that of mainland China.
Also, Europe dominated the world for a couple of hundred years before the Great War. Some parts of Europe may have been poor during that time, but compared to the rest of the world I do think it was a whole lot better.
Japan was incredibly rich in the beginning of the 20th century - and it was definitely not a democracy. Australia, Canada and NZ are all part of the ex-British Empire and I would say that's what made them prosperous, not their political system.
South Korea rode on the back of US support, like Japan after the war, but I do agree they did that while being mostly democratic.
Uruguay has just very recently become a nice place due to basically a single guy! That president, Jose Mujica, was such a legend! And a big critic of capitalism , by the way.
Taiwan was what we used to call the "Asian Tigers" that became rich in an incredibly fast manner... I don't know that you can attribute that to a political system at all: Singapore was and is a dictatorship and is perhaps the best example of Asian Tiger - it became richer than Australia in like 20 years!
All in all: you do not convince me. You do not seem to understand what made those countries rich in my opinion and you haven't really reflected on it if you really think that democracy was the common theme.
EDIT: Taiwan is a tiny island, China is a huge country. The GDP percapita of Shanghai and Beijing is about the same as Taiwan... Hong Kong and Macau, also part of China, have much larger GDP/pc still.
that is what it means to have property rights.
It prevents your interests from being usurped by someone else without first consulting you. Of course, like anything, it can be taken too far, but getting the balance right is important.
If it tips too far towards gov't authoritarianism, the people who are not connected tends to suffer silently (while the majority who gets told these "nation building" projects benefits them).
If it tips too far towards the private individual, then you get nimby-ism and such.
The minute we had a huge health emergency that should have united the population, it was immediately politicized such that half the country was trying to fix it, and the other half were trying to prolong it and grief the fixers.
We're done for if we can't stop pitting half the country against each other over literally every issue.
The government had to step in and pay farmers NOT to plant, to extricate them from the downward spiral / race to the bottom that the “free market” had producted in the face of automation / massive supply shocks.
Meanwhile, the laid-off farm workers (20% of USA used to be employed in farm-related jobs) migrated to cities but it would be a decade before the manufacturing base was built up to employ them. They lived in Hoovervilles and shantytowns set up to house them. A third of the country’s banks failed and the money supply shrank. The fed sat that one out. You can read books by John Steinbeck and others describing life at that time (eg Grapes of Wrath).
So eventually, projects like the Interstate Highway System, and even weapons manufacturing and mobilization for WW2 caused mass employment. At a time when people needed jobs, this was a good thing for the economy and didn’t need communist propaganda to attract workers. Capitalism’s race to the bottom created the desperation the workers needed for undertake large state projects. And it is about to happen again.
Ironically, around the same time the US had a massive surplus, Russia and China were experiencing massive man-made famines under collectivization. Whether that horrific economic experiment ultimately led to more prosperity through 5-year plans is a contentious question (ideological leftists like Noam Chomsky have told me, quoting Amartya Sen, that supposedly China had less deaths from malnutrition afterwards than India, but that’s hardly a high bar considering their population density).
PS: I don’t mean to pick on communism alone for extreme ideological economic system enforcement leading to famines. The Irish Potato Famine could probably be squarely put into the ideological capitalism column (landlords and property rights trumping people’s lives), or how Britain (a capitalist country) exploited India and the famines in Bengal were also largely due to requisition of grain, similar to the Volga famine during the Russian civil war.
Lack of free press makes it easy to look successful.
It was the same thing with the Soviet union, was it ever really successful at any point?
Soviets never did any of this. They "stubbornly" kept to a command economy. While china does have their 5-year plans and command economy, they have loosened that up for private individual's enterprises, and allowed special economic zones for which free market capitalism thrives.
With a bit of state help in infrastructure etc, this enabled china to leverage their enormous human capital to simply out-muscle their way into industrial dominance. Now with such a dominant position, they can call shots in a way that irks the US. Compounding the problem is that the authoritarian style of gov't in china enables long term strategic planning and execution - something that seems sorely lacking from the US for the past 3 decades.
You’re literally just explaining why the Soviet Union was less successful.
Nothing stopped the Soviet Union from liberalizing their economy and running it better like China. They just didn’t do it. Which loops us back to my original comment.
I didn’t bring my point up as some kind of communism versus capitalism thing, I’m just plainly stating that as far as single-party mostly-authoritarian governments go, China is far more accomplished than the USSR was.
America had to go to all the way to the moon to win a "first" against the Soviet Union in space.
yes. the soviet union was wildly successful for most of its history. it went from a backwater poor agrarian country to an industrial superpower near peer with the US in a single generation, while simultaneously going through multiple brutal wars and crushing nazi germany at immense cost. despite all that, the soviet union had the fastest and greatest economic and quality of life rise of any country in the 20th century.
of course it had problems that led to its collapse but you cannot be serious and say it was never successful at any point
I see a lot of cope with "c-China is lying! It's not really that good!" But lots of tourists such as myself have been all over the country, and tbh, I think the "propaganda" undersells it a bit. I thought there was no way it could be as nice as the travel videos I saw, but it was even better.
And as for free press, look at where freedom of press took United States. You have companies like Fox news that "aren't actually news, just entertainment", who blatantly lie about election fraud. You have podcasters like Joe Rogan who are at the same time "just bullshitting", while also pushing ideological narratives. And most republicans still believe election was stolen in 2024.
And overall, the party that was all about free speech, free trade, and small federal government power is pretty much doing the exact opposite in every single aspect, and people voted for them.
Im glad China has reigns on all of that. It allows them to pass laws like this https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/chinas-new-influencer-law-wan...
And yes, from a pure statistical standpoint, having centralized power isn't optimal since you don't want someone crazy having lots of centralized power, but at the same time, you also don't want what US has, where on the average 7/10 people simply just don't give a fuck about US being destroyed financially and socially.
It claims free speech is being taken away, then gets upset people use it (Fox News).
Then it celebrates a law that actually curtails free speech.
In the US, organized religion and Fox News are the two most destructive forces in our society.
Yes. There are already laws that curtail free speech - i.e yelling fire in a crowded theater as the popular example. Its not hard to extend this to the act of lying about information on air.
The optimal solution is that the government should have the power to enforce a ban on certain individuals on social media, which should be done through a court procedure where facts are presented and if the person is deemed to be spreading misinformation, the ban applies.
And the famous right wing argument of "don't give government power because it will use it to oppress you" doesn't work anymore.
And your idea of court ordered ban on speech? What is a good example? That Covid absolutely 100% didn’t originate from a lab in China? How about the fact that Covid vaccines stop transmission of the virus?
Both of those were actually banned on major social media sites, then turned out to be true.
So what you’re suggesting is banning speech that isn’t untrue. Just inconvenient to those in power.
Sounds horrible.
The act of it is not, but you can be charged with other things like inciting panic, and so on, especially if someone gets hurt.
Same laws would apply to broadcasting.
>And your idea of court ordered ban on speech? What is a good example?
* Saying that vaccines are causing mass issues, and government is hiding it.
* Lying about what officials said in relation to vaccine. Nobody said that vaccine stop transmission or that vaccines even mean you don't get covid. The whole goal of mandates was to overall reduce the risk of the complications, which were the primary cause of death.
* Claiming that MRNA is untested, or the whole vaccine is untested or can alter the genes
E.t.c and so on
Discussion should not be banned. You can talk about available evidence. You can talk about things that are unclear. But when you straight up lie to promote a political narrative and make stuff up, that should be prosecutable. All of this is easily discoverable in courts.
Other countries were able to successfully develop with less authoritarianism than China (Japan did it twice: Meiji Restoration and post-WW2), and were able to move to more democratic systems.
See the book How Asia Works by Joe Studwell for various case studies on what works and what doesn't:
* https://profilebooks.com/work/how-asia-works/
* https://bookshop.org/p/books/how-asia-works-success-and-fail...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16144575-how-asia-works
Oops, my hypocrisy meter just broke.
I'm glad they don't have self-induced famines anymore I guess, but it's not exactly japan in the 80s.
From what I read online the people there are free to rant and get things fixed. Their local government representative is held accountable if the people in his/her province are unhappy. Not too different from a typical democratic setup I guess? But this could be off because I don’t know anyone personally there.
For tech workers in particular, the structure of the economy would prevent high equity-based compensation. I also distinctly recall China's heavy-handed enforcement of COVID lockdowns, and the sudden about-face when discontent reached a boiling point. Then there's the censorship too - disagreeing on low-stakes local issues is one thing, but if you disagree with national policy, you cannot exactly discuss it in the open the way that we do here.
I have known a few Chinese people, and they downplay this stuff. Some of them are even political refugees from the purges following Mao's death, and they downplay the level of authoritarianism in the country. As bad as the US has gotten recently, we're still not at that level.
It really does seem like both nations are slowly converging on similar systems of government, but hopefully this authoritarian swing in the US can be limited.
In China, the only real restriction is that you cannot severely criticize the Party and its leaders. I mean, minor criticism is acceptable—for example, pointing out areas that aren’t working well—but you cannot completely reject them. For instance, you cannot post offensive memes about leaders. This is different from the U.S., but I think the comparison is interesting. By sacrificing this particular freedom, we actually gain many other freedoms.
The most typical case this year was a food poisoning incident at a kindergarten. The staff, ignoring safety regulations, added toxic chemical elements to the food. This incident went viral on the Chinese internet, and the public criticism was focused on the government and relevant medical authorities, but people did not(dared not)—blame the Party itself. In the end, a large number of the responsible personnel were punished or sentenced. The problem was resolved, and it did not implicate the Party itself.
Many people don’t realize China’s major advantages, and I only understood them by observing foreigners who run businesses in China( i mean this video if anyone is intreseted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ozoOKhUO4&t=329s) . China has a system of accountability. If anyone travels in China, I highly recommend observing rivers, streets, and even trees—they all have markers indicating who is responsible. This means that if something goes wrong in that area, someone is accountable. Of course, corruption can undermine this, but the system is still operational. China doesn’t have problems like California’s high-speed rail, the UK’s HS2, or the charging stations under Biden that were barely built and with almost no one held accountable.
As for why I chose the UAE: honestly, Europe has disappointed me too much these days. Our social media is full of reviews about being stolen from or robbed while traveling in Europe, and the same applies to Southeast Asia. They’re basically at the same level of insecurity. Even in the UAE, which is considered a relatively safe country, I was still worried about my credit card being lost or fraudulently charged. In China, I never have to worry about such things. Of course, Japan, South Korea, or Singapore might also be safe, but those countries are just too boring for me.
Do I care about politics? Of course I do. The more sensitive topics can always be navigated with wordplay—everyone is familiar with these strategies. For more serious matters, a VPN works perfectly.
(My English writing isn’t very good, so I often write in Chinese and use ChatGPT to help me translate.)
Also, Linux is invovled?
(Yes it is coming under threat of caging in the US too now.)
Do you think this is a polite suggestion from the government?
I trust it more than other internet posts, as it's a first-hand description. It also mostly matches what @yanhangyhy wrote here.
I suspect these are much more of a reason to offboard her from social media than all the LGBT stuff, which she had already done for years.
Source: The Daily Mao on Twitter, who said he physically spoke with her half a year ago. Naomi said she's fine, she's just not allowed to have a public social media presence. She's very lucky not to have been thrown in jail for national security/terrorism reasons, especially given how paranoid the security officials are. Perhaps the Shenzhen authorities put in a good word for her.
I’ve lived in Europe my whole life. I’ve never been robbed or felt unsafe. It’s also a very diverse region so it’s hard to generalize. But the supposed “decay of the west” is mostly internal propaganda from our very own anti-migration right wingers.
But regardless, I’d take having a 0.001% chance of my wallet (which contains zero valuables) being stolen versus being silenced by the government for criticizing the regime or being unable to acknowledge your sexual orientation. Let alone all the history rewriting and censorship.
But Europe is also quite heterogeneous. E.g. in Scandinavia getting scammed or pickpocketed is really rare, but in say Barcelona or Rome the chance is a lot higher. Violent crime like robbery is in general very rare everywhere.
it's not propaganda, i am talking some thing like 'yelp', real people share real experience after travel to EU. sure there are many good ones, but lots of bad ones.
> unable to acknowledge your sexual orientation
you can. but not in the public media. people share LGBT content on the Internet all the time. Right now the most popular influencer on chinese tiktok is a crossdresser
not intent to change your view, just some clarification.
I also now realize that my original comment may seem harsher than I intended. I fully understand your point of view since I was also born in a comparatively poor place, and I realize how uplifting it is to see everything around you improve at a rapid pace. But despite this, cases like that of Naomi Wu are egregious. Nobody can say for sure how much each “inconvenient” aspect of her online presence (accusing companies, being openly gay, having an Uyghur partner) has contributed to her shutdown, but the fact is that this person can’t publish her videos on tech anymore. This is very hard to justify for me.
Nonetheless, thank you for sharing your opinion. It is very valuable to get your perspective here.
Personally, I don’t quite agree with this kind of action, unless there’s a clear law that she violated. But China isn’t very transparent about such matters, so sometimes what the government does is right, sometimes it isn’t. Each case needs to be studied specifically. However, this lack of transparency is indeed a weakness.
Really, where?
I have been robbed in Belgium and in France, have had a knife on my throat on a Sunday morning, and have had burglars twice (once in Antwerp, once in Leuven). About five of my bikes were stolen, and I've been conned by construction workers several times.
Anyhow, sorry to hear about your experience. That’s how statistics work I guess. For any particularly unlucky person there’s a correspondingly lucky person that averages them out.
Conning is definitely more of a thing, but I wouldn’t place it in the same league as pickpocketing of tourists. Which of course is a thing, I don’t want to deny it. Just that using it as a reason to avoid Europe is absolutely blowing it out of proportion.
That is the baseline that Chinese are comparing to nowadays. That's why even many what we call safe places feel unsafe to them.
Also consider that just 15 years ago, China was definitely way unsafer than many European countries. China upgraded from a low public trust to high public trust society in front of people's living memories. This is what you have to consider when considering why Chinese people are happy with their government. All this voting stuff is just theoretical benefit. In Netherlands, our politics have been a mess for more than a decade. Voting certainly didn't solve the problems.
What you said is absolutely right. We’ve gotten used to this kind of society, so our expectations for safety when traveling are much higher than those of people from other countries. Credit cards are, of course, convenient, but in China we’re used to going out with just a phone—no wallet, no cards. No risk of fraud, no risk of robbery, convenient, fast, and safe.
Well...
So you have only ever visited a country that is very definitely NOT a democracy, and you have never lived in a democratic country.
> In the end, a large number of the responsible personnel were punished or sentenced. The problem was resolved, and it did not implicate the Party itself.
How is that "gaming many other freedoms". If the party was not to lame fine, but what happens when they are to blame?
> China doesn’t have problems like California’s high-speed rail, the UK’s HS2, or the charging stations under Biden that were barely built and with almost no one held accountable.
You said you cannot criticise the party and its leaders. So if something like HS2's cost overruns happen would you even know about it? Does everything get done at the planned cost?
> Our social media is full of reviews about being stolen from or robbed while traveling in Europe, and the same applies to Southeast Asia
That is not the reality of living in Europe. I lived most of my life in the UK and those sorts of crimes are rare.
i belive no country is democratic. its would be a fool to believe the two-party-voting-system=democratic.
> How is that "gaming many other freedoms". If the party was not to lame fine, but what happens when they are to blame?
its the freedom of accountability, people do wrong things, they get punished or sentence to death. most country dont have.
> So if something like HS2's cost overruns happen would you even know about it? Does everything get done at the planned cost?
yes. no, but things like HS2 would never happen in China. its just too Absurd. In China, at most the leaders might embezzle some money, but they still get the project done.
> That is not the reality of living in Europe. I lived most of my life in the UK and those sorts of crimes are rare.
Compared to China, it is still a very unsafe place. if i have travel to most of the relative-safe countries, i might go to EU. After all ,i read so many books about it, it's still a must-to-go place
- My marriage is invalid in China
- There are multiple clinics that can prescribe me gender-affirming care with little gatekeeping in my city (for now at least). My understanding is that there is significantly more gatekeeping in gender-affirming care in China
- The government actively censors discourse related to my sexual orientation and gender identity
While it appears the US is looking to become more like China in this regard, for now life under the Chinese government would be comparatively untenable for me.
So much in such few words. It sucks immensely.
On Chinese internet there is even a joke. Because women retire earlier than men in China, people discuss whether they can exploit a loophole by changing their legal gender to female in the year before the female retirement age to retire earlier.
> I think this is necessary
Are you trans?
Considering that Article 8 of the ECHR is framed as a negative right (as in freedom from coercion and interference):
> Right to respect for private and family life
> 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
> 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Then it seems odd that the ECtHR decided, at some point, to start interpreting it as a positive right (as in obliging specific actions to be taken), in this case the argument that anyone should be free to instruct the state to change their sex marker on state-issued identity documentation, with minimal restrictions attached.
Also they seem to have disregarded that permitting this may have significant repercussions on the rights and freedoms of others, depending on what exactly this sex marker permits an individual to do in any particular jurisdiction, i.e. accessing services and facilities restricted to those of that sex.
Because I really doubt that you personally know many trans people in this category.
> Sometimes I even think the evaluation requirements aren’t strict enough.
Leave it to trans people to judge that.
https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/11000/letter_to...
That doesn't really affect my daily life though, especially for someone born there. If it's the tradeoff for the other aspects (high public safety, developed infrastructure...) then I would consider accepting it.
But also, we should let that be an excuse for western powers. We have corporations forcing most of the decisions in our country for extremely short term gains.
In the US we have... decrypt public transit, horrible healthcare, halting progress on renewable energies, we're probably going to make less than our parents while billionaires make more.
Like it sucks, and if anyone tells you well at least you don't live in China you should roll your eyes, why does where we live have to suck. Oh, and we even have awful imperialism too.
We're building concentration camps. We have the Gestapo rounding up brown people. We have people being deported to supermax prisons in countries they have no connection to for protesting America's material support for genocide on college campuses. We have a media that is increasingly owned by lackeys of this administration (just look into CBS and Bari Weis as the latest example). Every aspect of our government is for sale from pardons to merger approvals and ending SEC investigations. There is functionally no law and order where we may start simply ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution like the 22nd Amendment. We have the military in our streets to incite violence. We have the Navy blowing up random small boats off Venezuela, arguably to incite a hot war with Venezuela. We have people who are rapidly unable to afford a place to live, food or both (and that's a bout to get a whole lot worse when SNAP gets suspended in November as the administration refuses to use the $6 billion set aside to fund it). We have a Speaker who won't swear in a duly elected House representative because she'll be the 218th vote on a discharge petition that will force a vote on release of the Epstein files, which the president will be forced to veto and he doesn't want to be put in that position.
I think about all these things when people bring up so-called "authoritanism" in China. Do you not see how dire the situation is not only in the US but basically all of the developed world? France, Germany and the UK are poised to have actual Nazis win their next elections due to these economic crises that governments absolutely refuse to address.
And imperialism? What imperialism? Pretty much every conflict on Earth currently can be traced back to the US, either because a US ally is a proxy doing war crimes or simply because the US turns a blind eye because one or both sides are buying US arms to commit those same war crimes.
Just this month the Nobel committee handed the Peace Prize to an opposition leader in Venezuela who has promised to make Venezuela more Israel-friendly and to privatize all the resource extraction to Western companies. "Peace".
We are in 1930s Germany. Worrying about China seems crazy to me.
It seems most of us in the West are mostly incapable of self-criticism and have been fed so much propaganda that we forgot how to see through all the bull**.
I hold immense respect for China, because I think they're achieving great things. I also think there is a high probability that they will be the first society to start creating permanent off-planet colonizations, which is what will probably signal the birth of the next era of humanity, so that in the future a name like Wang Yie might lie right alongside Neil Armstrong.
On the other hand I certainly don't think the US should emulate them. It's important for the world to be multipolar, not only in alliances, but also in ideology, perspective, and behavior. What will happen to China once they inevitably find themselves with a leader who is not socially motivated, or who is incompetent? In such a centralized system outright collapse is not out of the question. Or perhaps they'll be just fine? Who knows? By maintaining a wide diversity of systems across the world, I think we maximize our chances of collective success and minimize our chances of collective failure.
I just hope we never go back to Mao-levels of incompetence
Killing all sparrows, compared to defunding vaccine science in the wreckage of a pandemic..
Village Steel making compared to literally cancelling construction projects for advanced wind turbines
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...
It’s somewhat like the Tang dynasty at its most prosperous — when envoys from all nations came to pay tribute, and many Japanese and Central Asians studied and worked in Chang’an. But interestingly, I’ve noticed that in recent years, public opinion toward the Tang dynasty has gradually become less positive, which might be related to this.
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.
Of course one practical issue you run into is that while Aurelius was perhaps one of the greatest leaders of all time, his son and heir - Commodus, was perhaps one of the worst of all time. But at least if we speak of the eras prior to its decline, Pax Romana in particular, I don't really see how the Roman Empire would be horrifying. And in any case dramatic deterioration of the quality of public leadership, probably presaging a more broad decline, is clearly not limited to systems of minority rule.
When Julius Caesar conquered Gaul it was said he killed one million people and enslaved another million, and was celebrated for it. The actual numbers may not be accurate, but the sentiment probably was.
Moral relativism aside, would you like to live in a society where killing civilians during war and enslaving survivors were both acceptable?
Or how about the the abandoning of unwanted babies:
* https://academic.oup.com/book/6954/chapter-abstract/15122509...
* https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15d74av/how_...
Post-industrialization (kind of assuming they'd have access to modern tech here), slavery makes very little sense - even completely ignoring the ethical issues. Pay a negligible hourly/monthly cost to hire a skilled worker that can be easily replaced or dismissed as desired, or pay a huge up-front cost to take on somebody who is probably low skill, may or may not work out, and then be 100% responsible for all of their needs and other costs going forward? They'd likely outlaw it just like every other country that's gone through industrialization has.
Similarly exposure (which began to be phased out and moving towards adoption once Christianity took hold in Rome) was once again largely a product of technology. Abortion was extremely dangerous in those times for the mother, and exposure was one way it was done relatively more safely. And children were often exposed because of various deformities or their sex which, again, can now be detected at a prenatal stage. Though the sex issue again gets back to a lack of technology. Son's worked and essentially were your pension, whereas daughters joined the house of whoever they married, to say nothing of dowry related issues.
Obviously we have to do a lot of speculation to imagine what a Roman Empire in modern times would look like, but I don't think many of the knee-jerk reactions to it are really justified.
we have yet to solve either problem, regardless of whatever new terms we come up with to describe the plight.
By their standards multipolarity means control ove different circles of influence without interference.
That's what Russia wants for example, they want to secure the regime by controlling nearby countries (ideally turning them into Belarus, or by threat of destruction, like Georgia and Moldova, or by annexation, like Ukraine).
China wants to control territories surrounding them as well.
So don't be fooled by multipolarity, it's just a repacked imperialism and colonialism by right, not by earned influence.
Trust is brittle. I looked even more into the facade of america, and honestly, i am confused by both parties to a certain extent which are both controlled by billionaires etc.
The president I respect the most is teddy roosevelt, I have heard good things about kennedy too but I want to read so much more about the absolute chad known as teddy roosevelt.
I think that there is hope for america but that's only if people actually try to understand what's happening, which is what I am hoping, its a shame bernie sanders couldn't have been a president but I am hoping that a new wave of american politics could arise to tackle corruption/politcal lobbying/bribery.
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 ?
Propaganda doesn't imply any of these things; it just implies a polemic.
The best propaganda is 100% true and still achieves it's goal.
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.
Merriam-Webster: "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" and "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause" [1]
Cambridge Dictionary: "information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions" [2]
Wikipedia (quoting Encyclopedia Britannica): "Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented." [3]
Wikipedia further quotes NATO's 2011 guidance for military public affairs definition: "information, ideas, doctrines, or special appeals disseminated to influence the opinion, emotions, attitudes, or behaviour of any specified group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly" [4]
I think that OP's use of the word is well in line with each of those definitions.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda
[2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/propagan...
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!
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.
Your argument is that it can't grow to infinity, which is probably true. But there is nothing indicting we're close to any hard boundaries.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/index-of-cereal-productio...
It also turns out that producing food requires some amount of both planet and people.
You should look into what carrying capacity means, and in particular how our access to abundant cheap oil enabled us to overclock our chip in a manner of speaking.
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.
Victor Shih (China scholar) says that employers in China mostly don't care about profit margins nor do the banks that lend to them.
The UK is producing too many graduates, often doing low quality courses at low quality universities, who then cannot get the graduate level jobs they aspire to.
The UK does not have enough people to work in many other areas - tradespeople, care workers, doctors and nurses, archeologists, chefs....
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.
<looks at the world today>
Seems to me like that prediction is pretty on track.
It really isn't...
The good news is that the answer is to reduce the cost and carbon impact of energy production, and we’re making great progress here, but we cannot afford to take our foot off the gas, because although Ehrlich was wrong about the timing, he wasn’t wrong in his fundamental observation that the Earth has a finite carrying capacity.
Those predictions have completely failed and were replaced by new issues.
All of those things came to be - and we're on track for food shortages and famines too with the environmental crisis.
The latter has the qualifier "without interventions". The interventions just happened (widespread acceptance of abortion, "1 child per family", increased neoliberalization attack leading to less people being able to afford to start a family, cultural changes around marrying, loneliness epidemic, etc).
There is more trade then ever people are richer then ever and therefore less likely to have kids. 1 child per family law was a gross violation of human rights that likely did not significantly change the birth rate compared to other countries
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.
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.
Ehrlich in particular was suggesting mass starvation by the 1980's. Conceivably, it is possible that too many people will cause problems, but nothing like what they actually predicted has come to pass.
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 like Ehrlich ever got their ideas to begin with.
As a result, more than fifty years ago, on tape, Dr. John Calhoun made some eerily accurate[1] extrapolations of where human population is going to be now, and how our TFR (total fertility rate) would collapse (which they basically are, particularly since Millennial & Gen Z generations).
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOFveSUmh9U "John B. Calhoun Film 7.1, (NIMH, 1970-1972)"
It's entirely possible that the mice in this experiment were overheated, and dominant males didn't fight to "stay in solitude" but rather to be out of direct sunlight.
That's to say, if the cause for such mouseslaughter really was in the temperature, climate change could make original experiment relevant again.
The claims that theyll be proven right /on track any day now decades after their predictions failed is hard to take seriously.
It's not the business as usual people who made sure that their predictions fail its people working to either improve the world or sometimes to make money that actually changed things. In fact it was the people who pushed neo malthusian thinking that assumed things would continue as usual and therefore get worse
Furthermore, Ehrlich's PR stunt with Julian Simon of a bet during the peak of a commodity cycle was neither epistemologically sound nor a proof of absolutely anything other than markets do what markets do.
I challenge people who reach for the Ehrlich card whenever these growth conversations come up to reflect on what they're acting on and to recognize that the road of thought on LtG is dark and overwhelming. In fact, it ends at a destination that implies deep unflattering things about our fundamental capabilities as humans and role on this earth. It is natural, and human, to meet this with reactive fear. Keep this in mind as you read what follows.
I mention revisiting Limits to Growth because if you read the introduction[1] you would notice that they state their conclusions as follows:
1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustain able far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.
3. If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.
Furthermore, if you look at their 30-year update [2] published in 2002, you can get a few more notable quotes:
"We still see our research as an effort to identify different possible futures. We are not trying to predict the future. We are sketching alternative scenarios for humanity as we move toward 2100." (p. xvii)
and most telling:
"Our most important statements about the likelihood of collapse do not come from blind faith in the curves generated by World3. They result simply from understanding the dynamic patterns of behavior that are produced by three obvious, persistent, and common features of the global system: erodable limits, incessant pursuit of growth, and delays in society’s responses to approaching limits." (p. xviii)
The story Limits To Growth is trying to communicate is still pending and will be until ~2072. Nothing has failed and their nuanced commentary on the complexity of the issue has only aged well.
[1]: https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/
[2]: https://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Limi...
For an interest take on this debate (?) I recommend the book The Wizard and the Prophet by Charles C. Mann (who also wrote 1491 and 1493):
> In forty years, Earth's population will reach ten billion. Can our world support that? What kind of world will it be? Those answering these questions generally fall into two deeply divided groups--Wizards and Prophets, as Charles Mann calls them in this balanced, authoritative, nonpolemical new book. The Prophets, he explains, follow William Vogt, a founding environmentalist who believed that in using more than our planet has to give, our prosperity will lead us to ruin. Cut back! was his mantra. Otherwise everyone will lose! The Wizards are the heirs of Norman Borlaug, whose research, in effect, wrangled the world in service to our species to produce modern high-yield crops that then saved millions from starvation. Innovate! was Borlaug's cry. Only in that way can everyone win! Mann delves into these diverging viewpoints to assess the four great challenges humanity faces--food, water, energy, climate change--grounding each in historical context and weighing the options for the future. With our civilization on the line, the author's insightful analysis is an essential addition to the urgent conversation about how our children will fare on an increasingly crowded Earth.
* https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/220698/the-wizard-a...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34959327-the-wizard-and-...
The best usually leave the country after getting the prime education India can provide, and support the retirement plans of other countries' aging populations more than their own - the Indian government actively seems to encourage this, looking at how our PM tries to negotiate for more visas during every first-world trip. Even with the demographic dividend, we do not have enough jobs, so the elderly are not supported neither fiscally, nor infrastructure-wise, since old people cannot walk on bad roads or take advantage of non-existent programs anyway. For the younger people, the insane competition makes both work and personal life hell.
Whenever I see videos of China and their cities, and then look out of my window, it makes me both depressed and angry. I still don't understand how India can even be compared to China any more.
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.
Less productive hands (60 year olds are not as productive as 20 and 30 year olds, especially in any industrial and labor intensive field, but also in intellectual ones - who would have thought?). More older people in need of health support. Less dynamic society. Slowing economy.
Beyond some (not very low) point it's also a self-reinforcing feedback point to relatively quick (in historical term) elimination of a whole people.
Living of wealth does not only mean your own wealth. That is also state wealth as in getting services redistributed to you.
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, or are just left to die. You could even confiscate their assets and kill those old people, it wont fix most problems associated with a shrinking demographics.
The economy has fewer productive people, so the (fewer) younger ones have to work more, while at the same time the economy contracts around them because of fewer consumers. Infrastracture built at X level of population also can't be maintained (due to cost, political justification, and capacity) as the population drops far below X.
The younger ones have to live in a staler society, which an increased average age (in some countries the average person is already over 45 - used to be the average person was merely over 20-25 in the same societies decades ago), more decisions taken by people on their way out and not to their benefit etc.
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.
Nope, that's just a tiny part of the problem.
An economy has a certain size, which depends on how many people support it (work) and how many people buy stuff (consume).
Fewer young people means (everything else being equal) less productivity. That's regardless if the old people are kept around or euthanized (!) or whatever.
Seems you forgot that declining fertility also means less young people each year, not just a larger percentage of older people. Even if you ...kill anybody above 40 years old, the number of 20 and 30 year olds will still drop because of the declining fertility.
Smaller worker and consumer base then means contracting economy.
Let's check back in 20 years.
But I agree, let's check back in 20 years
The only real issue is the demographic shift - and old people will bear the brunt of that, not younger ones.
Unfortunately, "believer" or not, modern Western medicine has gotten extremely good at keeping infirm elderly people alive.
From a Capitalist medicine PoV, that's optimal for extracting their wealth.
From a macroeconomic PoV - "retired" or not, the net economic input from the top decades of the demographic curve will be nothing so positive as you seem to assert.
It's a "law of large numbers" problem - if you have a big population, you'll just have more people who live longer within that population then a similar, but smaller population.
US life expectancy has actually been falling somewhat recently - the whole "people are living longer" thing has always been a massive over simplification of long term historical effects and pressures (i.e. life expectancy didn't change all that much with the discovery of medicine, but it changed a lot because infant mortality stopped dragging down the average).
There are partial solutions, ie adding some small fees for each visit (since a lot of retirees are lonely and go for the doctor visit just to talk to somebody or complain, and as I said they all have various mix of long term issues). Where we live healthcare isn't fully free and you have to chip in a bit, and this ain't such an issue (apart from wealthy old people).
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...
Especially when basically every single thing is about money in politics
And inversely, demographic collapse if fertility falls will be a problem, just because it will hit after 2065 doesn't mean it's something to ignore.
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.
I'm from a western country and I agree with your statement and have a similar fear. My country is doomed because of the pension system.
BUT this doesn't apply to China. Their system isn't structured this way, therefore this is mostly irrelevant for them.
As long as China have a working population bigger than most countries, as well such amazing universities, they will perform better than all those countries.
Even with the population decline, they'll still have more able workers than all western countries for at least the next 100 years.
Let that sink in.
I never understood this thinking. Doesn't it assume infinite population is possible?
It was more likely something like "for the foreseeable future we'll have population growth and therefore a pyramid like scheme is a good solution for now".
Ideally the scheme should have already started adapting to the changing population dynamics, but humans for the most part (unfortunately) tend to kick problems down the road.
Politicians don't tend to get rewarded for solving tomorrow's problem when their populace tend to me more interested in having more money to spend right now.
So here we are, living large today with little regard for the cost to our future.
Canada saw the demographic writing on the wall, and solved its public/government pension problem in the 1990s:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1998_refor...
Good book on the history of the CPP, and how the reforms were determined and enacted (Fixing the Future by Bruce Little):
* https://utppublishing.com/doi/book/10.3138/9780802095831
There's no reason other countries could not have done something similar earlier (or even now).
In France it is reported that retirees now have higher (average?) incomes than workers:
* https://archive.is/https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/m...
This is completely ludicrous. For retirement planning purposes, it is often recommended to assume you'll need 70% of your working age income for the same lifestyle (you have fewer expenses—live not having a chunk of your income go to retirement savings), but in many situations it could even be ≤50%:
* https://archive.is/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inv...
To have the same (or more) in retirement generally means you "over saved" while working, and you could have had more resources for enjoyment of life earlier (after all, we don't know when our time will come).
It may not be exactly true, but it's close to be true, and then like you said the workers have way more expenses (rent, children).
I will point out that in the 90s we in France already knew that the retirement system was unsustainable. It is quite obvious if you look for 2 seconds at the population pyramid :-)
Generations of politicians tried and failed to do something about it, thanks to the left (and sometimes extreme right wing) saying that there was enough money and we just need to tax the rich more.
In the current pension system (at least the ones in the Nordics), the new generation pays for the old generation. This mechanism is broken, as it expects (as you pointed out) an ever-growing population, which is of course unrealistic.
Fixing [*] the broken pension system in a sustainable way is politically unpalatable and seems to have been so for decades. Lifting the pension age is the only "innovative" action available that is even discussed nowadays anywhere in public, as if that were the only viable alternative, which of course it isn't.
I've pondered why. Hammering out the details of a new system and taking care of a transition period etc. cannot be unsurmountable problems. It probably has to do with pensioners being a large voter demographic, thus the reason is some form of political self-preservation on behalf of the traditionally large parties.
So, instead of changing things to the better, a broken system must be maintained. Since the system is not only broken, it's essentially untouchable, therefore political decision-taking has to accept possibly sub-optimal decisions in related areas to avoid disturbing anything. In a way, the brokenness leaks.
Then, a shrinking population only exacerbates the problems of the pension system, spreading the brokenness further into other societal systems and decisions. And that's a bad path to be in.
[*] In an example of a better-working alternative system, any pension contributions would be personal, kept in an account managed by the state. The money is (low risk) invested by the state, profits/dividends reinvested, etc. Once one becomes a pensioner, the money can be withdrawn in whole or parts. Add taxes somewhere, such as when withdrawing the money. The state guarantees the lowest level of pension, something like today. Simple enough, and not tied to "children pay for parents".
Edit: formatting
Issue is due to the same politics as everyone else, Australia is having trouble reigning in the state pension (ideally in this scheme meant as a fallback to provide a minimum subsistence level).
Pessimistically: A society that doesn't support it's elderly, well it's a self correcting problem.
With a shrinking workforce and more robots, maybe that productivity gain is good enough to stall the inevitable.
Their crazy bad policy decisions resulting in 20% youth unemployment is a risk.
It isn't even hard to create. Things currently work like that children's game where each participant has to write the next word in the sentence. No amount of effort or coordination will produce a good novel.
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.
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.
Not to mention self driving vehicles allowing for more independence in old age.
Sign me up.
Pensions are an insane ponzi scheme but I'm somewhat optimistic that dignified aged care is a problem that can be solved.
However there is no denying sacrifices will have to be made.
(sometimes it materializes more directly, in things like NIMBY planning conflicts or homophobia)
It is remarkable how well the tradeoff of "you don't need political freedom if the economic growth rate is high enough" works for China, and also previously Korea and Singapore. Even, to a certain extent, Japan - fairly high levels of political freedom, but somehow it's still a one-and-a-half-party state.
I really like a book by Foucault that discusses the origins of the modern state. He argued that the modern state could only originate in the West because only there did a balance of power among large states form, generating sufficient competition. In contrast, during China's Ming and Qing dynasties, it maintained an overwhelming advantage over its surroundings, thus lacking the impetus for reform. But now everything is different. The world is not a rational free-trade world. The EU has only two choices: either re-integrate into a unified empire, or disband and learn the survival strategies of smaller states—not taking sides and cooperating with both China and the US, or something like ASEAN. Its current loose alliance is the worst possible choice.
As for the AFD, it may simply be that we think the other parties are being ridiculous. The most important things for an industrial country—power and energy—are not being fixed, while liberals just talk empty talk about values. I recently read that quite a few sausage factories in Germany have already gone out of business, and some have been bought by Chinese companies (Wolf Essgenuss GmbH). If something like that happened in China, most Chinese people would probably feel that China should perish.
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.
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.
what a joke! Just 8 years ago, there were hundreds of rare earth companies all fight against each other by pushing prices to the very bottom destroying any possible profitability of the business.
as of today, Americans would end up in jail for working for some random Chinese companies in so called sensitive sectors, but American companies can freely hire Chinese rare earth engineers.
is that the strategy you mean? lol
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].
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-...
* 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/2015/07/1...
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."
It's not a bad thing if this is mostly just restoring forests ravaged by bad policy, but it's a bit odd to compare this reforestation, quantitatively, to what's going on in countries that didn't have a "war against nature".
My area has seen some wildfire smoke season near the end of summer. It never happened when I was a kid. Now every summer there’s wildfire smoke for several days or several weeks.
The climate appears to be changing and heavily forested areas of midwest US and canada are on fire every summer.
Planting trees could be great for the environment, but without the moisture it could become a tinderbox for wildfires.
I suspect many governments are spending less on prevention because they can blame the consequences on climate change - whereas if climate change is increasing the risk they should be spending more on reducing it.
> Planting trees could be great for the environment, but without the moisture it could become a tinderbox for wildfires.
Trees also change the climate locally so might be part of the solution for that too.
Trees pop up on Chinese social media all the time, the rocks were a particularly egregious case.
yesbut•3mo ago