• wahming@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    adding over 7 million people is what’s important

    It is not. When dealing with statistics, percentages are the only thing that matter.

    If it was a country like Canada, with a population of less than 50 million people, that would be problematic.

    Losing 15% of your population on a yearly basis isn’t problematic, it’s species-ending catastrophic.

    But with a population pool of 1.5 billion, what’s the actual concern? What social instability does this cause that a population of 1.5 billion already doesn’t?

    To put it in perspective, that’s the same population loss ratio that japan is currently experiencing. Japan, the country that’s teetering on the brink of cultural and societal collapse from an aging population.

    There will never be too few people in China

    Yeah this sums up the problem fairly well. You’re so stuck in your personal opinion of china’s population that you can’t imagine for a moment the situation changing, regardless of what the data might be saying. You’re no better than the people who refused to believe climate change was occurring. Fuck your gut instinct, pay attention to the actual numbers.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bro, the actual numbers (3 mil loss a year) is insignificant when your population has 1.5 billion people in it. What demographic will catastrophically collapse?

      You’re getting 7 million babies (i.e. young people) to replace 10 million old people… this is actually quite good and the way it’s supposed to be.

      And is this coming from a country that had a one child policy for decades, then increased it to two and then three kids. *They literally don’t want more people! *