News this week that China has introduced a three-child policy pricked up my ears. It says it wants to reduce its old-age dependency ratio — and fair enough. But is it possible that strategic competition in the 21st century will enter a new dimension: population size?
China has a hefty lead on the United States in population. That matters because it is fast catching up in terms of income per capita. Once the two nations are closer in economic development, population size will determine strategic heft.
Meanwhile, in America, author Matthew Yglesias has written a provocative book titled One Billion Americans in which he demands a trebling in the size of America — in part to help keep China at bay.
“We want America to stay number one,” he said.
Pity the poor planet if population becomes a strategic battlefield.
I subscribe to Crikey because I believe in a free, open and independent media where news and opinions can be published that I can both agree with and be challenged by.
As a Crikey subscriber I always feel more informed and able to think more critically about issues and current affairs – even when they don’t always reflect my own political viewpoint or lived experience.
Join us and save up to 50%
Subscribe before June 30 and choose what you pay for a year of Crikey. Save up to 50% or, chip in extra and get one of our limited edition Crikey merch packs.
Join Now
Leave a comment
Jason’s last comment – “Pity the poor planet….” is a perfect illustration of many who ignore our planet’s biophysical limits. Both China and USA have an ecological footprint that exceeds the ability of their country to be sustainable for coming generations. Of course both may seek to buffer their overshoot by getting resources from other countries, but that is a dead end unless they can accept they need to adjust their global impacts.
Population increase is more than just birth rate death rate must be considered as well. If you take into account China’s recent increase in average age at death their performance would be far and away better than America despite the fact their population is far too big. To say otherwise is disingenuous or maybe a failure to correctly understand the significance of the statistic.
Use of the word “better” is my query here.
‘their performance’?
India might soon outdo China in having the biggest population in the world. Let’s hope nobody sees it as a race.
Australian media only ever refers to the UNPD, or maybe the OECD on population data. High population won’t last for long if/when it happens according to research 2013 from Deutsche Bank strategist Sanjeev Sanyal (followed with support of demographers etc.)
“The world is approaching a major turning point in its demographic trajectory and we think that the shift is likely to be sooner and sharper than mainstream projections suggest,” Sanyal writes…… forecasts suggest that world population will peak at least half a century sooner than the UN expects and that by 2100, and that level will be 2.8bn below the UN’s prediction. This is obviously a radically different view of the world.‘
https://www.businessinsider.com/deutsche-population-will-peak-in-2055-2013-9
Globally many questions are being asked of the UNPD and their analysis; it is also responsible for the ‘nebulous’ NOM net overseas migration formula that spiked population, from an unannounced definition change in 2006, in s few nations using it i.e. Australia, UK and NZ (?), then adopted by media for headlines…..
Good grief.
That’s all we need.
Ideological nutjobs spruking massive population increases in order to bolster their prospects in a war.
Right up there with luminaries such as QAnon, anti-vaxxers etc
Is there a limit to right wing lunacy? Can any sane person be so obsessed with comparative economic might to conclude that solution is that we destroy the planet so you can sell the other mob more shit they don’t need than they sell you? No! But it is said anyway.