Taiwan: lowest birthrate in the world

[gerri]

Wow, I'm trying to wrap my head around attitudes towards marriage, family life, and all that in China, wondering how strong an effect culture/traditions are having. For example, I get veeeery many of the females I talk to stating that they are at college so they can educate their child better. - No question whatsoever that marriage and one child will happen.

And then I find this TIME article... so, apparently, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau have the lowest birth rates *in the world*.

Shows just how quickly things can change.

[animal world]

Yes, i read this article as well. To me, this trend is commendable as the world is already overpopulated as is but this trend poses a huge problem and imbalance in graying nations with insufficient number of young people to pay for social programs for the elderly. Cutbacks in such programs will be inevitable.

Well-educated people opt for fewer children because they recognize how costly it is to prepare their kids for a good future (college education, etc). They are also more keenly aware how complicated it is nowadays to raise kids toward a well-adjusted adulthood. Additional significant factors are better access to birth control and women wanting economic independence through education and careers.

Here's another problem. Poor people will continue to have large families without giving them the means mentioned above. In undeveloped and underdeveloped countries increases in population will continue to outpace increases in the number of new jobs. This will increase the desire to emigrate to developed countries. But those countries have less and less of a need for unskilled or semi-skilled workers. Not only because their means of production become more and more sophisticated but also because of an increasing supply of such type of native workers (whose manufacturing jobs are moving to India, China and other developing countries).

[scottishlaura]

Loving all the generalisations in your reply Animal World -

"Well-educated people opt for fewer children"

Could that be some not all? I could name in an instant at least a dozen university educated friends who have three children or more (myself included).

"This will increase the desire to emigrate to developed countries. But those countries have less and less of a need for unskilled or semi-skilled workers."

Not true, I am from the UK and I think it is safe to say that we will always need immigrants. Why? Because many UK nationals are too lazy/whatever to do the unskilled/semi-skilled jobs, preferring instead to live on government handouts. Whereas immigrants are proven to be some of the hardest working members of society who are willing to do whatever necessary (ie work in the worst jobs) in order to advance themselves. Studies have shown that immigrants contribute significantly to a country's economy and may well be what keeps developed countries (with falling birth rates) ticking over.

Meanwhile here in China I know plenty of Chinese who have managed to circumnavigate the family planning laws and have a second child, and plenty more who would have LOVED a second child had they had the money to pay the fine.

[adrianlondon]

We had a documentary on BBC last night (Horizon: How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?) and one of its conclusions was that the better educated the woman was, the less children she was likely to have.

Most of the program was measuring how much land each person uses to live (Americans using the most, pretty obviously). Figures close to the top of my head were ... if everyone lived like an average American the planet can support 1.5 billion. If everyone liked like a northern European it was 3 billion. If everyone lived like an Indian (referring to people in India here) then it was 15 billion.

[animal world]

Loving all the generalisations in your reply Animal World -

"Well-educated people opt for fewer children"

Could that be some not all? I could name in an instant at least a dozen university educated friends who have three children or more (myself included).

The statistics bear me out. On the other hand, your example of a dozen friends is anecdotal. Let me ask you a question. What would happen if everyone follows your example and decides to have three children or more who, in turn, also will have three children or more? Any idea what China's population would be if it weren't for the one-child policy?

I'm not talking about the fun of having the kiddies but in terms of food supply, water supply, land availability, energy needs, HABITAT FOR OTHER SPECIES. Already, we don't have an adequate food supply because we have turned livestock into manufactured goods. Furthermore, people in undeveloped countries want to get beyond living at subsistence level. Unless you want to have them all living in abject poverty, how do you envision taking care of the increasing needs for the exploding population you seem to advocate? Or should we just be selfish and do exactly as we please without giving a d@mn about others?

Adrian, Americans in general are indeed pathetically wasteful but i wonder how exactly that BBC article came up with its conclusions. Pending on what other measurements are included, from a point of view of land use only, Canada would probably top the US (more land mass and slightly more than 10% of the US population).

[adrianlondon]

Not land ownership or land they can walk around on, but land needed (for example to raise cattle, to provide crops, factories) to feed/clothe/house etc a person.

[gerri]

Interesting where this thread is going... so, to throw in a few more bones:

- my original interest in this (well, for now) was in culture change: where I'm now, the girls are not happy that their career chances won't be good because employers will expect they'll stay home and raise the kid soon enough. However, they hardly seem to be at the point where not marrying or having a child (and #2 absolutely depends on #1, no other way there either) is even an option. Taiwan or Hong Kong were similar, but apparently changed more than quickly.

- About the number of people who can be supported:

It's the "human footprint" which is used for such calculations. Check out e.g. the work of Rees & Wackernagel... and yes, it talks about resources (even carbon sinks) "translated" into an area of land. From there, one can get to a lot of calculations: Is one country's population using as much land as their nation contains, or more? How many planets would it take for everyone to live like an American/European/average Chinese/...? How many people can our one Earth support if they live like the average so-and-so?

- The question of consequences to draw is one of the greatest mine fields:

Yes, statistics show that more-educated people tend to have fewer children.

Statistics also show that this may be changing.

The argument that the poor have too many children, causing all sorts of problems... well, having seen how social darwinism flowed right into national socialism and the Nazi programs for "Lebensraum" and control of such "improper" developments... better to work on education, birth-control etc. (btw, statistics also show that where women are more empowered to use birth control, children have a better chance at surviving childhood and getting an education, birth rates also decline)

- If you want to get the whole shebang, consider how industrialized countries celebrate the pronouncement that world population should stop growing soon-ish - and then go on to decry their declining birth rates and argue that people there need to, immediately, procreate or the social systems of welfare (etc.) are going to crash. Are we really so stupid that we can't change systems rather than try staying on a path which is not sustainable?

And, to bring this closer to these forums: China is seeing this population shift at the same time as industrialized countries (btw, except for the US - mainly because of immigration). And we are seeing the first calls for raising birth rates again, as if that solved things magically...

[animal world]

consider how industrialized countries celebrate the pronouncement that world population should stop growing soon-ish - and then go on to decry their declining birth rates and argue that people there need to, immediately, procreate or the social systems of welfare (etc.) are going to crash. Are we really so stupid that we can't change systems rather than try staying on a path which is not sustainable?

Yes, i find such reactions infuriating. The sad fact is that there isn't a politician willing to push a politically unpopular agenda and any decision that involves taking away goodies (social programs or curtailing some freedoms) or raising taxes will be unpopular with the majority of voters. Politician will resort to a quick Band Aid during their tenure and leave the mess (that becomes worse with every delay) to their predecessors. You've probably noticed, too, that all lofty anti-global warming measures always go into effect way into the future: "We commit to an 85% reduction ...by 2050" By that time, they will be long out of office and politicians on the scene then will say, "Oops, sorry, no way we can meet these standards. Changes should have been initiated decades ago. So, don't blame us."

[BrandeX]

If Taiwan wanted to increase their population, it could likely been done fairly quickly by opening immigration from Mainland China. 150 million new people or so (probably poorer or with large family) would have some effect over time on the population. They may not all get along however.

[chrix]

Hehe, another reason why this might not be feasible is that Taiwan already has one of the highest population density rates in the world..

[mcgau]

Ever heard of the lines in a banking advertising in hong kong: "Raising a baby costs you 4 (or 3) million , so i have to start my planning now." said Lee Lai-Shan, an Olympic female gold medalist in hong kong.

Who cares about traditional value of family. There's just no enough resources for raising up a child.

[skylee]

HK$ 4 million, and it was what it used to be. I suppose it costs more now.

[gerri]

otoh, i would so like to find the ad online in which an austrian bank advertises its (private) pension savings program with the dad who just sees his son for the first time, tells him "my child, my future, my pension" only to be shown a sour face and the tongue (yeah, like this: ) on the last words... yeah, Central European and Chinese ideas - obviously, totally, not understandable to each other

Besides, you notice how we have "poorer people still have larger families" together with "it's too darn expensive to raise a kid"?

[mcgau]

Besides, you notice how we have "poorer people still have larger families" together with "it's too darn expensive to raise a kid"?

Yeah, expectation changes.

Ever heard of a multi-language course for a 3-month-old baby? It's a kind of exaggerating example but many middle-class families feel ashamed not to stuff their kids with a lot of different skills for going into a prestigious school. Math Olympic competition, piano, a lot of language stuff and they may possibly even need to join a Little Spacemen Programme and yell "YES! IT'S POSSIBLE!"

A mother of 2 kids criticized these "Peking filled duck" education and she said, with a caring tone, that "if my children feel happy, it's everything." Soon, when she hanged out with other mothers and discovered that they all sent their kids to private "remedial" schools for learning big lots of skills, she worried their kids may lose competitiveness in the future. This actually happened in the family of my cousins and the kids were finally well fed with a lot of peking duck education.

[chrix]

there's a nice chengyu that just comes to mind when hearing this kind of story: 揠苗助長。 (Here's an article I came across some time ago about this topic: http://www.j889.com/xqjy/ynxw/60831.html)