A Demographic Exercise: ATL POD's effect on Chinese population

manitobot

Hello, all it appeared to me that if the violence and conflict China went through in the late 19th and early 20th century could have been ameliorated, may have led to a different level of population at its present. The Qing dynasty was pretty stable in terms of food distribution, at least until the latter years of the 19th century, but I am fine with a discussion on conflict like averting the Taiping Rebellion and the El Nino Famines of the 1880s as well.

Mainly though, focusing on violence- averting or ameliorating things like the Warlord Era, the Chinese Civil War, the mass death of the Second Sino-Japanese War in WW2, along with the Great Leap Forward Famine, the Cultural Revolution, and the one-child policy, what would China's population have been like at present. I know peace and development do have an effect in lowering birth rates, but the sheer loss of life in conflict also hurts populations. Could it be possible to see a China with 2 billion people?
 

spoonzandforkz

As you've said, an earlier transition to modernity, increased peace and prosperity, education of women, etc, will somewhat cancel out the lack of conflict-related megadeaths, though (IMO) not entirely.

The key, IMO, is for China to modernize earlier than OTL but somewhat slower than OTL Meiji Japan and much slower than post-Dengist China - if you will, a gradual smooth curve where China spends an extended time in the stage two of the demographic transition; with high birth rates and low death rates. So it'll modernize, but not as fast as OTL, ideally only around high-third world (Mexico would be a decent example per-capita wise) for most of the 20th century.

Combine that with a lot less conflict-related megadeaths (a successful earlier modernization likely takes off some of the pressures for internal civil war; probably ones not as deadly as OTL, anyway. And an earlier modernization, stronger army, etc will make invasion look more unpalatable to the Japanese perhaps to the point where they don't do it at all, or if they're even dumber than OTL get smacked down early on before inflicting much in the way of civilian casualties.)

Lastly, combine the first two with a remaining authoritarian government[1] that promotes pro-natalist policies (perhaps because it sees China's population size[2] as it's greatest strength - a leader like OTL Mao in that sense.) and one that doesn't buy the Malthusian spook scare/lack of knowledge of the demographic transition that drove the OTL Communist party to adopt the one-child policy... and I'd say two billion wouldn't be that big of a stretch. Hell, probably even slightly larger, if you get all the dice to roll right - say, 2.2 billion. Now, that's a large ass China.

(And an earlier Green Revolution would be the cherry on the cake here.)

[1] I'm inclined to think authoritarian governments will enforce pro-natalist policies to a rather greater degree than democratic ones do. Less public pressure in the way, after all.

[2] And they're not exactly wrong there.
 
Last edited:

spoonzandforkz

To be clear, but I still do think a China with a population of at least 2 billion isn't the most likely probability-wise, at least for post-1800s PODs; somehow avoiding all the wars/famines/disasters/etc, successful-but-slower modernization (actually not that unlikely, but when combined with the other options...), authoritarian Communism, foreign invasion, etc, etc... certainly all takes quite a fair amount of luck! (But on the gripping hand; not impossible, at least in my opinion.)

If I had to put a subjective number-type guess on it; of over a thousand post-1800 China timelines, I'd say only around a quarter would reach over 2 billion. Most, I think, would only be somewhat higher than OTL, say around the 1.6-1.7 billion mark. (I do think OTL China was on the bad end of the probability curve; IMO most post-1800s China probably end somewhat snazzier than the OTL version, if still not exactly "first-world".)
 
Last edited:
JohnBull

JohnBull

I don't think it would be that different.

In 1870, China was 11x more populated than Japan; in 2020, 150 years later, with all different paths they went through, it was also 11x more populated.

With a slightly higher TFR all over the period, we could get to 1.6 billion now, but if we want to make it realistic, that's the highest number I'd bet.
 
kasumigenx

kasumigenx

If you want China to be like Japan have China not have Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, and Xinjiang prior to its contact with the Western Powers.
 

manitobot

I don't know why I wasn't getting notifications but thank you all for the help with answering this question. Yes, you are all right, depending on the scenarios the boost of a lack of conflict is also pared down with increased peace and stability. I would expect at least perhaps a 1.6-1.7 Bn China.
 

Luiz Garcia

maybe a china where nationalists win the civil war has 1.8 billion people.
or if it didn't have the one-child policy, 400 million more people would have been born.
 

Luiz Garcia

manitobot said:
Could you explain your reasoning?
Click to expand...
there is an estimate that without a one-child policy China would have 400 million more births and in OTL China has 1.4 billion inhabitants so I sited this number of 1.8 billion in ATTL, with the nationalists winning the civil war there would not be great leap forward and no forced collectivization of land and there would also be no cultural revolution this alone would save almost 100 million people but probably a nationalist China would have a more gradual demographic transition which would make China today have a larger population.
 

manitobot

Luiz Garcia said:
there is an estimate that without a one-child policy China would have 400 million more births and in OTL China has 1.4 billion inhabitants so I sited this number of 1.8 billion in ATTL, with the nationalists winning the civil war there would not be great leap forward and no forced collectivization of land and there would also be no cultural revolution this alone would save almost 100 million people but probably a nationalist China would have a more gradual demographic transition which would make China today have a larger population.
Click to expand...
thanks
 
JohnBull

JohnBull

Luiz Garcia said:
there is an estimate that without a one-child policy China would have 400 million more births and in OTL China has 1.4 billion inhabitants so I sited this number of 1.8 billion in ATTL, with the nationalists winning the civil war there would not be great leap forward and no forced collectivization of land and there would also be no cultural revolution this alone would save almost 100 million people but probably a nationalist China would have a more gradual demographic transition which would make China today have a larger population.
Click to expand...

Those numbers ignore the fact Chinese birth rates could have fallen anyway as the country urbanizes and gets wealthier. One-child-policy obviously was a forced landing, but I don't see it going above 1.6 billion without it.

We also should consider Chinese population growth post-WWII, even with the Civil War and the Leap Forward, was already spectacular: from 500 million (1945) to 1 billion (1982) and 1.2 billion (1995).
 

manitobot

JohnBull said:
Those numbers ignore the fact Chinese birth rates could have fallen anyway as the country urbanizes and gets wealthier. One-child-policy obviously was a forced landing, but I don't see it going above 1.6 billion without it.

We also should consider Chinese population growth post-WWII, even with the Civil War and the Leap Forward, was already spectacular: from 500 million (1945) to 1 billion (1982) and 1.2 billion (1995).
Click to expand...
this is also a good point, fertility was already declining when the One-Child policy was introduced. it all depends on how much fertility rebounds after things like mass famine or devastation, as well as the number of Chinese lost. For example because it was a famine, vulnerable groups like the elderly and sick were disproportionately affected, and they might not have been having children afterwards.
 

Optical_Illusion

Banned
As a quick scenario, based on OurWorldInData's population growth figures since 1800 (https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth):

Japan 1800: 28 million, China 1800: 330 million
Japan 2021: 126 million, China 2021: 1440 million.

China following Japan's population growth trajectory, therefore, would have 1485 million people, or 2% larger population than in OTL.

Visually:
https://imgur.com/a/ugnBwFg

In such a very simplified counterfactual, China on a Japan trajectory would have about the same population as OTL in the present day, but with stagnation since the 80s and a slight decline beginning now.
 

Optical_Illusion

Banned
Alternatively, more comparisons:

https://imgur.com/a/5ZjnDpr

Under a UK trajectory, China would have 2 billion today; but that might require levels of immigration to maintain which are infeasible for China and would also almost certainly require levels of food imports which are not plausible for most of that period. The population is too large to be swollen to that degree by food imports and by migration in (from Ireland, Benelux and then farther afield, in the case of the UK). On a French trajectory the country would have *only* 700 million people.
 
Last edited:

Optical_Illusion

Banned
@manitobot, just taking the figures from the OWiD (OurWorldInData) set, working out the population growth per year curve, then placing onto the starting point of each country and then plotting using some basic graphing software.

Yes, can do that and a few more for you:
https://imgur.com/a/HwZLbbU

China on an Indian curve since 1800 is much larger; continuously somewhat larger for most of the period, but pulling ahead decisively around 1970s. On an Indian curve, China would have 2.3 billion people today.

On a curve based on the whole Europe (or specifically taking a set of large Western European states), China has slightly fewer people today, but still 90% as many people, and is larger in population for most of the last two centuries.

Considering 1800 as a starting point, then India is really the big winner in terms of population growth over the last 200 years, and that is relatively recently emerging decisive difference in the last 50 years. However that is a slightly arbitrary starting point as the Qing grew a lot in the 1700s.
 

manitobot

Optical_Illusion said:
@manitobot, just taking the figures from the OWiD (OurWorldInData) set, working out the population growth per year curve, then placing onto the starting point of each country and then plotting using some basic graphing software.

Yes, can do that and a few more for you:
https://imgur.com/a/HwZLbbU

China on an Indian curve since 1800 is much larger; continuously somewhat larger for most of the period, but pulling ahead decisively around 1970s. On an Indian curve, China would have 2.3 billion people today.

On a curve based on the whole Europe (or specifically taking a set of large Western European states), China has slightly fewer people today, but still 90% as many people, and is larger in population for most of the last two centuries.

Considering 1800 as a starting point, then India is really the big winner in terms of population growth over the last 200 years, and that is relatively recently emerging decisive difference in the last 50 years. However that is a slightly arbitrary starting point as the Qing grew a lot in the 1700s.
Click to expand...
Wow thank you so much this is really incredibly interesting and well-thought-out.
 

Vae Victus

How would a less conflict ridden/bad luck China's emigration pattern be like? If China is teeming with people, id have to imagine a goodly number will emigrate for better opportunities abroad.

Like would no Taiping Rebellion megadeath scenario lead to more North American West Coast emigration? Or a greater diaspora in SE Asia, as a more intact China develops external trade, due to the lack of internal instability?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top