Why is the involution in East Asia so serious? Is it possible to change it?

The serious involution is essentially the contradictory idea that we want to develop with less resources and more population. There is the possibility of change.

There are three solutions:

1. Increase resources

As an export-oriented economy, it is to exchange dollars. If you can exchange local currency for resources, you don't need to exchange exports for dollars to import resources. You needn't be so tired.

Efforts have been made in this regard.

The internationalization of local currency, the Japanese yen began in1970s, and the Korean won began in1980s, with little effect so far. At present, the only success is the Hong Kong dollar, but the Hong Kong dollar is linked to the US dollar, so it is impossible to adjust the exchange rate and monetary policy independently. This internationalization of the local currency cannot change the fact that Hong Kong still depends on the US dollar.

There is no end to this road at present.

Reduce population

In East Asia, where human resources are worthless, development depends on people, which is of course an advantage for the collective, but it is not a good experience for the individual.

It is impossible for all East Asian countries to be self-sufficient in resources. Let's not talk about some high-end consumer goods here It is not enough to have food that people need. The original purpose of development is only to eat enough. No matter how good the economy is, Japan and South Korea are also resource-poor countries. The total population is close to the limit of land carrying capacity, which ultimately means that everyone will make unnecessary efforts and waste their lives in vain.

Population decline has side effects, but the price of not decreasing is that our pain as individuals is aggravated.

The elite choose to emigrate, and the middle class choose to die. In fact, my lower class will not have a good result.

Extrusion space

This is self-consolation, because the high population density in East Asia is doomed to high development costs. Why is there a world-class urban agglomeration here? The abnormal living environment caused all this.

East Asia completed the largest urbanization in human history in 100, and will become the largest ruins/graves of urban agglomerations in the future. The wasteland left after urbanization has not solved the problem. On the one hand, everyone intensifies urban internal friction. On the other hand, the decrease of rural population has caused side effects on production.

After the villages and towns as human reservoirs are completely dried up, with the decline of fertility rate, they can "squeeze out space" in less than 100 years. At present, East Asia with a population of/kloc-0.6 billion is overcrowded, and East Asia with a population of only 800 million in the future may be more suitable for human survival (or it may continue to be involved and then become extinct).

By the end of the 22nd century, anthropologists and sociologists should learn some lessons in the process of studying the decline and extinction of East Asia. Why in ancient times when productivity was backward, this land could carry 40% of the world's population. But in 2 1 century, when the productivity was highly developed, it began to decline and eventually it was destroyed without any suspense.

The demise of East Asia, like the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the fall of Constantinople and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, will become a landmark event in different periods of human history.

This incident itself will feed countless archaeologists and conspiracy theorists, just as the Mayan civilization, the two rivers civilization and the Greek civilization eventually disappeared.

But the only advantage is that the super-urban agglomeration with a population of more than 654.38+0 billion will not disappear completely for hundreds of years, and archaeologists do not need to dig three feet to find the traces left.

The biggest problem in this development process is:

Just to burn for a hundred years, is it worth the determination and perseverance of the whole nation to sacrifice the future of the country?