Wuhan Singles Group

1. Demographic security is the highest level of national security. The premise of sustainable social development is that the population itself must continue to develop and ensure that the population neither increases nor decreases relative to the previous generation (generation replacement). Currently, developed countries require women to have an average of 2.1 children, while most developing countries require women to have an average of 2.1 children. The average number of births is 2.5 to 3.3 children. Since both the abnormal mortality rate and the sex ratio at birth are higher than those in developed countries, China's total fertility rate (the number of children per capita for women of childbearing age) needs to be above 2.3. Taking into account people with infertility, singles, DINK, etc., a normal society should have mainstream families having three children, some families having one or two children, and some families having four or five children. If the mainstream families in a country are not allowed to have, are unwilling to have, or cannot afford to raise three children, it means that the country has lost the ability to develop sustainably.

2. Population has its own internal control mechanism. In ancient times, the population was controlled through the "left hand" (plague, war, famine, natural disasters, etc.). After Columbus discovered the Americas, the introduction of high-yielding crops from the New World to the Old World and the advancement of modern agricultural technology increased the food supply severalfold; coupled with the promotion of cowpox vaccination and penicillin, the global average life expectancy has been extended from more than 20 years in the past to 60 years now. many years, leading to a population boom. A young population structure is a necessary condition for the rise of various countries, but industrialization oppresses the population through the "right hand", reducing the willingness to have children, the ability to raise children, and the ability to have children, resulting in a lower fertility rate, serious aging, and difficulty in sustainable development of society (the poorer the population, the more children there are, and the more children there are). The richer you are, the less likely you are to have children), which is consistent with the ancient Chinese legend that "wealth and wealth cannot be prosperous". This "two-handed" control mechanism causes the population to change in an S-shape, with a low-level plateau for thousands of years, a sharp rise period of about three hundred years, and then a high-level plateau or decline in population. Family planning has caused China to give up a once-in-a-thousand-year opportunity for population development. If China had not implemented family planning in the 1970s, as the human development index (a comprehensive indicator reflecting the level of social development) increases, the fertility rate will spontaneously plummet, and the population will not increase indefinitely. China's population at the end of 2005 was only 1.5 billion. Even if family planning was completely stopped in 1980, the population would only be about 1.4 billion in 2005, but the population structure would be more reasonable and more conducive to the country's sustainable development.

3. The increase in China’s population is not due to Mao Zedong’s encouragement of childbearing. It is mainly due to the extension of life span. It is due to “fewer deaths” rather than “too many births”. China's average life expectancy increased from 35 years in 1949 to 68 years in 1980, and the population increased from 550 million to 1 billion during the same period. The population policy of Mao Zedong’s period halted the decline of China’s population in the world (from 40% of the world’s population in the early 19th century to 22% in 1949). In 1949, China’s population accounted for 22% of the world’s population, and in 1980 it was still 22%. If we follow Ma Yinchu's population theory, there were 300 million fewer births from 1959 to 1979 (actually 457 million), which means that nearly two-thirds of the population born after 1959 will not be born, and the current elderly are all Ma Yinchu people. Regarding those born before, China may have collapsed due to aging and has become a lifeless country that has lost the ability to sustain development. The population that multiplied in China from the 1950s to the 1970s has become the current labor force, which is the real "demographic dividend" at present. Today's economic development is largely about "eating from the ancestors", but today's family planning is "cutting off the roots of future generations." The global economy is currently benefiting from China's "demographic dividend", but in the future China will face "demographic debt", which will also seriously affect the global economy.

4. The human population has fluctuated at a low level for thousands of years, and the quality of life has not changed significantly. The population explosion in the past 300 years has led to a technological explosion. Advantages of population density and scale are necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for economic prosperity. The increase in population only increases the consumption of existing resources "additively"; but more importantly, it turns the current "non-resources" (such as nitrogen, sunlight) into new resources (nitrogen fertilizer, solar energy). This new resource The increase in resources is a "multiplicative" increase. The history of human civilization is the process of constantly turning "non-resources" (such as coal and oil in the past) into "resources". This is also the reason why the population has continued to increase in modern times, while living standards have continued to improve. It shows that technological progress and economic growth are far faster than population growth. What's more, population growth has slowed down now (it's difficult to prevent China's population from plummeting even if it stops family planning), but technological progress is still accelerating. Who can predict China's population limit? China's population decline is a tragedy for the whole world.

5. China’s overpopulation is just a widely circulated lie. The total amount of all resources in China ranks among the top in the world: it ranks first in the world in agricultural land area, third in the world in land area and mineral resources, fifth in the world in forest area, and sixth in the world in fresh water resources. Since the distribution of resources is very uneven, the "world average" is of little significance. Being lower than the "world average" does not mean that resources are insufficient. The five regions of the former Soviet Union, Oceania, the United States, Canada, and Mongolia have less than 10% of the world's population, but account for more than 39% of the world's land area. The United States, Canada, Russia, Oceania, and South America account for 13.7% of the world's population, but own 36% of the world's arable land.

The six regions of Russia, Canada, the United States, South America, Oceania, and Congo account for 14.5% of the global population, but have 65.7% of the world's forest area. The eight regions of South America, Russia, Canada, Indonesia, the United States, Oceania, Myanmar, and Congo account for 18.8% of the world's population, but possess 64% of the world's water resources. Oceania, South America, the United States, the former Soviet Union, and Mongolia have less than 14% of the global population, but occupy 48% of the global grassland area. The eight regions of the former Soviet Union, the United States, South Africa, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom account for 13% of the world's population, but possess 62.3% of the world's mineral resources. Except for a few resource-rich countries, China is not at a disadvantage in terms of per capita resources. For example, excluding China, 40.9% of the world's population has more agricultural land per capita than China, and 59.1% of the world's population has less per capita agricultural land than China; The per capita mineral resources of 16% of the population are eight times that of China, but the per capita mineral resources of China are 1.56 times that of the other 84% of the population. China's population density is 37% that of India, its per capita agricultural land area is 2.55 times that of India, its per capita cultivated land area is 73.5% that of India, its per capita long-term crop land is 1.13 times that of India, its per capita grassland area is 30.14 times that of India, and its per capita forest area It is 2.08 times that of India, its per capita freshwater resources are 1.24 times that of India, and its per capita mineral resources are 3.55 times that of India. China is definitely a country with "vast land, abundant resources, and good per capita resources." The reason for China's "resource shortage" is mainly due to its extensive development model rather than "overpopulation." The main factors affecting food security are agricultural policies and population structure rather than cultivated land. Comparing resource-rich and resource-poor countries, we find that the economic level is not entirely determined by per capita natural resources, because population resources are the first resource and China's largest advantageous resource. People are the "basic" (can turn "non-resources" into "resources"), and natural resources are the "moot". If you want to increase "resources per capita" by reducing the population, you are sacrificing the basic and chasing the last. Brazil is rich in natural resources and has a good climate. Its area is 8.51 million square kilometers, equivalent to 91% of the United States and 89% of China. Brazil has a population of 190 million, which is only equivalent to 63% of the United States and 14.6% of China. However, its social development level is not the same as that of China. Basically the same, the problems China currently encounters in its development still exist in Brazil.

6. Since the negative impact of population is direct, there is no shortage of "insightful people" throughout the ages who have complained about overpopulation and suggested population control. Many demographers now claim to reduce China's population to 700 million, 500 million or 300 million. In 2005, China's population included 700 million people born after 1970, 500 million people born after 1978, and 300 million people born after 1988. If no children are born now, and the average life expectancy is 76 years in the future, China's population will have to be reduced to 700 million, 500 million, and 300 million in 2046, 2054, and 2064 respectively. But by that time, the youngest women will already be Some people are 41, 49, and 59 years old, and they have basically lost their fertility. Then around 2085, the Chinese nation will basically become extinct. Improving living standards at the expense of sharply reducing population size and giving birth to a deformed population structure is no different from dying after having too much fun. And it goes without saying that if China's population is reduced to 700 million, even if it is 300 million or even tens of millions, if we want to ensure the current quality of life, existing non-renewable resources (such as oil) will only last for decades or hundreds of years. We need to view resources from a global perspective. Even if China does not give birth to a single child and leaves resources for other countries, it will not take more than a few decades. Therefore, there is only one way for human beings to exist and develop: rely on scientific and technological progress to develop new resources (including renewable resources). Cutting costs is not as good as opening up resources, and scientific and technological progress depends on a sufficient number and reasonable structure of a high-quality population.

7. From a global perspective, environmental pollution is not as serious as people think. China's overall ecological environment has also continued to improve since the 1990s. But China's urban environment is indeed deteriorating, on the one hand because of the extensive development model, and on the other hand because of China's urbanization. The current 200-300 million young and middle-aged migrant workers are just the prelude to the largest immigration wave in human history. China has become the world's factory and the world's construction site, and this process will inevitably be accompanied by the deterioration of the urban environment (if it takes the path of refinement, modern technology can ensure that China reduces environmental degradation to an acceptable level, and the "London Smog" incident during the European Industrial Revolution will not occur) . Even if not a single child is born now, if the current population is urbanized, environmental problems will be equally serious. Moreover, China's current environmental pollution is largely passed on by the international community. Family planning does not help improve the natural environment, but it seriously pollutes the human environment.

8. The introduction of the family planning policy was very hasty and without scientific proof. All predictions made in that year were all in vain (for example, in 1980, it was predicted that "the aging phenomenon will not appear until forty years at the earliest." ”, but actually entered aging in 1999). Comparing the HDI of China and India, it was found that family planning has not made any contribution to China's economic and social development; Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winner in economics, also came to the same conclusion by comparing the per capita ***P of China and India. in conclusion.

Family planning does not contribute to the contemporary era, but it is harmful to the future: it induces China to adopt a deformed and extensive development model that is "material-oriented" and weakens the sustainable development ability of material reproduction; it raises the cost of raising children and reduces the willingness to have children, making China advance ahead of schedule. Entering an era when children cannot be raised, weakening the sustainable development capacity of population reproduction; accelerating population aging, leading to "aging before getting rich", making it difficult for China to establish a reasonable social security system (China currently has 1 working-age population for every 9 people elderly population; in the future, there will be two working-age populations for one elderly population), and will lag behind urbanization, reduce innovation capabilities and labor productivity; cut in half the traditional culture and ethics that rely on a sound family structure; completely change the world and China's national structure (China's proportion of the world's population dropped from 22% in 1980 to 19% in 2005, and will soon drop to 15%, and then continue to decline rapidly. Demographers Li Xiaoping and others believe that it should continue to drop to 3% of the world's population; by 2000 During the five-year period of 2005, ethnic minorities accounted for 42% of China's new population); increase the sex ratio at birth; reduce population quality (especially psychological quality); increase family risks (about 400,000-500,000 children under the age of 15 die every year in my country) people, as well as a large number of children who were disabled due to injuries); causing China to have a labor shortage before the first industrial revolution was completed (unique in human history), seriously hindering the transformation of future industrial structure; reducing national defense potential and threatening China's border security ; intensified conflicts between cadres and masses; undermined China's international image; threatened social stability and endangered sustainable development. It’s morning when you wake up from a nightmare, but it’s a long night when the Chinese population wakes up from a nightmare. It takes ten years to grow trees and a hundred years to cultivate people. The population problem is a time bomb, and the problems exposed now are just the tip of the iceberg (for example, there are currently only 40 million elderly people enjoying pensions, but there are already problems with social security). As time goes by, the problem will become clearer and more serious. Just over twenty years later, there are more than 400 million elderly people waiting for retirement care, and 40 million young and middle-aged bachelors are facing prison sentences without wives. If directional adjustments are not made promptly and decisively, it will seriously affect China's sustainable development and shake the country's foundation. If young people are rich, the country will be rich, and if young people are strong, the country will be strong. However, the Chinese nation is aging rapidly and has reached its most dangerous time!

9. Population determines consumption, consumption determines demand, demand determines production, and production determines employment. If the population is reduced and consumption is reduced, where will there be jobs? Family planning has led to deformed family structures and smaller families, requiring less income to maintain basic household consumption. This has caused wage growth to lag behind economic growth, causing administrative costs (increased 100 times from 1978 to 2004), monopoly enterprises and capital. The three have taken away the vast majority of GDP. The proportion of China’s wage income in GDP has been declining. Now it only accounts for 12% of GDP, and residents’ income only accounts for 22% of GDP (others). National wage income accounts for 54%-65% of ***P). Under this "parasitic economy" model, normal consumption will inevitably be suppressed, space for corruption will be increased, the gap between rich and poor will increase, and it will also bring huge profits to the real estate, education, and medical industries, leading to shrinking consumption, cheap export products, and high Relying on the international market and the economy being controlled by others (the whole world is enjoying China's "demographic dividend", but Chinese people cannot enjoy it), insufficient domestic demand has caused sluggish employment and increased pressure on people's lives. If family planning had been completely stopped in 1980, the bottom line of family demand would have increased, and the proportion of wages in ***P would have been forced to increase exponentially. Although the number of children would have increased, women's labor participation rate would have declined (it would also have alleviated employment pressure; at present, China's women's labor participation The rate ranks 17th in the world), but family living standards are higher than now, the relationship between consumption and production has become more reasonable, and employment capacity has been greatly increased; among the extra-born population, only about 30 million were born in the early 1980s (impossible More than 50 million) entering the labor market, the proportion is not high compared to the current working population of more than 900 million, and it has little impact on current employment. Moreover, what is currently lacking is the labor force of this age group, that is, the 20-year-old population Basically, there is no competition for jobs with the 50-year-old population. Nowadays, college students cannot find jobs, mainly due to the expansion of university enrollment. The number of college enrollment increased five times from 1998 to 2006. With such a big leap, there will be employment pressure in any country. Expanding enrollment regardless of the demographic structure will cause many colleges and universities to go bankrupt in the future due to a shortage of students.

10. Due to the declining desire to have children, China’s annual population increase during the “Ninth Five-Year Plan” and “Tenth Five-Year Plan” periods was less than two-thirds of the expected rate. The fifth census in 2000 found that the fertility rate had dropped to an extremely dangerous 1.2-1.3. This was also confirmed by the annual population sample survey and the 1% population sample survey in 2005. This can also be seen from the sharp decrease in primary school students and the large number of primary school closures in recent years. Get supporting evidence. Low inertial growth is now a precursor to a sharp population decline. But because it involves interests and power, family planning is like wearing magic red dancing shoes and cannot stop. The Family Planning Commission and some demographers increase the number of births every year by about 50%, thereby increasing the objective survey's 1.2 -1.3 fertility rate corrected to 1.8. China’s population fog is an “artificial fog”.

Under the recommendations of the "National Population Development Strategy Research Report", China's population policy remains unchanged. The "Report" predicts that under the current policy, China's population will reach 1.5 billion in 2033. According to this prediction, the population will need to increase by more than 13 million in 2006. , but data from the National Bureau of Statistics show that the increase is only 6.92 million (actually it may only increase by two to three million). It can be seen that the predictions of the "Report" for one or two years are far from reality, let alone the future. The "Report" believes: "The national average total fertility rate should remain around 1.8 in the next 30 years. Too high or too low is not conducive to the coordinated development of population and social economy." The central government has repeatedly emphasized the need to "stabilize low fertility levels" rather than reduce the fertility rate. According to data from the National Bureau of Statistics, China's population reached 1.3 billion on January 6, 2005. Zhang Weiqing said in November 2005 that "according to the current total fertility rate forecast of 1.8, my country's total population will reach 1.37 billion in 2010." This means that if the fertility rate is stable at 1.8, the population will need to increase by 11.67 million every year from 2005 to 2010. However, data from the National Bureau of Statistics show that the population increase in 2005 was only 7.68 million, and the population increase in 2006 was only 6.92 million. This shows that the Family Planning Commission does not have the ability to stabilize the fertility rate. China's fertility rate cannot be stabilized at 1.8, but is far lower than 1.8. China's actual population at the end of 2005 was only about 1.25 billion, not the 1.307 billion claimed by the National Bureau of Statistics. At present, about 12 million people are born and 10 million die every year. As the elderly population accumulates, the number of deaths will increase sharply. China’s population is already close to negative growth. If the current population policy continues, China’s population peak will be difficult to reach even 1.3 billion, and it is impossible to reach 14 billion, let alone the 1.6 billion claimed by the Family Planning Commission and some demographers.

11. The game between various ethnic groups is ultimately a game of fertility culture. China has become the most populous country thanks to its traditional fertility culture (family culture). "There are three types of unfilial piety, the greatest is not having offspring." This makes a lot of sense. Isn’t the “sustainable development” proposed by the country now just a message of national and national significance? If the family's incense cannot be passed down, how can the country and nation's incense be passed on? According to current "scientific" standards, Chinese traditional culture undoubtedly has many flaws, but it has successfully continued our nation's civilization and population (while many other civilizations have died out one after another); under the productivity conditions of ancient times, human reproduction was equivalent to In case of emergency, if we adopt the current "perfect and fair" culture and system, even the population will not be able to survive, let alone other things. However, industrialization has changed the traditional family model and shaken the two pillars of Chinese fertility culture (ancestral culture and ethical culture), thus causing the fertility rate in areas of the Chinese cultural circle (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau) to The lowest in the world. Comparing the fertility rate decline trend with social development in Japan and the Four Asian Tigers, the fertility rate in mainland China can only be around 1.8 (far below the generation replacement level) after stopping family planning. Other areas of the Chinese cultural circle did not deliberately destroy the fertility culture, and the fertility culture was passively destroyed; while the traditional fertility culture in mainland China was damaged in three ways: A. The current economic system and family model that puts material production first have a negative impact on the Chinese cultural circle. B. Like other socialist countries such as the Soviet Union, they once took the initiative to crack down on the traditional fertility culture; C. Decades of one-sided propaganda about family planning deliberately destroyed the fertility culture. The population ceiling and ultra-low policy fertility rate formed a "crawling" of fertility psychology. flea effect". Therefore, even if China stops family planning, it will still not be able to reach the fertility rate of Japan and the Four Asian Tigers when China was at its current level of development (around 1.8). This has been confirmed by multiple surveys on fertility intentions. The population issue is urgent and there is no room for further delays. China’s population policy needs directional changes, not fine-tuning such as “two children at a later time”. The task of rebuilding the fertility culture and encouraging fertility will be very arduous.

12. A sound population structure is a necessary condition for economic take-off, the rise of a country, and the establishment of a reasonable pension system, but it is not a sufficient condition; while a deformed population structure is a sufficient condition for economic recession. In recent years, China's annual birth population has dropped to about 12 million (the number is far lower than in the 1940s), of which less than 6 million are girls; India has more than 24 million births each year, of which about 12 million are girls. This means that India’s material reproduction capacity (labor force) and population reproduction capacity (women of childbearing age) will be twice that of China in the future. Now, under the circumstances of encouraging childbirth, each woman in Hong Kong only gives birth to 0.95 children, and in Taiwan and South Korea, 1.1 children (these areas have developed more than 20 years earlier than mainland China; and mainland China's fertility culture has suffered multiple damages).

If we simply stop family planning and do not encourage childbirth, we will not be able to effectively curb the decline in fertility. The more than 5 million girls born every year in China (after deducting the infertile people, there are less than 5 million childbearing women) will have only one child per person. If there are 1.2 children, then the number of births per year is only over 6 million, and the number of deaths per year at that time is nearly 20 million. Around 2040, the number of deaths per year will be over 25 million (the number of births per year in the mid-1960s was more than 25 million), which is quite a long time. Within this period, the population is decreasing by more than 10 million people every year - a big country with an empty nest!