Why the Chinese are the most populous people on Earth?

Yeah..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, here is something about Mongol invasion of Rus' (a bit of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc). Impact:

Many Russian boyar (noble) families traced their descent from the Mongols or Tatars, including Veliaminov-Zernov, Godunov, Arseniev and Bakhmetev. In a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.​

Perhaps he means big and homogenous population ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

HA! You are right, draqon, Chinese and Mongol are completely different races

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ethnicity and races in China: Han Chinese 91.9% and others 8.1% (Mongol, Zhuang, Uygur, Hui, Yi, Tibetan, Miao, Manchu, Buyi, Korean, and other nationalities).

Source: Ethnicity and race by countries

I think I'll go back to work ~.~

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because the Chinese are still way more homogenous than the Europeans and make up one nation. Their main dialect is spoken by 500 million people I think. Thus they are the most populous, one nation with the common history.... You can't say that about any other nation....

Also because I asked about China a country and not about density. If someone doesn't like my question, well, too bad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bingo...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

there one of the most populous nations because there one of the oldest nations on earth, and there people didn't have the freedoms and luxuries we enjoy here in the west, for most of the last 200 years, so what better way to pass time and release some stress then to get laid,(which produce kids)

 

Population 1 AD = 231 million

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Population 1500 AD = 425 million

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Population 1900 = 1564 million

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

World population 1960 = 3,039 million

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/smallpng/10.png

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Projected 2050 world population = 9,000 million

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whatever made China and India more populated than Europe seems to have taken place a long long time ago. Perhaps it has to do with the Younger Dryas mini ice age. The population growth of the regions during the last 2,000 years seems comparable.

European migration to the Americas reduced European population growth. Prosperity seems to reduce population growth. Or is that because prosperity came with feminism and birth control technology? The current Chinese government is reducing population growth.

Something has vastly increased the ability of very poor people to survive to reproduce. Is that medicine? Government food distributions during famines? People just were not able to reproduce before 1850 the way they have since then. Whatever happened came to Europe first then Asia and last Africa.

My guess is that the correct answer for why China and India have larger populations than Europe is that the Younger Dryas was neutral or beneficial to people in India and China while it was devastating for Europe.

The other part of the question about why China's population is high is why is China one nation while Europe is many nations. I think the historical answers for that are reasonably established.

 

kira: excellent analysis and great presentation.

Metabolic efficiency. BMR in the chronically undernourished is 5-10% lower than the norm.

see: P. S. Shetty . Chronic undernutrition and metabolic adaptation. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 52, pp 267-284
doi:10.1079/PNS19930063 PDF

 

No, that was the EU that had a similar density to China. What I call High dense China below is China minus six outer provinces.


Region-----------------Population---------Area (km2)----Density (per km2)
China---------------1,337,052,499-------9,596,961---------139
High dense China------1,216,709,681-------3,934,420---------309
EU------------------501,259,840--------4,324,782---------115
Europe-------------- 731,000,000------- 10,180,000--------- 70
South Asia-------------1,591,694,334------4,490,233--------355
USA minus Alaska---------308,519,527------8,108,821---------38
New Jersey-----------------8,707,739--------22,608--------438
South East Asia, 12 nation---593,000,000------5,000,000--------116

 

Aaprt from population density, which has already been covered, there are cultural factors to consider. The charts provided by Kira relating to population growth show very clearly that third world nations have a tendency to top the averages with regard to the increases in population.

The reasons for this are varied, but in the end quite simple.
In those countries where social security is availble and overall prosperity is relatively high, such as the West, there is no need for children to support the parents in their old age. Third world nations have no such security; in places where social welfare is non-existent and mortality rates high, the obvious strategy is to have as many children as possible in order to A: ensure at least some of them survive, and B: so that they can take care of their elders when they become too old to provide for themselves. Even the West has some remnant of this philosophy in their own cultures (varying from nation to nation in degree), with regard to respect for elders, but it is fast disappearing as there is now little need for the children to look after the parents.
Simply put, prosperity negates the need for many children. There also seems to be a transitional phase, where economic prosperity begins to rise but cultural influence takes longer to change - which is certainly the case in such places as China (until recently) and India. While the cultural norm still influences the number of children desired, the economic reality ensures that rather than some of them surviving, most do... which means population rises dramatically.

In the west, the numbers of children per couple are dropping dramatically. The reason for this is that while that we have no need of children to look after us in our advanced years. In reality, we have no real need of them at all. We are rather selfish, and prefer to remain prosperous without providing for them without any eventual "reward" in the form of the tables being turned.

Secondly, there is the religious aspect. Second and third world nations have a tendency to be the most religious. Whether this be due to education levels, prosperity, or what have you, the result remains the same - most religions actively encourage breeding. An entire thread could be devoted to why this is so, but the fact remains.
This point doesn't really explain China, but it does have an impact on other populous areas such as south and south-east Asia, and Africa.

 

Further, Even amongst western nations, significant portions of their own birthrates are amongst minority segments of the population - such as Spanish immgration in the US and Asian/middle eastern in Australia. It is not enough to give simple population numbers. A further analysis of wihch segments of the population is contributing the most towards that expansion is often necessary to reveal the true situation. Cutlural influences, again, take some time to catch up to the reality of prosperity.

Which explains to large extent the fears characterised by Pauline Hanson and white conservative America.

 

what happens syz is that those countries used to have horrible expenctancies for child survivability, same thing goes for poorer African nations. So what they did was they had 9 children hoping that 2 would survive to have children.

With medicine and education out of those 9 about 8 of them would survive. And since there is the inevitable lag time that means that there is a huge population spike, but now the chinese have taken control of it.

 

During the glory days of the Chinese Empire ( Han, Tang, Song, and Ming ) I didn't count Yuan ( Mongol ), because that technically wasn't Chinese, they were by far the most powerful and advanced in the world. I have yet to hear about a huge plague in ancient China. China have only faced an enemy about their caliber a few times comparatively. They haven't faced a genocide before. The fact is that if they are powerful and healthy then they their population will increase, also their agriculture is more advanced. They also got the geographical advantage, which also played a role. Their climate is great for humans.

P.S. I am talking about them during Han, Tang, Song and Ming, of the Chinese Empire.

 

rice

 

Well, yes. I'm not a great fan of the PC terms, but I suppose to call the latins Spanish might be taking it a bit far.

Last I checked, in Australia it's 1.8.
Our caucasian population is going backwards. It's a pity the rest of the world doesn't follow suit - I've always thought there are too many people around, and the current slide in developed nations suits me just fine.
Problem with that being, of course, that if you're a fan of one culture or another, and it happens to be one of those formerly dominant in those developed nations, then those fears I mentioned are probably quite real. I doubt there'll be a significant difference in my lifetime, though, so it really doesn't affect me all that much.

Our government knows that quite well. It has been amusing to watch the juggling act between keeping the Hanson faction happy, and keeping immigration to a level where it can shore up the decline.
Frankly, Australia is sitting around the zero-growth level with regard to population. Economically speaking, in the future this does not bode well if Australia wishes to become an economic force.

Recently, the news has been full of the effects - the government has openly declared it wants to increase the population (without going into too much detail on exactly how they're going to accomplish this) with the majority of the population telling them it would not be warmly welcomed if Australia were to double its population anytime soon.
The two major sources of population increase here are the Asians and the middle easterners... I'm sure you can imagine the reaction of those who don't want a population increase to that little bit of information.
Interestingly enough, the other group whose population is increasing steadily in terms of proportional representation is the Aboriginals.

Always fun watching the media and the government trying to keep it under wraps.

That, of course, being the source of the fear... and the subsequent reaction.

 

Very simply, China knew how to irrigate. Irrigation leads to having lots of food, which leads to having lots of people because you can afford to feed them all.

Europe, by contrast, spent a lot of its history being utterly terrible at farming. And also we got wiped out by the Black Death...

 

The proportional relationship between Chinese population and European population has not had a significant change in recored history.

China had more people than Europe when recored history began.