It may be crowded in the big cities, but in the sticks it has the feel of a nursing home.
There is. You get a one time hong bao for each child born and a monthly stipend if you have three kids. Although this may depend on where your family registration is and might not be across the board.
That figure doesn’t reflect the fact that much of the island is way too steep to live on. If you removed all the steep mountain areas from the land area the density figure would be way higher than that.
[quote=“redwagon”][quote=“GRC22”]
The population density of the ROC on Taiwan is 616 persons per square kilometer, making it the second highest in the world after Bangladesh. gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5- … pt02-1.htm
[/quote]
That figure doesn’t reflect the fact that much of the island is way too steep to live on. If you removed all the steep mountain areas from the land area the density figure would be way higher than that.[/quote]
True enough on the west. The east coast counties have the population density of East Timor or Costa Rica.
[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“redwagon”][quote=“GRC22”]
The population density of the ROC on Taiwan is 616 persons per square kilometer, making it the second highest in the world after Bangladesh. gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5- … pt02-1.htm
[/quote]
That figure doesn’t reflect the fact that much of the island is way too steep to live on. If you removed all the steep mountain areas from the land area the density figure would be way higher than that.[/quote]
True enough on the west. The east coast counties have the population density of East Timor or Costa Rica.[/quote]
I specifically meant the effect on the overall numbers, ignoring the differences between counties or cities. Those numbers are included in the GIO figures and already give an idea of the disparity. Removing the area which is uninhabitable, or on which construction is prohibited by way of zoning, reserve forest or national park, would show the national average is unrealistically low.
I specifically meant the effect on the overall numbers, ignoring the differences between counties or cities. Those numbers are included in the GIO figures and already give an idea of the disparity. Removing the area which is uninhabitable, or on which construction is prohibited by way of zoning, reserve forest or national park, would show the national average is unrealistically low.[/quote]
I’m not disagreeing with you. The average should be much higher than official figures. Half the land is steep forested mountains. One third is sparcely populated. The rest is very dense though ti doesn’t feel as dense as cities like HK.
Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo and other cities you mention are even more grossly overcrowded. The world is well past its sustainable carrying density. Sure, you may be able to cram more people in, but at what cost to the other species on the planet, and how much longer do you think that the increase can continue? Or, in your world, are humans the only species that matters?
Now, maybe you meant Australia has oodles of space and a tiny population. I would agree with you there: and still point out that Australia is probably at its maximum carrying capacity right now, or past it, anyway.[/quote]
According to “Coolapse” by Jerod Diamond (economical historian) autralia’s limit is around 20-25milion
Although there is ‘space’ this is the population that can survive from what Australia provides without “mining” the country, where “mining” refers to unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. Interesting read.
He also shows how china’s 20% growth is actually closer to 1-2% because they have ‘mined’ their natural resources for the rest - hence the growth is unsustainable and a collapse is imminent.
[quote=“GRC22”][
The population density of the ROC on Taiwan is 616 persons per square kilometer, making it the second highest in the world after Bangladesh. gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5- … pt02-1.htm[/quote]
Interesting when I sort on density per km on that link Taiwan comes out as the 16th and is based on the estimates provided by the CIA World Factbook.
Macau comes out as the most densely populated - which again I find bizarre. Probably because HK has lots of parkland that is protected whilst Macau is one big gambling mecca.
Anyway I’m sure I read somewhere that you can fit the entire population of the planet on the Isle of Wight providing they all stand on tiptoes and it doesn’t sink.
Gender Imbalance
Among the 307,200 births registered in the Taiwan area in
2000
, there were 109.45 boys for every 100 baby girls. gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5- … pt02-1.htm
How do these stats reflect on an average Taiwanese elementary class (9-10 year olds)?
What is the ratio?
[quote=“GRC22”]Gender Imbalance
Among the 307,200 births registered in the Taiwan area in
2000
, there were 109.45 boys for every 100 baby girls. gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5- … pt02-1.htm
Do these stats mean that an average Taiwanese elementary class (9-10 year olds) would have a ratio of 9.45 boy students to every one girl student (9.45:1) ?[/quote]Uh, no. It means that a school would have 1095 boys and 1000 girls.
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“GRC22”]Gender Imbalance
Among the 307,200 births registered in the Taiwan area in
2000
, there were 109.45 boys for every 100 baby girls. gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5- … pt02-1.htm
Do these stats mean that an average Taiwanese elementary class (9-10 year olds) would have a ratio of 9.45 boy students to every one girl student (9.45:1) ?[/quote]Uh, no. It means that a school would have 1095 boys and 1000 girls.[/quote]
I realized I made a huge mistake in my calculation. Wasn’t fast enough to edit it before being quoted.
Some of those boys will have to learn how to share.
Given Taiwan’s economic prospects, the days of buying an import wife are soon to be over. I don’t see Taiwanese men learning to accept a societal reversal like sharing women in the way that the women accept their men having multiple wives and mistresses. That shoe just isn’t going to fit on the other foot.
Some of those boys will have to learn to live without.
AND
Society will have to learn to accept homosexuality.
Unfortunately the next big upswing in population is going to come in the form of immigration from China. That means the gender imbalance is going to get even worse, and as the Taiwanese average incomes fall to meet that of the Chinese, even less potential to import SE Asian brides, and less likelihood of breaking the taboo on homosexuality.
I don’t agree with the government offering incentives to couples to produce kids, but if they are going to do it, why not offer more for girls than for boys?
Its perfectly normal for there to be more male births than female. Historically boys have a higher mortality rate and the imbalance was soon fixed through testosterone related accidents. By old age there are more women than men.
Exactly. And the girls will have to put out more. They should teach it in class.
T 
each what?
Putting out. I remained a virgin into my late teens thanks to THAT particular educational oversight. I’m STILL bitter about it.
If they can make it retroactive, I’m all in favour!
Keyboard fart put a ‘lol’ in the middle of a word.
Um, maybe there were, you know, other reasons than educational deficiencies?
The question, anyway is not about birthrates, which are lower than at any time in human history, but low rates of death from infection and improved care for the elderly. It’s impossible to shut that Pandora’s box now we’ve opened it (sandman …), but if we are going to accept that modern medicine makes life on earth insupportable, and that reducing births in order to leave space for the artificially assisted old and infirm is the way to go, then we just have to put up with the consequences.
If they can make it retroactive, I’m all in favour![/quote]
All in favor, say I!
And, I Say, it’s put OUT; not put UP, Shirley!