A staggering migration – 250M people into Chinese cities in 12-15 years [video]

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/15/world/asia/100000002279849/in-china-a-staggering-migration.html?smid=pl-share

by jaysonelliot • 13 years ago

63 37 13 years ago

nytimes.com

leke• 13 years ago

We can kiss the global environment goodbye now. Why are we even trying to save it?

raldi2• 13 years ago

Are you kidding me? Cities are far more eco-friendly than the same number of people living in the countryside.

icegreentea• 13 years ago

Cities -can- be more environmentally friendly than the equivalent population living in a more rural setting -IF- you're comparing roughly equivalent standards of living.

And there lies the rub. A) It is entirely possible that China will screw up something in their planning resulting in poorer environmental outcomes. B) This demographic shift will almost certainly come matched with an economic uplifting, and regardless of efficiencies of scale and density (which is what a city gives you), the increase in standard of living (and therefore energy and other related 'products') can result in increased environmental damage.

It really comes down to a question of execution.

gotrythis• 13 years ago

That video doesn't tell us much, but I think this could be an incredible opportunity to rethink what cities are. If they're making them all anyway, why not create them sustainable? It's a bunch of farmers, so give them plots of land to feed themselves with. Make self-sufficient earthships instead of houses that require utilities.

Sadly, the video says this is meant to increase the economy, get them buying more stuff. I imagine that there will be a very efficient system for shipping all these people into massive factories to make plastic crap, so that all these newly converted consumers can buy more plastic crap, 98% of which ends up in landfills within 2 years, which I suppose is what they'll be using their old farmland for! lol.

I agree with leke.

Zigurd• 13 years ago

Education of girls and urbanization are the most effective ways to slow the birth rate. Without doing that, environmental preservation is not going to be possible.

rdl• 13 years ago

China doesn't have a huge problem with birth rate now. It just has a huge population.

userulluipeste• 13 years ago

Yes, urbanization seems to be especially important since it urban population is subjected to more restrictive rules regarding family planning.

robryan• 13 years ago

You are suggesting that people in China must be afforded a much lower average carbon footprint than somewhere like America or Australia?

ohazi• 13 years ago

If the Chinese government can pull this off effectively, without doing anything too stupid (splitting up families, letting people starve to death, destroying their inner city economies), then I would see this as a good thing. The most efficient farming and food-production systems today produce a unit of food using far fewer resources (people, labor, energy, etc) than were required in previous decades.

The people who continue to live in rural areas should focus on farming efficiently for large populations rather than for subsistence. If you can move the subsistence farmers into cities, and if (this is a big "if") they can work and earn a decent wage without obliterating the current economy, then they will more than likely be better off personally, and will consume fewer resources globally.

I happen to think that this is a very difficult thing to do, and that their timeline is probably way too optimistic, but I don't think China should be criticized for trying. They stand to gain tremendously if they can pull it off.

austinz2• 13 years ago

I'm glad to see someone with this point of view. A lot of people don't seem to realize that there is a huge difference between the idealized American farmer and the lives of real peasants living in rural China. It's extremely difficult to run roads, electricity, and water to all these villages, or to provide them with modern schools and clinics (and corresponding staff) necessary to implement social welfare that extends beyond the cities.

reeses• 13 years ago

A tour of some of the planned urban areas of China (Chengdu, mentioned in the article, is a fine example, plus pandas!) along with some of the smaller villages makes it very clear that the 'average' Chinese farmer is far worse off than one might expect.

I'm not really sure I have an example for the contemporary United States that even comes close. I suspect you'd have to change the definition of 'farmer'. Perhaps a family living in a dilapidated trailer, unemployed, growing cheap, starchy foods in what little land they can rent, in an area with poor or nonexistent utilities, would be a more accurate comparison.

Comparing a planned city such as Chengdu with a similar effort elsewhere, say in India, is another surprise. Ahmedabad is a pretty good example.

I have come to the conclusion that communism is an impediment to human excellence.[1] However, seeing the extreme levels of poverty that the central government is trying to resolve, and has resolved to a certain degree, I can understand the difference in prioritization.

There was a link to a book on cooltools years ago http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/461 that I just noticed was available on the Kindle. Poverty is so outside the understanding of most of us that it's not just about not having nice things. Poverty in the developing world and in the undeveloped world is so much worse that it's almost as if an impartial, uninformed observer would wonder if we are the same species, and I don't base that on skin color, eye shape, gender, etc.

[1] I don't care if you disagree on this point. I grant you a perpetual, irrevocable, license to do so.

_pmf_• 13 years ago

It's extremely difficult to run roads, electricity, and water to all these villages, or to provide them with modern schools and clinics (and corresponding staff) necessary to implement social welfare that extends beyond the cities.

Better cage them up in modern labor camps to produce smartphones for fat Americans. Free market, baby!

beachstartup• 13 years ago

anyone who criticizes this kind of thing has never been to the chinese countryside.

it. fucking. sucks. it's not the US countryside. there aren't red barns and guys riding Indian motorcycles and nice roadside cafes to check out the shots you took on your DSLR.

there's a reason that during the mao era people were sent there for punishment. these poor people want jobs and money not open ditches full of cow shit and 7-day a week hard farm labor.

dcc13• 13 years ago

You are all missing the point, China is in a construction boom, construction is the best way to achieve double digit GDP growth, construction and sale of apartments and houses also lines the pockets of the Party

But of course all of the comments so far have been about the environment, the Chinese do not give 2 shits about pollution and sustainability, the motive is clear KEEP THE PARTY IN CONTROL AT ALL COSTS

Volpe6• 13 years ago

Oh I'm glad there is now a spokemen for "The Chinese People". Didn't realise you had a single voice, who frequented HN.

In all seriousness, some tips:

- Stop being racist

- go and learn a little bit about Chinese political landscape, and modern history

- Reduce your ignorance.

The Chinese (government) care greatly about the environment and the people, and that is why they have year-on-year improved hundreds of millions of lives in both health and wealth for the past 60 years.

Yes, they are a 1 party communist political system... but so what, judge by action, not ideology.

seanmcdirmid4• 13 years ago

Don't mind Volpe, he calls everyone who talks about China a racist. Its his way of being friendly on hackernews.

Parent is wrong though, the CCP most definitely cares about the environment; it has gotten so bad that they are in crisis mode right now. Xi just made a speech about it this weekend, the gov is taking it very seriously and people do care, especially here in Beijing.

Corruption, economy, and pollution (include food safety) are the biggest threats to the CCP's grip on power.

inoop• 13 years ago

While I would word things more carefully, I somewhat agree with you. Talking to people in Beijing, both laowai and Chinese, it seems that the economical growth of China is the main power base of the party. As long as living standards keep improving, people are generally happy with the way things are run. This is of course a somewhat dangerous state of affairs, since double-digit growth numbers are never sustainable in the long run. To my outsider's eyes, this plan looks like an attempt at keeping the economical boom going, and in the process ensure the party's survival.

seanmcdirmid4• 13 years ago

The pollution in Beijing was really bad this winter, its not something that the government can ignore anymore. We will definitely see some changes next year, its only matter if they go far enough.

ferdo• 13 years ago

Because population control always works out so well for the population.

krob• 13 years ago

if people thought Beijing was polluted, wait till this happens. It will be a permanent fog/smog cloud hovering indefinitely over this plane. If the focus is on making sure that there are long term "green" goals of making sure people use human-powered transportation w/ large public transit systems like subways, trains, bussing systems, then there is potential for this to happen and be maintainable. Generally speaking the Chinese have done much better than than Indians have with their supposed democracy in moving their economy along. India on the other hand has been a general failure, especially in raising the general population into a better life-cycle. If china does this, and is successful, it will be a foundation for other large countries to follow.

I'm presuming they are doing something good, and not considering all the cons that will ensue.

seanmcdirmid4• 13 years ago

I doubt those people are coming to Beijing, it just can't take anymore people, and you have only a limited capacity for jobs and such. More likely they are going to 2nd/3rd tier cities where crowding/pollution issues are still severe, just not as bad as Beijing.

milfot• 13 years ago

http://johnquiggin.com/2013/06/16/urbanization-in-china/

clarification by a guy who does numbers for a living..

Jack000• 13 years ago

Some of my poorer relatives still live on subsistence farms. When I visit my grandmother she would kill a chicken and cook it for us.

as land values rise in these rural areas some people have become rich very quickly. People in my hometown have started to fence up land that was previously unmarked (and worthless). It's an interesting phenomenon.

Not sure what conclusions to draw from the video, just an interesting anecdote. Things are happening quickly in China, for better or worse - there are huge differences every time I visit.

blaeks• 13 years ago

hehe, source: open street map ^_^

A staggering migration – 250M people into Chinese cities in 12-15 years [video]

Related Stories