Letters | China three-child policy: focus on a better rather than bigger population

The recent announcement of the three-child policy has caused heated debate in China. Should we try to remain one of the most populous countries in the world, or should we be resigned to following in the footsteps of Japan and be weakened significantly as demographic figures drop?

This reminds me of the famous debate between Mao Zedong and Ma Yinchu, an economist and demographic expert, almost immediately after the birth of the People’s Republic. The ideas of Mao eventually prevailed and the country’s population exploded. In the early 50s, China had almost one quarter of the world’s population.

Certainly, having a healthy population pyramid is more important than just a gigantic population. We should envisage maintaining a better quality of life for our people. Quality of life is more important than having a long life while the elderly still have to work for a living, so longevity might not always be a blessing.

More importantly, we should focus on carbon emissions and other environmental issues. Having a smaller population might mean consuming less energy. Thus, it contributes to China’s promise of carbon neutrality by 2060.

Actually, we should not spell out a definite population policy for the country. When the country insisted on a one-child policy, some families violated the guidelines and paid heavy penalties to have a second or third child.

Now, the tide might have reversed, as most families might have only one child even though they are legally allowed to have three. Therefore, I suggest the borrowed idea of “zero population growth” be implemented - not at the family level but at a provincial level.