How is their population so high? I don't fucking get it

How is their population so high? I don't fucking get it.

Attached: China.jpg (1200x900, 106.87K)

Yangtze & yellow river flood plains are very fertile & can sustain huge populations same with India with Indus-gangetic plains

Attached: 1280px-Flooded_Bihar.jpg (1280x960, 118.05K)

Our and their population share has always been high. Its the artificial bloat in Africa and MENA thats concerning

Ok mr smartypants, since youre so smart can you tell us why India couldn't assimilate its ethnic group the same way as the Han Chinese did.

frankly no, not land, china has much less fertile land than india it's actually long administrative peace during the dynasties
if you look at the geography of china you can understand that it can't just be land

How does a discussion about river flood plains & high population has to do with ethnic groups & assimilating? Damn you bug diaspora are deranged

Attached: images (32).jpg (655x468, 22.85K)

Where the fuck did that come from?
I just wanted an actual answer since all of the Indian anons on this board always seems to be well-versed in history.

Attached: 1650172078562.jpg (800x636, 71.22K)

>long peace
>in China
Bro that place has a chimpout every generation that kills millions

this property where agricultural countries have extremely high births per couple because farmers all want a bunch of kids to help with the farm work

now that they're industrialized their fertility rate is in the shitter like all of the rest of us despite reversing the one child policy

nation building is a very recent thing. we could have done it if we were authoritarian like China, but we bowed out to southern chimping in the 60s

Britbongs played politics and played off other races and the disunity continued
Han Chinese outnumber the other ethnicities by 9:1 or smt
Just a random leaf's observation

its largely propoganda. china has managed to present its southern languaged as just dialects of mandarin in the layman's imagination

Attached: images (37) (10).jpg (601x510, 83.94K)

because they are all part of the same sinitic family - unlike india which has dravidian and indo aryan and sino tibetan and austroasiatic,

the concept of "han chinese" is actually more similar to the concept of "aryan" in northern india - a pan ethnic group spanning all the language families from bengal to punjab.

Manchus really cucked themselves to death didn't they

bro, that's over simplification
compared to the wars of europe china in terms of purely external and internal wars is relatively peaceful
between the relatively violent breakups of dynasties the population of china at the height of han was at already 100 million
and at tang 3-400 million and at song 5-600 million, this is much higher than europe in terms of ratio for the same time period

>we bowed out to southern chimping in the 60s
What do you mean?

But still China is not self sufficient in food production (and can't be) while India relies heavily on chemical fertilizers

language families are largely irrelevant. I assume the southerners still have to learn Mandarin at schools which would be done regardless of their native language.
they tried to replace english with hindi but the southerners protested for years. they caved in after some guy fasted like gandhi but actually starved himself to death

Attached: images (37) (11).jpg (608x276, 43.14K)

rice and year round farmable land

>India relies heavily on chemical fertilizers
so?
anyway, give or take a few hundred million and we will be alright. Nigeria is going to have half our population on a fifth of the arable land

China had a population of 290 millions (almost 3 times as Europe) in 1850, stop pulling numbers out of your ass

a lot of steppe land is useful but hasnt been utilised historically. I expect Siberia will be put to good use once china dropd the pretense of "alliance"