[HN Gopher] Most demographers now predict that human population ...
___________________________________________________________________
Most demographers now predict that human population will plateau
Author : quantified
Score : 84 points
Date : 2023-09-30 16:00 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| daft_pink wrote:
| I don't think people should worry about it like it's an upcoming
| disaster, but we should question whether lifestyle choices that
| do not include or make it significantly less likely to have
| children are robbing us of important aspects the lifecycle and
| living a full life.
| mola wrote:
| It's not just choices, it's the economic reality. I don't want
| my children to grow poor..my generation knows how poor and not
| poor looks like, while older generations were generally poor
| ignorance made bringing more kids into that not such a big
| deal. But we are not ignorant, and we know that this economy is
| very good at giving us the shiny but non important stuff, while
| depriving us a stable home healthcare and education. At that,
| I'd rather have less children that are more affluent.
|
| And I'd rather economy change it's broken record of growth at
| all costs, cause that's definitely not sustainable.
| bequanna wrote:
| > At that, I'd rather have less children that are more
| affluent.
|
| I can tell you that the affluent upper middle class people
| I've encountered do not seem to be (on average) any happier
| than middle middle class people. Nicer cars, bigger houses
| but not happier.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| I have seen what old age and infirmity looks like when
| you're poor and it isn't always that pretty. We all get old
| and fall apart eventually, but the ability to choose your
| situation (and take care of yourself so that you make it
| farther into old age with good health) matters a whole lot.
| This doesn't make everyone implicitly happy, but it gives
| you a better chance.
| bequanna wrote:
| I didn't include poor in my comment. Poor people (lower
| and lower middle) seem to have a much lower quality of
| life and general happiness vs middle middle and upper
| middle.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Not having kids is great. I thought I'd regret it but the older
| I get the happier I am with the decision. If you want to have
| them, great, but they're not for everyone.
| foogazi wrote:
| > but we should question whether lifestyle choices that do not
| include or make it significantly less likely to have children
| are robbing us of important aspects the lifecycle and living a
| full life
|
| I did question it and answered that to each their own, it's an
| entirely personal choice
| stavros wrote:
| A much-repeated finding in surveys is that childless adults are
| happier than parents.
| xedrac wrote:
| I have six kids. During the earlier years of their
| upbringing, it was very difficult. I'm not surprised surveys
| would reflect this. But now that they are old enough to be
| mostly autonomous, I realize it has been the most rewarding
| experience I think this life has to offer. I often wondered
| if I had made a mistake by choosing to have kids. Now I am
| immensely grateful that I stuck with it. I realize it's not
| for everyone, but I'd like to see such surveys at more
| advanced ages. I'm willing to bet the findings would be
| flipped.
| SirMaster wrote:
| But why is happiness later better than happiness now?
|
| So it only matters how you feel about it at the end?
|
| IMO the journey is more important than the end.
|
| I'm just asking open ended questions here. I don't have any
| answers.
| ochoseis wrote:
| > But why is happiness later better than happiness now?
|
| Here are a few more to ponder:
|
| - Why does the squirrel bury nuts in the warmer months
| instead of eating them right away?
|
| - Why save money instead of spending every paycheck?
|
| - Why not spend every day gaming, drinking and smoking?
| satvikpendem wrote:
| True, however there's no guarantee that children will
| take care of you later, many such cases where it doesn't
| happen. But still, I get your point about hedonism, the
| Greeks thought about this often.
| bad_user wrote:
| People don't necessarily have children in order to be
| taken care of later. People have children because that's
| what people do, reproduction being one of life's joys and
| purpose.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| I think the long-term satisfaction of having happy,
| healthy adult children is a little deeper than how well
| they take care of you in old age.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| For some people, not for all. What if your kids hate you
| or you hate them? More common than people think.
| digbybk wrote:
| There's a distinction between pleasure and happiness.
|
| - why cultivate friendships, have experiences like
| travel, build hobbies and skills that will give you joy
| all through your life?
|
| For many people, the time and financial cost of children
| means delaying or sacrificing all those.
| MissingAFew wrote:
| Yes, the journey of parenthood is exactly what the person
| is referring to, not just the end result. Hard work is
| never really super enjoyable, but the work is part of the
| journey and you appreciate the end result.
| stephendause wrote:
| Happiness is not the only important thing. Fulfillment,
| meaning, and purpose are important, too.
| bequanna wrote:
| 10 childless years with a little more money and free time
| vs 50 years with children and then grandchildren.
|
| For most, the investment of having children during the
| front end of life is no brainer with huge returns.
| SirMaster wrote:
| But those 10 years are where I have the body to do the
| things I want to do.
|
| There is no guarantee that my body will be healthy and
| capable of things like extreme sports and adventures
| later.
| bequanna wrote:
| It's a decision all of us have to make individually.
|
| My only suggestion is try to consider what you may want
| at 50, 60, 70 and how you have a short window in your 20s
| and 30s to have children.
| cryptonector wrote:
| > But why is happiness later better than happiness now?
|
| When you work on something you love, you don't see it as
| a burden, though sometimes it might objectively be a
| burden. There's no trade-off between happiness now and
| happiness later in that case.
|
| Perhaps part of it is whether one has the disposition to
| find happiness in things that are hard work. Perception
| matters. If changing diapers and looking after infants
| and toddlers in general is your idea of a bad time, it
| shouldn't surprise if you then find that you have a bad
| time doing it. On the other hand if you see changing
| diapers and all that as incidental to a great adventure,
| then you're going to be happy to do those chores, and
| very happy overall.
|
| > IMO the journey is more important than the end.
|
| The journey to where? To death. There's no other end.
| Therefore we must enjoy the journey -- make it
| fulfilling, joyful, enjoyable. But how? We are not all
| born into great wealth, so most of us have to work hard
| some of the time in order to have great fun the rest of
| the time. If we see downtime-enabling hard work as a
| serious burden, we're not likely to enjoy the journey.
|
| Parenting is like that, and like many creative activities
| it is intrinsically rewarding. In any creative endeavor,
| your creations may outlast you, and that may make the
| endeavor more meaningful than a more hedonistic life.
| Parenting is a creative endeavor; the knowledge that
| you'll be remembered long after you're gone is part of
| the reward of parenting, but the love of parenting while
| you're doing it is much greater still.
| xedrac wrote:
| I can't answer that for anyone but myself, but I will say
| the journey of raising kids changed me significantly,
| such that the "happiness" I experienced previous to
| having a family seems so shallow in comparison.
| jl6 wrote:
| "All joy, no fun" and vice versa. You can't really win.
|
| Actually, grandparents have it good. They get the fulfilment
| of family without the relentless grind of parenting.
| daft_pink wrote:
| I think the modern day western world is obsessed with
| "maximizing happiness" as the purpose of life and that's a
| lifestyle choice that people have adopted as religion plays a
| lesser role in their lives.
|
| I'm not sure we should accept the premise that maximizing
| subjective happiness is a suitable replacement as if we all
| just didn't have children and were thus "happier", would the
| world really work or would there be no future for humanity?
|
| I'm not sure what the purpose of life is and obviously for
| every person that purpose is probably very different, but I'm
| skeptical of the idea that maximizing subjective happiness is
| a good life philosophy and it seems like everyone has adopted
| it everywhere.
| DandyDev wrote:
| But what is the alternative? You've said it yourself that
| religion plays a lesser role in people's lives, so people
| apparently don't feel they should optimize for a better
| hypothetical afterlife.
|
| What remains are two options:
|
| 1. Optimize for the future/betterment of humanity
|
| 2. Optimize for your own happiness
|
| Option 1 feels a bit like optimizing for something that
| will always be our of reach for me personally. It's almost
| like a reverse pyramid game where I'm doing something that
| only people who will live after me will benefit from.
| Except they won't really, as they'll be optimizing for yet
| farther into the future.
|
| I'm perfectly happy optimizing to keep the planet a great
| place to live, but as half of a consciously childless
| couple I don't feel particularly inclined to make sure that
| there are actually descendants to enjoy this planet. I'm
| okay if other species inherit the earth
| bequanna wrote:
| Does this survey ask people after age 45, 55, and so on?
|
| The winter can be much colder for those without warm memories
| of summer.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| What age group are they comparing? I would bet later in life
| the parents are on average happier as the kids become adults.
|
| Who cares for the childless?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Retirement communities and nursing homes are full of
| parents with children who do not visit them. How selfish
| does one must be to have children to have a retirement
| plan? Society cares for the childless, and we will have to
| learn to manage a declining population because of a
| population expansion everyone thought (how silly in a
| finite system) would last forever.
|
| https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4104138-one-
| qua... ("One quarter of adult children estranged from a
| parent")
|
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12898
| ("Parent-adult child estrangement in the United States by
| gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality")
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-23124345 ("New
| China law says children 'must visit parents'")
| jezzamon wrote:
| "Society cares for the childless" - across lots of
| different cultures, and for a lot of human history, that
| is/was not the case.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Sure, that's how free will works, both individually and
| collectively. Sometimes people go without or die alone
| (even if they have children or society has the means and
| infrastructure), and that is an unfortunate reality of
| the human experience. Hopefully we do better but there
| are no guarantees. Welcome to the shit show, enjoy the
| ride.
| bequanna wrote:
| Bingo.
|
| Also, self-reported happiness surveys are BS.
|
| I've been to Scandinavia. They are definitely NOT among the
| happiest people in the world. They simply think they should
| say they are happy.
| itsafarqueue wrote:
| Keep telling yourself that. Kids can be not just ok, not just
| good, not just great, but the best thing to happen to you in
| your life.
|
| The studies you refer to regard subjective happiness at
| particularly difficult child rearing years.
|
| Anecdata from older childless people, the emptiness of
| childless life once you're beyond young adulthood is sobering
| and incredibly sad.
|
| But yeah hold onto those studies that make you feel ok.
| zabzonk wrote:
| well, if we are going the anecdata route i am 70 and
| childless and reasonably happy. i suspect i am not alone.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I'm 66, and never had kids. Never wanted them. Thinking
| back now, about what my life would be had I had kids with
| either of my first two mates, seems like a nightmare. I
| frankly love my life now.
| Arainach wrote:
| Having children is a lot like religion: I have many friends
| with children and they're nice people and there is no
| issue, but there is a certain subset of the population that
| spends their entire life telling me how I'm an awful person
| making a huge mistake for not [having children/being
| religious] and they are utterly insufferable and not worth
| associating with.
| bequanna wrote:
| I hear you. But I will also tell you that until you have
| children of your own, it is difficult to appreciate the
| value they bring.
|
| They are work and require sacrifice but it can be an
| investment that pays huge dividends for the rest of your
| life.
|
| You're not a bad person if you don't want children. I
| think most people with children trying to convince you to
| have some are well-meaning and just don't want childless
| people to miss out.
|
| My advice would be: if even a small part of you thinks
| you want children, just do it. You will grow to take on
| the new responsibility. But do it no later than age 40.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Having children changes you right quick. It's not just
| that you have to change therefore you do. No, it's that
| it just changes you. A 20 year old dad can be much more
| mature than a 40 year old bachelor, but there's no reason
| to think that the 20 year old dad will have less fun than
| the 40 year old bachelor.
|
| There are tangos (and I'm sure country western, and other
| songs) that are all about the protagonist having had all
| these ladies as a young man, but never a woman, or how
| they left behind the one woman who was their soul mate
| just to get laid with lots of others. E.g., Ansiedad, by
| Juan D'Arienzo[0][1].
|
| Here's Nick Freitas talking about getting married at
| 19[2]. Be sure to read some of the comments.
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHGmN9GTPM [1]
| https://www.musixmatch.com/es/letras/Juan-D-
| Arienzo/Ansiedad/traduccion/ingles [2]
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/u_q8-UNk4TU
| Arainach wrote:
| .....and there are plenty of stories of people who got
| married way too early before they learned who they are
| and were miserable and got divorced. There are plenty of
| kids with horror stories of growing up in those loveless
| households.
| bequanna wrote:
| Right.
|
| But if you're mature enough to debate the pros and cons
| of having children, you hopefully won't be a bad parent
| if you do choose have kids.
| [deleted]
| temende wrote:
| Given how personally you've taken that off-hand comment,
| I'm more inclined to believe the OP than your reply.
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| You sound suspiciously emotional about it.
| Devasta wrote:
| "Can"
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Seeing children today makes me feel a deep sense of
| despair. Watching them pushed as hard as possible into
| schoolwork and extracurriculars from elementary age so that
| they might have some shot at a decent life; it feels like
| watching them being fed into a meat grinder (one that I
| myself went through and would not wish on anyone). And I
| didn't have to grow up watching the trees die as my local
| climate changes from a humid sub-tropic coastal plain into
| a desert; I couldn't imagine being a child looking ahead at
| decades of climate change - hell, I'm not _that_ old and so
| it terrifies me as well.
|
| I agree that a world without children sounds sad, but with
| the way things are going, a world with them seems sadder to
| me.
| bad_user wrote:
| My father was born into a world in which he had to
| practice subsistence farming if he didn't go to school.
| His was the first generation for which school was an
| option, and as a child he traveled 20 km by foot to the
| school and back, daily. My grandfather lost both parents
| since childhood, as back then hospitals were places where
| people went to die. He later fought in WW2, and lost his
| land to communists. During those years, he also witnessed
| the soviet-induced famine.
|
| We are literally living humanity's best years. Children
| today basically get sad for not having enough time to
| play Roblox. How sad is it that they have schoolwork to
| do instead of subsistence farming? And we get sad over
| climate change while stuffing our faces with cheap and
| delicious food while the AC is on.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I'd say the very definition of depression (and trust me,
| I'm quite the authority on it) is stuffing your face full
| of cheap carbs while you never leave your house for fear
| of heatstroke. Sure gives you time to ponder the
| meaninglessness of it all though, so if that's your
| thing, then the world may indeed be headed in your
| favorite direction. Just ignore the ever rising levels of
| depression/anxiety/suicide in teens.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| If people want children and can't because of socioeconomic
| systems (working arrangements, basic living need costs,
| childcare, etc), society is robbing those potential parents of
| joy. Conversely, if systems are preventing people who don't
| want to be parents from affirming those reproductive choices,
| society is again robbing those potential childfree people of
| joy (as well as the suffering of unwanted children brought into
| the world; roughly ~40% of annual pregnancies in the US and
| globally are unintended [1]).
|
| If both cohorts are supported and optimized for, and population
| decline continues, the population decline is not something to
| be solved for. Optimize for societal systems to continue to
| function at certain levels in the face of a declining
| population [2]. As usual, Japan will lead the way and show us
| the future.
|
| EDIT: Ripped straight from the piece in question:
|
| > People aren't selfish for choosing smaller families. We are
| powerfully programmed by Darwinian evolution to want to have
| offspring, or at least to have sex, but women are also endowed
| with the instinct to limit reproduction to the number who can
| be raised with a high probability of success in life. When
| women have large numbers of children, it's often a result of
| high child mortality or lack of power over their own lives.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36127247 (citations)
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37717497
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > as well as the suffering of unwanted children brought into
| the world; roughly ~40% of annual pregnancies in the US and
| globally are unintended [1]
|
| Unintended pregnancy != unwanted child.
|
| There are a huge number of children born whose conception was
| unintended but have always been loved and wanted by their
| parents starting at birth or even during pregnancy.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Sure, but we should be driving the number of unwanted
| children to as close to zero as possible. Lots of work left
| to go in that regard based on the data. Hopefully
| unintended but wanted children are loved adequately.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Was talking about this with my wife fairly recently, and both of
| us see this as a temporary blip.
|
| Falling fertility rates will cause either the subsets of society
| that stopped valuing families and children to quite literally go
| extinct, or for our culture as a whole to collapse.
|
| In either case, the net long term effect on the human race is
| negligible. Either East Asia and the West recover in a tradfem
| renaissance (since a far greater proportion of the population as
| a whole were raised by traditionalists) or it is forced on us
| when cultures that didn't stop reproducing turn around and
| colonise us back.
|
| You can look at the demographics of Jews in Israel for an example
| of the "good ending".
| [deleted]
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I'm not sure why it'd collapse when the UN predicts it'll
| stabilize around 5 billion, as when we were previously at 5
| billion, our society didn't collapse.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| This is probably just run-of-the-mill decline of the west
| scaremongering. The idea is that if too many immigrants with
| a different skin tone arrive, then society is destroyed
| ("forced on us when cultures that didn't stop reproducing
| turn around and colonise us back.")
|
| I guess I'm an old school melting pot guy, but I firmly
| believe western society will maintain its historical winning
| streak, thanks in part to the efforts of millions of
| immigrants eager to contribute to their energy to its values
| and success.
|
| "Tolstoy Is the Tolstoy of the Zulus" and all that. Sod the
| xenophobes.
| solardev wrote:
| It's not just (and IMO, probably not primarily) a question of
| personal values and desires, but structural issues too. Raising
| kids is expensive as hell in many societies.
|
| Look at Japan, one of the most staunchly traditionalist
| societies that can't breed because everyone is too busy working
| and being depressed.
|
| The US too, most people who have kids are bringing them into a
| society of wage slavery and extremely limited social ability,
| in an increasingly unstable world. Even if you liked kids, why
| would you subject them to such a poor start?
| usrusr wrote:
| My thoughts as well. It would take a strong and _perpetual_
| trend of people raised by breeders abandoning their parent 's
| ways, over and over again each generation, for a plateau to
| remain a plateau. Humanity has always solved overpopulation
| through violence and I just hope that our attempt at breaking
| that cycle won't collapse during my lifespan.
| [deleted]
| alfor wrote:
| Look at Japan, Korea, Italy to get an idea of what is to come.
|
| It's not pretty. All of our infrastructure was build in constant
| growth. That mean that we cannot pay to maintain it, we wont have
| the people to do the job, we can't keep our standart of care for
| the elderly.
|
| With the transition to clean energly, information technology, we
| can keep on increase the population no problem, we keep on being
| more efficient and cleaner each year.
|
| Yes, I think it's a catastrophe, but we will understand a
| generation too late.
|
| Maybe AI and robotic will fill the gap
| SenAnder wrote:
| > All of our infrastructure was build in constant growth.
|
| And the demand for that infrastructure also comes from growth.
| It's not the landmass that needs roads and schools.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Japan is not on fire, and their GDP and population growth has
| been stagnant a long time. They have an aging population, but
| they won't live forever. Fertility rate could be trivially
| boosted through policy measures and we aren't seeing those,
| because they don't care.
| concordDance wrote:
| There isn't a good way to boost fertility that I know of. The
| Nordics with very generous maternity leave and social safety
| net have a lower fertility rate than the USA.
| wslh wrote:
| I don't think fertility rate is something good or bad, I
| think people are very conservative (beyond its political
| sympathy) because change opens for uncertainty. It does not
| matter if it is about drugs, fertility, AI or diversity.
| Ergo, in many societies we live thinking that we are always
| progressing towards positive outcomes when the long term
| reality is more random.
| epcoa wrote:
| Keeping a populace dumb and uneducated works pretty well.
| willcipriano wrote:
| On the other side of the coin a society without children
| allows its members the freedom to be obese and mentally
| ill.
| landemva wrote:
| .cz has been increasing births by tweaks to public
| policy/spend.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CZE/czechia/fertility
| -...
| alfor wrote:
| Many countries have tried to boost it, so far nothing seem to
| work.
|
| It's a cultural thing and once it shift it doesn't come back
| easily.
|
| You would have to convince modern woman to stay at home and
| have 3+ child and you need most of them to do so.
|
| Without return to traditional values that is not going to
| happen.
| cableshaft wrote:
| > Fertility rate could be trivially boosted through policy
| measures and we aren't seeing those, because they don't care.
|
| Totally false. It can be argued that they're not doing
| enough, but they are definitely trying.
|
| December 14, 2022: "The Japanese government is planning to
| provide an additional 80,000 yen (EUR556, $592) to couples
| who have a child as Tokyo looks for ways to halt the alarming
| decline in the nation's birth rate."[1]
|
| January 24, 2023: "Japan's prime minister issued a dire
| warning about the country's population crisis on Monday,
| saying it was "on the brink of not being able to maintain
| social functions" due to the falling birth rate.
|
| ...The government has launched various initiatives to address
| the population decline over the past few decades, including
| new policies to enhance child care services and improve
| housing facilities for families with children. Some rural
| towns have even begun paying couples who live there to have
| children."[2]
|
| June 1, 2023: "Japan is investing around 3.5 trillion yen in
| a push to increase the number of children. The country's
| acute population problem is getting worse quicker than
| expected.
|
| Parents will be entitled to a monthly allowance will of some
| 15,000 yen --about $107 dollars -- for each child from
| newborn to two years old. There will then be 10,000 yen for
| children from the age of three and older, with the coverage
| expanded to include children in senior high school.
|
| The government also plans to open up nursery school or day-
| care center places to children, even if their parents do not
| have jobs.
|
| It will raise childcare leave benefits, starting in the
| fiscal year 2025, so disposable family incomes remain
| unchanged for up to four weeks even when both parents take
| leave.
|
| The measures also include increasing paid parental leave and
| providing subsidies for fertility treatments. "[3]
|
| [1]: https://www.dw.com/en/will-japans-new-plan-to-boost-
| birth-ra...
|
| [2]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/asia/japan-kishida-birth-
| rate...
|
| [3]: https://www.dw.com/en/japan-to-channel-billions-of-
| dollars-i...
| ivalm wrote:
| From what I understand the problem is discrimination in the
| workplace that young women, and especially mothers, suffer.
|
| If a woman sees children as a block to her personal success
| then a little bit of money (and it is a little, compared to
| lost wages) won't help.
| [deleted]
| Empact wrote:
| Have you seen evidence that less discrimination at work
| leads to higher fertility?
| EliRivers wrote:
| Here's one paper about Poland; "These data reveal that
| discriminatory practices by employers against pregnant
| women and women with small children are decisive in
| women's decisions to postpone or forego childbearing."
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/26349356
| slothtrop wrote:
| Fair enough, but the low hanging fruit I see is not a lack
| of money, but a lack of time. The expectations placed on
| workers, on top of raising a family, is ridiculous, but
| they won't budge. For all alarmist rhetoric, the government
| certainly isn't behaving as though it's an emergency.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| To be fair those numbers are tiny. The NPV to society of a
| new baby is probably more like $500k. I would guess if we
| paid $500k for a baby it would be quite effective
| ivalm wrote:
| Even if instead of NPV they simply paid lost
| wages/opportunity cost then it would be something. In
| Japan there is a lot of discrimination against young
| women because of fear they will go on maternity leave/not
| stick around. As a result, women don't get
| promoted/hired, and if they do get pregnant are minimally
| accommodated. If we want to encourage women having
| children we need to compensate all the negative
| consequences they face in the workplace, and that's tens
| of thousands of dollar per year.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The problem with that approach is a simple $500k payment
| does not result in a productive adult. It takes years and
| years of hard work and sacrifice to end up with the type
| of adults you want.
|
| You will get the people you least want to be parents
| pumping out kids for $500k.
|
| I don't think this is a problem solvable with cash.
| creer wrote:
| > All of our infrastructure was build in constant growth. That
| mean that we cannot pay to maintain it
|
| Not really. For example both the US and California run on
| insanely large yearly budgets and base economies. What neither
| have are priorities that would consider infrastructure to be
| critical. Not for maintenance and sure as hell not for
| investment. Both have plenty of legacy money sinks, and
| hangups, and hobby projects (some mindblowingly large), and bad
| habits (like road resurfacing that comes riddled with defects
| and needs redoing on a yearly basis - in the most boring
| weather). There is a lot of money. There seems to be no
| incentives for spending on boring solid infrastructure.
| baq wrote:
| US and California have run on immigration since their
| respective beginnings. Budgets don't matter if there's no one
| who can do the actual work.
| creer wrote:
| There are plenty of companies on the planet who know how to
| build solid roads. And I doubt they would refuse to bid on
| California road projects - including training and importing
| their own workforce if it came to that. They are used to
| building through the middle of nowhere. But yeah, it's up
| to California (for example) to refuse to consider such
| solutions.
| polotics wrote:
| Do you have an actual figure in mind when you write "With the
| transition to clean energy"? The reality is much much more
| bleak, you're looking at a very small chunk of total energy
| consumption that's using renewable, coal has only been going up
| and up the past years, and how sustainable the new renewables
| (non hydro) will be in a world not propped-up by cheap fossil
| fuels remains to be tested. I was hoping Bloomberg would call a
| spade a spade and acknowledge a guess of the real humans-
| carrying capacity of spaceship earth once it stops running on
| fumes... My guess: one tenth of our current peak.
| Empact wrote:
| Nuclear power is the most significant opportunity for clean
| energy. If we implement it fully, as e.g. France has, I don't
| see a reason we can't achieve abundant clean energy.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Interesting that France's nuclear failure is still brought
| as argument for the opposite?
| polotics wrote:
| You're going to have to be more specific as to what you
| call a failure... Closing the Fessenheim plant even
| though it was in perfect condition, safe, and very
| useful, just for base politician reasons... is this maybe
| what you mean? If you count the MWh/EUR, the excellent
| safety records, it's hard to see the failure. Maybe the
| slow production of an EPR reactor, the giving up on
| efforts towards 4th-gen reactors?
| jangxx wrote:
| They might be referring to the fact that France had to
| import electrical power from Germany last year (which was
| made with coal and natural gas), because the rivers they
| used to cool their reactors didn't carry enough water
| anymore due to a drought.
| alfor wrote:
| Look into Tony Seba work. The transition is on an expodential
| path, most prediction are simple linear. Solar + wind +
| batteries are going to displace almost everything in the next
| 10 years.
| dalyons wrote:
| There are reasons to be hopeful :
| https://patrickcollison.com/solar
|
| https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/our-climate-change-debates-
| are...
|
| We will replace most fossil fuels with solar. Will it be in
| time? Maybe not, but it's not hopeless.
| Projectiboga wrote:
| Our planet was 20 degrees warmer overall that last time the
| CO2 levels were over 420ppm. And the level of rise over the
| recent past is totally unprecedented. Climate zones are
| moving tens of miles per decade north, far faster than
| forests can adapt. Things are going to get very crazy and
| the hunan population won't just decline gradually.
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| Noahpinion's self-admitted optimism bias towards solar and
| batteries is unhelpful hopium.
| spaceguillotine wrote:
| oh we can and do have the people power, no one wants to pay
| what it actually costs now to do them. It's not a lack of
| people, its a lack of money going to the right places,
| especially on the maintenance aspects. Ai ain't gonna fix that
| part, the one hope you do mention is robotics for augementing
| human strength for care of the eldery but again, money isn't
| going to the right places, its just filling up the accounts of
| the already rich and just staying there now.
|
| as an example the landlord of the place i'm at right now spends
| hundreds a month of a leaking faucet but won't spend anything
| to fix it or update the shower that its happening in, they take
| in over $8000/month on 3 units they illegally split it into
| that they bought in 2003 for $362,000 and is now valued at $1.3
| million, yet it still has lead pipes and leaking faucets. There
| is lots of money for upkeep on every project, the gov and
| ownership class doesn't want to pay it until forced to.
| [deleted]
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > we can't keep our standart of care for the elderly.
|
| Seems obvious. If you go from 10% of your population being
| elderly to 50% - you either need to spend a ton more or quality
| is going down.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Or automation and increased productivity fill the gap, as
| they have always done.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| In the US at least, we'll have plenty of other much more
| serious problems before we have to worry about infrastructure.
| There was a story on here just the other day about record
| levels of homelessness for baby boomers. Our housing market was
| built for growth and rents are probably not going down much any
| time soon. The elderly have found themselves with houses too
| large to care for, and they're often well into disrepair by the
| time it's feasible to downsize. Financial companies have been
| preying on this same population with predatory financial
| instruments like reverse mortgages. Lots of folks who were
| among the first to get 401ks instead of pensions are realizing
| they have far too little saved to maintain anything even close
| to their pre-retirement lifestyle.
|
| Our society has optimized itself for profit around the
| historically financially well-off baby boomer generation and
| not their welfare or comfort. Sadly this absolutely won't be a
| problem that's solved for at least a generation or two. Until
| then it'll be very painful times for many people.
| oezi wrote:
| Hans Rosling argued this very convincingly more than 10 years
| ago:
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| Isn't the primary reason to worry becuase our global economy is
| founded on debt? Debt only works if the future is more valuable
| than the present by at least the interest rate on the loan writ
| large across the global economy.
|
| The easiest way to make sure the future is more valuable than the
| present is to have more people than we have now, more people
| working, more people generating value, more people consuming etc.
|
| If there are less people then we need to find a different way to
| make the future more valuable than the present to pay off that
| debt.
| [deleted]
| naveen99 wrote:
| Debt has two sides. It's a trade like any other. it should be
| arbitrage neutral, and both parties should be better off after
| the trade, or it doesn't happen.
| opportune wrote:
| As long as we continue to either produce more value than
| before, or the same amount of value with less costs, it's not a
| big deal. Population growth makes things easier but it's not
| strictly necessary.
|
| The biggest problem is dealing with the "transition" of the
| population pyramid. Public pensions and such usually don't
| account for the shape - namely the ratio of economically
| productive people to economically unproductive (dependents and
| retirees) - changing. Most likely, whichever generation gets to
| be retirees along the demographic transition from positive
| population growth to neutral population growth will get a free
| ride in the form of lower taxes/contributions in their
| productive years relative to what they consume in their
| retirement years. This is kinda sorta happening with Boomers in
| many developed countries although it's greatly mitigated in eg
| the US by immigration.
| [deleted]
| ivalm wrote:
| I don't think so. Debt it fundamentally a human construct,
| while growth is, mostly, a manifestation of physical reality.
| Debt is simply used to guide human collective action. If we
| find this construct no longer works, we can at will change it
| and use something else to guide collective action. We currently
| use debt because, in conjunction with other property rights
| (such as those enabling market economy), it seems to align
| everyone's incentives in a way that is beneficial (eg when
| people tried central planning it was much worse). The benefit
| of debt is that it helps collective action whose benefits are
| reaped in the future while stratifying risk/benefit (vs just
| equity investment).
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _the future more valuable than the present to pay off that
| debt._
|
| Your comment seems to imply something negative about debt, when
| in fact it's exactly the answer you're looking for. Debt allows
| people to build things now at the expense of future earnings;
| it pulls forward technological advances.
|
| Surely there are better ways to organize society, but easy debt
| is not inherently terrible.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| I think you miss the point there as it relates to the
| article.
| johnnymorgan wrote:
| _if_ it 's used for productivity increases only.
|
| We are well past that point.
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| No intentionally implied negativity towards debt at all, it's
| a great tool. Just a statement.
| Beijinger wrote:
| "Your comment seems to imply something negative about debt,
| when in fact it's exactly the answer you're looking for. Debt
| allows people to build things now at the expense of future
| earnings; it pulls forward technological advances."
|
| Yes, but wealth and energy are linked. And debt can only be
| paid off with more debt. This is no problem, as long as the
| future is getting better and richer. In a finite world, this
| must come to an end at one point.
|
| "Surely there are better ways to organize society, but easy
| debt is not inherently terrible"
|
| Nobody has been able to come up with a better way. And there
| is some inherent danger in this.
| https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-
| sta...
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Theoretically if AI, fusion power, asteroid mining etc.
| come to pass, many resources we think of as finite might
| become functionally unlimited. A post-scarcity society
| could optimise for human happiness, rather than optimising
| for workers to keep the machines turning.
| Beijinger wrote:
| Nope
|
| https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
|
| "But let's not overlook the key point: continued growth
| in energy use becomes physically impossible within
| conceivable timeframes. "
|
| And
|
| Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable
|
| https://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-
| energy...
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Shades of https://xkcd.com/605/
|
| > The merciless growth illustrated above means that in
| 1400 years from now, any source of energy we harness
| would have to outshine the sun.
|
| Cool, we can worry about this in 1000 years?
|
| This article is silly because the whole point of the OP
| is that population growth will _not_ continue, so it 's
| reasonable to assume that energy consumption will also
| plateau.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| Nope
|
| Reminds of the NYT article on the impossibility of
| flight.
| fastneutron wrote:
| Care to elaborate? Are you envisioning some decoupling of
| energy and economic growth?
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| The chart at the beginning already shows we don't fit the
| trend anymore. So the whole premise is nonsense
| Retric wrote:
| Track the total energy used by humanity and it's almost
| all sunlight used to grow plants the same way it's been
| used for thousands of years. It looks nothing like the
| 2.3% exponential curve pulled out of a hat by that
| article.
|
| There's little reason to suspect future advanced
| societies will even vaguely approach a 0.1% increase in
| total energy demand per year when human population stalls
| out. Nobody wants to heat their house to 10,000f or cool
| to cryogenic temperatures. Energy demand is therefore
| simply a question of technological progress and rates of
| growth in energy use is surprisingly slow for the top
| economies.
| abeppu wrote:
| This only works if we all change our attitudes and
| values. But if we changed our values, we could optimize
| for human happiness today.
| abeppu wrote:
| Also, reframing only slightly, to a preindustrial person
| who spent all their time producing calories or
| spinning/weaving fiber for clothes, we're a post-scarcity
| society. We have so many calories it's making us sick and
| so much clothing we have to export discarded unused
| clothes. That hasn't meant we stopped chasing ever
| greater wealth just bc we can more than supply our needs.
| We just find more and more extravagant things to want.
|
| Once we have asteroid mining, a generation of wealthy
| people will want their own space stations, or fusion-
| driven space craft or something.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _debt can only be paid off with more debt_
|
| This is totally untrue. Debt can be paid with new debt or
| growth.
| pavlov wrote:
| Debt can also be simply written off.
|
| There is a long practice of mass debt relief called a
| jubilee:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_jubilee
|
| In the Bible, references are made to a Hebrew jubilee
| every 49 years when "slaves and prisoners would be freed,
| debts would be forgiven, and the mercies of God would be
| particularly manifest."
|
| The permanence of debt is an illusion created by our
| current political and economical system.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _long practice of mass debt relief called a jubilee_
|
| The concept has long heritage. In reality, very few
| actual debt forgivenesses are documented.
|
| Note, too, that in a Malthusian economy, debt has a
| tendency to be wealth transferring: the capital capacity
| of the system is limited. In a growing economy, that need
| not be the case.
|
| > _permanence of debt is an illusion created by our
| current political and economical system_
|
| We continuously poof debt. It's called bankruptcy.
| pavlov wrote:
| Not just bankruptcy, as there are other, less drastic
| kinds of write-offs that commonly occur.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| You're right, I should have said restructuring.
|
| Jubilees are a crude predecessor to lawful restructuring.
| api wrote:
| We write off debt via two methods: bankruptcy and
| inflation. The latter effectively writes down the
| principal of all outstanding debt.
|
| If we hit hard limits to growth it might actually look
| like a boom for a while, a very inflationary one where
| number go up a lot. In reality a lot of debt is being
| vaporized and prices are going up.
| Ekaros wrote:
| There is at least two ways to use debt.
|
| One is to build a machine, a road or whatever that increase
| productivity. So invest a million and you manufacture 10%
| more a year with same labour or even material input. This is
| great.
|
| And then there is getting debt to pay your daily expenses or
| something not productive, see credit cards when used when
| there is no excess.
|
| It seems that lot of debt on global level even with nations
| is in second category... This might have worked with growing
| population and productivity from first kind, but without that
| population growth it might become bad...
| johnnymorgan wrote:
| People are really missing this point within this whole
| issue.
|
| Falling demographics is also more than a single total
| number, the age ranges matter as well.
| hinkley wrote:
| Investing in restoration of the natural world would be a
| convenient and prudent way to continue those dividends through
| the peak. By then some changes to the social order will start
| to kick in and we cannot predict how those will play out.
| That's for them to navigate.
| johnnymorgan wrote:
| It will be war, it's always war that changes the social
| order.
|
| Changing the financial network cannot be solved by planting a
| few more trees, you need to have a solution that values labor
| over rents again.
| Beijinger wrote:
| "Isn't the primary reason to worry becuase our global economy
| is founded on debt? Debt only works if the future is more
| valuable than the present by at least the interest rate on the
| loan writ large across the global economy."
|
| Yes, but very few people know this.
|
| https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-sta...
| gruez wrote:
| >https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-
| sta...
|
| That article is so riddled with issues it's hard to take it
| seriously even if you believe the underlying conclusion.
|
| >But overall, there is no evidence that fossil fuel use, or
| even oil use, can be divorced from economic growth. If there
| is a big decline in fossil fuel use, it will translate to a
| decline in economic growth.
|
| Yes there is: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#many-
| countries-have...
|
| >The need for economic growth in order to pay back debt even
| applies to our money supply itself. Money is loaned into
| existence. This happens when a commercial bank makes a loan
| and deposit at the same time. The problem is that when the
| money is created, not enough money is loaned into existence
| to pay back the interest as well. So economic growth is
| needed to create the additional money so that the debt can be
| paid back with interest.
|
| This ignores the existence of a central bank, which can print
| money at will.
|
| >The problem with going to a system without fossil fuels and
| with much less debt than we have today is the fact that the
| world supported fewer than one billion people in 1750. There
| are now nearly 7 billion people in the world.
|
| The world supported less than 1 billion people in 1750
| because the industrial revolution and the green revolution
| wasn't a thing yet. Both vastly increased productivity and
| thereby the amount of people the world could support.
|
| >If governments were to take away fossil fuels, or even
| reduce their use significantly, it would likely cause a crash
| of the financial system
|
| "In a recent poll of climate economists conducted by Reuters,
| most agreed that getting to net zero would cost only 2% to 3%
| of annual global GDP. Other estimates put the cost of
| decarbonizing the economy a bit lower or a bit higher, but
| they are all in the low single digits of annual global GDP."
|
| https://time.com/6132395/two-percent-climate-solution/
| Beijinger wrote:
| "That article is so riddled with issues it's hard to take
| it seriously even if you believe the underlying
| conclusion."
|
| I consider this person to be one of the smartest persons I
| know.
|
| "This ignores the existence of a central bank, which can
| print money at will."
|
| This does not solve the underlying problem. You will get
| hyperinflation but the money is useless.
|
| https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/11/09/energy-is-the-
| economy-...
|
| "The world supported less than 1 billion people in 1750
| because the industrial revolution and the green revolution
| wasn't a thing yet"
|
| We can only sustain this with modern technology that is
| developed by capitalism. Production is pre-financed in
| expectation of a higher return. If the growth model
| collapses, so will capitalism. Capitalism is not the same
| as a market economy. We had a market economy before
| capitalism. The point Gail makes is that a society without
| capitalism may fall to a technology level seen before the
| industrial revolution. A society like the Amish is
| basically stable in contrast to our model.
|
| "In a recent poll of climate economists conducted by
| Reuters, most agreed that getting to net zero would cost
| only 2% to 3% of annual global GDP."
|
| Which does not change the underlying mathematics. See also:
| https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
|
| "But let's not overlook the key point: continued growth in
| energy use becomes physically impossible within conceivable
| timeframes. "
|
| And
|
| Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable
|
| https://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-
| energy...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Smart people can be wrong when they lack domain
| knowledge.
|
| That article is riddled with basic errors. Steady-state
| economies can exist with debt--it's how ancient non-
| imperial economies worked. Debt jubilees aren't the only
| way to erase debt--we use bankruptcy, which is more
| targeted and continuous.
|
| As for energy, look up energy intensity of GDP. It's
| falling. (The author seems to conflate fossil fuels and
| energy.)
| Beijinger wrote:
| "Smart people can be wrong when they lack domain
| knowledge." Do you know her background?
|
| "Steady-state economies can exist with debt--it's how
| ancient non-imperial economies worked"
|
| Yes sure. An economy like the Amish can. But we talk here
| not about a market economy but about capitalism that
| basically starts with the industrial revolution. The
| giant pre-financing of production.
|
| "As for energy, look up energy intensity of GDP. It's
| falling."
|
| Energy intensity of Which GDP? That of the US? Sure. Do
| you know why? I actually read an article from a professor
| from a well known University (might have been MIT) that
| claimed the same. What he did not take into account is
| that the US has been outsourcing energy hungry production
| in the last decades. (The article appeared before the re-
| shoring of production in the US started). I send him a
| statistic showing, how the energy intensity of the US
| sank, while China's increased. I asked him if this
| contradicts his thesis. Unfortunately he did not reply.
|
| Here, Gail also mentions this:
|
| Why does world energy intensity remain flat, while energy
| intensity for many individual countries has been
| decreasing?
|
| We are dealing with a large number of countries with very
| different energy intensities. The big issue would seem to
| be outsourcing of heavy manufacturing. This makes the
| energy intensity of the country losing the manufacturing
| look better. Outsourcing transfers manufacturing to a
| country with a much higher energy intensity, so even with
| the new manufacturing, its ratio can still look better
| (lower). It is hard to measure the overall impact of
| outsourcing, except by looking at world total energy
| intensities rather than individual country amounts.
|
| https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/11/15/is-it-really-
| possible-...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _economy like the Amish can. But we talk here not about
| a market economy but about capitalism that basically
| starts with the industrial revolution. The giant pre-
| financing of production._
|
| What's the difference? Steady state is steady state. Debt
| doesn't require growth to be sustainable. It _does_
| require decay, but jubilees are a crude solution compared
| with bankruptcy.
|
| In any case, you see why the article is riddled with
| errors. Foundational arguments, like debt is incompatible
| with steady-state, have exceptions. And that is before we
| recognise that restructuring exists.
|
| > _Energy intensity of Which GDP? That of the US?_
|
| Of the world [1].
|
| > _while China 's increased_
|
| It's been falling since 2006 [2].
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity
| Beijinger wrote:
| "What's the difference? Steady state is steady state. "
|
| From Gails article, capitalization from me: There is No
| Steady State Economy (EXCEPT AT A VERY BASIC LEVEL) So
| sure, a a steady state economy at a pre-industrialization
| level is no problem.
|
| I am not able to spontaneously find data in your link for
| China, neither do I find my statistic since I am not at
| my desktop computer. But assuming you are right, what
| about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _There is No Steady State Economy (EXCEPT AT A VERY
| BASIC LEVEL)_
|
| This isn't qualified for the debt statement. And again,
| it ignores restructuring. (As well as taxation and
| central banks' arsenals for destroying money.)
|
| As for Jevon's paradox, sure. Total energy use is
| increasing. But it's increasing alongside efficiency.
| That makes steady state at a future point more
| achievable. We are nowhere close to tapping usable
| energy, so pre-optimising for it is silly.
|
| I like Gail's writing, but this is a particularly bad
| article of hers. The problems it surfaces were largely
| addressed in the early 20th century, when the needs of
| industrialisation prompted monetary experimentation in
| the 19th century and yielded conclusions in the 20th. We
| have a debt-based fiat banking system because it works
| well for a positive-sum economy. There is also nothing
| inherent to it that requires growth; our need for growth
| comes from other parts of our economy, e.g. how we
| finance suburban infrastructure.
| gruez wrote:
| >I consider this person to be one of the smartest persons
| I know.
|
| Mind elaborating why anyone else should think the same?
|
| >"This ignores the existence of a central bank, which can
| print money at will."
|
| >This does not solve the underlying problem. You will get
| hyperinflation but the money is useless.
|
| Inflation is a spectrum. There's a vast range before you
| reach Zimbabwe/Venezuela levels of inflation, like the
| inflationary period we're seeing now in most developed
| countries. Reaching steady state and having slightly
| higher inflation isn't the worst thing in the world.
|
| >https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/11/09/energy-is-the-
| economy-...
|
| How is this related to hyperinflation?
|
| >"The world supported less than 1 billion people in 1750
| because the industrial revolution and the green
| revolution wasn't a thing yet"
|
| >We can only sustain this with modern technology that is
| developed by capitalism. Production is pre-financed in
| expectation of a higher return. If the growth model
| collapses, so will capitalism. Capitalism is not the same
| as a market economy. We had a market economy before
| capitalism. The point Gail makes is that a society
| without capitalism may fall to a technology level seen
| before the industrial revolution. A society like the
| Amish is basically stable in contrast to our model.
|
| I don't get it, are you claiming that once we reached
| steady state, all of our technology will suddenly stop
| working and we'll go back to living like the Amish? It's
| unclear why advances like genetically modified crops,
| pesticides, and synthetic fertilizer will suddenly stop
| working if there isn't "pre-financed in expectation of a
| higher return".
|
| >"In a recent poll of climate economists conducted by
| Reuters, most agreed that getting to net zero would cost
| only 2% to 3% of annual global GDP."
|
| >Which does not change the underlying mathematics. See
| also: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-
| energy/
|
| >"But let's not overlook the key point: continued growth
| in energy use becomes physically impossible within
| conceivable timeframes. "
|
| I mean, if you extend your timescales arbitrarily far
| away you're going to be right eventually. After all,
| entropy and heat death of the universe is a thing. I
| don't think anyone seriously thinks we civilization can
| continue on for literally forever. Although I'm not sure
| what this does for the discussion about debt financing.
| Even without debt financing you're still going to run
| into heat death.
| creer wrote:
| I don't know that debt is the main problem. I can see more
| "valuable" (tricky word - for a different thread) economics run
| by fewer people. That happens all the time when you compare
| businesses: some are manpower intensive (sometimes for reasons
| hard to understand) while others are super lean.
|
| I had the impression that harder issues are conventional
| retirement being paid for by the people working for the people
| retired. Even in an era of more valuable work, shrinking the
| working population while growing the retired population
| compounds the difficulty. The second is one of manpower
| outright: where do all the people come from who are supposed to
| provide services or living assistance to the older population?
| This is again an issue of compounding: several effects going in
| the same direction at the same time when any one might be easy
| to handle.
| thefz wrote:
| > The easiest way to make sure the future is more valuable than
| the present is to have more people than we have now, more
| people working
|
| Or the same people generating more work, value.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Or tune most people to value more things that needs less
| work/energy.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _tune most people to value more things that needs less
| work /energy_
|
| They will be outcompeted and eventually replaced by those
| who value growth. (Plenty of the world has similar living
| standards to a hundred years ago.)
| Bancakes wrote:
| Work 80 hour weeks because people aren't making kids. Got it
| nine_zeros wrote:
| You are exactly right. The only reason these articles pop up is
| because the current economic system is founded on debt and
| relies on future generations paying up for current assets.
|
| It is merely accounting. The planet would prefer fewer people
| or a different economic system.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Assuming old people get less and less capable to do things
| for their own survival, and old people are owed help from non
| old/able bodied people, then the debt exists whether or not
| it is recorded on a ledger.
|
| Hence if the population pyramid turns upside down, then that
| assumption needs to be revisited. Or automation needs to be
| invented to offset it.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Excellent. Now let's shrink it and reduce the consumption of
| those left.
| blubbity wrote:
| Agreed! You can start by getting rid of whatever device you
| used to post that response and not buying any more electronics.
| Bet you won't!
| xmprt wrote:
| I hate these unproductive and snarky replies to calls for
| change (although I don't agree with the parent commenter that
| the best solution is to reduce the population). You have no
| idea what that person is doing to offset their consumption.
| Maybe they're posting from a library computer. Maybe they
| bought their device second hand. Maybe (and this is actually
| the case for a lot of people), they received their device
| from their company and use it to do work as well as for
| personal use, thereby reducing the total number of devices in
| the world.
|
| It's like if southerners in the civil war called northerners
| hypocrites for eating food harvested by slaves while also
| advocating for abolishing slavery. Perhaps northerners were
| hypocrites but what does that make the southerners in that
| case?
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Thanks. I'm not having any kids so I think I'm doing my
| part.
| [deleted]
| Racing0461 wrote:
| bill gates first.
| concordDance wrote:
| Human population will also change a lot. Subpopulations with very
| high fertility (like fundamentalist Christians or hassidic Jews
| or the population of Chad) will be a much larger proportion of
| the population while groups like the South Koreans decline.
|
| I expect this to have pretty large effects,though predicting what
| those will be seems difficult.
| krona wrote:
| _The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative
| Demographic Revolution_ explores the possible consequences in
| great detail. It 's happened many times before, though never on
| this scale.
| rayiner wrote:
| Interestingly, global religiosity is projected to increase by
| 2050, because most of the atheist/secular societies
| (especially China) are in a state of population decline: http
| s://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/25/4607977...
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I don't think we can assume that children will continue in
| their parents religion though. The US, for instance, is
| much less religious than it used to be.
| wslh wrote:
| It is not a subpopulation but Islam followers also have high
| fertility rates that challenges politics in countries such as
| France.
| rayiner wrote:
| Islam is especially potent on the fertility front because
| marriage and having children are considered a central moral
| obligation: https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-
| paradise/islamic-mar.... Even among relatively secular
| muslims, the concept of "child free" would be something you
| wouldn't say out loud.
| huytersd wrote:
| [flagged]
| emodendroket wrote:
| The same thing appears in the Bible so forgive my
| skepticism that Muslims will be unique among followers of
| Abrahamic religions in not facing the same pressures of the
| modern world everyone else does.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| I think it's likely that within a few decades they go
| through a similar cultural change to what Christians went
| through.
| slickrick216 wrote:
| Islam will not take over France.
| diego_moita wrote:
| > or hassidic Jews or the population of Chad
|
| Which, BTW, live close to the centre of Global Warming's
| bullseye.
|
| We might need to add extra variables on such forecasts.
| kingkawn wrote:
| Those religious populations have always had high fertility, and
| also always had high rates of departure from the religious
| communities. I wouldn't make any bets on their worldviews
| suddenly dominating the world anew
| standardUser wrote:
| The problem with those high-fertility groups is that they
| usually come with a lot of baggage - specifically they require
| belief in the made-up nonsense that tends to fade away as the
| demographic shift advances. So, they may maintain higher
| fertility rates, but I'd wager more and more of their kids will
| break away from a religion/belief system that appears
| increasingly absurd and stifling as the rest of the world moves
| on.
| Racing0461 wrote:
| Chad the country, or chad the Chad.
| [deleted]
| huytersd wrote:
| Middle easterners and Muslims in general have a lot of kids.
| ftyers wrote:
| https://archive.ph/n9dHT
| eimrine wrote:
| > now some economists are warning of a future with too few. For
| example, economist Dean Spears from the University of Texas has
| written that an "unprecedented decline" in population will lead
| to a bleak future of slower economic growth and less innovation.
|
| This some economists' BS becomes more and more annoying.
| stavros wrote:
| What do you mean? I worry it _won 't_ happen.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Yeah, though it seems reliably projected that population growth
| will stagnate. If the trend of developing countries lifting
| themselves out of poverty continues, we should expect it.
|
| There are obvious policies we could reach for if we _really_
| wanted to improve the fertility rate, but it clearly doesn 't
| matter that much. If Japan's leadership was so worried about
| fertility, they'd have better work-life balance by now. They do
| not care, because it does not matter.
| RGamma wrote:
| Also, how it happens. By reasonable self-regulation or by the
| ecosphere getting a heart attack. Now what's more likely...
| standardUser wrote:
| On the one hand, humans are absolute dogshit at predicting the
| future. I mean, the year 2100? Give me a fucking break. On the
| other hand, the demographic shift is as convincing and well-
| supported as any theory in all of social science.
|
| I imagine advances in fertility technology will change the
| landscape of procreation in ways we cannot yet predict. It's also
| possible that major catastrophes could change population
| dynamics, not necessarily by mass deaths, but by driving some
| populations back along the demographic transition where having
| many children is once again the best strategy.
| anon3949494 wrote:
| We should seek sustainable human population on this planet,
| rather than pursuing the conventional approach of relentless
| growth.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I mean, that seems super-reasonable, but I tend to open these
| sorts of things with "Either you think that the Earth can
| support an infinite number of human beings on it _or_ you
| believe there is a finite number, and most of it is quibbling
| over the number. "
|
| And that number is going to be a function of lifestyle, or
| quality of life, or what have you. We can support an awful lot
| of miserable people with stunted growth from malnutrition in
| sprawling hovels, much more than we can of healthy people in
| nice homes who aren't miserable with hunger all the time. That
| appears to be the biggest slider on the carrying capacity
| formula.
|
| I happen to think that the carrying capacity on the planet is
| quite low, about a quarter of a billion people. Yes, I am sure
| some Star Trek tech would raise that. It isn't something you
| can plan for or count on.
|
| It is currently fashionable to sneer at Malthus, I happen to
| think that the main failings were his not counting on us
| finding exciting new ways to burn the future in favor of the
| present. Yes, we found an awful lot of ways to increase food
| production, ha ha, here's mud in your eye, Malthus! Now we're
| starting to wake up to the costs of that.
| cryptonector wrote:
| It would (and did) happen naturally that we went from
| relentless growth to leveling off and declining (soon).
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| > rather than pursuing the conventional approach of relentless
| growth.
|
| Disinformation.
|
| Most of the world has a negative birth rate
| https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-rapid-decline-of...
| dieortin wrote:
| The world as a whole has a positive birth rate. The number of
| arbitrary land sections with negative or positive birth rates
| is quite irrelevant.
| golemotron wrote:
| We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that it is under our
| control. There are many countries with many different cultures
| and many people making individual decisions about whether to
| have kids.
|
| Thinking we can affect global macro trends like that with
| policy in one country or another is peak arrogance.
| anon3949494 wrote:
| Education rather than policy might be the key ingredient
| pluto_modadic wrote:
| I think it's moreso that there's a pie... and
| billionaires/millionaires/VC/PE want people to worry about too
| many people instead of a very greedy, wasteful few.
|
| Now, you can have too few youngsters in the workforce, as a few
| countries are about to find out.
|
| Could keep the current population AND have a high standard of
| living WITHOUT it being wasteful: and GOOD NEWS EVERYONE, it's
| a fun engineering problem! (but it's also a policy problem and
| requires intentional change) - e.g., reshaping manufacturing
| away from landfills, agriculture away from crops humans don't
| end up eating, companies away from stock markets and toward
| worker control, governments away from lobbyists and towards
| citizen control....
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Wealth is not zero sum, it's not a fixed pie that people
| fight over. That being said, yes, there are a lot of
| sociopolitical solutions to creating high standards of
| living.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| I've recently had the revelation that belief in evolution seems
| to be negatively correlated with one's replacement rate. Let that
| sink in.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Does this enable you to hate people more efficiently, or...?
| Nevermark wrote:
| I prefer to call it "understanding of evolution". Not
| critiquing your comment, just adding a viewpoint.
|
| "Belief" is a right to be asserted bluntly. People feel
| socially comfortable saying they "believe" in all kinds of non-
| evidence based conjectures.
|
| But ask someone whether they "understand" evolution, and they
| are likely to give the question more thought.
|
| An unapologetic "no" has a bit of self-inflicted Socratic burn
| to it.
| bhelkey wrote:
| One can understand something and not believe it is true. I'm
| sure flat earthers understand the concept of a sphere or more
| specifically a oblate spheroid. They just don't believe that
| earth is that shape.
| cptaj wrote:
| Do you understand the flying spaghetti monster?
| pesfandiar wrote:
| It's the most common way of saying it, maybe because the
| alternative explanations need to be believed.
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| Never watched Idiocracy?
| smokel wrote:
| What is the track record of demographers predicting 75 years into
| the future?
|
| I guess these models assume that neither human cloning nor
| interstellar space travel will take off in this century. Models
| in 1923 probably didn't expect another world war, birth control,
| or the crazy levels of agriculture we see filling up our
| satellite pictures. How does one sanely account for such changes
| in these long-term models?
| natch wrote:
| Once the birth rate for a particular year is set, you can't
| exactly go back in time and change it. So you don't need to be
| a trained demographer to see that we are on a crashing
| trajectory.
|
| Beyond that, perhaps the models do assume that future birth
| rates don't wildly depart from historical ranges. Seems a
| reasonable assumption to me.
|
| But sure we could somehow get artificial wombs and an interest
| in using them, if that's what you're suggesting. Seems unlikely
| though.
| xmprt wrote:
| Full human cloning won't take off because it's too unethical -
| not because of lack of technological capabilities.
| ivalm wrote:
| Why is it unethical (if we are good enough to avoid genetic
| abnormalities/mistakes)?
| fieldcny wrote:
| Really?!?!
|
| I think anyone who wants to clone themselves is too full of
| shit to allowed to be cloned.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| It gets into "playing god" territory without many
| justifiable reasons to do it. Who is responsible for a
| child born as a clone? What is the purpose of cloning them
| instead of encouraging people to have children the normal
| way?
|
| Things like artificial wombs would be getting into similar
| territory, but unlike cloning they have justified ethical
| medical uses such as enabling women who can't carry a child
| in their own womb for any reason to still have a child.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It depends a bit on what the clone is made for.
|
| If someone just wants a child identical to some other human
| for esthetic reasons, the ethics seem mostly ok. The
| biggest ethical concern here would be obtaining true
| consent from the person being cloned, probably.
|
| But the typical interests in creating a clone are related
| to exploitation of the clone without regard to their own
| desires. Simple organ harvesting is a popular reason to
| desire a clone. More indirect forms of exploitation are
| also thought about, like a company creating a clone of,
| say, Elvis Presley to sell his image, or someone creating a
| clone of a dead/aging lover as an ultimate form of child
| grooming.
| causality0 wrote:
| I don't personally see anything wrong with modifying a
| zygote's genetic code to create a body without a brain
| and then harvesting it for organs. Much more moral than
| meat farming, even.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| How exactly would human cloning affect world population to any
| significant level? You still need someone to be pregnant for
| about nine months to give birth to a clone, why does it matter
| if they give birth to a clone or a normal child?
|
| Or do you mean human "printing", some machine that can carry a
| pregnancy instead of a human doing it? I don't think there is
| even a glimmer of such technology on the horizon. Then again,
| you seem to also think that there is some imaginable chance
| that we'll discover interstellar travel in the next 75 years,
| so maybe that doesn't stop you?
| jerry1979 wrote:
| Wikipedia has some insight into this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
|
| My impression is that demographers have thought we would
| plateau around 9 or so billion.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-30 23:00 UTC)