[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)