The Global Fertility Crash(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
The Global Fertility Crash
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-global-fertility-crash
268 コメント
So if the population grows from 1 (in units of 8 billion, say) to (1 + A), and the productivity per person goes from 1 to (1 + B), then the world economy goes from 1 to (1 + A) * (1 + B). If the population doesn't grow, then the economy only grows to (1 + B).
As you say, so what? Is the world economy some kind of deity, that we are here to serve its needs rather than our own? If each of us are the same (1 + B) better off, why do we care whether the global economy grew more or less?
As Edward Abbey said, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." If the growth actually leaves people better off, that's a positive. But if it just makes bigger numbers on a page, what's the point?
As you say, so what? Is the world economy some kind of deity, that we are here to serve its needs rather than our own? If each of us are the same (1 + B) better off, why do we care whether the global economy grew more or less?
As Edward Abbey said, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." If the growth actually leaves people better off, that's a positive. But if it just makes bigger numbers on a page, what's the point?
Exactly. This push for economic growth is a recent invention historically. Let’s go back to not fucking over each other or the planet for money. We should aim for 2 billion world population in the next few centuries.
So go back to what pops were in 1930? If people would level off their mass consumerism and appetite to one up each other we could probably all live well at 1960s levels. But to get back down there it has to be carefully managed to avoid imbalances and collapses. Unfortunately history has some bad lessons for us to learn from; China, the early XX century’s idea of creating new super people and eliminating those of us who are weak or could have undesirable characteristics, and obviously worse. But, we do see education, especially for women along with jobs for them in the regular economy do lead to a quick decrease in TFR.
Recent? Genesis 9:7
If you want to quote the bible, then quote the bible. Not everyone can be bothered to look it up.
Amen
Growth as a primary focus of economics dates only to the 1950s.
I believe it was Paul Romer who was asked at the time to survey the extant literature on growth. His report: there was none.
I believe it was Paul Romer who was asked at the time to survey the extant literature on growth. His report: there was none.
The verse says nothing about economic growth.
10 million max
I don't care about the world economy per se, but I do care about people.
One aspect seldom considered is the value of life itself.
> If each of us
Therein lies the consideration. Who is important? Who is "us"?
Are the people living important? Are the people not living important?
I.e. would it be a "bad thing" if you did not exist? I presume you think so. Should we think so?
Would it be a bad thing for another person to not exist? What about a future person?
---
The value, source, and identity of human life gets very religious/philosophical.
My beliefs include human life having intrinsic value, and I therefore would like there to be as many human lives as possible and for those lives to be good as possible.
You'll notice that my conclusion winds up equivalent to the economics notion of "collective utility" (1 + A) * (1 + B). That is true, but I prefer to think of it not as adding more pennies to a global piggy bank, but in a real altruistic sense of maximizing human experience.
One aspect seldom considered is the value of life itself.
> If each of us
Therein lies the consideration. Who is important? Who is "us"?
Are the people living important? Are the people not living important?
I.e. would it be a "bad thing" if you did not exist? I presume you think so. Should we think so?
Would it be a bad thing for another person to not exist? What about a future person?
---
The value, source, and identity of human life gets very religious/philosophical.
My beliefs include human life having intrinsic value, and I therefore would like there to be as many human lives as possible and for those lives to be good as possible.
You'll notice that my conclusion winds up equivalent to the economics notion of "collective utility" (1 + A) * (1 + B). That is true, but I prefer to think of it not as adding more pennies to a global piggy bank, but in a real altruistic sense of maximizing human experience.
Your simple system is broken when a happiness sink (let's call him Bob) is introduced. Bob is extremely happy, but everyone else toils and is moderately miserable to make him happy.
Welcome to current society. Bob is the richest few.
Welcome to current society. Bob is the richest few.
The analogy with the cancer cell is spot on, it sure feels we're still very much like one, having to spread and expand in our ever struggle against nature.
Imagine if we manage to find a way to create small long term ecosystems... then the cancer will spread to the stars and these birther catastrophists will be relieved: we'll go back to 10 birth a woman with 2 babies making it to 40 :D
Imagine if we manage to find a way to create small long term ecosystems... then the cancer will spread to the stars and these birther catastrophists will be relieved: we'll go back to 10 birth a woman with 2 babies making it to 40 :D
It's a problem for rich people and governments, who get to take a fraction of everyone's productivity through surplus labor value (i.e. capital gains) and taxes.
It isn't just a problem for rich people, it is a problem for everyone who can save money. A growing population means that everything can grow accordingly (businesses, infrastructure, …) so there are good investment opportunities. If you can afford to save money, this means that there are productive things to do with that money, and you'll naturally get higher interest rates (and increasing stock prices, etc.). Higher interest rates aren't all good, but extremely low interest rates (like in Japan for the last ~25 years) aren't good either, especially if you want to save for retirement. Social Security isn't the only useful "pyramid scheme."
It seems to me obvious that if I have a computer, I am more productive than with a stone axe, and it is a more productive asset if I am using it.
There is obviously a surplus from combining labor with capital, and an inevitable struggle over allocating it, but I don't understand at all why people ostensibly think it's obviously all rightfully belonging to one or the other.
If I earn a dollar, and then I collect interest on it, then the interest is really a part of my wages that was withheld. It's not extra. Whether anyone is being cheated of the amount of the interest depends on whether I got the dollar honestly, or cheated or stole to get it, but that has nothing to do with the essential nature of labor or capital.
There is obviously a surplus from combining labor with capital, and an inevitable struggle over allocating it, but I don't understand at all why people ostensibly think it's obviously all rightfully belonging to one or the other.
If I earn a dollar, and then I collect interest on it, then the interest is really a part of my wages that was withheld. It's not extra. Whether anyone is being cheated of the amount of the interest depends on whether I got the dollar honestly, or cheated or stole to get it, but that has nothing to do with the essential nature of labor or capital.
Rich people are the only ones who will get to reproduce.
>> Population growth is vital for the world economy.
> which is the very definition of a pyramid scheme
AFAIU, population growth being beneficial is predicated on the notion that not only does every additional human contribute a pro rata factor of N=(contribution/cost) wealth to society, where N is greater than 1, but more importantly that for every additional human N increases.
Maybe some professional economists can cite to the particular theories and research (I'm too distant from my academic days), or alternatively disabuse me of this notion. But that's my understanding, and in that light population growth is definitely not a pyramid scheme.
It doesn't mean that population growth is the only way to increase N. There may be ways to increase N fast enough to compensate for the loss of the population growth dynamic, but those ways seem to be fairly elusive.[1] It also doesn't mean that there aren't pyramid scheme-like dynamics elsewhere (e.g. land use, housing prices, etc); they're just not intrinsic to the overarching dynamic.
[1] And that's because rate of innovation is partly a function of population size. The more people there are, the more risk takers exist, the more opportunities available, the more possible social arrangements, etc.
An analogy: To a first approximation, the more neurons you have (population), and the more interconnected they are ("free market"), the more capable and potentially intelligent the network.
> which is the very definition of a pyramid scheme
AFAIU, population growth being beneficial is predicated on the notion that not only does every additional human contribute a pro rata factor of N=(contribution/cost) wealth to society, where N is greater than 1, but more importantly that for every additional human N increases.
Maybe some professional economists can cite to the particular theories and research (I'm too distant from my academic days), or alternatively disabuse me of this notion. But that's my understanding, and in that light population growth is definitely not a pyramid scheme.
It doesn't mean that population growth is the only way to increase N. There may be ways to increase N fast enough to compensate for the loss of the population growth dynamic, but those ways seem to be fairly elusive.[1] It also doesn't mean that there aren't pyramid scheme-like dynamics elsewhere (e.g. land use, housing prices, etc); they're just not intrinsic to the overarching dynamic.
[1] And that's because rate of innovation is partly a function of population size. The more people there are, the more risk takers exist, the more opportunities available, the more possible social arrangements, etc.
An analogy: To a first approximation, the more neurons you have (population), and the more interconnected they are ("free market"), the more capable and potentially intelligent the network.
You don't seem to be considering that each one of those additional people is a mouth to feed, agricultural land to farm, a house, car and iPhones for them, some number of tonnes of carbon and other lifetime emissions.
The planet and its resources has a finite carrying capacity. Given we have most of the world in need of developing to reach the levels we enjoy, I suspect we are far past that capacity already -- though I am unlikely to live to see the consequences of that. We've used the world's most fertile land already. We've had the fossil fuel fertiliser dividend. Do we continue to grow and pretend growth is normal and necessary until we absolutely need another agriculture miracle? Or do we try and construct a future where everyone has a chance of abundance?
Even claiming innovation is partly a function of population size is far too simplistic - we've had periods where small countries were punching orders of magnitude above their population weight. There'll be little innovation if the food supply breaks.
The planet and its resources has a finite carrying capacity. Given we have most of the world in need of developing to reach the levels we enjoy, I suspect we are far past that capacity already -- though I am unlikely to live to see the consequences of that. We've used the world's most fertile land already. We've had the fossil fuel fertiliser dividend. Do we continue to grow and pretend growth is normal and necessary until we absolutely need another agriculture miracle? Or do we try and construct a future where everyone has a chance of abundance?
Even claiming innovation is partly a function of population size is far too simplistic - we've had periods where small countries were punching orders of magnitude above their population weight. There'll be little innovation if the food supply breaks.
>The planet and its resources has a finite carrying capacity.
It's a hard jump, but there's not just the one.
It's a hard jump, but there's not just the one.
Yes, granted, but there's not an unlimited number of planets out there either.
Have you heard the puzzle about the bacteria colony that doubles its area in the agar tray every night? On day 10, it occupies half the area. How long before it occupies the whole tray? One more day. You can add another agar tray or ten or a thousand, but it doesn't buy you that much time.
At a constant growth rate, if the solution eventually involves spreading to multiple planets, it's just a few more centuries before we're running low on planets, almost regardless of the size of the galaxy.
Have you heard the puzzle about the bacteria colony that doubles its area in the agar tray every night? On day 10, it occupies half the area. How long before it occupies the whole tray? One more day. You can add another agar tray or ten or a thousand, but it doesn't buy you that much time.
At a constant growth rate, if the solution eventually involves spreading to multiple planets, it's just a few more centuries before we're running low on planets, almost regardless of the size of the galaxy.
It’s unlimited on any practical timescale an individual should reasonably care about.
We could all be dead, or society be reduced to medieval levels where the technology to leave our gravity well no longer exists.
Not even sure if that's about space or about heaven. Same baseless belief in salvation to me.
We aren't going to be shipping billions of people off to Mars. We'll send some small number and they'll reproduce over there. Having a backup will be great, but it does nothing to address the population that's already here.
> The planet and its resources has a finite carrying capacity.
And we are nowhere near reaching it. Increase in economic output with population increase is what matters.
If you have people who can't earn a living and die from hunger, it's bad. If you have people who can cook porridge out of an axe, that's good.
Loonie idle intellectuals from places like Club of Rome are first to point "let's sterilise Asians," like as if they don't see that Western material consumption was bigger than that of all "dreaded Chindonesia" combined.
Remember, those loonie first dreamed of those Malthusian horrors long before even agriculture in the West was doing well, and their prime imperative was to plainly get more resources for themselves.
I do not doubt that when we will hit the feared "Malthusian runaway" at 40B-50B people, planet's economic output would be so great that people would have hard time imagining how nutrient scarcity ever been a thing, and we will be able to "simply throw more petawatt-hours" at the problem.
And we are nowhere near reaching it. Increase in economic output with population increase is what matters.
If you have people who can't earn a living and die from hunger, it's bad. If you have people who can cook porridge out of an axe, that's good.
Loonie idle intellectuals from places like Club of Rome are first to point "let's sterilise Asians," like as if they don't see that Western material consumption was bigger than that of all "dreaded Chindonesia" combined.
Remember, those loonie first dreamed of those Malthusian horrors long before even agriculture in the West was doing well, and their prime imperative was to plainly get more resources for themselves.
I do not doubt that when we will hit the feared "Malthusian runaway" at 40B-50B people, planet's economic output would be so great that people would have hard time imagining how nutrient scarcity ever been a thing, and we will be able to "simply throw more petawatt-hours" at the problem.
> And we are nowhere near reaching it
Evidence for that? There's a fair selection of serious planetary scale human impacts right now - food chains, species loss, plastics, and I haven't even mentioned climate yet. I haven't heard of any of the Club of Rome calling for sterilisation of Asians either - neither have the search engines. So that seems baseless hyperbole.
Evidence for that? There's a fair selection of serious planetary scale human impacts right now - food chains, species loss, plastics, and I haven't even mentioned climate yet. I haven't heard of any of the Club of Rome calling for sterilisation of Asians either - neither have the search engines. So that seems baseless hyperbole.
There's a substantial difference between the carrying capacity of the planet and specific problems related to resource mismanagement.
The idea climate change wouldn't be an issue with "less people" is absurd. "less people" don't suddenly create viable electric cars and fusion power.
The idea climate change wouldn't be an issue with "less people" is absurd. "less people" don't suddenly create viable electric cars and fusion power.
I didn't say that. Yet fewer people would undoubtedly emit less and need fewer resources. At some point - I have no idea where - there is a number who could have gone on living a fossil fuelled lifestyle indefinitely without it impacting on global climate. Increasing population is tied with increasing emissions. Fewer people would unarguably have lower impact. Fewer people wouldn't magically fix overnight what we've already wrought - that's silly.
Humans have always mismanaged resources. More humans means more mismanaged resources. Not all of the planet's issues are resource management though - a selection are simply down to sheer space used - forest clearcut, development such as roads and cities built and land farmed, etc.
Humans have always mismanaged resources. More humans means more mismanaged resources. Not all of the planet's issues are resource management though - a selection are simply down to sheer space used - forest clearcut, development such as roads and cities built and land farmed, etc.
It is very weird that your solution to political problems is to brute force them by adding more people of which most will simply defend the status quo.
Electric cars are 19th century invention. It is just a matter of deciding to no longer subsidize damage caused by CO2 emissions.
Fusion is also known to be limited by the lack of funding. I've read stories about 13 year old teenagers building their own fusion reactors. The bigger challenge was getting the financial support from parents.
Climate change mitigation has never been about feasibility, it has always been about finding a solution that is immune to politics.
Electric cars are 19th century invention. It is just a matter of deciding to no longer subsidize damage caused by CO2 emissions.
Fusion is also known to be limited by the lack of funding. I've read stories about 13 year old teenagers building their own fusion reactors. The bigger challenge was getting the financial support from parents.
Climate change mitigation has never been about feasibility, it has always been about finding a solution that is immune to politics.
>Fusion is also known to be limited by the lack of funding. I've read stories about 13 year old teenagers building their own fusion reactors.
Wrong. Fusion reactors you can build at home are just novelties, and don't produce more power than they consume. No one has yet figured out how to actually do that, and until you can do that, fusion isn't useful as a power source. The only place we've ever seen fusion produce usable power is in a star. There's lots of research into building complex reactors to try to replicate this without needing something the size of a star, but no one's actually done it yet. It might be doable with enough funding, or it may never actually work; there's no way to say for sure.
The real problem is that too many people on this planet consume too many resources, and Americans are the worst. If most people lived in cities as dense as Tokyo and got around on trains and bicycles instead of cars, we wouldn't be having most of these problems. The amount of energy consumed per capita in America is simply unsustainable, and too many other people want to emulate this, but there's simply no way for that to possibly work on this planet: there isn't enough land or enough energy.
Wrong. Fusion reactors you can build at home are just novelties, and don't produce more power than they consume. No one has yet figured out how to actually do that, and until you can do that, fusion isn't useful as a power source. The only place we've ever seen fusion produce usable power is in a star. There's lots of research into building complex reactors to try to replicate this without needing something the size of a star, but no one's actually done it yet. It might be doable with enough funding, or it may never actually work; there's no way to say for sure.
The real problem is that too many people on this planet consume too many resources, and Americans are the worst. If most people lived in cities as dense as Tokyo and got around on trains and bicycles instead of cars, we wouldn't be having most of these problems. The amount of energy consumed per capita in America is simply unsustainable, and too many other people want to emulate this, but there's simply no way for that to possibly work on this planet: there isn't enough land or enough energy.
There's an amount of energy being shot at the planet by the sun every day. Human civilisation uses a lot less than a percent of that.
Solar energy isn't currently usable for personal vehicles, and it's going to be a little while still before that changes. Even if we could magically make cars and trucks all battery-EVs tomorrow, most of our power is still generated from fossil fuels, not solar power, and that's not likely to change soon, though it is of course slowly getting better. The more fossil fuels we burn, the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere, and accelerate climate change.
Sure, if we could overnight make all cars and trucks into battery EVs, replace all fossil fuel power plants with solar PV arrays (and wind farms too, since those are basically driven by solar energy too, though indirectly), and come up with some kind of storage technology to handle nighttime, high latitudes, clouds, still air, etc., then the energy aspect wouldn't be such a big deal. (Even better if we can make battery-EV airplanes.) But we're not there yet, and it's not likely we'll be there for quite a while unfortunately.
And even if we did accomplish that, that still doesn't solve the space problem. There just isn't enough room for everyone to have a big suburban house in a nice place with mild weather, and drive a personal vehicle everywhere. But if we tore down our car-based cities and rebuilt some just like Tokyo with that kind of density (and honestly, it really isn't as dense even as Manhattan; there's a lot more tall skyscrapers in NYC), then we actually could, while simultaneously having far, far fewer car-related deaths, and also having a much healthier population.
Sure, if we could overnight make all cars and trucks into battery EVs, replace all fossil fuel power plants with solar PV arrays (and wind farms too, since those are basically driven by solar energy too, though indirectly), and come up with some kind of storage technology to handle nighttime, high latitudes, clouds, still air, etc., then the energy aspect wouldn't be such a big deal. (Even better if we can make battery-EV airplanes.) But we're not there yet, and it's not likely we'll be there for quite a while unfortunately.
And even if we did accomplish that, that still doesn't solve the space problem. There just isn't enough room for everyone to have a big suburban house in a nice place with mild weather, and drive a personal vehicle everywhere. But if we tore down our car-based cities and rebuilt some just like Tokyo with that kind of density (and honestly, it really isn't as dense even as Manhattan; there's a lot more tall skyscrapers in NYC), then we actually could, while simultaneously having far, far fewer car-related deaths, and also having a much healthier population.
Why is that absurd? Unless you believe for some reason that there's no safe level of CO2 emissions?
There literally isn't. Fossil fuels are CO2 which was removed millions of years ago, and took millions of years to sequester.
Any rate of active fossil fuel burning above the tiniest of baselines is going to be a net CO2 contributor.
But perhaps more importantly: why would fewer people, with the same amount of resources to share, not simply use more of them? Most efficiency improvements have been driven by rising prices due to rising demand, not awareness of climate change.
EDIT: Worth noting, this is also materially different to the extraction of fossil fuels for other purposes - like plastic.
Any rate of active fossil fuel burning above the tiniest of baselines is going to be a net CO2 contributor.
But perhaps more importantly: why would fewer people, with the same amount of resources to share, not simply use more of them? Most efficiency improvements have been driven by rising prices due to rising demand, not awareness of climate change.
EDIT: Worth noting, this is also materially different to the extraction of fossil fuels for other purposes - like plastic.
What makes you think the humans of this planet can manage resources substantially better?
>And we are nowhere near reaching it.
Earth overshoot day is already in August [0] which basically means we are consuming it 1.75 times more bio resources than the carrying capacity of the Earth.
[0] https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/past-earth-overshoot-d...
Earth overshoot day is already in August [0] which basically means we are consuming it 1.75 times more bio resources than the carrying capacity of the Earth.
[0] https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/past-earth-overshoot-d...
> The planet and its resources has a finite carrying capacity. Given we have most of the world in need of developing to reach the levels we enjoy, I suspect we are far past that capacity already
This argument has been made for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it's failed to pan out. Perhaps this time is different though.
"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man." - Thomas Malthus (1798)
This argument has been made for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years it's failed to pan out. Perhaps this time is different though.
"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man." - Thomas Malthus (1798)
Malthus was a while ago - what leads you to believe the planet now has an infinite capacity for humans?
I should clarify I was responding to your assertion that the earth is far past capacity.
~10% of Earth’s land is occupied by humans. Not all of that is arable, but humans have successfully terraformed throughout history and conceivably will become more capable with technological advances.
Malthus is not unique in his prognostications. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968) was more recent and predicted mass famine by the 1970s. Instead, we produce a massive surplus of food each year, although it’s not distributed adequately at present. This happened well after the Haber process (presumably the fossil fuel dividend you refer to) and occurred as a result of improved farming techniques, equipment, and crops.
Thanks to technological developments in the fossil fuels sector (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.), fears about running out of oil have largely subsided. Simultaneously, advances in renewable energy sources are rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Already, some electric grids are struggling with capacity — not because of a shortage of energy, rather due to an excess of electricity produced by renewable sources.
Although none of this points to an Earth beyond its carrying capacity, it also does not factor in further efficiency gains resulting from future technological progress. At the same time, we are attempting to develop the technology necessary to access extraterrestrial resources. Given that, even the finite resources available on Earth are not necessarily a limiting factor to growth.
~10% of Earth’s land is occupied by humans. Not all of that is arable, but humans have successfully terraformed throughout history and conceivably will become more capable with technological advances.
Malthus is not unique in his prognostications. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968) was more recent and predicted mass famine by the 1970s. Instead, we produce a massive surplus of food each year, although it’s not distributed adequately at present. This happened well after the Haber process (presumably the fossil fuel dividend you refer to) and occurred as a result of improved farming techniques, equipment, and crops.
Thanks to technological developments in the fossil fuels sector (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.), fears about running out of oil have largely subsided. Simultaneously, advances in renewable energy sources are rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Already, some electric grids are struggling with capacity — not because of a shortage of energy, rather due to an excess of electricity produced by renewable sources.
Although none of this points to an Earth beyond its carrying capacity, it also does not factor in further efficiency gains resulting from future technological progress. At the same time, we are attempting to develop the technology necessary to access extraterrestrial resources. Given that, even the finite resources available on Earth are not necessarily a limiting factor to growth.
Call it half of land area, not 10%.
Of total land area circa 10% is developed, 10% arable and a shade over 25% permanent pasture for livestock[1], and a few other minor agricultural uses. Of the rest we have forests, permafrost, deserts, mountains, marsh, scrub and other marginal land. The best crop and pasture land is long gone. What's left with potential appear to be the places we need to not lose - rainforests and such. God help everyone if we are able or need to start farming former permafrost.
Changing farming through mechanisation, artificial fertiliser and de-population of agriculture has been a steady march since WW2 (mostly). All leveraged on fossil fuel, and mostly a one-time dividend.
Past capacity as the rest close the development gap (you can't just miss that out), based on all resource use, and associated pollution - environmental overshoot - not mere calories. Not just a baseless assertion as we are assessed to be 70% beyond the ecosystem's capacity to absorb[2] right now. We've been beyond it for years. We're on borrowed time even without more development. Overshoot day[3] has gained a fair bit of publicity in recent years, but there's plenty of different measures all pointing to the same trends and issues.
With that level of accelerating overshoot, the planet can barely cope - the list of global scale and population related issues is huge. Yet coming en masse as a "surprise" is mostly to be expected given the growth curve. So there seems precious little headroom left, even if we do miraculously work to achieve zero carbon by 2050. Not expecting us to get anywhere near it any more though. Pretending population is just fine, or "growth is vital" as TFA claims is, whilst the globe does almost naff all to become sustainable is, frankly, nuts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Ecological_f...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
Of total land area circa 10% is developed, 10% arable and a shade over 25% permanent pasture for livestock[1], and a few other minor agricultural uses. Of the rest we have forests, permafrost, deserts, mountains, marsh, scrub and other marginal land. The best crop and pasture land is long gone. What's left with potential appear to be the places we need to not lose - rainforests and such. God help everyone if we are able or need to start farming former permafrost.
Changing farming through mechanisation, artificial fertiliser and de-population of agriculture has been a steady march since WW2 (mostly). All leveraged on fossil fuel, and mostly a one-time dividend.
Past capacity as the rest close the development gap (you can't just miss that out), based on all resource use, and associated pollution - environmental overshoot - not mere calories. Not just a baseless assertion as we are assessed to be 70% beyond the ecosystem's capacity to absorb[2] right now. We've been beyond it for years. We're on borrowed time even without more development. Overshoot day[3] has gained a fair bit of publicity in recent years, but there's plenty of different measures all pointing to the same trends and issues.
With that level of accelerating overshoot, the planet can barely cope - the list of global scale and population related issues is huge. Yet coming en masse as a "surprise" is mostly to be expected given the growth curve. So there seems precious little headroom left, even if we do miraculously work to achieve zero carbon by 2050. Not expecting us to get anywhere near it any more though. Pretending population is just fine, or "growth is vital" as TFA claims is, whilst the globe does almost naff all to become sustainable is, frankly, nuts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Ecological_f...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
Thank you. A lot of what you have said resonates and you have made your points eloquently and patiently.
That is a good statement of Simon's thesis, but as I discussed in my brief note there is nuance he did not address in writing (he was super smart and told me once that he understood the issue but didn't know how to characterize it).
> An analogy: To a first approximation, the more neurons you have (population), and the more interconnected they are ("free market"), the more capable and potentially intelligent the network.
A good analogy but every system has a "sweet spot" regime; outside that zone various advantages stop being (evolutionary, in this case) advantageous, else our brains would be eve larger.
> An analogy: To a first approximation, the more neurons you have (population), and the more interconnected they are ("free market"), the more capable and potentially intelligent the network.
A good analogy but every system has a "sweet spot" regime; outside that zone various advantages stop being (evolutionary, in this case) advantageous, else our brains would be eve larger.
When I was working on onion routing and mesh networking 10+ years ago, I remember reading a paper that showed that in a mesh network every additional node added total throughput capacity, but the rate of increase asymptotically approached 0.
I don't have the citation handy, and I'm sure the proof was tied to a particular topology, but the take home for me was that it was possible for mesh network advocates and skeptics to both be correct; that mesh networks can be a way to continually increase network capacity cooperatively without centralized authority, but that doesn't mean such capacity increases would be meaningful.
The same might apply here: yes, the rate of increase in N may approach 0 such that at some point it becomes an irrelevant factor to economic growth. OTOH, in the absence of alternative drivers even a tiny rate of increase is something, and removing it could lead to accelerating reductions in global wealth.
But we just don't know. The relevant questions and answers are more empirical than theoretical. My point was just that the growth narrative isn't predicated on a pyramid scheme, it's just the safest and possibly only known reliable strategy we understand. But an end to population growth seems inevitable in the next couple of generations (barring space colonization), so I suppose we'll find some answers rather soon.
I don't have the citation handy, and I'm sure the proof was tied to a particular topology, but the take home for me was that it was possible for mesh network advocates and skeptics to both be correct; that mesh networks can be a way to continually increase network capacity cooperatively without centralized authority, but that doesn't mean such capacity increases would be meaningful.
The same might apply here: yes, the rate of increase in N may approach 0 such that at some point it becomes an irrelevant factor to economic growth. OTOH, in the absence of alternative drivers even a tiny rate of increase is something, and removing it could lead to accelerating reductions in global wealth.
But we just don't know. The relevant questions and answers are more empirical than theoretical. My point was just that the growth narrative isn't predicated on a pyramid scheme, it's just the safest and possibly only known reliable strategy we understand. But an end to population growth seems inevitable in the next couple of generations (barring space colonization), so I suppose we'll find some answers rather soon.
I think AI would change this. We will eventually have ‘artificial persons’. I can guarantee that once global population starts to taper off, the decline in population would make us a less interesting and dynamic species.
Complex systems need a large number of people. We will have to create some version of the missing billions. Perhaps robots or AI personalities or mash ups.
As a casual example..a personal story: I recently had this revelation when I met someone from a small western country with a population of about 5 million. This person was incredibly smart, highly accomplished, well travelled and older than me.
But I still found that he was somewhat oblivious to what I call ‘nuances of human nature’. I have never considered myself a particularly perceptive person or highly tuned into human personality, but because of the accident of birth in a country that has over 1.3 billion people now, I was exposed to a wide circle of different people..and even though this other person was far ahead of me in every way, his exposure was limited to a smaller cocktail of human natures.
Did it make me smarter? I don’t know. But I sure was exposed to so much variety that I could at least detect differences and variabilities..even minute ones. I think my view of life is richer, more colorful and interesting.
To bring up another example: a larger population is like being a native speaker of Cantonese with its eight tones vs being someone who can speak a language with exactly 100 words. Entirely different worlds and one is vastly richer than the other.
So to combat this, we just have to create artificial people and virtual world when we finally achieve the carrying capacity of about one billion people(the population of the planet in 1600)
Complex systems need a large number of people. We will have to create some version of the missing billions. Perhaps robots or AI personalities or mash ups.
As a casual example..a personal story: I recently had this revelation when I met someone from a small western country with a population of about 5 million. This person was incredibly smart, highly accomplished, well travelled and older than me.
But I still found that he was somewhat oblivious to what I call ‘nuances of human nature’. I have never considered myself a particularly perceptive person or highly tuned into human personality, but because of the accident of birth in a country that has over 1.3 billion people now, I was exposed to a wide circle of different people..and even though this other person was far ahead of me in every way, his exposure was limited to a smaller cocktail of human natures.
Did it make me smarter? I don’t know. But I sure was exposed to so much variety that I could at least detect differences and variabilities..even minute ones. I think my view of life is richer, more colorful and interesting.
To bring up another example: a larger population is like being a native speaker of Cantonese with its eight tones vs being someone who can speak a language with exactly 100 words. Entirely different worlds and one is vastly richer than the other.
So to combat this, we just have to create artificial people and virtual world when we finally achieve the carrying capacity of about one billion people(the population of the planet in 1600)
> Population growth is vital for the world economy.
The thing is we know world population boomed for the last few centuries. We don't know what will happen if that stops, there's simply no observations yet. Hysteresis is indeed the major question mark. We can certainly imagine some terrible problems.
Probably the biggest problem that comes out of this imagining is a reverse specialization effect. Think of the economy as a tapestry of different specializations, some of which support a very few people on a global scale. For instance, any particular thing that people get phds in like particular materials research. Or industries that are highly concentrated, which you'll find quite a lot of if you look closely. They might stop being viable on their own, requiring consolidation into wider industries or they'll get dropped entirely.
The hysteresis comes in where we go back to a previous population but we unfortunately cannot support the same economy. You see things like that article about the Japanese trainline that stopped once that girl finished school. I mean that town might well have had a train when it was a similarly sized town getting bigger, I don't know. But that kind of thing might happen in many places.
The thing is we know world population boomed for the last few centuries. We don't know what will happen if that stops, there's simply no observations yet. Hysteresis is indeed the major question mark. We can certainly imagine some terrible problems.
Probably the biggest problem that comes out of this imagining is a reverse specialization effect. Think of the economy as a tapestry of different specializations, some of which support a very few people on a global scale. For instance, any particular thing that people get phds in like particular materials research. Or industries that are highly concentrated, which you'll find quite a lot of if you look closely. They might stop being viable on their own, requiring consolidation into wider industries or they'll get dropped entirely.
The hysteresis comes in where we go back to a previous population but we unfortunately cannot support the same economy. You see things like that article about the Japanese trainline that stopped once that girl finished school. I mean that town might well have had a train when it was a similarly sized town getting bigger, I don't know. But that kind of thing might happen in many places.
Have to agree - it was the first thing that struck me as worrying as well. We need to be able manage our economies without subscribing to the fallicy of unlimited and unrestrained growth. The planet can not support an infinite number of people.
No, but if tomorrow is better then today, then in some capacity more resources were successfully allocated to it. You can have growth with zero additional material use.
> Most people seem to agree with this statement, which is the very definition of a pyramid scheme (see my point about hysteresis above). We've defined the goalposts such that this statement is in some sense tautologically true, but it leaves me with a profound sense of "so what?"
For countries with any kind of social / welfare programs, there is no option available but to grow population. Even here in the USA programs like social security are only solvent to 2037[1]. Many state programs (such as public pensions) are in way worse positions...
1. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
For countries with any kind of social / welfare programs, there is no option available but to grow population. Even here in the USA programs like social security are only solvent to 2037[1]. Many state programs (such as public pensions) are in way worse positions...
1. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
I don't think that actually holds. I hate to trot out the typical example, but Norway seems to be doing pretty well on the social welfare side with a fertility rate much lower than that of the US. They just have very different priorities than the US does in terms of taxation, wealth distribution, and of course deficit spending vs. creating a sovereign wealth fund.
I don't see any reason why the US couldn't maintain social welfare programs in a decreasing population scenario provided the decrease is gradual, productivity rises as fast as the population goes down, and we actually taxed people appropriately and got our expenditure priorities under control.
I don't see any reason why the US couldn't maintain social welfare programs in a decreasing population scenario provided the decrease is gradual, productivity rises as fast as the population goes down, and we actually taxed people appropriately and got our expenditure priorities under control.
Norway’s top personal tax rate is similar to the US (39%, which is less than what some people pay in high cost of living states here).
The difference, as I’m sure you already know, is state oil revenue, and that can’t last forever even with sovereign wealth funds.
The difference, as I’m sure you already know, is state oil revenue, and that can’t last forever even with sovereign wealth funds.
Sweden, Finland and Denmark are also very apt examples, none of whom have oil.
(Norway also uses very little of its oil revenue, saving most of it)
(Norway also uses very little of its oil revenue, saving most of it)
Why not? You could have a welfare system that redistributes any excess return from the fund above long-run inflation rate, and it would be sustainable.
A significant fraction of the historical rate of return on capital is attributable to the combination of population growth and inflation. Without those the size of the fund you would need to cover a material fraction of government spending would be implausibly large.
Sovereign wealth funds also aren't all that different economically from taxation, in the sense that the profits from what the fund is invested in go to funding government programs rather than being reinvested in private enterprise. If the fund was large enough to be relevant, that would become an issue for the economy.
Sovereign wealth funds also aren't all that different economically from taxation, in the sense that the profits from what the fund is invested in go to funding government programs rather than being reinvested in private enterprise. If the fund was large enough to be relevant, that would become an issue for the economy.
Norway is also very homogeneous. We are more willing to be generous to those related to us; and I'm not talking just about race, but also culture, values, and ideology. In all these respects, the United States is far more diverse.
So I guess I agree with you, but I don't think those conditions can be replicated here.
So I guess I agree with you, but I don't think those conditions can be replicated here.
I don’t know why you were downvoted. You are right. I have found this to be true in Japan too.
Homogenous populace = low conflict.
Homogenous populace = low conflict.
Why? Productivity continues to increase, regardless of population increasing. It's like saying we can do more with less everywhere, except when it comes to taking care of people and the elderly.
[deleted]
Taking care of the elderly is a labour intensive business. Automation doesn't clean an old person's glasses (real life example), make their bed or cook their meals.
Automation doesn't need to do any of those things (even though it eventually could). It could simply make other industries so cheap and efficient that more labor flows into elder care.
The labor intensiveness is not binary.
Specifically, if there are socialized "assisted living" facilities, or even in-the-community caregiver visitation, then the amount of caregiving work-hours per day per elderly person is X. If the only possible arrangement is getting a live-in personal care-giver, then that figures is 2X or 3X (or some factor, I don't have the figures); and most people probably just don't get care.
Specifically, if there are socialized "assisted living" facilities, or even in-the-community caregiver visitation, then the amount of caregiving work-hours per day per elderly person is X. If the only possible arrangement is getting a live-in personal care-giver, then that figures is 2X or 3X (or some factor, I don't have the figures); and most people probably just don't get care.
increased demand will drive more automation in that sector
self driving cars may be limited but they will be a great solution for the elderly
self driving cars may be limited but they will be a great solution for the elderly
Ultrasonic cleaners, man!
Not yet.
>with any kind
No. That's obviously the case for countries whose welfare system has been designed as a pyramid system.
But saying that any kind of welfare is necessarily unsustainable is as absurd as saying that spending on video games or Ethernet cables is necessarily unsustainable.
No. That's obviously the case for countries whose welfare system has been designed as a pyramid system.
But saying that any kind of welfare is necessarily unsustainable is as absurd as saying that spending on video games or Ethernet cables is necessarily unsustainable.
As with many things the optimum is not at the edges. Too much or too little fertility are bad, though they lead to different problem sets.
In the short term I think slightly below replacement level is ideal. Once we get past fossil fuel dependence at or slightly above replacement might be best. As long as we run on fossil fuel we are basically putting our children on a credit card with an unknown interest rate.
In the short term I think slightly below replacement level is ideal. Once we get past fossil fuel dependence at or slightly above replacement might be best. As long as we run on fossil fuel we are basically putting our children on a credit card with an unknown interest rate.
We already know how to get off of fossil fuels. We know how to make solar panels, nuclear reactors, electric cars, electric heat pumps, etc. The technology exists. It will likely continue to improve, but we could do it entirely with what already exists.
If we deploy it by the time today's unborn children become a significant fraction of the global carbon footprint, it isn't going to matter how many of them there are. And if we don't deploy it by the time today's unborn children become a significant fraction of the global carbon footprint, it isn't going to matter how many of them there are.
If we deploy it by the time today's unborn children become a significant fraction of the global carbon footprint, it isn't going to matter how many of them there are. And if we don't deploy it by the time today's unborn children become a significant fraction of the global carbon footprint, it isn't going to matter how many of them there are.
There are various types of network effects that happen as a result of larger populations. Greater use of specialization and comparative advantage. Economies of scale. Agglomeration. All of these tendencies allow for niche fields like quantum physics to be viable.
A very tiny fraction of the population is capable of understanding it, and to keep it a thriving discipline, we need people actively studying it. Statistically speaking, if only one in a million people is capable of understanding it, then you're in trouble if you don't have that many millions, and if the people with the capabilities are required in other equally important fields.
Transmitting this information purely through written works is extremely difficult if there are no living mentors. And the resources necessary for something like CERN are vast, and only possible to fund in an enormous economy.
Same story with semiconductors, rockets, MRI machines, and most other important technologies.
A very tiny fraction of the population is capable of understanding it, and to keep it a thriving discipline, we need people actively studying it. Statistically speaking, if only one in a million people is capable of understanding it, then you're in trouble if you don't have that many millions, and if the people with the capabilities are required in other equally important fields.
Transmitting this information purely through written works is extremely difficult if there are no living mentors. And the resources necessary for something like CERN are vast, and only possible to fund in an enormous economy.
Same story with semiconductors, rockets, MRI machines, and most other important technologies.
> All of these tendencies allow for niche fields like quantum physics to be viable.
Well, Quantum Physics was created by a population that was approximately 1/6 of ours.
Well, Quantum Physics was created by a population that was approximately 1/6 of ours.
well what if we managed to keep a stable population of a few billion? we've already demonstrated that it's a sufficient number for all the processes you named
Becoming hyper specialized appears to eventually create productivity issues. Scientists have sometimes made progress just by applying ideas from one specialized part of physics to another, where they were unaware of the progress in related ideas.
And there are more mundane costs. The more specialized you are, the higher the odds your tiny niche will go away due to market or technological changes. That means losing income retraining and finding new work.
And there are more mundane costs. The more specialized you are, the higher the odds your tiny niche will go away due to market or technological changes. That means losing income retraining and finding new work.
It makes sense for the current dominant population (adults with power) to perpetuate this because a) their interests are tied to economic growth. And b) when they get old they want a good economy and many people to look after them, fund their pension, and (literally) wipe their arse in a nursing home.
Beliefs get perpetuated because they serve a purpose not because they’re actually true.
Beliefs get perpetuated because they serve a purpose not because they’re actually true.
Excellent points. For many reasons, economists are going to have to give up their fixation on 2nd-derivative metrics sometime this century.
Read "prosperity without growth" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_Without_Growth
This neglects the massive rise of infertility in the last few decades (eg, sperm counts are halved). It doesn’t seem to be a choice for a growing number of people (I guess if you’re well off there are some procedures that can help)
What's interesting about that is the fact that it seems to be only men affected by rising infertility [1].
[1] https://www.livescience.com/38877-infertility-rates-drop-uni...
[1] https://www.livescience.com/38877-infertility-rates-drop-uni...
Can we actually get numbers for men, or is that just too hard?
Supposedly that's wrong. An economist I think named Solow showed the US economic growth in the early to mid 1900s was almost entirely due to innovation, not labor. The population growth equals wealth is more due to the Marxist concept that labor is wealth.
This article is interesting, which is why I submitted it. However, I do think it ignores the elephant in the room which is that Earth only has finite resources. As discussed for example in the oft posted 'exponential economist vs finite physicist' post:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20045380
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20045380
I figure as long as we have 100 million people of child bearing age we’ll be just fine. And it seems like we will have at least 5 times that many for a long long time
But I think we will go a little Upton Sinclair. As I understand it, early development is dictated by the diameter of the birth canal. Artificial wombs would allow a far longer gestation period. Even a couple more months would rapidly advance brain development.
All of this would be easier on the parents, which may mean more kids.
But I think we will go a little Upton Sinclair. As I understand it, early development is dictated by the diameter of the birth canal. Artificial wombs would allow a far longer gestation period. Even a couple more months would rapidly advance brain development.
All of this would be easier on the parents, which may mean more kids.
I don't think it's the pregnancy process that prevents having children, but others.
The finitude of earth's resources is without question, but the scale at which that becomes a pressing concern are up for debate.
There are in general 2 ways we can use technology to extend our viable resource consumption:
1. make our consumption of a resource more efficient
2. Use technology to find new uses for previously non-useful materials
Furthermore, the Earth is not a closed system. The Sun's energy is continually pouring onto our planet, staving off our descent into entropy.
There are in general 2 ways we can use technology to extend our viable resource consumption:
1. make our consumption of a resource more efficient
2. Use technology to find new uses for previously non-useful materials
Furthermore, the Earth is not a closed system. The Sun's energy is continually pouring onto our planet, staving off our descent into entropy.
> Furthermore, the Earth is not a closed system. The Sun's energy is continually pouring onto our planet, staving off our descent into entropy.
We can also mine asteroids or the moon to get more building materials.
We can also mine asteroids or the moon to get more building materials.
> elephant in the room which is that Earth only has finite resources
The material on the Earth might be finite, but as long as the sun shines, we can rearrange it.
Ultimately, that is what the economy is. It can go on forever as long as we get energy.
Granted, we are not doing a fantastic job of making best use of our star, but we are improving.
The material on the Earth might be finite, but as long as the sun shines, we can rearrange it.
Ultimately, that is what the economy is. It can go on forever as long as we get energy.
Granted, we are not doing a fantastic job of making best use of our star, but we are improving.
I recommend reading the linked 'exponential economist vs finite physicist' article. It covers your statement in the first part.
We actually cannot, unless some excellent new technologies begin to exist, you will run afoul of entropy or plain lack of space.
Not to mention energy distribution network will be a problem.
You would also have to make actually truly positive energy input rockets, which has not happened. (Price is not materials or work.)
It's still a relatively high bar until we mine out Earth, but water might be a more pressing problem soon. (Desalination at mass scale is very expensive.)
Not to mention energy distribution network will be a problem.
You would also have to make actually truly positive energy input rockets, which has not happened. (Price is not materials or work.)
It's still a relatively high bar until we mine out Earth, but water might be a more pressing problem soon. (Desalination at mass scale is very expensive.)
I think it's silly to extrapolate exponential trends 400+ years into the future while assuming that humanity remains confined to Earth.
Elon Musk's goal for SpaceX is for humans to live on Mars, but Jeff Bezos's goal for Blue Origin may ultimately be more practical: to make it unnecessary for humans to move off of Earth by moving industry to space instead. With industry in space, Earth can remain a nice place for humans to live even as economic activity continues to grow for millennia. By which time we'll probably have found new Earths to colonize in other star systems.
Elon Musk's goal for SpaceX is for humans to live on Mars, but Jeff Bezos's goal for Blue Origin may ultimately be more practical: to make it unnecessary for humans to move off of Earth by moving industry to space instead. With industry in space, Earth can remain a nice place for humans to live even as economic activity continues to grow for millennia. By which time we'll probably have found new Earths to colonize in other star systems.
> However, I do think it ignores the elephant in the room which is that Earth only has finite resources.
Are you sure about that? Without question, the Earth has a finite mass. But 'resource' in the sense you are using the term pertains to the various ways humans can utilize the various finite components comprising the Earth. And that may well indeed be infinite.
Are you sure about that? Without question, the Earth has a finite mass. But 'resource' in the sense you are using the term pertains to the various ways humans can utilize the various finite components comprising the Earth. And that may well indeed be infinite.
I'm absolutely certain that the Earth has space for a finite number of humans. I don't want to live in a pod and eat a protein slurry of crushed bugs. Note also that human population was more or less flat for a long time of our existence - explosive growth happened over the last 200 or so years. That has been long enough that we structured our economy around it, but it's coming to an end. The free lunch can't last forever. Quite similar to the end of Moore's law and for much the same reason - people don't want to be packed too close together and transistors can't really get much smaller. I see it as more of a return to a norm than some catastrophic event. With proper sustainable resource usage humanity, should last on Earth until the Sun kills us. Which is a sort of tautological statement if you think about it - if our resource usage is not sustainable, our population will shrink eventually to the point where it is.
Do you know how much empty space there is in the western US? Not to mention the midwest? We're not remotely close to human population maximum density and this "pods and bugs" dystopia you envision.
>Do you know how much empty space there is in the western US? Not to mention the midwest?
Have you ever been to those places? There's a severe limit to the amount of freshwater available in those places, and the weather is pretty lousy in many parts. Not many people want to live in a place where the summer temperatures are over 110F, or where the winter temperatures are around -40.
There's lots of unused space on this planet, sure. Antarctica is the prime example of this: an entire continent with almost no humans living there. Would you like to live there?
And finally, and time humans build and live on land that's in a nice, temperate location, that means there's that much land that's now unavailable for agriculture. We can't grow food in Antarctica.
Have you ever been to those places? There's a severe limit to the amount of freshwater available in those places, and the weather is pretty lousy in many parts. Not many people want to live in a place where the summer temperatures are over 110F, or where the winter temperatures are around -40.
There's lots of unused space on this planet, sure. Antarctica is the prime example of this: an entire continent with almost no humans living there. Would you like to live there?
And finally, and time humans build and live on land that's in a nice, temperate location, that means there's that much land that's now unavailable for agriculture. We can't grow food in Antarctica.
You make a good point.
Economist Russ Roberts of Staford recently interviewed Andrew McAfee of MIT on Econtalk [0] and they discussed McAfee's thesis that we're getting radically better at doing more with less via miniaturization etc.
I think it's very reasonable to imagine that a pessimistic view about resource management is overstated.
[0] https://www.econtalk.org/andrew-mcafee-on-more-from-less/
Economist Russ Roberts of Staford recently interviewed Andrew McAfee of MIT on Econtalk [0] and they discussed McAfee's thesis that we're getting radically better at doing more with less via miniaturization etc.
I think it's very reasonable to imagine that a pessimistic view about resource management is overstated.
[0] https://www.econtalk.org/andrew-mcafee-on-more-from-less/
Thermodynamics has something to say about this. Reconfiguring atoms into a preferred configuration subset means a reduction in system entropy, which requires venting entropy elsewhere. That means shedding heat from the Earth. The rate at which you can do that goes with the fourth power of the planet's surface temperature. There's a maximum temperature beyond which the planet's molecules will start reconfiguring themselves into configurations you don't prefer. So there's a maximum rate at which you can rearrange the system to make it better. There's also, presumably, a maximally preferred arrangement of Earth's molecules, beyond which any further reconfiguration would be a backward step. The alternative would imply a cycle of configurations that are each preferable to one another.
Remember, "infinite" does not mean "a really big finite amount that's just too big for me to imagine".
Remember, "infinite" does not mean "a really big finite amount that's just too big for me to imagine".
The correlation between GDP and energy usage has been decreasing.
For people who want to look this up the term is "intensity", specifically in this case "energy intensity" and indeed it's dropped dramatically over the years.
(Its the kJ/$GDP, with all the errors that implies, but IMHO the trends are pretty clear)
(Its the kJ/$GDP, with all the errors that implies, but IMHO the trends are pretty clear)
Which could imply that:
1) Energy does not matter.
2) The link is being masked by import/export shenanigans.
or
3) GDP is no longer a useful measure.
1) Energy does not matter.
2) The link is being masked by import/export shenanigans.
or
3) GDP is no longer a useful measure.
The earth doesn't have finite resources. Resources are defined by the resourceful.
I disagree. There are some resources which are resources no matter what anyone says. Water, land, and food come to mind
That does not contest the point of earth not having infinite resources. Put another way, "one man's trash is another's treasure" meaning anything can be viewed as a resource if it can provide some kind of value.
It does not mean that there is an infinity of a specific resource.
It does not mean that there is an infinity of a specific resource.
Earth itself has finite matter, so therefore resources are finite.
It doesn't take much of that matter to make world-scale nuclear power.
You'd eventually run out, it'd just take a really long time.
Not too long with current stunted nuclear reactor technology. Just about a millenium for energy use on par with current EU average.
1000 years is not that long. Better we get fusion running positive or find something even better than that, which is not impossible in a thousand years.
(But perhaps people would have some laugh on how we handled specifics, say on economy, resources. Similarly like we have fun at medical medicine or astrology. They will definitely use or finally be things we have not envisioned or guessed.)
Mind you, many things would be quite familiar to a person from 10th century in today's world, barring culture - or translatable and potentially possible to educate them about. Maybe future will have it even easier, instead of telling, experiencing.
Our society is different than the one thousand years ago, but not too different.
1000 years is not that long. Better we get fusion running positive or find something even better than that, which is not impossible in a thousand years.
(But perhaps people would have some laugh on how we handled specifics, say on economy, resources. Similarly like we have fun at medical medicine or astrology. They will definitely use or finally be things we have not envisioned or guessed.)
Mind you, many things would be quite familiar to a person from 10th century in today's world, barring culture - or translatable and potentially possible to educate them about. Maybe future will have it even easier, instead of telling, experiencing.
Our society is different than the one thousand years ago, but not too different.
>Earth only has finite resources
Not quite true. For example, there may be finite amounts of, say, wood (at a given point...), but there may be infinitely things of increasing value possible to be made out of wood as tech and knowledge increases.
So finite inputs does not imply finite outputs. As long as value can be added, even to recycled things, then the overall value can increase without (necessary) bound.
We've seen over history ample evidence of increasing value possible from the same inputs. If/when some resources become scarce, making recycling of those resources important, we may conceivably reach the ability to recycle and increase value each round.
At least until the end of the universe :)
At any rate, no matter how you slice it, there is still vast room for economies to grow for the long term foreseeable future.
Not quite true. For example, there may be finite amounts of, say, wood (at a given point...), but there may be infinitely things of increasing value possible to be made out of wood as tech and knowledge increases.
So finite inputs does not imply finite outputs. As long as value can be added, even to recycled things, then the overall value can increase without (necessary) bound.
We've seen over history ample evidence of increasing value possible from the same inputs. If/when some resources become scarce, making recycling of those resources important, we may conceivably reach the ability to recycle and increase value each round.
At least until the end of the universe :)
At any rate, no matter how you slice it, there is still vast room for economies to grow for the long term foreseeable future.
> At least until the end of the universe :)
Which is the kicker. Whether it is Divine Judgement, Ragnarok, or Heat Death, there will be The End.
We shouldn't get there prematurely, but I'd rather focus on making the journey worthwhile.
Which is the kicker. Whether it is Divine Judgement, Ragnarok, or Heat Death, there will be The End.
We shouldn't get there prematurely, but I'd rather focus on making the journey worthwhile.
>Which is the kicker.
Yep, given that physicists estimate the universe at 10^10 years old, and most end of universe scenarios like the heat death occur at ages like 10^100 years, I don't think we should worry about that limiting current economics.
Yep, given that physicists estimate the universe at 10^10 years old, and most end of universe scenarios like the heat death occur at ages like 10^100 years, I don't think we should worry about that limiting current economics.
It's a very temporary matter for evolution.
Our environment now includes birth control. Most people in the current population do not feature traits to overcome birth control. There is a subset of the population which does have the needed traits. This well-adapted subpopulation will grow rapidly because birth control is a very strong selection factor. From an evolutionary perspective, the correct use of birth control is equivalent to the death of offspring.
Remember that evolution is not inherently slow. It is usually slow because the existing population is typically well-adapted. A simple thought experiment demonstrates that evolution can be fast: we would all have blue eyes if the others were executed.
Given the severe selection caused by loss of offspring, evolution will rapidly overcome birth control. Just a few generations might mostly do the job. Within 500 years, birth control will simply not be a factor in human population.
Our environment now includes birth control. Most people in the current population do not feature traits to overcome birth control. There is a subset of the population which does have the needed traits. This well-adapted subpopulation will grow rapidly because birth control is a very strong selection factor. From an evolutionary perspective, the correct use of birth control is equivalent to the death of offspring.
Remember that evolution is not inherently slow. It is usually slow because the existing population is typically well-adapted. A simple thought experiment demonstrates that evolution can be fast: we would all have blue eyes if the others were executed.
Given the severe selection caused by loss of offspring, evolution will rapidly overcome birth control. Just a few generations might mostly do the job. Within 500 years, birth control will simply not be a factor in human population.
> Most people in the current population do not feature traits to overcome birth control. There is a subset of the population which does have the needed traits.
This seems like quite a stretch: humans aren’t fruit flies, and something as complicated as reproduction is not a simple trait which overrides socialization and intelligence.
This is especially true when you look at why people aren’t having as many kids as previous generations: the quality of life impacts are significant and people are willing to go to considerable lengths to reduce them. If you have genes which make you extra horny or foil certain birth control techniques, you can switch strategies and if you don’t, your children will have a stronger incentive to do so after growing up with a cautionary example.
You can’t meaningfully reason about that complicated situation as if it were something like moth coloration.
This seems like quite a stretch: humans aren’t fruit flies, and something as complicated as reproduction is not a simple trait which overrides socialization and intelligence.
This is especially true when you look at why people aren’t having as many kids as previous generations: the quality of life impacts are significant and people are willing to go to considerable lengths to reduce them. If you have genes which make you extra horny or foil certain birth control techniques, you can switch strategies and if you don’t, your children will have a stronger incentive to do so after growing up with a cautionary example.
You can’t meaningfully reason about that complicated situation as if it were something like moth coloration.
Don't assume that there is nothing inheritable about this: "the quality of life impacts are significant and people are willing to go to considerable lengths to reduce them."
Some people just won't care very much. People like this exist in the world today.
We've found genetic influences for lots of behavioral traits, including ones related to politics and religion. (and more commonly known things like: depression, autism, intelligence, etc.)
Some people just won't care very much. People like this exist in the world today.
We've found genetic influences for lots of behavioral traits, including ones related to politics and religion. (and more commonly known things like: depression, autism, intelligence, etc.)
So your claim is that evolution will make _any form_ of birth control impossible?
Birth control would go unused. People who crave huge families are going to win out over those who would rather not have huge families.
There probably will be some reproductive organ changes to sometimes defeat some forms of birth control, but mostly this will be brain changes. If people actually want birth control they can invent things faster than we can evolve past them, but if people just want kids then it doesn't matter how effective birth control might be.
Non-voluntary measures are possible, but again the evolutionary winners will be the ones who evade that. If the desire for kids is strong enough, people will bribe their way out of mandatory birth control.
There probably will be some reproductive organ changes to sometimes defeat some forms of birth control, but mostly this will be brain changes. If people actually want birth control they can invent things faster than we can evolve past them, but if people just want kids then it doesn't matter how effective birth control might be.
Non-voluntary measures are possible, but again the evolutionary winners will be the ones who evade that. If the desire for kids is strong enough, people will bribe their way out of mandatory birth control.
I'm not sure that "craving huge families" is a genetic trait.
It could be cultural trait that survives from generation to generation.
I'm an example: I wanted a large amount of children, and taught my children the joys of a larger family. So far, they think along the same lines.
I'm an example: I wanted a large amount of children, and taught my children the joys of a larger family. So far, they think along the same lines.
Nice! I'm the same, with a dozen kids so far.
I don't think one can determine if the trait is or isn't cultural by guessing. How could you possibly know the origin of your own mental preferences? Even political affiliation, which sure looks cultural at first glance, has been shown to be under genetic influence.
I don't think one can determine if the trait is or isn't cultural by guessing. How could you possibly know the origin of your own mental preferences? Even political affiliation, which sure looks cultural at first glance, has been shown to be under genetic influence.
Some people with large families do so for religious reasons. (Not everyone, obviously.)
There is evidence that there are certain genes which promote religiosity. They don't guarantee it – somewhere out there, there is probably an atheist with lots of religiosity promoting genes, and a devout believer with none of them – but they do make religious belief more likely.
People who have large families for religious reasons will pass on both their religious beliefs to their children, and also in many cases their genetic predispositions to greater religiosity. Of course, there is no guarantee that the child will stay in the parent's religion, but so long as the retention rate is decent (say >= 70%) the religious belief (and the genetic predisposition to adopt it) will be spread widely through the population.
Even though organised religion isn't looking very healthy at the moment (at least in developed countries), this is reason to believe that its long-term prospects are actually quite bright.
There is evidence that there are certain genes which promote religiosity. They don't guarantee it – somewhere out there, there is probably an atheist with lots of religiosity promoting genes, and a devout believer with none of them – but they do make religious belief more likely.
People who have large families for religious reasons will pass on both their religious beliefs to their children, and also in many cases their genetic predispositions to greater religiosity. Of course, there is no guarantee that the child will stay in the parent's religion, but so long as the retention rate is decent (say >= 70%) the religious belief (and the genetic predisposition to adopt it) will be spread widely through the population.
Even though organised religion isn't looking very healthy at the moment (at least in developed countries), this is reason to believe that its long-term prospects are actually quite bright.
Like any craving there's no reason it couldn't become one.
It's well accepted that many childless women in their 30s will start to crave having children. Someone with a mutation that causes this craving to happen in their 20s as well will have more kids on average.
It's well accepted that many childless women in their 30s will start to crave having children. Someone with a mutation that causes this craving to happen in their 20s as well will have more kids on average.
All traits are heritable.
Not quite, he is saying the type of person that birth control selects for is the type of person that wouldn't use it for whatever reason. You can probably imagine these sorts to include those that have some sort of religious objection, those that simply want a large family, or those who are simply irresponsible or unable to use it properly. Given enough time these people are the dominant group remaining in the population. This will take care of the population cap that birth control has imposed. To paraphrase, evolution finds a way.
That presumes that those traits are hereditable, though.
Whether or not those traits are currently caused by genes in practice, it is certainly possible for genes to arise that would cause them.
Admittedly, for some of those traits the mutation required might be too complicated to be on a relevant time scale. But things like poor impulse control could easily be caused by a mutation (brain injuries can cause poor impulse control, so a mutation that damages those same circuits also could), which would be transmitted and potentially selected for.
Admittedly, for some of those traits the mutation required might be too complicated to be on a relevant time scale. But things like poor impulse control could easily be caused by a mutation (brain injuries can cause poor impulse control, so a mutation that damages those same circuits also could), which would be transmitted and potentially selected for.
As long as _any_ segment of a population has exponential growth; the population has exponential growth. It is true with bacterial antibiotic resistance, true with cancer cell adaptation to chemo, true on our little blue marble.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Isn't this the plot to Idiocracy?
No, but it is similar.
A smart person with a burning desire to produce offspring will have the greatest advantage. A smart person who dislikes children will have the greatest disadvantage. In between those people are the people who screw up birth control.
If the human population contains a million people with the trait for wanting lots of kids and a billion people who are just dumb about birth control, both will be selected by evolution. Once those traits are the norm, it would likely turn out that wanting kids is the more successful strategy. We could thus see intelligence go both directions, first dropping and then rising.
A smart person with a burning desire to produce offspring will have the greatest advantage. A smart person who dislikes children will have the greatest disadvantage. In between those people are the people who screw up birth control.
If the human population contains a million people with the trait for wanting lots of kids and a billion people who are just dumb about birth control, both will be selected by evolution. Once those traits are the norm, it would likely turn out that wanting kids is the more successful strategy. We could thus see intelligence go both directions, first dropping and then rising.
Assuming intelligence can only be the direct result of genes is not supported in the literature. The relevance of individual genes to the success of the human population disappeared when we became a tribal species hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Since then the useful selective function for individual survival has been the ability to operate in a tribe and make the tribe successful.
Who's to say what that has really been selecting for? Intelligence may very well have almost no correlation with individual genes, and simply be an emergent phenomenon optimized for by pro-social behaviors, or activated by being in the presence of people who are already fulfilling that role. Maybe what we regard as individual intellect is repressed pathways only chemically triggered in childhood after the development cycle casts around to try and figure out the status of the tribe and specialize into the optimum addition?
Since then the useful selective function for individual survival has been the ability to operate in a tribe and make the tribe successful.
Who's to say what that has really been selecting for? Intelligence may very well have almost no correlation with individual genes, and simply be an emergent phenomenon optimized for by pro-social behaviors, or activated by being in the presence of people who are already fulfilling that role. Maybe what we regard as individual intellect is repressed pathways only chemically triggered in childhood after the development cycle casts around to try and figure out the status of the tribe and specialize into the optimum addition?
It is long past reasonable to doubt that intelligence is at least 50% heritable.
It really isn't, by the simple question of: what does "50% heritable" even mean?
50% of what? (which is to say, you picked that number because 50% genetics 50% environment feels like a good split, and how do you even measure that?)
50% of what? (which is to say, you picked that number because 50% genetics 50% environment feels like a good split, and how do you even measure that?)
> what does "50% heritable" even mean?
It means that if you plotted a graph of orphaned children IQs on the X axis and their biological parents IQs on the Y axis you'll get a messy and very bulgy line going up and to the right.
And this kind of thing is discovered by noticing that the IQs of identical twins are much more similar than those of non-identical twins.
Wikipedia has a fairly good overview: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
It means that if you plotted a graph of orphaned children IQs on the X axis and their biological parents IQs on the Y axis you'll get a messy and very bulgy line going up and to the right.
And this kind of thing is discovered by noticing that the IQs of identical twins are much more similar than those of non-identical twins.
Wikipedia has a fairly good overview: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
> Assuming intelligence can only be the direct result of genes is not supported in the literature.
Huh, guess I missed the news that we'd discovered human level problem solving abilities in sheep.
Huh, guess I missed the news that we'd discovered human level problem solving abilities in sheep.
No. This implies that desire for children or religiosity implies stupidity. I don't see much evidence for this outside pop-atheist iamverysmart cliches.
People with lower intelligence may be just as likely to adopt a short term hedonic lifestyle and use contraception more. Totally depends on cultural trends.
What we are selecting for is any heritable trait that might durably make people more likely to intentionally reproduce. That could be a lot of things: a stronger biological clock, later menopause for women, changes in cognitive patterns to the degree that they are heritable, maybe even longevity or longer healthspan. Its complex and hard to predict.
People with lower intelligence may be just as likely to adopt a short term hedonic lifestyle and use contraception more. Totally depends on cultural trends.
What we are selecting for is any heritable trait that might durably make people more likely to intentionally reproduce. That could be a lot of things: a stronger biological clock, later menopause for women, changes in cognitive patterns to the degree that they are heritable, maybe even longevity or longer healthspan. Its complex and hard to predict.
There are studies that show are an inverse correlation between female fertility and IQ.
More specifically, it is female fertility and educational achievement. Not quite the same thing, although I don't dispute the overall point.
Makes sense actually, it is harder to get degrees when you are busy with children. So higher fertility -- better chance to have kids, more kids -- fewer diplomas. Doesn't necessarily involve latent ability to get diplomas.
[deleted]
Evolution is quite good on untangling confounding factors (the larger the population, the better it works with them), so while that's literally the plot, the consequences of it on real life should be very different.
No this is not relevant. Physical resilience to birth control is incredibly unlikely because the vast vast majority of people are born due to incorrectly applied birth control or with no birth control at all (including purposefully of course). Most forms of birth control are extremely effective and our bodies have very limited abilities to evolve past them (especially condoms). Fitness is resilience to birth control offers no practical advantage.
The desire to have kids is a social / cultural trait. We have plenty of evidence that it is fluid over time and changes with economic opportunities and whatever. It is very hard to maintain cultural cohesion in groups as they get larger. Even the Mormons would break ranks past some critical mass. The drop in fertility rate is due to changing culture and economic incentives. We have tons of data to support this and more of the world is headed in this direction economically and culturally.
The desire to have kids is a social / cultural trait. We have plenty of evidence that it is fluid over time and changes with economic opportunities and whatever. It is very hard to maintain cultural cohesion in groups as they get larger. Even the Mormons would break ranks past some critical mass. The drop in fertility rate is due to changing culture and economic incentives. We have tons of data to support this and more of the world is headed in this direction economically and culturally.
so ... sperm will start eating latex within 500 years?
Edit: if so, it seems we can get rid of plastics and pollutants like PFOA's in 500 year cycles by constructing condoms of the biggest pollutants...
Edit: if so, it seems we can get rid of plastics and pollutants like PFOA's in 500 year cycles by constructing condoms of the biggest pollutants...
The poster might have meant that heritable psychological tendencies that make one less likely to use birth control will become much more common.
It also doesn't have to be at the level of genes. Countries and religions apply varying levels of restriction on birth control, and make deciding to be a parent more or less desirable. All else equal, the groups that encourage having kids and discourage birth control will grow, and the others will shrink on a relative basis.
That’s not evolution, that’s just... nobody having non-blue eyes anymore because you killed them. It’s contrived. People would still have babies with non-blue eyes, though. Getting rid of all members of a species with a specific trait doesn’t make that trait go away.
It's a purposely extreme example of evolution. Because blue eyes are a recessive trait, there would not be any babies with non-blue eyes until a fresh new mutation occurred. The trait really does go away when there is no DNA in the population that could express it.
The point of my example is to crush the mistaken notion that evolution is inherently slow.
The point of my example is to crush the mistaken notion that evolution is inherently slow.
It happens in the real world too. The cold and flu viruses mutate constantly, which is why last year's flu shot isn't going to help you much with avoiding this season's flu, and you getting a cold in the past doesn't make you immune to catching it again.
Global birth rates going below replacement level (as in Europe, but not in many other places in the world) would be the best news ever.
> While the world is expected to add more than 3 billion people by 2100, according to the United Nations, that’ll likely be the high point. Falling fertility rates and aging populations will mean serious challenges that will be felt more acutely in some places than others.
Right now, it is well beyond any sustainable level (CO2, habitat, pollution). More people, and more living at higher standards (and it would be inhumane). Sure, we can eat vegan, and have solar panels, but it is not enough (there is a huge baseline consumption and waste generation).
How? Higher education for women and easy (free, educated, socially approved) access to education, especially in poor countries.
Often I hear "oh, but in 1970s people were afraid that the current population would be too much, and you see - they were wrong!". Sadly, in the last 50 years, we wiped most animals. And brought the plastic mayhem.
Vide: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity...
> While the world is expected to add more than 3 billion people by 2100, according to the United Nations, that’ll likely be the high point. Falling fertility rates and aging populations will mean serious challenges that will be felt more acutely in some places than others.
Right now, it is well beyond any sustainable level (CO2, habitat, pollution). More people, and more living at higher standards (and it would be inhumane). Sure, we can eat vegan, and have solar panels, but it is not enough (there is a huge baseline consumption and waste generation).
How? Higher education for women and easy (free, educated, socially approved) access to education, especially in poor countries.
Often I hear "oh, but in 1970s people were afraid that the current population would be too much, and you see - they were wrong!". Sadly, in the last 50 years, we wiped most animals. And brought the plastic mayhem.
Vide: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity...
> Population growth is vital for the world economy [...] Governments will have to think creatively about ways to manage population, whether through state-sponsored benefits [...]
I actually have the impression that we're with quite a few too many people, and while we can't really help that (you can hardly murder, like, everyone in both Americas to get population down by ~15%), I expect that a decreased growth would be super beneficial for everything from available resources to waste management.
Sure, fewer working people on an aging population reduces growth in the short term, but I can't see anything but benefits in the long term if we would have a few generations with an average number of children just below 2. (For those who are on the fence, like me, this reason can be a part of the decision not to have kids.)
The article doesn't mention a single country below 1, so while being close to 1 is on the edge, every regional average you can make seems high enough. In fact, the global average of 2.4 is still too high (but it will come down, as per UN predictions, until it's only just above the replacement rate around the year 2100).
I actually have the impression that we're with quite a few too many people, and while we can't really help that (you can hardly murder, like, everyone in both Americas to get population down by ~15%), I expect that a decreased growth would be super beneficial for everything from available resources to waste management.
Sure, fewer working people on an aging population reduces growth in the short term, but I can't see anything but benefits in the long term if we would have a few generations with an average number of children just below 2. (For those who are on the fence, like me, this reason can be a part of the decision not to have kids.)
The article doesn't mention a single country below 1, so while being close to 1 is on the edge, every regional average you can make seems high enough. In fact, the global average of 2.4 is still too high (but it will come down, as per UN predictions, until it's only just above the replacement rate around the year 2100).
I agree. It’s vital if you’ve bought into the doctrine of infinite growth at all costs forever, but there is a limit. And if we were perhaps better at living sustainably, I’d be more supportive of having children. But either way, this Ponzi scheme has an end date, and I fear it’s a lot closer than we’d like.
One of the points about demographics that's been really haunting me lately is the nonsubstitutableness of births. In other words births of human beings is not a commodity that you can "catch up on" in any generational sense. Generational cohorts are made in fixed time, and when made late will lag with an offset that can never be backfilled later on. We can only produce infants, never the 8 year old who was never born to fill the gap of missing 8 year olds from folks who couldn't be bothered or weren't ready to have children 8 years ago. Likewise for the absent 20 year olds and so on and so forth. We cannot correct after the fact to rebalance our population pyramids from being so top heavy.
There is a huge commitment either way, and that commitment/choice is irreversible. One commits to new life or for voids of life, both are not without consequence.
One other interesting thing to this is to watch the shifting median ages of populations.
> China's median age was 22 in 1980. By 2018, it was 40. That will rise to 46 in 2030 and 56 in 2050. In the US, the median age was 30 in 1980 and 38 in 2018. In 2030, it will be 40, and 44 in 2050. India, by comparison, had a median age of 20 in 1980 and 28 in 2018. https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/asia/article/21...
That's always been fascinating to me to think of an entire graying population and of all those civilizations of past eras who are no more. You can get a distinct taste of that gravity by thinking of an entire genetic pool shrinking in our lifetimes.
There is a huge commitment either way, and that commitment/choice is irreversible. One commits to new life or for voids of life, both are not without consequence.
One other interesting thing to this is to watch the shifting median ages of populations.
> China's median age was 22 in 1980. By 2018, it was 40. That will rise to 46 in 2030 and 56 in 2050. In the US, the median age was 30 in 1980 and 38 in 2018. In 2030, it will be 40, and 44 in 2050. India, by comparison, had a median age of 20 in 1980 and 28 in 2018. https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/asia/article/21...
That's always been fascinating to me to think of an entire graying population and of all those civilizations of past eras who are no more. You can get a distinct taste of that gravity by thinking of an entire genetic pool shrinking in our lifetimes.
> At least two children per woman—that’s what’s needed to ensure a stable population from generation to generation. In the 1960s, the fertility rate was five live births per woman. By 2017 it had fallen to 2.43, close to that critical threshold.
(emphasis mine)
> Population growth is vital for the world economy.
Fuck the world economy, then. We're not going back to '60s.
(emphasis mine)
> Population growth is vital for the world economy.
Fuck the world economy, then. We're not going back to '60s.
>Fuck the world economy, then.
You like your pension? Because pensions need an ever-growing population.
You like your pension? Because pensions need an ever-growing population.
The pension ponzi scheme has to end sometime. Whether the music stops when it's my turn, yours, or today's children it simply isn't possible to grow the number of people paying in forever.
Same with unending growth of suburbs. Paving the world and less people to pay for the pavement maintenance.
Immigrants pay for all of it, pensions and civil engineering.
Not when there's no space for them to live in, or jobs to work. That's still far in the future though.
Fact of the matter is: you're going to have to support the old, less able people, whether you want it or not. You don't get to just not pay for it, not at any kind of a macro scale.
OTOH if the population isn't growing and economy is contracting as a result, you could find yourself paying a lot more than you do now. Like, potentially, several times the amount.
OTOH if the population isn't growing and economy is contracting as a result, you could find yourself paying a lot more than you do now. Like, potentially, several times the amount.
[deleted]
I don't have one and don't expect one.
Pensions, like infinite population growth, aren't sustainable. Most people no longer spend their entire career at a single company, so the concept doesn't even make much sense anymore.
If you're referring to a government pension like social security rather than a company sponsored pension, that can and should be made sustainable, unlike the borrow-from-the-future mess that we have today.
Pensions, like infinite population growth, aren't sustainable. Most people no longer spend their entire career at a single company, so the concept doesn't even make much sense anymore.
If you're referring to a government pension like social security rather than a company sponsored pension, that can and should be made sustainable, unlike the borrow-from-the-future mess that we have today.
If you don't have a pension, I presume you have retirement savings. It's the same pyramid scheme. You're expecting future generations to take care of you when you get old. You're presuming that the 2019 dollars you save now will give you a claim on the resources of 2049.
But if there are no working age people in 2049 then there's nobody to take care of you so your 2019 dollars are worthless.
In other words if demand for caregivers greatly exceeds supply inflation is going to destroy your savings.
But if there are no working age people in 2049 then there's nobody to take care of you so your 2019 dollars are worthless.
In other words if demand for caregivers greatly exceeds supply inflation is going to destroy your savings.
I have retirement savings, yes. I'm lucky that I enjoy the work that I do, and expect to continue doing this kind of work in some capacity for as long as I'm able.
I expect to have to pay for things in 2049 just like everybody else. I anticipate that dollars saved today won't go as far in 2049, and so I save more than I think I'll need. If higher than expected inflation or lack of caregiver supply is a problem, then we'll have to find a way to deal with it. If my dollars won't go as far as I think they will, well that's tough cookies for me, but that's not any different from how the world works today too. You can't anticipate everything.
But suggesting that the root cause of this problem is women not having enough babies, and insinuating that things would be oh so much easier if we could just go back to how things were in the '60s where half the population was disenfranchised (as this article does) -- is utter lunacy. That's not happening. That shouldn't happen. And even if it did happen, it wouldn't actually fix the problem.
I expect to have to pay for things in 2049 just like everybody else. I anticipate that dollars saved today won't go as far in 2049, and so I save more than I think I'll need. If higher than expected inflation or lack of caregiver supply is a problem, then we'll have to find a way to deal with it. If my dollars won't go as far as I think they will, well that's tough cookies for me, but that's not any different from how the world works today too. You can't anticipate everything.
But suggesting that the root cause of this problem is women not having enough babies, and insinuating that things would be oh so much easier if we could just go back to how things were in the '60s where half the population was disenfranchised (as this article does) -- is utter lunacy. That's not happening. That shouldn't happen. And even if it did happen, it wouldn't actually fix the problem.
Modern US$ annual inflation rates are under 3%.[0]
What's an average mutual fund's annual return? For mine, it's around 4-6%, I think, which agrees with the average here: "The 20-year return on mutual funds averages 4.67%."[1]
So, as long as you safely invest what you're saving, aren't you statistically covered and then some?
0: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-i...
1: https://www.creditdonkey.com/average-mutual-fund-return.html
What's an average mutual fund's annual return? For mine, it's around 4-6%, I think, which agrees with the average here: "The 20-year return on mutual funds averages 4.67%."[1]
So, as long as you safely invest what you're saving, aren't you statistically covered and then some?
0: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-i...
1: https://www.creditdonkey.com/average-mutual-fund-return.html
My understanding was that the parent's parent was saying that the expectation of returns in a mutual fund is predicated on continued economic growth, predicated on there being more people in the future to enact all that growth. Society has switched from pensions to individual retirement investment. The expectation of there being more money in the future remains the same.
Snap, I forgot. Well, BUT, if the 10 billion peak comes by 2100, we're statistically covered. :DD Tail end of carrying capacity economic growth gaaang!! xDD
People reading this a century from now: hey you should've colonized the Solar System with orbital habitats neck deep in asteroid belt platinum, kids those days smh.
People reading this a century from now: hey you should've colonized the Solar System with orbital habitats neck deep in asteroid belt platinum, kids those days smh.
Inflation isn't a single number, it's a basket. For a millenial who's spending most of their money on rent & tuition, the number is a lot higher on tuition. For somebody buying gadgets and high-end cars, the number is negative.
In the future, the demand for eldercare is going to skyrocket, with a lot less supply. Working folks will be fine because they'll be spending their money on stuff produced by robots: food, durable goods, et cetera. The elderly are going to be @#$%ed because I doubt that robots are going to be very good at providing eldercare.
In the future, the demand for eldercare is going to skyrocket, with a lot less supply. Working folks will be fine because they'll be spending their money on stuff produced by robots: food, durable goods, et cetera. The elderly are going to be @#$%ed because I doubt that robots are going to be very good at providing eldercare.
Well, a lot of stock is placed on people wanting to be nice to grandgrandpa just because. Should that fail, the sick elderly will have problems, the healthy ones will sap the job market. We would see compensatory hyperspecialization at top end and also young people doing jobs formerly odious, potentially for better pay. Maybe a plenty of weird and unexpected social reactions too.
Why? You only need more productivity than is needed to sustain the entire population to allow people to retire or have pensions. We already have that and productivity will only continue to increase because of technology.
[deleted]
Or healthcare, unless you have a really quick and cheap plan for home-care nursebots.
Japan is already on top of it!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/06/japan-robots-w...
Also, prison as elderly care: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-47033704
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/06/japan-robots-w...
Also, prison as elderly care: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-47033704
>Because pensions need an ever-growing population.
Why? If a group of people paid into a retirement fund enough to sustain them all, and called it a pension, then there is no need for growth.
The problem is not pensions; it's underfunded pensions. There's no reason they cannot work.
Why? If a group of people paid into a retirement fund enough to sustain them all, and called it a pension, then there is no need for growth.
The problem is not pensions; it's underfunded pensions. There's no reason they cannot work.
Inflation. It does not matter how much money is in your account if there is nothing to buy.
Investment. Stocks have outpaced inflation since the dawn of time.
Or really good automation.
pensions didnt exist less than 2 centuries ago
The "fertility crash" is only impacting the developed world.
As the article directly states, global population projections are set to grow by another 3 billion. I would call that a fertility explosion, not a crash, but most of that population growth will be happening in the undeveloped and developing world rather than the developed world.
As the article directly states, global population projections are set to grow by another 3 billion. I would call that a fertility explosion, not a crash, but most of that population growth will be happening in the undeveloped and developing world rather than the developed world.
think calculus for this one, growth continuing in the positive will mislead when that growth is losing steam. Watch the animation near x=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_derivative#Relation_to_.... The slope must decrease and reach flatline before it goes negative. It's all a matter of rates not absolute figures. Like a ball thrown up in the air, it goes up, and eventually reaches its peak, then begins its descent. We're nearing the peak population wise which is what a lot of these articles are getting at.
This article from bloomberg.com is perfectly absurd : High birth rates during the last fifty years have lead to overpopulation, politic instability, general poverty, global warming. And now, they complain that the birthrates are too low ? Seven billion and a half for world population and it is not enough ? Each day, 240 000 inhabitants more, is it too few ? The writer of this article should be admitted in a psychiatric hospital.
It's blindingly obvious that modernity is applying strong natural selection to humanity and that, over time, the world will come to be dominated by the kind of people who have children. In order for that not to be the case, you have to imagine a world without inheritance of characteristics. It's not even necessary to imagine genetic inheritance: even cultural transmission of fecundity from generation to generation would suffice for shifting the distribution of personality traits in the world's population away from whatever depresses birthrate below replacement and towards whatever promotes high birthrates. If you want to know what the world will look like in a few generations, look at who's having kids now.
The "lol seven billion is enough" comments completely miss the point. Fertility will recover once inherited fecundity spreads through the population. One way or another, we're going to hit the Earth's (or solar system's) carrying capacity soon, probably in a few centuries at the longest. Do you want that future era to be full of people like you? If so, you need to figure out why people like you aren't reproducing now.
To imagine that fertility isn't heritable is to deny all of evolution. The drive to reproduce is the oldest and strongest urge of all. It's ubiquitous in the tree of life. It's really bizarre to me that people don't see this dynamic. Of course evolution applies to people: have you ever met a parent and a child?
The "lol seven billion is enough" comments completely miss the point. Fertility will recover once inherited fecundity spreads through the population. One way or another, we're going to hit the Earth's (or solar system's) carrying capacity soon, probably in a few centuries at the longest. Do you want that future era to be full of people like you? If so, you need to figure out why people like you aren't reproducing now.
To imagine that fertility isn't heritable is to deny all of evolution. The drive to reproduce is the oldest and strongest urge of all. It's ubiquitous in the tree of life. It's really bizarre to me that people don't see this dynamic. Of course evolution applies to people: have you ever met a parent and a child?
> what the world will look like in a few generations, look at who's having kids now.
as soon as genetic engineering becomes widespread, everyone will want a Dane for child. But not ten or twenty of them - humans are not r-selective
I don't think evolutionary arguments are even valid at this stage. Very likely human evolution has given its place to human engineering
as soon as genetic engineering becomes widespread, everyone will want a Dane for child. But not ten or twenty of them - humans are not r-selective
I don't think evolutionary arguments are even valid at this stage. Very likely human evolution has given its place to human engineering
I can't say I care much whether future people look like me. Fortunately for me, the things I do care about propagating to future generations are independent of bloodlines. I can easily transmit ideas to people with whom I have no common ancestors for 50 generations. (And the ideas I can't transmit? Maybe their lack of fitness should tell me something.)
Why would I care whether the future is full of people like me or not? Is there something inherently better about people like me, such that we should be reproducing instead of the people who currently are?
Evolution depends on the competitive aspect of genetic groups as a means of specification. You can say resisting specification is somehow a morally superior position, but really, it is just a sentimental one. Specification will happen regardless and merging will also happen. When there is enough competition for resources, usually only one species wins out. Being apathetic about becoming a dead branch in the tree of evolution is probably going to have that exact outcome.
Lower birthrates are our best hope for lowering our population from above what the Earth can sustain without suffering and early deaths due to famine, war, disease, and so on.
There are large uncertainties over the planet's carrying capacity, but the numbers I find most believable say we're over it, which can work until we exhaust non-renewables and perhaps destroy some renewables.
I find the most compelling understanding still comes from the book Limits to Growth and this 2014 research showing us tracking their business-as-usual model pretty well, 40 years later https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00....
Steady state economics has worked. "Population growth is vital for the world economy" is a statement about a system approaching collapse.
Reading the book Affluence Without Abundance I found of human societies enduring hundreds of thousands of years without growth. I've since learned of more. We don't know their level of happiness, but recent versions showed happiness and health greater than ours. In any case, they didn't collapse the entire planet's systems in a few hundreds years, so our systems don't stack very well -- a few generations of wealthy few and destitute many followed by collapse.
Thailand lowered its birth rate voluntarily and successfully https://www.context.org/iclib/ic31/frazer.
Lower birth rate is our best hope.
There are large uncertainties over the planet's carrying capacity, but the numbers I find most believable say we're over it, which can work until we exhaust non-renewables and perhaps destroy some renewables.
I find the most compelling understanding still comes from the book Limits to Growth and this 2014 research showing us tracking their business-as-usual model pretty well, 40 years later https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00....
Steady state economics has worked. "Population growth is vital for the world economy" is a statement about a system approaching collapse.
Reading the book Affluence Without Abundance I found of human societies enduring hundreds of thousands of years without growth. I've since learned of more. We don't know their level of happiness, but recent versions showed happiness and health greater than ours. In any case, they didn't collapse the entire planet's systems in a few hundreds years, so our systems don't stack very well -- a few generations of wealthy few and destitute many followed by collapse.
Thailand lowered its birth rate voluntarily and successfully https://www.context.org/iclib/ic31/frazer.
Lower birth rate is our best hope.
We don't know their level of happiness, but recent versions showed happiness and health greater than ours. In any case, they didn't collapse the entire planet's systems in a few hundreds years, so our systems don't stack very well
Prehistoric man may well have been happier than people today... while things were good. When food was plentiful, the weather nice and the living' was easy, it was all roses. Until your mate busted a leg ... and died. Until your kid gets a toothache ... and then dies. Until the rains don't fall, the herds go away... and your entire clan dies. They probably weren't so happy then.
This rose colored glasses view of the deep past ignores the extreme misery people endured to get to the good times. It is, IMO, just absurd.
Finally, the idea that prehistoric folk lived in harmony with nature is just silly. They routinely set huge wildfires to drive prey, they would chase entire herds off cliffs and then harvest a handful of animals. Yes they laughed, loved and wept tears of joy. But they also murdered, raped and wept tears of sorrow. And experienced the latter far more often than anyone today. (For example, almost everyone who survived to adulthood wee half or more of their children die. And I would be very very surprised if each child's death was not felt as keenly as people do today).
Prehistoric man may well have been happier than people today... while things were good. When food was plentiful, the weather nice and the living' was easy, it was all roses. Until your mate busted a leg ... and died. Until your kid gets a toothache ... and then dies. Until the rains don't fall, the herds go away... and your entire clan dies. They probably weren't so happy then.
This rose colored glasses view of the deep past ignores the extreme misery people endured to get to the good times. It is, IMO, just absurd.
Finally, the idea that prehistoric folk lived in harmony with nature is just silly. They routinely set huge wildfires to drive prey, they would chase entire herds off cliffs and then harvest a handful of animals. Yes they laughed, loved and wept tears of joy. But they also murdered, raped and wept tears of sorrow. And experienced the latter far more often than anyone today. (For example, almost everyone who survived to adulthood wee half or more of their children die. And I would be very very surprised if each child's death was not felt as keenly as people do today).
> They routinely ...
Did all prehistoric folk do all the bad things you enumerate? Or did you cherry pick things from a multitude of regions and time periods which you personally believe to have been engaged in unethical and outrageous behavior based on your acceptance of the veracity of treatises written by western academics who have no reliable source of data about what prehistoric people were really doing or thinking?
Honestly I'm surprised and give you credit for not bringing up the old straws of cannibalism and human sacrifice by the alleged primitive savages. So, thanks.
But... on the topic of outrageous behavior, how do you feel about Mai Lai? Treblinka? The Donner Party? Obama's Predator Drone policy in Yemen?
Did all prehistoric folk do all the bad things you enumerate? Or did you cherry pick things from a multitude of regions and time periods which you personally believe to have been engaged in unethical and outrageous behavior based on your acceptance of the veracity of treatises written by western academics who have no reliable source of data about what prehistoric people were really doing or thinking?
Honestly I'm surprised and give you credit for not bringing up the old straws of cannibalism and human sacrifice by the alleged primitive savages. So, thanks.
But... on the topic of outrageous behavior, how do you feel about Mai Lai? Treblinka? The Donner Party? Obama's Predator Drone policy in Yemen?
I thought the point was that everybody was primitive savages. Academics do have a good deal of reliable data on how people lived and died. Bones can tell a lot.
Has anyone else noticed that there are simultaneously articles that talk about the dangers of not enough people to produce goods and also articles about the risk of AI/robotics being too efficient?
the world constructed by the media doesn't need to be self-consistent
Why not both, geriatric robots are coming right around the corner just as we approach a frail old age with no strength of youth to change our bedpans and sheets.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-ageing-robots-wider...
Instead of the silly robots, why not exosuits. We're this close. Obvious conclusion of Internet of things combined with wearables.
Cyborg grandparent is already a thing sometimes. Insulin pump? Why not. Other drug delivery systems? Easy. Mobility, again better than piggybacking a robot, think wheelchair on steroids.
(Panasonic has the right idea but has not taken it far enough yet. HAL is smart. Both are way too expensive yet. Even good wheelchairs are quite expensive and we have trouble accommodating them - real deal exosuit walker would be easier.)
You can get old timers to care for themselves the most they can, you win in efficiency. The big one is mental decline. We can do little about it for now. Yes, the exosuit can talk to you and override if you do something dangerous. Maybe call for help.
Yes, I know people prefer to interact with people. Which is probably not easy to fake without a robot.
Finally, just remember that getting old people socialized would still likely be a job.
--
By the way, the image of old people looking like astronauts is beyond funny.
You can get old timers to care for themselves the most they can, you win in efficiency. The big one is mental decline. We can do little about it for now. Yes, the exosuit can talk to you and override if you do something dangerous. Maybe call for help.
Yes, I know people prefer to interact with people. Which is probably not easy to fake without a robot.
Finally, just remember that getting old people socialized would still likely be a job.
--
By the way, the image of old people looking like astronauts is beyond funny.
Wow that is a really intriguing thought, pretty awesome idea to use those to extend agency with old folks in robot suits. Powerful, and funny too for sure.
I think less people sooner will help us lower greenhouse gas emissions. We need to support efforts to educate people and help with family planning. We should also encourage people to have less kids in an effort to stabilize our ecosystem.
Less population could lead to a lower GDP or it might not. If worker productivity and automation rise as population falls the GDP decline could be offset. This is something we need to consider especially when considering the initial statements of this article.
Less population could lead to a lower GDP or it might not. If worker productivity and automation rise as population falls the GDP decline could be offset. This is something we need to consider especially when considering the initial statements of this article.
It's not stated anywhere, but this treats GDP as the only metric anyone should bother to examine. I wish the world was so simple that we could boil down economic progress to a single metric, but people have been pointing out problems with that since the first attempts to measure national economies.
Sure, more people typically means global GDP will go up, but no one cares. What we ultimately want is for per-capita measures, like income or poverty rates, to improve.
Sure, more people typically means global GDP will go up, but no one cares. What we ultimately want is for per-capita measures, like income or poverty rates, to improve.
How is it a bad thing?
The only way to deal with climate crisis is to lower the population of the planet down to one billion. Possibly without wars and famines.
The only way to deal with climate crisis is to lower the population of the planet down to one billion. Possibly without wars and famines.
The rate at which that happens is the problem. The faster the population declines, the more old people there are relative to young people, the smaller your labor pool is relative to your population, the harder your economy will crash. And yes, the economy crashing does matter, because the poorest and oldest, i.e. the some of the most vulnerable, will be hit the hardest.
We have been artificially inflating demand in the West since the end of WWII. Labor for manufacturing has been in decline since the 70’s.
You could easily reduce the resource intensity in the West with some cultural shifts. And the next generation may insist. Without disposable income you want things that last.
You could easily reduce the resource intensity in the West with some cultural shifts. And the next generation may insist. Without disposable income you want things that last.
That is political problem. We have designed our world for constant economic growth and governments are reliant on growing tax base. It doesn't need to be that way.
[deleted]
I'm not sure what you're arguing for. The faster the population falls, the harder the problem is to solve. Whether it's political or not.
I mean, a violent purge of non contributing old people would solve this. But barring that, a world without economic growth is grim. Tons of people virtuously declare that it’s ok if society doesn’t get richer but they don’t really understand what that means and how awful that makes societies function.
1 billion people using private jets daily would emit a lot more carbon than our current population, let alone our current population in carbon balance.
Population control is both a completely infeasible and an ineffective solution to the climate crisis.
Population control is both a completely infeasible and an ineffective solution to the climate crisis.
Family planning and educating women are two of the most effective solutions for fighting the climate crisis: https://www.drawdown.org/
Both are population control.
Both are population control.
Because shrinking populations causes tough economic conditions, which creates wars and famines
> How is it a bad thing?
Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce. You effectively are saying "Hey raise your hand if you want your group of people to die out." I'm not shocked that people aren't wild about that.
Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce. You effectively are saying "Hey raise your hand if you want your group of people to die out." I'm not shocked that people aren't wild about that.
> it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce
1) From the article seems like people are loosing their desire to reproduce anyway.
2) I am no expert in anthropology but the need for having children is very complex and is regulated by the multiple factors (economical, social, political, environmental).
As one Bali taxi driver put it to me - "Nowadays you don't need 14 children to tend to a ricefield".
1) From the article seems like people are loosing their desire to reproduce anyway.
2) I am no expert in anthropology but the need for having children is very complex and is regulated by the multiple factors (economical, social, political, environmental).
As one Bali taxi driver put it to me - "Nowadays you don't need 14 children to tend to a ricefield".
> the internal human desire to reproduce.
It's pretty clear throughout recorded history that this is not a universal desire. Huge numbers of people have not only chosen not to have kids, many of whom have consciously traded off the opportunity to reproduce in exchange for other opportunities.
It's pretty clear throughout recorded history that this is not a universal desire. Huge numbers of people have not only chosen not to have kids, many of whom have consciously traded off the opportunity to reproduce in exchange for other opportunities.
It's a biological urge for many, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Sure some don't have it, and some control it, but that's clearly not the majority of our species otherwise we wouldn't be so ubiquitous.
The biological urge for sex rather than the urge for procreation may explain our ubiquity.
Especially considering birth control wasn’t available until recently.
> It's a biological urge for many
I can't say strongly that you're wrong, but I can say your thesis is most definitely unproven, and there is good counterveiling evidence.
Clearly there has and remains enough historical reproduction that humans are pretty much ubiquitous and have affected pretty much the entire surface of the planet. No question. But the why is unknown.
Yes there are of course people who feel a need to duplicate their genes (though to my knowledge I've literally only met one person in my 50+ years who said that this was their desire). However different people have many different reasons to intentionally reproduce and demonstrably, when given the ability, a dominant number opt to limit it (this fact is the launching point of the original article).
The clearest example is economic: birth rate and income are pretty highly negatively correlated (the US is an outlier but when you double click and look at the income data at higher resolution than national, you see the same thing). I could go into examples of why this might be the case but that could lead to an unnecessary flame war.
I can't say strongly that you're wrong, but I can say your thesis is most definitely unproven, and there is good counterveiling evidence.
Clearly there has and remains enough historical reproduction that humans are pretty much ubiquitous and have affected pretty much the entire surface of the planet. No question. But the why is unknown.
Yes there are of course people who feel a need to duplicate their genes (though to my knowledge I've literally only met one person in my 50+ years who said that this was their desire). However different people have many different reasons to intentionally reproduce and demonstrably, when given the ability, a dominant number opt to limit it (this fact is the launching point of the original article).
The clearest example is economic: birth rate and income are pretty highly negatively correlated (the US is an outlier but when you double click and look at the income data at higher resolution than national, you see the same thing). I could go into examples of why this might be the case but that could lead to an unnecessary flame war.
> Because it conflicts with the internal human desire to reproduce
You didn't answer the question. If you can't control your basic instinct it doesn't mean that general population reduction will be a "bad" thing.
Population control doesn't mean anything "inhumane" at all. As one above said, countries with higher levels of education have better control over population growth naturally. That's one of the solutions to explosive overpopulation: EDUCATION!
Overpopulation is a real problem. For the environment, for the climate, and for the future.
You didn't answer the question. If you can't control your basic instinct it doesn't mean that general population reduction will be a "bad" thing.
Population control doesn't mean anything "inhumane" at all. As one above said, countries with higher levels of education have better control over population growth naturally. That's one of the solutions to explosive overpopulation: EDUCATION!
Overpopulation is a real problem. For the environment, for the climate, and for the future.
But people are wild about it. Low birth rates in wealthy countries are arrived at by choice. As a US citizen with two kids, I actively chose not to have more. This is my preference (and, in aggregate, the preference of the rest of the US as well).
If one or both of them were likely to die before reaching maturity, and my retirement plans assumed they would pay for my dotage... then maybe I'd have more? But that's not the case; as it is I'm happy with my choice to just have two.
If one or both of them were likely to die before reaching maturity, and my retirement plans assumed they would pay for my dotage... then maybe I'd have more? But that's not the case; as it is I'm happy with my choice to just have two.
>The only way to deal with climate crisis is to lower the population of the planet down to one billion. Possibly without wars and famines.
Who decides who gets depopulated? And how? What if those chosen to be depopulated don't want their population lower? Historically, not many peoples willingly sign up for their own genocide, there is usually significant war.
Who decides who gets depopulated? And how? What if those chosen to be depopulated don't want their population lower? Historically, not many peoples willingly sign up for their own genocide, there is usually significant war.
Quite apparently, education and especially general education of women combined with accessible birth control is what can make people have less kids. No genocide necessary.
Oh yes, like it will ever happens... Remember, it's mainly developed countries who are childless while poor, uneducated countries, and often war-ridden, continue to explode demographically.
I dunno man. I think 7 billion people might be enough.
The marginal cost per child has increased dramatically. In developing economies an additional child can sometimes be an asset as they are free labor for a family farm or business.
In a developed economy(specifically the USA) the cost per child is primarily driven by educational expenses. College education and also private high school and elementary education.
Despite what people say it much more difficult to be successful without a college education. The options for obtaining a college education without your parents money and without student loans are slim. There are two possibilities; military academy/ ROTC program or athletic/academic scholarships. The ROTC military is the most likely one but not everyone is accepted. There are many medical disqualifying conditions such as ADHD ect.
So if you are a college graduate and you want your children to have the same life opportunities that you did, then there is a limit to how many children you can have based on your income and net worth.
Population is sensitive to discuss politically. You don't see a lot of ideas that would help either. Here's a talk by Melinda Gates talking about how family planning can help Africa avoid deterioration due to overpopulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BOTS9GAjc4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BOTS9GAjc4
[deleted]
I just don't get it, there are so many examples where millions of more humans doesn't materially improve growth and a handful of people do.
Consider: when Cartwright invented the power loom, he undoubtedly created economic growth (more output) without the need for more humans. Ditto for millions of inventions happening every day from software automation to robotics.
Even more: another million uneducated humans doesn't provide anywhere near as much growth as 1000 highly educated humans. As simple proof, you need education to operate and maintain machines, let alone invent and improve them.
If anything, a fertility crash seems like a good thing because there's always resources that are limited and fewer people helps allocate them - from fresh water to brand new medicines/devices/techniques that haven't been commoditized yet.
Consider: when Cartwright invented the power loom, he undoubtedly created economic growth (more output) without the need for more humans. Ditto for millions of inventions happening every day from software automation to robotics.
Even more: another million uneducated humans doesn't provide anywhere near as much growth as 1000 highly educated humans. As simple proof, you need education to operate and maintain machines, let alone invent and improve them.
If anything, a fertility crash seems like a good thing because there's always resources that are limited and fewer people helps allocate them - from fresh water to brand new medicines/devices/techniques that haven't been commoditized yet.
If you intend to send your child to college then the cost per child is very high. If you don't then the marginal cost per child is very low. Another consideration is whether the mother works and if it's possible for her to keep taking time from work every few years to have additional children. One thing I notice about large families is that they usually do not pay for their children's college education.
TLDR - marginal cost per child increases in developed countries.
> Population growth is vital for the world economy.
At most you could argue that population growth is useful for some of the world's economy.
But taking a larger view - ending population growth is vital for the world economy. Probably for human civilization.
Now, I'm not saying that the Earth's carrying capacity is 7.7 Billion people (or less). But in many respects we (= humans) are scratching the edges of that capacity with wasteful use of natural resources, pollution, and skewed distribution of products and services (e.g. of food - hundreds of Millions are hungry but the food produced could feed everyone several times over). So, we should work on that, and in the mean time, keep the population in check. When we've "fixed" human society enough, growth may or may not become relevant again.
> desperation is creeping into the search for ways to reverse the current trends
It is the desperation of large capitalists who want to avoid the necessary transition into from permanent/exponential growth economies into other, sustainable economic models. It's like they want to extend a pier further out into the ocean because they're not willing to stop driving their car out onto it and consider going someplace else. And of course - a political class which lives on these people's donations.
One final point: It seems to me like the actual problem spots are countries with massive growth (e.g. Nigeria in the story) which may need to bring it down sooner than they would have, had they had it in the 19th century; and countries with significant sub-replacement numbers. In the rest of the world needs to adjust while the age pyramid changes.
At most you could argue that population growth is useful for some of the world's economy.
But taking a larger view - ending population growth is vital for the world economy. Probably for human civilization.
Now, I'm not saying that the Earth's carrying capacity is 7.7 Billion people (or less). But in many respects we (= humans) are scratching the edges of that capacity with wasteful use of natural resources, pollution, and skewed distribution of products and services (e.g. of food - hundreds of Millions are hungry but the food produced could feed everyone several times over). So, we should work on that, and in the mean time, keep the population in check. When we've "fixed" human society enough, growth may or may not become relevant again.
> desperation is creeping into the search for ways to reverse the current trends
It is the desperation of large capitalists who want to avoid the necessary transition into from permanent/exponential growth economies into other, sustainable economic models. It's like they want to extend a pier further out into the ocean because they're not willing to stop driving their car out onto it and consider going someplace else. And of course - a political class which lives on these people's donations.
One final point: It seems to me like the actual problem spots are countries with massive growth (e.g. Nigeria in the story) which may need to bring it down sooner than they would have, had they had it in the 19th century; and countries with significant sub-replacement numbers. In the rest of the world needs to adjust while the age pyramid changes.
> Population growth is vital for the world economy
Is the world economy just a pyramid scheme?
Is the world economy just a pyramid scheme?
The other transition is the bulge in the elderly population. This seems to me to be the major economic issue in developed nations. In Australia at least, government spending on the aged is the number one expenditure at $70 billion, not including healthcare spending. That’s about $18k per person over 65. The proportion of elderly will increase then plateau at about 1 in 4 over the next 50 years. I’m not sure the numbers add up... it probably only works with ongoing population growth which will have to come from immigration.
>Population growth is vital for the world economy.
This is silly. As long as income per capita is good and people are happy does it matter if there are few less?
This is silly. As long as income per capita is good and people are happy does it matter if there are few less?
Here is a curious, but really debatable view on our population, that I've read somewhere.
There are 60 billions people total, floating around and waiting for their turn to "manifest" and live. Such a life is very tiring, so humans need a lot of time to recharge: usually, 700-1200 years. Humans aren't created out of thin air or of proteins: bodies can be replicated quickly, but "creating" an actual human takes longer than the lifespan of an average solar system. With an average lifetime of 70 years, we can't have more than 10 billion "participants" living at the same time. We also can't just fix aging because even with a perfect body, life is very tiring.
There are 60 billions people total, floating around and waiting for their turn to "manifest" and live. Such a life is very tiring, so humans need a lot of time to recharge: usually, 700-1200 years. Humans aren't created out of thin air or of proteins: bodies can be replicated quickly, but "creating" an actual human takes longer than the lifespan of an average solar system. With an average lifetime of 70 years, we can't have more than 10 billion "participants" living at the same time. We also can't just fix aging because even with a perfect body, life is very tiring.
NoRagrets(1)
All the anti-population growth popularity here would seem at odds with the HN population of outer space-expansionists.
Elon isn’t going to have enough settlers.
Perhaps another Great Filter candidate.
Elon isn’t going to have enough settlers.
Perhaps another Great Filter candidate.
True, population levels are no where near what is required to support cyberpunk living density, let alone multi-planet colonization.
Perhaps if reproduction levels really fall off and there is a real lack of families there will eventually be some kind of public, private, or religious industry centered around creating new babies in vivo or in vitro, along with a paid surrogate and child-raising infrastructure.
Perhaps if reproduction levels really fall off and there is a real lack of families there will eventually be some kind of public, private, or religious industry centered around creating new babies in vivo or in vitro, along with a paid surrogate and child-raising infrastructure.
In my circles, people my age are having less children than their parents and at a later age than their parents, but for the most part, they're still reproducing.
If colonists are needed, they're available, it's just a mater of incentives.
If colonists are needed, they're available, it's just a mater of incentives.
We are unlikely to be sending billions in to space to set up colonies. There will be ample prospective migrants, if it ever becomes a real possibility, whether there are 100m or 10bn earthlings.
considering the timescales of interstellar travel, it will probably involve traveling with robots and frozen human embryos
By the time we're expanding into space, we don't need humans to make babies anymore :)
What a load of nonsense! The planet needs lesser people.
If economics is the problem, fix the damn econs, not the planet.
I'm not naive. I understand that the young will have to produce more per capita to support the masses of elderly. But the solution to this is not producing more kids. The solution is somewhere along the line of better economic distribution
If economics is the problem, fix the damn econs, not the planet.
I'm not naive. I understand that the young will have to produce more per capita to support the masses of elderly. But the solution to this is not producing more kids. The solution is somewhere along the line of better economic distribution
It’s frankly shocking and disturbing how many people are celebrating the collapse in fertility worldwide. This should be a sign that something we’re doing is very very wrong.
Plus population is expected to plateau around 9 billion so we’re not actually being threatened by overpopulation anytime soon.
I can’t help but be reminded of the movie Children of Men.
Plus population is expected to plateau around 9 billion so we’re not actually being threatened by overpopulation anytime soon.
I can’t help but be reminded of the movie Children of Men.
It's only a sign that we're doing something wrong if you assign a positive value to procreation. Many of us don't, either for ethical reasons (life includes suffering, and you have no right to inflict suffering on someone who didn't ask for it) or environmental reasons.
And as the logical conclusion of that ethical value system, I do sincerely hope we get a Children of Men scenario where we put an end to procreation entirely. (I'm aware that that viewpoint is fringe)
And as the logical conclusion of that ethical value system, I do sincerely hope we get a Children of Men scenario where we put an end to procreation entirely. (I'm aware that that viewpoint is fringe)
Having heard very few people espouse that opinion (which I share), I appreciate that you shared it. Somehow it seems very rare that parents consider their children's capacity for suffering before insisting that they exist without the chance to be asked if they actually want such an existence. Everyone just rolls the dice without truly knowing what they're getting into and assumes that "of course my kids will enjoy life, they're mine." It needs to change, in my opinion.
Population growth is vital for colonization of Mars.
Earth will have to produce a lot of people to send to Mars in order to have the genetic diversity for self-sustaining populations on Mars.
The people on Mars will then have to produce a lot of people to live and work there to generate growth and produce generations of humans who maintain The Light of Consciousness on Mars past any sort of otherwise human-extinction cataclysm back on Earth.
This is also the only hope of eventually repopulating the Earth in this scenario.
Earth will have to produce a lot of people to send to Mars in order to have the genetic diversity for self-sustaining populations on Mars.
The people on Mars will then have to produce a lot of people to live and work there to generate growth and produce generations of humans who maintain The Light of Consciousness on Mars past any sort of otherwise human-extinction cataclysm back on Earth.
This is also the only hope of eventually repopulating the Earth in this scenario.
Is this not true? or is there some flaw with this point?
Why do people disagree?
On the other hand he didn't disprove such a theory either -- we might have been just moving up a curve towards a critical point, where hysteresis then screws us.
But in general I'm pretty neutral: if people want more kids, great; if they don't, that's great too. So this sentence right at the front of the article really disturbs me:
> Population growth is vital for the world economy.
Most people seem to agree with this statement, which is the very definition of a pyramid scheme (see my point about hysteresis above). We've defined the goalposts such that this statement is in some sense tautologically true, but it leaves me with a profound sense of "so what?"
If fewer people are born, ultimately fewer houses will be needed, but why should that presume that less house construction will happen (perhaps there will be lots of renovations, or removal and new construction, or house builders will simply move to new fields as horsecart makers did).
We already know our growth metrics are crude and wrong, though we don't know really how much and in what ways. But there are plenty of potential scenarios where economic growth and human wellbeing does not require massive, or perhaps any population increase.