11 ms·

Surely this is a good thing? We (as a species) have been growing exponentially in an unsustainable manner. It'll be tough as we transition into looking after mo

Surely this is a good thing? We (as a species) have been growing exponentially in an unsustainable manner. It'll be tough as we transition into looking after more elderly with less of a young population to support them - but in the long run it's for the best.

pmyjavec 10y ago
Totally agree, although, hopefully they age with the environment in mind. There seems to be whole businesses building around milking elderly people's retirement money. I'm thinking about highly polluting cruise ships etc. Interesting times ahead.
czechdeveloper 10y ago
Exactly what i thought. In light of us living unsustainably, we can either decrease consumption, or decrease amount of people living on the planet. Or little bit of both. And if that happens organically, without special policies, the better still.
- c3833174 10y ago
  Tell that to people expecting continuous growth
  - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    People expecting continuous growth are in for a shock at some point, it's just a matter of when.
- Derpdiherp 10y ago
  Population control with the right to children is a very delicate subject and hard sell. My thoughts on the matter was always that nature itself will eventually take care of the numbers if we keep going the way we are without some form of measure to keep control - every population explosion has had it's eventual decline - sharp or smooth. We seem to believe that we're different but we're not. If we self regulate by choice - whether it's the lack of income, lifestyle or a lack of want to have children that has brought us here it's always going to be preferable. As unsavoury as it may be in some regards.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > nature itself will eventually take care of the numbers I don't think most people would disagree. It's just that nature isn't very merciful, and the way it enacts it's policies could lead to a lot of suffering. It'd be much more pleasant if we self-regulated so that nature didn't have to.
Kenji 10y ago
Exactly. I always hear people saying "waa waa there need to be more young than old" nice logic mate, let's grow the human population infinitely.
- douche 10y ago
  The only way that works, without exponential growth, in this day of modern medicine is if you start "Logan's Run"ing off the old people. Which, I'm going to go out on a wild limb here, is probably not an acceptable solution...
tremon 10y ago
In the current economic climate, it is not a good thing. Due to the past 50+ years of policy making, a large part of the able-bodied workforce is excluded from contributing to the GDP. And as long as economic policy (both business and government) is still driven by the myopic vision that GDP is all that matters, all those "old people" are a burden, not an asset. In itself, having a more reasonably distributed age distribution is neutral (in my view). But it is a consequence of two good things: the population boom is leveling off, and healthcare has improved tremendously around the globe.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > a large part of the able-bodied workforce is excluded from contributing to the GDP Could you explain? Recent policy seems to have been about pushing everyone possible into the workforce, even the not-able-bodied. By every means short of actually putting up wages.
  - douche 10y ago
    We've got almost a third of the US population that has dropped out of the workforce completely[1], with another 5.5% unemployed but still trying. [1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/americans-not-labor-force-exceed-93-million-first-time-627-labor-force http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/americans-not-...
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    It literally means there is high unemployment of young people. It can also be pushed into meaning that young people are mostly barred from effectively investing and creating successful business.
  - tremon 10y ago
    I was referring to pensions and early retirement mainly. Yes, there have been recent efforts to shift the retirement age upwards, and I'm certainly not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to retire at all. But a population-wide cutoff at a certain age seems arbitrary, and I've seen plenty of examples around me of people starting self-employment in their 60s, simply because employers could no longer legally hire them. Of course, the other side of that coin is that there needs to be enough jobs available to employ everyone, and forcing retirement is one way to reduce a labour surplus...
s_kilk 10y ago
One huge downside would be that older people tend to skew to the more conservative end of the political spectrum, and can end up drowning out the voices of the young. See the age breakdown of the recent Brexit vote for one example. I also remember with the Irish referendum on gay marriage in 2015, there was much worry that the older generations would swing the overall vote to "No", despite the legislation having no impact on them. Worth thinking about: How many Brexit "Leave" voters have simply died of old age in the two months between then and now?
- pc86 10y ago
  > One huge downside would be that older people tend to skew to the more conservative end of the political spectrum Only a downside if you (a) disagree with them; (b) for whatever reason, feel they are not entitled to their beliefs > and can end up drowning out the voices of the young. Funny how when your opinions are the majority it's democracy, and when they're not it's "voices being drowned out." > Worth thinking about: How many Brexit "Leave" voters have simply died of old age in the two months between then and now? It's not.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    You are correct if everyone gets to vote. If the elderly with little to do all day have an easier time getting to the polls than the working class single mom supporting them, then you have a problem. I say make election day a national holiday. The AARP likely disagrees. You don't even have to do that, I'd make July 4th election day in the states for example.
    - nradov 10y ago
      While I don't particularly like the AARP, they haven't said anything against making voting day a national holiday. And with voting by mail it's totally unnecessary anyway. In CA now even postage is free so there are zero obstacles preventing the working class from voting.
      - 10y ago
tcoppi 10y ago
Demographic shifts like this and the ensuing competition for limited resources are the kind of things that fuel major wars. It may be the transition that is needed long-term, but we should be very mindful of the way it is actually achieved.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > Demographic shifts like this and the ensuing competition for limited resources Less resources are needed if you have less people. Ultimately everyone will benefit from it.
  - tcoppi 10y ago
    The thing is we don't have less people right now. The population is still growing rapidly, just getting older overall. That is going to lead to a massive grab for limited resources(not just physical like food and basic goods, but time for caretakers, medical services, etc.) that could be massively destabilizing. We've already seen rising food prices recently lead to unrest in poorer regions of the world, that could be only the beginning.
    - ekianjo 10y ago
      I'd just like to remind people that at the beginning of the 20th century many were predicting the doom of Mankind once we would reach one billion folks. Needless to say it did not happen and we went much further than one billion and took care of starvation along the way. Of course there are many reasons for this, but let's not underestimate the resources of mankind to solve its problems.
      - tcoppi 10y ago
        I completely agree, I don't think it will end up being a massive disaster in the long-run, precisely because people will be thinking about how to solve them. Quick dismissal of the potential problems that could result does not help us solve them.
naasking 10y ago
> Surely this is a good thing? We (as a species) have been growing exponentially in an unsustainable manner. Population growth has been slowing due to increases in quality of living, and is set to peak around 2050. Then we'll experience population deflation, which may be even more problematic than inflation.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
It would be a good thing if not for a policy of covering losses by importing large number of people from struggling societies that many affected countries have adopted. Which BTW makes no sense when you look closer at demographics, since most depopulating areas are rural, but immigrants usually live compactly in countries' largest cities (where also existing youth flocks to), increasing population imbalance in fact. Yes they get total head count stable but at cost of getting everything else wrong.
dracht 10y ago
Tell that to (most) EU governments. They are selling mass-immigration as a solution to an aging population.
- 2almalki 10y ago
  I think its a valid way to solve that problem. In Canada, the STEM programs are filled with 2nd/3rd generation immigrants that were labourers, servers, restaurent workers, etc. These guys/gals go on to get 40-80k salary jobs after uni/college and pay significant taxes WHICH help pay for medical/state pension for the aging populaion
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    It's not solving any problem[1], and Canada is an extreme example as a country and can't be used as a model for (mostly) monocultural countries. 1: First people argue there's no problem with low birth rate, and then people tell that they're solving the problem. Pick one.
    - 2almalki 10y ago
      I'd say there is a problem with low birth rate :)
- icebraining 10y ago
  And that's exactly right: the only way to get more people of working age to a region without increasing the world population is with migration.
drakonka 10y ago
I would tend to agree. Of course having fewer young people to contribute to taking care of old people and such is going to be tough, but governments will need to adapt and find ways to deal with it. The problem of not enough young people to contribute to our worker churn system to me seems far preferable to population growth that our planet cannot sustain.
mathattack 10y ago
I was thinking the same thing. From an environmental point of view, less damage. From an economic point of view, more capital and wealth per person. The only downside is people will need to live longer.
aiyodev 10y ago
> We (as a species) have been growing exponentially in an unsustainable manner. This is a myth. In fact birth rates are decelerating at an alarming rate and actually starting to decrease in some parts of the world. In a couple of decades, population is projected to begin decreasing worldwide. Many governments are creating programs to encourage procreation to try to hold off the inevitable death spiral most countries will experience.

pmyjavec 10y ago

Totally agree, although, hopefully they age with the environment in mind. There seems to be whole businesses building around milking elderly people's retirement money. I'm thinking about highly polluting cruise ships etc. Interesting times ahead.

czechdeveloper 10y ago

Exactly what i thought. In light of us living unsustainably, we can either decrease consumption, or decrease amount of people living on the planet. Or little bit of both. And if that happens organically, without special policies, the better still.

c3833174 10y ago
Tell that to people expecting continuous growth
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  People expecting continuous growth are in for a shock at some point, it's just a matter of when.
Derpdiherp 10y ago
Population control with the right to children is a very delicate subject and hard sell. My thoughts on the matter was always that nature itself will eventually take care of the numbers if we keep going the way we are without some form of measure to keep control - every population explosion has had it's eventual decline - sharp or smooth. We seem to believe that we're different but we're not. If we self regulate by choice - whether it's the lack of income, lifestyle or a lack of want to have children that has brought us here it's always going to be preferable. As unsavoury as it may be in some regards.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > nature itself will eventually take care of the numbers I don't think most people would disagree. It's just that nature isn't very merciful, and the way it enacts it's policies could lead to a lot of suffering. It'd be much more pleasant if we self-regulated so that nature didn't have to.

Kenji 10y ago

Exactly. I always hear people saying "waa waa there need to be more young than old" nice logic mate, let's grow the human population infinitely.

douche 10y ago
The only way that works, without exponential growth, in this day of modern medicine is if you start "Logan's Run"ing off the old people. Which, I'm going to go out on a wild limb here, is probably not an acceptable solution...

tremon 10y ago

In the current economic climate, it is not a good thing. Due to the past 50+ years of policy making, a large part of the able-bodied workforce is excluded from contributing to the GDP. And as long as economic policy (both business and government) is still driven by the myopic vision that GDP is all that matters, all those "old people" are a burden, not an asset. In itself, having a more reasonably distributed age distribution is neutral (in my view). But it is a consequence of two good things: the population boom is leveling off, and healthcare has improved tremendously around the globe.

pjc50 10y ago
> a large part of the able-bodied workforce is excluded from contributing to the GDP Could you explain? Recent policy seems to have been about pushing everyone possible into the workforce, even the not-able-bodied. By every means short of actually putting up wages.
- douche 10y ago
  We've got almost a third of the US population that has dropped out of the workforce completely[1], with another 5.5% unemployed but still trying. [1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/americans-not-labor-force-exceed-93-million-first-time-627-labor-force http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/americans-not-...
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  It literally means there is high unemployment of young people. It can also be pushed into meaning that young people are mostly barred from effectively investing and creating successful business.
- tremon 10y ago
  I was referring to pensions and early retirement mainly. Yes, there have been recent efforts to shift the retirement age upwards, and I'm certainly not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to retire at all. But a population-wide cutoff at a certain age seems arbitrary, and I've seen plenty of examples around me of people starting self-employment in their 60s, simply because employers could no longer legally hire them. Of course, the other side of that coin is that there needs to be enough jobs available to employ everyone, and forcing retirement is one way to reduce a labour surplus...

s_kilk 10y ago

One huge downside would be that older people tend to skew to the more conservative end of the political spectrum, and can end up drowning out the voices of the young. See the age breakdown of the recent Brexit vote for one example. I also remember with the Irish referendum on gay marriage in 2015, there was much worry that the older generations would swing the overall vote to "No", despite the legislation having no impact on them. Worth thinking about: How many Brexit "Leave" voters have simply died of old age in the two months between then and now?

pc86 10y ago
> One huge downside would be that older people tend to skew to the more conservative end of the political spectrum Only a downside if you (a) disagree with them; (b) for whatever reason, feel they are not entitled to their beliefs > and can end up drowning out the voices of the young. Funny how when your opinions are the majority it's democracy, and when they're not it's "voices being drowned out." > Worth thinking about: How many Brexit "Leave" voters have simply died of old age in the two months between then and now? It's not.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  You are correct if everyone gets to vote. If the elderly with little to do all day have an easier time getting to the polls than the working class single mom supporting them, then you have a problem. I say make election day a national holiday. The AARP likely disagrees. You don't even have to do that, I'd make July 4th election day in the states for example.
  - nradov 10y ago
    While I don't particularly like the AARP, they haven't said anything against making voting day a national holiday. And with voting by mail it's totally unnecessary anyway. In CA now even postage is free so there are zero obstacles preventing the working class from voting.
    - 10y ago

tcoppi 10y ago

Demographic shifts like this and the ensuing competition for limited resources are the kind of things that fuel major wars. It may be the transition that is needed long-term, but we should be very mindful of the way it is actually achieved.

ekianjo 10y ago
> Demographic shifts like this and the ensuing competition for limited resources Less resources are needed if you have less people. Ultimately everyone will benefit from it.
- tcoppi 10y ago
  The thing is we don't have less people right now. The population is still growing rapidly, just getting older overall. That is going to lead to a massive grab for limited resources(not just physical like food and basic goods, but time for caretakers, medical services, etc.) that could be massively destabilizing. We've already seen rising food prices recently lead to unrest in poorer regions of the world, that could be only the beginning.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    I'd just like to remind people that at the beginning of the 20th century many were predicting the doom of Mankind once we would reach one billion folks. Needless to say it did not happen and we went much further than one billion and took care of starvation along the way. Of course there are many reasons for this, but let's not underestimate the resources of mankind to solve its problems.
    - tcoppi 10y ago
      I completely agree, I don't think it will end up being a massive disaster in the long-run, precisely because people will be thinking about how to solve them. Quick dismissal of the potential problems that could result does not help us solve them.

naasking 10y ago

> Surely this is a good thing? We (as a species) have been growing exponentially in an unsustainable manner. Population growth has been slowing due to increases in quality of living, and is set to peak around 2050. Then we'll experience population deflation, which may be even more problematic than inflation.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

It would be a good thing if not for a policy of covering losses by importing large number of people from struggling societies that many affected countries have adopted. Which BTW makes no sense when you look closer at demographics, since most depopulating areas are rural, but immigrants usually live compactly in countries' largest cities (where also existing youth flocks to), increasing population imbalance in fact. Yes they get total head count stable but at cost of getting everything else wrong.

dracht 10y ago

Tell that to (most) EU governments. They are selling mass-immigration as a solution to an aging population.

2almalki 10y ago
I think its a valid way to solve that problem. In Canada, the STEM programs are filled with 2nd/3rd generation immigrants that were labourers, servers, restaurent workers, etc. These guys/gals go on to get 40-80k salary jobs after uni/college and pay significant taxes WHICH help pay for medical/state pension for the aging populaion
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  It's not solving any problem[1], and Canada is an extreme example as a country and can't be used as a model for (mostly) monocultural countries. 1: First people argue there's no problem with low birth rate, and then people tell that they're solving the problem. Pick one.
  - 2almalki 10y ago
    I'd say there is a problem with low birth rate :)
icebraining 10y ago
And that's exactly right: the only way to get more people of working age to a region without increasing the world population is with migration.

drakonka 10y ago

I would tend to agree. Of course having fewer young people to contribute to taking care of old people and such is going to be tough, but governments will need to adapt and find ways to deal with it. The problem of not enough young people to contribute to our worker churn system to me seems far preferable to population growth that our planet cannot sustain.

mathattack 10y ago

I was thinking the same thing. From an environmental point of view, less damage. From an economic point of view, more capital and wealth per person. The only downside is people will need to live longer.

aiyodev 10y ago

> We (as a species) have been growing exponentially in an unsustainable manner. This is a myth. In fact birth rates are decelerating at an alarming rate and actually starting to decrease in some parts of the world. In a couple of decades, population is projected to begin decreasing worldwide. Many governments are creating programs to encourage procreation to try to hold off the inevitable death spiral most countries will experience.