3 ms·

Yes. Capitalism will exist so long as there is scarcity. Humanity has proven that when technology gives us abundance, we will reproduce until there's scarcity

Yes. Capitalism will exist so long as there is scarcity. Humanity has proven that when technology gives us abundance, we will reproduce until there's scarcity again. Machines can make things more efficient, but not faster than humans breed.

matt4077 10y ago
Birth rates have taken a massive hit in all advanced economies except for the US. I think we're well beyond the "expanding until food runs out" stage.
- adventured 10y ago
  Birth rates have taken a massive hit in the US in fact. The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years. In 1980, the US was about 80% white demographically. Today it's about 63% white and falling rapidly. The difference between those two, is tens of millions of immigrants from Latin America and Asia. The US has absorbed 10 to 12 million immigrants from just Mexico since 1980. Remove the immigration from Latin America + Asia and US population growth over the last 30 years in particular falls to barely a trickle; it'd likely be flat at this point.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years. Untrue; the US still has a positive rate of natural increase. Immigration is responsible for a hair more growth than natural increase, but isn't the sole source of increase.
    - Kbelicius 10y ago
      Untrue; US natives have a negative rate while immigrants from poorer countries have a positive rate. Among immigrants the birth rate dramatically falls with the second generation. In 2014 the fertility rate was 1.9 which is below replacement.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        No, it's absolutely true that the US has a positive natural rate of increase, and that not all population growth is due to immigration; increase due to immigration is the increase from people crossing the border. Naturally increase in the non-native population isn't increase "due to immigration", either in the terms normally used in population dynamics, or, really, in any meaningful sense other than the way in which all population increase in a place where humanity didn't arise is attributable to some past migration.
        Kbelicius 10y ago
        Wherever I look at general, completed, and total fertility rates are below replacement rates for US. Do you have any source on this positive natural rate of increase?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Fertility rate below replacement isn't the same as not having positive rate of natural increase; like you, I find every source on fertility rate has it below replacement, but every source on natural increase has it positive. [0] That's entirely consistent; below replacement fertility doesn't imply a current negative rate of natural increase, though if maintained indefinitely it implies an eventual negative rate of natural increase. [1] [0] examples: https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/topics/Demographics/Population/Rate-of-natural-increase https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/topics/Dem... http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-population-growth-decline.aspx http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-population-... http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html [1] Assuming the replacement rate is accurate, but current replacement rates are based on projections into the future based on past mortality trends, and can be inaccurate in projecting what is needed for replacement for that reason.
  - andrewclunn 10y ago
    If population continues to grow because of immigration AND it continues to grow in the nations where people are immigrating from, then it's still increasing due to birth rates. I don't know why anyone would take a question that was generally about humanity as a whole and make it US centric.

matt4077 10y ago

Birth rates have taken a massive hit in all advanced economies except for the US. I think we're well beyond the "expanding until food runs out" stage.

adventured 10y ago
Birth rates have taken a massive hit in the US in fact. The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years. In 1980, the US was about 80% white demographically. Today it's about 63% white and falling rapidly. The difference between those two, is tens of millions of immigrants from Latin America and Asia. The US has absorbed 10 to 12 million immigrants from just Mexico since 1980. Remove the immigration from Latin America + Asia and US population growth over the last 30 years in particular falls to barely a trickle; it'd likely be flat at this point.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years. Untrue; the US still has a positive rate of natural increase. Immigration is responsible for a hair more growth than natural increase, but isn't the sole source of increase.
  - Kbelicius 10y ago
    Untrue; US natives have a negative rate while immigrants from poorer countries have a positive rate. Among immigrants the birth rate dramatically falls with the second generation. In 2014 the fertility rate was 1.9 which is below replacement.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      No, it's absolutely true that the US has a positive natural rate of increase, and that not all population growth is due to immigration; increase due to immigration is the increase from people crossing the border. Naturally increase in the non-native population isn't increase "due to immigration", either in the terms normally used in population dynamics, or, really, in any meaningful sense other than the way in which all population increase in a place where humanity didn't arise is attributable to some past migration.
      - Kbelicius 10y ago
        Wherever I look at general, completed, and total fertility rates are below replacement rates for US. Do you have any source on this positive natural rate of increase?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Fertility rate below replacement isn't the same as not having positive rate of natural increase; like you, I find every source on fertility rate has it below replacement, but every source on natural increase has it positive. [0] That's entirely consistent; below replacement fertility doesn't imply a current negative rate of natural increase, though if maintained indefinitely it implies an eventual negative rate of natural increase. [1] [0] examples: https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/topics/Demographics/Population/Rate-of-natural-increase https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/topics/Dem... http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-population-growth-decline.aspx http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-population-... http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html [1] Assuming the replacement rate is accurate, but current replacement rates are based on projections into the future based on past mortality trends, and can be inaccurate in projecting what is needed for replacement for that reason.
- andrewclunn 10y ago
  If population continues to grow because of immigration AND it continues to grow in the nations where people are immigrating from, then it's still increasing due to birth rates. I don't know why anyone would take a question that was generally about humanity as a whole and make it US centric.