5 ms·

Thus starts the demographic inversion. Hopefully we can fix it before we go the way of Japan.

by mlindner 9y ago

sgarman 9y ago
My uneducated opinion is why try to keep adding MORE people to the planet?
- paulcole 9y ago
  I was downvoted heavily for suggesting the best decision a person can make for the planet/sustainability is to not have kids.
  - CodeMage 9y ago
    I'll go out on a limb and say you're being downvoted because it's not actually "the best decision a person can make for the planet/sustainability". It's not even a good decision, really.
    - paulcole 9y ago
      What do you think a person can do to benefit the environment/reduce human impact on the planet more than not adding another person to the mix?
  - eveningcoffee 9y ago
    If you ancestors had 10 kids then yes, maybe. Otherwise 1 kid per parent (on average) is what is sustainable.
    - paulcole 9y ago
      > Otherwise 1 kid per parent (on average) is what is sustainable. Says who? People are responsible for climate change. I mean have a kid if you want to and think it'll be fun or whatever, but the idea that it's "sustainable" decision is a joke.
      - eveningcoffee 9y ago
        Well, if you want to work till death then be my guest. If you believe that society should somehow support their old then I think that one should provide at least one replacement. If you expect that somebodies else children should support you then I question your sanity. Why should they choose to do so? If you think that you will be supported by riches you collect during your life time then keep in mind that riches are imaginary. If you will have no children but 10 others will have 10 children (each) then which genes will prevail? Sustainable or not sustainable? Edit: I think that it is sustainable to have 1 child per parent. It will keep the population constant. What is not sustainable is to have more than 1 per parent. If we could convince the majority of the world to follow this then the prospects will be much better than today. What I consider a joke is a belief that if you die out next to the society with very high fertility then it somehow helps the planet. It does not make a dent.
        paulcole 9y ago
        How does forcing kids to care for dying parents have any impact on the sustainability/environmental impact of having kids. > If you expect that somebodies else children should support you then I question your sanity. Why should they choose to do so? Why are you so sure your own kids would choose to do so? Aren't you making a hundred-thousand-dollar-plus child-rearing bet that they'll feel guilty enough to care for you? Why not just spend that money on a paid caretaker? > If you will have no children but 10 others will have 10 children (each) then which genes will prevail? Sustainable or not sustainable? Just because other people are making a bad decision doesn't mean you have to make it, too.
        eveningcoffee 9y ago
        >Aren't you making a hundred-thousand-dollar-plus child-rearing bet that they'll feel guilty enough to care for you? This is not how the things work. >Why not just spend that money on a paid caretaker? Lets imagine that single generation just stops having children. Where exactly does this caretaker come from? Now imagine that just half does so. What will happen to the economic output and therefore with the accumulated value (money, stock, real estate) you plan to use to pay for these services? If the society is struggling to just keep up with itself then where exactly does this caretaker come from? Economy is not a fixed state. It is a living organism. Riches are imaginary. If you have no sustainable economy then your riches will vanish. >Just because other people are making a bad decision doesn't mean you have to make it, too. I was pointing out that if sustainable thinking just dies out then perhaps that is not the outcome you would expect.
- eveningcoffee 9y ago
  If rich and sustainable society goes the way of Todo then how is it helping?
- LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
  Your uneducated opinion of tomorrow is you want someone to work for your pension.
- mlindner 9y ago
  Because having a family is a good way to a happy life.
gumby 9y ago
What's the downside or "the way of Japan"? They had a terrible 20 year economic hangover due to a massive bubble poorly handled, and that definitely had massive negative social spillover effects. But over the past 15 years social surveys have shown increasing (and solidly net positive) happiness and satisfaction with the quality of life across all demographic groups except the extremely old. Notably, over the past decade Japanese life satisfaction levels are higher than the same surveys show in North America and Europe. An economic system that depends on a pyramid model is ultimately unsustainable. I don't mean in the "there's a population bomb problem the planet's going to die unless we do something!" sense -- I don't in fact agree with that. But there's no reason why the system can't and ought not achieve balance.
- mlindner 9y ago
  The downside of "the way of Japan" is that they'll shortly have no one to pay for all the old people. Keeping old people alive is expensive. In the US young people pay old people's social security income. You see how many people are talking about the aging baby boomers right? Imagine that but much worse.
  - gumby 9y ago
    Increased labor productivity through automation (and allowing people to live longer on their own through assistive devices) should ameliorate this. There's no shortage of young people globally so Japan could always import more if they wanted to. Again, a pyramid-based model can't go on forever.
    - mortician 9y ago
      Uhm, capitalism and the state says otherwise, sweetie. ;)

Thus starts the demographic inversion. Hopefully we can fix it before we go the way of Japan.

sgarman 9y ago

My uneducated opinion is why try to keep adding MORE people to the planet?

paulcole 9y ago
I was downvoted heavily for suggesting the best decision a person can make for the planet/sustainability is to not have kids.
- CodeMage 9y ago
  I'll go out on a limb and say you're being downvoted because it's not actually "the best decision a person can make for the planet/sustainability". It's not even a good decision, really.
  - paulcole 9y ago
    What do you think a person can do to benefit the environment/reduce human impact on the planet more than not adding another person to the mix?
- eveningcoffee 9y ago
  If you ancestors had 10 kids then yes, maybe. Otherwise 1 kid per parent (on average) is what is sustainable.
  - paulcole 9y ago
    > Otherwise 1 kid per parent (on average) is what is sustainable. Says who? People are responsible for climate change. I mean have a kid if you want to and think it'll be fun or whatever, but the idea that it's "sustainable" decision is a joke.
    - eveningcoffee 9y ago
      Well, if you want to work till death then be my guest. If you believe that society should somehow support their old then I think that one should provide at least one replacement. If you expect that somebodies else children should support you then I question your sanity. Why should they choose to do so? If you think that you will be supported by riches you collect during your life time then keep in mind that riches are imaginary. If you will have no children but 10 others will have 10 children (each) then which genes will prevail? Sustainable or not sustainable? Edit: I think that it is sustainable to have 1 child per parent. It will keep the population constant. What is not sustainable is to have more than 1 per parent. If we could convince the majority of the world to follow this then the prospects will be much better than today. What I consider a joke is a belief that if you die out next to the society with very high fertility then it somehow helps the planet. It does not make a dent.
      - paulcole 9y ago
        How does forcing kids to care for dying parents have any impact on the sustainability/environmental impact of having kids. > If you expect that somebodies else children should support you then I question your sanity. Why should they choose to do so? Why are you so sure your own kids would choose to do so? Aren't you making a hundred-thousand-dollar-plus child-rearing bet that they'll feel guilty enough to care for you? Why not just spend that money on a paid caretaker? > If you will have no children but 10 others will have 10 children (each) then which genes will prevail? Sustainable or not sustainable? Just because other people are making a bad decision doesn't mean you have to make it, too.
        eveningcoffee 9y ago
        >Aren't you making a hundred-thousand-dollar-plus child-rearing bet that they'll feel guilty enough to care for you? This is not how the things work. >Why not just spend that money on a paid caretaker? Lets imagine that single generation just stops having children. Where exactly does this caretaker come from? Now imagine that just half does so. What will happen to the economic output and therefore with the accumulated value (money, stock, real estate) you plan to use to pay for these services? If the society is struggling to just keep up with itself then where exactly does this caretaker come from? Economy is not a fixed state. It is a living organism. Riches are imaginary. If you have no sustainable economy then your riches will vanish. >Just because other people are making a bad decision doesn't mean you have to make it, too. I was pointing out that if sustainable thinking just dies out then perhaps that is not the outcome you would expect.
eveningcoffee 9y ago
If rich and sustainable society goes the way of Todo then how is it helping?
LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
Your uneducated opinion of tomorrow is you want someone to work for your pension.
mlindner 9y ago
Because having a family is a good way to a happy life.

gumby 9y ago

What's the downside or "the way of Japan"? They had a terrible 20 year economic hangover due to a massive bubble poorly handled, and that definitely had massive negative social spillover effects. But over the past 15 years social surveys have shown increasing (and solidly net positive) happiness and satisfaction with the quality of life across all demographic groups except the extremely old. Notably, over the past decade Japanese life satisfaction levels are higher than the same surveys show in North America and Europe. An economic system that depends on a pyramid model is ultimately unsustainable. I don't mean in the "there's a population bomb problem the planet's going to die unless we do something!" sense -- I don't in fact agree with that. But there's no reason why the system can't and ought not achieve balance.

mlindner 9y ago
The downside of "the way of Japan" is that they'll shortly have no one to pay for all the old people. Keeping old people alive is expensive. In the US young people pay old people's social security income. You see how many people are talking about the aging baby boomers right? Imagine that but much worse.
- gumby 9y ago
  Increased labor productivity through automation (and allowing people to live longer on their own through assistive devices) should ameliorate this. There's no shortage of young people globally so Japan could always import more if they wanted to. Again, a pyramid-based model can't go on forever.
  - mortician 9y ago
    Uhm, capitalism and the state says otherwise, sweetie. ;)