3 ms·

The economy is fueled by population. Any decrease in the US birth rate will be more than compensated for by increased immigration.

by z0r 8y ago

mcny 8y ago
> The economy is fueled by population. Any decrease in the US birth rate will be more than compensated for by increased immigration. I am all for mooching on the rest of the world if that is what it takes. The immigrants will be subject to the same one-child policy though. No exceptions* * I think there is appetite for an exception for natural twins based on replies here. We will need to see how it holds up in practice.
- z0r 8y ago
  I think your idea for reducing the birth rate in the US even further is poorly considered. As for immigrants, I'm certain that their children end up with the same decreased rate of childbirth thanks to economic pressure. Optimization for GDP growth results in an increased global population. If you want a more sustainable human footprint on the world as a whole, what you want to pursue is _global_ negative GDP growth. If you want to see a decreased US ecological footprint you should be against immigration.
  - mcny 8y ago
    > Optimization for GDP growth results in an increased global population. If you want a more sustainable human footprint on the world as a whole, what you want to pursue is _global_ negative GDP growth. If you want to see a decreased US ecological footprint you should be against immigration. Sorry if this question is stupid. I am not an economist. Is global GDP growth non-negotiable?
    - z0r 8y ago
      I don't think it's a stupid question. I'm not an economist either. It's debatable (if you use Google, you can easily find a lot of environmental and economic papers talking about the subject) but GDP growth is probably a good proxy for environmental footprint growth as of now. Of course it's possible to imagine better production technologies producing the same or more output for less input, but broadly speaking if you are a fan of a sustainable future you should be an advocate of negative growth economies.

The economy is fueled by population. Any decrease in the US birth rate will be more than compensated for by increased immigration.

by z0r 8y ago

The economy is fueled by population. Any decrease in the US birth rate will be more than compensated for by increased immigration.

mcny 8y ago

> The economy is fueled by population. Any decrease in the US birth rate will be more than compensated for by increased immigration. I am all for mooching on the rest of the world if that is what it takes. The immigrants will be subject to the same one-child policy though. No exceptions* * I think there is appetite for an exception for natural twins based on replies here. We will need to see how it holds up in practice.

z0r 8y ago
I think your idea for reducing the birth rate in the US even further is poorly considered. As for immigrants, I'm certain that their children end up with the same decreased rate of childbirth thanks to economic pressure. Optimization for GDP growth results in an increased global population. If you want a more sustainable human footprint on the world as a whole, what you want to pursue is _global_ negative GDP growth. If you want to see a decreased US ecological footprint you should be against immigration.
- mcny 8y ago
  > Optimization for GDP growth results in an increased global population. If you want a more sustainable human footprint on the world as a whole, what you want to pursue is _global_ negative GDP growth. If you want to see a decreased US ecological footprint you should be against immigration. Sorry if this question is stupid. I am not an economist. Is global GDP growth non-negotiable?
  - z0r 8y ago
    I don't think it's a stupid question. I'm not an economist either. It's debatable (if you use Google, you can easily find a lot of environmental and economic papers talking about the subject) but GDP growth is probably a good proxy for environmental footprint growth as of now. Of course it's possible to imagine better production technologies producing the same or more output for less input, but broadly speaking if you are a fan of a sustainable future you should be an advocate of negative growth economies.