5 ms·

>The ageing and shrinking population is a temporary, one-off problem. There's no fundamental reason why a replacement or below-replacement birth rate is a probl

>The ageing and shrinking population is a temporary, one-off problem. There's no fundamental reason why a replacement or below-replacement birth rate is a problem - in many ways it's advantageous - but it's a really big problem over the next few decades because we didn't plan for it. Taking a perhaps unwarranted broad view, economies of scale allow for us to achieve certain productive activities that we would otherwise not be able to. Taken to an extreme, a tribe of 100 humans would never be able to develop a space program, for example. Even aside from that, more people means more "black swan" thinkers/entrepreneurs that can have a population-wide impact. It took just one Einstein to develop General Relativity and now humanity will benefit forever. Obviously humans are chewing through natural resources at an astounding and unsustainable rate, and we'll extinguish ourselves in a few hundred years if nothing changes. If your view is that humanity should co-exist in much smaller numbers in harmony with nature on Earth, your statements are reasonable. I take the optimistic view that we're meant to keep growing indefinitely beyond the Earth, and so a shrinking, aging population is indeed a concern.

jdietrich 7y ago
UN forecasts suggest that the global population will plateau at between 9 and 11 billion by 2100 to 2150, followed by stasis or a very gradual decline. IMO, those are excellent numbers - more than large enough to launch an interplanetary civilisation, but manageable within the resource constraints of Earth. I'd be worried if the population was forecast to shrink below a billion, but that's highly unlikely on any reasonable timescale. I'd be worried if the population rose much above 11 billion, because then resources start getting really tight. Anywhere in the middle is fine by me. If we do start terraforming Mars, I might be inclined to incentivise population growth. Unless we're absolutely certain that we can make it work, further population growth is a huge risk - every extra billion increases the pressure on resources, which increases the risk of conflict, which increases the risk of an extinction-level event.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  The UN forecasts are ridiculous at any long term timescale. They assume that desire for children is not heritable so everywhere will undergo the demographic transition and just somehow magically the world will reach replacement fertility and stay there. In reality the share of births to women who already have 4, 5, 6, 7, 8+ children has been increasing in the US for over a decade and the ultra orthodox have gone from politically marginal in Israel to over 1/4 of the population. They’ll probably be a majority in my lifetime. In the US Mormons, Amish, Hutterites and Hasidim all have high to very high fertility. Absent a deliberate state driven destruction of their culture, Soviet style, that’s likely to continue and the same dynamic of cultural and biological evolution for greater fertility will just keep on working somewhere. There will be no stabilisation of population.
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
    All population data for the last century disagrees, and no magic is needed to explain why: the cost of raising children in modern society is so high and the child mortality rate so low that there is strong societal pressure to have less children. Sure, some fringe groups can resist this in the same way that the Amish resist electricity, but this will not be mainstream. Even the Haredim are having less children than they used to: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5439005,00.html https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5439005,00.html
    - coldtea 7y ago
      That assumes both the cost will remain the same (or a factor), and that children mortality rate will continue to be low, neither or which are a given. Add a couple climate catastrophes and wars for resources, and we can see the landscape in 2100 or 2200...
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    But the US has been at or under replacement rate for births overall for a long time now. I'm an exmormon, birth rates are higher for Mormons, certainly, but even they've been obviously dropping. I had three batchmates out of 9 in the missionary training center with 10+ kids in their family. That used to be relatively common, now it's almost unheard of for newer families.

jdietrich 7y ago

UN forecasts suggest that the global population will plateau at between 9 and 11 billion by 2100 to 2150, followed by stasis or a very gradual decline. IMO, those are excellent numbers - more than large enough to launch an interplanetary civilisation, but manageable within the resource constraints of Earth. I'd be worried if the population was forecast to shrink below a billion, but that's highly unlikely on any reasonable timescale. I'd be worried if the population rose much above 11 billion, because then resources start getting really tight. Anywhere in the middle is fine by me. If we do start terraforming Mars, I might be inclined to incentivise population growth. Unless we're absolutely certain that we can make it work, further population growth is a huge risk - every extra billion increases the pressure on resources, which increases the risk of conflict, which increases the risk of an extinction-level event.

barry-cotter 7y ago
The UN forecasts are ridiculous at any long term timescale. They assume that desire for children is not heritable so everywhere will undergo the demographic transition and just somehow magically the world will reach replacement fertility and stay there. In reality the share of births to women who already have 4, 5, 6, 7, 8+ children has been increasing in the US for over a decade and the ultra orthodox have gone from politically marginal in Israel to over 1/4 of the population. They’ll probably be a majority in my lifetime. In the US Mormons, Amish, Hutterites and Hasidim all have high to very high fertility. Absent a deliberate state driven destruction of their culture, Soviet style, that’s likely to continue and the same dynamic of cultural and biological evolution for greater fertility will just keep on working somewhere. There will be no stabilisation of population.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  All population data for the last century disagrees, and no magic is needed to explain why: the cost of raising children in modern society is so high and the child mortality rate so low that there is strong societal pressure to have less children. Sure, some fringe groups can resist this in the same way that the Amish resist electricity, but this will not be mainstream. Even the Haredim are having less children than they used to: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5439005,00.html https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5439005,00.html
  - coldtea 7y ago
    That assumes both the cost will remain the same (or a factor), and that children mortality rate will continue to be low, neither or which are a given. Add a couple climate catastrophes and wars for resources, and we can see the landscape in 2100 or 2200...
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  But the US has been at or under replacement rate for births overall for a long time now. I'm an exmormon, birth rates are higher for Mormons, certainly, but even they've been obviously dropping. I had three batchmates out of 9 in the missionary training center with 10+ kids in their family. That used to be relatively common, now it's almost unheard of for newer families.