3 ms·

Maybe but we also need an increase in quality of life, not a decrease. While a plateau (and even reduction) in number of people would not necessarily be a bad t

by nolok 7y ago

Maybe but we also need an increase in quality of life, not a decrease. While a plateau (and even reduction) in number of people would not necessarily be a bad thing, it needs to be in a kind of controller fashion to avoid a broken age pyramid, ending up with too many elders incapabke of substaining their means by themselves, and too few working age people to support them, ending with both group living below the means we should strive for them to reach. The age pyramid in some european countries, in china, in japan, ... Is scary, and not because of the decline of population it represents, but because unless we also change and adapt society accordingly there simply won't be enough people to pay for those who can't work anymore, and the few that can pay end up paying more than their fair share. It's a huge issue, and nobody wants to change it much, making it feels like we will wait until the situation explodes before adapting.

ajeet_dhaliwal 7y ago
Right, it's a balance. A small decrease may not impact quality of life but a larger one would. Imagine Steve Jobs living in a world of population 1000. He'd be living like a homeless person foraging for berries in bushes in the forest, no matter how good his entrepreneurial skills may be. We need people to innovate, build, grow, trade with each other to achieve high quality of life.
candiodari 7y ago
But that ship has sailed. Population changes are notorious in how extremely predictable they are. If we wanted a slow decline we needed to act 20 years ago. Right now the numbers look suspiciously quiet, hiding the fact that there are a number of countries growing ridiculously fast (sub-Saharan Africa), and a lot of countries (all of "the West", except the US) in accelerating decline. So there will be increasing immigration despite low (global) population growth. And this is over and done with. It's a fact at this point. Policy today can only determine if in 20 years we want to cause +0.2% in kids or -0.2% in kids. I mean anything short of a meteor strike or new spanish flu won't really influence anything sooner.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  If they are predictable then many people have done an extraordinarily bad job at projections. Because there are a lot of real howlers out there then if you look at proven wrong population projections of the past both from Malthusian demagogues and official sources trying to do extrapolations. Although it is true we can only "add" at 0 for new humans if you want workforce ready new humans immigration from elsewhere is required.
  - candiodari 7y ago
    Well Malthusians are frankly crackpots trying to make a political point which the numbers (especially now) don't support. So that they come with numbers that are found lacking ... is not a fair attack against serious people. Which specific forecast did you think was so bad ?

by nolok 7y ago

ajeet_dhaliwal 7y ago

Right, it's a balance. A small decrease may not impact quality of life but a larger one would. Imagine Steve Jobs living in a world of population 1000. He'd be living like a homeless person foraging for berries in bushes in the forest, no matter how good his entrepreneurial skills may be. We need people to innovate, build, grow, trade with each other to achieve high quality of life.

candiodari 7y ago

But that ship has sailed. Population changes are notorious in how extremely predictable they are. If we wanted a slow decline we needed to act 20 years ago. Right now the numbers look suspiciously quiet, hiding the fact that there are a number of countries growing ridiculously fast (sub-Saharan Africa), and a lot of countries (all of "the West", except the US) in accelerating decline. So there will be increasing immigration despite low (global) population growth. And this is over and done with. It's a fact at this point. Policy today can only determine if in 20 years we want to cause +0.2% in kids or -0.2% in kids. I mean anything short of a meteor strike or new spanish flu won't really influence anything sooner.

Nasrudith 7y ago
If they are predictable then many people have done an extraordinarily bad job at projections. Because there are a lot of real howlers out there then if you look at proven wrong population projections of the past both from Malthusian demagogues and official sources trying to do extrapolations. Although it is true we can only "add" at 0 for new humans if you want workforce ready new humans immigration from elsewhere is required.
- candiodari 7y ago
  Well Malthusians are frankly crackpots trying to make a political point which the numbers (especially now) don't support. So that they come with numbers that are found lacking ... is not a fair attack against serious people. Which specific forecast did you think was so bad ?