11 ms·

Actually we are hurting for more humans depending on what you want. For example social programs are built with very generous population growth predictions. Soci

Actually we are hurting for more humans depending on what you want. For example social programs are built with very generous population growth predictions. Social security is solvent to 2035 according to our own government estimates: > Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman.[1] At the rate our population is declining we as a country and society will need to rethink such basic social programs such as Medicare and social security. 1. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

pjc50 7y ago
On the other hand, full employment and high wages?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- philwelch 7y ago
  That’s called the lump-of-labor fallacy. And regardless, an economy where a vast majority of the population has low-to-zero productivity due to age isn’t going to be great.
Avalaxy 7y ago
No, we don't need more humans. We need a transition to social and economic systems that are not dependent on everlasting unsustainable growth.
- squish78 7y ago
  What system would do that best?
  - jgalt212 7y ago
    Adam's Smith invisible hand. It's already taken effect in de facto ZPG countries of north/west Europe and Japan.
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      I don't know why you're downvoted. AFAIK you are correct.
  - devoply 7y ago
    There is no great replacement for infinite growth Capitalism. Whatever alternatives you choose you will have to give up lots of things that you take for granted. Humans beings at the current time are like drug addicts addicted to heroin and though its killing them and their environment, they are too pleased with the benefits to consider the costs. Let me elaborate on this. Infinite growth Capitalism combined with technological development leads to a civilization whose citizens are constantly concerned with more, a nicer way to say this is growth. This in essence means greater and greater levels of consumption. Their entire existence, their brains, are wired for this hit from growth and progress. Buying a new phone, a new car, new clothes, promotions, salary increases, bigger houses, longer vacations, more sexual partners, etc. They are looking to constantly grow. Without that hit, they would very quickly become dejected and depressed. But this all comes at a great cost. For one thing, people living for that hit don't live in the present, they are always oriented in the future giving up their entire present for a promise of a greater future which never comes, all they get is a hit along the way to that future and anticipation of next hit motivates them. And it's possible to have a psychology that is not set up to constantly seek this sort of hit. Therefore, for a person living with infinite growth capitalism, the transition is probably highly undesirable.
    - sjaknanxnnx 7y ago
      I agree with your take on human psychology, but I don’t think you’re right about it requiring infinite growth. If I get a new phone every year, that’s not actually growth. That contributes the same amount of GDP each year. People can get change without growth.
- timbuckley 7y ago
  Exactly. The only way a pyramid-shaped population chart "works" is if people die soon after (or before) they reach the top of the pyramid. In the long run, the only stable population shape ultimately is a column that is thicker at the base.
  - e2le 7y ago
    Or simply invest in automation that can care for the elderly and relieve the strain and workload on existing services. Of course also get people to live a healthy lifestyle so they don't need to depend on those services as much in their old age.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  This is much like people who move into a area and then say their house should be the last one to be built as we now have enough houses in town. It seems implausible that we have the exactly correct number of humans so you must mean that we should have less of them. If you think we need less humans on earth, lead by example.
  - dijit 7y ago
    Implying that the parent should kill themselves for pointing out the very real truth that humanity is far, far overpopulating this planet is not exactly civil. I happen to agree with the parent, not because "got mine", and it's not a "culling of people" but forgetting about social issues the world would be better off with less humans. That will never happen though, because no nation wants to be disadvantaged when it comes to population sizes and many people take it as a god given right that their genes be the ones to proliferate. But what's the point in having more of yourself if there's no planet left in 10 generations?
    - squish78 7y ago
      So what is a real-world implementation of this notion?
      - dijit 7y ago
        From real life: China's one child policy. From fiction: Dissuading the birth of more than one child, by curbing any benefits heavily (such as maternity leave) or increasing taxes on family homes with more than 3 occupants etc; there are many ways to dissuade people from having children, and we /do/ have declining birth rates in most of the developed world because of that. But, if you listen to my nationalistic friends/family, they believe that "[they] shouldn't have to give up having so many children unless $_country also does" So anything like that needs to be a bit more global, otherwise we have overpopulation in some areas which could lead to a requirement to spread and consume resources from less populated areas, which would potentially have the effect of wiping out nationalities. (hypothetically)
- Valmar 7y ago
  We certainly need to keep our birth rates stable, though, to make up for those that die for whatever unfortunate reasons.
  - e2le 7y ago
    100% this, invest in families if you want to have better birth rates.
vlan0 7y ago
>Actually we are hurting for more humans depending on what you want. For example social programs are built with very generous population growth predictions. Social security is solvent to 2035 according to our own government estimates: It doesn't seem as cut and dry as just number of people when the the tax has a cap. The flat cap placed on taxable income seems a bit insane when the wealthiest people have seen exponential growth for decades. While at the same time, we have a shrinking middle class with wages that have failed to match inflation. Essentially so much of the money in the economy is earned above the taxable level that it's not surprising we cannot sustain social programs.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  The cap doesn't really matter. What matters is the shape of the population pyramid that social programs require. You will need to have more younger people than older people and the population growth in the developed world simply isn't enough. Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy).
  - vlan0 7y ago
    >What matters is the shape of the population pyramid that social programs require. You will need to have more younger people than older people and the population growth in the developed world simply isn't enough. All of that is riding on the fact that there will be jobs for these people. As more and more jobs get pushed overseas or are automated away that doesn't seem realistic. So how can they contribute to the system? > Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy). Great, so people will have to pay their fair share and we get more time to solve for the long term. There is no downside to force the extremely wealth to pay their fair share.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
magduf 7y ago
You can argue about whether we need more humans or not, but a tour of any dog pound should tell you that we sure as hell don't need any more dogs. They should just add these chemicals directly to dog food.

pjc50 7y ago

On the other hand, full employment and high wages?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
philwelch 7y ago
That’s called the lump-of-labor fallacy. And regardless, an economy where a vast majority of the population has low-to-zero productivity due to age isn’t going to be great.

Avalaxy 7y ago

No, we don't need more humans. We need a transition to social and economic systems that are not dependent on everlasting unsustainable growth.

squish78 7y ago
What system would do that best?
- jgalt212 7y ago
  Adam's Smith invisible hand. It's already taken effect in de facto ZPG countries of north/west Europe and Japan.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    I don't know why you're downvoted. AFAIK you are correct.
- devoply 7y ago
  There is no great replacement for infinite growth Capitalism. Whatever alternatives you choose you will have to give up lots of things that you take for granted. Humans beings at the current time are like drug addicts addicted to heroin and though its killing them and their environment, they are too pleased with the benefits to consider the costs. Let me elaborate on this. Infinite growth Capitalism combined with technological development leads to a civilization whose citizens are constantly concerned with more, a nicer way to say this is growth. This in essence means greater and greater levels of consumption. Their entire existence, their brains, are wired for this hit from growth and progress. Buying a new phone, a new car, new clothes, promotions, salary increases, bigger houses, longer vacations, more sexual partners, etc. They are looking to constantly grow. Without that hit, they would very quickly become dejected and depressed. But this all comes at a great cost. For one thing, people living for that hit don't live in the present, they are always oriented in the future giving up their entire present for a promise of a greater future which never comes, all they get is a hit along the way to that future and anticipation of next hit motivates them. And it's possible to have a psychology that is not set up to constantly seek this sort of hit. Therefore, for a person living with infinite growth capitalism, the transition is probably highly undesirable.
  - sjaknanxnnx 7y ago
    I agree with your take on human psychology, but I don’t think you’re right about it requiring infinite growth. If I get a new phone every year, that’s not actually growth. That contributes the same amount of GDP each year. People can get change without growth.
timbuckley 7y ago
Exactly. The only way a pyramid-shaped population chart "works" is if people die soon after (or before) they reach the top of the pyramid. In the long run, the only stable population shape ultimately is a column that is thicker at the base.
- e2le 7y ago
  Or simply invest in automation that can care for the elderly and relieve the strain and workload on existing services. Of course also get people to live a healthy lifestyle so they don't need to depend on those services as much in their old age.
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
This is much like people who move into a area and then say their house should be the last one to be built as we now have enough houses in town. It seems implausible that we have the exactly correct number of humans so you must mean that we should have less of them. If you think we need less humans on earth, lead by example.
- dijit 7y ago
  Implying that the parent should kill themselves for pointing out the very real truth that humanity is far, far overpopulating this planet is not exactly civil. I happen to agree with the parent, not because "got mine", and it's not a "culling of people" but forgetting about social issues the world would be better off with less humans. That will never happen though, because no nation wants to be disadvantaged when it comes to population sizes and many people take it as a god given right that their genes be the ones to proliferate. But what's the point in having more of yourself if there's no planet left in 10 generations?
  - squish78 7y ago
    So what is a real-world implementation of this notion?
    - dijit 7y ago
      From real life: China's one child policy. From fiction: Dissuading the birth of more than one child, by curbing any benefits heavily (such as maternity leave) or increasing taxes on family homes with more than 3 occupants etc; there are many ways to dissuade people from having children, and we /do/ have declining birth rates in most of the developed world because of that. But, if you listen to my nationalistic friends/family, they believe that "[they] shouldn't have to give up having so many children unless $_country also does" So anything like that needs to be a bit more global, otherwise we have overpopulation in some areas which could lead to a requirement to spread and consume resources from less populated areas, which would potentially have the effect of wiping out nationalities. (hypothetically)
Valmar 7y ago
We certainly need to keep our birth rates stable, though, to make up for those that die for whatever unfortunate reasons.
- e2le 7y ago
  100% this, invest in families if you want to have better birth rates.

vlan0 7y ago

>Actually we are hurting for more humans depending on what you want. For example social programs are built with very generous population growth predictions. Social security is solvent to 2035 according to our own government estimates: It doesn't seem as cut and dry as just number of people when the the tax has a cap. The flat cap placed on taxable income seems a bit insane when the wealthiest people have seen exponential growth for decades. While at the same time, we have a shrinking middle class with wages that have failed to match inflation. Essentially so much of the money in the economy is earned above the taxable level that it's not surprising we cannot sustain social programs.

Mirioron 7y ago
The cap doesn't really matter. What matters is the shape of the population pyramid that social programs require. You will need to have more younger people than older people and the population growth in the developed world simply isn't enough. Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy).
- vlan0 7y ago
  >What matters is the shape of the population pyramid that social programs require. You will need to have more younger people than older people and the population growth in the developed world simply isn't enough. All of that is riding on the fact that there will be jobs for these people. As more and more jobs get pushed overseas or are automated away that doesn't seem realistic. So how can they contribute to the system? > Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy). Great, so people will have to pay their fair share and we get more time to solve for the long term. There is no downside to force the extremely wealth to pay their fair share.
  - Mirioron 7y ago

magduf 7y ago

You can argue about whether we need more humans or not, but a tour of any dog pound should tell you that we sure as hell don't need any more dogs. They should just add these chemicals directly to dog food.