5 ms·

> The best option is to densify our cities. This is hard, too Leveling off or lowering the human population through lower birth rates works better. I'm not say

by spodek 7y ago

> The best option is to densify our cities. This is hard, too Leveling off or lowering the human population through lower birth rates works better. I'm not saying it's simple or even possible since so many people jump to conclusions about eugenics etc, but reducing overpopulation makes a lot of problems easier. If we don't figure out how on our own, nature will do it for us so we might as well figure out how in a peaceful, fair way.

ThrustVectoring 7y ago
You also wind up with fewer able-bodied working-age adults, which brings with it its own problems. Specifically, with retiree standards of living; these are proportional to the retiree-to-worker ratio, average worker income, and the combined tax and savings rate on workers. Having fewer children means that when those children would be adults, people need to retire poorer and/or later.
geogra4 7y ago
Whether we like it or not, it's already happening. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-%E2%80%93-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-%E2... But this doesn't really solve the city/urban problem as the vast majority of economic growth occurs in cities and the continual migration of rural to urban happens even when total population is shrinking.
- spodek 7y ago
  That chart shows a positive growth rate beyond 2100, which means continued exponential growth, not a decreasing population. Lowering population alone doesn't solve every problem, but without it, many problems are unsolvable.
beat 7y ago
The primary cause of population growth today is not birth rate, but rather death rate - people benefiting from modern society are living 10-20 years longer (or more) than their ancestors did just a generation or three earlier. The birth rate is at or near (or below) replacement in the vast majority of countries, and rapidly heading that direction in most of the rest. If you really want population control, you don't need eugenics - you need Logan's Run.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Death rate stabilizes once good infant care and lifetime medicine are introduced. Folks live around 74 years, worldwide. So its contributing a constant factor by now, most places.
  - beat 7y ago
    It takes multiple generations for this to cause an impact. What matters isn't the people living longer who are born today - it's the ones living longer who were born in the 1950s-1970s. And it's taken additional decades for most of the poorer countries to catch up to the "first world", in terms of birth rates and lifespans. Consider, say, Iran. In 1980, its birthrate was around 6. Now, it's 1.4, lower than Europe, and lifespans shot up at the same time - but only for those born during the health revolution there. So those people are still less than 40 years old. Iran is just now starting to feel the impact of increased lifespans, and it'll take another 50 years for that to truly stabilize.
  - empath75 7y ago
    It’s not actually lifespan that matters but the percentage of people surviving to adulthood and having children. That’s a much much much higher number now.
tomphoolery 7y ago
Overpopulation is a myth, and a short-sighted one at that. The fact is we don't use the space we're given (Planet Earth) in an effective way for the technology of our time. Some people are forced to live in cities in a box that's too small, while others are forced to live on farms in a box that's too big. We don't need less births, we need a better and more efficient way of handling the births that we have, and the ability to handle more.
sachdevap 7y ago
You can see an example of population shrinking in Japan, and yet urban centers are getting denser, so I don't think reduction in population is a solution.

by spodek 7y ago

ThrustVectoring 7y ago

You also wind up with fewer able-bodied working-age adults, which brings with it its own problems. Specifically, with retiree standards of living; these are proportional to the retiree-to-worker ratio, average worker income, and the combined tax and savings rate on workers. Having fewer children means that when those children would be adults, people need to retire poorer and/or later.

geogra4 7y ago

Whether we like it or not, it's already happening. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-%E2%80%93-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-%E2... But this doesn't really solve the city/urban problem as the vast majority of economic growth occurs in cities and the continual migration of rural to urban happens even when total population is shrinking.

spodek 7y ago
That chart shows a positive growth rate beyond 2100, which means continued exponential growth, not a decreasing population. Lowering population alone doesn't solve every problem, but without it, many problems are unsolvable.

beat 7y ago

The primary cause of population growth today is not birth rate, but rather death rate - people benefiting from modern society are living 10-20 years longer (or more) than their ancestors did just a generation or three earlier. The birth rate is at or near (or below) replacement in the vast majority of countries, and rapidly heading that direction in most of the rest. If you really want population control, you don't need eugenics - you need Logan's Run.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Death rate stabilizes once good infant care and lifetime medicine are introduced. Folks live around 74 years, worldwide. So its contributing a constant factor by now, most places.
- beat 7y ago
  It takes multiple generations for this to cause an impact. What matters isn't the people living longer who are born today - it's the ones living longer who were born in the 1950s-1970s. And it's taken additional decades for most of the poorer countries to catch up to the "first world", in terms of birth rates and lifespans. Consider, say, Iran. In 1980, its birthrate was around 6. Now, it's 1.4, lower than Europe, and lifespans shot up at the same time - but only for those born during the health revolution there. So those people are still less than 40 years old. Iran is just now starting to feel the impact of increased lifespans, and it'll take another 50 years for that to truly stabilize.
- empath75 7y ago
  It’s not actually lifespan that matters but the percentage of people surviving to adulthood and having children. That’s a much much much higher number now.

tomphoolery 7y ago

Overpopulation is a myth, and a short-sighted one at that. The fact is we don't use the space we're given (Planet Earth) in an effective way for the technology of our time. Some people are forced to live in cities in a box that's too small, while others are forced to live on farms in a box that's too big. We don't need less births, we need a better and more efficient way of handling the births that we have, and the ability to handle more.

sachdevap 7y ago

You can see an example of population shrinking in Japan, and yet urban centers are getting denser, so I don't think reduction in population is a solution.