4 ms·

The important part of economic growth is GDP/capita, not total GDP. And if we are to keep growing GDP/capita without destroying the environment, a population d

The important part of economic growth is GDP/capita, not total GDP. And if we are to keep growing GDP/capita without destroying the environment, a population decline is absolutely necessary. Increasing population is only economically beneficial in the most short term sense.

thulecitizen 7y ago
I don’t think I 100% understand what you mean by population decline? Do you mean planned parenthood/contraception? In other words: what are some of the strategies you are in favor of to make this decline happen?
- leetcrew 7y ago
  in the west, one strategy would be to do nothing and let the current trend run its course.
  - thulecitizen 7y ago
    What current trends are you talking about here?
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      birthrates in the west are trending down. the US hit a new low recently of 1.8 births per woman, well below the replacement rate. the US currency has a slightly positive (0.5%) population growth, but this is only due to immigration. if we merely do nothing (and don't adjust immigration quotas), we will have negative population growth in the near future.
xg15 7y ago
I'm assuming you mean "population decline due to death of old age and more empowerment not to have children". Even then, this would only work until the population has shrunk to a certain point. Then what? Maybe a more useful way forward would be to question if we need perpetual growth at all.
- travisoneill1 7y ago
  That's the type the article is talking about. But it could also mean starvation, disease, war, or genocide. The mechanism doesn't change the math.
  - xg15 7y ago
    Indeed, and if it's necessary, then it's necessary, right?
redahs 7y ago
A population decline is certainly not necessary to continue growing GDP/capita. What kind of neo-Malthusian nonsense is that? The economy is operating nowhere near peak performance... at least 1/3 of GDP is lost annually due to private capture of economic rent.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
walkingolof 7y ago
I think you have also to measure GDP ”distribution”, it will tell you something about equality and that will be/is a very important metric

thulecitizen 7y ago

I don’t think I 100% understand what you mean by population decline? Do you mean planned parenthood/contraception? In other words: what are some of the strategies you are in favor of to make this decline happen?

leetcrew 7y ago
in the west, one strategy would be to do nothing and let the current trend run its course.
- thulecitizen 7y ago
  What current trends are you talking about here?
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    birthrates in the west are trending down. the US hit a new low recently of 1.8 births per woman, well below the replacement rate. the US currency has a slightly positive (0.5%) population growth, but this is only due to immigration. if we merely do nothing (and don't adjust immigration quotas), we will have negative population growth in the near future.

xg15 7y ago

I'm assuming you mean "population decline due to death of old age and more empowerment not to have children". Even then, this would only work until the population has shrunk to a certain point. Then what? Maybe a more useful way forward would be to question if we need perpetual growth at all.

travisoneill1 7y ago
That's the type the article is talking about. But it could also mean starvation, disease, war, or genocide. The mechanism doesn't change the math.
- xg15 7y ago
  Indeed, and if it's necessary, then it's necessary, right?

redahs 7y ago

A population decline is certainly not necessary to continue growing GDP/capita. What kind of neo-Malthusian nonsense is that? The economy is operating nowhere near peak performance... at least 1/3 of GDP is lost annually due to private capture of economic rent.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

walkingolof 7y ago

I think you have also to measure GDP ”distribution”, it will tell you something about equality and that will be/is a very important metric