8 ms·

This article is quite exasperated, but doesn't say much. I'm far from an expert in this area, but here's what I've read elsewhere: We're quickly moving from t

This article is quite exasperated, but doesn't say much. I'm far from an expert in this area, but here's what I've read elsewhere: We're quickly moving from the population explosion problem to the population implosion problem. No one planned it or made it happen. But, it looks like we're not actually going to overflow the planet with people standing shoulder to shoulder. Instead, the problem we're facing moving forward is a combination of longer lifespans and less children shifting the elderly support structure from a pyramid to a column. A big driver of this is people moving up in job prospects around the world. Clearly in rich nations like the US, Japan and UK couples are working more and putting off having kids. But, also in the poorer nations people are moving to the cities because that's where the jobs are. Once there, the combination of high rent and great reductions in child mortality means it doesn't make sense any more to have lots of kids hoping that a few survive long enough to work at a young age. Instead of having babies rapidly, women around the world are going to work to bring in that second income needed to pay the bills in the city. It's great news, really. It's just really scary really great news because we don't know how to set up a society where there aren't enough young people to support the elderly.

option 6y ago
this is fantastic news. Yes, we don’t know how to properly adapt yet, but this planet resources are limited and we aren’t good at sharing them. What worries me is that long term this can be reversed just like current trend is reversing away from population growth. Current trend seems to be driven by job prospects, education and costs of raising kids. But what if in a future we all had basic income? No need to worry about food, shelter or education for your children. Won’t this lead to population growing again?
- Arn_Thor 6y ago
  Why would it? Do you imagine people enjoy raising four kids or more? Children used to be old-age insurance. You needed so many to be certain some of them would survive, thrive, and take care of you in old age. If your needs are met, either through a good pension or UBI, you can have as many kids as you prefer. And by all indications, for most people that's actually around the natural replacement level, or fewer.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > for most people that's actually around the natural replacement level, or fewer. Not sure where that number comes from. 2.5 is probably closer to the natural trend. Physical constraints (food, disease, etc) limited human expansion previously. The economic constraints that cause a min-max of not having kids will never be A. universal, B. persistent. A couple generations of baby recession won't impact the fate of humanity one bit. Not sure why there's so much faux concern over a fixable (and likely temporary) situation. You give a tax break of 50% on capital gains per child and the kids will be popping from the higher economic rungs.
    - Arn_Thor 6y ago
      > You give a tax break of 50% on capital gains per child and the kids will be popping from the higher economic rungs Of course, with a perversely positive incentive like that. But it tells us nothing of the natural impulse in a neutral environment. In a lot of the western world there is plenty of support for having kids. Ample child care leave, solid monetary support, free or affordable child care and schooling. And in the countries which have most of this, the birth rate is low but not catastrophically so. (see Germany, the Nordics..) Whereas in the US and Japan, for example, there are certainly structural factors that now weigh against having kids. But it does not tell us much about the "default state"
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        I don’t think there is such a thing as a default state. What would a neutral environment even look like?
40four 6y ago
This is very interesting, and unexpected at the surface level. Especially with all the doom and gloom we've always been fed about the world population getting out of control, consuming all the resources, polluting the planet into oblivion, etc. I was expecting to read about medical/health reasons why men and women are literally becoming less fertile, but it's not that. It sounds like it's a side effect of countries/societies advancing technologically and socially. It makes sense, but I just never visualized it like that in my head. Wow, what a great problem to have! But as you say, it is a problem, just in other ways we might not have considered before. It will be interesting to see how we figure out how to restructure society as the demographics shift. But this seems like it could be a very good thing for the environment, climate change, resource management, etc. Overall, seems like positive new to me!
- sumedh 6y ago
  > Especially with all the doom and gloom we've always been fed Which is still true, if the billion Indians and Billion Chinese start having American lifestyles, that is just not sustainable for the planet.
  - corysama 6y ago
    I fully expect the Indian and Chinese population coming into wealth will go through a period of fairly outrageous conspicuous consumption. I have a hope that it will be fast-forwarded compared to the past 70 years of American history. Hopefully after a decade-long warmup and another decade of settling in, the novelty will wear off and there will be a move away from focusing on "More Stuff!" and toward focusing on "Less Clutter, More Experiences!"
    - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
      > Hopefully after a decade-long warmup and another decade of settling in, the novelty will wear off and there will be a move away from focusing on "More Stuff!" and toward focusing on "Less Clutter, More Experiences!" The western world hasn't even moved past that stage, so I highly doubt developing countries will move through it quickly.
snowwrestler 6y ago
Here are two scary storylines that get discussed pretty regularly here on HN: a) AI and machine learning will raise productivity so much that they will steal millions of jobs from people. b) Global population will eventually go into decline, which will crash the economy by killing growth. But, these two stories look far less scary when considered together. In fact they seem directly complementary, although the timing is not likely to work out perfectly, so it won't necessarily be smooth sailing along the way.
- tingletech 6y ago
  now if we could just get the robots to pay social security
  - qubex 6y ago
    You jest, but the economic effects of all of this are severe. A total regression in the real-estate market (because stagnant demographics means the existing housing stock will roughly suffice or even exceed demand) will have severe effects. Basically the end to growing demand, and thus essentially an end to growth-orientated capitalism.
    - jb775 6y ago
      My long term prediction is that once the boomers start dying off in droves, we'll face a real estate crisis as their houses flood the market...and many less desirable neighborhoods throughout suburbia will turn into mini ghost towns.
      - qubex 6y ago
        I come from northern Italy and during my relatively brief lifetime (length(life.qubex)>40) I’ve seen this happen to formerly exclusive “Beverly Hills”-type affluent residential areas (and un/gated communities). Enormous, cavernous hangar-sized homes that used to be worth millions of euros now struggling to sell for a couple hundred thousand.
      - 6y ago
mdorazio 6y ago
Counterpoint: major world problems like climate change are a direct result of having too many people, and more specifically having too many people living unsustainable lifestyles. Worse, a large percentage of the world's population is now moving out of sustainable living into unsustainable living as a result of globalization (as people gain more wealth, they tend to want things like more meat and driving a car). The net result is that a decreasing population is a good thing for the planet, but a bad thing for economics.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  > Counterpoint: major world problems like climate change are a direct result of having too many people Not exactly. The bottom 85% (in income terms) of the global population contribute very little to unsustainability. There are too many people in OECD countries, perhaps.
  - mac01021 6y ago
    > The bottom 85% (in income terms) of the global population contribute very little to unsustainability. Is that true? What percent do they contribute?
    - jordanbeiber 6y ago
      This should give you a rough idea. https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/ https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days... > Not all countries will have an overshoot day. By way of the country overshoot equation above, a country will only have an overshoot day if their Ecological Footprint per person is greater than global biocapacity per person (1.63 gha). There’s a lot of countries not listed, i.e they do not overshoot.
      - mac01021 6y ago
        I'm still wrapping my head around the meaning of those overshoot days. A person's ecological footprint is a multifaceted thing for which I think a single number cannot necessarily provide a very meaningful summary. But here's some other data, that considers only CO2 emissions: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi... It groups by country rather than income level but, reading between the lines, it seems to me almost certain that the bottom 85% (in income) of people emit more than half of the global total. BTW it is important to consider that a large fraction of the emissions from countries like China and India are in the service of consumption in wealthy western countries. But, I googled, and even in a famously export-heavy country like China, exports only account for 17% of the GDP.
towaway423423 6y ago
The "population implosion" problem is only so because of the economic obligations that will be passed on. I'm actually surprised that the US/UK elite, with their grand history in funding Eugenics research, didn't fund studies that'd portend this uncertain fate - then again may be it's just not published.
slim 6y ago
No one planned it or made it happen are you serious ? UN planned this since the 70' there's policies and support for developing countries at the global scale for implementing birth control
- corysama 6y ago
  Hmmm... Maybe. It seems to me that birth control itself was developed for the needs of rich countries. And, the UN pushed it into poor countries because they obviously needed it too. That did help reduce unwanted pregnancies. But, until the reduction in child mortality and the mass move of couples to cities, families were still motivated to intentionally have lots of babies.

option 6y ago

this is fantastic news. Yes, we don’t know how to properly adapt yet, but this planet resources are limited and we aren’t good at sharing them. What worries me is that long term this can be reversed just like current trend is reversing away from population growth. Current trend seems to be driven by job prospects, education and costs of raising kids. But what if in a future we all had basic income? No need to worry about food, shelter or education for your children. Won’t this lead to population growing again?

Arn_Thor 6y ago
Why would it? Do you imagine people enjoy raising four kids or more? Children used to be old-age insurance. You needed so many to be certain some of them would survive, thrive, and take care of you in old age. If your needs are met, either through a good pension or UBI, you can have as many kids as you prefer. And by all indications, for most people that's actually around the natural replacement level, or fewer.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > for most people that's actually around the natural replacement level, or fewer. Not sure where that number comes from. 2.5 is probably closer to the natural trend. Physical constraints (food, disease, etc) limited human expansion previously. The economic constraints that cause a min-max of not having kids will never be A. universal, B. persistent. A couple generations of baby recession won't impact the fate of humanity one bit. Not sure why there's so much faux concern over a fixable (and likely temporary) situation. You give a tax break of 50% on capital gains per child and the kids will be popping from the higher economic rungs.
  - Arn_Thor 6y ago
    > You give a tax break of 50% on capital gains per child and the kids will be popping from the higher economic rungs Of course, with a perversely positive incentive like that. But it tells us nothing of the natural impulse in a neutral environment. In a lot of the western world there is plenty of support for having kids. Ample child care leave, solid monetary support, free or affordable child care and schooling. And in the countries which have most of this, the birth rate is low but not catastrophically so. (see Germany, the Nordics..) Whereas in the US and Japan, for example, there are certainly structural factors that now weigh against having kids. But it does not tell us much about the "default state"
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      I don’t think there is such a thing as a default state. What would a neutral environment even look like?

40four 6y ago

This is very interesting, and unexpected at the surface level. Especially with all the doom and gloom we've always been fed about the world population getting out of control, consuming all the resources, polluting the planet into oblivion, etc. I was expecting to read about medical/health reasons why men and women are literally becoming less fertile, but it's not that. It sounds like it's a side effect of countries/societies advancing technologically and socially. It makes sense, but I just never visualized it like that in my head. Wow, what a great problem to have! But as you say, it is a problem, just in other ways we might not have considered before. It will be interesting to see how we figure out how to restructure society as the demographics shift. But this seems like it could be a very good thing for the environment, climate change, resource management, etc. Overall, seems like positive new to me!

sumedh 6y ago
> Especially with all the doom and gloom we've always been fed Which is still true, if the billion Indians and Billion Chinese start having American lifestyles, that is just not sustainable for the planet.
- corysama 6y ago
  I fully expect the Indian and Chinese population coming into wealth will go through a period of fairly outrageous conspicuous consumption. I have a hope that it will be fast-forwarded compared to the past 70 years of American history. Hopefully after a decade-long warmup and another decade of settling in, the novelty will wear off and there will be a move away from focusing on "More Stuff!" and toward focusing on "Less Clutter, More Experiences!"
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    > Hopefully after a decade-long warmup and another decade of settling in, the novelty will wear off and there will be a move away from focusing on "More Stuff!" and toward focusing on "Less Clutter, More Experiences!" The western world hasn't even moved past that stage, so I highly doubt developing countries will move through it quickly.

snowwrestler 6y ago

Here are two scary storylines that get discussed pretty regularly here on HN: a) AI and machine learning will raise productivity so much that they will steal millions of jobs from people. b) Global population will eventually go into decline, which will crash the economy by killing growth. But, these two stories look far less scary when considered together. In fact they seem directly complementary, although the timing is not likely to work out perfectly, so it won't necessarily be smooth sailing along the way.

tingletech 6y ago
now if we could just get the robots to pay social security
- qubex 6y ago
  You jest, but the economic effects of all of this are severe. A total regression in the real-estate market (because stagnant demographics means the existing housing stock will roughly suffice or even exceed demand) will have severe effects. Basically the end to growing demand, and thus essentially an end to growth-orientated capitalism.
  - jb775 6y ago
    My long term prediction is that once the boomers start dying off in droves, we'll face a real estate crisis as their houses flood the market...and many less desirable neighborhoods throughout suburbia will turn into mini ghost towns.
    - qubex 6y ago
      I come from northern Italy and during my relatively brief lifetime (length(life.qubex)>40) I’ve seen this happen to formerly exclusive “Beverly Hills”-type affluent residential areas (and un/gated communities). Enormous, cavernous hangar-sized homes that used to be worth millions of euros now struggling to sell for a couple hundred thousand.
    - 6y ago

mdorazio 6y ago

Counterpoint: major world problems like climate change are a direct result of having too many people, and more specifically having too many people living unsustainable lifestyles. Worse, a large percentage of the world's population is now moving out of sustainable living into unsustainable living as a result of globalization (as people gain more wealth, they tend to want things like more meat and driving a car). The net result is that a decreasing population is a good thing for the planet, but a bad thing for economics.

tuatoru 6y ago
> Counterpoint: major world problems like climate change are a direct result of having too many people Not exactly. The bottom 85% (in income terms) of the global population contribute very little to unsustainability. There are too many people in OECD countries, perhaps.
- mac01021 6y ago
  > The bottom 85% (in income terms) of the global population contribute very little to unsustainability. Is that true? What percent do they contribute?
  - jordanbeiber 6y ago
    This should give you a rough idea. https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/ https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days... > Not all countries will have an overshoot day. By way of the country overshoot equation above, a country will only have an overshoot day if their Ecological Footprint per person is greater than global biocapacity per person (1.63 gha). There’s a lot of countries not listed, i.e they do not overshoot.
    - mac01021 6y ago
      I'm still wrapping my head around the meaning of those overshoot days. A person's ecological footprint is a multifaceted thing for which I think a single number cannot necessarily provide a very meaningful summary. But here's some other data, that considers only CO2 emissions: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi... It groups by country rather than income level but, reading between the lines, it seems to me almost certain that the bottom 85% (in income) of people emit more than half of the global total. BTW it is important to consider that a large fraction of the emissions from countries like China and India are in the service of consumption in wealthy western countries. But, I googled, and even in a famously export-heavy country like China, exports only account for 17% of the GDP.

towaway423423 6y ago

The "population implosion" problem is only so because of the economic obligations that will be passed on. I'm actually surprised that the US/UK elite, with their grand history in funding Eugenics research, didn't fund studies that'd portend this uncertain fate - then again may be it's just not published.

slim 6y ago

No one planned it or made it happen are you serious ? UN planned this since the 70' there's policies and support for developing countries at the global scale for implementing birth control

corysama 6y ago
Hmmm... Maybe. It seems to me that birth control itself was developed for the needs of rich countries. And, the UN pushed it into poor countries because they obviously needed it too. That did help reduce unwanted pregnancies. But, until the reduction in child mortality and the mass move of couples to cities, families were still motivated to intentionally have lots of babies.