3 ms·

It's not actually that unusual for a country to have a shrinking population. Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, and a few other central and Eastern European countries c

It's not actually that unusual for a country to have a shrinking population. Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, and a few other central and Eastern European countries currently have declining populations, as does Japan, some due to ageing and a drop in fertility and some due to that plus emigration. Economically and socially they've not entered into the death spiral some people seem to think will happen and are actually doing alright. Countries with declining populations due to war, economic collapse etc. are a different matter but in those cases the decline in population is a symptom not a cause. The transition to a shrinking world population will happen gradually over a period of decades and at different times in different areas of the works giving us plenty of time to for economic and social structures to adapt to deal with it. If it were to happen over night we would be in trouble but it won't.

oblio 6y ago
We haven't even seen this scenario play out yet. I'm from the region and I don't think it will turn into some Fallout-type scenario, but I think it will definitely impact the well-being of all citizens in these countries, some 20-30 years from now. It's hard to say yet if/how these countries will recover.
- monodeldiablo 6y ago
  I live in Croatia. Its population has been shrinking since 1991. Almost 30 years of unchecked population decline and it's still not an apocalyptic hellhole. In spite of entrenched corruption and other issues, standards of living and wages have gone up, even as the government does everything it can to destroy nascent industry and chase that tourism nickle. The more old people die, the more domestic opportunity there is for the younger generation, and the lower the tax burden on young workers. Honestly, I'm not sure population decline is something Croatia can afford to "recover from".
  - oblio 6y ago
    Those aren't related. I'm from Romania, which has: 1. A higher population population than Croatia. 2. Higher emigration than Croatia. 3. A lower fertility rate than Croatia. And yes, the economy is going up despite people becoming old, dying, or just leaving the country. But the reason for that is temporary, it's because Croatia, just like Romania, is still a developing country, you're converting low productivity workers to higher productivity ones. But how long do you think this can last? What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had? I just said that things won't look like in Fallout, so why are you even mentioning "apocalyptic hellhole"? A country doesn't lose 20% or more of its population without major changes happening. It's extremely optimistic to hope that there won't be at least some major negative changes.
    - monodeldiablo 6y ago
      > What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had? Old people retire, opening up jobs for younger workers. Old people die, freeing up housing stock and capital and tax money. And these will happen long before Croatia or Romania achiever maximum productivity. There's plenty of fat left to be trimmed. As long as the sustained rate of youth emigration is below the mortality rate -- or marginally higher while the country continues to develop -- conditions should improve for working age people (ignoring the chaos of politics). But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your implication or just not thinking this through. Could you elaborate on some of the negatives?
  - krakatau1 6y ago
    I’m also from Croatia...we actually had population growth in early nineties and we are losing more people to emigration rather than natural decline. It’s myopic to think that population decline doesn’t harm us. It puts rural areas in vicious cycle of losing population -> smaller economic base -> losing population due to no economic opportunities. Also cohort of women able to give birth declines even faster thus preventing any future recovery. I live in a small town that is almost 1700 years old. Something is very wrong if we are unable to maintain or grow our population while living in unprecedented luxury and wealth compared to historical norms.
    - monodeldiablo 6y ago
      We're unable to grow our population largely because of that unprecedented wealth. Children are no longer seen as an insurance policy, and young people are better educated, choosier about their partners, and more likely to utilize birth control. I agree that it is sad that rural areas continue to die out -- I live in an island, so I feel this keenly -- but objectively, is that such a bad thing? Communities don't have an innate right to exist in perpetuity, and it would be an unsustainable resource nightmare if we tried to keep them all alive. After all, it's because of rural flight that we have huge tracts of natural parks like Velebit. That's a resource that enriches the commons, even if it came at the cost of some individual welfare. It's also vastly better for the planet. But I feel I'm missing something. What are some more of the downsides?
regularfry 6y ago
It's a question of degree. I think the article is kinda hand-wringy, but not incorrect in the attention they're giving to orders of magnitude. You've got to remember that if a country like Spain halves in population, that's a colossal shift from A to B, to the extent that each decade will feel like a fairly major leap on its own. I don't think it'll be a death spiral, but it'll definitely absorb resources that otherwise could be directed to advancements, rather than preventing retrenchments. And that's assuming the rate of change doesn't cause nonlinear effects of its own. Also, if Spain halves, it may well be that other countries shrink even further. You've also got to wonder about the distribution of old folk: some countries will end up with far more extreme distributions than others, but what I suspect we'll find is that, just as there's a quality of life level above which the reproduction rate decreases, there'll be a population level below which the quality of life decreases, so it'll self-correct.

oblio 6y ago

We haven't even seen this scenario play out yet. I'm from the region and I don't think it will turn into some Fallout-type scenario, but I think it will definitely impact the well-being of all citizens in these countries, some 20-30 years from now. It's hard to say yet if/how these countries will recover.

monodeldiablo 6y ago
I live in Croatia. Its population has been shrinking since 1991. Almost 30 years of unchecked population decline and it's still not an apocalyptic hellhole. In spite of entrenched corruption and other issues, standards of living and wages have gone up, even as the government does everything it can to destroy nascent industry and chase that tourism nickle. The more old people die, the more domestic opportunity there is for the younger generation, and the lower the tax burden on young workers. Honestly, I'm not sure population decline is something Croatia can afford to "recover from".
- oblio 6y ago
  Those aren't related. I'm from Romania, which has: 1. A higher population population than Croatia. 2. Higher emigration than Croatia. 3. A lower fertility rate than Croatia. And yes, the economy is going up despite people becoming old, dying, or just leaving the country. But the reason for that is temporary, it's because Croatia, just like Romania, is still a developing country, you're converting low productivity workers to higher productivity ones. But how long do you think this can last? What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had? I just said that things won't look like in Fallout, so why are you even mentioning "apocalyptic hellhole"? A country doesn't lose 20% or more of its population without major changes happening. It's extremely optimistic to hope that there won't be at least some major negative changes.
  - monodeldiablo 6y ago
    > What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had? Old people retire, opening up jobs for younger workers. Old people die, freeing up housing stock and capital and tax money. And these will happen long before Croatia or Romania achiever maximum productivity. There's plenty of fat left to be trimmed. As long as the sustained rate of youth emigration is below the mortality rate -- or marginally higher while the country continues to develop -- conditions should improve for working age people (ignoring the chaos of politics). But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your implication or just not thinking this through. Could you elaborate on some of the negatives?
- krakatau1 6y ago
  I’m also from Croatia...we actually had population growth in early nineties and we are losing more people to emigration rather than natural decline. It’s myopic to think that population decline doesn’t harm us. It puts rural areas in vicious cycle of losing population -> smaller economic base -> losing population due to no economic opportunities. Also cohort of women able to give birth declines even faster thus preventing any future recovery. I live in a small town that is almost 1700 years old. Something is very wrong if we are unable to maintain or grow our population while living in unprecedented luxury and wealth compared to historical norms.
  - monodeldiablo 6y ago
    We're unable to grow our population largely because of that unprecedented wealth. Children are no longer seen as an insurance policy, and young people are better educated, choosier about their partners, and more likely to utilize birth control. I agree that it is sad that rural areas continue to die out -- I live in an island, so I feel this keenly -- but objectively, is that such a bad thing? Communities don't have an innate right to exist in perpetuity, and it would be an unsustainable resource nightmare if we tried to keep them all alive. After all, it's because of rural flight that we have huge tracts of natural parks like Velebit. That's a resource that enriches the commons, even if it came at the cost of some individual welfare. It's also vastly better for the planet. But I feel I'm missing something. What are some more of the downsides?

regularfry 6y ago

It's a question of degree. I think the article is kinda hand-wringy, but not incorrect in the attention they're giving to orders of magnitude. You've got to remember that if a country like Spain halves in population, that's a colossal shift from A to B, to the extent that each decade will feel like a fairly major leap on its own. I don't think it'll be a death spiral, but it'll definitely absorb resources that otherwise could be directed to advancements, rather than preventing retrenchments. And that's assuming the rate of change doesn't cause nonlinear effects of its own. Also, if Spain halves, it may well be that other countries shrink even further. You've also got to wonder about the distribution of old folk: some countries will end up with far more extreme distributions than others, but what I suspect we'll find is that, just as there's a quality of life level above which the reproduction rate decreases, there'll be a population level below which the quality of life decreases, so it'll self-correct.