5 ms·

The answer is migration. Even Japan is reforming it's ultra conservative migration rules. Let's don't forget that we are soon 8 billion people on this planet.

The answer is migration. Even Japan is reforming it's ultra conservative migration rules. Let's don't forget that we are soon 8 billion people on this planet. Imagine 8 billion elephants or 8 billion Tigers living on earth. We are too many and that's not sustainable.

raverbashing 6y ago
Bringing people that share none of your values/cultural background? Thanks but no thanks Which doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but not the way it is done currently.
dominicl 6y ago
Have heard this before 8 billion would be too much. I've learned human population is always in an equilibrium with the technological ability to provide for them. So agriculture innovation leads to further population growths. What hard limit are we running into? Why not further innovation and 16 billion?
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  We are not in equilibrium as the climate and environmental situation makes absolutely plain.
  - lnsru 6y ago
    Maybe climate is in absolute equilibrium. Warmer climate opens new areas for living. Just look at the globe - there are much more land in the north than on equator.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Yes but despite the rhetoric about runaway warmth, northern Canada and Russia remain fairly inhospitable.
      - killtimeatwork 6y ago
        I suspect it's a matter of time. However, from what I've read most of the soil in Siberia is very poor for farming, so I guess there won't be much food production coming from there even if the climate becomes warmer...
        kijin 6y ago
        If you really want to, soil quality can be fixed with heavy machinery and chemical fertilizers. But the new, warmer climate isn't particularly stable yet, so it's probably not wise to pour too much resources into that mega-project at this time.
        chrisco255 6y ago
        Don't bet on it. We're still in an ice age and a glacial period will return before Canada and Russia become tropical paradise.
    - esarbe 6y ago
      Well, it's not. In equilibrium, that is. Whatever you mean by it - it's not. What makes you think that these countries will let in the desperate fugitives? No, that won't happen.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      Destroying the environment in order to expand our use of resources is not an equilibrium. We've never been in equilibrium. We've continuously expanded at the expense of other species. It's just that now the limit of this expansion has become very visible
- esarbe 6y ago
  Yeah, no. There's no equilibrium. What we are currently doing is predatory ecosystem exploitation where we destroy our own life support system for the short gain. All that loss of habitats and of biodiversity? That's going come back to bite use hard and it's not waiting for the far future. This shit is happening within the next 25 years. To think that we are in any kind of equilibrium is to delude yourself.
- viraptor 6y ago
  Long term equilibrium for the species is not a great concept for us right now. At some point we'll run into an ecological problem wiping out most of the corn in the US for a year. That could be a potato famine level event, but we'll regrow in a few decades... equilibrium kept, but it doesn't help those who starved.
robjan 6y ago
Migration from where? If all developed countries are below replacement birth rate the only solution is to remove skilled workers from developing countries which ultimately damages their economies.
- killtimeatwork 6y ago
  Migration across the world and across history was and is generally about unskilled workers. The skilled people are less incentivized to move (the in-demand skills guarantee somewhat decent living in most places on Earth), while for unskilled people from poorest countries migrating can be about baseline survival, so the motivation is very strong. Also, the unskilled people are more welcome in the target country, as they do the worst jobs for the least money [1], which basically increases everybody's standard of living. [1] For example, there would be serious problems in the German society if not for Eastern European immigrants who take care of millions of older people for pennies. If these immigrants were not there, the older people and their families would have to pay 3-4x times the amount for German caretakers, which would of course break the budget of many.
  - corty 6y ago
    That is quite untrue, especially for Germany. Germany does not only siphon off unskilled (mostly seasonal) laborers from eastern Europe. We also draw in a lot of their educated workforce, which is especially apparent and problematic in fields like medicine, where doctors and nurses wander westward and are the missing in their countries of origin.
morlockabove 6y ago
Presumably you want every country to be developed. So what happens when every country in the world has a shrinking population?
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Then we finally start to manage the planet as the finite resource it is.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 6y ago
This answer brings a lot of questions with it. The rise of the far right in Europe is mostly caused by clashes of cultural norms of native Europeans vs. immigrant Muslims. As of 2020, it is not entirely clear if France, for example, can prevent emergence of dozens of alienated urban zones which aren't part of the national whole in any meaningful sense - a scattering of small Gaza Strips across the map. Neither is it clear whether all of the grooming gangs (mostly Pakistanis of Mirpuri origin) in UK have already been extirpated and how long will the P.R. disaster be remembered. This is a huge headache, because even in the Islamic world, high fertility is typical for backward, bigoted regions. Secular urban centers like Tehran and Izmir are no better than Europe, as far as total number of kids goes, so they cannot serve as a reservoir of workforce. Total fertility today is strongly negatively correlated with education of women, which means that most kids are born in places hostile to female education attainment. Such as Niger, Afghanistan or Yemen. But these are precisely the places whose cultural norms work as a bombshell when suddenly transplanted into Europe.
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
Maybe for America that is such a young country of immigrants all over the world but definetly the majority of world nation states don't see mass immigration as a solution to the problem.
baybal2 6y ago
> We are too many and that's not sustainable. Not a sound argument. Earth can easily sustain hundreds of billions of people even at modern day technology level in supreme comfort. By some calculations, even one trillion is possible without having anybody switching to algae diet.

raverbashing 6y ago

Bringing people that share none of your values/cultural background? Thanks but no thanks Which doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but not the way it is done currently.

dominicl 6y ago

Have heard this before 8 billion would be too much. I've learned human population is always in an equilibrium with the technological ability to provide for them. So agriculture innovation leads to further population growths. What hard limit are we running into? Why not further innovation and 16 billion?

mytailorisrich 6y ago
We are not in equilibrium as the climate and environmental situation makes absolutely plain.
- lnsru 6y ago
  Maybe climate is in absolute equilibrium. Warmer climate opens new areas for living. Just look at the globe - there are much more land in the north than on equator.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Yes but despite the rhetoric about runaway warmth, northern Canada and Russia remain fairly inhospitable.
    - killtimeatwork 6y ago
      I suspect it's a matter of time. However, from what I've read most of the soil in Siberia is very poor for farming, so I guess there won't be much food production coming from there even if the climate becomes warmer...
      - kijin 6y ago
        If you really want to, soil quality can be fixed with heavy machinery and chemical fertilizers. But the new, warmer climate isn't particularly stable yet, so it's probably not wise to pour too much resources into that mega-project at this time.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Don't bet on it. We're still in an ice age and a glacial period will return before Canada and Russia become tropical paradise.
  - esarbe 6y ago
    Well, it's not. In equilibrium, that is. Whatever you mean by it - it's not. What makes you think that these countries will let in the desperate fugitives? No, that won't happen.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Destroying the environment in order to expand our use of resources is not an equilibrium. We've never been in equilibrium. We've continuously expanded at the expense of other species. It's just that now the limit of this expansion has become very visible
esarbe 6y ago
Yeah, no. There's no equilibrium. What we are currently doing is predatory ecosystem exploitation where we destroy our own life support system for the short gain. All that loss of habitats and of biodiversity? That's going come back to bite use hard and it's not waiting for the far future. This shit is happening within the next 25 years. To think that we are in any kind of equilibrium is to delude yourself.
viraptor 6y ago
Long term equilibrium for the species is not a great concept for us right now. At some point we'll run into an ecological problem wiping out most of the corn in the US for a year. That could be a potato famine level event, but we'll regrow in a few decades... equilibrium kept, but it doesn't help those who starved.

robjan 6y ago

Migration from where? If all developed countries are below replacement birth rate the only solution is to remove skilled workers from developing countries which ultimately damages their economies.

killtimeatwork 6y ago
Migration across the world and across history was and is generally about unskilled workers. The skilled people are less incentivized to move (the in-demand skills guarantee somewhat decent living in most places on Earth), while for unskilled people from poorest countries migrating can be about baseline survival, so the motivation is very strong. Also, the unskilled people are more welcome in the target country, as they do the worst jobs for the least money [1], which basically increases everybody's standard of living. [1] For example, there would be serious problems in the German society if not for Eastern European immigrants who take care of millions of older people for pennies. If these immigrants were not there, the older people and their families would have to pay 3-4x times the amount for German caretakers, which would of course break the budget of many.
- corty 6y ago
  That is quite untrue, especially for Germany. Germany does not only siphon off unskilled (mostly seasonal) laborers from eastern Europe. We also draw in a lot of their educated workforce, which is especially apparent and problematic in fields like medicine, where doctors and nurses wander westward and are the missing in their countries of origin.

morlockabove 6y ago

Presumably you want every country to be developed. So what happens when every country in the world has a shrinking population?

snowwrestler 6y ago
Then we finally start to manage the planet as the finite resource it is.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

inglor_cz 6y ago

This answer brings a lot of questions with it. The rise of the far right in Europe is mostly caused by clashes of cultural norms of native Europeans vs. immigrant Muslims. As of 2020, it is not entirely clear if France, for example, can prevent emergence of dozens of alienated urban zones which aren't part of the national whole in any meaningful sense - a scattering of small Gaza Strips across the map. Neither is it clear whether all of the grooming gangs (mostly Pakistanis of Mirpuri origin) in UK have already been extirpated and how long will the P.R. disaster be remembered. This is a huge headache, because even in the Islamic world, high fertility is typical for backward, bigoted regions. Secular urban centers like Tehran and Izmir are no better than Europe, as far as total number of kids goes, so they cannot serve as a reservoir of workforce. Total fertility today is strongly negatively correlated with education of women, which means that most kids are born in places hostile to female education attainment. Such as Niger, Afghanistan or Yemen. But these are precisely the places whose cultural norms work as a bombshell when suddenly transplanted into Europe.

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago

Maybe for America that is such a young country of immigrants all over the world but definetly the majority of world nation states don't see mass immigration as a solution to the problem.

baybal2 6y ago

> We are too many and that's not sustainable. Not a sound argument. Earth can easily sustain hundreds of billions of people even at modern day technology level in supreme comfort. By some calculations, even one trillion is possible without having anybody switching to algae diet.