4 ms·
You only feel this way because you aren't paying attention to the demographics of eastern europe and east asia. If it was simply a matter of "running out of ne
by bpodgursky 6y ago
You only feel this way because you aren't paying attention to the demographics of eastern europe and east asia.
If it was simply a matter of "running out of new people" it might be OK -- a gradual decrease in population of 50% over a few generation could be sustainable. That's not the issue
The core problem is long lifespans creating a massively inverted age pyramid. At the extreme, the emerging pattern in urban China is 1 child supporting 2 parents supporting 4 grandparents supporting 8 great-grandparents. This isn't a smooth transition to a smaller population; it means that the young are crushed under the burden of supporting a huge population of the elderly.
It crushes dynamicism. It crushes innovation. Crushes education, and depresses fertility _further_, because the kids are too indebted and overtaxed (emotionally -- family care) and literally to ever have children of their own.
It's a death spiral, and a real problem.
- benjohnson 6y agoWe have the same problem here in the US - however we papered it over with immigration.
- pydry 6y agoIf you look at dependency ratios since the 1950s they really haven't changed a massive amount (the elderly and children both need to be cared for) and the change has been linear and largely compensated for by economic growth. What is crushing us is economic inequality - that change is geometric and has been the real driver of anemic fertility. Who wants to start a family under mountains of debt on a gig job wage? Not to put too fine a point on it, but the media we consume is largely owned by people who would prefer we believed we were getting crushed under a self created demographic time bomb rather than their greed. It's a death spiral, and a real problem.
- tacocataco 6y agoWhile full automation might not happen in my lifetime, it will for sure happen in my theoretical children's life. Considering how the working class is treated while our labor is essential for the economy, I highly doubt we will get better treatment after full automation. When we are "useless eaters".
- sokoloff 6y agoIt would be exceedingly rare for 1 child to be economically supporting 14 ancestors. Presumably the typical period of economic support is around 25 years, meaning the 2 30 year-old parents and 4 55 year-old grandparents of the perhaps 5 year-old child would be supporting the 8 80 year-old great-grandparents (or the subset of them that are still alive). 6 adults supporting <= 8 seems much less dire than 1 supporting 14.
- bpodgursky 6y agoThat is still incredibly dire, given the very important point you're omitting -- that 6 adults need to be supporting children! Raising children as it is, is expensive and time-consuming, to the point that adults feel incapable of doing so. Bundling that many adults onto the care model is absolutely insane.
- sokoloff 6y agoIn this example, there is only 1 child to support. That was the hypothetical that you proposed upthread.