7 ms·

Kim Stanley Robinson: a declining world population could be a good thing

41 points by gautamcgoel 5y ago

anshumankmr 5y ago
However, there is still the fact that the more elderly there are, the more resources are drained to help them, which I am not saying is a bad thing, but to keep the cycle of social security cheques and pensions going, you need more people in the workforce who can work to pay taxes who in turn hope to receive the same benefits when they come of that age. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071514/why-social-security-running-out-money.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071514/why-social-s...
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  These elderly will eventually pass. This temporary increase in drag on economic productivity (“the pig in the Python”) is what you sign up for when your population can’t grow forever. The world has never been wealthier; we can afford a bit more elderly care costs for a window of time. Everyone likes to spend on a credit card, no one likes it when the statement comes and you have to pay.
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    Your [1] footnote seems to be missing...a search turns up plenty of references, and the analogy itself with the context of demographics is descriptive enough, but I'm curious what you were going to link to.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Baby boomer reference to Pig in the Python term. Removed because I didn’t feel it relevant when discussing world population versus a US centric cohort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
- enlyth 5y ago
  And how long can we keep this infinite growth of people going? That's clearly not sustainable either
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Under no plausible estimation do we have infinite growth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
- greeneggs 5y ago
  It's worse than that. Not only will social security be more difficult to fund, but private retirement savings will also be more difficult. Saving for retirement is much easier with a fast-growing economy in which you can get high rates of return. With a slower-growing, or even flat, economy, stocks and other investments should appreciate more slowly, too. (There are fewer good investment opportunities when the size of the pie is fixed.)
  - NickM 5y ago
    A flat population does not necessarily mean economic growth must stop. Economic growth can still come from plenty of other places, like better infrastructure, technology improvements, various types of efficiency gains, etc. etc.
- droptablemain 5y ago
  Social security tax phaseout is currently ~$140k per year. It's fairly absurd that the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos of the world pay roughly the same amount into Social Security as an average programmer.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    Why? Are they going to get substantially more benefits from SS than an average programmer?
    - droptablemain 5y ago
      Social security is not a personal slush fund. It is a social program. What you're describing would be an anti-social program.
marsrover 5y ago
Not for the economy.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  Not for the constant growth oriented economy.
  - enlyth 5y ago
    Indeed. Imagine having to lower real estate prices because demand falls. Fossil fuel use going down, less useless crap produced for less people, less pollution. Having to raise wages because of less unskilled labour available. Sounds like a nightmare (for some).
    - Camas 5y ago
      In reality you'd just get a situation similar to Japan.
      - path2power 5y ago
        This is the future of most nations. A notable exception being the US, which will not have a demographic inversion in the 21st century.
    - throwaway316943 5y ago
      My counter argument is that humans are more wasteful when faced with abundance. Look at what we did when we discovered two continents worth of land. When perceived costs are low, waste is high.
  - marsrover 5y ago
    This is the only worthwhile reply to my comment.
    - happytoexplain 5y ago
cryptoz 5y ago
His Mars trilogy includes a plot device where the Martians invent the biotech necessary for 400+ year lifespans - initially they try to keep it a secret, but it doesn't last as a secret for long. When word spreads to Earth, the debates rage - who gets it? Those who can pay for it? Thus increasing the inequality and also, massively surging overpopulation. He's been thinking about this for a while, for sure. And I do wonder what is going to happen if we all get a 'chance' to live to 300 or something. Or forever. Yikes.
- hirundo 5y ago
  Image people born almost 300 years ago were still in power. Social change would likely be a lot slower. The society happy with slavery could still be the dominant property holders. Death, since it allows for more rapid adaptation, may be life's greatest invention. Too little of it could be crippling to a population. Our species-optimal lifespan now might be quite different than the one picked by evolution. It could be much greater, or it could be lower. But twiddling with that dial carries a lot of risk.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  It would solve the declining birth rate for one. With a 300 year lifespan you can afford to put your career on hold for 20 years while you have children. My belief is that an extended lifespan would force people to consider their impact on the world more, at our current span most people clock out well before the consequences kick in. If you stick around for a few centuries the results of your actions become much more evident. Maybe we’d all slow down a bit and enjoy life knowing that our mortality was delayed.
29athrowaway 5y ago
A recommended watch: "The test tube", by Canadian environmental activist David Suzuki https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo
- reedjosh 5y ago
  But we're not bacteria. Humans are capable of ingenuity. More people means more invention. Further, this video paints a vivid collapse. I believe we would instead see a gradual decline. Maybe we're seeing that today?
paulpauper 5y ago
Jordan Peterson would strongly dissagree
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
  no one cares paul
- stuaxo 5y ago
  I'm sure Malcolm Gladwell would have an opinion too, but neither matter since it is outside the area of expertise of both.
chromaton 5y ago
More people means more geniuses who can help fix what's wrong.
- realreality 5y ago
  We don’t need more geniuses. We need take power away from psychopaths who run the world.
  - chromaton 5y ago
    You can have both.
  - svieira 5y ago
    Who will build the systems that are psychopath-resistant if not for people who have seen things as they are meant to be?
    - realreality 5y ago
      Indigenous people learned how to deal with psychopaths. Our culture lacks the safeguards against greed and antisocial behavior. In fact, we encourage those disorders, for the sake of “progress”. https://aeon.co/essays/why-inequality-bothers-people-more-than-poverty https://aeon.co/essays/why-inequality-bothers-people-more-th...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- folli 5y ago
  In the same vein: more idiots that screw up everything.
  - chromaton 5y ago
    We've been generally on positive trend.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
yosito 5y ago
AFAIK, world population is projected to peak around 11 billion, which by many estimates could be feasibly sustainable with a few technological improvements to increase crop yields and decrease carbon emissions.
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  Perhaps I should remind you of a day, that comes once a year, called "Earth Overshoot Day". It is the day, when we used up more resources than the planet regenerates. The tendency for that day's date is come earlier each year. The current population is not even sustainable. Half it and then perhaps it will be sustainable, if capped. Ecological damage will probably increase in the future, as swathes of people from developing countries will want to have the same living standards, that the first world countries experienced for decades. If you combine that with 11 billion people, it will be a disaster.
  - yosito 5y ago
    I'm familiar with the problem. The question is, what is the solution?
    - zelphirkalt 5y ago
      Doing everything we can, including birth limitations and laws, to not get there. I recently heard about China stopping the one-child law stuff and I only wanted to facepalm. That's so typical. "We need more population for all our old people here!" disregarding what will happen with the planet (an objectively much more important thing than China, but hey, it's not China, so not their problem, right?!), if population surges again in China. I just hope, that the experts are correct and that it will not lead to another population increase.
      - neverminder 5y ago
        China is bad, but it's not the main problem, Africa is. Africa is projected to quadruple it's population while rapidly industrializing. Africa will be the last nail in this particular cofin.
josefresco 5y ago
For those unware of KSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Stanley_Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Stanley_Robinson "Kim Stanley Robinson (born March 23, 1952) is an American writer of science fiction. He has published nineteen novels and numerous short stories but is best known for his Mars trilogy. His work has been translated into 24 languages. Many of his novels and stories have ecological, cultural, and political themes and feature scientists as heroes. Robinson has won numerous awards, including the Hugo Award for Best Novel, the Nebula Award for Best Novel and the World Fantasy Award. Robinson's work has been labeled by The Atlantic as "the gold-standard of realistic, and highly literary, science-fiction writing."[1] According to an article in The New Yorker, Robinson is "generally acknowledged as one of the greatest living science-fiction writers."[2]"
aaron695 5y ago
This contradicts UBI Normal estimates have world population increasing for at least 50 years. So either we start running out of jobs before then or not, remembering we are only 10-20 years into the internet revolution. People on UBI will either play computer games/use drugs or become people focused. Which means more family orientated. And a baby should cost a lot less than it's UBI. (This assumes the correct definition of UBI not the one used to try and implement European style unemployment benefits in America)
beefman 5y ago
https://archive.is/4Tqt0 https://archive.is/4Tqt0

41 points by gautamcgoel 5y ago

However, there is still the fact that the more elderly there are, the more resources are drained to help them, which I am not saying is a bad thing, but to keep the cycle of social security cheques and pensions going, you need more people in the workforce who can work to pay taxes who in turn hope to receive the same benefits when they come of that age. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071514/why-social-security-running-out-money.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071514/why-social-s...

toomuchtodo 5y ago
These elderly will eventually pass. This temporary increase in drag on economic productivity (“the pig in the Python”) is what you sign up for when your population can’t grow forever. The world has never been wealthier; we can afford a bit more elderly care costs for a window of time. Everyone likes to spend on a credit card, no one likes it when the statement comes and you have to pay.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  Your [1] footnote seems to be missing...a search turns up plenty of references, and the analogy itself with the context of demographics is descriptive enough, but I'm curious what you were going to link to.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Baby boomer reference to Pig in the Python term. Removed because I didn’t feel it relevant when discussing world population versus a US centric cohort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
enlyth 5y ago
And how long can we keep this infinite growth of people going? That's clearly not sustainable either
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Under no plausible estimation do we have infinite growth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
greeneggs 5y ago
It's worse than that. Not only will social security be more difficult to fund, but private retirement savings will also be more difficult. Saving for retirement is much easier with a fast-growing economy in which you can get high rates of return. With a slower-growing, or even flat, economy, stocks and other investments should appreciate more slowly, too. (There are fewer good investment opportunities when the size of the pie is fixed.)
- NickM 5y ago
  A flat population does not necessarily mean economic growth must stop. Economic growth can still come from plenty of other places, like better infrastructure, technology improvements, various types of efficiency gains, etc. etc.
droptablemain 5y ago
Social security tax phaseout is currently ~$140k per year. It's fairly absurd that the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos of the world pay roughly the same amount into Social Security as an average programmer.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Why? Are they going to get substantially more benefits from SS than an average programmer?
  - droptablemain 5y ago
    Social security is not a personal slush fund. It is a social program. What you're describing would be an anti-social program.

marsrover 5y ago

Not for the economy.

rad_gruchalski 5y ago
Not for the constant growth oriented economy.
- enlyth 5y ago
  Indeed. Imagine having to lower real estate prices because demand falls. Fossil fuel use going down, less useless crap produced for less people, less pollution. Having to raise wages because of less unskilled labour available. Sounds like a nightmare (for some).
  - Camas 5y ago
    In reality you'd just get a situation similar to Japan.
    - path2power 5y ago
      This is the future of most nations. A notable exception being the US, which will not have a demographic inversion in the 21st century.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    My counter argument is that humans are more wasteful when faced with abundance. Look at what we did when we discovered two continents worth of land. When perceived costs are low, waste is high.
- marsrover 5y ago
  This is the only worthwhile reply to my comment.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago

cryptoz 5y ago

His Mars trilogy includes a plot device where the Martians invent the biotech necessary for 400+ year lifespans - initially they try to keep it a secret, but it doesn't last as a secret for long. When word spreads to Earth, the debates rage - who gets it? Those who can pay for it? Thus increasing the inequality and also, massively surging overpopulation. He's been thinking about this for a while, for sure. And I do wonder what is going to happen if we all get a 'chance' to live to 300 or something. Or forever. Yikes.

hirundo 5y ago
Image people born almost 300 years ago were still in power. Social change would likely be a lot slower. The society happy with slavery could still be the dominant property holders. Death, since it allows for more rapid adaptation, may be life's greatest invention. Too little of it could be crippling to a population. Our species-optimal lifespan now might be quite different than the one picked by evolution. It could be much greater, or it could be lower. But twiddling with that dial carries a lot of risk.
throwaway316943 5y ago
It would solve the declining birth rate for one. With a 300 year lifespan you can afford to put your career on hold for 20 years while you have children. My belief is that an extended lifespan would force people to consider their impact on the world more, at our current span most people clock out well before the consequences kick in. If you stick around for a few centuries the results of your actions become much more evident. Maybe we’d all slow down a bit and enjoy life knowing that our mortality was delayed.

29athrowaway 5y ago

A recommended watch: "The test tube", by Canadian environmental activist David Suzuki https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo

reedjosh 5y ago
But we're not bacteria. Humans are capable of ingenuity. More people means more invention. Further, this video paints a vivid collapse. I believe we would instead see a gradual decline. Maybe we're seeing that today?

paulpauper 5y ago

Jordan Peterson would strongly dissagree

toiletfuneral 5y ago
no one cares paul
stuaxo 5y ago
I'm sure Malcolm Gladwell would have an opinion too, but neither matter since it is outside the area of expertise of both.

chromaton 5y ago

More people means more geniuses who can help fix what's wrong.

realreality 5y ago
We don’t need more geniuses. We need take power away from psychopaths who run the world.
- chromaton 5y ago
  You can have both.
- svieira 5y ago
  Who will build the systems that are psychopath-resistant if not for people who have seen things as they are meant to be?
  - realreality 5y ago
    Indigenous people learned how to deal with psychopaths. Our culture lacks the safeguards against greed and antisocial behavior. In fact, we encourage those disorders, for the sake of “progress”. https://aeon.co/essays/why-inequality-bothers-people-more-than-poverty https://aeon.co/essays/why-inequality-bothers-people-more-th...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
folli 5y ago
In the same vein: more idiots that screw up everything.
- chromaton 5y ago
  We've been generally on positive trend.
- throwaway316943 5y ago

yosito 5y ago

AFAIK, world population is projected to peak around 11 billion, which by many estimates could be feasibly sustainable with a few technological improvements to increase crop yields and decrease carbon emissions.

zelphirkalt 5y ago
Perhaps I should remind you of a day, that comes once a year, called "Earth Overshoot Day". It is the day, when we used up more resources than the planet regenerates. The tendency for that day's date is come earlier each year. The current population is not even sustainable. Half it and then perhaps it will be sustainable, if capped. Ecological damage will probably increase in the future, as swathes of people from developing countries will want to have the same living standards, that the first world countries experienced for decades. If you combine that with 11 billion people, it will be a disaster.
- yosito 5y ago
  I'm familiar with the problem. The question is, what is the solution?
  - zelphirkalt 5y ago
    Doing everything we can, including birth limitations and laws, to not get there. I recently heard about China stopping the one-child law stuff and I only wanted to facepalm. That's so typical. "We need more population for all our old people here!" disregarding what will happen with the planet (an objectively much more important thing than China, but hey, it's not China, so not their problem, right?!), if population surges again in China. I just hope, that the experts are correct and that it will not lead to another population increase.
    - neverminder 5y ago
      China is bad, but it's not the main problem, Africa is. Africa is projected to quadruple it's population while rapidly industrializing. Africa will be the last nail in this particular cofin.

josefresco 5y ago

For those unware of KSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Stanley_Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Stanley_Robinson "Kim Stanley Robinson (born March 23, 1952) is an American writer of science fiction. He has published nineteen novels and numerous short stories but is best known for his Mars trilogy. His work has been translated into 24 languages. Many of his novels and stories have ecological, cultural, and political themes and feature scientists as heroes. Robinson has won numerous awards, including the Hugo Award for Best Novel, the Nebula Award for Best Novel and the World Fantasy Award. Robinson's work has been labeled by The Atlantic as "the gold-standard of realistic, and highly literary, science-fiction writing."[1] According to an article in The New Yorker, Robinson is "generally acknowledged as one of the greatest living science-fiction writers."[2]"

aaron695 5y ago

This contradicts UBI Normal estimates have world population increasing for at least 50 years. So either we start running out of jobs before then or not, remembering we are only 10-20 years into the internet revolution. People on UBI will either play computer games/use drugs or become people focused. Which means more family orientated. And a baby should cost a lot less than it's UBI. (This assumes the correct definition of UBI not the one used to try and implement European style unemployment benefits in America)

beefman 5y ago

https://archive.is/4Tqt0 https://archive.is/4Tqt0