4 ms·

Declining birth rate was already an issue in large cities during antiquity. I even suspect that the pro-family policies we can observe in the religions that we

Declining birth rate was already an issue in large cities during antiquity. I even suspect that the pro-family policies we can observe in the religions that were created afterwards were a tentative to fix this problem. In my opinion, our species population is big enough already, and this is the main driving factor of ongoing ecological problems. I think we can adapt to a differently shaped age structure, we don't need a pyramid.

TacticalCoder 5y ago
> In my opinion, our species population is big enough already, and this is the main driving factor of ongoing ecological problems. That's the reason my wife and I decided to only have one kid. It's a statement. I don't care that future politicians shall have less future taxpayers. I don't believe eternal growth is the only model: I actually think it's unsustainable.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  It's not only about gathering taxes. It's also about having someone to wipe your ass once you're too frail to do it yourself.
  - ReactiveJelly 5y ago
    Conceiving a child so they can wipe my ass sounds selfish
    - c048 5y ago
      Expecting someone else's kid to be there to wipe your ass is even more so.
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      Wiping ass is just another job which someone has to do. And that someone has to be someone's kid.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - flukus 5y ago
        We can automate this with bidets. For a less literal interpretation, euthanasia (legal or otherwise) is how I'd like to avoid this stage of life entirely, it's now a legal possibility where I live if there's a terminal condition preventing me from wiping my own ass. Many people get to skip this stage in life entirely though, either through good health or misfortune.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Life's better when you put on your Keynesian hat. Productivity went up faster than population in the rich counties, and we all loss leverage with our employers as there wasn't enough work to go around. Now, if populations fall, there will be enough work again, and there will be a need to automate (maintaining the same standard of living is nice and uncreative) which will make more meaningful work for us programmers (the "productivity industry").
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    The japanese have power washers for this.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  I agree, there is a limit to sustainability, even if technology is likely to improve I don't see why we should take the risk of pushing the limits. If the population decline happen to be a seemingly unsurmountable problem 100 years down the road, we'll have more than enough time to react before risking extinction.
yourapostasy 5y ago
> ...we don't need a pyramid. The core financial architecture of the world is pinned upon an assumption of monotonically-increasing global population on a 3-7 generation moving average. So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. We're into generation one or two depending upon your definition of a generation, so we have some time before we see how this pans out. I'm trying to find the data to establish whether we are engaging in the incipient factors of collapse as identified by the WEF [1]. To my untrained mind, demographics are a trailing indicator of those five factors and not a leading indicator, but I haven't rigorously analyzed this hypothesis. From what I see from my limited perspective, I wouldn't be as cavalier as "we don't need a pyramid". As near as I can tell, this kind of demography at this global scale and technological strategy to try to King Knute hold back the demographic waters is completely uncharted territory for our species recorded history. I'd sure like those who study this at the intersection of demography and technology history to give some pointers to some of the analyses going on in the field. My Google-fu has so far failed to turn up solid leads on comprehensive data surveys. [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/why-do-civilizations-collapse/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/why-do-civilizations-...
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  I think that the risk of civilization collapse has been highly overrated and is mostly bullshit prediction.
  - yourapostasy 5y ago
    > …civilization collapse has been highly overrated… Yep, I wouldn’t even begin to advance a collapse hypothesis until a solid 7 generation trend has been established. However, the common assumption amongst contemporary policy makers is stagnation == collapse. So it is useful to observe for such data. I don’t buy into that narrative, nor the “stagnation is fine” story, either. I simply don’t have sufficient data to evaluate what demographic stagnation over a few hundred years or even a millennia means at this time. I will point out however: for many tens of millennia, our species teetered on a knife’s edge of viability, with an asymptotically curved growth rate that might as well have been stagnant. One hypothesis I’m exploring is demographic stagnation is a no-op in the presence of any species-wide median increase in cognitive density.

TacticalCoder 5y ago

> In my opinion, our species population is big enough already, and this is the main driving factor of ongoing ecological problems. That's the reason my wife and I decided to only have one kid. It's a statement. I don't care that future politicians shall have less future taxpayers. I don't believe eternal growth is the only model: I actually think it's unsustainable.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
It's not only about gathering taxes. It's also about having someone to wipe your ass once you're too frail to do it yourself.
- ReactiveJelly 5y ago
  Conceiving a child so they can wipe my ass sounds selfish
  - c048 5y ago
    Expecting someone else's kid to be there to wipe your ass is even more so.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    Wiping ass is just another job which someone has to do. And that someone has to be someone's kid.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - flukus 5y ago
      We can automate this with bidets. For a less literal interpretation, euthanasia (legal or otherwise) is how I'd like to avoid this stage of life entirely, it's now a legal possibility where I live if there's a terminal condition preventing me from wiping my own ass. Many people get to skip this stage in life entirely though, either through good health or misfortune.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Life's better when you put on your Keynesian hat. Productivity went up faster than population in the rich counties, and we all loss leverage with our employers as there wasn't enough work to go around. Now, if populations fall, there will be enough work again, and there will be a need to automate (maintaining the same standard of living is nice and uncreative) which will make more meaningful work for us programmers (the "productivity industry").
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  The japanese have power washers for this.
stephc_int13 5y ago
I agree, there is a limit to sustainability, even if technology is likely to improve I don't see why we should take the risk of pushing the limits. If the population decline happen to be a seemingly unsurmountable problem 100 years down the road, we'll have more than enough time to react before risking extinction.

yourapostasy 5y ago

> ...we don't need a pyramid. The core financial architecture of the world is pinned upon an assumption of monotonically-increasing global population on a 3-7 generation moving average. So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. We're into generation one or two depending upon your definition of a generation, so we have some time before we see how this pans out. I'm trying to find the data to establish whether we are engaging in the incipient factors of collapse as identified by the WEF [1]. To my untrained mind, demographics are a trailing indicator of those five factors and not a leading indicator, but I haven't rigorously analyzed this hypothesis. From what I see from my limited perspective, I wouldn't be as cavalier as "we don't need a pyramid". As near as I can tell, this kind of demography at this global scale and technological strategy to try to King Knute hold back the demographic waters is completely uncharted territory for our species recorded history. I'd sure like those who study this at the intersection of demography and technology history to give some pointers to some of the analyses going on in the field. My Google-fu has so far failed to turn up solid leads on comprehensive data surveys. [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/why-do-civilizations-collapse/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/why-do-civilizations-...

stephc_int13 5y ago
I think that the risk of civilization collapse has been highly overrated and is mostly bullshit prediction.
- yourapostasy 5y ago
  > …civilization collapse has been highly overrated… Yep, I wouldn’t even begin to advance a collapse hypothesis until a solid 7 generation trend has been established. However, the common assumption amongst contemporary policy makers is stagnation == collapse. So it is useful to observe for such data. I don’t buy into that narrative, nor the “stagnation is fine” story, either. I simply don’t have sufficient data to evaluate what demographic stagnation over a few hundred years or even a millennia means at this time. I will point out however: for many tens of millennia, our species teetered on a knife’s edge of viability, with an asymptotically curved growth rate that might as well have been stagnant. One hypothesis I’m exploring is demographic stagnation is a no-op in the presence of any species-wide median increase in cognitive density.