4 ms·

> ...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

> ...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.
AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
Just in case: to maintain the population we need about 2.3 kids per woman.
- yourapostasy 5y ago
  And we currently appear to globally be converging upon 1.7. We recorded instances of declines lasting “several centuries” [1], so I wouldn’t start to closely interpret trends until we hit at least 200 years of the same direction. As a species this won’t become material until it has manifested for about half a millennium maybe longer? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline
BelenusMordred 5y ago
> So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. And yet Japan has some of the highest quality of life, a huge economy despite very few natural resources, some of the most innovative companies in the world and the longest lived people on the planet. It's been the poster-child for westerners as a failed economy with a lost decade and yet they keep on doing fine despite 30+ years of this narrative. Try moving somewhere with rampant population growth and tell me it's great. The underlying general trend for the vast majority of people on Earth is to get the fuck away from other people and move to low density countries where the mineral and agricultural wealth is spread much thicker. GDP growth means nothing for the average person and most realise this.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Japan is very nice example, even if some would probably argue that 30 years is not enough to observe the real consequences of demographic changes.
  - yourapostasy 5y ago
    Exactly. For my personal purposes in this matter (YMMV), 30 years of trend is curious. 200 years is data.
- yourapostasy 5y ago
  Yes, I’m watching Japan with great interest. Wish I knew Japanese and Chinese cultures more intimately to be able to parse what we’re hearing as laypeople, but yay for specialists who do study that. Now if only I could find what those specialists wrote…

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.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

Just in case: to maintain the population we need about 2.3 kids per woman.

yourapostasy 5y ago
And we currently appear to globally be converging upon 1.7. We recorded instances of declines lasting “several centuries” [1], so I wouldn’t start to closely interpret trends until we hit at least 200 years of the same direction. As a species this won’t become material until it has manifested for about half a millennium maybe longer? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

BelenusMordred 5y ago

> So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. And yet Japan has some of the highest quality of life, a huge economy despite very few natural resources, some of the most innovative companies in the world and the longest lived people on the planet. It's been the poster-child for westerners as a failed economy with a lost decade and yet they keep on doing fine despite 30+ years of this narrative. Try moving somewhere with rampant population growth and tell me it's great. The underlying general trend for the vast majority of people on Earth is to get the fuck away from other people and move to low density countries where the mineral and agricultural wealth is spread much thicker. GDP growth means nothing for the average person and most realise this.

stephc_int13 5y ago
Japan is very nice example, even if some would probably argue that 30 years is not enough to observe the real consequences of demographic changes.
- yourapostasy 5y ago
  Exactly. For my personal purposes in this matter (YMMV), 30 years of trend is curious. 200 years is data.
yourapostasy 5y ago
Yes, I’m watching Japan with great interest. Wish I knew Japanese and Chinese cultures more intimately to be able to parse what we’re hearing as laypeople, but yay for specialists who do study that. Now if only I could find what those specialists wrote…