26 ms·

I don't understand why a population decrease should be resulting in "huge problems". I am sure it's possible to maintain or even increase happiness and relative

I don't understand why a population decrease should be resulting in "huge problems". I am sure it's possible to maintain or even increase happiness and relative wealth while growing smaller. For earth in total, it would be great to see a smaller number of humans.

ostenning 5y ago
A population decrease certainly doesn’t have to be counter productive to the economic status quo. But in today’s paradigm it is.. Our paradigm is all mixed up. It’s upside down. Why do casinos earn billions while exploiting the vulnerable, meanwhile hospitals struggle to get funding? Why do tobacco companies earn billions and poison the population while schools struggle to provide chalk for their teachers? Why does an executive for a superfluous cosmetics or designer clothing company get paid 1000X while we struggle to find enough social workers to try to relieve the massive mental health crises in the west? Why is it difficult to get paid well in an environmental startup, but easy to get paid well in online betting startup? Why does top talent build products that inflict immeasurable damage to children, teenagers and adults, rather than attempting to solve the ecological crisis we face? The juxtapositions I have used I believe are completely solvable by a realignment of the way we govern economic policy and what we as a society value. I don’t think it’s a utopian vision, but rather a realistic and a needed realignment. Realignments need to be made, because what I see today is that our world economy is a destructive debt machine that ultimately is failing the planet and it’s inhabitants
- tacitusarc 5y ago
  Keep in mind that revenue is higher for both schools and hospitals/healthcare, costs are just also dramatically higher. Also, social work mostly sucks. It pays terribly, sure, but even without that it’s some of the most exhausting and potentially soul destroying work you can do. I agree that alignments and incentives need to be adjusted, but I wouldn’t claim to know how.
sprucely 5y ago
I believe the problem in any society is that the older generation relies on the younger to care and/or subsidize costs of said care for the older as their health declines. That breaks down when population starts declining.
comodore_ 5y ago
who pays for all the old people?
- shoto_io 5y ago
  Isn't it a classic rate equation? If all young people die immediately, sure, we're in deep shit. But with increasing productivity and improved health care a graceful decrease should be possible.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Increasing productivity in geriatric care basically means robots taking care of people. I am not saying that it is impossible, but it is definitely hard. Which means psychologically hard, too. Without contact with living people, you are likely to go mad in your bed, even if your physiological needs are taken care of.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > increasing productivity Is it, in any real terms? > and improved health care Doesn’t this make the problem worse? I.e. longer lifespan for the aging population, and even more demand for healthcare professionals from the limited set of younger workers.
    - shoto_io 5y ago
      I'm talking about "health span" and not "life span".
      - zepto 5y ago
        They aren’t independent. Also you said ‘healthcare’. If healthcare produces health span, then it is still being consumed.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Worse, who takes care of all the old people. So far, we have increased our lifespans up to 85 or even 90 years, but our healthspans are significantly shorter and those last 10-15 years are spent in state of partial or complete dependency on others. Unless we can do a lot more in the longevity field and stretch healthspan of old people significantly, we won't be able to meet the total demand for workforce in care.
david38 5y ago
It’s not. It’s just stupid ideas about never ending unchecked growth. As the population declines, and it should, technology and policy will change to make things work. Better use of automation, better end of life care policies, managing death instead of “doing everything you can”, etc.

ostenning 5y ago

A population decrease certainly doesn’t have to be counter productive to the economic status quo. But in today’s paradigm it is.. Our paradigm is all mixed up. It’s upside down. Why do casinos earn billions while exploiting the vulnerable, meanwhile hospitals struggle to get funding? Why do tobacco companies earn billions and poison the population while schools struggle to provide chalk for their teachers? Why does an executive for a superfluous cosmetics or designer clothing company get paid 1000X while we struggle to find enough social workers to try to relieve the massive mental health crises in the west? Why is it difficult to get paid well in an environmental startup, but easy to get paid well in online betting startup? Why does top talent build products that inflict immeasurable damage to children, teenagers and adults, rather than attempting to solve the ecological crisis we face? The juxtapositions I have used I believe are completely solvable by a realignment of the way we govern economic policy and what we as a society value. I don’t think it’s a utopian vision, but rather a realistic and a needed realignment. Realignments need to be made, because what I see today is that our world economy is a destructive debt machine that ultimately is failing the planet and it’s inhabitants

tacitusarc 5y ago
Keep in mind that revenue is higher for both schools and hospitals/healthcare, costs are just also dramatically higher. Also, social work mostly sucks. It pays terribly, sure, but even without that it’s some of the most exhausting and potentially soul destroying work you can do. I agree that alignments and incentives need to be adjusted, but I wouldn’t claim to know how.

sprucely 5y ago

I believe the problem in any society is that the older generation relies on the younger to care and/or subsidize costs of said care for the older as their health declines. That breaks down when population starts declining.

comodore_ 5y ago

who pays for all the old people?

shoto_io 5y ago
Isn't it a classic rate equation? If all young people die immediately, sure, we're in deep shit. But with increasing productivity and improved health care a graceful decrease should be possible.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Increasing productivity in geriatric care basically means robots taking care of people. I am not saying that it is impossible, but it is definitely hard. Which means psychologically hard, too. Without contact with living people, you are likely to go mad in your bed, even if your physiological needs are taken care of.
- zepto 5y ago
  > increasing productivity Is it, in any real terms? > and improved health care Doesn’t this make the problem worse? I.e. longer lifespan for the aging population, and even more demand for healthcare professionals from the limited set of younger workers.
  - shoto_io 5y ago
    I'm talking about "health span" and not "life span".
    - zepto 5y ago
      They aren’t independent. Also you said ‘healthcare’. If healthcare produces health span, then it is still being consumed.
inglor_cz 5y ago
Worse, who takes care of all the old people. So far, we have increased our lifespans up to 85 or even 90 years, but our healthspans are significantly shorter and those last 10-15 years are spent in state of partial or complete dependency on others. Unless we can do a lot more in the longevity field and stretch healthspan of old people significantly, we won't be able to meet the total demand for workforce in care.

david38 5y ago

It’s not. It’s just stupid ideas about never ending unchecked growth. As the population declines, and it should, technology and policy will change to make things work. Better use of automation, better end of life care policies, managing death instead of “doing everything you can”, etc.