4 ms·

I think this switch from supporting an always-growing economy to one that one whose population numbers are in relative stasis will be the biggest challenge of t

I think this switch from supporting an always-growing economy to one that one whose population numbers are in relative stasis will be the biggest challenge of this century. It's something we've never encountered as a global civilization. And I think it could break said civilization.

mc32 5y ago
The "always growing" part, I think has a lot to do with the stock markets and public companies. Private companies can go up and down, expand and contract (it's not painless of course). But a lot of this is due to expectations. Society can adjust if it's allowed. Before the 1900s old people didn't retire (unless they were wealthy and never actually did hard work). Maybe we need to rid ourselves of the idea of living idly with golfcourses and driving an RV all over the country and instead to add to the household, if in diminishing amounts as one ages.
breckenedge 5y ago
It’ll be rough no doubt, but the Black Death didn’t break civilization, and it was a much more drastic population reduction. I do wonder how we will accomplish really big projects, such as properly decommissioning nuclear power facilities, with a reduced population. All of the models for licensing and re-licensing reactors assume population growth, and doing it wrong or neglecting it could lead to some really fucked up situations.
toyg 5y ago
> It's something we've never encountered as a global civilization I'm not sure what that means. There have been periods of population stagnation in continent-size swaths of land before. Culturally speaking, stagnation has effectively been "official policy" in Europe for centuries, before the XIX/XX century changes. It ended simply because technological advance by growing societies made it culturally unsustainable to pursue ideals of eternal stagnation. If you don't grow, somebody else will and eventually they will show up at your door. This is also the case of Japan, btw. They were effectively forced to grow and progress by foreigners demonstrating military power and tech that they could not match. If they stagnate too much, they are at serious risk of somebody else (China) doing it to them again. If you think a global policy of stagnation would not have such drawbacks, you're effectively stating that no interplanetary species will ever show up at our door with big guns, ever. That's kind of a big gamble.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >This is also the case of Japan, btw. They were effectively forced to grow and progress by foreigners demonstrating military power and tech that they could not match. Yes, war gets rid of the surplus population and wealth, forcing a rebuilding of society in terms of economics and population. Of course it would be smarter to just give the surplus population something to do even if it is not the most effective use of the surplus population. After all, that is still better than having no surplus at all.

mc32 5y ago

The "always growing" part, I think has a lot to do with the stock markets and public companies. Private companies can go up and down, expand and contract (it's not painless of course). But a lot of this is due to expectations. Society can adjust if it's allowed. Before the 1900s old people didn't retire (unless they were wealthy and never actually did hard work). Maybe we need to rid ourselves of the idea of living idly with golfcourses and driving an RV all over the country and instead to add to the household, if in diminishing amounts as one ages.

breckenedge 5y ago

It’ll be rough no doubt, but the Black Death didn’t break civilization, and it was a much more drastic population reduction. I do wonder how we will accomplish really big projects, such as properly decommissioning nuclear power facilities, with a reduced population. All of the models for licensing and re-licensing reactors assume population growth, and doing it wrong or neglecting it could lead to some really fucked up situations.

toyg 5y ago

> It's something we've never encountered as a global civilization I'm not sure what that means. There have been periods of population stagnation in continent-size swaths of land before. Culturally speaking, stagnation has effectively been "official policy" in Europe for centuries, before the XIX/XX century changes. It ended simply because technological advance by growing societies made it culturally unsustainable to pursue ideals of eternal stagnation. If you don't grow, somebody else will and eventually they will show up at your door. This is also the case of Japan, btw. They were effectively forced to grow and progress by foreigners demonstrating military power and tech that they could not match. If they stagnate too much, they are at serious risk of somebody else (China) doing it to them again. If you think a global policy of stagnation would not have such drawbacks, you're effectively stating that no interplanetary species will ever show up at our door with big guns, ever. That's kind of a big gamble.

imtringued 5y ago
>This is also the case of Japan, btw. They were effectively forced to grow and progress by foreigners demonstrating military power and tech that they could not match. Yes, war gets rid of the surplus population and wealth, forcing a rebuilding of society in terms of economics and population. Of course it would be smarter to just give the surplus population something to do even if it is not the most effective use of the surplus population. After all, that is still better than having no surplus at all.