3 ms·

> When the grid goes down and stays that way, when the coastal cities are flooded and the flyover towns all Lyttonised, when we’ve exhausted the world’s arable

> When the grid goes down and stays that way, when the coastal cities are flooded and the flyover towns all Lyttonised, when we’ve exhausted the world’s arable land (about thirty years from now, last I heard) and civilization itself begins to collapse (twenty); we’ll be out there with our Molotov cocktails and our boards-with-the-nails-through-‘em. It’s how societies collapse. It's not how societies collapse though. Collapse takes a long time and it's a slow process. We might already be in it in much of the developed world. Working age population sizes are already beginning to come down and I don't know of a historical example of a society that continued to grow while working age population shrunk. I guess the anger that a lot of people have around climate change is normal, but what do you expect to happen? You can't keep fitting more and more people on a planet the size of Earth and expect to increase energy consumption forever. Even with the most optimistic forecasts about energy storage a world that reduces CO2 emissions to minimize global warming is a world where people are using a lot less energy. That means less vacations, less stuff, less high end services.

mathlover2 5y ago
I'd argue that the shrinkage of working age populations is at most an indicator of decline rather than collapse, and given the rise of automation, there really isn't a good historical precedent to predict this from.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  The rise of automation, so far, is nothing. The rise of offshoring is. Its not like we automated away the production of consumer goods - we just get China or Taiwan to do it.
  - mathlover2 5y ago
    True, but the possibility of increasing automation, particularly as a response to a future decline in the size of the working population, is one that hasn't been present in prior historical eras where the working population shrank.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> I don't know of a historical example of a society that continued to grow while working age population shrunk. Do you know of any historical examples of a society that continued to increase total production with less people working less hours? Because that's where we're at, today.
- jeffreyrogers 5y ago
  Total production per worker-hour has been increasing since the 1800s I'd imagine. But it doesn't matter that much if it is increasing, what matters is whether it is increasing faster than the labor force shrinks. But a huge proportion of productivity increases are due to increased access to energy. So there are two headwinds: increasing energy scarcity and declining workforce size. To some extent the productivity numbers for developed countries need to be discounted too because a lot of low value add work (mining, basic manufacturing, etc.) that is labor intensive takes place in poor countries where labor is cheap.
southerntofu 5y ago
> Collapse takes a long time and it's a slow process. If you're talking about the roman empire, sure. But i'm guessing (disclaimer: not an anthropologist) that some civilizations have collapsed much faster due to resource exhaustion or otherwise destroying their local environment. > You can't keep fitting more and more people on a planet the size of Earth and expect to increase energy consumption forever. The second part of the sentence is the important part, and the one it's easier to do something about. There are so many ways to reduce energy consumption globally, but they require a shift in governance to do away entirely with industrial capitalism. I believe most people would be pretty happy about it (do you really prefer having sushi once a week over having 6/7 days free time?!), except for the bourgeoisie whose entire existence and way of life is threatened. > That means less vacations, less stuff, less high end services. I agree reducing consumption is the principle idea, but i don't think "less stuff" from an end-user perspective is what really makes a difference. I believe useless stuff deployed on a wide scale (eg. CCTV, cop uniforms, office buildings, car-oriented cities and other concrete/electronics-based nonsense) is what could make a difference via policy shifts. If as a society you start only producing highly-reliable (and repairable!) goods and do away with useless junk that only serves to reinforce existing power structure, chances are we can have a pretty modern way of life without destroying our entire environment. A few days back, i posted some ideas on another threads about how to realistically start doing that from one day to the next (on a regulatory level): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29241109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29241109

mathlover2 5y ago

I'd argue that the shrinkage of working age populations is at most an indicator of decline rather than collapse, and given the rise of automation, there really isn't a good historical precedent to predict this from.

beaconstudios 5y ago
The rise of automation, so far, is nothing. The rise of offshoring is. Its not like we automated away the production of consumer goods - we just get China or Taiwan to do it.
- mathlover2 5y ago
  True, but the possibility of increasing automation, particularly as a response to a future decline in the size of the working population, is one that hasn't been present in prior historical eras where the working population shrank.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> I don't know of a historical example of a society that continued to grow while working age population shrunk. Do you know of any historical examples of a society that continued to increase total production with less people working less hours? Because that's where we're at, today.

jeffreyrogers 5y ago
Total production per worker-hour has been increasing since the 1800s I'd imagine. But it doesn't matter that much if it is increasing, what matters is whether it is increasing faster than the labor force shrinks. But a huge proportion of productivity increases are due to increased access to energy. So there are two headwinds: increasing energy scarcity and declining workforce size. To some extent the productivity numbers for developed countries need to be discounted too because a lot of low value add work (mining, basic manufacturing, etc.) that is labor intensive takes place in poor countries where labor is cheap.

southerntofu 5y ago

> Collapse takes a long time and it's a slow process. If you're talking about the roman empire, sure. But i'm guessing (disclaimer: not an anthropologist) that some civilizations have collapsed much faster due to resource exhaustion or otherwise destroying their local environment. > You can't keep fitting more and more people on a planet the size of Earth and expect to increase energy consumption forever. The second part of the sentence is the important part, and the one it's easier to do something about. There are so many ways to reduce energy consumption globally, but they require a shift in governance to do away entirely with industrial capitalism. I believe most people would be pretty happy about it (do you really prefer having sushi once a week over having 6/7 days free time?!), except for the bourgeoisie whose entire existence and way of life is threatened. > That means less vacations, less stuff, less high end services. I agree reducing consumption is the principle idea, but i don't think "less stuff" from an end-user perspective is what really makes a difference. I believe useless stuff deployed on a wide scale (eg. CCTV, cop uniforms, office buildings, car-oriented cities and other concrete/electronics-based nonsense) is what could make a difference via policy shifts. If as a society you start only producing highly-reliable (and repairable!) goods and do away with useless junk that only serves to reinforce existing power structure, chances are we can have a pretty modern way of life without destroying our entire environment. A few days back, i posted some ideas on another threads about how to realistically start doing that from one day to the next (on a regulatory level): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29241109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29241109