5 ms·

I don't understand why people are always panicking about negative fertility numbers and declining populations. Surely it's a good thing, right?

by Yuioup 5y ago

dash2 5y ago
Many theories of economic growth say that it is fundamentally generated by new ideas. When you have fewer people, you have fewer new ideas. So innovation might slow: in some models it even reverses.
- antisthenes 5y ago
  New ideas just aren't generated uniformly at a rate of say, 0.001 per person per year. They are generated by highly educated people with genetic ability, who also have the means for a stable adulthood and at least a modicum of free time to develop their curiosities. Not to mention the means to go into science. Very frequently another industry will pay more, and that person never becomes a scientist/researcher.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  Is innovation slowing necessarily a bad thing?
  - xeromal 5y ago
    I don't have any articles to back this shower though up, but I assume people fear becoming the English post pax-romana. Being in a world where you can't even conceive to rebuild something your ancestors built is a bit disturbing. If you're not progressing, you're backsliding.
- Yuioup 5y ago
  Innovation exists because of a need to find a way to support a growing population. We don't need to be continuously innovating. It's OK to take a break.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    It’s ok for individuals to take a break. But is it ok for a generation to take a break? How are skills passed two generations into the future? We would have to start over.
    - jll29 5y ago
      Skills have _not_ been passed on, greed made people outsource in a lot of areas, with disastrous consequences as far as knowledge preservation is concerned.
- Skunkleton 5y ago
  We have so many people who's ability to contribute is under utilized. Surely elevating these people is a more efficient way to capitalize on the resources invested.
pcthrowaway 5y ago
My understanding is that part of this panic is due to how society is structured somewhat as a pyramid scheme. Social benefits to retirees are expected to come from the economic productivity of a younger working class. Large businesses which are designed to make high-level execs wealthy at the expense of their lowest-level employees require a steady stream of fresh meat. I think some of the economic changes we're seeing is related to declining fertility rates.
- tgv 5y ago
  I've also seen economic growth as piggybacking on population growth. There's another disadvantage to diminishing population, of course: care of the elderly.
nostromo 5y ago
We’ve borrowed trillions of dollars from future generations, and have guaranteed ourselves trillions more in retirement benefits. If the population goes down, each individual is going to have a massive burden of debt and taxation to shoulder. And you can imagine a scenario where this creates a feedback loop of dramatic economic decline.
mulmen 5y ago
Who is going to pay your pension and wipe your incontinent butt? Population decline may be fine but we need new economic and social models to support an older population.
majjam 5y ago
Its good for the planet, but in the short to medium term people are worried that the burden of caring for a growing elderly population (who control the politics and capital) will fall on a dwindling number of youthful taxpayers
rocgf 5y ago
As with everything, it has pros and cons. If you care more about the environment than the economy, then I guess it's a good thing. The problem is that we have structured our entire system essentially as a pyramid scheme, where the ever more children coming from behind will mean that the standard of living keeps increasing. As with every pyramid scheme, once enrollment stops, then the pyramid collapses. I think theoretically, it's not necessarily about more and more children being born, but rather about productivity increasing. As long as generations manage to be increasingly more productive, then the pyramid keeps going. Obviously, population and output are heavily correlated, hence the issue. Given how bleak the outlook is at the moment for the people coming into their parenthood years, I don't think anyone can blame them for not wanting to procreate.
- convolvatron 5y ago
  i always thought 'underpopulation' was more of a demand side problem?

I don't understand why people are always panicking about negative fertility numbers and declining populations. Surely it's a good thing, right?

by Yuioup 5y ago

I don't understand why people are always panicking about negative fertility numbers and declining populations. Surely it's a good thing, right?

dash2 5y ago

Many theories of economic growth say that it is fundamentally generated by new ideas. When you have fewer people, you have fewer new ideas. So innovation might slow: in some models it even reverses.

antisthenes 5y ago
New ideas just aren't generated uniformly at a rate of say, 0.001 per person per year. They are generated by highly educated people with genetic ability, who also have the means for a stable adulthood and at least a modicum of free time to develop their curiosities. Not to mention the means to go into science. Very frequently another industry will pay more, and that person never becomes a scientist/researcher.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
Is innovation slowing necessarily a bad thing?
- xeromal 5y ago
  I don't have any articles to back this shower though up, but I assume people fear becoming the English post pax-romana. Being in a world where you can't even conceive to rebuild something your ancestors built is a bit disturbing. If you're not progressing, you're backsliding.
Yuioup 5y ago
Innovation exists because of a need to find a way to support a growing population. We don't need to be continuously innovating. It's OK to take a break.
- mulmen 5y ago
  It’s ok for individuals to take a break. But is it ok for a generation to take a break? How are skills passed two generations into the future? We would have to start over.
  - jll29 5y ago
    Skills have _not_ been passed on, greed made people outsource in a lot of areas, with disastrous consequences as far as knowledge preservation is concerned.
Skunkleton 5y ago
We have so many people who's ability to contribute is under utilized. Surely elevating these people is a more efficient way to capitalize on the resources invested.

pcthrowaway 5y ago

My understanding is that part of this panic is due to how society is structured somewhat as a pyramid scheme. Social benefits to retirees are expected to come from the economic productivity of a younger working class. Large businesses which are designed to make high-level execs wealthy at the expense of their lowest-level employees require a steady stream of fresh meat. I think some of the economic changes we're seeing is related to declining fertility rates.

tgv 5y ago
I've also seen economic growth as piggybacking on population growth. There's another disadvantage to diminishing population, of course: care of the elderly.

nostromo 5y ago

We’ve borrowed trillions of dollars from future generations, and have guaranteed ourselves trillions more in retirement benefits. If the population goes down, each individual is going to have a massive burden of debt and taxation to shoulder. And you can imagine a scenario where this creates a feedback loop of dramatic economic decline.

mulmen 5y ago

Who is going to pay your pension and wipe your incontinent butt? Population decline may be fine but we need new economic and social models to support an older population.

majjam 5y ago

Its good for the planet, but in the short to medium term people are worried that the burden of caring for a growing elderly population (who control the politics and capital) will fall on a dwindling number of youthful taxpayers

rocgf 5y ago

As with everything, it has pros and cons. If you care more about the environment than the economy, then I guess it's a good thing. The problem is that we have structured our entire system essentially as a pyramid scheme, where the ever more children coming from behind will mean that the standard of living keeps increasing. As with every pyramid scheme, once enrollment stops, then the pyramid collapses. I think theoretically, it's not necessarily about more and more children being born, but rather about productivity increasing. As long as generations manage to be increasingly more productive, then the pyramid keeps going. Obviously, population and output are heavily correlated, hence the issue. Given how bleak the outlook is at the moment for the people coming into their parenthood years, I don't think anyone can blame them for not wanting to procreate.

convolvatron 5y ago
i always thought 'underpopulation' was more of a demand side problem?