11 ms·

Reading the article through and through, it seems that it is a given that the world's currently huge population should not be allowed to shrink, for the good of

Reading the article through and through, it seems that it is a given that the world's currently huge population should not be allowed to shrink, for the good of the economy. This is an .. amazingly shortsighted take, especially when taking into consideration the resource (over-)utilization and flat-out exploitative extraction which was required just to get us this far. 1/13 of all people that have ever lived are alive right now. Maybe--just maybe--it's a good thing that the world's population will shrink over the coming decades, and quite possibly we need to disconnect our economies from unbounded growth while we're at it.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Yeah there are enough humans. We will reach an equilibrium point. Right now that looks to be between 8 and 10 billion and that's a hell of a lot of people on a increasling resource limited planet.
rwmj 5y ago
This was also my main problem with the article (I submitted it!). However this does raise the issue that we haven't found the economic model which allows population to age/decline while maintaining living standards. I guess the answer is going to be "robots".
- brightball 5y ago
  Honestly, the model where families stayed together longer and aging parents lived with their kids as they got older is probably the closest thing to sustainable out there. The alternative is going to be a huge amount of caretaking career opportunities.
  - robjan 5y ago
    I don't know if that is the answer either. I live in a society where kids are duty bound to provide care for their parents and grandparents as they age. The result is many single people pushing into their thirties who never got to live their own life. When their parents pass they risk living a life devoid of meaning and with nobody to look after themselves.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Honestly, the model where families stayed together longer and aging parents lived with their kids as they got older is probably the closest thing to sustainable out there. Paraphrasing a quote from memory: modern society took an integrated solution, then divided it to create two problems. The original context was something about factory farms. In the past farms were diversified, with animals being raised next to crops, and their waste being easily used as fertilizer. Now it's all specialized and separate: animals being raised at such density that their waste is so concentrated that it can't practically be used for anything; and crops being raised away from animals so they need chemical fertilizers that have to be produced separately. In multi-generational house, raising young kids is easier because the grandparents can do day care, and being old is easier because the younger generations can help you once you're infirm. Separate that out and you have to pay mega $$$ for all those needs.
Derbasti 5y ago
Thank you for saying this. I fully agree. In order to keep everyone fed and happy, and sustainable, we need fewer everyones.
- native_samples 5y ago
  No, it's the opposite. Happyness comes from wealth, more or less. Economists are pretty much in agreement on that and their case is strong. Wealth in turn is basically "population * technology", where "technology" is broadly defined and also depends somewhat on population. If population goes down wealth goes down, life gets harder, people get less happy. Pretty simple. Consider that in a low population world it's probably not worth being a computer programmer, because the demand for your physical labor would be higher.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  Starting with whom?
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Starting with attrition, no one is saying we should kill people and you know it.
    - 52-6F-62 5y ago
      I didn't imply we should kill anyone. If that's your read into it, that's on you. What I mean to highlight about what's stated above is that it's always someone else who shouldn't have children, or someone else who shouldn't exist so that you† and yours† have it better going forward. You must understand how that is fundamentally problematic. Kind of akin to "you should not drink water, so that I may not run short in the future". It's especially ironic to me that these kinds of opinions tend to come from the wealthiest, most materially-excessive societies on the planet. God forbid we just gear down together. † general, abstract 'you'
  - genericone 5y ago
    With increasing robot productivity level, those under that rising level/threshold will not be allowed to raise children, should they have them. Those children will be raised by people of the highest productivity percentile. /s
julianeon 5y ago
It’s also weird that the article starts with something caused by this trend which is either generally, or universally, considered good - fewer wars - and then, without comment or explanation (other than a throwaway line about the sound of children), postulates the trend is bad. The example he opens the article with (!) implies there’s some upside. EDIT: I can name two - less war and a damper on climate change, especially if pausing to figure out solutions with a lower global population will lead to a larger, permanent, global “carrying capacity” later.
lettergram 5y ago
I think there may be a different way to think about it: - the larger a society / civilization. The more specialty it can support - reducing the size of a civilization can result in a reduction of specialty. - this can result in a reduction of capacity and effectively inflation and a reduction in technology There are definitely other factors as well, but GDP is almost directly correlated to population. A reduction in population is effective a civilizational contraction. If we start seeing a general reduction in population above a certain threshold (idk what that is), you may even see cascading failures. Entire technology sectors are abandoned, etc. which could result in civilization collapse. Arguably, this is similar to what happened in the Bronze Age when the interconnected trade networks failed. Similarly, during the dark ages. Quite possibly we are seeing one now.
closeparen 5y ago
Malthusian economics is an intuitive and once-popular idea, that is pretty well discredited by the the world getting a lot more pleasant to live in since Industrial Revolution England. Do people really still believe it?
- native_samples 5y ago
  They do in certain parts of academia. The message that academic models fail to predict reality isn't a popular one, hence the failure to haven anything from the 70s Malthusians "limits to growth" models.
alcover 5y ago
It's not the number of people, it's how they live. Big houses, big cars, commute. > it's a good thing that the world's population will shrink Not if it happens too fast. It may very well be unstoppable. In countries like South Korea every couple has one child these days. So its population is going 1/2. If they want to correct that and return to previous level, every couple formed among those children would have to bear 4 children. They won't.
- mdoms 5y ago
  > It's not the number of people, it's how they live. Big houses, big cars, commute There's a whole world outside of USA.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Yeah there are enough humans. We will reach an equilibrium point. Right now that looks to be between 8 and 10 billion and that's a hell of a lot of people on a increasling resource limited planet.

rwmj 5y ago

This was also my main problem with the article (I submitted it!). However this does raise the issue that we haven't found the economic model which allows population to age/decline while maintaining living standards. I guess the answer is going to be "robots".

brightball 5y ago
Honestly, the model where families stayed together longer and aging parents lived with their kids as they got older is probably the closest thing to sustainable out there. The alternative is going to be a huge amount of caretaking career opportunities.
- robjan 5y ago
  I don't know if that is the answer either. I live in a society where kids are duty bound to provide care for their parents and grandparents as they age. The result is many single people pushing into their thirties who never got to live their own life. When their parents pass they risk living a life devoid of meaning and with nobody to look after themselves.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Honestly, the model where families stayed together longer and aging parents lived with their kids as they got older is probably the closest thing to sustainable out there. Paraphrasing a quote from memory: modern society took an integrated solution, then divided it to create two problems. The original context was something about factory farms. In the past farms were diversified, with animals being raised next to crops, and their waste being easily used as fertilizer. Now it's all specialized and separate: animals being raised at such density that their waste is so concentrated that it can't practically be used for anything; and crops being raised away from animals so they need chemical fertilizers that have to be produced separately. In multi-generational house, raising young kids is easier because the grandparents can do day care, and being old is easier because the younger generations can help you once you're infirm. Separate that out and you have to pay mega $$$ for all those needs.

Derbasti 5y ago

Thank you for saying this. I fully agree. In order to keep everyone fed and happy, and sustainable, we need fewer everyones.

native_samples 5y ago
No, it's the opposite. Happyness comes from wealth, more or less. Economists are pretty much in agreement on that and their case is strong. Wealth in turn is basically "population * technology", where "technology" is broadly defined and also depends somewhat on population. If population goes down wealth goes down, life gets harder, people get less happy. Pretty simple. Consider that in a low population world it's probably not worth being a computer programmer, because the demand for your physical labor would be higher.
52-6F-62 5y ago
Starting with whom?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Starting with attrition, no one is saying we should kill people and you know it.
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    I didn't imply we should kill anyone. If that's your read into it, that's on you. What I mean to highlight about what's stated above is that it's always someone else who shouldn't have children, or someone else who shouldn't exist so that you† and yours† have it better going forward. You must understand how that is fundamentally problematic. Kind of akin to "you should not drink water, so that I may not run short in the future". It's especially ironic to me that these kinds of opinions tend to come from the wealthiest, most materially-excessive societies on the planet. God forbid we just gear down together. † general, abstract 'you'
- genericone 5y ago
  With increasing robot productivity level, those under that rising level/threshold will not be allowed to raise children, should they have them. Those children will be raised by people of the highest productivity percentile. /s

julianeon 5y ago

It’s also weird that the article starts with something caused by this trend which is either generally, or universally, considered good - fewer wars - and then, without comment or explanation (other than a throwaway line about the sound of children), postulates the trend is bad. The example he opens the article with (!) implies there’s some upside. EDIT: I can name two - less war and a damper on climate change, especially if pausing to figure out solutions with a lower global population will lead to a larger, permanent, global “carrying capacity” later.

lettergram 5y ago

I think there may be a different way to think about it: - the larger a society / civilization. The more specialty it can support - reducing the size of a civilization can result in a reduction of specialty. - this can result in a reduction of capacity and effectively inflation and a reduction in technology There are definitely other factors as well, but GDP is almost directly correlated to population. A reduction in population is effective a civilizational contraction. If we start seeing a general reduction in population above a certain threshold (idk what that is), you may even see cascading failures. Entire technology sectors are abandoned, etc. which could result in civilization collapse. Arguably, this is similar to what happened in the Bronze Age when the interconnected trade networks failed. Similarly, during the dark ages. Quite possibly we are seeing one now.

closeparen 5y ago

Malthusian economics is an intuitive and once-popular idea, that is pretty well discredited by the the world getting a lot more pleasant to live in since Industrial Revolution England. Do people really still believe it?

native_samples 5y ago
They do in certain parts of academia. The message that academic models fail to predict reality isn't a popular one, hence the failure to haven anything from the 70s Malthusians "limits to growth" models.

alcover 5y ago

It's not the number of people, it's how they live. Big houses, big cars, commute. > it's a good thing that the world's population will shrink Not if it happens too fast. It may very well be unstoppable. In countries like South Korea every couple has one child these days. So its population is going 1/2. If they want to correct that and return to previous level, every couple formed among those children would have to bear 4 children. They won't.

mdoms 5y ago
> It's not the number of people, it's how they live. Big houses, big cars, commute There's a whole world outside of USA.