4 ms·

I'm sure some of you are reading or have heard of "The End of the World is Just the Beginning" by Peter Zeihan. One of the claims in his book is that the world

I'm sure some of you are reading or have heard of "The End of the World is Just the Beginning" by Peter Zeihan. One of the claims in his book is that the world is rapidly aging and so much so that many countries are now terminal. By "terminal" he means that the populations are past the age where they can have enough children to replace the population. Examples include Germany, China, Japan, Russia. If you believe in the evidence supporting that claim, then I think we'll be able to hit the IPCC targets simply by waiting for half the world's population to age out over the next 20-30 years. Without a replacement generation in these countries industrial output will collapse along with the energy demand. We might not need to do anything else, but of course more nuclear would help along with wind and solar if we can sort out grid storage.

jnwatson 4y ago
Short of a bigger plague than COVID or nuclear war, the static population numbers in developed countries will be dwarfed by population increases in the rest of the world.
- politician 4y ago
  This is unlikely because as globalization shuts down, trade in fertilizer will slow and countries will be forced to downshift population growth in order to feed themselves according to what their own lands can produce without imported fertilizer. So, no, there won’t be large increases in population from the rest of the world.
lm28469 4y ago
> We might not need to do anything else That's just for the 2c part of the story. Because what you describe will be hell on earth for the transition generation(s) in every other aspects
- politician 4y ago
  Agreed. The second and third order effects of not having enough people to support the elderly population will be extreme. Still, it’s unavoidable, so we’d better come to grips with what is happening.
godtoldmetodoit 4y ago
He also talks about how in a deglobalizing world the one power source most every nation has access to locally is coal. So you could see a reduction in industrial activity and consumption, but still end up with increasing emissions due to nations switching back to coal just to keep the lights on.
- politician 4y ago
  Yes, that might happen, or we might find that existing solar, wind, and nuclear infrastructure are sufficient to power the reduced needs of the smaller populations. In developing nations though, I agree that they’ll go to coal. Still, those nations that lack local coal resources might find it hard to import it due to interference from developed nations trying to curtail warming and from the overall reduction in global trade.
actually_a_dog 4y ago
> If you believe in the evidence supporting that claim, then I think we'll be able to hit the IPCC targets simply by waiting for half the world's population to age out over the next 20-30 years. That might work in theory if 20-30 years weren't at least 10 years too late.
jjk166 4y ago
Many countries are expected to see population decline which will have negative economic effects, but the actual change in population isn't that great. For example Russia's population is projected to decline 18% over the next 30 years, and they're one of the worst cases. Overall world population is projected to continue increasing, leveling out around 11 billion in 2100. Many of these people will be born into nations that are in the process of industrializing, or immigrate to the developed world, either way increasing their carbon footprint. The odds are extremely against demographic shifts alone decreasing emissions in this century. More generally, Zeihan's population projections generally discount immigration. While that might be reasonable for some particularly immigration averse societies like Japan, most developed nations have a positive feedback loop where the more young people they need, the more young people they welcome. Quite a few countries with very low birthrates like Germany are nevertheless expected to still see population growth over the next 30 years driven primarily by immigration.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
thriftwy 4y ago
Why would you expect population to grow endlessly? Looks like it was a Ponzi scheme, a bubble that needs to be deflated carefully.

jnwatson 4y ago

Short of a bigger plague than COVID or nuclear war, the static population numbers in developed countries will be dwarfed by population increases in the rest of the world.

politician 4y ago
This is unlikely because as globalization shuts down, trade in fertilizer will slow and countries will be forced to downshift population growth in order to feed themselves according to what their own lands can produce without imported fertilizer. So, no, there won’t be large increases in population from the rest of the world.

lm28469 4y ago

> We might not need to do anything else That's just for the 2c part of the story. Because what you describe will be hell on earth for the transition generation(s) in every other aspects

politician 4y ago
Agreed. The second and third order effects of not having enough people to support the elderly population will be extreme. Still, it’s unavoidable, so we’d better come to grips with what is happening.

godtoldmetodoit 4y ago

He also talks about how in a deglobalizing world the one power source most every nation has access to locally is coal. So you could see a reduction in industrial activity and consumption, but still end up with increasing emissions due to nations switching back to coal just to keep the lights on.

politician 4y ago
Yes, that might happen, or we might find that existing solar, wind, and nuclear infrastructure are sufficient to power the reduced needs of the smaller populations. In developing nations though, I agree that they’ll go to coal. Still, those nations that lack local coal resources might find it hard to import it due to interference from developed nations trying to curtail warming and from the overall reduction in global trade.

actually_a_dog 4y ago

> If you believe in the evidence supporting that claim, then I think we'll be able to hit the IPCC targets simply by waiting for half the world's population to age out over the next 20-30 years. That might work in theory if 20-30 years weren't at least 10 years too late.

jjk166 4y ago

Many countries are expected to see population decline which will have negative economic effects, but the actual change in population isn't that great. For example Russia's population is projected to decline 18% over the next 30 years, and they're one of the worst cases. Overall world population is projected to continue increasing, leveling out around 11 billion in 2100. Many of these people will be born into nations that are in the process of industrializing, or immigrate to the developed world, either way increasing their carbon footprint. The odds are extremely against demographic shifts alone decreasing emissions in this century. More generally, Zeihan's population projections generally discount immigration. While that might be reasonable for some particularly immigration averse societies like Japan, most developed nations have a positive feedback loop where the more young people they need, the more young people they welcome. Quite a few countries with very low birthrates like Germany are nevertheless expected to still see population growth over the next 30 years driven primarily by immigration.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

thriftwy 4y ago

Why would you expect population to grow endlessly? Looks like it was a Ponzi scheme, a bubble that needs to be deflated carefully.