3 ms·

What "survival" are you talking about? There are more than 8 billion humans on Earth, more than at any point in history, in fact to the point where other ecosys

by js8 4y ago

What "survival" are you talking about? There are more than 8 billion humans on Earth, more than at any point in history, in fact to the point where other ecosystems of the planet are threatened.

paxys 4y ago
In most developed societies fewer and fewer babies are being born every year, well below the replacement number. The 8 billion people are going to age and will soon be unable to work. Who is going to support them? The current band-aid fix is importing people from developing countries. But those countries themselves will run into the same problem soon enough.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  With gains in worker productivity, we should be able to support more people per worker than we previously did. The strain on the economy is a problem of failure to adapt economic policy, not intrinsic to population growth leveling out. Infinite population growth was never going to be sustainable. If you went back in time and told Malthus that in sufficiently prosperous societies people ended up having fewer children, he would have jumped for joy, as it's vastly preferable to society growing until all resources are depleted, then dying off in droves due to overpopulation.
- mdorazio 4y ago
  This is a problem of broken economic models that assume infinite population growth. Not a problem of “societies” or of “survival”. Economics will need to change and hopefully we will reach a global population level that is more sustainable. Here’s a thought: in the mid-1970s the global population was half what it is today. Did the world desperately need double the population it had back then or was society doing just fine?
  - badpun 4y ago
    Most countries' state pensions systems ("social security" in the US) aren't built with the expectation of ininite population growth, but merely of sustained population over generations.
- roflyear 4y ago
  You can't grow forever. Getting to a sustainable place today is better than blowing the problem up and making it even harder in 50, 100 years when it's even more lopsided. The issue was caused by too many kids. Those kids are now getting old.
- CapstanRoller 4y ago
  >well below the replacement number Why is this bad?

by js8 4y ago

What "survival" are you talking about? There are more than 8 billion humans on Earth, more than at any point in history, in fact to the point where other ecosystems of the planet are threatened.

paxys 4y ago

In most developed societies fewer and fewer babies are being born every year, well below the replacement number. The 8 billion people are going to age and will soon be unable to work. Who is going to support them? The current band-aid fix is importing people from developing countries. But those countries themselves will run into the same problem soon enough.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
With gains in worker productivity, we should be able to support more people per worker than we previously did. The strain on the economy is a problem of failure to adapt economic policy, not intrinsic to population growth leveling out. Infinite population growth was never going to be sustainable. If you went back in time and told Malthus that in sufficiently prosperous societies people ended up having fewer children, he would have jumped for joy, as it's vastly preferable to society growing until all resources are depleted, then dying off in droves due to overpopulation.
mdorazio 4y ago
This is a problem of broken economic models that assume infinite population growth. Not a problem of “societies” or of “survival”. Economics will need to change and hopefully we will reach a global population level that is more sustainable. Here’s a thought: in the mid-1970s the global population was half what it is today. Did the world desperately need double the population it had back then or was society doing just fine?
- badpun 4y ago
  Most countries' state pensions systems ("social security" in the US) aren't built with the expectation of ininite population growth, but merely of sustained population over generations.
roflyear 4y ago
You can't grow forever. Getting to a sustainable place today is better than blowing the problem up and making it even harder in 50, 100 years when it's even more lopsided. The issue was caused by too many kids. Those kids are now getting old.
CapstanRoller 4y ago
>well below the replacement number Why is this bad?