4 ms·

Japan is not alone. Whole western world will shrink signify in this century. There is only single family with 2 kids in 9 houses in close neighborhood. In other

by lnsru 4y ago

Japan is not alone. Whole western world will shrink signify in this century. There is only single family with 2 kids in 9 houses in close neighborhood. In other 8 houses live retirees between 70 and 90 years old. That’s west Germany close to Munich. Other places do not really look younger. I am really very curious which country will emerge in 2084. It will not be an European one for sure. Edit: Many people don’t like the truth. Please take your time and look at UN demographic forecast: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve...

mytailorisrich 4y ago
> It will not be an European one for sure. No-one forces Europe to allow such high immigration...
- epolanski 4y ago
  Actually immigration is what is saving our economy and why we're not struggling yet at a social/financial level with the whole retirees issue like Japan is.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    No, it's not. Immigration is 'easy' as it avoids making the changes to adapt to stagnant/decreasing population, but those changes will have to made one day because population cannot keep growing indefinitely, so it's just kicking the can down the road. On the other hand, high immigration creates many social issues. Frankly the debate has been poisoned by ideology and political agendas to the point people actually believe that there is no choice. But, really it has not been going well at all for the social and cultural fabric of European countries and just stating that means risking being labelled whatever nasty term you can think of.
    - epolanski 4y ago
      I think it is you stating ideologically poisoned opinions. Regular (even ignoring irregular) immigration contributes for 10% of the GDP in Italy alone. All stats clearly show how regular (and even irregular) immigration is a high benefit to European countries. I'm Italian and I can guarantee you that many sectors of our economy would be dead without immigrants, especially our precious food industry. Immigrants pay taxes here, produce goods here, consume here, but they get little out of it as they are neither schooled nor retire here. See, e.g. key findings here: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/projecting-net-fiscal-impact-immigration-eu_en https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/pr... The other part of your comment is similarly loaded. Yes, it happens that immigration may lead to social tensions. That's very true. But the experience differs wildly and real stats have to be taken into account. E.g. In Germany crime is at all times low after having taken more than 2 million refugees and regular/irregular immigrants in a decade. They have been absolutely core to German growth and I am hardly pressed to state that taking so many immigrants has been anything but a net positive.
      - mytailorisrich 4y ago
        > Regular (even ignoring irregular) immigration contributes for 10% of the GDP in Italy alone. I haven't denied that. But that's not the point, which you are ignoring. In fact your reply illustrate my previous comment that immigration is the easy option for industry, but it is not sustainable. > I think it is you stating ideologically poisoned opinions QED. Have a nice day.
      - finikytou 4y ago
        in many european countries 40-50% of this immigration is unemployed. that's not a net positive. immigration was a positive when unemployment wasn't high and cost of life wasnt that crazy high in western europe.it was also a time where western europe had industries and blue collar jobs. those jobs are gone and bringing millions of people from poor countries w/ low education background will only bring false hopes to those people.the past 20 years did not require mass immigration. and for germany crimes can you break it down into the type of crimes so that we see that your stat doesn't hold? best look at countries that had mass immigration for long like sweden. how is it going crime wise? has for industries that thrived thanks to immigration. I know the nice NYT story about parmagienno saved thanks to hard working immigrants. Why not? but most of the time industries that struggle to hire native are paying salaries that wouldn't allow natives to raise a family while allowing immigrants to buy a house at home in a few years. this is why they favor mass immigration so that they can keep the salaries low. we saw with covid and the stop of immigration that salaries in UK for truck drivers went up for instance. its offer and demand 101
  - phillipp_8734 4y ago
    [flagged]
- finikytou 4y ago
  actually yes. european union declared "family policies" not to be part of their work and leave it to individuals to decide whether they want to make or no children. they even punish Hungary for doing it and call Orban a far right activist for being nationalist (like most of the world countries are). at the same time they finance foreign countries so that they can have children policies (https://twitter.com/EUDelegationTur/status/16033126425667829760 https://twitter.com/EUDelegationTur/status/16033126425667829...). it is obvious that european unelected leaders of the EU are favoring mass immigration vs birth/child policies and the fact that people like you and most of the media is lying about it is the proof that they don't think people would approve. in most of EU countries you don't get money/help/incentives for having children when your income is high or even average. You only get help when you are poor. this obviously tends to make people not to want to have children. South Korea took the opposite direction (too late but still) and now heavily finance child birth at all incomes.
  - orwin 4y ago
    It's obviously false, France give plenty of incentives for couples to have children,I think this year the national budget is more than 5 billion (and truly more than 8 billions, because 3 of the 5 are matched by municipalities), I've never heard of Europe attacking the CAF or anything. And if you're rich enough to not qualify for direct help, the tax breaks your child provides you is greater than the maximum amount the poorest families get for a child. Also even using private daycare, if they have reglemented prices, the CAF and muni pay for two third of the real price, at least in my area. And you also won't pay the real full price of the conservatory/music school. Nor you will pay the real full price of museum, school, sport and youth camp, no matter how rich you are. I've worked with children who lived in a manor in the center of Paris, and in the same camp I had children from the rural Jura (west Virginia Appalachian for the US people) and one child in foster care. The full price was 500 euros for two weeks (with rebates depending on how poor you are). This isn't the true price. You get help even if you're a top10 French business lawyer with a manor with garden in the '6eme' (maybe tmi, but it has been ten years). (BTW, all of what I listed do not come from the 5 billion I talked about in the beginning, the 5 billion is only what the branch 'family' from the CAF get, I think the total budget is close to 12 billion and cover a lot more than just family).
epolanski 4y ago
I think being less of us in the world is a benefit for the human race and the future of the globe. We're already way more than exhausting our resources, we want too much, for as little as possible and there's more and more of us everyday. We're only worried about this whole thing for retirement and productivity reasons and their social and financial impacts, which are serious but can be sorted out.
- trabant00 4y ago
  There's other things that can not be sorted out. The balance of global powers and culture. Like the western world or not, I prefer it to Russia, China, India. Which are the ones that can slip in the role of dominant global power if the west declines too much in population. Or if it's culture and values get too diluted. Granted, these things happen in many generations, we'll be long dead before it happens (presuming it does), and as I have no children, nor want, so I couldn't say it interests me aside from an intellectual debate.
  - epolanski 4y ago
    Interesting point, but honestly I couldn't care less about global chess power games. Also, Russia has among the lowest fertility rates in Europe, Chinese population has pretty much capped (the growth is 0.3% YoY), both countries are going to face the aging population issue sooner than us.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      > Interesting point, but honestly I couldn't care less about global chess power games. Ain't so nowadays. "You can't be neutral on a moving train" -- this isn't the 1600s where they're on the other side of the world speaking a different language and only having an impact indirectly.
      - epolanski 4y ago
        I am not neutral, I hope in a better future.
Chris2048 4y ago
> I am really very curious which country will emerge in 2084. It will not be an European one for sure. Can this be assumed? As the singularity approaches, human resources may become less relevant, e.g. warfare might not be determined by numbers alone, but by training and equipment.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  The singularity probably wont happen under the current limitations of power/cost per transistor/latency.
rayusher 4y ago
This century will belong to India, they have the large and young population.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  China seems much more likely. Their government is far more competent and their institutions are far more solid. India has a lot going for it, english creating a natural alliance with the west is a huge one, but they've got a lot to improve before they can move past china. The demographics in china are an issue, but they'll still have around a billion people and the one child policy reversal is helping fix the issue.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  India has a large and young population most of whom will have no prospects. That's a recipe for disaster. India is now trending towards the NIGHTMARE scenario PRC family planning / one child policy was trying to avoid. India has the bodies but not the system to develop and harness/coordinate talent enmass. Even PRC with more competent system couldn't wrangle 1.4B+ people. 100s of millions were left behind. Realistically India is going to have a few 100m being uplifted and 1B+ stuck in informal economy / susbsistent agriculture.
Balgair 4y ago
I think that it's not going to be a country as much as a region: The Indian Ocean. India is set to double in population by 2100. Africa is set to quadruple, with East Africa growing a lot too. Indonesia is already very populous and will grow, but likely not as much as Africa. Combine AI with (hopefully) new fusion tech, and you've got a recipe for a mega explosion in human potential. For some good reasons, I watch Kismayo, Somalia with a degree of interest. Twitter is not bad to view the area, as English language newspapers are quite bad. There are many videos of young people going out into the hinterlands near there and visiting with their grandparents for the day. Many of their elders are nomads and live in nomadic bands still. As in, they have no homes and don't intend to get one. The children in these bands are in for a heck of a century as their lives go from near stone-age to a AI-fusion-flying-car-vacation-on-the-moon future well within their lifetime. Buckle up!

by lnsru 4y ago

mytailorisrich 4y ago

> It will not be an European one for sure. No-one forces Europe to allow such high immigration...

epolanski 4y ago
Actually immigration is what is saving our economy and why we're not struggling yet at a social/financial level with the whole retirees issue like Japan is.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  No, it's not. Immigration is 'easy' as it avoids making the changes to adapt to stagnant/decreasing population, but those changes will have to made one day because population cannot keep growing indefinitely, so it's just kicking the can down the road. On the other hand, high immigration creates many social issues. Frankly the debate has been poisoned by ideology and political agendas to the point people actually believe that there is no choice. But, really it has not been going well at all for the social and cultural fabric of European countries and just stating that means risking being labelled whatever nasty term you can think of.
  - epolanski 4y ago
    I think it is you stating ideologically poisoned opinions. Regular (even ignoring irregular) immigration contributes for 10% of the GDP in Italy alone. All stats clearly show how regular (and even irregular) immigration is a high benefit to European countries. I'm Italian and I can guarantee you that many sectors of our economy would be dead without immigrants, especially our precious food industry. Immigrants pay taxes here, produce goods here, consume here, but they get little out of it as they are neither schooled nor retire here. See, e.g. key findings here: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/projecting-net-fiscal-impact-immigration-eu_en https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/pr... The other part of your comment is similarly loaded. Yes, it happens that immigration may lead to social tensions. That's very true. But the experience differs wildly and real stats have to be taken into account. E.g. In Germany crime is at all times low after having taken more than 2 million refugees and regular/irregular immigrants in a decade. They have been absolutely core to German growth and I am hardly pressed to state that taking so many immigrants has been anything but a net positive.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      > Regular (even ignoring irregular) immigration contributes for 10% of the GDP in Italy alone. I haven't denied that. But that's not the point, which you are ignoring. In fact your reply illustrate my previous comment that immigration is the easy option for industry, but it is not sustainable. > I think it is you stating ideologically poisoned opinions QED. Have a nice day.
    - finikytou 4y ago
      in many european countries 40-50% of this immigration is unemployed. that's not a net positive. immigration was a positive when unemployment wasn't high and cost of life wasnt that crazy high in western europe.it was also a time where western europe had industries and blue collar jobs. those jobs are gone and bringing millions of people from poor countries w/ low education background will only bring false hopes to those people.the past 20 years did not require mass immigration. and for germany crimes can you break it down into the type of crimes so that we see that your stat doesn't hold? best look at countries that had mass immigration for long like sweden. how is it going crime wise? has for industries that thrived thanks to immigration. I know the nice NYT story about parmagienno saved thanks to hard working immigrants. Why not? but most of the time industries that struggle to hire native are paying salaries that wouldn't allow natives to raise a family while allowing immigrants to buy a house at home in a few years. this is why they favor mass immigration so that they can keep the salaries low. we saw with covid and the stop of immigration that salaries in UK for truck drivers went up for instance. its offer and demand 101
- phillipp_8734 4y ago
  [flagged]
finikytou 4y ago
actually yes. european union declared "family policies" not to be part of their work and leave it to individuals to decide whether they want to make or no children. they even punish Hungary for doing it and call Orban a far right activist for being nationalist (like most of the world countries are). at the same time they finance foreign countries so that they can have children policies (https://twitter.com/EUDelegationTur/status/16033126425667829760 https://twitter.com/EUDelegationTur/status/16033126425667829...). it is obvious that european unelected leaders of the EU are favoring mass immigration vs birth/child policies and the fact that people like you and most of the media is lying about it is the proof that they don't think people would approve. in most of EU countries you don't get money/help/incentives for having children when your income is high or even average. You only get help when you are poor. this obviously tends to make people not to want to have children. South Korea took the opposite direction (too late but still) and now heavily finance child birth at all incomes.
- orwin 4y ago
  It's obviously false, France give plenty of incentives for couples to have children,I think this year the national budget is more than 5 billion (and truly more than 8 billions, because 3 of the 5 are matched by municipalities), I've never heard of Europe attacking the CAF or anything. And if you're rich enough to not qualify for direct help, the tax breaks your child provides you is greater than the maximum amount the poorest families get for a child. Also even using private daycare, if they have reglemented prices, the CAF and muni pay for two third of the real price, at least in my area. And you also won't pay the real full price of the conservatory/music school. Nor you will pay the real full price of museum, school, sport and youth camp, no matter how rich you are. I've worked with children who lived in a manor in the center of Paris, and in the same camp I had children from the rural Jura (west Virginia Appalachian for the US people) and one child in foster care. The full price was 500 euros for two weeks (with rebates depending on how poor you are). This isn't the true price. You get help even if you're a top10 French business lawyer with a manor with garden in the '6eme' (maybe tmi, but it has been ten years). (BTW, all of what I listed do not come from the 5 billion I talked about in the beginning, the 5 billion is only what the branch 'family' from the CAF get, I think the total budget is close to 12 billion and cover a lot more than just family).

epolanski 4y ago

I think being less of us in the world is a benefit for the human race and the future of the globe. We're already way more than exhausting our resources, we want too much, for as little as possible and there's more and more of us everyday. We're only worried about this whole thing for retirement and productivity reasons and their social and financial impacts, which are serious but can be sorted out.

trabant00 4y ago
There's other things that can not be sorted out. The balance of global powers and culture. Like the western world or not, I prefer it to Russia, China, India. Which are the ones that can slip in the role of dominant global power if the west declines too much in population. Or if it's culture and values get too diluted. Granted, these things happen in many generations, we'll be long dead before it happens (presuming it does), and as I have no children, nor want, so I couldn't say it interests me aside from an intellectual debate.
- epolanski 4y ago
  Interesting point, but honestly I couldn't care less about global chess power games. Also, Russia has among the lowest fertility rates in Europe, Chinese population has pretty much capped (the growth is 0.3% YoY), both countries are going to face the aging population issue sooner than us.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    > Interesting point, but honestly I couldn't care less about global chess power games. Ain't so nowadays. "You can't be neutral on a moving train" -- this isn't the 1600s where they're on the other side of the world speaking a different language and only having an impact indirectly.
    - epolanski 4y ago
      I am not neutral, I hope in a better future.

Chris2048 4y ago

> I am really very curious which country will emerge in 2084. It will not be an European one for sure. Can this be assumed? As the singularity approaches, human resources may become less relevant, e.g. warfare might not be determined by numbers alone, but by training and equipment.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
The singularity probably wont happen under the current limitations of power/cost per transistor/latency.

rayusher 4y ago

This century will belong to India, they have the large and young population.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
China seems much more likely. Their government is far more competent and their institutions are far more solid. India has a lot going for it, english creating a natural alliance with the west is a huge one, but they've got a lot to improve before they can move past china. The demographics in china are an issue, but they'll still have around a billion people and the one child policy reversal is helping fix the issue.
dirtyid 4y ago
India has a large and young population most of whom will have no prospects. That's a recipe for disaster. India is now trending towards the NIGHTMARE scenario PRC family planning / one child policy was trying to avoid. India has the bodies but not the system to develop and harness/coordinate talent enmass. Even PRC with more competent system couldn't wrangle 1.4B+ people. 100s of millions were left behind. Realistically India is going to have a few 100m being uplifted and 1B+ stuck in informal economy / susbsistent agriculture.

Balgair 4y ago

I think that it's not going to be a country as much as a region: The Indian Ocean. India is set to double in population by 2100. Africa is set to quadruple, with East Africa growing a lot too. Indonesia is already very populous and will grow, but likely not as much as Africa. Combine AI with (hopefully) new fusion tech, and you've got a recipe for a mega explosion in human potential. For some good reasons, I watch Kismayo, Somalia with a degree of interest. Twitter is not bad to view the area, as English language newspapers are quite bad. There are many videos of young people going out into the hinterlands near there and visiting with their grandparents for the day. Many of their elders are nomads and live in nomadic bands still. As in, they have no homes and don't intend to get one. The children in these bands are in for a heck of a century as their lives go from near stone-age to a AI-fusion-flying-car-vacation-on-the-moon future well within their lifetime. Buckle up!