3 ms·

An economic system that depends on an ever-growing population is by definition not a sustainable economic system. Wether shortages happen this century or N cent

by aylmao 3y ago

An economic system that depends on an ever-growing population is by definition not a sustainable economic system. Wether shortages happen this century or N centuries from now, at some point, like any population, a cap will be reached If this is dire to the economy, we are better off thinking at once about changing the economic system, not the fertility rate.

jll29 3y ago
Exactly. Just a few years ago people were panicky because earth cannot support the "billions and growing" human inhabitants. Don't forget every human conceived less on earth also means fewer cars, plane trips etc. We need to change from a growth-oriented capitalist consumption economy to an elastic (robust against dynamically growing and shrinking) sustainable economy. Part of this is to chain the attitudes about consumption, but part of it is also re-organizing production and supply chains after globalization in ways that ensure goods are produced as locally as possible and as globally as necessary to reduce transportation pathways.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  Wouldn’t that increate insane redundancy? Imagine all the iron mines. Not like we could just have a hand full of mines. We’d have to have tons of them all over. Same with … everything.
Clubber 3y ago
There is no economic system that is sustainable where there are more elderly people not working / unable to work than there are young people who do work. That's the problem. Many countries are experiencing this problem. The US evaded it currently due to immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64f7NxQKKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64f7NxQKKk
- aylmao 3y ago
  > There is no economic system that is sustainable where there are more elderly people not working / unable to work than there are young people who do work. I don't think this is true. At the micro-economic level, it's not outlandish to see households where a working generation sustains not only their kids, but also their parents. At a macro-economic level, we'd certainly have to adjust our expectations of profits and growth, but that's because we are used to an always-growing economy.
  - frankreyes 3y ago
    You're going against the evidence present in front of you (eg, read the article). If the fertility is collapsing, people don't have children. In particular, elders don't have children. Elders don't have anyone to take care of them.

by aylmao 3y ago

jll29 3y ago

Exactly. Just a few years ago people were panicky because earth cannot support the "billions and growing" human inhabitants. Don't forget every human conceived less on earth also means fewer cars, plane trips etc. We need to change from a growth-oriented capitalist consumption economy to an elastic (robust against dynamically growing and shrinking) sustainable economy. Part of this is to chain the attitudes about consumption, but part of it is also re-organizing production and supply chains after globalization in ways that ensure goods are produced as locally as possible and as globally as necessary to reduce transportation pathways.

pyuser583 3y ago
Wouldn’t that increate insane redundancy? Imagine all the iron mines. Not like we could just have a hand full of mines. We’d have to have tons of them all over. Same with … everything.

Clubber 3y ago

There is no economic system that is sustainable where there are more elderly people not working / unable to work than there are young people who do work. That's the problem. Many countries are experiencing this problem. The US evaded it currently due to immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64f7NxQKKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64f7NxQKKk

aylmao 3y ago
> There is no economic system that is sustainable where there are more elderly people not working / unable to work than there are young people who do work. I don't think this is true. At the micro-economic level, it's not outlandish to see households where a working generation sustains not only their kids, but also their parents. At a macro-economic level, we'd certainly have to adjust our expectations of profits and growth, but that's because we are used to an always-growing economy.
- frankreyes 3y ago
  You're going against the evidence present in front of you (eg, read the article). If the fertility is collapsing, people don't have children. In particular, elders don't have children. Elders don't have anyone to take care of them.