5 ms·

At least in my case, I moved to a city for more infrastructure, public transport and my job. I had absolutely no plans to raise kids there. In fact, most peop

by lynx23 3y ago

At least in my case, I moved to a city for more infrastructure, public transport and my job. I had absolutely no plans to raise kids there. In fact, most people I know move out of the city center to the suburbs once they have kids. I dont follow your analysis why less childbirth would automatically lead to deserted cities.

klipt 3y ago
A shrinking population does eventually have to lead to smaller (or fewer) cities.
- lynx23 3y ago
  Why? What if those left alone in rural areas end up moving to cities for the exact reasons they already do? At least that is what happens right now. Rural areas do nothing to make the young stay. If you don't own a car, you are lost. Most jobs are mechanical in nature, software almost nowhere to be found. And the cities are growing, slowly, but they are. What maes you think this effect would be changed just because overall, population goes down?
  - klipt 3y ago
    Math? City population has to be smaller than total population. If total population eventually shrinks to zero, city population must eventually too.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      Haha, if we are talking about the final outcome of zero population, of course the cities are empty. But until then, there is still some way to go. And I am pretty convinced people will flock together in cities instead of withering away lonely in the countryside.
- aylmao 3y ago
  IMO this is getting a bit too ahead of ourselves. IIRC, Russia and Japan are the countries with the most population shrinkage, and they've just lost 5 million and 2.5 million people off their peak. - 5 million / 148 million is 3% down from peak for Russia. - 2.5 million / 128 million is 2% down from peak for Japan. Most importantly, Russia's population decline (which started before Japan's) has leveled off. It hit a local minima in 2008. It has wobbled up and down, but stayed close to 143m for almost 20 years [1]. This is how populations usually work; they level off and oscillate around their carrying capacity. It's often studied in biology [2]. Shaving off 3% of the population of a country doesn't lead to deserted cities any more than other factors do. Natural resource depletion and economic factors are and will most definitely keep being bigger worries for cities (ie, droughts leading to water shortages, big employers moving out, etc). [1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=RU https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=R... [2]: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c673362230887ef:matter-and-energy-in-ecosystems/x4c673362230887ef:population-growth-and-carrying-capacity/a/population-growth-and-carrying-capacity-article https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c6733622308...
  - DirectorKrennic 3y ago
    Unless Japan's birthrate picks up, its population is slated to fall by a lot more than 2% from its peak. Try 50% or more. A birthrate below 2.1 children per woman leads to extinction.
    - aylmao 3y ago
      This is true, Japan's population pyramid [1] looks way more dire that Russia's [2]. Russia's does seem to suggest shrinkage after the big generation born in the 80's passes away, but oscillation afterwards. Japan's is an inverted pyramid. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#/media/File:Japan_Population_Pyramid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#/media/F... [2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Russian_population_%28demographic%29_pyramid_%28structure%29_on_January%2C_1st%2C_2022.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Russian_...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pyuser583 3y ago
  All it takes is people moving from rural areas to cities.
- r00fus 3y ago
  More likely - dried out husks of small cities that shrivel up and die. Look to the US rust belt as a historical indicator. For modern times, climate change has made it impossible to insure some areas of the US (Norther CA fire country, Florida hurricane corridor, etc). Insurers are going out of business or just not paying claims.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    Small cities died because of increased crop farming efficiency, factory livestock farming and decreased heavy industry/manufacturing in the US. I absolutely love the doomerism in your second paragraph. If you listen to those who buy into the whole climate armageddon thing, you would think that by 2030 large swaths of the US are going to be uninhabitable or under water. No, the West isn’t going to burn away. We just need to resume good forestry practices and not build houses in precarious places. Similarly in FL, this has little to do with “climate change” but rather an elimination of Government subsidized risk taking so the full insurance cost is bore by the property owners and not taxpayers.

by lynx23 3y ago

klipt 3y ago

A shrinking population does eventually have to lead to smaller (or fewer) cities.

lynx23 3y ago
Why? What if those left alone in rural areas end up moving to cities for the exact reasons they already do? At least that is what happens right now. Rural areas do nothing to make the young stay. If you don't own a car, you are lost. Most jobs are mechanical in nature, software almost nowhere to be found. And the cities are growing, slowly, but they are. What maes you think this effect would be changed just because overall, population goes down?
- klipt 3y ago
  Math? City population has to be smaller than total population. If total population eventually shrinks to zero, city population must eventually too.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Haha, if we are talking about the final outcome of zero population, of course the cities are empty. But until then, there is still some way to go. And I am pretty convinced people will flock together in cities instead of withering away lonely in the countryside.
aylmao 3y ago
IMO this is getting a bit too ahead of ourselves. IIRC, Russia and Japan are the countries with the most population shrinkage, and they've just lost 5 million and 2.5 million people off their peak. - 5 million / 148 million is 3% down from peak for Russia. - 2.5 million / 128 million is 2% down from peak for Japan. Most importantly, Russia's population decline (which started before Japan's) has leveled off. It hit a local minima in 2008. It has wobbled up and down, but stayed close to 143m for almost 20 years [1]. This is how populations usually work; they level off and oscillate around their carrying capacity. It's often studied in biology [2]. Shaving off 3% of the population of a country doesn't lead to deserted cities any more than other factors do. Natural resource depletion and economic factors are and will most definitely keep being bigger worries for cities (ie, droughts leading to water shortages, big employers moving out, etc). [1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=RU https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=R... [2]: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c673362230887ef:matter-and-energy-in-ecosystems/x4c673362230887ef:population-growth-and-carrying-capacity/a/population-growth-and-carrying-capacity-article https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c6733622308...
- DirectorKrennic 3y ago
  Unless Japan's birthrate picks up, its population is slated to fall by a lot more than 2% from its peak. Try 50% or more. A birthrate below 2.1 children per woman leads to extinction.
  - aylmao 3y ago
    This is true, Japan's population pyramid [1] looks way more dire that Russia's [2]. Russia's does seem to suggest shrinkage after the big generation born in the 80's passes away, but oscillation afterwards. Japan's is an inverted pyramid. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#/media/File:Japan_Population_Pyramid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#/media/F... [2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Russian_population_%28demographic%29_pyramid_%28structure%29_on_January%2C_1st%2C_2022.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Russian_...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pyuser583 3y ago
All it takes is people moving from rural areas to cities.
r00fus 3y ago
More likely - dried out husks of small cities that shrivel up and die. Look to the US rust belt as a historical indicator. For modern times, climate change has made it impossible to insure some areas of the US (Norther CA fire country, Florida hurricane corridor, etc). Insurers are going out of business or just not paying claims.
- bequanna 3y ago
  Small cities died because of increased crop farming efficiency, factory livestock farming and decreased heavy industry/manufacturing in the US. I absolutely love the doomerism in your second paragraph. If you listen to those who buy into the whole climate armageddon thing, you would think that by 2030 large swaths of the US are going to be uninhabitable or under water. No, the West isn’t going to burn away. We just need to resume good forestry practices and not build houses in precarious places. Similarly in FL, this has little to do with “climate change” but rather an elimination of Government subsidized risk taking so the full insurance cost is bore by the property owners and not taxpayers.