7 ms·

The world population is collapsing at a rapid pace. Our economic growth is based on a growing productive population. Our economic prosperity is based on a gro

The world population is collapsing at a rapid pace. Our economic growth is based on a growing productive population. Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. Different parts of the world are dealing with population collapse. Look at Japan, a xenophobic country facing population collapse. The total GDP has remain stagnant over the past 20 years. Look at UAE, a country facing population collapse and acknowledging reality by handing our long-term residency permits to affulent immigrants, mostly Indian Hindus. They are even building the first Hindu temple in Islamic middle-east in Dubai! Look at Africa, where the population growth combined with sectarian warfare is making for a troublesome living - https://pudding.cool/2018/07/airports/ https://pudding.cool/2018/07/airports/ South Africa is even regresssing. Rich businessman of Asian Indian origin who have lived for generations are already heading for UK/Canada. And with them tax base would collapse like Uganda (90% tax revenue came from Asian Indians in Uganda in 1972 - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36132151 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36132151). Look at USA/Canada/Australia, all of them have low birth rate but compensate by being genuinely immigration friendly. They will grow while sucking even more productive population out of rest of the world. The Europe would keep importing cheap labour (by choice) and welfare-loving immigrants from middle-east & Africa (by virtue of proximity). And they would transform Europe, how they tranformed Lebanon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WubIe3c5NGc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WubIe3c5NGc, further imagine how the voting blocks would look like when whites are rich & old while non-whites are poor & young. Why would they not demand higher taxation and lower welfare policies? China would have same fate as Japan. Xenophobia with a collapsing population. China would appear a lot of more timid. 12,000 years ago, when sea levels rose, Tasmania lost connection to mainland Australia, and this lead to decline of knowledge and tools over time. We might see the same in our world. So, I believe population collapse is a huge problem.

defrost 3y ago
World population is still increasing. It's climbed from 2.6 billion in 1950 to 7.8 billion in 2020. If world poulation halved we'd still be at 1975 population levels .. a time when the world functioned. > Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. We live on a finite planet with limited resources, the notion of unlimited growth being essential for continued status quo is flawed thinking. Our greatest challenge as a species on this planet is to learn how to live well within our means.
- john_max_1 3y ago
  > If world poulation halved we'd still be at 1975 population levels .. a time when the world functioned. The prosperity was much lower than. The scientific advancement even lower.
  - defrost 3y ago
    We won't lose knowledge by returning to 1975 population numbers, nor will we lose the ability to expand our scientific understanding. The knowledge gains of recent decades did not ride on the back of population growth.
- Nesco 3y ago
  Your reasoning is very flawed for a single reason. If by let’s say 2075 the population was reduced to 1975 levels, the demographics would still differ widely. 1. Age distribution would look like an inverted pyramid instead of a pyramid 2. The geographical, racial/ethnical and cultural demographics would also look like the totally different. The share of global population of the global south, which is currently highly dysfunctional, would be drastically more important, especially in the younger age groups. Note that the increase of wealth of the “third world” is mainly due to China / India, followed a bit by Indonesia / Bangladesh / Vietnam. Nearly all of them have already a TFR < 2.1 Other countries’ economies even lost complexity and the share of their economies that are basically commodity exports increased
  - theossuary 3y ago
    > racial/ethnical and cultural demographics would also look like the totally different Why is this a problem?
    - Nesco 3y ago
      Not an issue per se. It shows the limit of the analogy used by defrost to justify such a world would be as functional as 1975’s was. The basic assumption that the two situations are similar is just… false
cyber_kinetist 3y ago
A huge problem… for capitalism. I think the refusal to marry and have kids (regardless of it being necessary or by choice) is basically the ultimate worker’s strike. So far capitalists have relied upon the fact that there will always be workers to exploit, since they consider any care work necessary to raise families (for the next batch of exploited workers) as simply just given. Now that this is going away (people can actually choose to not bear the burden of reproduction!) first in Japan and South Korea but also in China and the rest of the developed world, the ultimate factor that has propelled economic growth so far is withering away…
- bequanna 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nojvek 3y ago
    There’s difference between working and being able to afford to buy your own house so you could raise a family, And rent being so expensive even with dual income that having kids does not make financial sense. Everyone, especially women should have full control of when/if they want to have kids. Yes, population is collapsing. 50 years ago population was exploding, and we somehow figured out that problem. We’ll figure out the collapse problem as well.
- boomchinolo78 3y ago
  This is analyzed in that classic economics text The Wealth of Nations, neither capitalists nor urban workers win this one.
culopatin 3y ago
You’re missing the knowledge gained over time in your equation. You only need more people assuming that we don’t have technology that increases productivity. I’m happy to see population numbers decrease and I’m ok with the stock market getting hit or having to make some sacrifices on lifestyle if that means a more sustainable way of living. We keep hearing of food production issues caused by climate change. Why would we need more people? To starve them? To give them busywork? To have to figure out welfare? I’m ok with going through shrinking pains, it should be a lesson that the fake reality we built for ourselves was not sustainable.
palata 3y ago
> Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. Yet a growing productive population, in modern societies, relies on cheap (usually fossil) energy, which brings two problems: 1- fossil energy is not unlimited, and we're soon at peak production. 2- fossil energy brings climate change, which is very very bad for our survival at large.
v-erne 3y ago
>> The world population is collapsing at a rapid pace. Maybe the second derivative of world popultion is collapsing but not the "world" population (at least if you mean world as a whole and not "developed world" only, because population of "developed world" maybe getting there). >> Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. If by prosperity you mean key economic indicators like GDP, then yes. But those economic models are so primitive that I question they usefulness and validity. The nature of work changed so much for last 100 years due to technology that it amazes me that we still belive that it can be summed up with few simple agregate numbers. Even the most important domains such as Agriculture, despite growing population, are needing less and less people to produce almost enough (if we include the food waste it's more than enough, but lacking fair distribution). At this moment about 800 milion people are working in or around farming - that's only 10% of overall population. In year 2000 agriculture was employeeing more than 1 billion, that is - 16 % of population. This is the real reason of production growth - technology advancements and popularisation, not population growth.

defrost 3y ago

World population is still increasing. It's climbed from 2.6 billion in 1950 to 7.8 billion in 2020. If world poulation halved we'd still be at 1975 population levels .. a time when the world functioned. > Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. We live on a finite planet with limited resources, the notion of unlimited growth being essential for continued status quo is flawed thinking. Our greatest challenge as a species on this planet is to learn how to live well within our means.

john_max_1 3y ago
> If world poulation halved we'd still be at 1975 population levels .. a time when the world functioned. The prosperity was much lower than. The scientific advancement even lower.
- defrost 3y ago
  We won't lose knowledge by returning to 1975 population numbers, nor will we lose the ability to expand our scientific understanding. The knowledge gains of recent decades did not ride on the back of population growth.
Nesco 3y ago
Your reasoning is very flawed for a single reason. If by let’s say 2075 the population was reduced to 1975 levels, the demographics would still differ widely. 1. Age distribution would look like an inverted pyramid instead of a pyramid 2. The geographical, racial/ethnical and cultural demographics would also look like the totally different. The share of global population of the global south, which is currently highly dysfunctional, would be drastically more important, especially in the younger age groups. Note that the increase of wealth of the “third world” is mainly due to China / India, followed a bit by Indonesia / Bangladesh / Vietnam. Nearly all of them have already a TFR < 2.1 Other countries’ economies even lost complexity and the share of their economies that are basically commodity exports increased
- theossuary 3y ago
  > racial/ethnical and cultural demographics would also look like the totally different Why is this a problem?
  - Nesco 3y ago
    Not an issue per se. It shows the limit of the analogy used by defrost to justify such a world would be as functional as 1975’s was. The basic assumption that the two situations are similar is just… false

cyber_kinetist 3y ago

A huge problem… for capitalism. I think the refusal to marry and have kids (regardless of it being necessary or by choice) is basically the ultimate worker’s strike. So far capitalists have relied upon the fact that there will always be workers to exploit, since they consider any care work necessary to raise families (for the next batch of exploited workers) as simply just given. Now that this is going away (people can actually choose to not bear the burden of reproduction!) first in Japan and South Korea but also in China and the rest of the developed world, the ultimate factor that has propelled economic growth so far is withering away…

bequanna 3y ago
[flagged]
- nojvek 3y ago
  There’s difference between working and being able to afford to buy your own house so you could raise a family, And rent being so expensive even with dual income that having kids does not make financial sense. Everyone, especially women should have full control of when/if they want to have kids. Yes, population is collapsing. 50 years ago population was exploding, and we somehow figured out that problem. We’ll figure out the collapse problem as well.
boomchinolo78 3y ago
This is analyzed in that classic economics text The Wealth of Nations, neither capitalists nor urban workers win this one.

culopatin 3y ago

You’re missing the knowledge gained over time in your equation. You only need more people assuming that we don’t have technology that increases productivity. I’m happy to see population numbers decrease and I’m ok with the stock market getting hit or having to make some sacrifices on lifestyle if that means a more sustainable way of living. We keep hearing of food production issues caused by climate change. Why would we need more people? To starve them? To give them busywork? To have to figure out welfare? I’m ok with going through shrinking pains, it should be a lesson that the fake reality we built for ourselves was not sustainable.

palata 3y ago

> Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. Yet a growing productive population, in modern societies, relies on cheap (usually fossil) energy, which brings two problems: 1- fossil energy is not unlimited, and we're soon at peak production. 2- fossil energy brings climate change, which is very very bad for our survival at large.

v-erne 3y ago

>> The world population is collapsing at a rapid pace. Maybe the second derivative of world popultion is collapsing but not the "world" population (at least if you mean world as a whole and not "developed world" only, because population of "developed world" maybe getting there). >> Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. If by prosperity you mean key economic indicators like GDP, then yes. But those economic models are so primitive that I question they usefulness and validity. The nature of work changed so much for last 100 years due to technology that it amazes me that we still belive that it can be summed up with few simple agregate numbers. Even the most important domains such as Agriculture, despite growing population, are needing less and less people to produce almost enough (if we include the food waste it's more than enough, but lacking fair distribution). At this moment about 800 milion people are working in or around farming - that's only 10% of overall population. In year 2000 agriculture was employeeing more than 1 billion, that is - 16 % of population. This is the real reason of production growth - technology advancements and popularisation, not population growth.