4 ms·

> I'd love a society where, say, 50 million humans would all live in abundance and luxury. That would be a society where you tell people "you're not allowed to

> I'd love a society where, say, 50 million humans would all live in abundance and luxury. That would be a society where you tell people "you're not allowed to have kids", and you enforce it through law. Do you think it's reasonable to forbid people from having kids if they want to? Think through your suggestion: You have 50 million very happy people living in abundance and luxury. They are not struggling to make ends meet, and can very easily afford to have kids. So they do. They have a bunch of kids because there's so much abundance and no reason not to. Give it several generations and you're back to billions of people. > But apparently the goal seems to be to pack tens of billions of people living in high-rises "because efficiency". The goal is to support the needs of the population. If people have kids and kids aren't dying because of modern medicine, the population explodes; there is no "because efficiency" conspiracy. We do have a lot of work to do in terms of resource management, but stopping humans from having kids is a sure-fire way to end up with mass revolt.

moduspol 3y ago
I generally agree with your view, but to play devil's advocate: The birth rates have been below replacement rates in developed countries for quite some time now. If the 50 million humans were happy people living in abundance and luxury, it may not inherently follow that the population will increase. That said, I'm not sure how one would choose the 50 million or restrict people from having children in a way that isn't dystopic.
zirgs 3y ago
In my country it's not forbidden to have kids, but our population has been falling for 33 years in a row. The maternity hospital that I was born at was closed recently, because of falling birth rates.
- jondwillis 3y ago
  Japan?
  - zirgs 3y ago
    Latvia. Every year we hear news about closed rural schools due to not having enough kids to teach. Lots of abandoned houses in the countryside. Public transportation routes cancelled due to not having enough population. Railway to my hometown was straight up dismantled a few years ago. This is how degrowth looks like. So any advice about having less kids should be directed elsewhere.
    - cool_dude85 3y ago
      Now I'm no demographer, but I found some articles online saying fertility rate in Latvia is around EU average. It's the mortality rate that's quite high compared to the rest of the EU. That and a high migration rate are driving the population decline there. Does that match up with your experience?
jjav 3y ago
> That would be a society where you tell people "you're not allowed to have kids", and you enforce it through law. Do you think it's reasonable to forbid people from having kids if they want to? That sounds like a terrible thing to do. Can you come up with a less terrible alternative? Think of any animal populations, be it seals or starfish or lizards or anything. When the environment is optimal there is a big boom in their numbers. When the environment changes there is a huge die-off. Humans have the benefit of advanced technology to smooth out these environmental bumps. But, nothing can grow to infinity so there will be those die-offs at some point. Hypothetically, if we could plan out the next million years of humans on Earth, would it be better to hold a population level that could adapt to anything, or to go for the unlimited growth boom/bust cycles of nature?
marssaxman 3y ago
> The goal is to support the needs of the population. If people have kids and kids aren't dying because of modern medicine, the population explodes It actually doesn't, though; when modern medicine lowers childhood mortality, people voluntarily choose to have fewer children. This is part of the "demographic transition" which has been happening around the world over the last 200 years. There's no need to stop people from having kids; you just stop the kids from dying, then parental investment skyrockets, and next thing you know your population's fertility level is below replacement.

moduspol 3y ago

I generally agree with your view, but to play devil's advocate: The birth rates have been below replacement rates in developed countries for quite some time now. If the 50 million humans were happy people living in abundance and luxury, it may not inherently follow that the population will increase. That said, I'm not sure how one would choose the 50 million or restrict people from having children in a way that isn't dystopic.

zirgs 3y ago

In my country it's not forbidden to have kids, but our population has been falling for 33 years in a row. The maternity hospital that I was born at was closed recently, because of falling birth rates.

jondwillis 3y ago
Japan?
- zirgs 3y ago
  Latvia. Every year we hear news about closed rural schools due to not having enough kids to teach. Lots of abandoned houses in the countryside. Public transportation routes cancelled due to not having enough population. Railway to my hometown was straight up dismantled a few years ago. This is how degrowth looks like. So any advice about having less kids should be directed elsewhere.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    Now I'm no demographer, but I found some articles online saying fertility rate in Latvia is around EU average. It's the mortality rate that's quite high compared to the rest of the EU. That and a high migration rate are driving the population decline there. Does that match up with your experience?

jjav 3y ago

> That would be a society where you tell people "you're not allowed to have kids", and you enforce it through law. Do you think it's reasonable to forbid people from having kids if they want to? That sounds like a terrible thing to do. Can you come up with a less terrible alternative? Think of any animal populations, be it seals or starfish or lizards or anything. When the environment is optimal there is a big boom in their numbers. When the environment changes there is a huge die-off. Humans have the benefit of advanced technology to smooth out these environmental bumps. But, nothing can grow to infinity so there will be those die-offs at some point. Hypothetically, if we could plan out the next million years of humans on Earth, would it be better to hold a population level that could adapt to anything, or to go for the unlimited growth boom/bust cycles of nature?

marssaxman 3y ago

> The goal is to support the needs of the population. If people have kids and kids aren't dying because of modern medicine, the population explodes It actually doesn't, though; when modern medicine lowers childhood mortality, people voluntarily choose to have fewer children. This is part of the "demographic transition" which has been happening around the world over the last 200 years. There's no need to stop people from having kids; you just stop the kids from dying, then parental investment skyrockets, and next thing you know your population's fertility level is below replacement.