4 ms·

>causing the rich countries to collapse In what way?

by whoknowsidont 3y ago

refulgentis 3y ago
The same way the countries they are from collapsed. Environments have a carrying capacity.
- wwtrv 3y ago
  If we're being fair it's not like they were ever in a much better state. The explosion in population was an outcome of improved life conditions (mainly access to food and healthcare).
mattashii 3y ago
Security, food availability, housing, job market, social security, etc. You can't just increase the population of a country and assume everything will continue to work: many parts of the economy have momentum and need time to adapt, and a sudden change may break down existing balances.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >many parts of the economy have momentum and need time to adapt, and a sudden change may break down existing balances. I don't think there's any formal understanding of such mechanics (or concerns)? Seems like personal conjecture. We're basically past post-scarcity by every conceivable measure, current allocation structures can quickly be adjusted -- we even saw this happen with COVID. We saw it in the U.S. with 9/11.
  - mattashii 3y ago
    > I don't think there's any formal understanding of such mechanics (or concerns)? A woman can birth a normal baby in 9 months, but no matter how many women you assign to this you won't be able to reduct that time to 1 day. Same with education (teaching capacity is limited), building buildings (incl. factories), etc. A given number of medical specialists can only treat so many patients and train so many new specialists. A population's growth whilst keeping the current quality of life is thus limited by several factors, including construction (for new housing, facilities for new jobs), education, and healthcare. > current allocation structures can quickly be adjusted -- we even saw this happen with COVID And the impact of these sudden adjustments to the allocation schedules are still felt across the world. Chip scarcity due to bulk order changes/cancellations took a long time to ebb (assuming it has subsided by now, I haven't checked recently), health services are still not back to the levels they were before COVID, shipping prices across the atlantic doubled, etc. And that is with only a temporary change in local supply/demand. I'd expect permanent changes in supply/demand to have much more severe and long-lasting effect. Note that post-scarcity is only applicable assuming the current population of the country. Adding 700 million population across EU/CA/USA (the equivalent of ~50% of the population of Africa) will eclipse the local food production capacities, re-introducing food scarcity. Note that production existing somewhere on earth doesn't mean everyone on earth has access to that, not in the least due logistics. As an example: Ukrainian grain is having trouble with getting to Africa in the high volumes from before Feb. '22.
bluescrn 3y ago
The UK, for example, has seemingly-permanent crisis-level problems with housing, healthcare, and transport as it is. The country seems incapable of building infrastructure. Migration is a big political issue not just because of bigotry, but because population is growing and infrastructure capacity isn't close to keeping up. Also because it can be seen as being used by government as a tool to drive wages down.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  Aren't all of those political problems caused by lack of civic engagement and general understanding of the population putting politicians into power? It's not a real problem so much as an artificial one.
  - bluescrn 3y ago
    We have a two-party system, and neither have real plans to solve these problems, beyond maybe raising taxes/reprioritising spending a bit to slow the decline of the NHS. The increasingly ridiculous cost of housing is at the core of the UKs problems, but nobody in power even wants to solve that, as so many wealthy people, politicians included, are making so much money out of property. And solving the transport problem is deeply 'uncool' for environmental reasons. Roads are obviously seen as bad, but even attempts to build railways will be heavily protested. Meanwhile they won't even decriminalise electric scooters.
arrowsmith 3y ago
If you import the world's people, you import the world's problems.
badpun 3y ago
No society can quickly absorb more foreigners than they already have citizens without becoming something else entirely in the process.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Could Argentina not be a counterexample? Most Argentinians today trace their ancestry to late 19th century and early 20th century immigration when the country was booming. But the country still preserves a national mythology based on all kinds of 18th- and early 19th-century figures and events that most Argentinians bear no actual descent from.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > Most Argentinians Same applies to the US if we're being fair. However both places were still quite sparsely populated in the late 1800s and the demand for low-skilled labour was significantly higher than now (the situation now is very different).

>causing the rich countries to collapse In what way?

refulgentis 3y ago

The same way the countries they are from collapsed. Environments have a carrying capacity.

wwtrv 3y ago
If we're being fair it's not like they were ever in a much better state. The explosion in population was an outcome of improved life conditions (mainly access to food and healthcare).

mattashii 3y ago

Security, food availability, housing, job market, social security, etc. You can't just increase the population of a country and assume everything will continue to work: many parts of the economy have momentum and need time to adapt, and a sudden change may break down existing balances.

whoknowsidont 3y ago
>many parts of the economy have momentum and need time to adapt, and a sudden change may break down existing balances. I don't think there's any formal understanding of such mechanics (or concerns)? Seems like personal conjecture. We're basically past post-scarcity by every conceivable measure, current allocation structures can quickly be adjusted -- we even saw this happen with COVID. We saw it in the U.S. with 9/11.
- mattashii 3y ago
  > I don't think there's any formal understanding of such mechanics (or concerns)? A woman can birth a normal baby in 9 months, but no matter how many women you assign to this you won't be able to reduct that time to 1 day. Same with education (teaching capacity is limited), building buildings (incl. factories), etc. A given number of medical specialists can only treat so many patients and train so many new specialists. A population's growth whilst keeping the current quality of life is thus limited by several factors, including construction (for new housing, facilities for new jobs), education, and healthcare. > current allocation structures can quickly be adjusted -- we even saw this happen with COVID And the impact of these sudden adjustments to the allocation schedules are still felt across the world. Chip scarcity due to bulk order changes/cancellations took a long time to ebb (assuming it has subsided by now, I haven't checked recently), health services are still not back to the levels they were before COVID, shipping prices across the atlantic doubled, etc. And that is with only a temporary change in local supply/demand. I'd expect permanent changes in supply/demand to have much more severe and long-lasting effect. Note that post-scarcity is only applicable assuming the current population of the country. Adding 700 million population across EU/CA/USA (the equivalent of ~50% of the population of Africa) will eclipse the local food production capacities, re-introducing food scarcity. Note that production existing somewhere on earth doesn't mean everyone on earth has access to that, not in the least due logistics. As an example: Ukrainian grain is having trouble with getting to Africa in the high volumes from before Feb. '22.

bluescrn 3y ago

The UK, for example, has seemingly-permanent crisis-level problems with housing, healthcare, and transport as it is. The country seems incapable of building infrastructure. Migration is a big political issue not just because of bigotry, but because population is growing and infrastructure capacity isn't close to keeping up. Also because it can be seen as being used by government as a tool to drive wages down.

whoknowsidont 3y ago
Aren't all of those political problems caused by lack of civic engagement and general understanding of the population putting politicians into power? It's not a real problem so much as an artificial one.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  We have a two-party system, and neither have real plans to solve these problems, beyond maybe raising taxes/reprioritising spending a bit to slow the decline of the NHS. The increasingly ridiculous cost of housing is at the core of the UKs problems, but nobody in power even wants to solve that, as so many wealthy people, politicians included, are making so much money out of property. And solving the transport problem is deeply 'uncool' for environmental reasons. Roads are obviously seen as bad, but even attempts to build railways will be heavily protested. Meanwhile they won't even decriminalise electric scooters.

arrowsmith 3y ago

If you import the world's people, you import the world's problems.

badpun 3y ago

No society can quickly absorb more foreigners than they already have citizens without becoming something else entirely in the process.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Could Argentina not be a counterexample? Most Argentinians today trace their ancestry to late 19th century and early 20th century immigration when the country was booming. But the country still preserves a national mythology based on all kinds of 18th- and early 19th-century figures and events that most Argentinians bear no actual descent from.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > Most Argentinians Same applies to the US if we're being fair. However both places were still quite sparsely populated in the late 1800s and the demand for low-skilled labour was significantly higher than now (the situation now is very different).