6 ms·

I think youre are romanticizing this far too much here. They have a massively ageing population, which is the true problem. In 2060, over 40% of the populatio

by tacker2000 3y ago

I think youre are romanticizing this far too much here. They have a massively ageing population, which is the true problem. In 2060, over 40% of the population will be pensioners requiring payouts, according to the japanese health ministry. And yes, they have low birth rates and no population growth (whether via immigration or otherwise). This is actually going to bite them at some point.

throwawaylinux 3y ago
I'm not "romanticizing" anything. I think you are just repeating talking points that have never really been challenged and made to stand up to scrutiny. > They have a massively ageing population, which is the true problem. The true problem is exponential growth resulting in exponential destruction of the environment, no matter how much you fiddle with the factors. People act like if we (by some unlikely miracle) get a handle on CO2 emissions that it will all be smooth sailing from then on. The sad reality is that pollution, destruction of species and habitat, and depletion of non-renewable resources, until now has been driven almost entirely by factors other than climate change. > In 2060, over 40% of the population will be pensioners requiring payouts, according to the japanese health ministry. That sounds good, good thing they have been transitioning to a sustainable society and economy rather than stacking the pyramid ever higher to delay the inevitable. You know global population is expected to level by that time then fall, right? > And yes, they have low birth rates and no population growth (whether via immigration or otherwise). This is actually going to bite them at some point. This is what the pyramid schemers (the "experts", the banks, the billionaires, the neolibs) have been crying wolf about for decades. Sure it isn't simple, but they are managing it. And it will bite everybody pretty soon. What would be nice is if, when it bites, we haven't driven societies and the environment to the absolute limit into a brick wall before that, but instead let populations in highly consuming countries naturally peak and decline, and manage that gracefully.
- worrycue 3y ago
  You seem to be ignoring his point. An ever shrinking population of productive people (percentage-wise) is going to have to provide goods and services for an ever growing population of people who can no longer work. It’s a huge burden. Taxes will be higher - which will have all the associated consequences.
  - gloryjulio 3y ago
    The assumed burden is higher because you are trying to let the young to the shoulder the burden of the old. In Japan(or any other country tbh) the return of the tax values to the young is vastly smaller than the old. Immigration is not gonna solve this problem, that's just delaying the ponzi scheme or push the burden to the other country anyway. What if we tip the scale to young more and treat them fairer? What if we start moving some of the services to the young instead of the old?
    - kemotep 3y ago
      What does shifting the services from the old to the young actually mean?
      - gloryjulio 3y ago
        > Older generations, who benefit most from fiscal redistribution (via taxes and transfers), are significantly wealthier than younger generations. Wealth poverty is significantly lower for older generations. Moreover, the wealth ratio of older to younger cohorts is relatively high in Japan compared with Germany and Italy, though lower than in the United States. The evidence thus points to significant wealth inequality across generations. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/03/shrinkanomics-policy-lessons-from-japan-on-population-aging-schneider https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/03/shr... It's not a unique Japan problem tbf. The young people are getting shafted all over the world.
        kemotep 3y ago
        This does not answer the question, what does the redistribution of services from the old to the young looks like. If the issue is wealth disparity, then why only target the elderly not the young people who are wealthy as well?
        gloryjulio 3y ago
        Where do wealthy young people come from? You mean the one who inherited the wealth from their parents? Or do you mean income tax? Well the income tax is usually far higher than capital gain isn't it?
- ericmay 3y ago
  I enjoyed your comments, but my biggest point of contention would be your declaration that “banks, billionaires, and neoliberals” have been crying wolf. I find that it’s mostly MAGA and similar who have been crying wolf or downplaying the threats from climate change, demographic changes, and other related elements. Banks for example hedge risk to make money. Billionaires - which ones? Maybe we should tax them, etc.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    I'm not quite sure what MAGA and similar is, or really concerned about the power or influence the lunatic fringe might weild. High level "experts" and "officials" from neoliberal economic and political institutions like the the IMF have been saying these things for a long time. And it seems to be often times very pro-climate action positions that take this contradictory position that population must continue to increase. I don't know what to make of that other than either they don't really care about climate change, or they want commoners to have a dwindling piece of the pie while the top end continues to get richer, but either way they don't seem to really care about environmental impact of humans.
    - geysersam 3y ago
      I agree with much of what you say, but I think you overestimate the effect reducing population would have on the environment. It's one of the slowest ways to reduce our carbon emissions. If by 2070 population (in some country) is 30% lower than today that's a dramatic change. But the effect on the environment (land use, carbon emissions etc) is likely not more than 30%, and that's not much! By 2070 most developed countries in the world are supposed to have net zero carbon emissions. That target is not going to be significantly easier to reach with 30% lower population.
      - throwawaylinux 3y ago
        > I agree with much of what you say, but I think you overestimate the effect reducing population would have on the environment. I don't think I estimated it anywhere, so I don't think I am. And in fact I was not just talking about CO2 emissions and climate change, to the contrary I explicitly said actually that climate change is one of a long, long, long list of massive environmental problems we're facing. That's the thing, even if we do "solve" climate change somehow, we're not remotely in the clear. Reducing (or just not growing) population makes everything easier. CO2 emissions. Land required for food, lithium and other minerals and metals required for cars and computers and batteries and buildings, farming and housing footprint, clean water. Everything. No other measure is as staggeringly effective in reducing the human footprint on the environment as not increasing population. > It's one of the slowest ways to reduce our carbon emissions. If by 2070 population (in some country) is 30% lower than today that's a dramatic change. But the effect on the environment (land use, carbon emissions etc) is likely not more than 30%, and that's not much! It's compounding and it certainly is an issue. US CO2 emissions peaked 50 years ago if population was stable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

throwawaylinux 3y ago

I'm not "romanticizing" anything. I think you are just repeating talking points that have never really been challenged and made to stand up to scrutiny. > They have a massively ageing population, which is the true problem. The true problem is exponential growth resulting in exponential destruction of the environment, no matter how much you fiddle with the factors. People act like if we (by some unlikely miracle) get a handle on CO2 emissions that it will all be smooth sailing from then on. The sad reality is that pollution, destruction of species and habitat, and depletion of non-renewable resources, until now has been driven almost entirely by factors other than climate change. > In 2060, over 40% of the population will be pensioners requiring payouts, according to the japanese health ministry. That sounds good, good thing they have been transitioning to a sustainable society and economy rather than stacking the pyramid ever higher to delay the inevitable. You know global population is expected to level by that time then fall, right? > And yes, they have low birth rates and no population growth (whether via immigration or otherwise). This is actually going to bite them at some point. This is what the pyramid schemers (the "experts", the banks, the billionaires, the neolibs) have been crying wolf about for decades. Sure it isn't simple, but they are managing it. And it will bite everybody pretty soon. What would be nice is if, when it bites, we haven't driven societies and the environment to the absolute limit into a brick wall before that, but instead let populations in highly consuming countries naturally peak and decline, and manage that gracefully.

worrycue 3y ago
You seem to be ignoring his point. An ever shrinking population of productive people (percentage-wise) is going to have to provide goods and services for an ever growing population of people who can no longer work. It’s a huge burden. Taxes will be higher - which will have all the associated consequences.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  The assumed burden is higher because you are trying to let the young to the shoulder the burden of the old. In Japan(or any other country tbh) the return of the tax values to the young is vastly smaller than the old. Immigration is not gonna solve this problem, that's just delaying the ponzi scheme or push the burden to the other country anyway. What if we tip the scale to young more and treat them fairer? What if we start moving some of the services to the young instead of the old?
  - kemotep 3y ago
    What does shifting the services from the old to the young actually mean?
    - gloryjulio 3y ago
      > Older generations, who benefit most from fiscal redistribution (via taxes and transfers), are significantly wealthier than younger generations. Wealth poverty is significantly lower for older generations. Moreover, the wealth ratio of older to younger cohorts is relatively high in Japan compared with Germany and Italy, though lower than in the United States. The evidence thus points to significant wealth inequality across generations. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/03/shrinkanomics-policy-lessons-from-japan-on-population-aging-schneider https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/03/shr... It's not a unique Japan problem tbf. The young people are getting shafted all over the world.
      - kemotep 3y ago
        This does not answer the question, what does the redistribution of services from the old to the young looks like. If the issue is wealth disparity, then why only target the elderly not the young people who are wealthy as well?
        gloryjulio 3y ago
        Where do wealthy young people come from? You mean the one who inherited the wealth from their parents? Or do you mean income tax? Well the income tax is usually far higher than capital gain isn't it?
ericmay 3y ago
I enjoyed your comments, but my biggest point of contention would be your declaration that “banks, billionaires, and neoliberals” have been crying wolf. I find that it’s mostly MAGA and similar who have been crying wolf or downplaying the threats from climate change, demographic changes, and other related elements. Banks for example hedge risk to make money. Billionaires - which ones? Maybe we should tax them, etc.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  I'm not quite sure what MAGA and similar is, or really concerned about the power or influence the lunatic fringe might weild. High level "experts" and "officials" from neoliberal economic and political institutions like the the IMF have been saying these things for a long time. And it seems to be often times very pro-climate action positions that take this contradictory position that population must continue to increase. I don't know what to make of that other than either they don't really care about climate change, or they want commoners to have a dwindling piece of the pie while the top end continues to get richer, but either way they don't seem to really care about environmental impact of humans.
  - geysersam 3y ago
    I agree with much of what you say, but I think you overestimate the effect reducing population would have on the environment. It's one of the slowest ways to reduce our carbon emissions. If by 2070 population (in some country) is 30% lower than today that's a dramatic change. But the effect on the environment (land use, carbon emissions etc) is likely not more than 30%, and that's not much! By 2070 most developed countries in the world are supposed to have net zero carbon emissions. That target is not going to be significantly easier to reach with 30% lower population.
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      > I agree with much of what you say, but I think you overestimate the effect reducing population would have on the environment. I don't think I estimated it anywhere, so I don't think I am. And in fact I was not just talking about CO2 emissions and climate change, to the contrary I explicitly said actually that climate change is one of a long, long, long list of massive environmental problems we're facing. That's the thing, even if we do "solve" climate change somehow, we're not remotely in the clear. Reducing (or just not growing) population makes everything easier. CO2 emissions. Land required for food, lithium and other minerals and metals required for cars and computers and batteries and buildings, farming and housing footprint, clean water. Everything. No other measure is as staggeringly effective in reducing the human footprint on the environment as not increasing population. > It's one of the slowest ways to reduce our carbon emissions. If by 2070 population (in some country) is 30% lower than today that's a dramatic change. But the effect on the environment (land use, carbon emissions etc) is likely not more than 30%, and that's not much! It's compounding and it certainly is an issue. US CO2 emissions peaked 50 years ago if population was stable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]