5 ms·
If your civilization, geopolitics, and macro economics all depend on pyramid scheme population growth you're doing it wrong.
by calculatte 3y ago
If your civilization, geopolitics, and macro economics all depend on pyramid scheme population growth you're doing it wrong.
- famouswaffles 3y agoEvery human civilization that has ever existed requires the young being productive enough for themselves and about 2 other other dependents. This isn't some "muh capitalism" scapegoat.
- awesomeMilou 3y agoDo you have a source for that?
- famouswaffles 3y agoWhat did the old do when they couldn't hunt and gather anymore ? If they didn't die, the young took care of them. People who are old stop contributing to society but they don't stop taking. Someone has to make up for that, doesn't matter what system.
- wizofaus 3y ago> People who are old stop contributing to society You've never used or heard of grandparents being used to provide childcare? Anyway, providing we can improve productivity sufficiently, then along with various measures that will enable the elderly to largely take care of themselves (medical advancements etc.) I don't think we're going to reach a situation where we simply have no capacity to keep the oldest generation alive and well. I can also see laws and attitudes towards euthanasia changing such that those with the highest care needs will no longer expect to be kept alive regardless of quality of life.
- watwut 3y agoGrandparents too old to work are also too old to provide actual childcare.
- wizofaus 3y agoThere will always be some percentage of the population that are essentially incapable of contributing further to the economy due to advanced age, and yes, it will grow, but I suspect you underestimate the vitality of many older Japanese.
- sambapa 3y agoIt's simple physics
- shadowgovt 3y agoI'd be surprised if we aren't well past that threshold nowadays with modern automation. In the agricultural sector at least, one person driving a combine harvester does the work of a dozen. The trick is to make sure the resources they harvest get distributed instead of them just being twelve times more wealthy than their ancestors.
- famouswaffles 3y ago>I'd be surprised if we aren't well past that threshold nowadays with modern automation. Not with modern convenience. If we had everyone on the standard of living decades ago then sure, automation could handle that. But even having to force that is its own collapse.
- CalRobert 3y agoI'd be ok with 80's level myself.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThere are more people behind the scenes driving the trucks, fixing the machines that make the bits, etc. If those people retire the tractor becomes dead weight in 5-10 years.
- skywal_l 3y agoAnd of all of those, how many of them survived?
- famouswaffles 3y agoAlmost none of them lol. Societal collapse is the norm for history.
- opportune 3y agoOld people eventually can’t work and need people to take care of them. The more working people there are per non-working person, the easier this is. Birth rates dropping to half of replacement levels means there will decades, maybe even centuries, of unprecedented low worker:retiree ratios.
- cute_boi 3y ago1 young people can easily manage more than 4 old people? I think it is not just worker:retiree ratios. We will have more machines and automation too..
- fzeroracer 3y agoThat math simply isn't true, because one old person with dementia can take a whole family to manage. And it requires them to destroy their lives to do so.
- Ekaros 3y agoI think we as society has to come to harsh realization that keeping people alive past time when they can self-function with certain level of support is coming to end. Unless they have enough wealth stored away to pay for it. It is very scary thought, but as cynic or realist it seems only solution.