3 ms·

We should just find an economic system that doesn’t depend on being a generational pyramid scheme. Arguably it’s exactly the opposite of what you say: the sust

by dangus 3y ago

We should just find an economic system that doesn’t depend on being a generational pyramid scheme. Arguably it’s exactly the opposite of what you say: the sustainability of life on this planet depends on human population decreasing. There’s nothing particularly scary about having an older population curve, it just means that society has to adjust by having higher savings rates for individuals and government retirement programs. Considering that AI is projected to eliminate 300 million jobs globally it sounds like we don’t need to all procreate like rabbits.

anon291 3y ago
Indeed. Let's start by getting rid of the welfare state and bringing back the greatest incentive to child-bearing... care in old age. I'm serious. One thing I often see is complaints that the younger generation (typically millenials) are not pulling up their end of the bargain. However, neither are their parents. Typically, one would expect to become a grandparent that cares for their grandchildren. In return, your children take care of you. This is how humans have lived for generations. Yet, today, seniorhood is treated as a second adolescence. Grandparents neglect their grandchildren while parents are forced to do it all, so to speak. It's no wonder they have no time for kids. Human childbearing is exceptionally hard. It's why human males take part in the child-raising typically (women with committed men have more children on average and shorter spacing between pregnancies). Moreover, it's why natural selection has typically brought about kin groups that care for children. Social security is an affront to this entire arrangement. There's a balance to be struct between guaranteeing no one is destitute and not shifting expectations of the elderly to the point where living purely for themselves is actually considered acceptable.
- Golden_Wind123 3y ago
  There's no need for the crypto-fash comments about government safety nets causing the downfall of the west. The grandparents barely being kept out of elderly poverty by Social Security aren't the same as the second-adolescence grandparents spending down their 401ks (based on wealth disparity, the former group outweighs the second group). It's true that grandparents don't help raise grandkids anymore, but the rise of hyper-individualism in the 1950s with the death of multi-generational households is the most obvious root cause of this. Back in the day a well off family could buy a duplex where a young family could live in one unit while the elderly parents live in the other (allowing both sides to keep their privacy), but the rise of suburbanization and the lack of sensible housing stock make this hard to pull off.
  - anon291 3y ago
    Late 1949s - 1950s = first modern payment of social security that wasn't affected by wars. Also this is not 'fascist'. Fascists support these sorts of programs for the racially pure class. I don't support them for anyone. Fascism is not a libertarian ideology. It's a collectivist/socialist one.
somewhereoutth 3y ago
The planet could support many more people - but not if they all drive SUVs! (sorry, being glib, but with more efficient resource utilization, the planet could support the current population to a good standard of living). The concern is that there is no obvious natural mechanism that would reverse the decrease. Our civilization would simply evaporate.
- dangus 3y ago
  Don’t forget that we still have to grow food, which is the most serious consumer of fresh water (see: California droughts) and a very significant part of CO2 emissions. Even basic essentials like clothing are not very environmentally friendly.
Qem 3y ago
> There’s nothing particularly scary about having an older population curve, it just means that society has to adjust by having higher savings rates for individuals and government retirement programs. Savings are meaningless if the saved money can't buy the work of young, able workers. Elderly people would just waste their savings outbidding each other for the services of the few younger people left. Numbers in your bank account can't do a hip replacement and change your saline solution. People do.
- dangus 3y ago
  Like I mentioned, automation and AI will continue to accelerate to the point where a larger percentage of the working population can be dedicated to services for the elderly. The most common profession in every state, truck driving, is probably going to be completely automated in the lifetime of the millennial.
foobarian 3y ago
> a generational pyramid scheme. This is a very interesting point. Arguably the last century was an anomaly with constant growth afforded by scientific progress and post-war reconstruction, so it's possible we don't know what modern steady state looks like yet. I really hope it doesn't look like the pre-renaissance steady state.

by dangus 3y ago

anon291 3y ago

Indeed. Let's start by getting rid of the welfare state and bringing back the greatest incentive to child-bearing... care in old age. I'm serious. One thing I often see is complaints that the younger generation (typically millenials) are not pulling up their end of the bargain. However, neither are their parents. Typically, one would expect to become a grandparent that cares for their grandchildren. In return, your children take care of you. This is how humans have lived for generations. Yet, today, seniorhood is treated as a second adolescence. Grandparents neglect their grandchildren while parents are forced to do it all, so to speak. It's no wonder they have no time for kids. Human childbearing is exceptionally hard. It's why human males take part in the child-raising typically (women with committed men have more children on average and shorter spacing between pregnancies). Moreover, it's why natural selection has typically brought about kin groups that care for children. Social security is an affront to this entire arrangement. There's a balance to be struct between guaranteeing no one is destitute and not shifting expectations of the elderly to the point where living purely for themselves is actually considered acceptable.

Golden_Wind123 3y ago
There's no need for the crypto-fash comments about government safety nets causing the downfall of the west. The grandparents barely being kept out of elderly poverty by Social Security aren't the same as the second-adolescence grandparents spending down their 401ks (based on wealth disparity, the former group outweighs the second group). It's true that grandparents don't help raise grandkids anymore, but the rise of hyper-individualism in the 1950s with the death of multi-generational households is the most obvious root cause of this. Back in the day a well off family could buy a duplex where a young family could live in one unit while the elderly parents live in the other (allowing both sides to keep their privacy), but the rise of suburbanization and the lack of sensible housing stock make this hard to pull off.
- anon291 3y ago
  Late 1949s - 1950s = first modern payment of social security that wasn't affected by wars. Also this is not 'fascist'. Fascists support these sorts of programs for the racially pure class. I don't support them for anyone. Fascism is not a libertarian ideology. It's a collectivist/socialist one.

somewhereoutth 3y ago

The planet could support many more people - but not if they all drive SUVs! (sorry, being glib, but with more efficient resource utilization, the planet could support the current population to a good standard of living). The concern is that there is no obvious natural mechanism that would reverse the decrease. Our civilization would simply evaporate.

dangus 3y ago
Don’t forget that we still have to grow food, which is the most serious consumer of fresh water (see: California droughts) and a very significant part of CO2 emissions. Even basic essentials like clothing are not very environmentally friendly.

Qem 3y ago

> There’s nothing particularly scary about having an older population curve, it just means that society has to adjust by having higher savings rates for individuals and government retirement programs. Savings are meaningless if the saved money can't buy the work of young, able workers. Elderly people would just waste their savings outbidding each other for the services of the few younger people left. Numbers in your bank account can't do a hip replacement and change your saline solution. People do.

dangus 3y ago
Like I mentioned, automation and AI will continue to accelerate to the point where a larger percentage of the working population can be dedicated to services for the elderly. The most common profession in every state, truck driving, is probably going to be completely automated in the lifetime of the millennial.

foobarian 3y ago

> a generational pyramid scheme. This is a very interesting point. Arguably the last century was an anomaly with constant growth afforded by scientific progress and post-war reconstruction, so it's possible we don't know what modern steady state looks like yet. I really hope it doesn't look like the pre-renaissance steady state.