5 ms·

Younger folks may not realize one of the reasons this is discussion-worthy is because previous generations had to (and still do) contend with Malthusians and Ne

Younger folks may not realize one of the reasons this is discussion-worthy is because previous generations had to (and still do) contend with Malthusians and Neo-Malthusians arguing the end of the world was coming from overpopulation. Hans Rosling and other scientists showed clearly with data that this wasn't going to be the case mostly because when the childhood mortality rate when down so did the fertility rate, but, well doom-sayers going to doom-say. Now the doom-sayers are flipping sides and saying underpopulation will be the end of the world.

Finnucane 3y ago
Well, we still have climate change and the generalized destruction of the environment to be Malthusian about.
solumunus 3y ago
It’s not going to be the end of the world but it could easily be economically devastating.
- scoofy 3y ago
  It's not going to be economically devastating. It's just going to mean countries are going to have to make tough decisions they don't want to. The era of free money for retirees to live more comfortably is over. People will have to live modestly in retirement. Most millennials can tell you that you can live a quality life with fewer resources, it's just that people will have to do unspeakable things like riding a bicycle instead of driving an SUV to places like the grocery store. If we are concerned with a short-term economic catastrophe, I think our attention should be on the impact of large language models on unskilled and semi-skilled labor.
  - bigboy12 3y ago
    I don’t get it. They bitch about overpopulation, they bitch about under population. Just smell the goddamn flowers.
    - scoofy 3y ago
      Complaints about population numbers are typically in support of some other agenda. Concern with over-population typically lies with the environmentalists, which is really a problem of lack of urbanism, not population. The concern with under-population typically comes from folks who support a robust social safety net, but only way those are possible without a steep reduction in quality of life, is to have more people always paying in than paying out, which is no longer feasible.
  - mikewarot 3y ago
    >free money for retirees to live more comfortably By this I assume you mean avoiding moving in with their kid, or facing homelessness?
    - scoofy 3y ago
      Yes, very much talking about things like means testing to prevent thing like this, while maintaining financial solvency.
      - mikewarot 3y ago
        So, basically you want to renege on the social contract that's been in place since the 1930s, and replace it with layers of bureaucrats? This results in people who are in their declining years having to supplicate themselves if they want to avoid ruin. That's inhumane. Means testing is a way to throw away massive amounts of money on administration, instead of sending it where it needs to go, in order to help the citizens.
        scoofy 3y ago
        Supposing the system is unsustainable (it is), how would you propose dealing with a system that can’t pay for itself long term? Especially given the fact that those paying in now will necessarily get back less, even though they will need to pay more to maintain the status quo?
        mikewarot 3y ago
        The system is said to be solvent for at least one more generation, perhaps 2, even at current demographics, but for one small change... removing the cap on paying into the system as your income rises.
        scoofy 3y ago
        Again, you’re changing the deal as much as I am. Asking some people to pay in more than they will get out is just means testing on the front end, and it means tests the young to pay the old.
  - solumunus 3y ago
    > It's not going to be economically devastating. I’m sure you’re qualified to make such a bold and conclusive statement about an unprecedented global financial crisis. What we’re talking about is inherently a recession greater than any recession in world history, if you’re arguing such a thing won’t be devastating to economies then you need more than “people will just have to ride bikes instead”. Seriously, I’m open to the idea that it won’t be as bad as some people claim, but you seem entirely unqualified to put forward such a case, and given that, it’s extremely frustrating how you speak with such certainty.

Finnucane 3y ago

Well, we still have climate change and the generalized destruction of the environment to be Malthusian about.

solumunus 3y ago

It’s not going to be the end of the world but it could easily be economically devastating.

scoofy 3y ago
It's not going to be economically devastating. It's just going to mean countries are going to have to make tough decisions they don't want to. The era of free money for retirees to live more comfortably is over. People will have to live modestly in retirement. Most millennials can tell you that you can live a quality life with fewer resources, it's just that people will have to do unspeakable things like riding a bicycle instead of driving an SUV to places like the grocery store. If we are concerned with a short-term economic catastrophe, I think our attention should be on the impact of large language models on unskilled and semi-skilled labor.
- bigboy12 3y ago
  I don’t get it. They bitch about overpopulation, they bitch about under population. Just smell the goddamn flowers.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    Complaints about population numbers are typically in support of some other agenda. Concern with over-population typically lies with the environmentalists, which is really a problem of lack of urbanism, not population. The concern with under-population typically comes from folks who support a robust social safety net, but only way those are possible without a steep reduction in quality of life, is to have more people always paying in than paying out, which is no longer feasible.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  >free money for retirees to live more comfortably By this I assume you mean avoiding moving in with their kid, or facing homelessness?
  - scoofy 3y ago
    Yes, very much talking about things like means testing to prevent thing like this, while maintaining financial solvency.
    - mikewarot 3y ago
      So, basically you want to renege on the social contract that's been in place since the 1930s, and replace it with layers of bureaucrats? This results in people who are in their declining years having to supplicate themselves if they want to avoid ruin. That's inhumane. Means testing is a way to throw away massive amounts of money on administration, instead of sending it where it needs to go, in order to help the citizens.
      - scoofy 3y ago
        Supposing the system is unsustainable (it is), how would you propose dealing with a system that can’t pay for itself long term? Especially given the fact that those paying in now will necessarily get back less, even though they will need to pay more to maintain the status quo?
        mikewarot 3y ago
        The system is said to be solvent for at least one more generation, perhaps 2, even at current demographics, but for one small change... removing the cap on paying into the system as your income rises.
        scoofy 3y ago
        Again, you’re changing the deal as much as I am. Asking some people to pay in more than they will get out is just means testing on the front end, and it means tests the young to pay the old.
- solumunus 3y ago
  > It's not going to be economically devastating. I’m sure you’re qualified to make such a bold and conclusive statement about an unprecedented global financial crisis. What we’re talking about is inherently a recession greater than any recession in world history, if you’re arguing such a thing won’t be devastating to economies then you need more than “people will just have to ride bikes instead”. Seriously, I’m open to the idea that it won’t be as bad as some people claim, but you seem entirely unqualified to put forward such a case, and given that, it’s extremely frustrating how you speak with such certainty.