5 ms·

A shrinking population is fine, this planet has its limits. A rapidly shrinking population is not ideal.

jandrese 2y ago
There is a lot of panic over shrinking population where people project it out 1000 years and find there are only like 5 people left in the world. Steady state population should be the long term goal, at least until we start moving into orbital colonies or something. But unfortunately that's an anathema to growth oriented economies which makes it the bad guy in economics and politics.
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  I mean Japan hasn't been doing great but it's been doing fine, so I don't think the end of growth has to mean anything but a period of stagnation. The economy will be fine.
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    In your lifetime, Korea will have more than two 60+ year olds for every working person. They are screwed.
    - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
      Korea also has a cultural practice of extreme ageism. So much so that the elderly are frequently impoverished to the point of food insecurity and committing suicide by jumping from bridges.
- missedthecue 2y ago
  At fertility rates of 1.6, it takes just 25 generations for the global population to go from 8 billion to 900k. Just 10 generations for the global population to drop below 1 billion. Pretty scary stuff.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    assuming fertility rates stay constant, which they rarely have. 250 years is a lot of time for things to change. (and of course there's no need for fertility rates to grow to as high as they have been historically, due to the massive drop in child mortality).
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      I'm not convinced it's a self-correcting problem.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    This is exactly my point. People assume that human behavior won't change if the population starts shrinking noticeably, especially if that shrinkage results in reduced housing pressures.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    That's an extreme drop rate for the whole globe to have, and a very long time, so I'm not scared by it. The population only went over 2 billion in 1927. Dropping from current numbers is fine, and less competition over space would be nice.
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      The issue isn't just the total number, it's the demography. The population is getting very old at a breakneck speed. I'm not sure how healthcare and pensions are supposed to be provided for old people when the tax base gets smaller and smaller every year. The end result is pretty terrible elder poverty. Not to mention the changing political dynamics of having a lot of old people outnumber younger people by 2 or 3 times in the voting booth. The gerontocracy is bad enough now. Imagine it 3x worse.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > The population is getting very old at a breakneck speed. https://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/united-states-population-pyramid-2020.jpg https://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/united... Looks fine to me. What's your definition of "old" here? Are you specifically worried about Korea like you mentioned in another post? I'd worry about the implications of a global 1.6 birthrate if they were actually going to happen. I don't think that's very likely, though. I don't know if we're even going to get down to 2.
- adrianN 2y ago
  Moving to orbital colonies won't save you in the long term if growth remains exponential. You can expand at most in a sphere growing at the speed of light so at O(t^3). Eventually the O(c^t) population growth will outpace the rate of expansion.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    Projecting out exponential growth into the far future is great because it has happened exactly never in history. All growth is on an S curve. Always.

There is a lot of panic over shrinking population where people project it out 1000 years and find there are only like 5 people left in the world. Steady state population should be the long term goal, at least until we start moving into orbital colonies or something. But unfortunately that's an anathema to growth oriented economies which makes it the bad guy in economics and politics.

faeriechangling 2y ago
I mean Japan hasn't been doing great but it's been doing fine, so I don't think the end of growth has to mean anything but a period of stagnation. The economy will be fine.
- missedthecue 2y ago
  In your lifetime, Korea will have more than two 60+ year olds for every working person. They are screwed.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    Korea also has a cultural practice of extreme ageism. So much so that the elderly are frequently impoverished to the point of food insecurity and committing suicide by jumping from bridges.
missedthecue 2y ago
At fertility rates of 1.6, it takes just 25 generations for the global population to go from 8 billion to 900k. Just 10 generations for the global population to drop below 1 billion. Pretty scary stuff.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  assuming fertility rates stay constant, which they rarely have. 250 years is a lot of time for things to change. (and of course there's no need for fertility rates to grow to as high as they have been historically, due to the massive drop in child mortality).
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    I'm not convinced it's a self-correcting problem.
- jandrese 2y ago
  This is exactly my point. People assume that human behavior won't change if the population starts shrinking noticeably, especially if that shrinkage results in reduced housing pressures.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  That's an extreme drop rate for the whole globe to have, and a very long time, so I'm not scared by it. The population only went over 2 billion in 1927. Dropping from current numbers is fine, and less competition over space would be nice.
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    The issue isn't just the total number, it's the demography. The population is getting very old at a breakneck speed. I'm not sure how healthcare and pensions are supposed to be provided for old people when the tax base gets smaller and smaller every year. The end result is pretty terrible elder poverty. Not to mention the changing political dynamics of having a lot of old people outnumber younger people by 2 or 3 times in the voting booth. The gerontocracy is bad enough now. Imagine it 3x worse.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > The population is getting very old at a breakneck speed. https://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/united-states-population-pyramid-2020.jpg https://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/united... Looks fine to me. What's your definition of "old" here? Are you specifically worried about Korea like you mentioned in another post? I'd worry about the implications of a global 1.6 birthrate if they were actually going to happen. I don't think that's very likely, though. I don't know if we're even going to get down to 2.
adrianN 2y ago
Moving to orbital colonies won't save you in the long term if growth remains exponential. You can expand at most in a sphere growing at the speed of light so at O(t^3). Eventually the O(c^t) population growth will outpace the rate of expansion.
- jandrese 2y ago
  Projecting out exponential growth into the far future is great because it has happened exactly never in history. All growth is on an S curve. Always.