3 ms·

It's good that we all prepare for this trend which has been ongoing all over the place for decades: wealth drops birthrates. Recall that in the 1970s, it was a

It's good that we all prepare for this trend which has been ongoing all over the place for decades: wealth drops birthrates. Recall that in the 1970s, it was assumed that growth rates would continue unabated - this is why the 70s had so much apocalypse pop media about overpop like Soylent Green etc. The green revolution that was going on at the time hadn't yet registered with demographers. This apparently inexorable process of growth leading to lower birthrate means that mankind's impact on the planet has at least a partial limit (number of humans screwing the pooch will peak and recede, even if the impact per human may keep growing), so we can take some degree of consolation in that. But that leaves the remaining question of how we deal with the fact that the number of economic participants peaks and then recedes (negative growth ain't a pretty process). We can look at recessions as a starting guide to this process, but it does still give one a shiver to envision what we'll have to master to navigate this process down to the projected population equilibrium. It's all the above that explains the nods that countries like the U.S. get from economists: when there is a global trend of dropping birthrates which can impact econ growth, countries that specialize in immigration can buck that trend for a bit.

RestlessMind 2y ago
> but it does still give one a shiver to envision what we'll have to master to navigate this process down to the projected population equilibrium. Easier said than done. This is where I see the most of hand waving. Robots haven't materialized yet, neither any political will to shrink the safety net.
- alx_the_new_guy 2y ago
  >Robots haven't materialized yet, neither any political will to shrink the safety net. Human-like general-purpose robots - yes. Except, by definition, a robot, essentially a programmable mechanism, not something human-like. Stuff like warehouses is getting increasingly automated, planes basically can fly and land themselves without human in the loop, autonomous cars are not here, but are coming in the next decade probably. Personally, I haven't bought a cup of coffe a human made in at least a decade. That's some poor barista's salary not getting paid. Not that I would know the difference between a 5/10 coffe from a machine and a theoretically 10/10 coffe a professional would make. And a machine makes one for a whole lot cheaper.

RestlessMind 2y ago

> but it does still give one a shiver to envision what we'll have to master to navigate this process down to the projected population equilibrium. Easier said than done. This is where I see the most of hand waving. Robots haven't materialized yet, neither any political will to shrink the safety net.

alx_the_new_guy 2y ago
>Robots haven't materialized yet, neither any political will to shrink the safety net. Human-like general-purpose robots - yes. Except, by definition, a robot, essentially a programmable mechanism, not something human-like. Stuff like warehouses is getting increasingly automated, planes basically can fly and land themselves without human in the loop, autonomous cars are not here, but are coming in the next decade probably. Personally, I haven't bought a cup of coffe a human made in at least a decade. That's some poor barista's salary not getting paid. Not that I would know the difference between a 5/10 coffe from a machine and a theoretically 10/10 coffe a professional would make. And a machine makes one for a whole lot cheaper.