3 ms·

It seems disingenuous to you because you’re unfamiliar with the underlying statistics. A steady state population is what pronatalists want, and they’re generall

It seems disingenuous to you because you’re unfamiliar with the underlying statistics. A steady state population is what pronatalists want, and they’re generally quite comfortable with the idea that this might require structuring society to better enable women who’d like to have a child. The status quo that we’re on track to - already guaranteed in some countries - is a moderately rapid population decline.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
8 billion (today) to 10 billion people (~2100) is not a reasonable steady state based on all available evidence. We'll head towards half that over the next 200-250 years as total fertility rates approach 0.5-1 on average, and 4B people is certainly more approachable to support sustainably vs 8B-10B (under the assumption of living standards somewhere between Europe and the US). South Korea is at 0.72, China at 1, Japan at 1.2, Mexico City at 0.96, (all 2023 figures as of this comment) and the rest of the world is not far behind. > The status quo that we’re on track to - already guaranteed in some countries - is a moderately rapid population decline. This gets us to steady state. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jul/11/global-population-predictions-offer-hopeful-sign-for-planet-un-says https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/... https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2024_wpp_2024_advance_unedited_0.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve... https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  I don't understand what you mean. A TFR of 0.5-1 means that every generation is about 2-4 times smaller than the one which came before it. In what sense can that be or get us to a steady state?
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Society might have the will to move towards economic policies that would encourage a fertility rate closer to replacement rate as the global population halves. Today's politicians clearly don't, but 50-150 years from now, new folks will be in positions of power who might make it worth potential parents' time and effort. Unfortunately, if you can't convince women it's worth their one life to raise children "for the good of society" or whatever the messaging is, you're up a creek without a paddle and the situation is likely hopeless. Society should make them a very compelling offer (exceptionally robust support to be a parent), if it is willing and can, otherwise, prepare for the consequences of people having free will and self determination.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      Wouldn't it be better if a movement to promote natalism - "pronatalist", if you will - convinces politicians to address the problem now? After 150 years of population decline, we're going to have substantial secondary issues. (Who's taking care of the disproportionate number of elderly people?)
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        I think there are a lot of problem now to attend to, and there is only so much human time to go around, which is currently better spent taking care of humans here today and fixing the problems we have already incurred. Future humanity will need to figure out a way forward due to past humanity being reckless. There is a debt to be unwound, and it has to start somewhere. Here is a fine place to start. > (Who's taking care of the disproportionate number of elderly people?) Whomever is left at that point.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

8 billion (today) to 10 billion people (~2100) is not a reasonable steady state based on all available evidence. We'll head towards half that over the next 200-250 years as total fertility rates approach 0.5-1 on average, and 4B people is certainly more approachable to support sustainably vs 8B-10B (under the assumption of living standards somewhere between Europe and the US). South Korea is at 0.72, China at 1, Japan at 1.2, Mexico City at 0.96, (all 2023 figures as of this comment) and the rest of the world is not far behind. > The status quo that we’re on track to - already guaranteed in some countries - is a moderately rapid population decline. This gets us to steady state. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jul/11/global-population-predictions-offer-hopeful-sign-for-planet-un-says https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/... https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2024_wpp_2024_advance_unedited_0.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve... https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I don't understand what you mean. A TFR of 0.5-1 means that every generation is about 2-4 times smaller than the one which came before it. In what sense can that be or get us to a steady state?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Society might have the will to move towards economic policies that would encourage a fertility rate closer to replacement rate as the global population halves. Today's politicians clearly don't, but 50-150 years from now, new folks will be in positions of power who might make it worth potential parents' time and effort. Unfortunately, if you can't convince women it's worth their one life to raise children "for the good of society" or whatever the messaging is, you're up a creek without a paddle and the situation is likely hopeless. Society should make them a very compelling offer (exceptionally robust support to be a parent), if it is willing and can, otherwise, prepare for the consequences of people having free will and self determination.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    Wouldn't it be better if a movement to promote natalism - "pronatalist", if you will - convinces politicians to address the problem now? After 150 years of population decline, we're going to have substantial secondary issues. (Who's taking care of the disproportionate number of elderly people?)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      I think there are a lot of problem now to attend to, and there is only so much human time to go around, which is currently better spent taking care of humans here today and fixing the problems we have already incurred. Future humanity will need to figure out a way forward due to past humanity being reckless. There is a debt to be unwound, and it has to start somewhere. Here is a fine place to start. > (Who's taking care of the disproportionate number of elderly people?) Whomever is left at that point.