4 ms·

> What's the case for higher population? I don't think you understand the math of this. It's not that anyone wants a higher population, it's that the spectrum

> What's the case for higher population? I don't think you understand the math of this. It's not that anyone wants a higher population, it's that the spectrum is a little screwed up. There's this line in the middle (fertility rate 2.1), and anything to the right of that is "population spirals out of control". Then everything to the left of it is "human extinction in just a few centuries". We're currently on the "human extinction in a few centuries". And all the arguments that we're not are positively stupid. People seem to think that we're like moose on some island, that "population bounces back" (it does for animals, because their fertility rate never goes below replacement, so when population pressures subside, their populations recover). Every time you ask "what's the case for higher population", you're actually helping to murder our entire species. If you were rational, you'd be pushing the idea that we need that 2.1 fertility rate, the one that doesn't result in higher population, and doesn't result in human extinction.

kiba 2y ago
Population growth/degrowth is contextual. You cannot extrapolate trend and expect the condition to never change. There is no reason to expect that the population will die out in a few century, only that we are in a currently bad situation. That being said, the lack of population growth we're seeing likely represent a crisis of some kind across the world. Otherwise if it's benign, it just means that people just don't wanna start families.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > Population growth/degrowth is contextual. You cannot extrapolate trend and expect the condition to never change. Little girls raised by mothers who only have 1 child don't grow up thinking that they want five children. Little girls who grow up being taught by childless teachers, excited and inspired by childless role models in the entertainment industry don't think they want four children. When they're bombarded with propaganda about how "adoption is just as good", they tend to believe that. And so on. These things don't change just because population is shrinking. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe these things to be deliberate. But I do recognize them for what they are. > There is no reason to expect that the population will die out in a few century, only that we are in a currently bad situation. There actually is. People like yourself tend to look at the "population". "Gee, there's 7.2 billion sixty year olds! We'll never go extinct." But it's really the one small demographic slice that is shrinking all the time, even while population grows... the demographic still young enough to make more people. Your claim is that this trend doesn't just stay the same, that it might reverse. But it's so much worse than it merely not reversing... the trend becomes more extreme. As fertility falls, there are far fewer examples of high fertility for children to grow up around and be normalized to. They lower their own fertility in adulthood in response. Fertility decline is set to accelerate, not slow.
  - kiba 2y ago
    I am merely saying that predicting trend out to a century or more is too far out. Your claim is that this trend doesn't just stay the same, that it might reverse. But it's so much worse than it merely not reversing... the trend becomes more extreme. As fertility falls, there are far fewer examples of high fertility for children to grow up around and be normalized to. They lower their own fertility in adulthood in response. Fertility decline is set to accelerate, not slow. Big claim you're making. Populations are not homogeneous.
    - bitcoin_anon 2y ago
      Indeed. There are cultures that are presently above the replacement rate curve, e.g. the Amish. As our culture depopulates itself, these more successful cultures will become more prominent.
  - hnfong 2y ago
    It's simple Darwinian evolution. The relatively few families that have five children, and assuming that the values of having a large family can be passed to offspring, they will continue to have large families. In a couple generations these people will become the majority of the population and the birth rate goes back up again.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      Darwinian evolution won't save our species. Even families that have many children can't escape this, because their children freely mingle with the element that causes childlessness. The Duggars famously have more than 20 children, but will not come close to having 400 children. Not even one of their children will match their own fecundity. If somehow I were wrong on this, it still wouldn't fix the problem. Technological civilization can't be put on pause for 150 years while they manage to get population back up to a level where it can carry that burden. How many of those children six generations in are likely to make it out of childhood without modern medicine?
  - soco 2y ago
Ekaros 2y ago
I wonder should we just see in century again. Remembering that 100 years ago world population was circa 2 billion. So maybe we need to take some time and see how things develop and only really panic in maybe 3 or 4 generations.
- EraYaN 2y ago
  At that point the older generations will already be wielding their political power with an iron fist to get the last drops of all the money and resources that do not get replenished. This was never an apocalypse type issue, but always purely political and the younger generations will suffer for it. THAT is the main issue, if you are old enough now you'll be fine, you'll get to "eat" the last little bit of stuff and then you pass away. It's the folks that have 60 years to go that are in trouble. Convincing the elderly to not vote or to take "their" stuff away is always going to be unpopular when 60% of the voting block in that age.
aklemm 2y ago
You projected a lot on to my comment that's not there. Your comment is interesting, but would be more useful if you brought a rhetorical style that was less needlessly confrontational. Also drop the subtext that you're a rational authority simply by your presence here.

kiba 2y ago

Population growth/degrowth is contextual. You cannot extrapolate trend and expect the condition to never change. There is no reason to expect that the population will die out in a few century, only that we are in a currently bad situation. That being said, the lack of population growth we're seeing likely represent a crisis of some kind across the world. Otherwise if it's benign, it just means that people just don't wanna start families.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> Population growth/degrowth is contextual. You cannot extrapolate trend and expect the condition to never change. Little girls raised by mothers who only have 1 child don't grow up thinking that they want five children. Little girls who grow up being taught by childless teachers, excited and inspired by childless role models in the entertainment industry don't think they want four children. When they're bombarded with propaganda about how "adoption is just as good", they tend to believe that. And so on. These things don't change just because population is shrinking. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe these things to be deliberate. But I do recognize them for what they are. > There is no reason to expect that the population will die out in a few century, only that we are in a currently bad situation. There actually is. People like yourself tend to look at the "population". "Gee, there's 7.2 billion sixty year olds! We'll never go extinct." But it's really the one small demographic slice that is shrinking all the time, even while population grows... the demographic still young enough to make more people. Your claim is that this trend doesn't just stay the same, that it might reverse. But it's so much worse than it merely not reversing... the trend becomes more extreme. As fertility falls, there are far fewer examples of high fertility for children to grow up around and be normalized to. They lower their own fertility in adulthood in response. Fertility decline is set to accelerate, not slow.
- kiba 2y ago
  I am merely saying that predicting trend out to a century or more is too far out. Your claim is that this trend doesn't just stay the same, that it might reverse. But it's so much worse than it merely not reversing... the trend becomes more extreme. As fertility falls, there are far fewer examples of high fertility for children to grow up around and be normalized to. They lower their own fertility in adulthood in response. Fertility decline is set to accelerate, not slow. Big claim you're making. Populations are not homogeneous.
  - bitcoin_anon 2y ago
    Indeed. There are cultures that are presently above the replacement rate curve, e.g. the Amish. As our culture depopulates itself, these more successful cultures will become more prominent.
- hnfong 2y ago
  It's simple Darwinian evolution. The relatively few families that have five children, and assuming that the values of having a large family can be passed to offspring, they will continue to have large families. In a couple generations these people will become the majority of the population and the birth rate goes back up again.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    Darwinian evolution won't save our species. Even families that have many children can't escape this, because their children freely mingle with the element that causes childlessness. The Duggars famously have more than 20 children, but will not come close to having 400 children. Not even one of their children will match their own fecundity. If somehow I were wrong on this, it still wouldn't fix the problem. Technological civilization can't be put on pause for 150 years while they manage to get population back up to a level where it can carry that burden. How many of those children six generations in are likely to make it out of childhood without modern medicine?
- soco 2y ago

Ekaros 2y ago

I wonder should we just see in century again. Remembering that 100 years ago world population was circa 2 billion. So maybe we need to take some time and see how things develop and only really panic in maybe 3 or 4 generations.

EraYaN 2y ago
At that point the older generations will already be wielding their political power with an iron fist to get the last drops of all the money and resources that do not get replenished. This was never an apocalypse type issue, but always purely political and the younger generations will suffer for it. THAT is the main issue, if you are old enough now you'll be fine, you'll get to "eat" the last little bit of stuff and then you pass away. It's the folks that have 60 years to go that are in trouble. Convincing the elderly to not vote or to take "their" stuff away is always going to be unpopular when 60% of the voting block in that age.

aklemm 2y ago

You projected a lot on to my comment that's not there. Your comment is interesting, but would be more useful if you brought a rhetorical style that was less needlessly confrontational. Also drop the subtext that you're a rational authority simply by your presence here.