4 ms·

Population growth/degrowth is contextual. You cannot extrapolate trend and expect the condition to never change. There is no reason to expect that the populatio

by 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
  But who taught those childless teachers, or those childless role models in the first place? You cannot predict the society won't change by giving an example how society just changed. And also, it only changed in some places.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    More childless teachers going back in a sequence of multiple generations. But I'm sure that here at some random point in the future, a bunch of women with children will suddenly flood the k12 education job market, and the trend will reverse so that a bunch of blathering ijits on social media don't have to do anything to prevent our species going extinct. It would be one thing to hold out hope for change if attitudes towards this issue with different... but in a world that shrugs and says "oh, things might be different in 50 years" when no one even wants things to be different in 50 years and aren't acting in ways that would cause things to be different in 50 years, then I feel pretty confident telling you that you're just plain wrong.

by kiba 2y ago

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
But who taught those childless teachers, or those childless role models in the first place? You cannot predict the society won't change by giving an example how society just changed. And also, it only changed in some places.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  More childless teachers going back in a sequence of multiple generations. But I'm sure that here at some random point in the future, a bunch of women with children will suddenly flood the k12 education job market, and the trend will reverse so that a bunch of blathering ijits on social media don't have to do anything to prevent our species going extinct. It would be one thing to hold out hope for change if attitudes towards this issue with different... but in a world that shrugs and says "oh, things might be different in 50 years" when no one even wants things to be different in 50 years and aren't acting in ways that would cause things to be different in 50 years, then I feel pretty confident telling you that you're just plain wrong.