4 ms·

The concern with demographic collapse isn't that the world won't be fine with fewer people, it's that the transition period is going to be extremely painful. D

The concern with demographic collapse isn't that the world won't be fine with fewer people, it's that the transition period is going to be extremely painful. During the increase in population kids are helpless for ~8 years before they're actually able to contribute to farms and whatnot, so the large number of extra children doesn't show. During demographic collapse, since it happens generally as life expectancies go up, elderly adults generally (with exceptions) spend decades getting less and less able to contribute before they die. We don't have answers for how to take care of them during that window.

trollbridge 2y ago
Unless someone invents some kind of amazing robots like the promise of Tesla Bots except completely real, the only way to take care of older people is to have younger people taking care of them. (That includes younger people engaging in heroic lifesaving medical services for older people.) Eventually this would be a self-correcting problem, but in the most gruesome way one can imagine. And creating and maintaining Tesla Bots would require lots of young people, too... unless/until one finds a way to make them create and maintain themselves, which seems rather far off; I live in a world where computer servers don't really even maintain themselves.
anticorporate 2y ago
I tend to take the opinion that we already dug our grave. It's not that different that the deserved skepticism for new "climate friendly" technologies. "The totally unsustainable behavior you had was bad. Here, have a slightly better option that allows you to keep doing the totally unsustainable thing with a slightly smaller footprint." Electric cars. Organic meat. Carbon offsets for flights. LEED certified McMansions. Every time we tell people the change isn't going to hurt, we lie to them. What we need are car-free communities, plant based diets, less travel, and smaller homes. Overpopulation isn't that different. Population reduction will hurt, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. I fully expect to get a lesser quality of care in my old age than my parents got. That sucks, but, that's reality. We're now in the consequences stage. We should be focusing on mitigating harm, not clinging to populating the planet in the way we used to.
oezi 2y ago
The worst case scenario will be extended work life until maybe up to 75 to balance retiree vs working age population. Extremely painful likely means working 7-10 more years. Today's retirement at 65-67 will be considered an aberration.
- lolinder 2y ago
  That assumes that working until 75 is feasible for a significant chunk of the population. I don't have stats, but anecdotally I would say that it's not in the US.

trollbridge 2y ago

Unless someone invents some kind of amazing robots like the promise of Tesla Bots except completely real, the only way to take care of older people is to have younger people taking care of them. (That includes younger people engaging in heroic lifesaving medical services for older people.) Eventually this would be a self-correcting problem, but in the most gruesome way one can imagine. And creating and maintaining Tesla Bots would require lots of young people, too... unless/until one finds a way to make them create and maintain themselves, which seems rather far off; I live in a world where computer servers don't really even maintain themselves.

anticorporate 2y ago

I tend to take the opinion that we already dug our grave. It's not that different that the deserved skepticism for new "climate friendly" technologies. "The totally unsustainable behavior you had was bad. Here, have a slightly better option that allows you to keep doing the totally unsustainable thing with a slightly smaller footprint." Electric cars. Organic meat. Carbon offsets for flights. LEED certified McMansions. Every time we tell people the change isn't going to hurt, we lie to them. What we need are car-free communities, plant based diets, less travel, and smaller homes. Overpopulation isn't that different. Population reduction will hurt, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. I fully expect to get a lesser quality of care in my old age than my parents got. That sucks, but, that's reality. We're now in the consequences stage. We should be focusing on mitigating harm, not clinging to populating the planet in the way we used to.

oezi 2y ago

The worst case scenario will be extended work life until maybe up to 75 to balance retiree vs working age population. Extremely painful likely means working 7-10 more years. Today's retirement at 65-67 will be considered an aberration.

lolinder 2y ago
That assumes that working until 75 is feasible for a significant chunk of the population. I don't have stats, but anecdotally I would say that it's not in the US.