2 ms·
Shouldn't expenses be proportional to population size? If not so, then spend less? Birth rate below replacement doesn't mean population size is not enough to pa
by moktonar 1y ago
Shouldn't expenses be proportional to population size? If not so, then spend less? Birth rate below replacement doesn't mean population size is not enough to pay for expenses, it just means it will slowly decrease, which btw is good, we are definitely too many. In nature only bi-sexual reproduction is capable of reducing population size when needed, that is a very good indicator that when resources become scarce, only those who can reduce their population size can survive, otherwise we would reproduce by binary fission.
- Night_Thastus 1y agoInfrastructure can't be scaled down easily once it is built. You can't just shrink roads, water lines, electricity lines and otherwise once a population has shrunk. Nor can buildings like hospitals and fire stations. So no, expenses are not proportional. Those costs continue, and now you have fewer young people to pay for it - and more elderly that will need assistance. It is vicious. Some countries like the US have skirted past this problem due to immigration. Others like Japan have not have much immigration and are beginning to suffer the effects. But every country will face it in the long run. The cold hard fact is that when people are educated and have access to healthcare, they simply stop having enough kids to meet replacement rate - even when wealthy and when having great support systems. Humans do not act like most species. We do not form neat equilibrium with our environment based on available resources. That kind of logic didn't apply the moment agriculture was developed.
- moktonar 1y agoGood luck