8 ms·
What will it take to have a stable society that doesn't depend on indefinite economic/population growth?
by phkahler 1y ago
What will it take to have a stable society that doesn't depend on indefinite economic/population growth?
- ceejayoz 1y agoNow you're asking the uncomfortable but important question.
- spwa4 1y agoReally? Because one obvious thing it'll require is about a doubling of the birth rate ... it's not about growth, it's about stability. At least at first.
- ceejayoz 1y agoPopulation stability and economic/societal stability don't have to be the same thing. If someone cracks the "robots that can do human-like things" boundaries in the real world versus just text - and there are enormous efforts in this regard going on - I'd fully expect some tasks to be handled by non-human workers. It seems a lot more likely than "number goes up" next-quarterism driven economies are to survive a thousand years.
- wistleblowanon 1y agoit will take you to "eat the rich"
- seniorThrowaway 1y agoAn entirely different economic paradigm.
- Aurornis 1y agoA stable population requires a fertility rate of about 2.1. It’s not about growth, it’s about stability of population at this point.
- nilamo 1y agoThere's over 8 billion people, the population is exceptionally stable my friend.
- missedthecue 1y agoDo you think people live forever? Population growth or shrinkage is fundamentally exponential.
- spwa4 1y agoIn other words: it's quite famous for how absurdly enormous swings in birth rate can be. It's famous for how critical it is for a species to have a stable birth rate.
- IAmBroom 1y agoI don't know where you got that idea. Some species critically depend on wildly unstable birth rates (grasshoppers and cicadas, but probably also deer and many other prey populations). Stable populations are completely irrelevant at the microscopic levels; InBev would fold within a week if yeast populations were stable.
- spwa4 1y agoAnd both grasshoppers and cicadas are famous for suddenly disappearing across enormous areas. Which is a situation only very rarely referred to as "stable". I know there's a joke in here about this being literally in the bible, with God using such an insect birth rate swing as a punishment for an entire state. That's how "stable" it is.
- Aurornis 1y agoThe article (which you read, right?) is specifically about developed countries and cites examples like France with fertility rates below 2.1
- Analemma_ 1y agoAt the very least, it would take enough automation such that the elderly don't need to either work or get wealth transfers from the working population to survive. Wealth transfers to the old only work when you have many more working-age people than retired people; if you don't, the whole thing implodes. It would also take a society where people don't need investment appreciation to have enough wealth to live on, which again requires a much larger amount of automation and economic abundance than we have now. It's not impossible, but it requires the kind of deliberate effort which seems beyond our political capabilities at the moment. The abundance people are at least aiming in the right direction though, hopefully they get more of a foothold.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoWe certainly can't have a stable society with a rapidly shrinking population.
- ceejayoz 1y agoIsn't that the main promise of AI and automation and whatnot?
- downrightmike 1y agoNo AI strips skills from people for easy and endless access for the rich.
- Qem 1y agoWe are promised flying cars since the 50s as well.
- ceejayoz 1y agoSmartphones and the Internet are at least as sci-fi as flying cars.
- antisthenes 1y agoYou can't make this statement in a vacuum. You need to know what the current population is, what the carrying capacity is, etc etc. Generic statements sound and feel good, but are completely useless.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoSure you can. A rapidly declining population is rapidly changing. Ergo it's not stable.
- analognoise 1y agoWe can’t have billionaires with their own private space programs and 5 families with more wealth than 50% of America, and have a stable society. This is just the natural and obvious outcome of what we’re already dealing with. The fertility crisis is just our refusal to deal appropriately with the ultra rich and the collapse of our institutions.
- missedthecue 1y agoIt would take a TFR of 2.1, so depending where you live, a 40-250% increase in fertility. There is no form of civilization that works with an imploding population and inverted demographic pyramid. Not even hunter gatherers could function like that
- ceejayoz 1y ago> There is no form of civilization that works with an imploding population and inverted demographic pyramid. No form of civilization has ever had the access to automation we have today. And in another 20 years, I suspect that'll be even more clear.
- arvinsim 1y agoI also suspect that the value of automation will be captured by the top, leaving the majority with the same need to work.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoYou’re answering the wrong question. That’s the answer to “how do we maintain the status quo?” We can absolutely exist in a world where growth does not exist from ever increasing population, but profits will evaporate as inflation increases and labor supply contracts. As a sibling comment mentions, automation will be a component. Those in power should be building for a changing world where labor has more power, the cost of labor goes up, and it becomes increasingly scarce. They’re not ready to make peace with this though (or unwilling to between now and death). One of the few things we do well as a species is kick the can into the future, or steal from it, depending on perspective. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
- missedthecue 1y agoI'm pointing out that even in a profitless world, a dependency ratio of 2:1 is not workable. It literally does not matter how you distribute resources.
- IAmBroom 1y agoWhy is "stable society" the end goal? I don't even know what you mean by that. Divorce rates have skyrocketed, and likewise women trapped in DV situations unable to leave has dropped considerably. Today is far more urban than the US I grew up in. And organized religion is far less popular. Population hasn't been stable since at least the invention of steam engines. Etc. I don't want "stable"; I want "safe". I want the next generation to live in a world that is AT LEAST as safe as this one, healthwise, likelihood of war, crimewise... and really I want better on all of those. As my childhood time vastly improved on the early 20th-C when my parents were kids.
- 0xffff2 1y agoStable in terms of population, not all of the stuff you're talking about.
- mulmen 1y agoWhy is a stable population good or desirable?
- missedthecue 1y agoBecause exponential implosion and an inversion of the demographic pyramid cannot result in a safe, prosperous, healthy, or wealthy society.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoRight now you are supporting an elderly retired person along with four others in the economy. When you retire there will only be two. Expect less than half the care, because automation of elderly care is more expensive than a person.
- 0xffff2 1y agoFirst, we categorically lack the technology for wide-scale colonization of space or other planets. Second, no matter how much people like to deny it, the Earth does have some finite carrying capacity. We can argue indefinitely about what exactly that carrying capacity is, but it exists. It follows from those two facts that unbounded population growth is not possible. A continually shrinking population eventually leads to extinction, thus leaving a stable population as the only option that doesn't lead to either extinction or widespread chaos and calamity. It's not really clear to me what the point of this question is. Are you advocating for infinite growth? For eventual extinction? Perhaps for a slow, long-term contraction but not extinction (i.e. eventual stability)? The latter is certainly what makes the most sense to me, but I'm just some random guy on the internet.
- thefz 1y agoNot capitalism apparently
- supportengineer 1y agoCapitalist society with strong socialist underpinnings.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ImJamal 1y agoI don't think that is possible so long as inflation occurs. When money is worth less, items costs more which means more economic growth is necessary (increased salaries, expenses, etc). Maybe I am missing something though?