4 ms·

It 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 populat

It 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 ago
  I also suspect that the value of automation will be captured by the top, leaving the majority with the same need to work.
toomuchtodo 1y ago
You’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 ago
  I'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.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    This is an opportunity to see how to make it work. If it doesn’t, we’re all dead eventually. I find the idea of creating new life to keep a poorly functioning pyramid scheme going grotesque, ymmv. Edit: If you want to have kids in this macro, good luck, you’re on your own (based on the evidence). And it’s only going to keep getting more expensive to exist in our lifetimes (shrinking labor supply, climate change, sovereign debt, etc).
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Things that old people need are going to get super expensive with a shrinking population because there are so few working age people providing those services compared to the number of retirees. So you're saying "don't have kids because things are getting so expensive", while the reason they're getting expensive is because people aren't having enough kids....
      - toomuchtodo 1y ago
        I’m absolutely telling people not to have kids into a macro that just wants economic slavery to pay back debt of all sorts incurred (sovereign, demographic). Labor was cheap because of a population boom with a root cause of women not empowered. Now empowered, they are having less children (family planning, not having unwanted or unaffordable children). Suboptimal economic systems can change, and they should. Can you say with a straight face, “Have more kids and be beholden to 1-2 decades of minimally compensated childrearing labor and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs so the economy might get better and things might be cheap again?” I cannot.
        bryanlarsen 1y ago
        You're screwed financially during child-bearing years if you have kids. You're screwed financially in retirement if you don't, because care is going to be super expensive if/when the population pyramid gets inverted. The only way to not get screwed is to switch back to the standard non-Western care model: grandparents take on much of the burden of caring for children, and children take care of parents.
- arvinsim 1y ago
  > 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. I am increasingly tired of arguments for the elites to do something for the betterment of society. They have repeatedly shown that they don't care.
bitshiftfaced 1y ago
We currently have about 800 times the population as we did during the time of hunter gatherers, so we can lose quite a large portion of our population while still greatly exceeding the previous levels. It could be that we are seeing the end game of logistic growth. A decline in population would mean that resources would become cheaper, which in turn could stimulate population growth again.
- missedthecue 1y ago
  A population that declines through birth rate attrition gets old. The average age in hunter gather communities was about 15 years old. In the next 10-20 years, the average age in a number of countries is going to approach 60. You can't just think about raw numbers, you have to think about demography.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    To some extent. But hunter gatherers didn't have access to hip replacements and ibuprophen, either.
    - missedthecue 1y ago
      It's not really taken by a robot. You key in your order rather than asking an employee to. The same amount of human labor is being done.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        I think you meant to post this to the other thread. I'm not talking about self-service kiosks, I'm talking about "talk directly to the machine" sort of things they're already testing out.

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 ago
I also suspect that the value of automation will be captured by the top, leaving the majority with the same need to work.

toomuchtodo 1y ago

You’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 ago
I'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.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  This is an opportunity to see how to make it work. If it doesn’t, we’re all dead eventually. I find the idea of creating new life to keep a poorly functioning pyramid scheme going grotesque, ymmv. Edit: If you want to have kids in this macro, good luck, you’re on your own (based on the evidence). And it’s only going to keep getting more expensive to exist in our lifetimes (shrinking labor supply, climate change, sovereign debt, etc).
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Things that old people need are going to get super expensive with a shrinking population because there are so few working age people providing those services compared to the number of retirees. So you're saying "don't have kids because things are getting so expensive", while the reason they're getting expensive is because people aren't having enough kids....
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      I’m absolutely telling people not to have kids into a macro that just wants economic slavery to pay back debt of all sorts incurred (sovereign, demographic). Labor was cheap because of a population boom with a root cause of women not empowered. Now empowered, they are having less children (family planning, not having unwanted or unaffordable children). Suboptimal economic systems can change, and they should. Can you say with a straight face, “Have more kids and be beholden to 1-2 decades of minimally compensated childrearing labor and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs so the economy might get better and things might be cheap again?” I cannot.
      - bryanlarsen 1y ago
        You're screwed financially during child-bearing years if you have kids. You're screwed financially in retirement if you don't, because care is going to be super expensive if/when the population pyramid gets inverted. The only way to not get screwed is to switch back to the standard non-Western care model: grandparents take on much of the burden of caring for children, and children take care of parents.
arvinsim 1y ago
> 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. I am increasingly tired of arguments for the elites to do something for the betterment of society. They have repeatedly shown that they don't care.

bitshiftfaced 1y ago

We currently have about 800 times the population as we did during the time of hunter gatherers, so we can lose quite a large portion of our population while still greatly exceeding the previous levels. It could be that we are seeing the end game of logistic growth. A decline in population would mean that resources would become cheaper, which in turn could stimulate population growth again.

missedthecue 1y ago
A population that declines through birth rate attrition gets old. The average age in hunter gather communities was about 15 years old. In the next 10-20 years, the average age in a number of countries is going to approach 60. You can't just think about raw numbers, you have to think about demography.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  To some extent. But hunter gatherers didn't have access to hip replacements and ibuprophen, either.
  - missedthecue 1y ago
    It's not really taken by a robot. You key in your order rather than asking an employee to. The same amount of human labor is being done.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      I think you meant to post this to the other thread. I'm not talking about self-service kiosks, I'm talking about "talk directly to the machine" sort of things they're already testing out.