6 ms·

Ask HN: Why didn't people 40 years ago worry about population collapse today?

8 points by amichail 1y ago

Did they not see the trend towards individualism in economically advanced countries?

PaulHoule 1y ago
In the 1970s people were looking at a "hockey stick" graph of world population and thought we were cooked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth [1] McLuhan said "We look at the present through a rear-view mirror" and there is no area like that more than gender and reproductive issues. For instance the idea that men have it better than woman still persists although it's definitely not true for those under 30. [2] The diffusion of the idea is still suppressed because it is right wing coded, it's going to take another 20 years or so for it to be safe to talk about in mixed company. If you believe in sustainability, the reproductive rate has to be regulated to a tight band over the long term: someday "my child my choice" and "my carbon my choice" will be seen the same way. [1] this aged better, it predicted that real trouble starts in the next few decades [2] Girls have internalizing problems and we say they are sensitive, Boys have externalizing problems and we say they are brutes. Boys who have internalizing problems are invisible. Reviving Ophelia was actually a great book that brought Kohut's self-psychology into the mainstream but people came to the wrong conclusions from it: while teenage girls are anguished about their self-image, teenage boys are getting killed or winding up in jail.
al_borland 1y ago
In college 25 years ago I was hearing about how over population was going to be the end of us and had professors tell us the worst thing we could do for the planet was have a kid.
- giantg2 1y ago
  They weren't wrong. One of the best things for the planet would be a population collapse. It just wouldn't be the best thing for many people.
  - moomoo11 1y ago
    I’d also argue not everyone should have children. There are so many broken families and it is horrible for the children. It leads to increase in crime and drug use. This is bad for everyone else who has to deal with it. It’s like that saying don’t get a dog if you can’t care for it. dog is way easier to care for than a human and people still fail at that (animal shelters full) I think what’s happening right now is fine. Socioeconomic pressure, hopefully for better than worse, will make it so that those who are responsible and capable will have healthy and happy families, and I think it will be good that we are making progress in automation.
    - WHA8m 1y ago
      I just assume when you say "broken" you don't mean "poor".
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - giantg2 1y ago
        Different person, but broken can happen across class and take different forms. However, lower income families tend to mean higher rates of child abuse and more single parent households. Single parent households have been linked to lower educational and economic attainment and higher incarceration rates. So while it can happen across the spectrum, it does seem to have some correlation.
        WHA8m 1y ago
        I know. But is the conclusion here, that low income people should not get kids? If that's the point OP made (which I doubt, but still asked to reassure), I disagree wholeheartedly.
        giantg2 1y ago
        I don't think there was any proposal given. Seemed like they made a statement that some people shouldn't have kids if they can't be responsible. I don't think there's any ethical way to delineate and enforce that.
- paulcole 1y ago
  Was this a case of computer science professors trying to help the sexless students feel better about their celibacy?
  - al_borland 1y ago
    No, it wasn’t a CS class. I don’t remember the name of the class or why I was even taking it, but the professor tried to turn everyone into vegans and organic farmers for most of the semester.
    - paulcole 1y ago
      So it was a single professor lol? From your original comment you said “professors” making me think that some schools were pushing this message consistently. I found this odd because I was in college 25 years ago and must have missed the memo.
- muzani 1y ago
  In college, a socioeconomics book brought up that rich people were having less kids and poor people were having many many many kids (like 10), so this wouldn't have been healthy when the majority of the families came from those with less resources. I thought I'd get 5 kids or so back then to balance it out.
gishglish 1y ago
The people it affects the most aren’t engaging those sort of thoughts day to day. The architects of it don’t care, as they will have secured their own feudal power .by the point things get nasty
- supportengineer 1y ago
  It's the "Got Mine!" attitude.
supportengineer 1y ago
Back then we could not imagine a world so hostile to working families as we have today. Back then, even making minimum wage, I could have saved up to buy a small condo. The future was BRIGHT so of course the default assumption is people marrying, buying homes, and having babies.
mathiaspoint 1y ago
People were much more worried about teen pregnancy. I suppose they were successful in their campaign.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 1y ago
They did and longer before 1985. They imported foreigners to prop up everything from health care to pensions. All for the sake of "line go up".
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bhag2066 1y ago
I just read the last chapter of "The Psychology of Money" so with recency bias say that each generation has a different perception and perspective.
aristofun 1y ago
What people? Be specific. There are different countries with different interests. The dumbest ones has bought into scarcity, socialism , individualism, egoism and other self destructive narratives sold by their enemies (implicit or explicit, internal or external). Smarter ones are doing okay as far as population goes.
mikewarot 1y ago
When I was a kid, overpopulation was going to lead to famines, right before the next ice age started. (Or... the commies pushed the button, and we all lived out a Tom Lehrer song, together)
muzani 1y ago
They're called boomers because there was a population boom. It was the era of contraceptives, where we thought we would run out of food. Lagging indicators always seem to throw people off, especially one that takes a whole generation. China had an overpopulation problem and now they're facing a different kind of population problem as back then Chinese would opt for only one male child. Longer lifespans and overpriced education led to other kinds of problems that took decades to kick in. It's really hard to model this in.
callamdelaney 1y ago
I don't think it's individualism, perhaps that is the case for a small percentage of people. I think it's the fact that 2 workers per household (or family unit) is now common. More people working in general, generally, reduces the value of labour, people are now paid relatively less. If people are working and have career goals, plus are struggling to pay their own way, having children is less of an attractive prospect. The costs of childcare here in the UK are also very prohibitive. We also have some other significant factors I won't go into. It looks like generally, the more two worker households in a society, the lower the birthrate. There are multiple ways to address this but I believe these are the main reasons. Some numbers (courtesy of claude 4 research): Japan 1925 - 5.4 children per woman - ~20% women working Japan 1950 - 3.6 children per woman - ~35% women working Japan 1980 - 1.8 children per woman - ~47% women working Japan 2000 - 1.4 children per woman - ~56% women working Japan 2025 - 1.2 children per woman - ~74% women working
selenedyxx 1y ago
Actually, 40 years ago, people were mainly worried about more immediate and tangible issues like poverty and economic development. Population collapse simply wasn’t a major concern back then. It’s kind of like how nowadays hardly anyone seriously worries about the Earth exploding and everyone moving to Mars — people tend to focus on the problems that feel most urgent at the time. That’s why population collapse wasn’t really on the radar back then.
incomingpain 1y ago
Nothing to do with individualism. This has everything to do with government consequences. When egalitarianism got women working; it meant they wouldnt be having kids. When women have an income, they are able to 'escape' from relationships which reduces kids. When you require kids to be in child seats; and your automotive regulations are shrinking cars for 'fuel efficiency' aka reducing the number of seats for kids to sit in. All of these things then had state propaganda to push that these were good things for various reasons. It led to population collapse or worse, the pyramid schemes of retirement and socialized systems collapse.
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
thomassmith65 1y ago
If I ever heard "population collapse" as a kid, it would have been in relation to endangered species of animals. The phrase one did hear - and fairly often - was "population explosion". In fact, "population collapse" is a less intuitive concept. Egg heads, 40 years ago, worried about the "population explosion"; people reproduce, and there is only so much space and so much food to go around. Incidentally, the first I heard anyone attribute "population collapse" to a "trend towards individualism" was, I think, last year.
sloaken 1y ago
Back then, the two (allegedly) extremest positions: 1) We are running out of room, need to target zero population 2) More people lead to more innovation. Grow grow grow. I had some relatives that were convinced that population growth yielded pollution and thus damage to the environment. Therefore they had no kids. Of course, despite advocating for the environment they had a small private plane they enjoyed flying for fun.

8 points by amichail 1y ago

Did they not see the trend towards individualism in economically advanced countries?

In the 1970s people were looking at a "hockey stick" graph of world population and thought we were cooked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth [1] McLuhan said "We look at the present through a rear-view mirror" and there is no area like that more than gender and reproductive issues. For instance the idea that men have it better than woman still persists although it's definitely not true for those under 30. [2] The diffusion of the idea is still suppressed because it is right wing coded, it's going to take another 20 years or so for it to be safe to talk about in mixed company. If you believe in sustainability, the reproductive rate has to be regulated to a tight band over the long term: someday "my child my choice" and "my carbon my choice" will be seen the same way. [1] this aged better, it predicted that real trouble starts in the next few decades [2] Girls have internalizing problems and we say they are sensitive, Boys have externalizing problems and we say they are brutes. Boys who have internalizing problems are invisible. Reviving Ophelia was actually a great book that brought Kohut's self-psychology into the mainstream but people came to the wrong conclusions from it: while teenage girls are anguished about their self-image, teenage boys are getting killed or winding up in jail.

al_borland 1y ago

In college 25 years ago I was hearing about how over population was going to be the end of us and had professors tell us the worst thing we could do for the planet was have a kid.

giantg2 1y ago
They weren't wrong. One of the best things for the planet would be a population collapse. It just wouldn't be the best thing for many people.
- moomoo11 1y ago
  I’d also argue not everyone should have children. There are so many broken families and it is horrible for the children. It leads to increase in crime and drug use. This is bad for everyone else who has to deal with it. It’s like that saying don’t get a dog if you can’t care for it. dog is way easier to care for than a human and people still fail at that (animal shelters full) I think what’s happening right now is fine. Socioeconomic pressure, hopefully for better than worse, will make it so that those who are responsible and capable will have healthy and happy families, and I think it will be good that we are making progress in automation.
  - WHA8m 1y ago
    I just assume when you say "broken" you don't mean "poor".
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - giantg2 1y ago
      Different person, but broken can happen across class and take different forms. However, lower income families tend to mean higher rates of child abuse and more single parent households. Single parent households have been linked to lower educational and economic attainment and higher incarceration rates. So while it can happen across the spectrum, it does seem to have some correlation.
      - WHA8m 1y ago
        I know. But is the conclusion here, that low income people should not get kids? If that's the point OP made (which I doubt, but still asked to reassure), I disagree wholeheartedly.
        giantg2 1y ago
        I don't think there was any proposal given. Seemed like they made a statement that some people shouldn't have kids if they can't be responsible. I don't think there's any ethical way to delineate and enforce that.
paulcole 1y ago
Was this a case of computer science professors trying to help the sexless students feel better about their celibacy?
- al_borland 1y ago
  No, it wasn’t a CS class. I don’t remember the name of the class or why I was even taking it, but the professor tried to turn everyone into vegans and organic farmers for most of the semester.
  - paulcole 1y ago
    So it was a single professor lol? From your original comment you said “professors” making me think that some schools were pushing this message consistently. I found this odd because I was in college 25 years ago and must have missed the memo.
muzani 1y ago
In college, a socioeconomics book brought up that rich people were having less kids and poor people were having many many many kids (like 10), so this wouldn't have been healthy when the majority of the families came from those with less resources. I thought I'd get 5 kids or so back then to balance it out.

gishglish 1y ago

The people it affects the most aren’t engaging those sort of thoughts day to day. The architects of it don’t care, as they will have secured their own feudal power .by the point things get nasty

supportengineer 1y ago
It's the "Got Mine!" attitude.

supportengineer 1y ago

Back then we could not imagine a world so hostile to working families as we have today. Back then, even making minimum wage, I could have saved up to buy a small condo. The future was BRIGHT so of course the default assumption is people marrying, buying homes, and having babies.

mathiaspoint 1y ago

People were much more worried about teen pregnancy. I suppose they were successful in their campaign.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 1y ago

They did and longer before 1985. They imported foreigners to prop up everything from health care to pensions. All for the sake of "line go up".

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bhag2066 1y ago

I just read the last chapter of "The Psychology of Money" so with recency bias say that each generation has a different perception and perspective.

aristofun 1y ago

What people? Be specific. There are different countries with different interests. The dumbest ones has bought into scarcity, socialism , individualism, egoism and other self destructive narratives sold by their enemies (implicit or explicit, internal or external). Smarter ones are doing okay as far as population goes.

mikewarot 1y ago

When I was a kid, overpopulation was going to lead to famines, right before the next ice age started. (Or... the commies pushed the button, and we all lived out a Tom Lehrer song, together)

muzani 1y ago

They're called boomers because there was a population boom. It was the era of contraceptives, where we thought we would run out of food. Lagging indicators always seem to throw people off, especially one that takes a whole generation. China had an overpopulation problem and now they're facing a different kind of population problem as back then Chinese would opt for only one male child. Longer lifespans and overpriced education led to other kinds of problems that took decades to kick in. It's really hard to model this in.

callamdelaney 1y ago

I don't think it's individualism, perhaps that is the case for a small percentage of people. I think it's the fact that 2 workers per household (or family unit) is now common. More people working in general, generally, reduces the value of labour, people are now paid relatively less. If people are working and have career goals, plus are struggling to pay their own way, having children is less of an attractive prospect. The costs of childcare here in the UK are also very prohibitive. We also have some other significant factors I won't go into. It looks like generally, the more two worker households in a society, the lower the birthrate. There are multiple ways to address this but I believe these are the main reasons. Some numbers (courtesy of claude 4 research): Japan 1925 - 5.4 children per woman - ~20% women working Japan 1950 - 3.6 children per woman - ~35% women working Japan 1980 - 1.8 children per woman - ~47% women working Japan 2000 - 1.4 children per woman - ~56% women working Japan 2025 - 1.2 children per woman - ~74% women working

selenedyxx 1y ago

Actually, 40 years ago, people were mainly worried about more immediate and tangible issues like poverty and economic development. Population collapse simply wasn’t a major concern back then. It’s kind of like how nowadays hardly anyone seriously worries about the Earth exploding and everyone moving to Mars — people tend to focus on the problems that feel most urgent at the time. That’s why population collapse wasn’t really on the radar back then.

incomingpain 1y ago

Nothing to do with individualism. This has everything to do with government consequences. When egalitarianism got women working; it meant they wouldnt be having kids. When women have an income, they are able to 'escape' from relationships which reduces kids. When you require kids to be in child seats; and your automotive regulations are shrinking cars for 'fuel efficiency' aka reducing the number of seats for kids to sit in. All of these things then had state propaganda to push that these were good things for various reasons. It led to population collapse or worse, the pyramid schemes of retirement and socialized systems collapse.

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

thomassmith65 1y ago

If I ever heard "population collapse" as a kid, it would have been in relation to endangered species of animals. The phrase one did hear - and fairly often - was "population explosion". In fact, "population collapse" is a less intuitive concept. Egg heads, 40 years ago, worried about the "population explosion"; people reproduce, and there is only so much space and so much food to go around. Incidentally, the first I heard anyone attribute "population collapse" to a "trend towards individualism" was, I think, last year.

sloaken 1y ago

Back then, the two (allegedly) extremest positions: 1) We are running out of room, need to target zero population 2) More people lead to more innovation. Grow grow grow. I had some relatives that were convinced that population growth yielded pollution and thus damage to the environment. Therefore they had no kids. Of course, despite advocating for the environment they had a small private plane they enjoyed flying for fun.