3 ms·

> We have quantitative metrics correlating that the more modern a society is the slower the population grows. ... and, worse, we have loonies out there who thi

> We have quantitative metrics correlating that the more modern a society is the slower the population grows. ... and, worse, we have loonies out there who think that indicates a problem with the "health" of anything.

ninetyninenine 1y ago
It is. Historically health in economics is associated with growth and Population growth is part of economic growth. Additionally the trendline of negative population growth is 0 population. The conclusion of what’s happening is the end of civilization itself. While it may be possible we are oscillating, we can’t know for sure. I'm not sure you're aware of the criticality of negative population growth that japan/china/korea are all facing. Thus it is reasonable to say it is unhealthy but it is also reasonable to say that it is possibly natural as unlimited growth also leads to an end. Can you not call anyone a loonie? It’s this type of attack and personalization that adds barriers to actual critical debate.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  > Historically health in economics is associated with growth and Population growth is part of economic growth. If you measure "health" by growth, then you'll get an association between "health" and growth. This means nothing. You haven't even tried to give any other definition of "health". > Additionally the trendline of negative population growth is 0 population. ... and any positive growth tends toward infinity. Furthermore any fixed positive growth rate ends with a spherical mass of flesh expanding at the speed of light, and that happens in finite time. After that you have to slow your growth to cubic, though. Neither projection will actually come true. Neither prediction will come close to coming true. You can't extrapolate anything forever. Furthermore there are obvious mechanistic reasons to expect the "demographic transaction" to be a bobble that will last at most a few centuries. Suggesting that it'll lead to human extinction is, um, loony. And you haven't said why zero population would even be a problem. If everybody at every step along the way chooses not to reproduce, that means everybody got what they wanted. Well, OK, you may have not gotten what you want with respect to other people's reproduction, but you know what? That's none of your business. > I'm not sure you're aware of the criticality of negative population growth that japan/china/korea are all facing. I'm aware of all the people who think it's critical. I do not find their claims very compelling. The best they seem to be able to come up with is that there aren't, or won't be, enough young people to do the work to support all the old people. That probably isn't even true, given that it's a global economy, and we're also on track to replace all human labor, long before there's a global population "shortage". But if it is true, well, who are they that other people should exist to work for them? Most of the the other reasons for claiming things like that are "critical" tend to come down to nationalism, which is anti-compelling. > Can you not call anyone a loonie? It’s this type of attack and personalization that adds barriers to actual critical debate. This was a thread about privacy issues in a phone app. When you drag in your personal obsessions in the context of something totally unrelated, people are going to call you a loony.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    It’s against the rules to call people that here
- bombcar 1y ago
  Assuming negative population growth ends in a total world population of zero is as insane as thinking positive population growth ends in people stacked ten deep in Antarctica. The maths works out, but the reality doesn’t.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    It seems that way and of course it likely won’t get that extreme but the scenarios aren’t symmetric. Extinction is a real phenomenon. There have been many extinctions is your life time. It is directly a physical possibility both from a logical standpoint and an evidence based standpoint point. Like this isn’t just math it’s reality. People stacked 10 deep is not a physically possible scenario. There aren’t enough resources on earth to sustain that level of population.

ninetyninenine 1y ago

It is. Historically health in economics is associated with growth and Population growth is part of economic growth. Additionally the trendline of negative population growth is 0 population. The conclusion of what’s happening is the end of civilization itself. While it may be possible we are oscillating, we can’t know for sure. I'm not sure you're aware of the criticality of negative population growth that japan/china/korea are all facing. Thus it is reasonable to say it is unhealthy but it is also reasonable to say that it is possibly natural as unlimited growth also leads to an end. Can you not call anyone a loonie? It’s this type of attack and personalization that adds barriers to actual critical debate.

Hizonner 1y ago
> Historically health in economics is associated with growth and Population growth is part of economic growth. If you measure "health" by growth, then you'll get an association between "health" and growth. This means nothing. You haven't even tried to give any other definition of "health". > Additionally the trendline of negative population growth is 0 population. ... and any positive growth tends toward infinity. Furthermore any fixed positive growth rate ends with a spherical mass of flesh expanding at the speed of light, and that happens in finite time. After that you have to slow your growth to cubic, though. Neither projection will actually come true. Neither prediction will come close to coming true. You can't extrapolate anything forever. Furthermore there are obvious mechanistic reasons to expect the "demographic transaction" to be a bobble that will last at most a few centuries. Suggesting that it'll lead to human extinction is, um, loony. And you haven't said why zero population would even be a problem. If everybody at every step along the way chooses not to reproduce, that means everybody got what they wanted. Well, OK, you may have not gotten what you want with respect to other people's reproduction, but you know what? That's none of your business. > I'm not sure you're aware of the criticality of negative population growth that japan/china/korea are all facing. I'm aware of all the people who think it's critical. I do not find their claims very compelling. The best they seem to be able to come up with is that there aren't, or won't be, enough young people to do the work to support all the old people. That probably isn't even true, given that it's a global economy, and we're also on track to replace all human labor, long before there's a global population "shortage". But if it is true, well, who are they that other people should exist to work for them? Most of the the other reasons for claiming things like that are "critical" tend to come down to nationalism, which is anti-compelling. > Can you not call anyone a loonie? It’s this type of attack and personalization that adds barriers to actual critical debate. This was a thread about privacy issues in a phone app. When you drag in your personal obsessions in the context of something totally unrelated, people are going to call you a loony.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  It’s against the rules to call people that here
bombcar 1y ago
Assuming negative population growth ends in a total world population of zero is as insane as thinking positive population growth ends in people stacked ten deep in Antarctica. The maths works out, but the reality doesn’t.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  It seems that way and of course it likely won’t get that extreme but the scenarios aren’t symmetric. Extinction is a real phenomenon. There have been many extinctions is your life time. It is directly a physical possibility both from a logical standpoint and an evidence based standpoint point. Like this isn’t just math it’s reality. People stacked 10 deep is not a physically possible scenario. There aren’t enough resources on earth to sustain that level of population.