5 ms·

Is there hard evidence that this is bad? Resource depletion is among the highest risks to civilization. Seems straightforward that severe population decline sh

Is there hard evidence that this is bad? Resource depletion is among the highest risks to civilization. Seems straightforward that severe population decline should be desired, and voluntary refraining from reproduction should be welcome. (Please don't just extrapolate the trend till extinction. See http://xkcd.com/605/ http://xkcd.com/605/. )

intelliot 13y ago
Is there convincing evidence that resource depletion is among the highest risks to civilization? Much of what I've seen shows the opposite: for example, China is a rising superpower largely because of their huge population. Having more people means more potential productivity, and that could lead to more prosperity. On the other hand, small countries with few people are usually able to accomplish little. Places with few inhabitants are considered rural and have a lower standard of living than places with high extremely high population density, like cities.
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  I'm counting war over the increasingly scarce resources as part of the risk, so the current influence of mildly scarce resources over politics is evidence. I agree with your point that, from a nationalist perspective, population size is basically nation size.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Wars aren't generally fought over resources these days.
    - willvarfar 13y ago
      As an armchair student, I'd judge most wars to be about resources. We must differ in definition of resources. Which recent wars are not about resources, do you think?
      - 7952 13y ago
        I think this fact will become much more apparent as drones and droids become more common. The desire to control resources will become stronger when people can project that control "more cleanly". Battle robots and drones will be treated like a barbed wired fence used to keep people out.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        No, it's not our definition of resources which differ. It's our understandings of human motivation which differs. You see the US as invading Iraq to control it's oil. I see the US invading Iraq out of frustration and the wish to "send a message" a-la mafiosos. Most wars are fought over honor and respect.
    - ohyes 13y ago
      Wars aren't overtly fought over resources these days, but the US has spent a lot of money in Iraq and 'stabilizing' the middle east (lot of good it's done). There happens to be oil in that area.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        And the US has spent a lot of money 'stabilizing' Afghanistan - quite possibly the most resource-less locale on the planet.
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        There happens to be oil in that area. Which we could have simply purchased at a tiny fraction of the cost of going to war for it. I'm still waiting for all of that free oil we "won" to start making its way over here. It's almost as if the war wasn't fought for oil, but for oil companies. Gee.
    - kzrdude 13y ago
      Obama directly mentioned resources ("energy") as a reason to possibly use military power in Syria. http://www.globalresearch.ca/dissecting-obamas-speech-at-the-un-the-truth-behind-core-interests-and-american-exceptionalism/5352500 http://www.globalresearch.ca/dissecting-obamas-speech-at-the...
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        That's just rationalization.
Osmium 13y ago
I think the concern is an ageing population rather than a shrinking one. Too many older people, no longer working, who need care or support and not enough younger people to provide it.
- LeonidasXIV 13y ago
  > Too many older people, no longer working, who need care or support and not enough younger people to provide it. But this will be a trend that autocorrects itself after some time, as less elder people will be there in the future. Also, the younger people if both working will create more prosperity than being married with one working and the other one staying at home. In the short term this sounds bad, but long term doesn't seem that worrisome.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    But that requires a birth rate close to replacement rate right?
  - jmadsen 13y ago
    Yes, but "the short term" is long enough to cause considerable pain to the current younger, working generations
    - threeseed 13y ago
      The worst thing is that in places like Japan especially housing availability is a real problem. Which means you will have young people being forced to live with their parents well into their 20s. And what happens when you have young people living with their parents ? Far less opportunities for sex.
      - kalleboo 13y ago
        I don't have the numbers, but anecdotally from looking for an apartment with my SO, there doesn't seem to be a big housing availability problem in Japan. Available apartments are plentiful, and outside of central Tokyo, Osaka etc, are priced reasonably. It's a far cry from the situation where I'm from in Sweden, where you have to be on a waiting list for 3 years to get your turn at a rental contract since there are just no apartments to be had. Young people in Japan live with their parents due to lack of jobs. The Japanese employment market has recently had a massive shift towards part time labour instead of full time labor, leaving young people with jobs that can't support them. Also, Japan has had a solution for the "opportunities for sex" issue for decades - the massive amount of hourly Love Hotels that are scattered all around the country (and people aren't shy to use - I've had to queue for one).
randomafrican 13y ago
We're not Pandas. Ressource depletion is only a problem if our ressource consumption doesnt evolve. And it will evolve.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Except that people will only evolve once the resources are completely gone. The underlying problem is that sustainable products almost always have a price premium attached to them. And because the benefits of sustainability are indirect it's hard to convince people to pay more.
  - randomafrican 13y ago
    Cars nowadays are vastly more ressource-efficient than they were in the 70's. That evolution can be triggered by higher prices for ressources. And as they get rarer prices do go up.
- emiliobumachar 13y ago
  True enough, but such evolution, in the purely darwinian sense of the word, may involve a lot of war and atrocities. In the worst case, it could bring the bloody end of civilization as we know it. I agree that society and technology could evolve us through a much more desirable path. But the more time we can buy for that to happen, the better.
  - mattchew 13y ago
    > I agree that society and technology could evolve us through a much more desirable path. But the more time we can buy for that to happen, the better. I would inflect this differently. An open and free society is much more likely to figure out a desirable path for the future than one steered by central authority. (In fact, it is the accumulation of thousands or millions of small improvements that will, in retrospect, be seen as a desirable path.) Desiring "extra" conservation of the resources that today seem most limited, might not necessarily be incompatible with an open and unplanned society. But it usually is.
threeseed 13y ago
It's bad because Japan has an extremely low net migration rate. For comparison Australia has 16x that of Japan. So whilst globally yes we should be aiming to reduce the total population Japan specifically has serious problems.
- squirejons 13y ago
  yeah, less mass immigration means a lower supply of labor, which means higher wages for workers. That's horrible! Oh, wait, you were speaking from the perspective of the corporations and rich investors who have to pay wages. Funny how you adopted that perspective when you are a worker yourself.....
einhverfr 13y ago
Well, the fundamental problem is a demographic one. In the end, the elderly are always cared for by the young so if you have a lot of elderly and not very many young, this becomes a real problem. Ideally, the birthrate would be close to the replacement rate. Much lower and you run into very significant problems. If you want to draw down the population, a birth rate of say, 90-95% of the replacement rate would not be so bad.
- klipt 13y ago
  > In the end, the elderly are always cared for by the young so if you have a lot of elderly and not very many young, this becomes a real problem. Fun fact: an evolutionary explanation for "witch hunts" is that when the tribe is low on food, they're an excuse to get rid of less useful / influential elderly people. Which is why they happen more in resource constrained developing countries than rich developed ones. But it goes to show that if young people feel that the elderly are more burdensome than useful, they may find a way to get rid of them.
Morcane 13y ago
Are you Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory?
Sagat 13y ago
The problem is that not everyone is making less progeny. Japanese and European populations may be in decline, but African, Asian, Arabic, and Hispanic ones are growing at a brisk pace. So yes, it's pretty bad for some people to limit births. You are essentially diminishing your influence and putting yourself at risk of being swallowed up by other cultures.
- duopixel 13y ago
  Population growth rate is declining all over the world, but the effect is more pronounced in developed countries. As standard of living increases people tend to have less children.
pjan 13y ago
How about "Human Resource Depletion"? The system only works when there's growth... a huge decline in population (hence births, hence sexual activity ...) is the biggest fear of all governments, as it deflates the foundations current countries/systems/power balances/... are built on. It's also the reason why worldwide "family values" and "the traditional family (unit) as cornerstone of the society" are main political points, independent of culture, religion, ...
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  > The system only works when there's growth That sounds like a bug.
  - VLM 13y ago
    A Ponzi-style scheme is more of an exploit than a simple bug, and its the root of most economic systems.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Are you forgetting that Darwinism applies to cultures as well as genomes?

intelliot 13y ago

Is there convincing evidence that resource depletion is among the highest risks to civilization? Much of what I've seen shows the opposite: for example, China is a rising superpower largely because of their huge population. Having more people means more potential productivity, and that could lead to more prosperity. On the other hand, small countries with few people are usually able to accomplish little. Places with few inhabitants are considered rural and have a lower standard of living than places with high extremely high population density, like cities.

emiliobumachar 13y ago
I'm counting war over the increasingly scarce resources as part of the risk, so the current influence of mildly scarce resources over politics is evidence. I agree with your point that, from a nationalist perspective, population size is basically nation size.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Wars aren't generally fought over resources these days.
  - willvarfar 13y ago
    As an armchair student, I'd judge most wars to be about resources. We must differ in definition of resources. Which recent wars are not about resources, do you think?
    - 7952 13y ago
      I think this fact will become much more apparent as drones and droids become more common. The desire to control resources will become stronger when people can project that control "more cleanly". Battle robots and drones will be treated like a barbed wired fence used to keep people out.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      No, it's not our definition of resources which differ. It's our understandings of human motivation which differs. You see the US as invading Iraq to control it's oil. I see the US invading Iraq out of frustration and the wish to "send a message" a-la mafiosos. Most wars are fought over honor and respect.
  - ohyes 13y ago
    Wars aren't overtly fought over resources these days, but the US has spent a lot of money in Iraq and 'stabilizing' the middle east (lot of good it's done). There happens to be oil in that area.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      And the US has spent a lot of money 'stabilizing' Afghanistan - quite possibly the most resource-less locale on the planet.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      There happens to be oil in that area. Which we could have simply purchased at a tiny fraction of the cost of going to war for it. I'm still waiting for all of that free oil we "won" to start making its way over here. It's almost as if the war wasn't fought for oil, but for oil companies. Gee.
  - kzrdude 13y ago
    Obama directly mentioned resources ("energy") as a reason to possibly use military power in Syria. http://www.globalresearch.ca/dissecting-obamas-speech-at-the-un-the-truth-behind-core-interests-and-american-exceptionalism/5352500 http://www.globalresearch.ca/dissecting-obamas-speech-at-the...
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      That's just rationalization.

Osmium 13y ago

I think the concern is an ageing population rather than a shrinking one. Too many older people, no longer working, who need care or support and not enough younger people to provide it.

LeonidasXIV 13y ago
> Too many older people, no longer working, who need care or support and not enough younger people to provide it. But this will be a trend that autocorrects itself after some time, as less elder people will be there in the future. Also, the younger people if both working will create more prosperity than being married with one working and the other one staying at home. In the short term this sounds bad, but long term doesn't seem that worrisome.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  But that requires a birth rate close to replacement rate right?
- jmadsen 13y ago
  Yes, but "the short term" is long enough to cause considerable pain to the current younger, working generations
  - threeseed 13y ago
    The worst thing is that in places like Japan especially housing availability is a real problem. Which means you will have young people being forced to live with their parents well into their 20s. And what happens when you have young people living with their parents ? Far less opportunities for sex.
    - kalleboo 13y ago
      I don't have the numbers, but anecdotally from looking for an apartment with my SO, there doesn't seem to be a big housing availability problem in Japan. Available apartments are plentiful, and outside of central Tokyo, Osaka etc, are priced reasonably. It's a far cry from the situation where I'm from in Sweden, where you have to be on a waiting list for 3 years to get your turn at a rental contract since there are just no apartments to be had. Young people in Japan live with their parents due to lack of jobs. The Japanese employment market has recently had a massive shift towards part time labour instead of full time labor, leaving young people with jobs that can't support them. Also, Japan has had a solution for the "opportunities for sex" issue for decades - the massive amount of hourly Love Hotels that are scattered all around the country (and people aren't shy to use - I've had to queue for one).

randomafrican 13y ago

We're not Pandas. Ressource depletion is only a problem if our ressource consumption doesnt evolve. And it will evolve.

threeseed 13y ago
Except that people will only evolve once the resources are completely gone. The underlying problem is that sustainable products almost always have a price premium attached to them. And because the benefits of sustainability are indirect it's hard to convince people to pay more.
- randomafrican 13y ago
  Cars nowadays are vastly more ressource-efficient than they were in the 70's. That evolution can be triggered by higher prices for ressources. And as they get rarer prices do go up.
emiliobumachar 13y ago
True enough, but such evolution, in the purely darwinian sense of the word, may involve a lot of war and atrocities. In the worst case, it could bring the bloody end of civilization as we know it. I agree that society and technology could evolve us through a much more desirable path. But the more time we can buy for that to happen, the better.
- mattchew 13y ago
  > I agree that society and technology could evolve us through a much more desirable path. But the more time we can buy for that to happen, the better. I would inflect this differently. An open and free society is much more likely to figure out a desirable path for the future than one steered by central authority. (In fact, it is the accumulation of thousands or millions of small improvements that will, in retrospect, be seen as a desirable path.) Desiring "extra" conservation of the resources that today seem most limited, might not necessarily be incompatible with an open and unplanned society. But it usually is.

threeseed 13y ago

It's bad because Japan has an extremely low net migration rate. For comparison Australia has 16x that of Japan. So whilst globally yes we should be aiming to reduce the total population Japan specifically has serious problems.

squirejons 13y ago
yeah, less mass immigration means a lower supply of labor, which means higher wages for workers. That's horrible! Oh, wait, you were speaking from the perspective of the corporations and rich investors who have to pay wages. Funny how you adopted that perspective when you are a worker yourself.....

einhverfr 13y ago

Well, the fundamental problem is a demographic one. In the end, the elderly are always cared for by the young so if you have a lot of elderly and not very many young, this becomes a real problem. Ideally, the birthrate would be close to the replacement rate. Much lower and you run into very significant problems. If you want to draw down the population, a birth rate of say, 90-95% of the replacement rate would not be so bad.

klipt 13y ago
> In the end, the elderly are always cared for by the young so if you have a lot of elderly and not very many young, this becomes a real problem. Fun fact: an evolutionary explanation for "witch hunts" is that when the tribe is low on food, they're an excuse to get rid of less useful / influential elderly people. Which is why they happen more in resource constrained developing countries than rich developed ones. But it goes to show that if young people feel that the elderly are more burdensome than useful, they may find a way to get rid of them.

Morcane 13y ago

Are you Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory?

Sagat 13y ago

The problem is that not everyone is making less progeny. Japanese and European populations may be in decline, but African, Asian, Arabic, and Hispanic ones are growing at a brisk pace. So yes, it's pretty bad for some people to limit births. You are essentially diminishing your influence and putting yourself at risk of being swallowed up by other cultures.

duopixel 13y ago
Population growth rate is declining all over the world, but the effect is more pronounced in developed countries. As standard of living increases people tend to have less children.

pjan 13y ago

How about "Human Resource Depletion"? The system only works when there's growth... a huge decline in population (hence births, hence sexual activity ...) is the biggest fear of all governments, as it deflates the foundations current countries/systems/power balances/... are built on. It's also the reason why worldwide "family values" and "the traditional family (unit) as cornerstone of the society" are main political points, independent of culture, religion, ...

drjesusphd 13y ago
> The system only works when there's growth That sounds like a bug.
- VLM 13y ago
  A Ponzi-style scheme is more of an exploit than a simple bug, and its the root of most economic systems.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Are you forgetting that Darwinism applies to cultures as well as genomes?