NationStates Jolt Archive

Eventually, anyways...

Emphasis mine

World population will hit 7 billion by 2012, according to a recent United Nations report. Given that we just hit the 6 billion mark in October 1999, it is easy to conclude that there are just too many people in the world. How are we ever going to overcome global warming, feed the masses, get that beachfront property, let alone find parking, if the population keeps jumping by nearly one billion per decade?

The good news is that's not going to happen again. If you need another megatrend to worry about, fixate instead on the growing prospects for world depopulation and what it means for you and your children (assuming you have any).

Yes, human population is still growing in some places dramatically so. But at the same time, a strange new phenomenon is spreading around the globe, one whose very existence contradicts the deepest foundations of our modern mind-set.

Darwinism presupposes, and modern biology teaches, that all organisms breed to the limit of their available resources. Yet starting in the world's richest, best-fed nations during the 1970s,and now spreading throughout the developing world, we find birthrates falling below the levels needed to avoid long-term, and in many instances, short-term, population loss. The phenomenon has spread beyond Europe and Asia to Latin America.

Brazil, a land once known for its celebration of dental-floss bikinis and youthful carnival exuberance, is an aging nation that no longer produces enough children to replace its population.The same is true of Chile and Costa Rica. Joining them over the next 10 to 20 years, the U.N. projects, will be many other countries Americans still tend to associate with youth bulges including Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Algeria, Kuwait, Libya and Morocco. Think we need to build a wall on the southern border? Birthrates have declined so quickly in Mexico that its population of children younger than 15 has been in free-fall since 2000 and is expected to drop by one-third over the next 40 years.

Fertility remains high in sub-Saharan Africa, but it is falling there, too, even as infants and children die by the millions. In Sierra Leone, for example, the average woman bears more than five children, but nearly one in six die before reaching age 5 and fewer yet make it to reproductive age. Remaining increases in world population depend critically on reduced mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. But that might well not happen given the high levels of warfare, contagion and economic turmoil throughout the continent.

The U.N. projects that world population could begin declining as early 2040. Those worried about global warming and other environmental threats might view this prospect as an unmitigated good. But lost in most discussions of the subject is the rapid population aging that accompanies declining birthrates.

Under what the U.N. considers the most likely scenario, more than half of all remaining growth comes from a 1.2 billion increase in the number of old people, while the worldwide supply of children will begin falling within 15 years. With fewer workers to support each elder, the world economy might have to run just that much faster, and consume that much more resources, or else living standards will fall.

In the USA, where nearly one-fifth of Baby Boomers never had children, the hardship of vanishing retirement savings will be compounded by the strains on both formal and informal care-giving networks caused by the spread of childlessness. A pet will keep you company in old age, but it is unlikely to be of use in helping you navigate the health care system or in keeping predatory reverse mortgage brokers at bay.

Even countries in which women have few career choices are not immune from the spreading birth dearth and resulting age wave. Under the grip of militant Islamic clerisy, Iran has seen its population of children implode. Accordingly, Iran's population is now aging at a rate nearly three times that of Western Europe. Maybe the middle aging of the Middle East will bring a mellower tone to the region, but middle age will pass swiftly to old age. China, with its one-family-one-child policy, is on a similar course, becoming a 4-2-1 society in which each child supports two parents and four grandparents.

Where does it end? Demographers once believed that only as countries grew rich would their birthrates decline. And few imagined until recently that birthrates would ever remain below replacement levels indefinitely. To suppose the opposite is to presuppose extinction.

Yet we see sub-replacement fertility remaining entrenched among rich countries for more than two generations and now spreading throughout the developing world as well.

For the majority of the world's inhabitants who no longer live on farms or rely on home production, children are no longer an economic asset but an avoidable liability. At the same time, the spread of global media exposes people in even the remotest corners of the planet to glamorous lifestyles that are inconsistent with the sacrifices necessary to raise large families. In Brazil, birthrates dropped sequentially province by province as broadcast television became available.

As the number of women of reproductive age falls in country after country, world population is acquiring negative momentum and thus could decline even if birthrates eventually turn up. Societies around the globe need to ask why they are engaging in what biologists would surely recognize in any other species as maladaptive behavior leading either to extinction, or dramatic mutation.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/03/headed-toward-e.html

To be quite honest, I am unconcerned. The article raises some interesting points, but I'd rather see a managable downward trend than an uncontrollable upward trend.

Your thoughts?

With fewer workers to support each elder, the world economy might have to run just that much faster, and consume that much more resources, or else living standards will fall.

economics does not work that way

I laugh at China. It's their own fucking fault for breeding like rabbits.

These things are always predicted on current trends and that's generally bound to fail as a predictor, often the very decrease creates factors that lead to a subsequent increase.

I suspect the long-term trend will always be growth, bar a major disaster or other unforeseen circumstance.

Interesting article.

Someone how I doubt people will go extinct for lack of children, though. Humans once numbered about 50,000, if I recall correctly, so we have a long way to go before we reach that critical level. Less people doesn't mean extinction.

I think its more a good thing than a bad thing... maybe someday we can manage more or less equilibrium.

I think its more a good thing than a bad thing... maybe someday we can manage more or less equilibrium.

We left equilibrium behind a while ago.

I laugh at China. It's their own fucking fault for breeding like rabbits.

Yes, laugh at the authoritarian superpower that has many a nation's balls in their financial grasp and will stoop to any means to maintain power and spread influence.

These things are always predicted on current trends and that's generally bound to fail as a predictor, often the very decrease creates factors that lead to a subsequent increase.

I suspect the long-term trend will always be growth, bar a major disaster or other unforeseen circumstance.

i don't know, the demographic transition seems to be a fairly universal thing, happening again and again in different times and places. and nobody seems to be going back to the high birth rate/low death rate stage after getting out of it.

Sounds like it balances itself out to me....

Overpopulation, meet low birth rate....end of War-X, meet second Baby-Boom...

Yes, laugh at the authoritarian superpower that has many a nation's balls in their financial grasp and will stoop to any means to maintain power and spread influence.

Well, if you can't laugh at that then what can you laugh at?

And in regards to the topic at hand, "'Bout fucking time."

Yes, laugh at the authoritarian superpower that has many a nation's balls in their financial grasp and will stoop to any means to maintain power and spread influence.

Off topic, but I really don't understand why people think China owning our debt is that much of a threat. Do you (you being anyone) really think if push came to shove we'd pay the debt back? Fuck no. That's why we had the Revolution- so we wouldn't have to pay back our debts. There'd be war before all the debts were repayed.

Yes, laugh at the authoritarian superpower that has many a nation's balls in their financial grasp and will stoop to any means to maintain power and spread influence.

They're headed for a major resource and population crash. I wouldn't want to be in their position.

Off topic, but I really don't understand why people think China owning our debt is that much of a threat. Do you (you being anyone) really think if push came to shove we'd pay the debt back? Fuck no. That's why we had the Revolution- so we wouldn't have to pay back our debts. There'd be war before all the debts were repayed.

Um....I think the war parts what people seem to fear...

Although, I doubt China would want to go to war with us, damn near All their exports/employees are a direct result of the US Market....

They're headed for a major resource and population crash. I wouldn't want to be in their position.

What do countries with excess young male populations with internal troubles do? They go to war.

I'd keep an eye on China in the years to come.

op:
The U.N. projects that world population could begin declining as early 2040. Those worried about global warming and other environmental threats might view this prospect as an unmitigated good. But lost in most discussions of the subject is the rapid population aging that accompanies declining birthrates.

Under what the U.N. considers the most likely scenario, more than half of all remaining growth comes from a 1.2 billion increase in the number of old people, while the worldwide supply of children will begin falling within 15 years. With fewer workers to support each elder, the world economy might have to run just that much faster, and consume that much more resources, or else living standards will fall.

I raise the BS flag.

Yes, less population is better. Less need for food, energy, etc.

The part I've bolded is the usual scaremongering argument the ultraliberists here in Italy use when the want to scrap the public pension system... too bad that, while the number of elderly people in Italy is quite high and rising, the INPS (national institute for pensions) has a positive balance and getting better every year.

i don't know, the demographic transition seems to be a fairly universal thing, happening again and again in different times and places. and nobody seems to be going back to the high birth rate/low death rate stage after getting out of it.

Possibly, what we might be seeing is simply a shift from predominately having children between 18-25 and more to 30-40 for the West, a period of severe social instability in Africa and the results of a population control exercise in China.

Much depends on the meaning of short/long term in regards to trends.

op:

I raise the BS flag.

Yes, less population is better. Less need for food, energy, etc.

The part I've bolded is the usual scaremongering argument the ultraliberists here in Italy use when the want to scrap the public pension system... too bad that, while the number of elderly people in Italy is quite high and rising, the INPS (national institute for pensions) has a positive balance and getting better every year.

yeah, in USia the whole "oh noes! falling birth rate means we have to either have more babies or get rid of government care for old people" thing seems sort of suspicious since it always comes from people who want to get rid of social security anyways.


also, to expand on my earlier comment about economics not working that way, ask yourself how many people we used to need working as farmers to produce enough food for everyone. then ask yourself how many there are now. repeat for anything. at this point, we've more or less run out of shit that legitimately needs doing, and have invented entire categories of mindless busy work to keep the people occupied. and that is only going to get worse.

yeah, in USia the whole "oh noes! falling birth rate means we have to either have more babies or get rid of government care for old people" thing seems sort of suspicious since it always comes from people who want to get rid of social security anyways.


also, to expand on my earlier comment about economics not working that way, ask yourself how many people we used to need working as farmers to produce enough food for everyone. then ask yourself how many there are now. repeat for anything. at this point, we've more or less run out of shit that legitimately needs doing, and have invented entire categories of mindless busy work to keep the people occupied. and that is only going to get worse.

Or, two throw a monkey wrench in your thoughts, it won't, as everything might start coming apart as energy crisis' bring everything to a halt. Then, more and more human power will be needed for farms and other work.

Or, two throw a monkey wrench in your thoughts, it won't, as everything might start coming apart as energy crisis' bring everything to a halt. Then, more and more human power will be needed for farms and other work.

Id say that if the crisis got that bad, then the technology for fixing it is already there, its just not being implemented properly because people want to make a profit...

however, if the world suddenly ran out of a finite energy source, then its no longer just profitable to implement it, but absolutely necessary, so it would then be implemented full force...

op:

I raise the BS flag.

Yes, less population is better. Less need for food, energy, etc.


Not so much less population but the intervening years between less working people and more retirees. Unless you propose that you kill them off or stop supporting the elderly, there will be a few decades where there will be less people generating income and more dependents.

So something's got to give. Either the greater proportion of retirees go, or the income generation, privately or via taxes for welfare, increases.

Id say that if the crisis got that bad, then the technology for fixing it is already there, its just not being implemented properly because people want to make a profit...

however, if the world suddenly ran out of a finite energy source, then its no longer just profitable to implement it, but absolutely necessary, so it would then be implemented full force...

Who knows.

I'm sure some stop gap measures would be implemented that could soothe the problem for a bit, but I haven't seen anything that would move us away from fossil fuel reliance in any meaningful way even begin to take effect.

Or, two throw a monkey wrench in your thoughts, it won't, as everything might start coming apart as energy crisis' bring everything to a halt. Then, more and more human power will be needed for farms and other work.

yeah, except that we have so many alternatives open that it is really difficult to see how we choose that one.

Who knows.

I'm sure some stop gap measures would be implemented that could soothe the problem for a bit, but I haven't seen anything that would move us away from fossil fuel reliance in any meaningful way even begin to take effect.

Well, assuming energy transfer efficiencies are resolved, and a number of first world governments really got off their collective asses to do something about it, they could try putting up large scale geostationary solar power satellites. It would avoid the problems with terrestrial solar power, produce no waste and be fairly long lived.

yeah, except that we have so many alternatives open that it is really difficult to see how we choose that one.

And it seems none of those alternatives have had real, solid progress made.

Our system is purely entrenched on cheap energy- which is fossil fuels. With no real progress on other sources what is one supposed to think will happen when fossil fuels grow scarcer and more expensive?

Well, assuming energy transfer efficiencies are resolved, and a number of first world governments really got off their collective asses to do something about it, they could try putting up large scale geostationary solar power satellites. It would avoid the problems with terrestrial solar power, produce no waste and be fairly long lived.

Sure.

We can go ahead and build a Dyson sphere while we're at it, we just need to get of our asses. Right?

Now I'm sure there will be some hurried measures taken to alleviate the shortages somewhat. Measures that will be again to putting a band aid on gun shot wound.

i don't know, the demographic transition seems to be a fairly universal thing, happening again and again in different times and places. and nobody seems to be going back to the high birth rate/low death rate stage after getting out of it.

There's a lot of hidden pressure to keep it that way though. Most of the big time globalists are depopulation nazis. And they have their hands on the levers at the moment.

I'd bet if there was a big society altering die-back, or an actual revolution, which shook them out of control the baby machine would start again.

Sure.

We can go ahead and build a Dyson sphere while we're at it, we just need to get of our asses. Right?

Now I'm sure there will be some hurried measures taken to alleviate the shortages somewhat. Measures that will be again to putting a band aid on gun shot wound.

Well thats prettymuch all of Human history in a nutshell...

Either causing a Wound or putting a small Band Aid on it...

Not so much less population but the intervening years between less working people and more retirees. Unless you propose that you kill them off or stop supporting the elderly, there will be a few decades where there will be less people generating income and more dependents.

So something's got to give. Either the greater proportion of retirees go, or the income generation, privately or via taxes for welfare, increases.

the latter is basically handled by this fact:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/krozner20060927chart1.gif

And it seems none of those alternatives have had real, solid progress made.

Our system is purely entrenched on cheap energy- which is fossil fuels. With no real progress on other sources what is one supposed to think will happen when fossil fuels grow scarcer and more expensive?

we've got enough materials for nuclear power to last quite long enough, even without any significant scientific and technological advances.

Sure.

We can go ahead and build a Dyson sphere while we're at it, we just need to get of our asses. Right?


Not enough materials in the local solar system to even build a Dyson Ring. A geostationary solar power satellite is far more plausible, and the proposal is being actively studied by NASA. Furthermore, there is no technology required to build said satellite that doesn't already exist. The only limitation is getting the political will to build that satellite and override naysayers as well as vested interests who would oppose any threat to their monopoly.

the latter is basically handled by this fact:


Doesn't this then tie into the conundrum where the resource consumption has to increase then?

I question that you can translate productivity gains that way. I agree that from an economic stand point, and individual worker can produce more dollar value per hour than thirty years ago. But can society in aggregate produce more stuff with a smaller working population - or at least enough stuff.

In fact, I expect with the big repricing of assets going on at the moment, we are about to see huge declines in both productivity and in hourly wage. On the other hand, how much more efficient can farming or mining become? Which is really what we are talking about.

Basically, old people had better hope that the either have enough money saved to provide for themselves ex government benefits, or pray that they didn't piss their kids off enough so they can move in with them.

yeah, in USia the whole "oh noes! falling birth rate means we have to either have more babies or get rid of government care for old people" thing seems sort of suspicious since it always comes from people who want to get rid of social security anyways.


also, to expand on my earlier comment about economics not working that way, ask yourself how many people we used to need working as farmers to produce enough food for everyone. then ask yourself how many there are now. repeat for anything. at this point, we've more or less run out of shit that legitimately needs doing, and have invented entire categories of mindless busy work to keep the people occupied. and that is only going to get worse.

Social security is basically a really badly done pyramid scheme. It requires a constant influx of new "investors" or it will collapse. A declining birth rate means those "investors" don't appear. Right now I think it's immigrants keeping it afloat.

also, to expand on my earlier comment about economics not working that way, ask yourself how many people we used to need working as farmers to produce enough food for everyone. then ask yourself how many there are now. repeat for anything. at this point, we've more or less run out of shit that legitimately needs doing, and have invented entire categories of mindless busy work to keep the people occupied. and that is only going to get worse.

Totally seconded.

Afaik, the USA, who are the prime crops producer in the world, have less than 3% of their workforce in agriculture.

Solution? Maybe: place more people on works that cannot be done by machines. Like research, caring for people (nurses etc), social services, teaching.

Social security is basically a really badly done pyramid scheme. It requires a constant influx of new "investors" or it will collapse. A declining birth rate means those "investors" don't appear. Right now I think it's immigrants keeping it afloat.

not really. we've already made a much larger jump in payers to collectors and did ok.
http://rationalrevolution.net/images/ssratioworkers.gif

if we get to the point where there aren't any people paying in, we'll have bigger problems than the collapse of social security.

Not so much less population but the intervening years between less working people and more retirees. Unless you propose that you kill them off or stop supporting the elderly, there will be a few decades where there will be less people generating income and more dependents.

So something's got to give. Either the greater proportion of retirees go, or the income generation, privately or via taxes for welfare, increases.

The income generation increases, so what? You know, retirees then use their pensions' money to fuel the economy.
Btw, at least here in Italy the money the workers put into INPS to fuel their own pensions are so many that INPS actually also pays for most welfare (like for handicapped people who can't work), thus actually lowering the general taxes needed for welfare.

Anyway, in the case (not yet coming) of lack of support for pensions, the simpler solution would be to:
1.introduce a pension cap: let's say the statal pensions wouldn't give more than x independently on the salary you had (let's say that a 6000€/month cap would make no difference for most people anyway).
2.rise the retirement age (and with people living longer, better, and the youth getting a job later than before that wouldn't be too much of a problem).

I question that you can translate productivity gains that way. I agree that from an economic stand point, and individual worker can produce more dollar value per hour than thirty years ago. But can society in aggregate produce more stuff with a smaller working population - or at least enough stuff.

In fact, I expect with the big repricing of assets going on at the moment, we are about to see huge declines in both productivity and in hourly wage.

well, yeah, i'm assuming we haven't grossly fucked up the valuation of everything and that any declines in wages and productivity are going to be related more to the short-to-medium term problems until we get a less insane financial system. because it's not like recent productivity gains have been entirely tied to the "flip this credit default swap" game.

but if you just look at straight up output of stuff versus inputs of labor (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/opt/dipts/indmfp.in.txt), we clearly are producing more with the same or less across a whole range of fields.

On the other hand, how much more efficient can farming or mining become? Which is really what we are talking about.

not sure, but globally we've got a ways to go before we hit the peak. it's not clear we have done so in the developed countries either. for example,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/AgProductivity/Images/productivity.gif

Afaik, the USA, who are the prime crops producer in the world, have less than 3% of their workforce in agriculture.

and a noticeable number of them are 'hobby farmers' or old timers that just haven't stopped yet. hell, something around 60% of farms in the united states have less than $10k in sales per year.

The income generation increases, so what? You know, retirees then use their pensions' money to fuel the economy.


Except it's increasingly looking like pensions are quickly becoming insufficient to live on these days. This either brings retirees back into the workforce, not ideal but better than the other option, or becoming dependents on the younger generation. This is not a universal thing of course, but it does seem to be on the rise in general.

Your ideas on pension and retirement age reform seem workable enough in their scope though.

Doesn't this then tie into the conundrum where the resource consumption has to increase then?

not necessarily. certainly no more so than increasing the population while maintaining living standards.

and a noticeable number of them are 'hobby farmers' or old timers that just haven't stopped yet. hell, something around 60% of farms in the united states have less than $10k in sales per year.

My uncle is one of them. He owns a construction company and bought a farm for Hobby/ and I suspect a tax shelter.

Societies around the globe need to ask why they are engaging in what biologists would surely recognize in any other species as maladaptive behavior leading either to extinction, or dramatic mutation.

Actually it makes perfect sense, considering the species as a whole.

The population is too large, has few natural predators, and threatens to consume more resources than are available, so birth rates drop. When the population was reduced a few centuries ago, due to plagues and wars, and had a surplus of resources, birth rates shot up. Et cetera.

Nature can take care of itself, mostly. We should be more worried about the Sun eventually turning into a red giant.

Actually it makes perfect sense, considering the species as a whole.

The population is too large, has few natural predators, and threatens to consume more resources than are available, so birth rates drop.

except that it is those who have the most resources are having the fewest children...

Shoot the old people into the sun on a rocket ship.

Interesting article.

Someone how I doubt people will go extinct for lack of children, though. Humans once numbered about 50,000, if I recall correctly, so we have a long way to go before we reach that critical level. Less people doesn't mean extinction.

We could fall a lot lower than 50,000 before we would cease to be a viable species. I'm not sure, but I think we could fall into the hundreds or lower before inbreeding would become a fatal problem.

I'm more concerned about the falling male sperm count. I remember reading something that put it around a hundred years before we're sterile, but I forget the title and author.

Aye, I think it's a very good thing.

I mean where do people think water is going? Into new people of course. Our bodies consist of 70% water after all.

We could fall a lot lower than 50,000 before we would cease to be a viable species. I'm not sure, but I think we could fall into the hundreds or lower before inbreeding would become a fatal problem.

I'm more concerned about the falling male sperm count. I remember reading something that put it around a hundred years before we're sterile, but I forget the title and author.

I remember that. The argument i think had to do with a Y Chromosome. then recently They discovered the Y chromosome has a weird way to repair itself even if it might change the original data.

Aye, I think it's a very good thing.

I mean where do people think water is going? Into new people of course. Our bodies consist of 70% water after all.

Wait. I got a an idea to combat the oceans rising form global warming. EVERYONE HAVE MORE KIDS NOW!!!

Eventually, anyways...

Emphasis mine



http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/03/headed-toward-e.html

To be quite honest, I am unconcerned. The article raises some interesting points, but I'd rather see a managable downward trend than an uncontrollable upward trend.

Your thoughts?

Yes!!!! This is totally what we need. I do not think that this leads us to extinction but it will be nice to get our population down to maybe a third of what it is now.