Global population decline and corrective measures

[slant]

This shit doesn't work. Printing money won't solve our issues. It's the root cause.

Yes that's actually the point I was making. I don't know why people keep thinking I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying. Perhaps I have poor communication skills and I do apologize for that, unless you were just agreeing with what I was saying and I'm misinterpreting what you are saying

 

[philostam]

I was agreeing with you, disagreeing with John.

 

[slant]

This topic is right at my alley.

I don't think global population decline is a problem for the world. There are always gonna be people in the world to do the "work" which is becoming more and more automated anyway.. On the nation state level it gets more tragic though. We have whole countries with rich history shrinking in population massively. Italy, Central/Easter Europe, Russia...Issues there are compounded further by high level of emmigration.

So I'm sad on a personal level about people who want to have kids, but opt out because their situation makes them feel to unstable and unsafe. I myself am getting close to my 30s and life without kids feels more and more empty.

But looking it mechanically it shouldn't be a problem for the world machine. In fact it might speed up our adoption of technology and bring more prosperity for all. Automation drives cost of everything close to 0. That in turn will lead to baby boom again.

Do you think we will get to the point where we are able to automate extracting the raw materials for making tech before underpopulation becomes a problem though? This is my main concern. We have come very far with technology but a lot of the brute labor to get like copper and other things we need to actually make the computer chips is still human labor. Doesn't seem like we have transitioned that part of the industry well yet.

 

[philostam]

Do you think we will get to the point where we are able to automate extracting the raw materials for making tech before underpopulation becomes a problem though? This is my main concern. We have come very far with technology but a lot of the brute labor to get like copper and other things we need to actually make the computer chips is still human labor. Doesn't seem like we have transitioned that part of the industry well yet.

Obviously we will always need some people.

But the amount of bullshit jobs out there is obscene. They exist just so people have work to pay the bills, there is no other purpose of such jobs.

Technological growth is exponential, while the population collapse happens slowly. Like China is projected to lose 50% of its population by 2100 I think, so that will still leave them with 700 million people. More then enough to do jobs with 2100s technology. And probably at much higher productivity than today.

 

[philostam]

Yes that's actually the point I was making. I don't know why people keep thinking I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying. Perhaps I have poor communication skills and I do apologize for that, unless you were just agreeing with what I was saying and I'm misinterpreting what you are saying

So funny. We have highest inflation in like 50 years, and the solution is...more money printing, tax breaks, then probably price/rent controls.

Amm guys, what about that thing you did, you know...expanded money supply by 40% in the last 2 years while not increasing the amount of goods and services in the economy?

I understand the temptation, but this is gonna just leave all fiat holders/savers poorer.

Money printing is expedient and good in short term. It's like a sugar rush. But 2nd and 3rd order consequences are what kills you.

 

[philostam]

You cannot force people to have kids. That's the thing. That's why demographics never lies, it always tells the 100% truth. The solution is simple, in my opinion:

Separate money from the state. Stop the money printer. Stop meddling in and distorting the price signals of the free market, and punishing hard working savers. The prudence of a grandma saving for a rainy day was once a sound policy, but it's now a silly one. Today we need to borrow from all of our future sunny days just to keep living. Unless your grandma saves in Bitcoin, of course.

Also, stop brainwashing people with all kinds of stories about climate catastrophes. Who wants to have kids in such a world?

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

But the amount of bullshit jobs out there is obscene. They exist just so people have work to pay the bills, there is no other purpose of such jobs.

I'm pretty sure that plenty of people find meaning and pride in menial and uncreative jobs, and that's going to be a massive problem. Even universal income won't matter because it's not about the money, it's about the ritual and being a part of something. When you separate man from the ancient habit of being a provider, there might be some unprecedented psychological effects.

 

[aeon]

Printing money won't solve our issues. It's the root cause.

Once again, but louder for the people in back.

Damn Right,
Ian

 

[John K]

I was agreeing with you, disagreeing with John.

Yes, I took it that you were agreeing with @slant. I was playing around with options really rather than making hard suggestions, and printing money would not work. What I'm driving at is that in developed countries we have made it unattractive for youngsters to have children.

slant was suggesting that banning abortion would help increase the number of babies born, but it comes with baggage of the sort I mentioned. If governments intervene at all, it almost certainly would have to be like this sort of thing, or they would have to make having more children more attractive to young folks and not having children less attractive. For example if you made it financially more attractive to have more kids, the money would have to come from significantly higher taxation on those who had none or just one. There are other things you could do too, such as restricting residence in desirable properties to families with more kids. That would have to persist until the current culture all over the world that's leading to this problem is changed - it can be done because the video slant posted shows how effectively China got people to embrace one child families using these sort of techniques and now can't reverse it. It'd be wildly unpopular though and political dynamite.

But I wonder if we should really worry too much about this. You mentioned the fear of environmental crisis as putting people off having a family - but it seems very likely that if the world ended up in a couple of generations with a lot fewer people, then combined with new technology this could put a lot less stress on the environment and could actually be of very great long term benefit. OK there is a transition when there are a lot more older folk than young ones proportionately, but there is a clear solution to this - time. We might go through some tough decades, but in the end things will rebalance as the excess of older folks die off.

Another thing that strikes me is that ordinary evolutionary pressure might take over in a couple of generations. It will be those people who still want a lot of children now despite the prevailing culture who will be most successful at passing down their genes, and that may well bring about new generations of folks who want more kids than at present.

 

[philostam]

Yes, I took it that you were agreeing with @slant. I was playing around with options really rather than making hard suggestions, and printing money would not work. What I'm driving at is that in developed countries we have made it unattractive for youngsters to have children.

slant was suggesting that banning abortion would help increase the number of babies born, but it comes with baggage of the sort I mentioned. If governments intervene at all, it almost certainly would have to be like this sort of thing, or they would have to make having more children more attractive to young folks and not having children less attractive. For example if you made it financially more attractive to have more kids, the money would have to come from significantly higher taxation on those who had none or just one. There are other things you could do too, such as restricting residence in desirable properties to families with more kids. That would have to persist until the current culture all over the world that's leading to this problem is changed - it can be done because the video slant posted shows how effectively China got people to embrace one child families using these sort of techniques and now can't reverse it. It'd be wildly unpopular though and political dynamite.

But I wonder if we should really worry too much about this. You mentioned the fear of environmental crisis as putting people off having a family - but it seems very likely that if the world ended up in a couple of generations with a lot fewer people, then combined with new technology this could put a lot less stress on the environment and could actually be of very great long term benefit. OK there is a transition when there are a lot more older folk than young ones proportionately, but there is a clear solution to this - time. We might go through some tough decades, but in the end things will rebalance as the excess of older folks die off.

Another thing that strikes me is that ordinary evolutionary pressure might take over in a couple of generations. It will be those people who still want a lot of children now despite the prevailing culture who will be most successful at passing down their genes, and that may well bring about new generations of folks who want more kids than at present.

Yeah, there is definitely some weird Darwinism at play here.

And I agree, my position is that population decline will not be bad for the world in the long term. At the same time, I don't think it's good for individual's spirit to not have kids. So it's a weird dynamic in this transition phase.

 

[philostam]

I'm pretty sure that plenty of people find meaning and pride in menial and uncreative jobs, and that's going to be a massive problem. Even universal income won't matter because it's not about the money, it's about the ritual and being a part of something. When you separate man from the ancient habit of being a provider, there might be some unprecedented psychological effects.

That's also a good point, yeah.

Meanwhile in this clown world...

 

[John K]

Yeah, there is definitely some weird Darwinism at play here.

At the same time, I don't think it's good for individual's spirit to not have kids. So it's a weird dynamic in this transition phase.

I agree with this - there's a lot goes on through our life cycle, and having and raising kids is a very important rite of passage for people that changes us in fundamental ways. I don't mean to say that the choice not to have kids is a disaster for anyone, but that it adds a dimension to our experience of life and the way we develop that cannot be gained any other way

 

[philostam]

Soon from a nearby fiat economist:

"Virtual children largely provide the same benefits as real children, but virtual children are far more environmentally friendly. We will therefore include the cost of raising digital children in our CPI calculations. The services provided by a spouse can also be provided by a sex doll, but with a much lower carbon footprint. We can save the planet & make family affordable if we simply taught people to embrace sex dolls & virtual children as the environmentally friendly family alternative!"

 

[slant]

Yes, I took it that you were agreeing with @slant. I was playing around with options really rather than making hard suggestions, and printing money would not work. What I'm driving at is that in developed countries we have made it unattractive for youngsters to have children.

slant was suggesting that banning abortion would help increase the number of babies born, but it comes with baggage of the sort I mentioned. If governments intervene at all, it almost certainly would have to be like this sort of thing, or they would have to make having more children more attractive to young folks and not having children less attractive. For example if you made it financially more attractive to have more kids, the money would have to come from significantly higher taxation on those who had none or just one. There are other things you could do too, such as restricting residence in desirable properties to families with more kids. That would have to persist until the current culture all over the world that's leading to this problem is changed - it can be done because the video slant posted shows how effectively China got people to embrace one child families using these sort of techniques and now can't reverse it. It'd be wildly unpopular though and political dynamite.

But I wonder if we should really worry too much about this. You mentioned the fear of environmental crisis as putting people off having a family - but it seems very likely that if the world ended up in a couple of generations with a lot fewer people, then combined with new technology this could put a lot less stress on the environment and could actually be of very great long term benefit. OK there is a transition when there are a lot more older folk than young ones proportionately, but there is a clear solution to this - time. We might go through some tough decades, but in the end things will rebalance as the excess of older folks die off.

Another thing that strikes me is that ordinary evolutionary pressure might take over in a couple of generations. It will be those people who still want a lot of children now despite the prevailing culture who will be most successful at passing down their genes, and that may well bring about new generations of folks who want more kids than at present.

These are good points, too. We don't really know what will happen with a reduced population because for the majority of recorded human history, population has grown.

There are only a few examples I can think of where population really declined:
The toba eruption which is a bit of an extreme example where it killed off so many humans that it created a genetic bottleneck we can still see the impacts of in our dna today.

The Spanish flu killed 1% of the population along with the war at the time it was a pretty big decline.

But we don't really seem to have an example of a voluntary population decline in written history where people simply stopped having kids.

My theory is it's probably a human example of the behavioral sink by John B. Calhoun, where essential massive behavioral problems were created by overcrowding in rats in a confined habitat and it did seem to eventually lead to less breeding at a certain point.

It's possible that we have surpassed a normal or sustainable population but the recovery period from it is going to be pretty brutal.

 

[slant]

Really good explanation of behavioral sink for those interested

 

[aeon]

Governments can incentivize having children all they like, but if on the other hand their policies result in the average person being unable to afford doing so, it won’t matter.

I never met a woman I wanted to have a child with, and at this point, it isn’t in the cards. I guess I’m part of the problem.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[philostam]

These are good points, too. We don't really know what will happen with a reduced population because for the majority of recorded human history, population has grown.

There are only a few examples I can think of where population really declined:
The toba eruption which is a bit of an extreme example where it killed off so many humans that it created a genetic bottleneck we can still see the impacts of in our dna today.

The Spanish flu killed 1% of the population along with the war at the time it was a pretty big decline.

But we don't really seem to have an example of a voluntary population decline in written history where people simply stopped having kids.

My theory is it's probably a human example of the behavioral sink by John B. Calhoun, where essential massive behavioral problems were created by overcrowding in rats in a confined habitat and it did seem to eventually lead to less breeding at a certain point.

It's possible that we have surpassed a normal or sustainable population but the recovery period from it is going to be pretty brutal.

I think you are falling right into the Malthusian trap.

The history of mankind is one of ever greater efficiency and ingenuity. It stands to reason that the more efficient we become, the less manpower we need. It's like in farming: in the old times we needed half of the population working the fields to feed a country, now we need cca 2-3%. Trough innovation every industry becomes less labor intensive, and more capital intensive.

I think this is something that's lacking in the history education. More emphasis should be put on technological innovation and the impact it has/had.

For example, world before internet and after internet is completely different. So if you're trying to gather insights by studying history but ignoring the technology part, you'll get an incomplete or inaccurate picture. Lessons from pre-internet era won't transfer to our day. And internet is just one of many inventions...

In the future we will have fully developed 3d printing. Can you imagine what that will do to the whole manufacturing, distribution, supply chain industries? There'll be hundred millions of jobs not needed anymore.

So don't worry about population slump causing end of the world or anything...

 

[slant]

I think you are falling right into the Malthusian trap.

The history of mankind is one of ever greater efficiency and ingenuity. It stands to reason that the more efficient we become, the less manpower we need. It's like in farming: in the old times we needed half of the population working the fields to feed a country, now we need cca 2-3%. Trough innovation every industry becomes less labor intensive, and more capital intensive.

I think this is something that's lacking in the history education. More emphasis should be put on technological innovation and the impact it has/had.

For example, world before internet and after internet is completely different. So if you're trying to gather insights by studying history but ignoring the technology part, you'll get an incomplete or inaccurate picture. Lessons from pre-internet era won't transfer to our day. And internet is just one of many inventions...

In the future we will have fully developed 3d printing. Can you imagine what that will do to the whole manufacturing, distribution, supply chain industries? There'll be hundred millions of jobs not needed anymore.

So don't worry about population slump causing end of the world or anything...

Again- I have mentioned multiple times we have no idea of knowing how things will actually turn out. There are too many factors at play.

I am very familiar with the idea that technology will solve all potential problems and we don't need to worry about problems other than to try to invent new technology to solve them. And I think this is a great plan but also creates a ton of side problems that we didn't anticipate. But that's with anything I suppose.

Do you think there will ever be a limit to the growth of technology in the foreseeable future, even if you can't define what that limit is, is a limitation a realistic expectation with technology development?

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Let's start by overturning roe v Wade that will help make more babies

I think as things stand right now, allowing abortion is for the best if only to account for rape victims and other special cases. Maybe it would be better to consider how to reduce the desire and need for abortion.

One hypothesis is that with the advent of highly effective birth control, women became a new entity in the evolutionary hierarchy by having complete control over reproduction for the first time in history. But along with the removal of consequences for casual sex rose a sentiment that there are no rules to sex altogether, and you can bet that the idea of "maximum pleasure all the time with no responsibility" is tempting for the basic animal instinct. Sex has become so cheap and banal that teens are for some reason conditioned in such a way that they think it's important to not be a virgin as soon as possible. I mean, most of them are lying, but the fact that the trend exists probably says something.

So maybe let's start from there.

 

[slant]

I think as things stand right now, allowing abortion is for the best if only to account for rape victims and other special cases. Maybe it would be better to consider how to reduce the desire and need for abortion.

One hypothesis is that with the advent of highly effective birth control, women became a new entity in the evolutionary hierarchy by having complete control over reproduction for the first time in history. But along with the removal of consequences for casual sex rose a sentiment that there are no rules to sex altogether, and you can bet that the idea of "maximum pleasure all the time with no responsibility" is tempting for the basic animal instinct. Sex has become so cheap and banal that teens are for some reason conditioned in such a way that they think it's important to not be a virgin as soon as possible. I mean, most of them are lying, but the fact that the trend exists probably says something.

So maybe let's start from there.

Just for the sake of argument I would say that banning abortion results in babies much faster then the alternative cultural focus you are suggesting. And time is of the essence with this particular problem