Vatican Economist: Recession caused by low birth rate | Hacker News Reader

Vatican Economist: Recession caused by low birth rate

zenit.org

29 pointscwan43 comments

Note that the Vatican's not the only one saying this. Others have pointed out that a larger proportion of elderly to young population results in smaller amounts of wealth creation, larger amounts of wealth consumption (healthcare and the like); and that old managers who are slow to retire give their companies an unnecessarily hesitant, cautious character. In fact, doesn't Paul Graham have an essay about this?

True. What upsets me is that publicly accepted solution to this seems to be "lets breed more babies" as opposed to "lets change our way of thinking as we get older". WTF? I refuse to accept the idea that I'm predestined to get slower, dumber and more conservative as I get older.

I also believe that instead of overbreeding we should find ways to feed the existing 6 billion or/and shrink to a more sustainable number.

I believe there is already a introductory video to this: Logan's Run.

Your medical expenses will grow as you get older, even if your thought processes don't ossify.

Sidenote: I don't think "conservative" is an appropriate term here; in fact, I don't like the word in almost any context. Desiring to enrich oneself and/or being careful with one's money do not correlate usefully with, for example, opposing abortion; libertarians and the CDU-type ideology opposed to libertarianism (Roosevelt, Chesterton, Dorothy Day, etc.) are both refutations of that.

As far as population goes, we are not close to the carrying capacity of the planet. The only starvation in the modern world is in extremely undeveloped countries governed by the likes of Robert Mugabe; I don't know what a fully-developed Earth's carrying capacity at American or at European levels of consumption would be, but I'm unwilling to guess, since I'd probably low-ball the number severely.

Malthus was right in one sense, and there are real examples of Malthusian crises in the late 18th century (that's probably where the French Revolution came from, in particular); but these days, land in the Malthusian sense is expanding faster than population is -- _much_ faster. And remember, too, the (very Y-Combinator-y) point that each new person brings a new mouth to feed, but also a new pair of hands...

As far as population goes, we are not close to the carrying capacity of the planet.

There is space available!? Well what other option could there be other than to fill it with people? I mean, clearly, the human race can't shout 'we win!' until we are unable to physically fit another person on the streets, right?

What I mean is not "physical room for people," it's "exploited versus un-exploited resources." It's not as if we're running out of room for farming -- and even if we were, it's not as if we're managing the oceans in anything that vaguely resembles a serious, competent fashion. Earth is much larger than we tend to think, and much more empty (remember how if the population of the Netherlands lived at New York density, everyone in the country would fit in the "dongle" of southern Limburg that borders on Belgium). In other words, we can afford to worry about more urgent things -- torture, for example. (Not just American; how about the Uzbek dictator who boils prisoners alive, or of course the Chinese?)

Additionally, there may be a difference in my values relative to yours: I believe that people are intrinsically valuable, and that therefore it is better to have more people in the world than fewer people in the world, all other things being equal.

But why should all the resources be exploited? Why not, you know, just use what we need? And why should the people in the Netherlands live at the same density that people in NYC do anymore than vice versa? I don't see what 'value' people have over anything else, say, fish, deer or even trees, mountains, etc -- I say we leave some room for the other things that occupy the earth and not just claim it all for ourselves because we can.

Then here we part company: as a Roman Catholic, I believe that human beings come first -- although we are to be stewards of the earth rather than masters of it.

> As far as population goes, we are not close to the carrying capacity of the planet.

Very debatable and, according to my definition of "carrying capacity", not true. As far as I know the planet can't even take the hit of every Chinese starting to eat as much meat and fish as his American counterpart.

And even at the current rate of consumption our non-replenishable resources are disappearing: starting from oil and going all the way to forests, fisheries and clean water. Seems like we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of Earth.

On consumption of meat and fish: Americans overconsume meat anyways, IMHO, and the oceans at present are _severely_ depleted due to the use of trawler fishing and the complete disinterest of the world in responsible management of the oceans. I doubt that this would remain the case with better management -- although I neither have statistics in either direction here, nor have a lively interest in maintaining them.

On non-renewable resources: fish populations I mentioned above; forests are renewable by definition, being made up of plants capable of reproduction -- although there's a huge gulf between responsible forestry and slash-and-burn farming. If pure water was a non-renewable resource, the purity of the world's water supplies would not be capable of going up, only down; but water purity in the United States has increased since industries stopped dumping pollutants indiscriminately, and since the discontinuing of, for example, DDT use, so pure water is not a non-renewable resource.

Therefore, and continuing my point about uncultivated lands, unmanaged oceans, and starvation due to political and not economic problems, I do not see any reason to believe that we are at or close to the planet's carrying capacity.

Let me also add that oil is probably not biological in origin (otherwise, how could depleted oil reserves occasionally refill spontaneously?), and that it has no ecological role that I'm aware of to begin with, given that it's generally rather far underneath the biosphere.

And, if the Earth were already at or close to its carrying capacity, shouldn't we have begun to notice trouble with resource availability in situations other than terrible political regimes (and government-induced price bubbles like the reprehensible US maize-ethanol subsidy)?

> forests are renewable by definition, being made up of plants capable of reproduction

Ever heard of soil erosion/degradation? Check out what happened to Easter Island. It takes thousands of years to turn a desert into a jungle, so in practical terms forests are non-renewable.

> pure water is not a non-renewable resource.

Again, on a practical timeline clean fossil water is unreplenishable: where do you think it comes from? And what do you think happens to a lake near an abandoned gold mine?

Several of your points have nothing to do with the topic, i.e. having enough resources to sustain the ever growing population: what difference does it make either oil is biological in origin or not?

@old-gregg:

> "Ever heard of soil erosion/degradation? Check out what happened to Easter Island. It takes thousands of years to turn a desert into a jungle, so in practical terms forests are non-renewable."

On forests, my point was that a forest is not the same kind of thing as a coal mine: it can regrow as well as fade out. Incompetent forestry can destroy a forest, of course; but forests can be managed, as was done in Europe historically, or enriched.

Archaeologists and ecology-oriented companies have recently begun to popularize a soil-enrichment technique, "terra preta do índio," which was first practiced by the Amazon Basin civilization of South American Indians, and which uses charcoal and fertilizer (or any source of bioavailable carbon and nitrogen; the Amazonian Indians used fecal matter) to transform barren soil into a rich loam that regenerates at a rate of about a centimeter a year. This is a process that can be done very quickly -- especially with contemporary technology -- and the soil is usable in a more enriched form in about a year, requiring no further fertilizer or other forms of enrichment. See _1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus_ for details; its author goes so far as to argue that the Amazon forest as we think of it is a product of the now-lost Amazonian civilization, and is essentially an overgrown garden rather than a wilderness.

> "on a practical timeline clean fossil water is unreplenishable: where do you think it comes from? And what do you think happens to a lake near an abandoned gold mine?"

You had said "clean water," not "clean fossil water." I agree that fossil water is non-renewable, but water in general can be purified. Even sites like abandoned gold mines, and damaged bodies of water around them, can be cleaned up; I'd further add that if water is so cheap that it's not profitable to reclaim polluted lakes, we're not near the limits of the world's water supply.

> "Several of your points have nothing to do with the topic, i.e. having enough resources to sustain the ever growing population: what difference does it make either oil is biological in origin or not?"

My point on oil: if it's not biological in origin, there may be an awful lot more of it than we thought. (And even then, with nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and increasingly solar power, we can survive without oil; its merits are its abundance and its high energy density.)

* Also, for Easter Island, see a New Scientist article on the subject (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125621.100-easter-is...); Jared Diamond's account may not be accurate at all. I would also add that the people of Easter Island lost the ability to read their writing system (Rongorongo), which tends to predict a very large range of problems. Maya civilization collapsed shortly after losing the ability to read their script, too -- but it collapsed in an environment that did not have any ecological degradation.

Also, do you have anything to say about changes to brain chemistry and physical fitness as one ages?

> I refuse to accept the idea that I'm predestined to get slower, dumber and more conservative as I get older.

Do you also accept that magic fairies stop your brain from being physiologically affected at all by the process of aging?

This jumped out at me:

> the cause is ordinary people who do not "believe in the future" and have few or no children

The notion that the reason people are having fewer children because they don't believe in the future is pure ideology. They may have accidentally landed at the right conclusion (I'm not persuaded of this, particularly given the opportunities related to immigration), but their reasoning is highly suspect.

Gotti Tedeschi is italian. While it's true that a low birth rate is typical of rich countries, it is also true that in Italy the hope for the future is currently at historical lows (sociologists are also writing profusely about this). Not that there is necessarily a causal link, of course.

Italy is in a typical 2-generation pattern.

The first generation of women to get the chance at education, real careers etc = birth rate plummets.

A generation (or two) later, there are women in politics and at the top of companies, introduce generous maternity leave, childcare etc. as in Scandinavia = birth rate rises again.

I am italian and actually living in Italy and I can tell you this: Italy is in a very bad historical period, with corruption and organized crime spread in the government. I am one of the italians thinking that this country has no future and this is why I'm leaving.

Like me many italians (good and smart ones that are not part of the actual clientelistic system and are not able to get a good job) are leaving my country. I also have a lot of friends that are deluded and do not plan to have children, also because they can't get a decent salary to build a family.

I cannot tell if there is a casual link, though. Actually Italy is engulfed in a media regime, where the prime minister own three major TV channels and controls the three public ones. 80% of the people only get news form TV, and TV is not telling the bad news. So there may be a link and I think that hope for the future plays a big part, but I also think it's more than that.

I think that many things in the actual system contribute on the low birth rate. About vatican I can tell you that they primarily look at italian society and are very biased by their religion.

Out of context, that statement seems like it's saying that people do not "believe in the future" because they don't have children (i.e. having children gives you hope for the future).

The Roman Catholic Church, like any other corporation, is interested in revenue and growth.

When he says ordinary people do not "believe in the future", what he means to say is they don't believe in a Catholic future.

I don't think they worry about that since they'll always have a huge following. And I think this has more to do with the Catholic Church's stand on contraception and abortions.

I don't believe it's that simple.

You have Catholic numbers dropping like a rock in America in the wake of the scandals and etc. This whole new "Catholics Come Home!" ad campaign isn't cheap and isn't typical of them.

You have the European birth rate going negative. You have growth markets like Asia starting to level off. Where are you going to get growth from? The Church's stance on contraception and abortions is directly tied to make sure there are enough money-donating catholics around to keep the machine going.

Don't forget that the "religiosity" in the countries that are the historic home of the church is also very poor. You go into a Cathedral or Basilica during mass in most places in Europe and all you find are old ladies. Basically, the home base of the Church has abandoned the Church.

Coincidentally those places are also technologically and philosophically sophisticated, places that do care about the future by definition. Yet they also tend to have low birthrates. The Church is simply taking advantage of these two situations in a campaign to explain a short term (though sizable) economic blip which is already reasonably explainable in ways that don't conform to the obvious ideological footprint the Church is trying to fit all this into and for all appearances looks to already be on the upswing anyways.

Some extra data from my hometown:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2010-02/52176728...

Attendance has been falling since 2001. No visible correlation to economic conditions.

"The notion that the reason people are having fewer children because they don't believe in the future is pure ideology."

It is true that this idea dovetails nicely with Catholic ideology. But might it also have some truth in it?

Certainly, if people do not believe in the future, it is natural to assume they are less likely to have children. The converse is not so obvious, of course. (People might be optimistic for the future, but don't want to make the sacrifices inherent in having children, for example.)

I am partially motivated to have children in order to make the future better.

Yet poor, famine starved peoples the world over (the exact kind of people with no hope for the future) tend to have large families.

I think "deficit of trust" would have been a better sell.

The future is inevitable. The immediate future being an ideal place to start having kids is a notion that's hard to trust.

Potential mates are hard to trust as well :)

It's hard to trust anything these days. I think a lot of the comments in this thread are evidence of that.

I can see a case for arguing that someone who has zero children doesn’t “believe in the future” (whatever that means). But surely the parents of one child “believe in the future” no less than the parents of eight.

The article ends with this sentence:

> Now, Gotti Tedeschi confirmed, "the only way to rebuild economic-financial balance [in America] is austerity."

From wikipedia:

In economics, austerity is when a national government reduces its spending to pay back creditors. Austerity is usually required when a government's fiscal deficit spending is felt to be unsustainable.

Development projects, welfare programs and other social spending are common areas of spending for cuts. In many countries, austerity measures have been associated with short-term standard of living declines until economic conditions improved once fiscal balance was achieved (such as in Canada under Jean Chrétien, and Spain under Felipe González).

Private banks, or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may require that a country pursues an 'austerity policy' if it wants to re-finance loans that are about to come due. The government may be asked to stop issuing subsidies or to otherwise reduce public spending. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as 'IMF conditionalities'.

Austerity programs are frequently controversial, as they have an impact on the poorest segments of the population and often lead to a wider separation between the rich and poor. In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.

A low birth rate is not surprising in the Vatican, but they will have some trouble increasing it.

I'm not sure if this was meant to be humor or not, so if it wasn't, I apologize; but if it was, you win an internets.

(Is that an acceptable expression around here?)

> (Is that an acceptable expression around here?)

You're new around here, so I'll explain your downvotes. It's not that a particular phrase is or is not unacceptable here, it's that your comment as a whole did not add to the discussion. Use the up arrow instead of writing a reply if you think a comment was a good contribution.

I see. Thanks for letting me know.

It is worth nothing that this "Institute for the Works of Religion", aka IOR, is basically the bank of Vatican. It is shrouded by absolute secrecy, much more than the swiss banks for instance. In the past it has been involved in rather shady stories.

So, this person apparently thinks that the way to keep the economy healthy is for the population to keep growing without limit.

I fail to see why an unsustainable population bubble should be any better than an unsustainable housing / tech-stocks / tulip / South Sea bubble.

(Perhaps he believes that a population bubble would not be unsustainable because in the not-very-distant future God will step in and call a halt? Such predictions have been commonplace for a long time and their track record is not very good.)

Why would population growth be a bubble?

Do you think that suddenly everyone will die, and the bubble pop?

No, but I do think that it can't continue for ever. At least, not without a bunch of technological advances that don't show any sign of being about to turn up.

The Vatican must be very happy with this "new kind of science" the blogosphere created; the one that allows for tons of opinion with scant evidence.

Well, truth be told, not even them endorsed Inteligent Design, yet.

The Catholic Church is scarily in tune with the latest scientific thought (I say this as a protestant).

I would not be surprised if they have an army of economists.

Right, and I am not calling the Catholic Church scientifically ignorant. You can point to lots of problems they had with science in the past (Copernicus, Galileo, Vesalius, etc). However they're the religion that best learnt (even if by force) that science must be respected. They even produced some very fine scientists (e.g.: Gregor Mendel).

My point is rather that without evidence and facts it gets much easier to manipulate debates with ideologies. I see the debates on forums and blogs as being mostly heavy on opinions and weak on facts. And I see religion as a form of ideology.

Disclaimer: I am well aware that I am giving an opinion with little factual evidence; the exact problem am pointing in others. So please feel free to call all of this self-contradictory garbage. ;-)

> However they're the religion that best learnt (even if by force) that science must be respected.

The notion that there is (or must be) a conflict between religion and science is fallacious. It is an idea currently extremely popular with 20 y/o know-it-all angry atheists – but it is far from the truth.

Another popular related idea is that “you can’t be religious and be a scientist” and that religious people are of lower intelligence (the latter is usually proved with a pseudo-scientific “statistical” argument).

> My point is rather that without evidence and facts it gets much easier to manipulate debates with ideologies.

My biggest problem is that popular secular humanists try to pass of their ideology as “science” – and doing it on the public dime too (while working at educational institutions). Neither the church nor certain secular humanists have a monopoly on the truth or scientific fact.

> I see the debates on forums and blogs as being mostly heavy on opinions and weak on facts. And I see religion as a form of ideology.

Most internet debates are nothing but a circle jerk. I increasingly see pop-atheism as an ideology too. Nothing ruins social sites (such as reddit.com, digg.com) as quickly as the influx of angry close-minded atheists.

That is one of the things that make ycnews nice – there aren’t that many ideologues, and even those that are there, are well mannered and moderate.

Uncertainty about the future causes me to spend less, not more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com