Hacker News Reader

Comment by JustUhThought | Hacker News Reader

We are in for a shtt-storm.

But go over to Bloomberg news, and they're wondering why the Japanese won't make the tough cultural sacrifices needed to increase immigration, to stave off stagnant GDP caused by declining population and the accompanying demographics. (I get the workers to non-workers issues in play. Even with that, I believe it is telling, which solutions are put forth. Increase immigration. Not, decrease consumption.)

Seriously, our roads are sinking. Record temperatures. Record droughts. Record greenhouse gasses. But how many times were "jobs" talked about at the DNC and RNC? "Global warming"?

We, are so, f-cked.

View on HN

I agree climate change has to be taken seriously and we need to study ways to mitigate the effects of our GHG output. No doubt.

On the Japan question. No, I think and hope they continue to be uniquely stubborn. Why? Because we are all going to be there (we would have been there if we'd be as strict as Latin American countries are about their own immigration). Japan can lead the way for us and for others on how to deal with this issue (population decline).

Japan is in fact dealing with their issue head on by not importing workers. By not importing workers they are not defraying the issue. They are doing the opposite of dealing with consequences later.

Besides, population decline could very well be a large part of the answer to the problem of automation and labor redundancy. Who cares if you have less workers if you /need/ less workers?

> Besides, population decline could very well be a large part of the answer to the problem of automation and labor redundancy. Who cares if you have less workers if you /need/ less workers?

Its only a short-term answer (sure, natural population contraction and population aging means your workforce to total supported population ratio is shrinking, which can delay the need to address the retooling society to deal with lower labor-hours:population requirements, but it only delays the need, and eventually creates other problems.)

In what way is importing workers "defraying the issue"? Also, why would the population of the US decline? White people aren't having babies like they used to, but other groups don't show the same trend. It's the reason why the US is on track to become a majority-minority country long before the original estimated 2050. California's already there.

People are still clamorimg to get into the US, and fighting tooth and nail to stay here.

You are the first person I've read that considers not importing workers a solution, rather than a symptom of cultural insularity that threatens to bring down their economy through the burden of an aging population.

If you look at the stats of immigrants in the U.S. other groups aren't having as many babies like they used to. Look up birth rate by minorities on Pew Social Trends.

Japan, by some measures, is over populated. But regardless. World population is stabilizing, at least in mature economies. The US would be in a pop decline, if not for immigrants. If we only count US born newborns, the US pop is in decline.

Japan facing this issue we will all face is good for them and for us as their solutions will pave the way for other countries which will follow (much of western Europe and east Asia).

> The US would be in a pop decline, if not for immigrants. If we only count US born newborns, the US pop is in decline.

That's a popular idea, but it's false: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/18/do...

That's looking at the last fifty years. I mean today, these last few years. We'd be plateauing, if not for new immigrants and their children.

>The US would be in a pop decline, if not for immigrants.

But that's exactly my question. Why is importing workers "defraying the issue" when that same tactic works for the US?

Because the trend world wide is for pop to level off and decline. The economies are based on growth. It'd be good for an advanced nation to work a solution to that problem (good economy in a pop decline).

> Why? Because we are all going to be there (we would have been there if we'd be as strict as Latin American countries are about their own immigration). Japan can lead the way for us and for others on how to deal with this issue (population decline).

Why isn't immigration a valid solution to population decline? This seems like a classic paean to the old white country to me.

Immigration in Latin America is actually not very restrictive. Organized crime (from anywhere in the world) can come and go as it pleases in the region. Whatever you may have read on right-wing media, illegal immigration is rampant in Latin America.

The irony of some Americans complaining about Latinos now is rich. You didn't care much about them when the US govt was promoting dictators and doing everything it could to undermine the democratic will in the region (predominantly left wing in response to the incredible levels of legacy inequality) and why would you? It made many of your companies super rich which in turn provided you with nice, cushy jobs managing your "banana republic" natural resources. The local population though was saddled with no voice and (usually) murderous psychopaths as their "leaders". As a result they migrated in droves to the US, the richest nation on earth that also happened to be the closest. And now you complain. It would be funny if it wasn't racist too.

Try getting a job in Costa Rica or Panama as an illegal. You'll have to get an illegal job.

But anyway, the response is more about Japan. The long term answer is not the importation of workers, but finding a solution to having a viable economy with a declining population and aging population. It's in our interest that they find real solutions to a problem we will all face, rather than stave off the issue a bit with labor imports.

United Fruit != Many companies. They were in a few counties. They had bad influence, but it was one limited industry making a family rich... The main problem wasn't US companies but rather a very backward uneducated population. Those that put effort into education, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama. Uruguey are doing well. Americans on the other hand did not muck around in Mexico as they did Chile or Guatemala, and see where they are with their nationalism. Who is more racist, the Mexican government and how they dont provide resources for their majority mestizos or Americans, I bet Mexicans get a better deal from the US than they do their own gov't, else they'd enjoy what "Mexico es para Mexicanos" has to offer them rather than emigrate to a foreign land apparently full of racists.

> The main problem wasn't US companies but rather a very backward uneducated population.

The US isn't full of racists but you clearly are racist. Can't say I'm surprised since I could smell it in your first comment.

It may surprise you but Latin America had its share of intellectual leaders, many of which had to flee their own countries because of the brutal dictatorships propped up by the US govt. The ones who didn't were simply "disappeared". It's very convenient that you only think of United Fruit as the only beneficiary of subservient local dictatorships, it betrays a lack of knowledge about how neocolonialism (or even neoliberalism) works. Either that or you just did a quick "banana republic" google search and completely ignore that the term can be used independently of the United Fruit case. Which, again, betrays an ignorance about the whole subject.

I understand Latin America has produced a number of intellectuals --granted, however the majority of their mestizo population during the time of united fruit etc, were not attending school past the 6th grade, if that. That's a lot of intellectual capital left on the table and contributed to weak economies. The stronger economies had some semblance of compulsory education beyond elementary school. Even today, in Mexico itself, you have indigenous people for whom Spanish is a second language and due to that suffer discrimination in their own country --and this repeats in many south American countries.

You forget most of their intellectuals come from their elite families, it's not like the average person there has much of a chance in the elite circles.

Pointing out the poor educational infrastructure as well as a culture which does not make it a priority is not being racist.

You're not just pointing out anything. You were excusing imperialism with a little bit of racism on the side. Both out of ignorance as usual.

No I'm not. You're the one ignoring the mistreatment of local populations by the minority creoles. Yes, there was what can be categorized in some sense imperialism, in some countries, but that was conflated with larger geopolitical issues of the cold war.

I usually find your sentiment to be buried somewhere deeper on most HN threads that touch on these issues.

I'm honestly baffled at the endless optimism and belief of others in our ability to innovate and disrupt out of this crisis, whether it be technological advances or some market solution.

Some people even go so far as to suggest that we'll be moving beyond this planet in the next 100 years and all resource problems will be solved. It's hard to reply to them without sounding snarky, but I can't help but wonder in what circumstances those people were raised with that line of thinking. They just sound completely ignorant of both history and basic physics when they make those statements.

The political and corporate establishments don't give a fuck about us or climate change. We need to stop looking to these selfish demagogues within the Republican and Democratic parties as if they have anything in common with us. These people and their families will be safe and sound even if the planet and environment goes completely to shit. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them would wipe out the majority of life on Earth if their political donors pushed for it.

Be the change you want to see in the world. If you're worried about climate change and you're not vegan, you need to realize you're contributing to one of the largest causes of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. Consider adopting pets or children instead of breeding them into this world. If you're an activist, fight for local political change to bring sound environmental policy to your community and work to expand to surrounding regions. If you're an engineer or scientist, don't forget that you have the key to making this world a better place (and no global warming denier can take that from you). Finally, I believe Tesla sets a good precedent for manifesting these sorts of ambitious ideas within a system of free market capitalism.

You say we are so fucked, but I'm not so quick to agree. I'm not going to say I'm a total optimist, but I think the potential exists, within our lifetime, for weird and exciting technologies that could allow us to solve these problems in ways we could have never imagined. As long as CERN doesn't destroy all life as we know it, I think we're good.

Increased immigration from poor countries to rich countries will increase consumption and pollution.

Third world aid has a similar problem. The more wealthy people become, the more they eat meat and pollute.

Cases like Sweden where more than 90% of third world immigrants stay unemployed are likely the worst of all.

>Cases like Sweden where more than 90% of third world immigrants stay unemployed

Do you have a source to back this claim?

Out of genuine curiosity, what if s/he doesn't?

The real numbers are probably somewhat worse. There's a Swedish government report that has the best numbers, but I couldn't find it within a reasonable time. Swedish employment rates for natives and first-world immigrants are good, though.

After one year, more than 99% are unemployed http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/162-000-kom-till-sverige-5...

More than half of the unemployed in Sweden are immigrants http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nu-ar-fler-an-halften-av-d...

Here is one little positive thought:

At least there won't be an ice age, which, according to the timeline, should happen soonish (on geological timescales). An ice age would be very problematic too, and we've averted that easily.

That's true enough. The key point, though, is that the cold would have come at a typical rate. Typical being extremely slow, by human standards. We would have had many generations to prepare for it.

There is growing agreement that what we are facing is going to happen very quickly, even by human standards.

There is research that hints that a very quick onset might be possible. It's even be suggested that it can happen in months. [1] (I tried to find the corresponding paper but could only dig up a conference talk abstract.)

The studies I found all used lake sediments in Irish lakes, so it's somewhat local and not conclusive yet imho. Still, it seems to be a surprisingly fast change in the data. (I was surprised; I didn't know.)

Do you have a source for your point? It looks like a more extensive literature review is needed to answer this question since the answer is not on the surface. Or my google-fu is just weak today.

On the other hand I also found research stating that the next glacial period might be a few 10,000 years off, so there's that.

[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344-800-mini-ice...

I over-stated it. Like you, I've run into a couple of mentions over the past half year, but I don't have them handy.

It seems like we're discovering a bunch of technologies that involve removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere now (and even using it as a resource). That isn't the only problem gas, but I'm optimistic that we will solve the "greenhouse effect" problem through this sort of climate engineering before the real disaster of rising sea levels gets too far. In a century people will probably be freaked out by a host of issues we've barely even thought of today (things like the Kessler syndrome that are not so top-of-the-mind).

The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics.

Either way, it would be far cheaper to switch our energy production to renewables, then to geo-engineer on a planet scale. We aren't doing that in any meaningful way.

Instead we pat ourselves on the back for reducing US coal energy generation to 37%. Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas...

Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas...

It's still a huge improvement, cutting CO2 output by half and eliminating other byproducts.

Except that overall CO2 output has been steady since 2008.

Yes, there has been GDP growth since then, which is great... But the atmosphere doesn't care about GDP. What it needs are reductions.

Keeping CO2 output steady instead of rising with ever-growing population size & energy appetite is, I think, an important first victory. The work is by no means done, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

> The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics.

Homes aren't the only thing destroyed by rising sealevels. Arable land that is under saltwater is a lot less arable.

Most arable land isn't coastal though - and most coastlines are urban. If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. As another poster mentioned, the land doesn't have to be underwater to become unusable, but rising sea levels have a limited reach.

> Most arable land isn't coastal though

A very large share of arable land is at a low elevation above sea level along waterways; land distance from the coast doesn't control the effect of sea-level rise.

> If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry.

Well, except that its impossible geographically to do that without also flooding inland arable areas. Flooding America's coastline also means flooding (among other prime agricultural areas) much of California's Central Valley.

> The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics.

A good chunk of arable land and aquifers will be affected by rising sea levels as well.

Really, our only hope is somehow all that land that is too cold to farm now...becomes more practical to farm. :/

James Lovelock, the inventor of Electron Capture Detector, which he used to discover CFC's, and the person behind the Gaia theory, predicts that only Canada, Northern Europe and Siberia will be habitable in the later part of this century.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/james-lovelock-the-prophet-20071101

Yes but its more than just habitability. Soil condition/quality as well as availability of water, etc. is important for farming.

Very true - there will be a limit to what size of a population can be sustained by farming within those northern areas. Whatever that number is, it's probably not 9 billion people

Reply on news.ycombinator.com