Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by SamuelAdams | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

SamuelAdams

Why does the global population need to grow? What is wrong with only having 9 billion people instead of 10 billion?

View on HN

We do not have a good way to run a society where elderly people substantially outnumber young people.

A shrinking population is not necessarily a problem. A rapidly shrinking population is.

"A wild Correct Answer appears"

Speaking as a "rapidly becoming old person" myself, something we always dodge around is that old people aren't good for a whole lot. I mean, you'll see, but I'd estimate I have about fifty percent the hustle, physically.

Mentally, I'm just not as . . eh . . exuberant? I guess I'm slower, but I'm also not crazy. I don't work as hard on other people's dumb ideas - I mean, sure, I'll help out, sure, do what I can, but I'm not spending a week without sleep on it. I guess you get a good intuition for what's going to crash and burn and what's got legs. That's actually a negative in your employables. The Overlords want people to jump when they say jump, even if it's off a cliff.

Funding pension and institutional investment on a pyramid scheme of infinite growth is definitely the problem.

But this isn't something that can be gradually fixed. Capitalism —at least this version of it— has to go.

How do you take care of non productive old people with very few productive young people? You call it a pyramid scheme, I don't see how you socialize caring for old people in away that cannot be classified that way. Perhaps the solution is to take care of your parents and if someone didn't have the foresight to have kids they're on their own? Pyramid scheme averted.

That's not the pyramid I mean. It's too expensive to have kids because housing (and to a significant but much lesser extent fuel) prices are out of control.

The infinite growth pyramid that's the problem is that banks, governments and pensions all rely on real estate doubling in value every 10 years. They have for decades but we're at a point now where people can't even afford rents in some places. The Welltodos in their 50s and 60s have hoovered up a large bank of properties in the past few recessions with a view they can sit back and make their 8%.

It can't carry on. This euphemism, "global fertility" is the side effect that our economics is utterly unsustainable. And no, I don't have a solution.

It helps the economy, more people = more demand and bigger markets. Now one might ask why the economy needs to grow.

Cuz the old billionaires

More people is more demand and higher prices and depressed wages equals higher profits. Natalism is being pushed by corporatism. Plus the modern economy is a giant ponzi scheme and people don’t want it to collapse on their watch.

Owners of land, and operators of various Ponzi schemes, demand it.

Those Ponzi schemes include practically everyone's retirement plans. Whether it's a tax-funded benefit or a private fund levered to the market it needs growth.

The assumption of continued economic growth is what makes the numbers in dodgy ponzi economic theory work. Society will have to go to ever increasing extremes to make it work. At some point the cost of that will exceed even the imagined gains and the economy will implode. Politically people don’t want their dose of reality so we’re stuck in a boom/bust business cycle of ever increasing amplitude. The rollercoaster we can’t get off. I think we’re already at the limits of what can be done and the social fabric keeping things together does appear to be at a breaking point.

Projections and forecasts for entire sectors use the data to make decisions, for example China built so many homes in projections of population / census estimates, their source data turned out to be incorrect that’s why you see a situation like Evergrande.

I like Bezos's argument for this. He always talks about "1000 Mozarts and 1000 Einsteins". If you consider that for every million born 1 will be a genius, and that having more geniuses is better than not, then it makes sense to max out your population.

But what is the point of new Mozart or Einstein if the child cannot get proper education and realize their potential? Next Mozart could be born a slave in Mauritania or work 12h in McDonald's to barely afford some food.

Oh yeah you're right. In fact I just remembered the sun is going to explode in 5 billion years so it's all pointless anyway.

My point is we as society should focus on quality, not quantity of everything and everyone.

That's not a point, that's dull edge. Quantity vs quality is a false dichotomy, both can and have increased over time. Further, a 1000 monkeys on a typewriter could never come up with general relativity. One genius can improve quality of life for everyone.

And 10000 geniuses could improve nothing if they are born in slavery and have no education.

Most geniuses cannot prosper in today’s world. Genius correlates strongly with disagreeableness and disagreeable people have a very hard time in modern organizations where sociability and rule-following are crucial. Not least in academia. We should cultivate the geniuses we do have rather than spam the earth with more people - especially people from countries with low general intelligence.

Who said anything about geniuses prospering? It's about the world prospering as a byproduct of genius work. And from my POV there is already plenty of that given the dizzying pace at which tech is evolving.

Our society was based on population growth. It's not that it needs to grow or doesn't need to grow.

It's that the change to our way of life and economy is as big as ww2.

Peter Zeihan does a good lecture explaining the impact.

Cuz the economy

:facepalm:

Reply on news.ycombinator.com