Let’s step back and ask why we’re being asked to assume it would be inherently bad if the global population were to start to decline.
Which is what the original thesis was, I believe, that someone needs to lose.
But it gets a lot worse. The problem is that growth AND decline are both exponential processes. Not just growth. Decline too. Which means whatever percentage you say has to go to taking care of old people ... give it 20 years and it'll be more. A factor more. In fact, it will quickly rise to over 100% if population doesn't stabilize. In nature, for many species the exponential nature of shrinking population causes, by itself, without other causes, extinction. Luckily, usually local extinction. Cats are a great example of this. Areas almost always have a lot of cats ... or none.
If you take current examples (that are getting worse) you see that what happens is that every generation about halves. BUT 4-5 generations are alive simultaneously. So in order to keep the same level of elderly care the expenses need to double 5 times. There's a tiny problem ... even theoretically 20% expenses on the elderly can only double twice. The third time you double it, it goes over 100%. But when maintaining elderly care takes 100% of global human labor, we're only about halfway to a real declining population.
Or to put it more realistically, after all humans don't just undergo natural processes (thankfully), we adapt: unless population is growing at a minimum rate, the elderly will be abandoned. As soon as it becomes clear that this cannot be avoided, if needed we'll breed humans like in the Matrix to prevent this from continuing. Why? The people making that decision ... are the ones who are about to meet that fate.
This is be why a declining economy is so incredibly, incredibly destructive. Exponential growth, with a growth rate smaller than one, is a killer.
Right now, all of us are typing on some computers, comfy and thinking intellectually. If we HAD to and were pushed by the physical parameters of need, I bet our inventiveness would go through the roof and we'd solve the problem.
And even if there is no next such resource, economic growth can be achieved using less resources by increasing efficiency. So even if humanity decided to stop increasing the resource usage right now, we would still continue to see almost limitless economic growth just by smarter ways of using the resources.
Personally I'd be happy with a world with a lot less people, finding some sort of equilibrium. But it would necessitate a lot of pain to get there.
Not to go all Agent Smith on everyone, but he had a point.
Fast changes to any sort of complicated system are always problematic. Going from rapid growth to decline within a couple of generations is likely to be much more problematic than the same change happening over a couple of dozen generations.
The economic implications could also be pretty severe. Our economy is modeled such that we prosper when money flows and there is growth. With less people to be taxed, less people to buy things, and less people putting their money in the markets, the economic engine will stall and then shrink. Everyone loses when that happens. The Great Depression didn’t happen because money literally disappeared, it was more like hoarding and stagnation. That will happen again when the population declines.
That said, I’m not out here telling people to have babies just so the economy won’t crash. Boom and bust seems to be part of our nature. Perhaps eventually we will move to an economic model that is more resilient to such things but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
>’For middle- to high-income, low-fertility countries, falling below replacement level could mean labor shortages and pressure on health care systems, nationalized health insurance, and social security programs. Meanwhile, low-income countries that still have high fertility are at heightened risk of falling further behind on the world’s economic stage, Ezeh says. “They will not be able to make the necessary investments to improve health, well-being, and education” with too few resources to support a booming population.’
That sounds pretty bad.
I also always wonder if folks with your view see no moral issue with humanity disappearing, or with mass population decline in any way other than fewer children being born.
1. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-06-18/the-blackfoot-...
2. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/01/5510187...
3. https://www.mhyfvic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Aborigina...
While it may be true primitive tribes sometimes had satisfying lifestyles with relatively little wealth, we are far beyond the carrying capacity of hunter gatherer modalities, and modern people have the expectation that their lives will generally improve. If it becomes harder to save wealth, own a home, and start a family, then people will defect from the current system. It will be a serious risk factor for societal instability, as we can already observe.
I see someone drawing attention to unstated assumptions embedded in our society about technological/social/civilizational progress.
Unfortunately earth has basic physical limits that simply do not permit an indefinite growth-based social order. When wealth is produced by depleting non-renewable resources and destroying natural systems keeping the earth in balance, that wealth will inevitably lose its purpose.
Choosing a social order that values human life and the wealth of the natural world is not nihilistic. Choosing a social order in which the natural world is destroyed to increase the number of 0s in a bank account is.
Planet Earth is an absolute Eden all we can think to do is convert all its natural wonders into materials and energy to make unsatisfying technological baubles.
Innovations like fusion and asteroid mining would arguably do far more to preserve the environment than degrowth. People generally don't accept declining standards of living lightly. The Germans turned to Hitler and Nazism after a decade of hyperinflation and economic depression.
I also sense a certain level of hypocrisy to complain about technological baubles when you're on Hacker News. We all enjoy the benefits of modern technology in a myriad of ways like transportation, medicine, abundant food, fruit any time of year, etc.
On the other hand the quickest way to realistically reduce emissions by half is to reduce the population by half. And yes, I know the numbers do not work out as linearly as the flippant comment would assume...
That's nonsense. A reasonable time period for halving the population naturally would be 3 generations, or about 100 years.
We already have proof it can be done faster: Britain has halved their emissions in 35 years.
We need to do a lot more than halve CO2 emissions, and we need to do it in a lot less than 100 years. The goal is net zero by 2050. And while that's a very difficult goal, it's not a completely impossible goal either.
Also if things get bad we can just use stratospheric aerosols to cool the Earth. Terraforming would be like a thousandth the cost of trying to completely replace all energy infrastructure by 2050. I'm not opposed to building more sensible energy production like advanced fission, but given how slow, inefficient, and expensive infrastructure has become in the West I wouldn't bet that net zero happens by 2050, especially without decimating the middle classes.
Otherwise its just to soften people up to the inevitable blow.
In the long run yeah it will improve everyones quality of life if we can level the population out at a lower number.
Are you an anti-natalist? I've been seeing hordes of y'all popping up on reddit recently.
It's pretty shocking to me how long it took me to actually confront these assumptions. In the 80's overpopulation seemed like one of the most pressing concerns, but the situation is a lot more context-specific and nuanced than the message I received. Many people still haven't updated their programming, and act like I'm a raving lunatic when I bring up concerns around demographics in advanced societies. This despite us knowing about this generally for a _long_ time in places like South Korea and Japan.
I'm sure I have lots of other similar blind spots, but those buggers are hard to find.
You do realize that we are biological creatures? If someone genuinely doesn't want to have children, then they must have overcome their evolved natural tendency and that means they probably have a very good reason.
Natalists don't understand that a system of optimistic procreation also requires the children created in this process to decide whether the blood line should be continued. Parents don't know what kind of life their children are going to lead and whether those children are going to lead a life worth living or not. So the natalist is utterly, utterly dependent on the anti-natalist for his procreation strategy to be moral. The anti-natalist has the task of reducing the amount of life that is not worth living, so that only life that is worth living ends up reproducing.
In short, the anti-natalist must improve life, whereas the natalist simply hopes that they give birth to an anti-natalist. For the natalist to attempt to improve life is proof that they are not a natalist.
But... most people's lives are worth living, per their own revealed or even stated preferences, despite an apparent contagion of anxiety/depression/etc.
>For the natalist to attempt to improve life is proof that they are not a natalist
An assertion with no reasoning. Generally, I can think something is good and simultaneously wish it to be better.