Comment by ZaoLahma | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZaoLahma | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As cynical as this will sound, breeding is contributing to society in the sense that you provide productivity to it. Ensuring your retirement, in essence.

In many (western inspired) parts of the world, the retirement scheme depends on productivity being increased for every generation. This because every generation that retires is larger than the previous generation that retired. The population growth drives the need for an increase in productivity.

You can increase the productivity by either increase the size of the working population, or make the working population more productive per individual. Up until recently we actually did both. That's why our elderly now can enjoy VERY comfortable retirements compared to two generations ago.

For us, those who are now working, it doesn't look great. We're not having children and it's getting hard to squeeze more productivity out of us.

Here according to the latest projections, I'm not supposed to retire until I'm 69. And this is with today's data. I fully expect it to increase further. Those that were born in 2015 or later are expected to work until they are 71, according to today's data.

The problem is that I don't think that on average we can work until we hit 70. My father's generation was quite broken right about around 65 when they retired.

It should be fairly obvious that any system that depends on endless growth is an unsustainable pyramid scheme. Not the kind of thing we should be basing society on.

I'm not blind to this very, almost blindingly, obvious problem. I've posted comments on the subject before, where I've strongly supported the idea of a decreased population.

I just don't see a way to decrease the population levels in a way that doesn't lead to a collapse of our way of life.

Short-sightedly, increasing the (young) population is increasing productivity as you said, but when thinking a tiny bit deeper about it, we're already consuming each year twice the resources Earth can provide us, so continuing on this "econo-societal runaway" is completely bonkers.

The population should imperatively shrink, it should already be at most half of the current size.

With this completely different viewpoint, the real contributors to society wellness are those who have less (or no) children.

I absolutely agree with you. 100%.

The problem is how we can make this transition from a large population to a smaller one with as little suffering as possible.

As I said, here we are expected to work into our 70s on average already, which just will not be possible. At some point there won't be enough resources to care for those who can't produce. We need a substantial increase in productivity per individual for society to keep working while the population numbers are decreasing, and that doesn't seem to be happening.

Yeah... the consensus is that the more we wait before reducing willingly the population, the more it will happen suddenly and violently (wars, famines) at the snap point (or at snap points, plural).

Not pretty thoughts, but just mechanistically unavoidable...

I'd say, let's reduce our comfort, let's do it now, yeah we'll be poorer and all. Still better than the alternative.

The point is to go out of our way to remain (and become more) altruistic and united at a global scale... in order to spread evenly the diminishing resources.

If everybody gets poor in a similar way, it will reduce anger and unrest. Or avoid wars, if that's a country that would have felt wronged otherwise.

We are not consuming more resources than the Earth can provide. The idea that our population is too big is subjective and arbitrary.

The Earth can easily support 2-10x as many humans as presently live on it.

Our way of life, however, is quite wasteful and inefficient.

(First, "We are not consuming more resources than the Earth can provide", is a false statement, as right now every year we (the whole Humanity) consume more than what the Earth can regenerate. It's an established fact. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day)

Nah, it's both, not either, of these elements of the solution.

Only lowering our way or life (in your scenario, lowering it at an unimaginable level), while being twice as many, is unacceptable, as we'll deal with absence or regression of medicine (too costly in energy or resources), drastic reduction or extinction of research and exploration, and end of the "global village" concept because of too expensive communication and transport. Education is at stake too.

And only reducing how many we are is as unacceptable, as it implies too much lives lost too suddenly, of course.

It must be a combination of both.

So, the point I raised stays true, we need (also) to reduce the population. But not only.

Right now I'm thinking I found the right way to explain the problem: even if you (and me, and a handful of other groups of humans) would agree to live like ancestral tribes, it would still not be the case of a lot, the vast majority, of people. And they would be much, much angrier of this plan, than of some alternative plan, e.g. to reduce the population and get altogether to a moderately poor level of life (not as drastically poor as if we keep on procreating. Say, way poorer than US citizens, but still wealthier than the average inhabitant of a Third World country).

And how to deal with social unrest is crucial, in how we'll solve the equation.

I don't think that lack of productivity as a society is what drives our suffering. There is enough stuff.

The work you are talking about, that we are supposed to do well in our 70s, is just a means to determine how we distribute our stuff, not a means to create more stuff.

> As cynical as this will sound, breeding is contributing to society in the > sense that you provide productivity to it. Ensuring your retirement, in > essence.

I believe death does this. Breeding does not.

Good work HN, your inability to read and think strikes again!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com