Always remember that the world was fine with 2bn people just 100 years ago.
During the increase in population kids are helpless for ~8 years before they're actually able to contribute to farms and whatnot, so the large number of extra children doesn't show. During demographic collapse, since it happens generally as life expectancies go up, elderly adults generally (with exceptions) spend decades getting less and less able to contribute before they die. We don't have answers for how to take care of them during that window.
Eventually this would be a self-correcting problem, but in the most gruesome way one can imagine. And creating and maintaining Tesla Bots would require lots of young people, too... unless/until one finds a way to make them create and maintain themselves, which seems rather far off; I live in a world where computer servers don't really even maintain themselves.
It's not that different that the deserved skepticism for new "climate friendly" technologies. "The totally unsustainable behavior you had was bad. Here, have a slightly better option that allows you to keep doing the totally unsustainable thing with a slightly smaller footprint."
Electric cars. Organic meat. Carbon offsets for flights. LEED certified McMansions. Every time we tell people the change isn't going to hurt, we lie to them. What we need are car-free communities, plant based diets, less travel, and smaller homes.
Overpopulation isn't that different. Population reduction will hurt, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. I fully expect to get a lesser quality of care in my old age than my parents got. That sucks, but, that's reality. We're now in the consequences stage. We should be focusing on mitigating harm, not clinging to populating the planet in the way we used to.
Extremely painful likely means working 7-10 more years. Today's retirement at 65-67 will be considered an aberration.
If population declines that much, retirement will become structurally impossible for anyone but the relatively wealthy. Other types of social safety nets will also collapse, because at some point young working people will just balk at the tax burden they'll have to pay to support them with a shrinking cohort of workers.
AI and automation could cushion the blow to some extent.
we’ve gone from ~2 billion to ~8 billion in 100 years.
compared to the (highly estimated) figures from before 100 years ago — that’s a massive increase.
the graph is basically a line going straight up compared to the rest of (highly estimated) population data for the last 10k years. and growth is continuing.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population
> Maybe the world in 2050 will be so different that the issue has resolved itself
“maybe a miracle might happen” — is just kicking the can down the road in my book.
we are out of balance with our surrounding environment. there will be a readjustment — whether we choose to make that readjustment ourselves (take responsibility for the problem), or let the readjustment happen (the problem really becomes a problem), is up to us as a species.
> Some problems need tackling at the right time.
some problems take a really long time and a lot of effort to work on so maybe starting to work on them early and proactively might be a good idea. like climate change.
> We don't need to get too crazy about declining populations when we are facing more urgent issues.
speaking of climate change, global overpopulation kinda has an impact on it! more people -> use more resources -> screwing up the planet faster
If this turns out to be an issue we can act. At the moment it looks like it to me that the climate crisis is more relevant than the demographic change, because as you said: Less people are actually better for the planet.
With AI becoming more capable each year we might find that many of the issues of large elderly populations can be alleviated.
Let's check back in 5 or 10 years if the demographics is really shaping up to be a problem.
You are right, of course; but just to put some perspective to it:
If Thanos-style the population and the CO2 emissions would be cut in half, this would not be enough at all -- we need to get back to 350 ppm (or similar).
I'm writing this to counter the meme that "climate change is Africa's fault, because of their population count".
But then leaders started promising the old people (majority of voters) wealth transfers from the young people.
And that will cause friction, because these wealth transfers only made sense with growing proportions of young people.
Elder abuse is widespread in Confucian societies like Japan and China, it's the dark side of a culture that professes filial piety but actually breeds resentment in the young.
There exists an arbitrage opportunity where one can avoid the costs and compromises of coupling/parenting, and still retain some of the benefits.
> Social security takes a burden off young people as much as it gives to old people.
I don’t see it this way. If I were given the choice, I would not pay the government at all, and I would not expect anything from the government in the future. I already don’t, by way of knowing that my future benefits will be decreased in purchasing power via devaluation of currency and increased retirement age and changes in the benefit formula.
And it wouldn’t change my burden at all, because I didn’t ask to be born, hence I don’t owe anyone in their old age (nor does anyone owe me in my old age).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfside_condominium_collapse
how can you expect them to sacrifice a single penny to address problems like climate change that will affect future generations? Granted, fewer people in itself reduces our environmental impact, but some combination of young people and older people who feel invested in their offspring is necessary for us to face the future.