The plan going forward
10-07-2024, 02:30 PM
#573
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 593
Oh no, what if our natural resources are shared by fewer people? What if housing prices go down?
LIke who would want to live in Japan, what a cesspool...
10-07-2024, 03:36 PM
#575
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2023
Posts: 69
old people are more expensive and less productive than young people. If the population doesn’t grow then there aren’t enough productive people to support the population. Korea, Japan, and China will all get hit hard by this
10-07-2024, 03:37 PM
#576
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2022
Posts: 1,211
And healthcare will be even less affordable and available. Etc.
10-07-2024, 03:42 PM
#577
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,264
No strictly saying that population *has* to grow, but it normally has for all of human history (minus a few black swans) and our economic models and ability to care for the elderly has generally relied on that fact. A human ponzi scheme if you will.
There are obvious potential benefits to lower population (basically resources as you said). But some major economic and societal adaptions would have to occur to prevent some seriously bad consequences.
Actually, it looks like we (at least the youngest of us) are going to find out. Many economically advanced countries already experience negative population growth due to low birthrate, and the ones that don't require immigration to keep growing.
Of all the major economies, US might be least impacted due to immigration (Japan for example doesn't really allow significant immigration).
Right now, low birthrate in the developed countries can be offset by immigration. But global population will go inverted (ie decline) in the 2080's according to current projections. It's expected to peak around 10B which isn't much more than what we have today (8B).
As countries advance economically people tend to favor birth control and are less inclined to reproduce until later in life, or not at all. Global population *growth* actually peaked in the 1960's and is plummeting for negative terriritory as we speak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...2_revision.png
10-07-2024, 04:29 PM
#578
New Hire
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 6
In a debt based monetary system, you need growth. Without growth, the system breaks.
If you are interested in learning more, I suggest "The Price of Tomorrow" by Jeff Booth.
If you are interested in learning more, I suggest "The Price of Tomorrow" by Jeff Booth.
10-07-2024, 06:39 PM
#579
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,823
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
10-08-2024, 01:10 AM
#580
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2022
Posts: 1,211
Well actually... Japan has a bit of problem, the old will soon outnumber the young.
No strictly saying that population *has* to grow, but it normally has for all of human history (minus a few black swans) and our economic models and ability to care for the elderly has generally relied on that fact. A human ponzi scheme if you will.
There are obvious potential benefits to lower population (basically resources as you said). But some major economic and societal adaptions would have to occur to prevent some seriously bad consequences.
Actually, it looks like we (at least the youngest of us) are going to find out. Many economically advanced countries already experience negative population growth due to low birthrate, and the ones that don't require immigration to keep growing.
Of all the major economies, US might be least impacted due to immigration (Japan for example doesn't really allow significant immigration).
Right now, low birthrate in the developed countries can be offset by immigration. But global population will go inverted (ie decline) in the 2080's according to current projections. It's expected to peak around 10B which isn't much more than what we have today (8B).
As countries advance economically people tend to favor birth control and are less inclined to reproduce until later in life, or not at all. Global population *growth* actually peaked in the 1960's and is plummeting for negative terriritory as we speak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...2_revision.png
No strictly saying that population *has* to grow, but it normally has for all of human history (minus a few black swans) and our economic models and ability to care for the elderly has generally relied on that fact. A human ponzi scheme if you will.
There are obvious potential benefits to lower population (basically resources as you said). But some major economic and societal adaptions would have to occur to prevent some seriously bad consequences.
Actually, it looks like we (at least the youngest of us) are going to find out. Many economically advanced countries already experience negative population growth due to low birthrate, and the ones that don't require immigration to keep growing.
Of all the major economies, US might be least impacted due to immigration (Japan for example doesn't really allow significant immigration).
Right now, low birthrate in the developed countries can be offset by immigration. But global population will go inverted (ie decline) in the 2080's according to current projections. It's expected to peak around 10B which isn't much more than what we have today (8B).
As countries advance economically people tend to favor birth control and are less inclined to reproduce until later in life, or not at all. Global population *growth* actually peaked in the 1960's and is plummeting for negative terriritory as we speak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...2_revision.png
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DLax85
Cargo
11
01-18-2017 07:53 PM
