Depopulation: A Threat to Civilization or Just a Phase?

[Moriarte]

The Chinese government is polling the people during the next month, trying to find out what is required to make population grow again. (The thread will update you on results of that poll)

Elon Musk is ringing the bell on his platform for a few years, warning of imminent civilisation collapse, unless We reverse depopulation.

Countless others across the world are sounding the alarm.

I am interested in opinions of our various members on the subject - whether long term depopulation really is a Critical issue or perhaps an overreaction, and we will be just fine maintaining/slowly reducing or slowly increasing the level of population we have today.

Anonymous poll attached to gauge the level of danger we are facing. Votes can be changed.

 

[r16]

the rate of human population growth has been slowing down but it is still positive . The understanding that it is a threat to nations is a different thing . Musk is building up justification for Right Wing stuff within America . China faces India and the politics of the latter will be even harder to ignore for those of us who try to ignore it because of cultural stuff that may come close to Racism bolstered by long time interaction . Syrian immigrants in this country show something like 5 kids per family in contast to 1,7 or 0,7 or whatever and more immigrants are sought stealthily because New Turkey is New Turkey . All will be swept under outright Racism because only 8% of the world is "White" and sometime in the last century that was 35% and just and only and merely and horribly the percentage of "White" kids is just 3 ...

will not be easy to discuss , when it gets there .

 

[Valka D'Ur]

From a Canadian perspective, make it affordable to have kids, and provide meaningful and effective education, recreation, health care, employment opportunities, cut back on pollution, get their noses out of their phone screens so they see the real world...

Kids are necessary to keep the human species going. But who can really afford to have families these days? When will the anti-choicers realize that they're not pro-life if they don't support legislation and programs to enable low-income/single/LGBT parents to actually have and/or raise children.

 

[Narz]

Overall population continues to rise and even at current levels we're wrecking the Earth.

Automation can mitigate the effects of too many old pensioners & encouraging immigration.

"Depopulation" is a silly phrase when we're still on top of the hockey stick. The world is still overpopulated. People who scaremonger about "depopulation" are generally talking about "not enough white/western people".

 

[Moriarte]

get their noses out of their phone screens so they see the real world...

Some schools make students leave their phones in lockers, that's a start.

But then they leave the school and dig back into their devices...

No idea how to solve it.

As a parent I understand that every second I don't do sports/walks/reading/talking/etc with my kids, they will gravitate back towards consuming whatever it is fashionable right now.

A parent problem, imo.

 

[Moriarte]

People who scaremonger about "depopulation" are generally talking about "not enough white/western people"

Perhaps they are also dreaming of paying far lower wages, while getting far more specialists with potential doubling or tripling of world population.

 

[Gorbles]

Both "overpopulation" and "depopulation" are co-opted by various political movements. I don't see either as a cause for concern.

People shouldn't be forced to have kids, or forced to not have them. They should have the social and financial security to make their own choices.

To that end, things like the constant gutting of welfare in developed countries, and the lack of meaningful action on climate change are more likely to impact anyone's decisions r.e. having children, and certainly would give my wife and I pause now if we were considering it (vs. ten years ago when we actually started a family).

And that's without even touching on adoption, and how we should do more for the kids there.

 

[Moriarte]

The world is still overpopulated.

Depends on the region, isn't it? While South East Asia is definitely overpopulated with close to 4 billion people, Russia on the other hand.. Or Canada, Australia. Can sustain at least 10 times the current population.

 

[Narz]

Depends on the region, isn't it? While South East Asia is definitely overpopulated with close to 4 billion people, Russia on the other hand.. Or Canada, Australia. Can sustain at least 10 times the current population.

Even Canada & Australia import most of their goods/energy and much of their food and are overfarming/fishing

 

[Moriarte]

Even Canada & Australia import most of their goods/energy and much of their food and are overfarming/fishing

Well, then Canada/Australia issues are more along the lines of food and energy scarcity, not overpopulation. The inevitable question (which may arise in some heads) following the statement of “overpopulation” is who do we cut off first if the world is, indeed, as you say, overpopulated. What is the limit of population and who sets it? There’s food, energy, shelter and geographical space. If we solve those issues it might be overpopulation will no longer be an issue.

 

[warpus]

Depopulation wouldn't be a problem at all if we retooled our economy and the resources within to work for all people in our respective societies. But nope, we are not going to do it, so it will be a big problem. We are going to hope that a model based on infinite growth that allows extreme income inequality just continues to magically work forever.

Billionaires and multimillionaires will be just fine, but the elderly middle and lower classes will suffer big time. Those who aren't elderly as well, but our pension system was poorly thought out and it's going to face some serious tests.

 

[Farm Boy]

People who scaremonger about "depopulation" are generally talking about "not enough white/western people".

People tend to talk about their own, as that's what registers to them as concerns.

Says more about who you listen to than the greater reality, I'd think.

 

[Kaitzilla]

The Chinese government is polling the people during the next month, trying to find out what is required to make population grow again. (The thread will update you on results of that poll)

I changed my mind after giving it some thought.
Slowly falling populations might be a natural reaction to the world we live in.

How might history have been different if birth control was a thing for several centuries?
Things have always been rather bleak for the majority of humans.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I read the book Braiding Sweetgrass, which is by a woman who is a biology professor but also in touch with her Potawatomi cultural heritage. She weaves together the modern Western scientific viewpoint on and approach to the environment with that of Native Americans, particularly regarding the issue of sustainability.

All through it, I was thinking, "I wonder what population the earth could sustain if we lived according to these principles of sustainability." Late in the book, though in an off-hand way, she gives the answer: one billion. If one in nine of us were gone, we could live sustainably.

Edit: Narz rightly noticed that I meant either "if eight of nine of us were gone" or "if only one in nine of us remained."

I suppose humankind could make that a sort of long-term population target, if humankind were capable of organizing its efforts.

 

[Farm Boy]

One third of a finger snap?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Finger snap three times over.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, if we believe that, then the lack of hope and civility would seem appropriate.

 

[Moriarte]

How might history have been different if birth control was a thing for several centuries?

We likely wouldn't be where we are right now in terms of technological progress and the resulting rise in productivity if we limited births. And since all of us live on borrowed time waiting for the next Chicxulub to wipe us out for good, there is argument to be made that high speed of technological progress at the cost of economic & social instability have been a worthwhile tradeoff. Right now if one of those thousands of large asteroids rotating around our planet assumes an unfortunate trajectory - we are ready to send a DART mission to try save the planet. But if we were going far slower technologically, we wouldn't have made it. I am not sure about this subject at all. I've made this thread in an attempt to make up my mind, finally. On the one hand, the more the merrier - more Einsteins, more progress. But on the other - we have the slums of Africa and India.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Kinda skeptical humans are capable of anything other than pursuing individual status.

If large families further that/they do it. If they don't, no large families.

 

[Zardnaar]

Reality is we are in uncharted waters. If its unsustainable society will collapse or the last 50 odd years will be unsustainable.

And no communism won't solve it. You'll still be short of workers needed to produce the required necessities.

In OECD NZ and USA are comparatively well off. They have options.

Not enough consumers or producers to many old people.

But the welfare states are unsustainable and even if you switched to communism or whatever (and tried to make it work) to many old people vs workers.

So countries with enough young people will gave comparative advantage, countries that don't well look at Japan.

I suspect some countries are past the point of no return at least short term. Drastic solutions could include involuntarily euthanasia of old people and reversing social trends last 50 years combined with massivestate intervention (think FDR).

Logans Run or permanent stagnation or society collapse.

Short term have 3 kids get free house, 2 kids haldf a house, 1 kid deposit. Massive state building programs.