Depopulation: A Threat to Civilization or Just a Phase?

[warpus]

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

Depends on the culture and how you bring people up. Scandinavian cultures for instance focus on the group rather than the individual. That's not to say you could use these dynamics to influence how many kids they have, but it's proof that not all humans always focus on the individual.

 

[Farm Boy]

Machines are the only answer.

Your daily cornbread calories already cost 8.5 cents a day at current goings in the US. Not much more ground to be gained eradicating the rest of that class.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hmm, I would put it more as a lack of naive optimism about the future and a much harder world to live in than the one that was promised.

I was reading a biography of Ben Franklin & in early America people were having 8 kids, 10 kids, even 20 kids. That's part of how colonies were able to defeat the British, huge numbers.

Kids weren't considered a burden because they weren't, they were useful to the household. Modern culture treats kids as a nuisance that must be kept entertained and in their own world. Parents, children & grandparents are all in their own atomized universes.

I don't know about 'devaluing of human life and achievement' as much as life feeling shallow & kind of pointless for many people and being able to share a rich culture, community, values & inspiration for the future with one's kids is... well not something most people feel IMO (obviously I don't know how people feel but that's my impression).

Of course devaluing human life is fun & popular, the Bill Burr clip does a lot of that, but humans lowering self-esteem is not without cause. It's impossible to look @ the hubris of people from say the 1950's and not shake one's head. Watching Burr or George Carlin muse about how stupid the masses are isn't wrong, I would try to be an optimist and say tho that things are set up for people to be dumb/self-absorbed/ill-informed & that it doesn't have to be that way (but that corporations have us set up to be distracted & not particular capable of revolutionary changes), even this forum & my post at present could be said to be an example of that, I'd probably be better off trying to organize something in my physical community than opine flaccidly about global affairs but that would be difficult and I'd have to rally others who would be as tempted as me by their own distractions).


Absolutely, right now 'climate change' is thrown around without the layman (including me) really understanding it very well. Granted it's hard to put hard numbers on something that's in process but I think a more nuanced understanding of what it is, what we can & cannot do about it would help.

Altho I think the main problem is people don't trust government to actually do things about it. And why should they? People been giving lip service to solving environmental problems for half a century with minimal progress (a few electric cars, LED bulbs, not enough).


The depressing reality of modern society has already incentivizing people not to breed, that's what the thread is about. AFAIK the only country that has incentivized the opposite was China and that was some time ago.


The end of the century is a long way off & our global ecosystem is already pretty well f-ed (whether it can be 'fixed' is still unknown). 12 billion people dealing with converging global catastrophes is more complicated than 8 billion dealing with them.


Which political movement?

I notice the reverse of what you say, people who are pro-morebabies tend to be mostly be afraid of white extinction and similar nonsense. People who worry about overpopulation are environmentalist types who see the world as a whole ecosystem rather than being patriotic.

If you search 'Depopulation agenda' it's all right-wingnut fearmongering.

That's not really anything to do w sustainability just xenophobia.

But it's not surprising people are getting more nationalistic. Even people who ostensibly deny climate change probably in the back of their minds know they're wrong & it, along with geopolitical instability is gonna make migration orders of magnitude worse than it is today.

No easy answers.

It's starting to get talked about outside far right replacement conspiracy nonsense. That's mostly USA and the USA doesn't have the same problems as say Italy.

Ultimately it's a self correcting problem. Thise societies will fail or fall apart and be replaced if things are bad enough.

 

[Zardnaar]

Your daily cornbread calories already cost 8.5 cents a day at current goings in the US. Not much more ground to be gained eradicating the rest of that class.

That and machines required exceed our capabilities. We don't have Star Wars Droids.

Traditional right, left and communism don't have the answers anyway.

Think we need sone FDR type thinking combined with some right wing stick and social contract with urban and rural areas.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hmm, I would put it more as a lack of naive optimism about the future and a much harder world to live in than the one that was promised.

Skill issue

Which political movement?

I live in Australia and there is a strong undercurrent of what I will label "green xenophobia". There's a minor party (Sustainable Australia) that most loudly advocates for this, but it's pretty much a single issue party, so it only gets votes from the hardcore. The vibe is "soft" green xenophobia is quite a widespread view even if it's not electorally well-represented. The major political parties Labor and Liberal are pro-(strictly controlled) immigration for economic reasons and the third largest party the Greens used to have a "sustainable population" platform but lately it's more of a socially-progressive/woke party that less tolerates that kind of thing openly.

 

[Narz]

Skill issue

What do you mean?

 

[amadeus]

I would be on the robot side of the debate, not having read the thread. Anyway, capital is the key: if the total amount of productivity can raise to sustain a population even in decline, then it wouldn’t need to fundamentally change its demographic character by importing foreign labor to serve as permanent underclass.

 

[Angst]

very early in the morning, i'll try and phrase this as best as i can.

it's a minor issue since it may actually have repercussions down the line, but most of the problems with it are artificial.

so of course, it's not good for a society to not reproduce enough to sustain its own population combined with an aging population. that's kind of a given. but most of the panicking about it are people that refuse to utilize the alleviation or explicit solutions currently presented to us on a silver platter.

for one, sure, we need workers, and workers need to be at a certain age to sustain society. but mind you that even with a decline of birthrate, we produce more than ever due to automatization. this is because of a hilarious tendency we have, that whenever we make production more efficient, we cut off workers from the system and concentrate the resulting profit among the capital owners. when a factory gets a new machine, workers get fired and cut off instead of increasing production. if/when language models become more efficient and make it possible to increase production among the communications sector, instead of increasing their production capability, we fire them. the fired people receive no direct benefits from the increase in tech. so we have more than enough wealth gain with each innovation, but it's used to enfranchize poverty and not allocate resources in a way that make demographic sense. we currently produce more than ever, and i think it's incredibly strange that it means resources get more entrenched.

but anyways, so ok, let's embrace that system. then, speaking coldly, there are plenty of people who would LOVE to work and keep the economy afloat in countries with aging populations, but they are kept out because of ingroup-outgroup dynamics. europe lets piles of workforces drown in the mediterranean because their melanin is vaguely spooky.

both of these issues aren't really innate to an aging population, but are issues to capitalism and, bluntly, racism. we have options right there, but capital rights are sacred even if they're applied in inefficient if not stupid ways, and foreigners, of which there are plenty who literally die for the option to work for us, are scary and shouldn't help it. the intersection is why it's mostly the right that talks about these things, because they sure do love capitalism, and they sure do keep foreigners out. most birthrate anxiety is not about birthrate, but because it's spooky that there ain't enough white babies.

 

[Zardnaar]

very early in the morning, i'll try and phrase this as best as i can.

it's a minor issue since it may actually have repercussions down the line, but most of the problems with it are artificial.

so of course, it's not good for a society to not reproduce enough to sustain its own population combined with an aging population. that's kind of a given. but most of the panicking about it are people that refuse to utilize the alleviation or explicit solutions currently presented to us on a silver platter.

for one, sure, we need workers, and workers need to be at a certain age to sustain society. but mind you that even with a decline of birthrate, we produce more than ever due to automatization. this is because of a hilarious tendency we have, that whenever we make production more efficient, we cut off workers from the system and concentrate the resulting profit among the capital owners. when a factory gets a new machine, workers get fired and cut off instead of increasing production. if/when language models become more efficient and make it possible to increase production among the communications sector, instead of increasing their production capability, we fire them. the fired people receive no direct benefits from the increase in tech. so we have more than enough wealth gain with each innovation, but it's used to enfranchize poverty and not allocate resources in a way that make demographic sense. we currently produce more than ever, and i think it's incredibly strange that it means resources get more entrenched.

but anyways, so ok, let's embrace that system. then, speaking coldly, there are plenty of people who would LOVE to work and keep the economy afloat in countries with aging populations, but they are kept out because of ingroup-outgroup dynamics. europe lets piles of workforces drown in the mediterranean because their melanin is vaguely spooky.

both of these issues aren't really innate to an aging population, but are issues to capitalism and, bluntly, racism. we have options right there, but capital rights are sacred even if they're applied in inefficient if not stupid ways, and foreigners, of which there are plenty who literally die for the option to work for us, are scary and shouldn't help it. the intersection is why it's mostly the right that talks about these things, because they sure do love capitalism, and they sure do keep foreigners out. most birthrate anxiety is not about birthrate, but because it's spooky that there ain't enough white babies.

Erm it's become a thing in China, Japan, South Korea.

We're in uncharted territory.

 

[Narz]

I would be on the robot side of the debate, not having read the thread. Anyway, capital is the key: if the total amount of productivity can raise to sustain a population even in decline, then it wouldn’t need to fundamentally change its demographic character by importing foreign labor to serve as permanent underclass.

That's already what's happened over last 300 years, technology has allowed us to be more comfortable (physically, emotionally/mentally that's for a different thread) without the amount of human labor (underclass, servants, slaves, etc)

If AI lives up to even 10% of it's hype that's what will continue to happen.

As I've said before the problems due to current human consumption and waste are actual whereas the problems due to 'population collapse' are speculative (as again population is currently not collapsing its increasing)

 

[Thrasybulos]

We're already waaay past the overpopulation threshold, so "depopulation" is not a cause for concern, it's a necessity and a boon.

Unfortunately... we don't have a matching economic system.
Our economies need constant "growth" (including demographically) to work (which is obviously unsustainable but that's always an issue for "later").

So while "depopulation" is great news for life on the planet, and our long-term survival as a species... it's not so great news for our civilization.

 

[Narz]

very early in the morning, i'll try and phrase this as best as i can.

it's a minor issue since it may actually have repercussions down the line, but most of the problems with it are artificial.

so of course, it's not good for a society to not reproduce enough to sustain its own population combined with an aging population. that's kind of a given. but most of the panicking about it are people that refuse to utilize the alleviation or explicit solutions currently presented to us on a silver platter.

for one, sure, we need workers, and workers need to be at a certain age to sustain society. but mind you that even with a decline of birthrate, we produce more than ever due to automatization. this is because of a hilarious tendency we have, that whenever we make production more efficient, we cut off workers from the system and concentrate the resulting profit among the capital owners. when a factory gets a new machine, workers get fired and cut off instead of increasing production. if/when language models become more efficient and make it possible to increase production among the communications sector, instead of increasing their production capability, we fire them. the fired people receive no direct benefits from the increase in tech. so we have more than enough wealth gain with each innovation, but it's used to enfranchize poverty and not allocate resources in a way that make demographic sense. we currently produce more than ever, and i think it's incredibly strange that it means resources get more entrenched.

but anyways, so ok, let's embrace that system. then, speaking coldly, there are plenty of people who would LOVE to work and keep the economy afloat in countries with aging populations, but they are kept out because of ingroup-outgroup dynamics. europe lets piles of workforces drown in the mediterranean because their melanin is vaguely spooky.

both of these issues aren't really innate to an aging population, but are issues to capitalism and, bluntly, racism. we have options right there, but capital rights are sacred even if they're applied in inefficient if not stupid ways, and foreigners, of which there are plenty who literally die for the option to work for us, are scary and shouldn't help it. the intersection is why it's mostly the right that talks about these things, because they sure do love capitalism, and they sure do keep foreigners out. most birthrate anxiety is not about birthrate, but because it's spooky that there ain't enough white babies.

Pretty much yeah altho I'd not single out capitalism as pretty much every world government happy to consolidate wealth for itself and allied corporate interests.

Erm it's become a thing in China, Japan, South Korea.

We're in uncharted territory.

Japan and China just need more foreign workers.

And S Korea has neighbors who would literally risk death to work there (obviously that situation is pretty complicated)

 

[Zardnaar]

Pretty much yeah.


Japan and China just need more foreign workers.

And S Korea has neighbors who would literally risk death to work there (obviously that situation is pretty complicated)

There's not enough global workers to go around. Not many want to live in China either.

Ignoring things like integrating them.

 

[Narz]

There's not enough global workers to go around. Not many want to live in China either.

Ignoring things like integrating them.

I'm sure hundreds of millions of Africans, Indians, pakistanis, Philipinos(as) etc would be happy to have opportunities to work in China, shoot even Americans and other anglos in poverty likely would.

Integration it's an issue, for sure. One we're gonna have to solve one way or another eventually so may as well get cracking.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm sure hundreds of millions of Africans, Indians, pakistanis, Philipinos(as) etc would be happy to have opportunities to work in China, shoot even Americans and other anglos in poverty likely would.

Integration it's an issue, for sure. One we're gonna have to solve one way or another eventually so may as well get cracking.

Easier said than done.

 

[Ordnael]

europe lets piles of workforces drown in the mediterranean because their melanin is vaguely spooky.

Wow!
Melanin is the problem...I was blind but now I can see!...BTW there are riots now in Lisbon...those damn Swiss immigrants are at it again!

 

[Angst]

Wow!
Melanin is the problem...I was blind but now I can see!...BTW there are riots now in Lisbon...those damn Swiss immigrants are at it again!

i have no idea what you're talking about unless you misunderstood what i was talking about. care to elaborate/inquire about what i meant?

 

[Ordnael]

Here!? No!

 

[Voidwalkin]

then, speaking coldly, there are plenty of people who would LOVE to work and keep the economy afloat in countries with aging populations, but they are kept out because of ingroup-outgroup dynamics. europe lets piles of workforces drown in the mediterranean because their melanin is vaguely spooky

I know of few historical examples of large-scale demographic change without some level of instability.

It's worth pointing out that said instability will manifest in wildly different ways. Some subtle, others obvious. The paths walked down could conceivably become wildly violent very quickly, and that this would occur in the nuclear age.

Alter expectations of what capitalism should provide the people, via regulation, is a much easier sell. I increasingly think immigration as a solution has consequences leading down a poor path. The people here in the USA seem to be more open to it than Europe, which is itself far more open to it than what I estimate East Asia to be willing to conceive. Nevertheless, Trump is up a point in nearly all battleground states with less than a fortnight to go.

When the people reject large-scale immigration, they also usually reject the left, the whole package, the side most willing to redefine what capitalism should provide and how the surplus of automation is divided. The right will drive towards failure, unable to sustain growth long-term, or alter the system, but the left may be powerless to stop that in democratic systems if the majority won't invest in their leadership.

 

[Samson]

It seems to me that the relationship between productivity and age dependency ratio is not talked about enough. Given a constant efficiency of society as long as productivity is going up faster than age dependency ratio then there should be no problem, surely?

Because when we stop having kids the age dependency ratio goes down before it goes up it has not changed much yet:



But productivity goes up all the time:

Spoiler More Charts :