Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True enough, perhaps, but we are not talking about population control. We are talking about population collapse - the utter collapse of working age population - which will be synonymous with economic collapse. The case was shown in South Korea, but can also be shown in China.
You will not like the world you have wished for. Some countries will, in time, become ungoverned as their governments cease to function. If you think pollution is bad today, you should review the London smog of 1952, when over 4,000 people died.
The world population in 1952 was 2.6B. Clearly, population reduction alone will not do the trick. Your zealotry with regard to conservation may make you feel good, but solves nothing.
Which is utter nonsense. We need a stable, much lower, population. Promoting increased population to subsidize an older population is akin to promoting a Ponzi scheme.
Originally Posted by Listener2307
True enough, perhaps, but we are not talking about population control. We are talking about population collapse - the utter collapse of working age population - which will be synonymous with economic collapse. The case was shown in South Korea, but can also be shown in China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
Which is utter nonsense. We need a stable, much lower, population. Promoting increased population to subsidize an older population is akin to promoting a Ponzi scheme.
I suppose that's true.
But no one is doing that, so where are you going with your point? The population is going to decline no matter what we here on CD forum think about it. As it declines, the working age population will collapse. China will lose 25% of their working age people in 30 years and Korea will lose over half in 50 years. Other countries and regions will follow suite.
So, one way or the other, those who wish for a smaller population will get their wish. I haven't actually noticed anyone who wished for a larger world population, but there may be some out there.
We are, thanks to the contribution of several key posters, starting to get a picture of what this future world of 50 to 100 years will look like and frankly, I am a little concerned. I do not believe it will be a world much like ours at all. Globalization, the world you and I have lived in all our lives, seems to be coming to an end.
What will take its place?.......... That's the discussion worth having.
We are, thanks to the contribution of several key posters, starting to get a picture of what this future world of 50 to 100 years will look like and frankly, I am a little concerned. I do not believe it will be a world much like ours at all. Globalization, the world you and I have lived in all our lives, seems to be coming to an end. What will take its place?.......... That's the discussion worth having.
With the end of globalization, I am going to make the following predictions:
Conspicuous consumption will disappear. There will not be enough workers to produce new versions of smartphones and other electronics on an annual basis. People who are accustomed to trading possessions in for newer models will be disappointed if they can't adapt to the new reality.
Dependence on resources will shift to a local paradigm. Areas without plentiful agrarian resources will shrink dramatically due to a combination of mass starvation and emigration. For example, the populations of middle eastern countries will drop from ten of millions to perhaps tens of thousands.
Technological innovation will slow down dramatically due to less younger people being available to work in the industry coupled with less financial capital available to fund the activities. People will shift back to basic methods as the technological innovation slows down to the point that people cannot envision technological solutions brearing fruit in the short term.
In summary I could see a resurgence / expansion of Amish and other traditional agrarian lifestyles that are based on small communities, peace and harmony. Urbanity based on growth will decay or at best struggle to stay relevant. I think the end result of deglobalization will be pleasant but the transition back to it will be painful.
With the end of globalization, I am going to make the following predictions:
Conspicuous consumption will disappear. There will not be enough workers to produce new versions of smartphones and other electronics on an annual basis. People who are accustomed to trading possessions in for newer models will be disappointed if they can't adapt to the new reality.
Dependence on resources will shift to a local paradigm. Areas without plentiful agrarian resources will shrink dramatically due to a combination of mass starvation and emigration. For example, the populations of middle eastern countries will drop from ten of millions to perhaps tens of thousands.
Technological innovation will slow down dramatically due to less younger people being available to work in the industry coupled with less financial capital available to fund the activities. People will shift back to basic methods as the technological innovation slows down to the point that people cannot envision technological solutions brearing fruit in the short term.
In summary I could see a resurgence / expansion of Amish and other traditional agrarian lifestyles that are based on small communities, peace and harmony. Urbanity based on growth will decay or at best struggle to stay relevant. I think the end result of deglobalization will be pleasant but the transition back to it will be painful.
Well this sounds depressing. Though it does make me wonder if there has ever been a time when humanity went back in terms of mode of living. Seems as though the strategy is to always innovate in order to maintain the current level. Can't imagine things ever getting so bad we return to hunter gather societies for example.
Well this sounds depressing. Though it does make me wonder if there has ever been a time when humanity went back in terms of mode of living. Seems as though the strategy is to always innovate in order to maintain the current level. Can't imagine things ever getting so bad we return to hunter gather societies for example.
I think that innovations will continue, but larger consumer societies will become far less as globalism is diminished and cost of goods increase. There might be more smaller energy efficient housing with multiple generations sharing expenses.
… Though it does make me wonder if there has ever been a time when humanity went back in terms of mode of living. Seems as though the strategy is to always innovate in order to maintain the current level. Can't imagine things ever getting so bad we return to hunter gather societies for example.
Well, the decline of Roman Empire with its civil institutions and democratic values; architecture- marble domes and flooring, plumbing, etc; their agricultural and military power; medicine; the arts and culture - theatre, philosophy, literature, sculptures, etc was followed by the “Dark Ages” -with its indentured population, squalor, dirt floors, illness, illiteracy, draconian restrictions on liberty, the power of religious inquisition etc
We are, thanks to the contribution of several key posters, starting to get a picture of what this future world of 50 to 100 years will look like and frankly, I am a little concerned. I do not believe it will be a world much like ours at all. Globalization, the world you and I have lived in all our lives, seems to be coming to an end.
What will take its place?.......... That's the discussion worth having.
I don't believe that globalization is "coming to an end". A world with jetliners and the internet is fundamentally global, even if some supply-lines are getting re-shored. What does however happen, is that enthusiasm for trans-border interaction, be it trade or immigration or whatnot, ebbs and flows. Right now, we have an inward-looking era. It may last for a few more years, or a generation. But it won't last forever. The truly massive technical projects, such as manned mission to Mars, or useful nuclear fusion at mass-scale, will have to be international.
Now commenting specifically on the video to which you linked on the previous page, I reiterate that the real malady of declining birthrate is the population pyramid and the ratio of workers to retirees, and not smaller number of humans per se. Simply put, too many people are living into extreme old age. The solution isn't gas chambers for the elderly, but to start as a society to prioritize more the interest of kids and young people, rather than the elderly.
For example, coronavirus killed overwhelmingly the old. Yes, there were spectacular examples of 30-year-olds going on ventilators and never coming off of them, save as a corpse. But these are rare. Kids lost out on school, and young adults lost out on opportunities for work or dating, all to keep our elderly alive. This was a mistake. We should never have shut down!
Look also at our healthcare system. Overwhelmingly it prioritizes end-of-life care, trying desperately and at exorbitant cost to extend life by a few months. This too is a mistake. Maybe think about phasing-out Medicare and instead expand free healthcare for kids and young parents, without means-testing?
We've debated much in this thread, how our society makes it harder to have children, through all sorts of dis-incentives and barriers. This is true. But just as true, if not truer, is that our society is becoming a gerontocracy - for the old, of the old, by the old. This needs to change, whether the fertility rate goes down even further, stays the same, or magically rises.
Well, the decline of Roman Empire with its civil institutions and democratic values; architecture- marble domes and flooring, plumbing, etc; their agricultural and military power; medicine; the arts and culture - theatre, philosophy, literature, sculptures, etc was followed by the “Dark Ages” -with its indentured population, squalor, dirt floors, illness, illiteracy, draconian restrictions on liberty, the power of religious inquisition etc
It happens
It does.
The collapse of advanced Bronze Age Mediterranean civilizations in ~ 1177 B.C. was catastrophic. Numerous kingdoms and societies vanished or entered a somber "dark age" for several hundred years.
I don't believe that globalization is "coming to an end". A world with jetliners and the internet is fundamentally global, even if some supply-lines are getting re-shored. What does however happen, is that enthusiasm for trans-border interaction, be it trade or immigration or whatnot, ebbs and flows. Right now, we have an inward-looking era. It may last for a few more years, or a generation. But it won't last forever. The truly massive technical projects, such as manned mission to Mars, or useful nuclear fusion at mass-scale, will have to be international.
Now commenting specifically on the video to which you linked on the previous page, I reiterate that the real malady of declining birthrate is the population pyramid and the ratio of workers to retirees, and not smaller number of humans per se. Simply put, too many people are living into extreme old age. The solution isn't gas chambers for the elderly, but to start as a society to prioritize more the interest of kids and young people, rather than the elderly.
For example, coronavirus killed overwhelmingly the old. Yes, there were spectacular examples of 30-year-olds going on ventilators and never coming off of them, save as a corpse. But these are rare. Kids lost out on school, and young adults lost out on opportunities for work or dating, all to keep our elderly alive. This was a mistake. We should never have shut down!
Look also at our healthcare system. Overwhelmingly it prioritizes end-of-life care, trying desperately and at exorbitant cost to extend life by a few months. This too is a mistake. Maybe think about phasing-out Medicare and instead expand free healthcare for kids and young parents, without means-testing?
We've debated much in this thread, how our society makes it harder to have children, through all sorts of dis-incentives and barriers. This is true. But just as true, if not truer, is that our society is becoming a gerontocracy - for the old, of the old, by the old. This needs to change, whether the fertility rate goes down even further, stays the same, or magically rises.
I can't rep you again, but fantastic post, particularly that last paragraph. Last I googled, the poverty rate was higher for children than for the elderly.
True enough, perhaps, but we are not talking about population control.
We are talking about population collapse - the utter collapse of working age population - which will be synonymous with economic collapse. The case was shown in South Korea, but can also be shown in China.
You will not like the world you have wished for. Some countries will, in time, become ungoverned as their governments cease to function. If you think pollution is bad today, you should review the London smog of 1952, when over 4,000 people died.
The world population in 1952 was 2.6B. Clearly, population reduction alone will not do the trick. Your zealotry with regard to conservation may make you feel good, but solves nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
Which is utter nonsense. We need a stable, much lower, population. Promoting increased population to subsidize an older population is akin to promoting a Ponzi scheme.
Which is what the governments created based on ancient tradition that children are to take care of their parents --- farm, business, family legacy, whatever, for the last thousands of years. Doesn't matter that most children today went, to heck with that noise, I'm doing my own thing.
A person's government retirement is paid by the person's children's taxes, aka ponzi scheme. (social evolution happened and here we are)
So when China looked at the vast majority of aging in their country, they went . Other countries soon followed suit. Some of those countries (that were staunch on immigration) have even changed their immigration laws to allow in more workers who do what? Pay taxes. So as, to help cover the costs of their aging citizens who are going to need care, plus, since there is more of them than their are of young people, the pull on government retirement is going to be strong, with less being put back into it. It's either allow in more migrants or take out bigger loans from foreign countries to help with the domestic costs. People are also living longer ...
Of course you're looking at less people the greater possibility of saving the human habitat. You might be right, however, during Desert Storm (x-husband was in military) thousands of troops were sent to the Middle East ... and with in a few weeks, their crystal blue lakes turned into muddy waters ... wanna guess how that happened? It wasn't from fossil fuels.
Humans are destructive creatures. It doesn't matter if its 2 billion of 'em or 10 billion of 'em ... seriously, it won't matter. No one is going to give up their conveniences to save the planet. And if you're familiar with George Carlin the comedian, 'the planet isn't going anywhere, we are.'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Other countries soon followed suit. Some of those countries (that were staunch on immigration) have even changed their immigration laws to allow in more workers who do what? Pay taxes. So as, to help cover the costs of their aging citizens who are going to need care, plus, since there is more of them than their are of young people, the pull on government retirement is going to be strong, with less being put back into it. It's either allow in more migrants or take out bigger loans from foreign countries to help with the domestic costs. People are also living longer ... 
