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.
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.
Sure, times got difficult, but did their mode living change? I'm no bronze age expert of history buff, but I don't recall the populations reverting to hunter gather societies for example. Just can't see how modern humans will somehow revert to an agrarian society, as the poster appeared to be applying.
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.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
Good thoughts.
Part of the problem is that all - and I think I mean ALL - the economic models in existence depend on growth to make them work out. Can you imagine a Social Security system that works for a shrinking population, because I can't.
Add in the educational systems that steadily lose students, corporations with decreasing revenue, fewer working people, and a government with ever smaller revenue and it looks to me like some countries are in real trouble. There is a portion of my state covering about a dozen counties where some of those conditions exist, (the Mississippi delta region) and it is not a pretty sight. Closed schools, unmaintained road infrastructure and no meaningful jobs.
Those who think, "Population decline. GREAT! That means more for each of us and less pollution! We are saved.", have not really thought out the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
Good thoughts.
ty and I've enjoyed your posts, as well.
Of course they have thought about population decline and those that are beating the overpopulation drum have one thing they want, more resources for themselves. What they haven't realized is that they may have to sacrifice their remaining wallet to obtain those resources, as cost will increase, not decrease.
As you pointed out the education system; may I add that the costs of college is increasing. I bet my bottom dollar it is, because their are fewer students; college have to increase their tuition to cover costs. It should be less students less costs, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Along with countries that are changing their immigration policies, that I mention in my post above, there are several States in the u.s. that have put incentives to their young people, not to move out of State. One incentive is college expenses paid in full, if they will remain in the State and work in that State. (all this can be found documented through google and research)
An issue that I see coming up in the future with the u.s. is --- the number of representatives that because that number is based on enumeration of population, as the population in each State deceases, so will the House Votes. There are a couple of States, California is one that have lost a member seat due to a decline in population. Do I need to remind folks of what happens when States loose the right to enact laws and make changes through votes to those laws, as well as, the right to help decide presidential elections? If so, u.s. history will tell 'em.
Clean air, clean water, less fuel --- really? They are going to have to survive it, to enjoy it.
.........Just can't see how modern humans will somehow revert to an agrarian society, as the poster appeared to be applying.
You know what?..... I don't we we CAN!
In my case, if someone gave me 20 acres and a rifle and told me to raise and shoot what I needed for my family I would quickly starve. If someone gave me a slaughtered pig I would not have a clue what to do.
The settlers of 1880 would, though. They had the skills to work it all out. We, the people of the 21st century, don't.
No, my feeling is that for the most part we will continue our migration toward the cities and coasts where there are jobs and is security, and there we will be forevermore.
But you know the one thing that simply cannot bring itself to evolve and get by on less?.......... Governments. Governments have an insatiable appetite for more of everything. That's why most people say future citizens will be burdened by higher taxes.
You know what?..... I don't we we CAN!
In my case, if someone gave me 20 acres and a rifle and told me to raise and shoot what I needed for my family I would quickly starve. If someone gave me a slaughtered pig I would not have a clue what to do.
The settlers of 1880 would, though. They had the skills to work it all out. We, the people of the 21st century, don't.
No, my feeling is that for the most part we will continue our migration toward the cities and coasts where there are jobs and is security, and there we will be forevermore.
But you know the one thing that simply cannot bring itself to evolve and get by on less?.......... Governments. Governments have an insatiable appetite for more of everything. That's why most people say future citizens will be burdened by higher taxes.
There is a back to nature movement going on right now. I don't know the exact numbers, but there seems to be a trend of families moving out of the cities, and some of them are buying or leasing a few acres and learning homesteading.
Such people tend to have large families; 4-5 is common, and 9-10 is not unheard of. The more hands, the better to get the chores done, and the kids grow up in a much healthier environment.
Urban-steading is also on the increase, motivated by inflation and food insecurity. People are getting chickens and planting veggies everywhere.
So, maybe we're a dying civilization, but there are still signs of life.
I think the issue is more economic decline in the examples you give. Population decline is typically a symptom of declining economy, but isn't the source of misery. In the case of Detroit, if by some circumstance they were able to maintain economic might, then population decline wouldn't have posed many problems. An good argument could made conditions would have improved for the population with less competition for jobs, less traffic, and less pollution.
Detroit and the Midwest overall are/were ailing because there are more compelling places to live. Los Angeles has problems not unlike those of Detroit, but remains thriving and indomitable, because it has advantages of weather, the coast and so on. Thus we should be wary of extrapolating from a local example of decline and failure, to a global one. Even if the world's population were say to halve, I doubt that Los Angeles would get any smaller. But vast areas of the Midwest (and by similar reasoning, the Middle East) might get abandoned entirely.
In a hypothetical scenario of truly massive population collapse - say by a factor of 100 - it is plausible that the remaining humans would coalesce into the well-established cities with good climate and access to resources, such as maritime transportation. A world of 80 million, instead of 8 billion, might still see London or LA with multi-million populations. New Delhi, Lagos or Beijing might however be completely abandoned.
Indeed, cities like Detroit grew from the happenstance, that (1) there was found a local supply of minerals, such as steel or coal, and (2) they were market-towns for vast agricultural areas. As the minerals run out, and agriculture shifts to elsewhere, the rationale for such cities disappears.
My own hope is that market forces, and not national allegiances, come to drive a reshuffling of population in the distant future, of a much-smaller humanity perhaps driven here and there by climate change. Perhaps entire continents will be abandoned, cordoned-off as it were as nature-preserves, as the remainder of humanity huddles into what might be termed human habitation zones.
SS has been examined and re-examined continuously since its inception. Logic may say that it needs to change, but examination and experience has not yet determined process to replacing it in a manner that doesn't hurt the people that are most in need, or those that currently pay into the system. And, any change which threatens the wealthy in any way, no matter how minuscule, is fought tooth and nail.
But right now ss is paid for almost entirely by poor and middle class people to themselves (one can say that employers also pay, but the tax itself is employee based, not just income or earnings based - self employed contract workers must pay their own tax, for example). Wages above $160k (currently) are not taxed, and roughly 15% of workers earn more than 160k. But that top 15% is also receiving 50% of all wages in the US, so that means 50% of wages in the US are not subject to social security taxes. Now, throw in the fact that interest and dividends are not subject to withholding, and its clear that wealthy people are hardly contributing anything at all (as a percentage of income) to the sustainability of the system.
Bottom line is that any system needed to support poorer people, whatever the cause, by definition has to come from those that are less poor.
Certainly it has been examined and re-examined continuously--but not on a clean slate. Instead of continuously 'tweeking' to keep the program solvent via increased payroll taxes or reductions of benefits, ss should be seriously (ignoring political hyperbole/grandstanding) re-examined in such a way as to provide answers to questions like, 'what protections can ss viably offer to future generations as well as current generations, given economic/demographic limitations? What will future workers need to pay for this protection? Should other retirement programs be mandated as well, or left to individual choice? Etc. And by 'seriously,' I mean policy-makers drafting a bipartisan bill.
In other words, ss needs to be re-examined in consideration of whether the current ss program is the most effective and sustainable way of achieving the program's goals, or whether alternative approaches should be considered and enacted. The current form of ss should be slowly pared back to re-focus only on low-wage workers and other government saving programs (perhaps modeled along existing australia/canada/UK programs) put in place to allow all workers/citizens to achieve as much retirement security as possible, as the old world of perpetual growth perhaps recedes.
I'll leave my thoughts there as ss may not be considered relevant to the OP.
Last edited by herringbone; 03-26-2023 at 06:01 AM..
The opening paragraph pretty much confirmed everything the long video did:
Young women start off wanting children, but by the time they get themselves situated to make it so, it is too late. If a woman does not have a child by age 30, the chances she ever will go way down.
According to THIS CHART, South Korea peaked at around 51M with 37M working age, and by 2070 will decline to 37M with 17M working age.
It demonstrates the problem perfectly. The population drops from 51M to 37M. But the working age population plunges - from 37M to 17M in only 50 years.
Working age is 15 to 64 years old. So actual workers will always be less.
Apply this to the world wide population, or even to Chinese population and the results are pretty graphic.
This explains the situation. But why does anyone thing there should always be more young people then older people? If that's always true the population will always grow larger. And that seems to be the argument, that without the population always growing larger, everything will collapse.
What I think is more normal is a sustained population. Not one that is growing or shrinking by large amounts. Like the birds and squirrels. They multiply up to a sustainable point.
The massive world population growth from 1950's must be an anomaly, and who thinks a population of 16, 32, of 64 billion can be sustained in a reasonable manner?
This explains the situation. But why does anyone thing there should always be more young people then older people? If that's always true the population will always grow larger. And that seems to be the argument, that without the population always growing larger, everything will collapse.
What I think is more normal is a sustained population. Not one that is growing or shrinking by large amounts. Like the birds and squirrels. They multiply up to a sustainable point.
The massive world population growth from 1950's must be an anomaly, and who thinks a population of 16, 32, of 64 billion can be sustained in a reasonable manner?
We had stable populations for thousands of years. There have only been two periods of major population growth: the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution. Otherwise population tends to be steady.
Be careful what you wish for. A growing population is a macrocosm of a growing company. What happens at a growing company? New roles open up because of more revenue, more sales, more territory. You're more likely to be promoted and see wage gains. The rising tide lifts all boats.
A steady population leads to a stagnant society. You have to wait your turn to rise in the ranks, and fewer people rise because the number of roles is the same, compared to an expanding society. The social stasis and strictures of the middle ages were not fun for the peasants.
We've discussed the mechanics of the demographic transition, the second-order effects of that on pensions, the environmental angle, the sustainability angle, etc. But I think one nook and cranny of this issue we haven't really mulled over is what living in a no-growth society is like. I imagine it's depressing and limiting for most people.
This explains the situation. But why does anyone thing there should always be more young people then older people? If that's always true the population will always grow larger. And that seems to be the argument, that without the population always growing larger, everything will collapse.
What I think is more normal is a sustained population. Not one that is growing or shrinking by large amounts. Like the birds and squirrels. They multiply up to a sustainable point.
The massive world population growth from 1950's must be an anomaly, and who thinks a population of 16, 32, of 64 billion can be sustained in a reasonable manner?
The problem is the unique nature of humans. In the beginning, women bore as many children as nature allowed - and it was a bunch. Then after 35 years or so they died; we all did.
Now, look at what has happened. Women are bearing a couple of children, but living 80 years. No other animal does that.
In fact, if what I just said was absolutely accurate, we would still die off because (1) only half the children born are girls (2) not all girls live long enough to have children, so scientists tell us the replacement rate is closer to 2.1.
Birds and squirrels pour out children all their lives. With luck, that is 10 years for a squirrel; females have 2 litters per year, so that's about 6. Over 10 years, Mrs Squirrel churns out 60 children.
No one can argue with your sustained population observation. But I don't think "everything" will collapse. I do think globalization will, and fairly quickly, too.
Addressing the population growth of the 50's. We didn't have a birth explosion. What we had was a health explosion! I was born in 1945 and was only expected to live to be around 62. The average woman had over 4 children when I was born; now, it's 1.6 in America. Again, at 1.6 we are destined to completely die off. It's just a matter of calculating the date.
FWIW, I don't find this frightening or even alarming at all. I think it's fascinating and something worth studying. The fact is, we humans are destined to be a much, much smaller race in future years. And it may not take as long as some of us imagine.
This explains the situation. But why does anyone thing there should always be more young people then older people? If that's always true the population will always grow larger. And that seems to be the argument, that without the population always growing larger, everything will collapse.
What I think is more normal is a sustained population. Not one that is growing or shrinking by large amounts. Like the birds and squirrels. They multiply up to a sustainable point.
The massive world population growth from 1950's must be an anomaly, and who thinks a population of 16, 32, of 64 billion can be sustained in a reasonable manner?
Having more younger people than older people during a period of population decline can help sustain the necessary workforce, reduce the burden on social services (contributing more and requiring less), and preserve the tax base/revenue which most governments depend upon in order to maintain a society.
Having more younger people than older people does not always equate to population growth. Birth rates/death rates/immigration rates are factors.
I don't think the argument is necessarily that without the population always growing larger, everything will collapse, I think the argument is-- longer-term, how will a declining population affect modern society and economies that are fueled by growth in population/consumers/investments, etc.
Personally, I believe that the endless pursuit of economic growth has arrived at the point where the costs have begun to outweigh the benefits. It's hard to not believe that is true of the global population as well, come what may.
IIRC some carrying capacity studies put the sustainable number at ~2 billion, and google says we are currently at 8 billion.
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 ... 
