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.
New England has the densest forest cover since colonial times due to the abandonment of agricultural lands.
They have Ag land there? No comparison to the midwest at all.........Again.. No one is taking AG land from production to let it return to habitat or parks...
It's a collective action problem. In fact it's the prisoner's dilemma. Those who act first and act altruistically (have fewer children) are those who lose. Those who act later and act selfishly (have more children) are those who win.
It's not like this is a new idea. People have been dreaming about a return to the "Golden Age" of smaller populations since classical Greece, which was regarded as a "Silver Age" at the time.
The difference now is technology allows first movers to remain competitive. Automation and robotics make declining populations possible without opening yourselves up for invasion by the breeding hordes. That's why only now are we seeing voluntary population declines across the developed world.
They have Ag land there? No comparison to the midwest at all.........Again.. No one is taking AG land from production to let it return to habitat or parks...
New England has a more complex economy than the grain belt, and began moving away from agriculture in the 19th century, first with industry and then services. They are closer to the economic future than the upper Midwest.
I agree the grain belt will remain agricultural for a long time because the costs of growing food there are lowest. I foresee the consolidation of agriculture among agribusiness interests, who in the name of productivity will increase yield per area of land more aggressively than family farms. They will also not have a sentimental attachment to farm life. Eventually hydroponics will outproduce topsoil agriculture.
Japan is often held up as a warning of the dangers of a falling population. However, Japan currently has record low unemployment because of the shrinking labor force, has deflationary property prices unlike most of the developed world, making it easier for young people to start out, and enjoys a prosperous and peaceful society.
What is so wrong with a shrinking population? Japan doesn't sound all that bad right now. The only cogent argument I hear against declining populations is that they will cause the collapse of welfare states. I see that as a positive since the PAYGO nature of welfare states is immoral and environmentally destructive since they depend on constant population growth to function.
We can't grow forever. And in fact life is becoming so stressful and expensive that a lot of people all over the world are choosing smaller families, if they have a family at all. I think the world would be a much better place if the population were cut in half or more. The people who would be born would enjoy more space, nature, inheritance, and parental love.
I'm only going to speak about the USA here:
I disagree with almost all of the benefits you claim here. High property prices are the result of local zoning regulations and US government subsidy of housing.
There is no evidence that kids in larger families experience less parental love.
The desire for more space is your own personnel preference. Some people prefer to live around lots of other people of don't. There are plenty of places to live in the USA where you can have an abundance of space.
I've never heard of people getting more inheritance spoken of as a goal to strive for.
And I disagree that constant population growth is immoral. It clearly is not immoral.
I disagree with almost all of the benefits you claim here. High property prices are the result of local zoning regulations and US government subsidy of housing.
There is no evidence that kids in larger families experience less parental love.
The desire for more space is your own personnel preference. Some people prefer to live around lots of other people of don't. There are plenty of places to live in the USA where you can have an abundance of space.
I've never heard of people getting more inheritance spoken of as a goal to strive for.
And I disagree that constant population growth is immoral. It clearly is not immoral.
The situation in the USA is not bad because we have high productivity and low population density. I think you would have a different outlook if you lived in Bangladesh.
It's a collective action problem. In fact it's the prisoner's dilemma. Those who act first and act altruistically (have fewer children) are those who lose. Those who act later and act selfishly (have more children) are those who win.
It's not like this is a new idea. People have been dreaming about a return to the "Golden Age" of smaller populations since classical Greece, which was regarded as a "Silver Age" at the time.
The difference now is technology allows first movers to remain competitive. Automation and robotics make declining populations possible without opening yourselves up for invasion by the breeding hordes. That's why only now are we seeing voluntary population declines across the developed world.
So the collective action lock has been picked.
It may allow it in advanced nations with a high living standard. The problem is that much of the world is still in poverty, and you're not going to be successful in getting them not to reproduce. Given the exponential nature of reproduction, net population growth is only going down by some cataclysmic and exceedingly violent events. That's not such a great thing for those caught up in it.
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.
