The population bomb seems unavoidable

[UnseenParticipant]

Experts like Paul Erlitz warned of a social collapse due to overpopulation. It was referred to as the “population bomb.”

As it is turning out, we are staring at a population bomb looming over the horizon, but it’s not an overpopulation bomb. Quite the opposite, actually. It seems likely that the world population—especially in the more affluent countries—will drop below a maintenance level.

In short, we simply aren’t having babies at even a maintenance level while people are living longer. And then what happens is not pretty to think about.

Population collapse.

Ironically, one of the major causes is the improving prospects for women. Equally, one of the major solutions (for the U.S., anyway) is immigration.

[—Participant]

Declining population is, to some extent, an imaginary issue. Even if we look at Japan, halving or even quartering the population would still leave the Japanese people far from endangered in terms of numbers. The problem is that our economies don’t work when they become too top heavy with regard to age.

But do we need our current economies to work the way they do? We don’t. We absolutely. Fucking. Don’t. It’s a system where nearly everyone needs to work (or be in the care of someone who works) to make money, but we don’t actually need everyone to work. We end up doing jobs that either don’t actually need to be done or really ought not to be done. We overproduce the strangest things. We absolutely could cut labour dramatically and still manage to have what we need and then some. But that would require a) more cooperation than we’re used to, and b) upsetting current power structures reinforced by our current economic systems. And because we won’t do either, people suffer and even die.

Granted, if the population halved in, let’s say, a generation or two, that would be pretty rough. Japan’s birthrate is sitting at round 1.26 so without immigration, it would be a strain for younger generations to adapt that quickly. China’s one child policy highlighted how troubling such rapid decline can be. But decline, in general, is not necessarily bad. At least not at present population figures.

[UnseenParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

We absolutely could cut labour dramatically and still manage to have what we need and then some. But that would require a) more cooperation than we’re used to, and b) upsetting current power structures reinforced by our current economic systems. And because we won’t do either, people suffer and even die.

Two things I think even you would have to admit are not at the top of the list of things which are likely to happen.

[—Participant]

Which is the source of much of my apathy regarding political and economic affairs these days. We’re going to keep propping up a broken system pretending like it adds up when it doesn’t. Working within it is like deciding if you want death by hanging or death by guillotine. It seems collectively humans would rather embrace a familiar agony than face the uncertainty and instability change brings. On the bright side, we have more creature comforts than ever, so it’s a very cushy decline for the time being.

[UnseenParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

Which is the source of much of my apathy regarding political and economic affairs these days. We’re going to keep propping up a broken system pretending like it adds up when it doesn’t. Working within it is like deciding if you want death by hanging or death by guillotine. It seems collectively humans would rather embrace a familiar agony than face the uncertainty and instability change brings. On the bright side, we have more creature comforts than ever, so it’s a very cushy decline for the time being.

Well said.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Why the world population won’t exceed 11 billion.

[UnseenParticipant]

It’s easy to understand why the affluent West is below replacement level, but now even the Third World is below replacement level…and there’s no end in sight.

In the affluent west, the population explosion we have been experiencing, and which we’re still in now, it was driven primarily by a general increase in health and health care. Affluent urban people who don’t need children the way the poor and agrarian populations do, have been deciding to have fewer or even no children.

The result has become a kind of population Ponzi scheme, banking on help that was once coming from the future but no longer will be.

The result, however, is a kind of Ponzi scheme.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen and Fellow Unbelievers,

Paul Uhrlich was not only wrong on The Population Bomb, but even more wrong on the effect of population growth on resources.

The only one who lost resources at the time of The Population Bomb was Uhrlich when he famously made a losing wager with Julian Simon on Earth’s resources.

Basically, everything in the Natural Universe is just Energy and it’s slowed down form of Matter. These become resources when humans apply rational thought and effort to them and use them for human life and flourishing.

And with population hitting a plateau and AI entering the scene to possibly contribute independent thoughts and efforts, there well may be even more resources to spare and more to discover.

As long as humans (and other rational beings) are free to think and work and enjoy the fruits of their labor, resources are never a problem for long and wealth can be as infinite as the mind.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling

[Author]

Posts