World Population Day

[DarkRange55]

Infographic: Tipping Point: When Populations Peak

This chart shows when selected countries' populations are expected to start declining.

www.statista.com

 

[Downdraft]

Declines are only natural, there's just so many people who can be here. I don't think all declines are bad for a country. Look at India. Overpopulation is a very serious problem that mainly affects those who live there. Sometimes, less population can bring better quality of life, and make problems easier to fix with more modest numbers.

As for the first world, the same thing goes. There isn't enough housing, so people can't afford it and start a family at the same time. Decline isn't a problem on itself, but rather, a response to another one, like lack of resources or too high cost of living. And sometimes, more people will mean higher prices no matter what.

I say we let it decline a bit, in a controlled way. We aren't going anywhere, and we'll have a better canvas, since more resources will be available.

 

[pilotviolin]

im surprised actually at which countries are predicted to decline later than sooner

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

India for sure needs to stop fucking. Hopefully the penny drops before 2065.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

A shrinking worldpopulation is a good thing bc our planet cannot provide for the existing overpopulation anymore.

A shrinking population is mainly a problem to economy and at the end it becomes a financial problem, when not enough money can be generated anymore by young people wage slaving.

 

[DarkRange55]

A shrinking worldpopulation is a good thing bc our planet cannot provide for the existing overpopulation anymore.

A shrinking population is mainly a problem to economy and at the end it becomes a financial problem, when not enough money can be generated anymore by young people wage slaving.

Technological progress can provide a constantly growing economic model that is not dependent on population growth (it also enables population growth).

This is a whole area of research and analysis for the USA and many other countries that I do not know very well. YES, demographics and intergenerational transfers in many different countries with many complex financial and tax issues.

Over the past 50-100 years we've had a massive increase in the global population. We've had massive productively gains with technology and overall the world has been pretty prosperous. A big part of that comes from demographics where you have a population pyramid of more young people supporting not that many old people. You have a huge workforce that is paying payroll taxes (at least in the US) and paying Medicare taxes, ect. And that helps support old people and finance the system. Now birthrates are collapsing globally especially in east Asia and the US. America's population pyramid is all from immigration (we'll see how long that lasts…). But overall we've had an inversion of population pyramids. At least in democracies, the old cohort is going to be a massive voting block and they will continue to vote themselves as many benefits as possible as the younger generations continue to shrink as they don't have as much say in politics. Maybe this will lead to some kind of fascism, I don't know. The whole current financial system is based on population growth, productivity gains and the transfer payments from working individuals to retired individuals. So in 100 years when the population begins to collapse and the taxes are much higher - global stock markets, government debt and taxes to support an aging population globally (this will even come for Africa, too, at some point. They probably have it worse because they have huge birthrates now that will probably reverse), whats going to happen? I imagine its going to be worse - taxes and government debt will be high and the stock market (depending on what is representative of the stock market) may not do as well because you have fewer people working in corporations. The only thing that I think would save us would be some type of new technological revolution which maybe enhances lifestyles or lifespans and makes massive gains in productivity for a shrinking working population. Which is entirely possible. If we don't have massive increases in productivity or reverse this crisis, government finances may be so strained that retirement benefits are cut and maybe the global economy starts to flatten out or decline.

I think you might need to save way more than expected (even with an index strategy), live frugally and work longer than expected (even if its part time)

The social security system is not a savings account. It's a transfer system.


That's really only the economic side. I can go into demographics if there is any interest?

A friend of mine has a phd in demographics and he works for the Canadian government to track diabetes correlation and stuff because thats one of the biggest drains on their healthcare system.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

@DarkRange55 I think, we can say - huge challenges are ahead of humanity. The whole system we humans have created for us became a highly complex artificial thing totally off nature and it's based on "economy & money" an artificial fuel within that system.

What's the demographic POV? Would be interesting to compare.

 

[Ironborn]

Like most things it will balance out.
Another world war is coming and this one will be over resources either raw materials or arable land for farming.
If we don't decide to nuke each other and it remains a conventional war we will see a dramatic drop in population which then leads to a decrease in demand for resources and therefore less tension.
Nuclear weapons are the elephant in the room because you know someone will be petty and spiteful enough to use them if they are backed into a corner and once one nation pulls the trigger others will follow.
Or people could stop having so many kids but you can't say that in polite society or you get showered with abuse.

 

[AbusedInnocent]

A shrinking worldpopulation is a good thing bc our planet cannot provide for the existing overpopulation anymore.

A shrinking population is mainly a problem to economy and at the end it becomes a financial problem, when not enough money can be generated anymore by young people wage slaving.

If the economic system collapses without a constant stream of new wage slaves then the economy is just a pyramid scheme.

You can't have infinite growth on a planet with finite resources.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

If the economic system collapses without a constant stream of new wage slaves then the economy is just a pyramid scheme.

The actual problem is that fewer younger people have to generate the money for a large number of old people who already worked for their retirement - it'll take decades until all old people died and until there is a new balance.

10 working people can easily support 2-3 old people
2-3 working people have to support 10 old people in the future (or already now)

The numbers I've chosen are only symbolic numbers.

Yes currently I would say it's similar to a pyramid scheme, everything needs to grow, growth is everything.

You can't have infinite growth on a planet with finite resources.

That's true! Afaik there is a day calculated every year when we human used all the resources that nature can provide naturally that is about 6 months or less (idk exactly). We live beyond our means. This will inevitably lead to a crash one day.

 

[sserafim]

If the economic system collapses without a constant stream of new wage slaves then the economy is just a pyramid scheme.

That's what it is lol. Society is also a pyramid scheme

 

[untothedepths]

I think people being born less is a very good thing, especially in countries with higher populations. Yet on the flipside, I will still hold people in power/the establishment as accountable as my non-effectual ass can. Especially countries like the USA, spouting about population numbers but doing nothing to incentivize people to have children and help raise them in a good society.

 

[DarkRange55]

Like most things it will balance out.
Another world war is coming and this one will be over resources either raw materials or arable land for farming.
If we don't decide to nuke each other and it remains a conventional war we will see a dramatic drop in population which then leads to a decrease in demand for resources and therefore less tension.
Nuclear weapons are the elephant in the room because you know someone will be petty and spiteful enough to use them if they are backed into a corner and once one nation pulls the trigger others will follow.
Or people could stop having so many kids but you can't say that in polite society or you get showered with abuse.

Probably not. War has become so expensive that before people go to war over a given resource, they will probably find alternatives to that resource (look at the cost of even a "minor" war like Ukraine).
Land could be an exception to that rule, but I suspect that bioengineering is about to usher in another green revolution that will increase the food supply far faster than the population, allowing us to retire some farmland for biodiversity.

More fertile land comes from grasslands than from trees. The Pampas of Argentina, the plains in Ukraine, Saskatchewan, Bread Basket of America. The most fertile places in the world didn't develop under trees. Some did like in France and Scandinavia. But the most fertile was under well-managed grass. And/or, grass dominated where the soil was rich. The great plains are on the topsoil from farther north that got blown there during the ice age.
Grassland is super good for carbon sequestration and climate change if it's managed. So are forests if the soil is built through low-grade fires.

 

[DarkRange55]

@DarkRange55 I think, we can say - huge challenges are ahead of humanity. The whole system we humans have created for us became a highly complex artificial thing totally off nature and it's based on "economy & money" an artificial fuel within that system.

What's the demographic POV? Would be interesting to compare.

Would you agree that: huge challenges are ahead of humanity.

Yes. AI, our own stupidity, and not trashing the planet before we move damaging production to space.

The whole system we humans have created for us became a highly complex artificial thing totally off nature

We still rely a lot on the "natural world" for resources and services.

and it's based on "economy & money" an artificial fuel within that system?

an amplifier of both challenges and solutions...


Not a single all-or-nothing development, but a transition that is well underway in the 2050s. But a technological singularity will happen nonetheless. Artificial general intelligence can certainly help a technological singularity happen but is not a necessary or mandatory condition for my definition of a singularity is when all technological progress goes vertical in the chart. Not vertical (instantaneous), but very steep - faster than our brains can comprehend.

We (humanity plus various AIs) become human-surpassing first (we are already in that transition), before AI on its own does.

And therefore economic progress becomes virtually of infinite speed. Faster than exponential, but still not infinite.


Will followup on demographics.

 

[DarkRange55]

Probably not. War has become so expensive that before people go to war over a given resource, they will probably find alternatives to that resource (look at the cost of even a "minor" war like Ukraine).
Land could be an exception to that rule, but I suspect that bioengineering is about to usher in another green revolution that will increase the food supply far faster than the population, allowing us to retire some farmland for biodiversity.

More fertile land comes from grasslands than from trees. The Pampas of Argentina, the plains in Ukraine, Saskatchewan, Bread Basket of America. The most fertile places in the world didn't develop under trees. Some did like in France and Scandinavia. But the most fertile was under well-managed grass. And/or, grass dominated where the soil was rich. The great plains are on the topsoil from farther north that got blown there during the ice age.
Grassland is super good for carbon sequestration and climate change if it's managed. So are forests if the soil is built through low-grade fires.

To add to this - The king of all forages is generally considered to be corn. It's the highest yield tonnage per acre or hectares of any crop in most of the world. You can't grow corn everywhere. It's difficult in Iceland with a lack of BTU's. Whats special about the US is you have super fertile soils like in Illinois, the most fertile in the world really, but you have super hot summers. So you can grow corn, the king by tonnage. Really sugarcane is but it's not as useful corn. Corn is super high in starch so you can feed chickens or pigs or humans. Corn is high for starch/acre, but potatoes beat corn. Corn also is good for fattening animals (including humans), but is missing many nutrients. But the queen of all forages, Louis Bromfield, one of the earliest pioneers of sustainable and organic farming, he said the queen is alfalfa. It's got 15 foot tap roots sometimes and it pulls up minerals. Alfalfa has much of what corn is missing, and it builds the soil (whereas corn depletes soil).

 

[DarkRange55]

To add to this - The king of all forages is generally considered to be corn. It's the highest yield tonnage per acre or hectares of any crop in most of the world. You can't grow corn everywhere. It's difficult in Iceland with a lack of BTU's. Whats special about the US is you have super fertile soils like in Illinois, the most fertile in the world really, but you have super hot summers. So you can grow corn, the king by tonnage. Really sugarcane is but it's not as useful corn. Corn is super high in starch so you can feed chickens or pigs or humans. Corn is high for starch/acre, but potatoes beat corn. Corn also is good for fattening animals (including humans), but is missing many nutrients. But the queen of all forages, Louis Bromfield, one of the earliest pioneers of sustainable and organic farming, he said the queen is alfalfa. It's got 15 foot tap roots sometimes and it pulls up minerals. Alfalfa has much of what corn is missing, and it builds the soil (whereas corn depletes soil).

But to be fair, for historical context:
Hitler had a 50 year plan Lebensraum - Hitler wanted more room. He wanted Ukraine, Romania, farmland to grow the German Third Reich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

China has, for decades, been dealing with systemic pollution. Through irrigation you can create salinization of the soil, which is basically salt rises. Especially in central and western China.


CNNhttps://www.cnn.com › asia › chin...Oil spill off China coast now the size of Paris

Just 3 percent of the water in Shanghai is clean enough to drink or use for aquaculture
Fresh Water for Shanghai

More than 70% of China's reservoirs and lakes are polluted beyond whats safe for human consumption.
https://www.uvm.edu › com...China wakes up to its water crisis More than 70 per cent of China's rivers and lakes are ...

1/3 of native fish species in the Yellow River are extinct. According to a 2007 announcement by Chinese officials.
The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com › jan30% of Yellow river fish species extinct | China

Less than half of China's rivers remain since 1950.
Why did 28,000 rivers in China suddenly disappear? - The Verge


According to the Chinese government, they are forecast to have water shortages by 2030.

https://thediplomat.com/2022/12/chinas-five-year-national-water-security-plan/

China is home to hundreds of cancer villages according to Chinese media, academics and NGO estimates.

qz.comqz.comChina now has up to 400 "cancer villages," and the government only just admitted it

Scientists have said that air pollution and some places in China has been so bad, its effect is like a nuclearwinter affecting plants ability to grow.

The Weekhttps://theweek.com › world-newsBeijing air pollution like a 'nuclear winter', scientists say