Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
If you could just do a "Thanos snap" and wipe out half the Earth's population, it would be good for the planet, and the economy would fairly quickly recover from the initial dislocation. Similar to how there was a rapid economic expansion following the end of the Black Plague in Europe.
The problem is population decline doesn't work that way. Instead we'll have generation after generation which is smaller than the one which came before, which means large numbers of feeble, frail old people being supported by relatively few working-age adults.
|
Hold on, as someone with an expertise in wildlife populations, you actually have this backwards.
I'll grant that humans will be a different case in some measure........
But in fact the way population normally cycles in a species is that if the prey is decimated by disease/drought etc. then the predator also suffers for lack of food. (ie. population is resource limited)
Following logically, the predator species decreases in number, by way of death and lower rates of reproduction; as well it permits more growth of food stocks for the prey, which then allow the prey species to multiply.
As humans, this applies in the following ways. Fewer people makes labour more scarce; it therefore forces wages up.
But it also means real estate and food prices decline as demand wanes from population decrease.
The result creates a balance in which supporting a family is easier; on fewer working hours, or a single-income, etc etc.
This nihilist notion that if we don't have eternal population growth the species will spontaneous die out is not born out by any evidence at all.
*****
Quote:
In addition, capitalism basically doesn't work in a world with a shrinking population. If population is shrinking, the overall size of the economy probably is too, which means that most investments do not get a positive return, as the market for almost any product you can imagine is shrinking rather than growing with time.
|
Again, not correct. I don't mean this unkindly. But you misunderstand how capitalism works.
All value is not lost.
Value is transferred.
In a shrinking population, people are the asset, goods are not.
You invest in people, not goods.
You get a positive R.O.I.
Its a shift, not an end.
****
Quote:
First, there is no instinctive human drive to reproduce.
|
Uh...have you met many straight women, especially over the age of 30?
The biological desire to have children is there, quite distinct from having sex.
The issue for women or men on an individual basis is setting up the incentive and disincentive structure in a way that promotes a status-quo population size; once we reach an optimal level.
Something I would argue is a lower number than we are at today as a species.
Given than in countries with family-friendly, progressive policies we are only slightly below replacement rate (1.9'ish); I expect that is achievable with a shorter work week.
Something that should be taking shape now w/automation.
But which as been delayed by artificially cheap labour.