Alas, Poor Thanos

[Kowani]

Shrug. Start automating the economy, decommodify the necessities of life.

[Rusozak]

Good. Overpopulation is going to be a very serious problem in the coming decades, and a natural slow down in population growth is preferable to manual population control.

[Major-Tom]

This is concerning. Yes, we should strive to avoid overpopulation, yes, the idea that we're gonna shrink is at least sort of good news for the environment, for land usage, for all the other problems that stem from overpopulation etc.

But the biggest problem, and this is going to be especially difficult in developed and nearly developed countries, is how we're going to take care of all the old folks. The paradox of a shrinking population is that the proportion of a populace that is old is going to increase dramatically, and I reckon most of us on this forum are going to be part of that majority old-age population in 50-odd years.

What then, of generous old age pensions? Of social security and similar programs worldwide? The retirement age? It could be disastrous for governments to deal with, and I can't think of a silver bullet to this problem.

[Saiwania]

What then, of generous old age pensions? Of social security and similar programs worldwide? The retirement age? It could be disastrous for governments to deal with, and I can't think of a silver bullet to this problem.

It is quite an easy fix in my mind. Have the elders take care of themselves with any money/assets that they accrued over their lifespan. If they run out or don't have any, they have to go back into the workforce or find a way of earning income regardless of how bad of an uphill or impossible climb that is. This is just how life typically is and probably always will be. If they're truly doomed, then let it happen. We shouldn't be focused on reducing mortality for the old aged anymore. I myself, can't ever expect any retirement unless I somehow became rich quick.

Pensions and social security programs should discontinue if it isn't financially viable anymore. People in general should be encouraged to never retire or to fund their own retirement. If someone owns real estate, I'd recommend that they turn some of it into a rental to get cash flow.

[Punished UMN]

At least in the West we're past the era of governments taking deliberate action with a long term plan. We are run by vapid PR-merchants, not visionaries.

Relevant:

[Senkaku]

Title is confusing, was worried Thanos had been cancelled, pls change

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So let me get this straight. Before people were aware of declining birth rates, people who disputed the narrative that high birth rates were bad for the environment met it not with a rebuttal, but with a request for those invoking it to kill themselves.

Now that people are aware they're declining, now they're trying to refute the narrative that people are bad for the environment? Why didn't they do so sooner? Do they have any idea how many more people would've procreated if not for green guilt holding them back? Or how much less green guilt there would be if the people making the case against it were more convincing and trustworthy?

Yeah. The very people who think this is a bad thing have no one to blame but themselves for it getting to this point.

So let's turn to people of better judgment on what to do about it, which means "recruit young immigrants to replace the kids we're not having;" a solution whose opponents, for the most part, exhibited the behaviour pattern outlined in the first paragraph. On top of that, it'd save money by not requiring us to pay for 13 years' worth of K-12 education.

[Valrifell]

Personally, no amount of money from the government could convince me to have kids, I literally wouldn't even consider it for a million dollars, so when it comes to people like me there's really no incentive that will work, and there are apparently a lot more people like me out there so I don't know what they're going to do about it.

This.

Like, not even consider it? I mean, the process is fun enough and a million dollars is a million dollars...

[Diopolis]

This.

Like, not even consider it? I mean, the process is fun enough and a million dollars is a million dollars...

Yeah, what's with the flood of people declaring how dead-set against having kids they are?

[Saiwania]

Yeah, what's with the flood of people declaring how dead-set against having kids they are?

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Chances are most people who don't want kids can't get someone to reproduce with to begin with (because they're too incel/incapable) or they have money but they don't want it jeopardized because having kids will financially harm them. The daycare and etc. costs cramp too many people's preferred lifestyle these days.

Personally, no amount of money from the government could convince me to have kids, I literally wouldn't even consider it for a million dollars, so when it comes to people like me there's really no incentive that will work, and there are apparently a lot more people like me out there so I don't know what they're going to do about it.

It has never been done before in history to my knowledge, but if it does happen- I could see China maybe trying this at a later date. If China has forcibly sterilized and given abortions to women on a mass scale, why not attempt exactly the opposite if China is ever in want of a population boom? The people of China are just state resources from that regime's perspective. There is no doubt in my mind that they'll do drastic measures other countries perhaps wouldn't.

[Forsher]

You might be interested to know, if you do not already, that the viability of combating collapsing fertility and the subsequent problems of population aging with replacement migration is also not backed up by data (something I planned to make my own thread about, but alas, I have a life and it will have to wait, I guess):

Beaujot, Roderic (2003): "Effect of Immigration on the Canadian Population: Replacement Migration?"
Coleman, D.A. (2002): "Replacement migration, or why everyone is going to have to live in Korea: a fable for our times from the United Nations."
Lutz, Wolfgang; et al (2019): "Demographic Scenarios for the EU"

Essentially, people like Nevertopia here, whose response to population decline and aging is just "immigration will take care of that", don't know what they're talking about.

Quite.

I was going to make this point myself but the only reference I have myself is in a physical book in my room. I was in the lounge when I replied to our mutual friend and couldn't be arsed finding the book and then finding the page when at the end of the day all I'd really be able to say is "trust me, I have this book that says". I had hoped that I'd quoted it earlier but this turned out to either not be the case or I used very non-obvious keywords. For the curious the books is called "Going Places: Migration, Economics and the Future of New Zealand" by Julie Fry and Hayden Glass.

So let me get this straight. Before people were aware of declining birth rates,

This is not news. You were told it was not news two years ago when you made a thread about it (which I found while trying to see if I'd quoted the book). Technically, even before you made the thread.

people who disputed the narrative that high birth rates were bad for the environment met it not with a rebuttal, but with a request for those invoking it to kill themselves.

Now that people are aware they're declining, now they're trying to refute the narrative that people are bad for the environment? Why didn't they do so sooner? Do they have any idea how many more people would've procreated if not for green guilt holding them back? Or how much less green guilt there would be if the people making the case against it were more convincing and trustworthy?

Yeah. The very people who think this is a bad thing have no one to blame but themselves for it getting to this point.

Who are these people?

And has green guilt really created a well known pattern of declining fertility that stretches back decades?

So let's turn to people of better judgment on what to do about it, which means "recruit young immigrants to replace the kids we're not having;" a solution whose opponents, for the most part, exhibited the behaviour pattern outlined in the first paragraph. On top of that, it'd save money by not requiring us to pay for 13 years' worth of K-12 education.

It's really quite incredibly difficult to follow what you mean in this post.

Will increasing the number of young people really help that much? I mean, with automation being a thing. At least here in my country (which I'm still not sure if it's a good idea or not), we're still trying to reduce population growth. Less kids means more resources per kids, a critical policy to adopt as according to the 21st century, 2 well-educated city kids are significantly more valuable than 7 unskilled peasants.

Really, the "problem" with old retired people is their loss of productivity, making them no more than a "burden" in the eyes of the global economic system. (And let's not forget that this "old people" is actually "ourselves", as we're talking about the future). The obvious solution would be to end aging, but the path to that is very uncertain.

It depends what's automated and how. At the moment the jobs that look least likely to be automated are those in the "contact service" sector. That is, roles where physical/human to human contact is valuable. This is also a major growth sector because of increasing numbers of elderly people who are the major/primary consumers of these services.

The loss of productivity isn't really the problem... well, obviously it is a problem (taxes make the world go round) but that there's going to be a bunch of old people and seemingly no tax base to support them. And DI's point about asset based welfare also has the further problem... selling property to fund your retirement requires stable and probably increasing property values, which sort of requires people who will actually buy them. Share markets might run on animal spirits, but real estate definitely requires real people eventually and that's where population dynamics come in. So, the question now becomes... do we want hordes of elderly people we can't, as a society, pay for? Or are we going to start seriously thinking about compulsory euthanasia?

I guess you could just legislate that robots have to be paid human salaries with half going to the government and the other half is dedicated to R&D, but we're a long way from iRobot style automation where robots could do those contact service roles (there's some jargon to describe this part of the sector which I've forgotten... might try and find it later on today).

Like a lot of this is really about trying to have the cake and eat it too... i.e. feeling like you've made your kids' lives better (that 2 city kids thing) without also worrying that your kids or, possibly, grandkids, will be working four jobs to pay for a bunch of freeloading old people. As the article says:

Prof Murray adds: "It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like."

And that brings me back to that projections vs predictions point... there's a lot of ways we could expect things to play out. Maybe robots make it all better. Maybe we're too reliant on lithium (and other metals) so robots are out of the question. Maybe we need more people so that fewer people drive because we get more efficient with space because we've got more people. Maybe we walk away from space efficiency because disease. It's really quite impossible to tell.

[Novus America]

Like, not even consider it? I mean, the process is fun enough and a million dollars is a million dollars...

Yeah, what's with the flood of people declaring how dead-set against having kids they are?

They appear to be a minority though:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... y.amp.html

It is mostly for financial reasons.
People avoiding having children altogether can be offset by supporting those who do want children but feel they cannot afford it. As well as actively encouraging it to the public at large.

We should not force people to have children, but encourage those who want to to do so and help them to do so.

[Plzen]

Post redacted; on second thoughts, posting this was a mistake.

[Forsher]

We should not force people to have children, but encourage those who want to to do so and help them to do so.

They call it the nanny state for a reason!

But, seriously, imagine a government run dating site/app. "Enter your details and a date will be assigned to you. Please remember to reproduce."

[Nuroblav]

Yeah, what's with the flood of people declaring how dead-set against having kids they are?

They appear to be a minority though:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... y.amp.html

It is mostly for financial reasons.
People avoiding having children altogether can be offset by supporting those who do want children but feel they cannot afford it. As well as actively encouraging it to the public at large.

We should not force people to have children, but encourage those who want to to do so and help them to do so.

I think another reason is that it's just too much stress. I, for example, probably wouldn't be able to cope.

[-Astoria-]

This.

Like, not even consider it? I mean, the process is fun enough and a million dollars is a million dollars...

Do you take me for a politician?

[-Astoria-]

Like, not even consider it? I mean, the process is fun enough and a million dollars is a million dollars...

Yeah, what's with the flood of people declaring how dead-set against having kids they are?

Hmm, I dunno, maybe:

• costs - especially if you're on a tight budget
• prior experiences
• preference to adopt over producing a new one

...and I'm just getting started.

[-Astoria-]

We should not force people to have children, but encourage those who want to to do so and help them to do so.

They call it the nanny state for a reason!

But, seriously, imagine a government run dating site/app. "Enter your details and a date will be assigned to you. Please remember to reproduce."

Been there, (kinda) did that already.

[Rusozak]

This.

Like, not even consider it? I mean, the process is fun enough and a million dollars is a million dollars...

It's a band-aid solution at best. I think a fundamental reform of the system is required. A system of care for the elderly designed around an assumption of constant increased rate of population growth is inherently unsustainable. Now, how that will be fixed, I don't know, but the first step is identifying the problem.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

This is not news. You were told it was not news two years ago

That post was referring to the "academics," not the average person. The average person's "pro-natalism" had nothing to do with whatever the academics were supposedly saying (not that I trust the Internet to accurately represent scientists' words) and everything to do with their caricature of eco-antinatalists as just a bunch of freedom-haters who don't even partly get what it's like to want kids.

Otherwise, there'd have been a lot more "but birthrates are already decreasing" responses to eco-antinatalism years earlier. And more popular support for subsidized daycare. And more popular support for paternity leave to go with maternity leave. Hell, just generally making child-rearing more affordable earlier in life, or more compatible with college if possible; a lot of people, by the time they can afford children, are old enough that the ill effects would be comparable to first cousin incest and decide against it on behalf of their kids' health, let alone the environment.

So here's another question for you; if those same biases lead laypeople to have such caricatures of eco-antinatalism, how do you know these biases aren't also influencing "academics?"

Who are these people?

And has green guilt really created a well known pattern of declining fertility that stretches back decades?

I don't know, if only there were a, let's say, counter-culture movement a few decades ago that launched a massive environmentalist movement to go with it complete with many environmentalist groups whose existence continues to this day.

So yeah, environmentalism is part of it. Unaffordability of child-rearing and incompatibility thereof with the modern workplace are often-invoked factors too, but I'm not sure how much those have changed since the 60s.

It's really quite incredibly difficult to follow what you mean in this post.

Where did I lose you?

[Stellar Colonies]

We should not force people to have children, but encourage those who want to to do so and help them to do so.

They call it the nanny state for a reason!

But, seriously, imagine a government run dating site/app. "Enter your details and a date will be assigned to you. Please remember to reproduce."

ugh

Disturbing thought.

[Purpelia]

I still don't see how more people solves anything. People don't make the economy magically expand. More people only makes sense if you need workers to fill an economy that is already expanding.

[Atheris]

This.

Like, not even consider it? I mean, the process is fun enough and a million dollars is a million dollars...

At least in my case; nope.

[Plzen]

Like, not even consider it? I mean, the process is fun enough and a million dollars is a million dollars...

I mean, consider: raising a child is almost 20 years of work, so a million dollars works out to around $50,000 a year; it’s not a very high compensation for what can often be emotionally exhausting, physically distasteful work.

And compared to just getting a second job that pays $50,000 a year, childbearing has the additional disadvantage that you don’t get to quit and walk out if you later decide that you dislike the work.

Paying people may convince people who want to have children but can’t, for whatever reason. But it will not convince people who don’t want children to start with.

[Novus America]

We should not force people to have children, but encourage those who want to to do so and help them to do so.

They call it the nanny state for a reason!

But, seriously, imagine a government run dating site/app. "Enter your details and a date will be assigned to you. Please remember to reproduce."

Actually:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ ... nt_Network

Although I would not go so far as to do that, but rather look a programs in places like France and Israel that have had success.