Alas, Poor Thanos

[Novus America]

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.

However more people means more workers and more demand for goods and services (hence workers if you do not outsource).

And your economy will not expand if demand and the workforce are both declining.

More people creates demand for more workers, absent outsourcing.

And up until the coronavirus lockdowns the US had a record low unemployment and a growing economy.

[Atheris]

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.

I'd be fine with it if it wasn't mandatory tbh

[Novus America]

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.

Well even if you cannot have children the natural way, there are alternatives. Like adoption but unfortunately those alternatives are absurdly expensive and difficult.

[Plzen]

And your economy will not expand if demand and the workforce are both declining.

Why is it inherently beneficial for the economy to expand?

The reason why economic growth is good, I would argue, is because it improves living standards. So how well the economy is doing really ought to be measured in per-capita terms, and there it’s rather more difficult to justify that a declining workforce is bad for the economy.

[Atheris]

At least in my case; nope.

Well even if you cannot have children the natural way, there are alternatives. Like adoption but unfortunately those alternatives are absurdly expensive and difficult.

But I don't want to be a single father.

[Duvniask]

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.

Well, the opposite, a consistently declining population, means a death spiraling economy with increasing debts that are harder to pay off as the workforce decreases in size and dependency ratios soar.

Really, the visual metaphor of an inverted population pyramid, where the top almost seems so heavy the bottom cannot support it, sums it up quite nicely:

[Novus America]

And your economy will not expand if demand and the workforce are both declining.

Why is it inherently beneficial for the economy to expand?

The reason why economic growth is good, I would argue, is because it improves living standards. So how well the economy is doing really ought to be measured in per-capita terms, and there it’s rather more difficult to justify that a declining workforce is bad for the economy.

How are you going to increase GDP per capita if a larger and larger percentage of the population is unable to produce?

Fewer people working means less things available overall. An adverse dependency ratio will drag down GDP per capita too.

[Novus America]

Well even if you cannot have children the natural way, there are alternatives. Like adoption but unfortunately those alternatives are absurdly expensive and difficult.

But I don't want to be a single father.

Why would you have to be though?

[Atheris]

But I don't want to be a single father.

Why would you have to be though?

Because I'm asexual and aromantic.

[Novus America]

Why would you have to be though?

Because I'm asexual and aromantic.

Well maybe it is not for you although perhaps another person who is in a similar situation could still partner with you for purposes of shared housing and childcare responsibilities.

But sure having children is not for everyone, the issue here is not a child for everyone but ensuring the people who want to raise children have the means to do so.

[Duvniask]

Why would you have to be though?

Because I'm asexual and aromantic.

The answer lies in communal child rearing of some kind, at least to the extent that parents can't handle the pressure themselves.

Unfortunately, it's not going to happen in the near future of the atomized hellworld we live in.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

However more people means more workers and more demand for goods and services (hence workers if you do not outsource).

And your economy will not expand if demand and the workforce are both declining.

It won't expand if we run critically low on natural resources or flood coastal cities or irradiate whole towns beyond repair. People don't create wealth out of thin air. They need nature's help to do it.

Unless people find a stronger incentive to protect the environment than societies have had thus far, a declining birth rate might very well be necessary to protect the environment; and by extension, other human beings.

[Novus America]

However more people means more workers and more demand for goods and services (hence workers if you do not outsource).

And your economy will not expand if demand and the workforce are both declining.

It won't expand if we run critically low on natural resources or flood coastal cities or irradiate whole towns beyond repair. People don't create wealth out of thin air. They need nature's help to do it.

Unless people find a stronger incentive to protect the environment than societies have had thus far, a declining birth rate might very well be necessary to protect the environment; and by extension, other human beings.

Well of course the impact on the environment has to be accounted for, some places are dangerously overcrowded and need managed population declines but we have sufficient resources in most places to support the existing or even a larger population (although I more aim for population stability over rapid growth).

The simple fact is that absent automation far beyond what we are currently capable of, we cannot support an extremely adverse dependency ratio.

The only way to avoid an extremely adverse dependency ratio is to maintain a sufficiently large working population relative to the non working population.

Of course the only ways to do this is to have a steady supply of new workers to maintain the working population or eliminate large numbers of the non working and retired population (which is not usually a humane or moral thing to do).

[Duvniask]

However more people means more workers and more demand for goods and services (hence workers if you do not outsource).

And your economy will not expand if demand and the workforce are both declining.

It won't expand if we run critically low on natural resources or flood coastal cities or irradiate whole towns beyond repair. People don't create wealth out of thin air. They need nature's help to do it.

Unless people find a stronger incentive to protect the environment than societies have had thus far, a declining birth rate might very well be necessary to protect the environment; and by extension, other human beings.

So here's the thing: fertility rates are already below replacement in most developed countries, in some significantly so. The decline in population is approaching, only offset temporarily because of immigration from the Third World, and even then, it cannot stop rising dependency ratios (per my earlier post in this thread) - only stabilization (or expansion) of the population pyramid can do that, and that realistically requires rising fertility. So what exactly are you proposing should be done?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Well of course the impact on the environment has to be accounted for, some places are dangerously overcrowded

I'm not referring to crowding. Rural places aren't crowded. They still contribute to climate change.

and need managed population declines but we have sufficient resources in most places to support the existing or even a larger population (although I more aim for population stability over rapid growth).

At a mere 7 billion, we've already ended up with urgent environmental problems. Clearly there are too many people. The only question should be whether population needs to decline rapidly or only slowly.

The simple fact is that absent automation far beyond what we are currently capable of, we cannot support an extremely adverse dependency ratio.

And the Earth cannot support our current lifestyles either so the point is moot.

The only way to avoid an extremely adverse dependency ratio is to maintain a sufficiently large working population relative to the non working population.

So why not recruit young immigrants? Or encourage adoption, among those who like the thought of parenthood but not that of pregnancy?

Of course the only ways to do this is to have a steady supply of new workers to maintain the working population or eliminate large numbers of the non working and retired population (which is not usually a humane or moral thing to do).

Leaving them to drown in hurricanes is also not usually a humane or moral thing to do. Yet that is the situation climate change put them in.

[Duvniask]

The only way to avoid an extremely adverse dependency ratio is to maintain a sufficiently large working population relative to the non working population.

So why not recruit young immigrants? Or encourage adoption, among those who like the thought of parenthood but not that of pregnancy?

I don't really understand your thought process. If your plan is to recruit young immigrants to stabilize dependency ratios in the First World, which obviously has the largest ecological footprint, you have essentially changed nothing about how many resources developed countries use up. How do you even reconcile this idea with the need for population decline in the face of ecological disaster? I'd say you have done nothing about the essential problem in that situation.

[Novus America]

Well of course the impact on the environment has to be accounted for, some places are dangerously overcrowded

I'm not referring to crowding. Rural places aren't crowded. They still contribute to climate change.

and need managed population declines but we have sufficient resources in most places to support the existing or even a larger population (although I more aim for population stability over rapid growth).

At a mere 7 billion, we've already ended up with urgent environmental problems. Clearly there are too many people. The only question should be whether population needs to decline rapidly or only slowly.

The simple fact is that absent automation far beyond what we are currently capable of, we cannot support an extremely adverse dependency ratio.

And the Earth cannot support our current lifestyles either so the point is moot.

The only way to avoid an extremely adverse dependency ratio is to maintain a sufficiently large working population relative to the non working population.

So why not recruit young immigrants? Or encourage adoption, among those who like the thought of parenthood but not that of pregnancy?

Of course the only ways to do this is to have a steady supply of new workers to maintain the working population or eliminate large numbers of the non working and retired population (which is not usually a humane or moral thing to do).

Leaving them to drown in hurricanes is also not usually a humane or moral thing to do. Yet that is the situation climate change put them in.

We can address the issues without doing it in the most harmful ways is the point. Thermonuclear war would reduce global warming but it is a bad idea. There are other, better ways to address the global warming issue.

And although immigration can partially offset the an adverse dependency ratio it is only a temporary band aid, it is not a long term solution. That does not help the environment either.
As much as I am in favor of supporting adoption (it is extremely difficult and expensive currently) it does not change the overall ratio at all.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't see it as a particular problem, if anything it would become an additional benefit in the fight to mitigate climate change. Reducing the overall population and improving crop yields through genetic engineering, plus the advent of synthetic meat would ultimately see more and more land returned to nature, greatly expanding the forests and the Earth's ability to sequester carbon. Smaller populations mean less need for resources, smaller cities, lesser emissions, etc.

Overall it's a shame it's happening so slowly.

[Novus America]

I don't see it as a particular problem, if anything it would become an additional benefit in the fight to mitigate climate change. Reducing the overall population and improving crop yields through genetic engineering, plus the advent of synthetic meat would ultimately see more and more land returned to nature, greatly expanding the forests and the Earth's ability to sequester carbon. Smaller populations mean less need for resources, smaller cities, lesser emissions, etc.

Overall it's a shame it's happening so slowly.

Well again although a declining population will likely reduce the impact in the environment it comes with a whole host of other problems. Greater poverty will reduce the environmental impact, but that does not make greater poverty good.

There are ways to help the environment without destroying the economy.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

We can address the issues without doing it in the most harmful ways is the point. Thermonuclear war would reduce global warming but it is a bad idea. There are other, better ways to address the global warming issue.

And although immigration can partially offset the an adverse dependency ratio it is only a temporary band aid, it is not a long term solution. That does not help the environment either.
As much as I am in favor of supporting adoption (it is extremely difficult and expensive currently) it does not change the overall ratio at all.

Recently there have been so many people clamoring to get into the US that the current President got his competitive advantage over his rivals by promising a wall to keep them out. This message sent to the rest of the world has, by some miracle, failed to completely destroy the appeal to would-be immigrants. I think it's safe to say the appeal of immigration to the US is pretty resilient and it's not about to go away just because they're being used to help support retirees.

So why not recruit young immigrants? Or encourage adoption, among those who like the thought of parenthood but not that of pregnancy?

I don't really understand your thought process. If your plan is to recruit young immigrants to stabilize dependency ratios in the First World, which obviously has the largest ecological footprint, you have essentially changed nothing about how many resources developed countries use up. How do you even reconcile this idea with the need for population decline in the face of ecological disaster? I'd say you have done nothing about the essential problem in that situation.

Immigrants aren't known to assimilate completely into their new country's culture, even when their neighbours wish they would, let alone when, in this case, neighbours would be glad they didn't.

If they do increase their carbon footprint to match that of their new neighbours, wouldn't that cast doubt on "individual" culpability for climate change, and suggest that the market incentives involved play a bigger role than individual moral character, thereby serving as a tiebreaker on who to believe on "character vs. the system" narratives?

If they don't, doesn't that show that at least some of the low-carbon aspects of their former home countries' lifestyles are still, relatively speaking, better for the environment than, let's say, raising a child from birth with parents who will pollute the environment on the child's behalf in the process, before the child grows up to, more likely than not, be another polluter themselves?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

smaller cities

Technically, the big-city lifestyle actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions, as people tend to take public transit there.

Not sure how much of that has to do with how traffic gives them no choice, and how much of that has to do with how boring slow buses are compared to the high speeds of taking the subway.

[Novus America]

We can address the issues without doing it in the most harmful ways is the point. Thermonuclear war would reduce global warming but it is a bad idea. There are other, better ways to address the global warming issue.

And although immigration can partially offset the an adverse dependency ratio it is only a temporary band aid, it is not a long term solution. That does not help the environment either.
As much as I am in favor of supporting adoption (it is extremely difficult and expensive currently) it does not change the overall ratio at all.

Recently there have been so many people clamoring to get into the US that the current President got his competitive advantage over his rivals by promising a wall to keep them out. This message sent to the rest of the world has, by some miracle, failed to completely destroy the appeal to would-be immigrants. I think it's safe to say the appeal of immigration to the US is pretty resilient and it's not about to go away just because they're being used to help support retirees.

I don't really understand your thought process. If your plan is to recruit young immigrants to stabilize dependency ratios in the First World, which obviously has the largest ecological footprint, you have essentially changed nothing about how many resources developed countries use up. How do you even reconcile this idea with the need for population decline in the face of ecological disaster? I'd say you have done nothing about the essential problem in that situation.

Immigrants aren't known to assimilate completely into their new country's culture, even when their neighbours wish they would, let alone when, in this case, neighbours would be glad they didn't.

If they do increase their carbon footprint to match that of their new neighbours, wouldn't that cast doubt on "individual" culpability for climate change, and suggest that the market incentives involved play a bigger role than individual moral character, thereby serving as a tiebreaker on who to believe on "character vs. the system" narratives?

If they don't, doesn't that show that at least some of the low-carbon aspects of their former home countries' lifestyles are still, relatively speaking, better for the environment than, let's say, raising a child from birth with parents who will pollute the environment on the child's behalf in the process, before the child grows up to, more likely than not, be another polluter themselves?

The thing is birth rates are falling rapidly in countries the US receives large numbers of immigrants from. So they will have fewer abs fewer young people to send.
You are still extracting an unsustainable resource that will run out.

I am not against immigration, but it is no silver bullet. Immigration is part, but only part of the solution to the problem.

Immigration only temporarily addresses the dependency ratio problem in an unsustainable manner (quality immigrants are a limited resource) and even if maybe the used a little less resources before coming here does not solve the environmental issue at all, which can only be addressed through nuclearization and electrification and recycling of resources, which is an interesting issue, but beyond the scope of the thread.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Non Sequitur: The title is great in combining Hamlet and Marvel flawlessly. Continue the discussion, fellow humans.
*Retreats into the corner*

---

If fertility rates are slowing, while this could be concerning, it means our population will not grow at as fast of a rate...and resources may not be used up as quickly.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The thing is birth rates are falling rapidly in countries the US receives large numbers of immigrants from.

But not across the world. There will always be countries from which to recruit.

Immigration only temporarily addresses the dependency ratio problem in an unsustainable manner (quality immigrants are a limited resource)

They are more employable than U.S. citizens. Ones who cannot compete with them and are left unemployed do not say "I suspect they are underpaying the guy who replaced me, let's step up minimum wage enforcement to find out." They say "they're taking our jobs!" What does this tell you?

and even if maybe the used a little less resources before coming here does not solve the environmental issue at all, which can only be addressed through nuclearization

The most high-tech country on the face of the Earth couldn't do "nuclearization" right. What makes you think a country known for yahoos with guns can?

and electrification and recycling of resources

Recycling still requires transporting the materials to be recycled.

And you can't "recycle" oil, unless you make it into plastic... which isn't what Americans have been doing. They've been making it into gasoline and burning it instead.

which is an interesting issue, but beyond the scope of the thread.

Not really. If one wishes to reconcile environmentalism with high birth rates, one must address which of the two one prioritizes more if the public proves unwilling to reduce their carbon footprint.

[Novus America]

The thing is birth rates are falling rapidly in countries the US receives large numbers of immigrants from.

But not across the world. There will always be countries from which to recruit.

Immigration only temporarily addresses the dependency ratio problem in an unsustainable manner (quality immigrants are a limited resource)

They are more employable than U.S. citizens. Ones who cannot compete with them and are left unemployed do not say "I suspect they are underpaying the guy who replaced me, let's step up minimum wage enforcement to find out." They say "they're taking our jobs!" What does this tell you?

and even if maybe the used a little less resources before coming here does not solve the environmental issue at all, which can only be addressed through nuclearization

The most high-tech country on the face of the Earth couldn't do "nuclearization" right. What makes you think a country known for yahoos with guns can?

and electrification and recycling of resources

Recycling still requires transporting the materials to be recycled.

And you can't "recycle" oil, unless you make it into plastic... which isn't what Americans have been doing. They've been making it into gasoline and burning it instead.

which is an interesting issue, but beyond the scope of the thread.

Not really. If one wishes to reconcile environmentalism with high birth rates, one must address which of the two one prioritizes more if the public proves unwilling to reduce their carbon footprint.

Actually birth rates are falling across the world, as working population of the world begins to decline, you are still competing over a limited and declining resource.
It does not solve the issue long term. There are a still a finite number of qualified immigrants.

You are still robbing Perter to pay Paul. It does not solve global problems.

Japan is not the most high tech country but the Japanese issue at Fukushima (using an obsolete design) is hardly indicative of anything. If France can do it right, so can we. Electrification and biofuels can solve the gasoline issue. The point remains we can fix the environmental issues without collapsing the economy.

But anyways I do not think people are advocating high birth rates per se, just trying to slightly raise ours, or slow the decline.

Even if we used natalist policies to raise of birth rates to French levels we would still be below replacement, just less below replacement.