PDA

View Full Version : The Issue of Depopulation


Porpoise101
August 26th, 2016, 07:13 PM
In developed nations, there is a tendency for people to have less children. This is because they tend to be more of an economic burden than a benefit. In many developed nations, the population is declining. You see this in Europe and Japan especially. This is bad because it creates an imbalance between the older people (who tend to consume more of social programs) and the labor force (who tend to put more into the social programs). Governments can delay the consequences of this by increasing the retirement age and cutting down on social programs, but that is not a political option often. The only long term solution is to keep the population stable or growing.

To keep a population growing, you can either reproduce more or have people immigrate. Immigration is a great tool to ofset population decline, especially because it has a tendency to redistribute people from poorer, overpopulated/rapidly growing countries to wealthier, declining countries. In this way, immigration makes it so the issue of global overpopulation does not get worse. But immigration also causes social discontent if the society isn't multicultural. Even in multicultural societies, sometimes immigration becomes unpopular; just look at the US right now. The other option is forced reproduction. This is an issue on ethical and moral levels in most societies. All but the most authoritarian regimes would impose it. But it could end up to the benefit to the country if people were forced to have 2 kids per family. Why two? because two makes it so the population is stable as there is one child for each parent.

Anyways, how should the issue of depopulation be confronted?

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 07:18 PM
Anyways, how should the issue of depopulation be confronted?

Decrease life expectancy.

In honesty, I have no interest in decreasing our life expectancy, nor do I think it would be a good idea to do so. :)

Porpoise101
August 26th, 2016, 07:28 PM
Decrease life expectancy.
While this would reduce the pain on taxpayers, I think it also makes it possible in the long term for the nation to go extinct. Or at least too depopulated to function, as the rate of death would just increase faster.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 07:40 PM
The only depopulation problem I see is the lifespan-scale (at most) socio-economic problem. As I see increasing population to be something to be avoided because of planetary resource drain and ongoing relevant climate change, solving this economic problem should be done without population increase, and preferably with not relying on a constant population either.

In itself, I am very uncomfortable with only seeing a continually growing population as a solution to a problem. We have finite resources here - it makes no sense to just keep growing the economy with the tech we use now and expect everything to not get worse. Earth is not infinite!

Vlerchan
August 26th, 2016, 07:45 PM
International cities.
Privatise pension-plans.
Subject one generation to a generation-long recession (i.e. Japan).
I'm with 1 and 2.

Earth is not infinite!
Space, effectively, is.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 08:07 PM
Space, effectively, is.

I don't see space colonisation and/or mining coming up at all in economics to any serious level currently.

By all means colonise space, but already Earth is suffering from our resource demands so we'd be starting late for that, if at all.

Arguably to some it is the (major) inefficiency of resource management that is the greater problem than the number of humans, but I still wouldn't want to see the population increase until the resource management problem has been sorted.

Arkansasguy
August 26th, 2016, 08:23 PM
In developed nations, there is a tendency for people to have less children. This is because they tend to be more of an economic burden than a benefit. In many developed nations, the population is declining. You see this in Europe and Japan especially. This is bad because it creates an imbalance between the older people (who tend to consume more of social programs) and the labor force (who tend to put more into the social programs). Governments can delay the consequences of this by increasing the retirement age and cutting down on social programs, but that is not a political option often. The only long term solution is to keep the population stable or growing.

To keep a population growing, you can either reproduce more or have people immigrate. Immigration is a great tool to ofset population decline, especially because it has a tendency to redistribute people from poorer, overpopulated/rapidly growing countries to wealthier, declining countries. In this way, immigration makes it so the issue of global overpopulation does not get worse. But immigration also causes social discontent if the society isn't multicultural. Even in multicultural societies, sometimes immigration becomes unpopular; just look at the US right now. The other option is forced reproduction. This is an issue on ethical and moral levels in most societies. All but the most authoritarian regimes would impose it. But it could end up to the benefit to the country if people were forced to have 2 kids per family. Why two? because two makes it so the population is stable as there is one child for each parent.

Anyways, how should the issue of depopulation be confronted?

Outlaw contraception and abortion. Simple.

With those two out of the way, there's no need for forced reproduction, as natural human sex drive will do the work for you.

PlasmaHam
August 26th, 2016, 08:25 PM
I agree with you in regards to a decreasing population rate and the pressure on younger generations to support an aging population. The US has this with Social Security, when that was first implemented, there was over 40 workers for every retired person. Now, there are around 5 workers for every retired person, and the system is straining. The USA doesn't have it as bad as other countries though, Japan is really suffering, as is much of Europe.

As for fixing this issue, that could be difficult. Immigration could help to slow it down, but that is but temporary and isn't popular. Forced reproduction like you said is very morally questionable, and trying to implement that would be problematic. The only idea I have is to make abortions illegal. I know that is controversial, but compared to some of the other ideas it soars above. But an estimated 40 million infants are aborted worldwide annually, mainly in developed countries(and China, because of that annoying little one-child policy, just goes to show how regulating reproduction goes). Even that many probably wouldn't stem population rate decline, but that would be a definite help. But the realistic likelihood of that happening is very slim.

Countries will just have to adapt. There is really no way government policies or social reforms is going to counter the way things are going. They may slow it down, but everyday it will just keep getting worse.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 08:26 PM
Outlaw contraception and abortion. Simple.

With those two out of the way, there's no need for forced reproduction, as natural human sex drive will do the work for you.

That will run into many more personal/social problems (with unplanned families and such) than solve problems.

I don't know what the statistics are on 'birth prevention' to know if this would work, so I'm not against it theoretically in itself for the effect it would have of more births.

Arkansasguy
August 26th, 2016, 08:30 PM
That will run into many more personal/social problems (with unplanned families and such) than solve problems.

I don't know what the statistics are on 'birth prevention' to know if this would work, so I'm not against it theoretically in itself for the effect it would have of more births.

If people don't want unplanned kids, they shouldn't have sex.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 08:33 PM
If people don't want unplanned kids, they shouldn't have sex.

I thought we were taking a strategic angle on increasing the human population here, not taking a moral stance on the wrongdoings of others. Sounds opportunistic on your part.

Vlerchan
August 26th, 2016, 08:37 PM
Reminder (which I just remembered):

Here we show, using new cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the total fertility rate and the human development index (HDI), a fundamental change in the well-established negative relationship between fertility and development as the global population entered the twenty-first century. Although development continues to promote fertility decline at low and medium HDI levels, our analyses show that at advanced HDI levels, further development can reverse the declining trend in fertility. The previously negative development–fertility relationship has become J-shaped, with the HDI being positively associated with fertility among highly developed countries.

Mrskyla, M., Kohler, H. and Billari, F. (2009) Advances in Development Reverse Fertility Declines, Nature, 460, pp. 741 - 743. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/full/nature08230.html)

Because the relative investment that children require, declines with income growth.

The only idea I have is to make abortions illegal.
People tend to abort their children, because these people are not capable of making an adequate investment in their future on birth.

I'm sceptical allowing these births to go through would help all that much (esp. when there's some evidence that the introduction of abortion reduced crime-rates, to some extent).

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 08:44 PM
but I still wouldn't want to see the population increase until the resource management problem has been sorted.

It's not a choice, it's a child.

Reise
August 26th, 2016, 08:50 PM
I don't see space colonisation and/or mining coming up at all in economics to any serious level currently.

By all means colonise space, but already Earth is suffering from our resource demands so we'd be starting late for that, if at all.

Arguably to some it is the (major) inefficiency of resource management that is the greater problem than the number of humans, but I still wouldn't want to see the population increase until the resource management problem has been sorted.
The evolution of Human population tends to decrease as demographic transition ends (not everywhere at the same time though) and birth rates stabilize.
I believe the estimated human population by 2100 is around 11 billions, need to confirm that though, and after that the increase of the population will be at a way lower rate.
Resource management is indeed a major issue and the one we should concentrate most of our energy on this problem.
Space colonization, I agree, is far from being a currently realistic answer here.

Still I'd be surprised to see an actual global depopulation, I'll try to retrieve more data when I have the time.
I've never looked after such a kind of issue to be honest, so this will probably lead to interesting researches.


People tend to abort their children, because these people are not capable of making an adequate investment in their future on birth.

I'm sceptical allowing these births to go through would help all that much (esp. when there's some evidence that the introduction of abortion reduced crime-rates, to some extent).
Freakonomics spotted.

Vlerchan
August 26th, 2016, 09:00 PM
Freakonomics spotted.
I'm weird in that I came across it in QJE first (http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf) (was referenced in a class) :P.

I've never actually read Freakonomics, which people tell me is good, but seems to pop-Y.

Arkansasguy
August 26th, 2016, 09:04 PM
I thought we were taking a strategic angle on increasing the human population here, not taking a moral stance on the wrongdoings of others. Sounds opportunistic on your part.

Prohibiting contraception would make people more keenly aware of the truth of what j said, which would mitigate your concerns about unwanted children.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 09:05 PM
It's not a choice, it's a child.

I don't get what you mean.


The evolution of Human population tends to decrease as demographic transition ends (not everywhere at the same time though) and birth rates stabilize.
I believe the estimated human population by 2100 is around 11 billions, need to confirm that though, and after that the increase of the population will be at a way lower rate.

IF we presume that the social-economic-political realms will resemble our current one enough and/or not change too much. There's a lot between now and 2020 even.

Nevertheless your projection is correct with those givens, yes.



Resource management is indeed a major issue and the one we should concentrate most of our energy on this problem.
Space colonization, I agree, is far from being a currently realistic answer here.

Space colonisation could make the resource management problem much worse even, if not done right - I mean, we've even set us a potential scene for the kessler syndrome/effect around the planet in only just under 60 years. It's a serious mess there too.

This highlights waste management as a major aspect in this too, which I do not feel we are doing anywhere near sufficient efficiency at as a civilisation.



Still I'd be surprised to see an actual global depopulation, I'll try to retrieve more data when I have the time.
I've never looked after such a kind of issue to be honest, so this will probably lead to interesting researches.


I'd be surprised too, in a positive way. My stance on this has changed relatively little and been involved in not that much compared to many of my other views, as it also happens. Could change of course.


Prohibiting contraception would make people more keenly aware of the truth of what j said, which would mitigate your concerns about unwanted children.

Your anticipation of a societal psychological conditioning to be sexually responsible through abstinence, will itself take some time to work (years?). This also would meet resistance with a good proportion of the population who want to engage in sex that does not give children, so there is that side effect.

Mistakes also happen; I do not understand why a physical/biological barrier (the contraceptive) is being dropped in favour of a psychological one (the societal conditioning), when the physical one is plainly far more efficient at stopping conceptions.

Bleid
August 26th, 2016, 09:39 PM
I don't get what you mean.

Just one of my favorite statements I've heard in similar contexts. I'm not sure what it means, either.

Flapjack
August 26th, 2016, 10:17 PM
I think immigration is the solution!! People moving from poorer overpopulated countries to more developed countries with a declining population, it sounds perfect! :)

Prohibiting contraception would make people more keenly aware of the truth of what j said, which would mitigate your concerns about unwanted children.
You can't prohibit contraception xD That would just make people that don't want children have children, often they will be young and won't be able to afford it. Not to mention the obvious fact that it is removing people's freedom.

mattsmith48
August 26th, 2016, 10:21 PM
Outlaw contraception and abortion. Simple.

With those two out of the way, there's no need for forced reproduction, as natural human sex drive will do the work for you.

This planet is already getting dangerously overpopulated and the outlaw of contraception and abortion would accelarate at a rate we can't adjust for. Plus the accelarate the spreading of STIs


Porpoise101 I see the decrease of population in Japan and in Europe as good news as people start fucking responsibly. The problem of having too many retired people that working people can support will be a temporary one and trying to fix this problem by increasing the population either by forcing people to have unprotected sex or massive immigration campaign will not fix the problem but only delay the issue. You can accept a little more immigrants to support your older population, it would diminish the effect of having a older population with out delaying the issue or creating a new one when those people will retire.

Dalcourt
August 26th, 2016, 10:52 PM
Since the world is highly overpopulated it don't see depopulation of a certain region as a problem. Most of the world's problems are either directly or indirectly connected overpopulation that depopulation could be seen as a blessing.
The older generation where there are still more people will "die out" in the long run till this happens immigration is a good way to stabilize the situation and later we will reach a new status quo more or less.
Instead of trying to increase population those areas that seem to get depopulated it would be better to decrease population in still highly overpopulated areas of the world by promoting the use of contraception for example.

It would be horribly wrong to try once again increase the population on a planet that already is on is limits.

There have to be other means used to save the social security/old age pensions problem. Like in I said a short term solution to tackle it is immigration...it doesn't have to go overboard and in reasonable amounts and if explained to the people in the right way it isn't as unpopular as everyone believes.
In the long run a new system of distributing the money is needed...like more private saving plans may help. As a whole we have to say good bye to the idea that there should be a social security system run by the state that can cater for all your needs.

Porpoise101
August 26th, 2016, 11:42 PM
Reminder (which I just remembered):

[indent]Here we show, using new cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the total fertility rate and the human development index (HDI), a fundamental change in the well-established negative relationship between fertility and development as the global population entered the twenty-first century. Although development continues to promote fertility decline at low and medium HDI levels, our analyses show that at advanced HDI levels, further development can reverse the declining trend in fertility. The previously negative development–fertility relationship has become J-shaped, with the HDI being positively associated with fertility among highly developed countries.
Interesting. So maybe this is only a temporary 'growing pain' of the current stage of development. If this is true, we will be freed from this problem, probably to be faced with a set of new ones. Unfortunately, this seems a long way off for many countries. Much of Africa is just industrializing, they may be only getting to this stage 100 years from now.

To me one of the biggest challenges with depopulation is that it directly conflicts with other issues. It is very much a 'first world problem' in that it exists in sharp contrast to a world that is busting at the seems with people. I agree with others that forced re-population is not the answer. We will have to use a combination of social security reform and immigration to get us through this. The true challenge for the democratic society is getting past the interests which want to keep this status quo.

On a semi-related note, apparently there is a village in Japan almost exclusively populated by scarecrows made by one woman. They are all people that once lived there. It is kind of sad, but it also shows another issue that gets worse with depopulation. When you combine urbanization+depopulation, the countryside becomes a desolate wasteland. Maybe that was a bit dramatic, but this really hits rural communities the hardest.

Uniquemind
August 27th, 2016, 03:19 AM
Outlaw contraception and abortion. Simple.

With those two out of the way, there's no need for forced reproduction, as natural human sex drive will do the work for you.

Unless Zika virus gets widespread.

There's already a bareback sexually transmitted case in Maryland from Man to Woman.

--
Like others have said, I don't think or feel a sudden baby boom creates economic stimulus. Young parents (I know some) do not magically produce money to spend $500 a month on baby products and later the necessary rent, bills, and hospital bills assuming you have health insurance. Often times you just get a bunch of poor people with children.

The issue here is the current economic system is too fixated on growth, to such an extent it forgets to value a slow and stable steady growth. Historically what I've seen both in the financial markets of boom and bust years are spikes and dips. From a consumer's side I see too many disposable plastics and products that aren't being recycled, and in decade long measurements we get harmful costly effects. (BPA plastics used in the 70's,80's,90's deemed safe then, not safe now).

The job market in terms of skills needed are supplanting non-specialized work, in turn creating financial anxiety which delays couples having kids young.

Also having kids when older increases chances for those offspring to have learning developmental difficulties which then affects the next generation of workers that probably need to be even more specialized with fast mental acumen.


For me my solution or idea is to have each generation foster intellectual growth, and innovation that allows for more graceful transitions between upsets when one job sector collapses due to sharp spikes in innovation.

Education needs to be better, parental quality needs to be better, societal values under the mantra of "freedom" need to be curbed because they aren't sustainable, and nobody or one group's claim to "the right to freedom" should endanger the whole of or pass off problems to future generations for the sake of "freedom now" VS "no freedom later, out of necessity because it wasn't sustainable".

Everything must be in balance.

---

What I am for however is the implementation of a sales tax, that is a flat rate (say 2% consumer AND business corporation tax) that is a consumption tax and effectively fights "gotta have it now" consumer culture, which I think is cancer and drives inflation.

The revenue would go too social security and programs like the NHS that Great Britain has.

In trade income-tax can be reduced or eliminated and people can psychologically feel more in control rather than feel like they were robbed by Uncle Sam.

Vlerchan
August 27th, 2016, 06:11 AM
the world is highly overpopulated
How can one demonstrate that the world is 'overpopulated'?

Much of Africa is just industrializing, they may be only getting to this stage 100 years from now.
Of course, it's more than possible that these states will be able to attract immigrants from developed countries, who the likelihood will receive considerable economic rents for filling up skills-shortages. So, their growing-pains, might not be so bad.

I also would imagine that these states would develop at a much more rapid pace than 100 years, where the technology to spur in real-income growth no longer needs to be developed, just integrated. More worrisome, in my mind, is that premature deinstrialisation, as seems to be happening in Nigeria, for example, will stunt their development (but, there also might not be the depopulation issue to be worried about, I guess).

The issue here is the current economic system is too fixated on growth, to such an extent it forgets to value a slow and stable steady growth.
If you could, how would you approach this trend and undermine it?

(You're also getting this now in Japan, and Europe, and it hasn't made their societies better, I'll add).

a consumption tax and effectively fights "gotta have it now" consumer culture, which I think is cancer and drives inflation.
I'm sceptical it drives inflation.

The first point to note is that inflation, in this scenario, is going to be caused through a shift in the MPc of consumers: that is, the proportion of income devoted to consumption, which isn't happening at the moment. The actual culprit behind inflation is nominal income-growth.

Dalcourt
August 27th, 2016, 09:39 AM
How can one demonstrate that the world is 'overpopulated'?



Seriously? This really gives me a good laugh.
Now I remember why I hate taking part in discussions.

How to demonstrate it?...Open your eyes...look around.

Vlerchan
August 27th, 2016, 09:45 AM
Seriously? This really gives me a good laugh.
Now I remember why I hate taking part in discussions.

How to demonstrate it?...Open your eyes...look around.
I see food production per capita at its highest rate in the history of mankind and I see the prices for commodities on the floor.

I see you unable to defend your position with more than rhetoric.

Porpoise101
August 27th, 2016, 09:53 AM
Seriously? This really gives me a good laugh.
Now I remember why I hate taking part in discussions.

How to demonstrate it?...Open your eyes...look around.
Yeah this is why I am not a Malthusian. With technological developments, the carrying capacity of the Earth has increased far beyond it's natural capabilities. Today, people are working harder than ever to make every drop of water go further, every rice plant increase yield, etc. To me, the issue is that some regions are specifically overpopulated as the governments cannot handle the burden of the people. Their infrastructure, health, and food systems just cannot handle it. Other areas are simply becoming deserted. This is an issue as well.

Vlerchan
August 27th, 2016, 09:59 AM
To me, the issue is that some regions are specifically overpopulated as the governments cannot handle the burden of the people.
This makes more sense (except I'd also emphasis markets being able to cater to these people - or not).

But even then: one would presume that people crowd into these areas because the standard of living is greater than what is available to them elsewhere: either in depopulated zones or the zones that straddle their natural carrying-capacity. Here - it seems as if 'overpopulation' is a consequence of a brouder issue as opposed to an issue in itself.

If we can even call such an event overpopulation - I'd stress.

Arkansasguy
August 27th, 2016, 11:12 AM
Your anticipation of a societal psychological conditioning to be sexually responsible through abstinence, will itself take some time to work (years?). This also would meet resistance with a good proportion of the population who want to engage in sex that does not give children, so there is that side effect.

Mistakes also happen; I do not understand why a physical/biological barrier (the contraceptive) is being dropped in favour of a psychological one (the societal conditioning), when the physical one is plainly far more efficient at stopping conceptions.

Yes it would take a few years to work itself out.

There were fewer unwed pregnancies before contraception came into social and legal acceptability.

I think immigration is the solution!! People moving from poorer overpopulated countries to more developed countries with a declining population, it sounds perfect! :)


You can't prohibit contraception xD That would just make people that don't want children have children, often they will be young and won't be able to afford it. Not to mention the obvious fact that it is removing people's freedom.

Sure you can. Plenty of societies throughout history have, much to their benefit.

This planet is already getting dangerously overpopulated and the outlaw of contraception and abortion would accelarate at a rate we can't adjust for. Plus the accelarate the spreading of STIs


Porpoise101 I see the decrease of population in Japan and in Europe as good news as people start fucking responsibly. The problem of having too many retired people that working people can support will be a temporary one and trying to fix this problem by increasing the population either by forcing people to have unprotected sex or massive immigration campaign will not fix the problem but only delay the issue. You can accept a little more immigrants to support your older population, it would diminish the effect of having a older population with out delaying the issue or creating a new one when those people will retire.

The west is facing depopulation, not the opposite.

Outlawing contraception would reduce promiscuity, and thereby reduce the spread of STDs.

Unless Zika virus gets widespread.

There's already a bareback sexually transmitted case in Maryland from Man to Woman.

--
Like others have said, I don't think or feel a sudden baby boom creates economic stimulus. Young parents (I know some) do not magically produce money to spend $500 a month on baby products and later the necessary rent, bills, and hospital bills assuming you have health insurance. Often times you just get a bunch of poor people with children.

The issue here is the current economic system is too fixated on growth, to such an extent it forgets to value a slow and stable steady growth. Historically what I've seen both in the financial markets of boom and bust years are spikes and dips. From a consumer's side I see too many disposable plastics and products that aren't being recycled, and in decade long measurements we get harmful costly effects. (BPA plastics used in the 70's,80's,90's deemed safe then, not safe now).

The job market in terms of skills needed are supplanting non-specialized work, in turn creating financial anxiety which delays couples having kids young.

Also having kids when older increases chances for those offspring to have learning developmental difficulties which then affects the next generation of workers that probably need to be even more specialized with fast mental acumen.


For me my solution or idea is to have each generation foster intellectual growth, and innovation that allows for more graceful transitions between upsets when one job sector collapses due to sharp spikes in innovation.

Education needs to be better, parental quality needs to be better, societal values under the mantra of "freedom" need to be curbed because they aren't sustainable, and nobody or one group's claim to "the right to freedom" should endanger the whole of or pass off problems to future generations for the sake of "freedom now" VS "no freedom later, out of necessity because it wasn't sustainable".

Everything must be in balance.

---

What I am for however is the implementation of a sales tax, that is a flat rate (say 2% consumer AND business corporation tax) that is a consumption tax and effectively fights "gotta have it now" consumer culture, which I think is cancer and drives inflation.

The revenue would go too social security and programs like the NHS that Great Britain has.

In trade income-tax can be reduced or eliminated and people can psychologically feel more in control rather than feel like they were robbed by Uncle Sam.

Reducing promiscuity would reduce the spread of Zika.

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2016, 11:39 AM
The west is facing depopulation, not the opposite.

Who said the opposite?

Outlawing contraception would reduce promiscuity, and thereby reduce the spread of STDs.

You said it yourself people are still gonna have sex even if you outlaw contraception just look at some places in your country where they only teach abstinence only sex ed the number of people infected with STDs is way higher than other places where they tell kids to wear condoms when having sex.

Reducing promiscuity would reduce the spread of Zika.

Not really it still would be spreading through mosquitos

Uniquemind
August 27th, 2016, 03:35 PM
Yes it would take a few years to work itself out.

There were fewer unwed pregnancies before contraception came into social and legal acceptability.



Sure you can. Plenty of societies throughout history have, much to their benefit.



The west is facing depopulation, not the opposite.

Outlawing contraception would reduce promiscuity, and thereby reduce the spread of STDs.



Reducing promiscuity would reduce the spread of Zika.


No it wouldn't, that's only true if people were logical like machines.


Look at how sexually transmitted diseases affected natives during the 1700's and 1800's, where latex was not around.


No the problem is a lack of offspring from well educated citizens of western civilizations, that therefore feed into a generational-innovation loop for economic growth, but steady and stable growth.

Government stimulus also needs to be neither over-depended on, or under-depended on (aka: demonized).

It's job in my humble opinion is to work against private sector interests to help a nation transition technologies an other economic transitions that would otherwise cause recession, while incentivizing the citizenry to reeducate themselves for the new era.

Drewboyy
August 27th, 2016, 05:16 PM
Is a decrease in population actually a problem? I don't think so. It's instinct for animals to reproduce to replace them, and people are naturally having multiple kids

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 11:36 PM
Is a decrease in population actually a problem? I don't think so. It's instinct for animals to reproduce to replace them, and people are naturally having multiple kids
It is in Japan.

In the UK there in an average of 1.9 births per women. In the US it is 1.88. Without immigration a rate of less than 2 would have the issue of depopulation. Obviously you also want it to be more than 2 because of illnesses and deaths.

Vlerchan
August 28th, 2016, 05:08 AM
Is a decrease in population actually a problem?
You own a business:

You can be certain that with a. an increase in late middle-aged people is going to increase savings and reduce demand and b. natural decline in the population is going to reduce demand.

Should you invest in expanding your business? If so, by what percentage of what you might have otherwise.

Uniquemind
August 28th, 2016, 12:16 PM
You own a business:

You can be certain that with a. an increase in late middle-aged people is going to increase savings and reduce demand and b. natural decline in the population is going to reduce demand.

Should you invest in expanding your business? If so, by what percentage of what you might have otherwise.

Stores that sell baby products are a good measure of that demand in my opinion by the way. I would think they feel the impact first due to slow birth rates.

Reise
August 28th, 2016, 12:29 PM
Is a decrease in population actually a problem? I don't think so. It's instinct for animals to reproduce to replace them, and people are naturally having multiple kids
One mouth to feed it's two arms to work.

'couldn't make it simpler.


Space colonisation could make the resource management problem much worse even, if not done right - I mean, we've even set us a potential scene for the kessler syndrome/effect around the planet in only just under 60 years. It's a serious mess there too.

This highlights waste management as a major aspect in this too, which I do not feel we are doing anywhere near sufficient efficiency at as a civilisation.

I literally can't wait for Earth to have its ring, srsly.

This was done in another context, though we aren't still good at ecospacing (lel).

Paraxiom
August 29th, 2016, 10:02 AM
Just one of my favorite statements I've heard in similar contexts. I'm not sure what it means, either.

Ah, right.


I think immigration is the solution!! People moving from poorer overpopulated countries to more developed countries with a declining population, it sounds perfect! :)

Are you sarcastic? (It just sounds so.)


Yes it would take a few years to work itself out.

Along with a very significant proportion of the population refusing to go along with this, so it would be a difficult few years at the least.



There were fewer unwed pregnancies before contraception came into social and legal acceptability.

I presume that you meant 'unwanted' rather than 'unwed'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#History :

US birth rates declined in the 1970s. Factors that are likely to have led to this decline include: The introduction of the birth control pill in 1960, and its subsequent rapid increase in popularity; the completion of legalization of contraceptives in the 1960s and early 1970s [...]

It is unclear to what extent legalization of abortion may have increased the availability of the procedure. It is estimated that before legalization about 1 million abortions were performed annually. Before legalization, abortion was probably one of the most common criminal activities. Before legalization, an estimated 1,000 to 10,000 women died each year from complications of poorly performed abortions. Legalization was followed by a decrease in pregnancy related deaths in young women, as well as decrease in hospital admissions for incomplete or septic abortions, conditions more common than induced abortion.
[ Leon; Brown, Sarah Hart (1995). The best intentions: unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. ISBN 0-309-05230-0. ]

The rate of unintended pregnancy declined significantly from 1987 until 1994, due to increased contraceptive use.
[ http://www.jstor.org/stable/2991522?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ]

Since then until 2001 the rate has remained relatively unchanged.
[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16772190 ]

I see otherwise.



Sure you can. Plenty of societies throughout history have, much to their benefit.


I haven't heard of whole societies prohibiting contraceptives that we know of, 'throughout history'. Nevertheless 'our' society won't benefit from this, just because other societies may have.


Vlerchan

Are you aware of economic papers detailing potential strategies to deal with a given steady/decreasing population, without increasing the population?



I literally can't wait for Earth to have its ring, srsly.

Is theoretically doable with our technology, though there are plenty of ways to make a major disaster out of it. Hopefully this would be of lower priority than LEO crowding and such. :D



This was done in another context, though we aren't still good at ecospacing (lel).

The wonders of humanity.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 10:04 AM
Are you sarcastic? (It just sounds so.)

No I am not xD I understand why it sounds so though, I love immigration and that's quite rare nowadays!

Paraxiom
August 29th, 2016, 10:08 AM
No I am not xD I understand why it sounds so though, I love immigration and that's quite rare nowadays!

Alright, was just wondering.

Vlerchan
August 29th, 2016, 05:15 PM
Are you aware of economic papers detailing potential strategies to deal with a given steady/decreasing population, without increasing the population?
Not that I am aware of, off-hand. But then, it's not an interest of mine.

There's a good-sized literature on the current state of Japan, which might be a reasonable substitute, though. That, and a developing literature on The Great Stagnation, which might be of some interest and is a discussion of multiple coalescing trends.

I love immigration and that's quite rare nowadays!
What exactly do you 'love' about it?

I'm fine with immigration - within reason - But it doesn't inspire any sort of strong feeling.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 05:34 PM
What exactly do you 'love' about it?
I'm fine with immigration - within reason - But it doesn't inspire any sort of strong feeling.
There are a few things buddy :)

I think immigration is great for diversity and with diversity comes a reduction in racism, xenophobia and islamophobia as more and more people have, for example, Muslim friends they realise that they aren't oppressed by the hijab and not all terrorists :P I think this is obviously good for minority groups for the countries receiving the immigration but also for the world as a whole as it would influence foreign policy. :)

I think we are all human regardless of which side of a made up border we are born on. When there are people dying needlessly of starvation, poor water quality or caught up in wars and they want to move to better their lives, I think it is very immoral not to let them. That is the more serious side but I also think those without a desperate need to flee should also be allowed in, because we are all human.

I also think it is good for culture.

Lastly, I personally like having foreign friends so there is a personal reason why I love it :)

Stronk Serb
August 29th, 2016, 05:53 PM
Tax more the fertile people without children, have the tax decrease with each child and have the government give handouts for people with 5+ children or something.

Vlerchan
August 29th, 2016, 05:56 PM
[...] with diversity comes a reduction in racism, xenophobia and islamophobia [...]
I'd appreciate if this claim was sourced. Thank you.

I'm sceptical that a greater exposure to immigration results in a greater acceptance of immigration.

None of these factors appear to explain the differences between the US and
Europe. Instead, the differences appear to be the result of racial heterogeneity in the US
and American political institutions. Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to
the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters. American
political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally limited
the political power of the poor.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/why_doesnt_the_u.s._have_a_european-style_welfare_state.pdf

The issue, by-and-large, is that interactions are classized. You will have a difficult time convincing the working-class that increased numbers of economic-competitors is good for them, and you will have a difficult time convincing the middle-class that having more poor people around, is good for them. You also have some amount of evidence which claims that greater diversity leads to people being unhappier (http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/).

When there are people dying needlessly of starvation, poor water quality or caught up in wars and they want to move to better their lives, I think it is very immoral not to let them.
If the net, long-run consequence is to undermine the very foundations that provide those in developed countries with 'the good life', is it still ethical?

Should also be noted that being homeless in a developed state beats living in a vast number of developing states.

I also think it is good for culture.

I don't think it affects it, outside the restaurant industry.

Tax more the fertile people without children, have the tax decrease with each child and have the government give handouts for people with 5+ children or something.
Singapore tried this. Didn't seem to work.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 05:56 PM
Tax more the fertile people without children, have the tax decrease with each child and have the government give handouts for people with 5+ children or something.
Are you serious?

The only people encouraged by a reduction in tax would be those that cannot afford kids in the first place. Not to mention the discrimination against those that don't want/ can't have kids.

What's wrong with immigrants?

Stronk Serb
August 29th, 2016, 06:16 PM
Are you serious?

The only people encouraged by a reduction in tax would be those that cannot afford kids in the first place. Not to mention the discrimination against those that don't want/ can't have kids.

What's wrong with immigrants?

Lack of reception in some environments, the dying off of the native population... make it cheaper to have children than not to have them.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 06:35 PM
If the net, long-run consequence is to undermine the very foundations that provide those in developed countries with 'the good life', is it still ethical?

Yes I honestly think we shouldn't divide ourselves by where we were born :) That is radical, I know :)

Should also be noted that being homeless in a developed state beats living in a vast number of developing states.

Of course it is buddy and I am not suggesting that everyone should come but if they want to, I think that is fair :)
Lack of reception in some environments, the dying off of the native population... make it cheaper to have children than not to have them.
Why not pay people to have kids? I still think that is a bad idea but at least it does not target those without kids. It still puts pressure on the poor to have them though.

I'd appreciate if this claim was sourced. Thank you.

I'm sceptical that a greater exposure to immigration results in a greater acceptance of immigration.
.
Note that I didn't say that however I think I still would believe it however I am less sure on that :)

I said that an increase in diversity would decrease that bad stuff and not all minority groups are immigrants :)

White people become less racist just by moving to more diverse areas, study finds (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/White people become less racist just by moving to more diverse areas, study finds)

Vlerchan
August 29th, 2016, 06:46 PM
Yes I honestly think we shouldn't divide ourselves by where we were born[.]
The point I am making here is that - where a considerable proportion of the population is uncomfortable with immigrants, enabling this results in long-run net negatives.

Of course it is buddy and I am not suggesting that everyone should come but if they want to, I think that is fair
So, even the people that shouldn't come (in your opinion), should be allowed to come?

Note that I didn't say that however I think I still would believe it however I am less sure on that
Yes. Reading back I incorrectly implied that from the context of the discussion. Apologies.


White people become less racist just by moving to more diverse areas, study finds
This linki isn't working for me. Would you mind pasting just the hyperlink?

Porpoise101
August 29th, 2016, 06:57 PM
I think that some countries could start to be more multicultural. Let's use Japan. Japan has fairly large Korean and Chinese populations. Currently the government is making more things available in Korean. They could expand this to Chinese. With a few generations of cultural propaganda, surely social attitudes will change to make Japan be a more culturally tolerant nation. This would also allow these groups to assimilate easier and make the diversity thing happen faster.

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 07:07 PM
The point I am making here is that - where a considerable proportion of the population is uncomfortable with immigrants, enabling this results in long-run net negatives.
But I don't think it will buddy, will diversity and integration I think it will reduce the negatives :) I do agree though, the move must have support from the people.

So, even the people that shouldn't come (in your opinion), should be allowed to come?

I believe the people we were talking about were people that were better off in their home country than homeless in a first world country. I think they should be allowed to come, maybe give them advice to avoid them ending up homeless:) I would also try to give them welfare and do more to help the homeless however I do realise that will get expensive
This linki isn't working for me. Would you mind pasting just the hyperlink?
Sorry about that, I screwed up!:)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html

Vlerchan
August 29th, 2016, 07:22 PM
I believe the people we were talking about were people that were better off in their home country than homeless in a first world country.
Like I said though, lots of people would be better off homeless on the streets of London than in their current position. That's the reason that non-restricted immigration - letting people that want to immigrate, immigrant - isn't possible. It would undermine the conditions that make living in a developed state desirable, too.

I would also try to give them welfare and do more to help the homeless however I do realise that will get expensive
It's not expense that's the issue. It's the manner in which it distorts incentives.

Sorry about that, I screwed up!
No problem.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...s-9166506.html
I don't see a link to the actual paper in this article so I'm going to work from what's important.

To eliminate the possibility that more tolerant people tend to live in more ethnically diverse areas, which would introduce bias to the results, two of the seven studies were conducted over several years to see how peoples’ attitudes changed over time, the researchers said.

This doesn't eliminate that. The people that became less tolerant would relocate and be removed from the study because the study was focused on neighbourhoods.

It also doesn't eliminate bias having occurred from the onset. That is - the people found in these neighbourhoods to begin with tended to be more inclined to view immigrants positively.

That the attitudes of the people who lived in these areas became more positive over time isn't generalizable, as a result.

Generalising from German data also isn't recommended given the considerable stigma associated with xenophobia.

Survey data is also bunk generally.

Paraxiom
August 30th, 2016, 06:46 PM
Tax more the fertile people without children, have the tax decrease with each child and have the government give handouts for people with 5+ children or something.

Would this mean that fertile people have to have children? A rash attempt at a solution for me.

Apart from the generation-term economic problem, do you see an inherent bad situation with decreasing population?

jamie_n5
September 2nd, 2016, 02:54 PM
I don't think that immigration really helps things. Those immigrants usually end up on some kind of social services so that puts a bigger burden on the government and the taxpayers as well. Forcing people to have to have children is something that a dictatorship would do. That is no good at all. Then you have countries like China that only allows people to have 2 children and be sterilized. I don't know if population and economics are that connected myself.

Flapjack
September 2nd, 2016, 03:13 PM
I don't think that immigration really helps things. Those immigrants usually end up on some kind of social services so that puts a bigger burden on the government and the taxpayers as well. .
Source?

jamie_n5
September 2nd, 2016, 06:51 PM
My source is my memory from reading articles and things like that. It may not 100% totally accurate but to the best of my memory is correct.

PlasmaHam
September 2nd, 2016, 07:39 PM
I would first like to say that I'm going to be quitting the debate section for awhile. Nothing against any of you, but I feel that I need to take a little break from internet rants for awhile.

I'll still be on VTF, just not getting into debates except for when I want to add an interesting angle to it, like right now. I was watching the news and it was talking about the increased automation technologies and gradual loosening of Federal regulations on it. Do you feel that increased automation could actually negate the negatives of population rate decline? Some of y'all are smarter than me when it comes to this kind of stuff, so I'm curious what you think.

lliam
September 2nd, 2016, 09:00 PM
I rather tend to interpret depopulation as a healthy shrinkage.

I know, this will cause enormous economic and social problems ... but I think expansion is no solution.

Modern societies don't need more people, but a manageable, smaller population, who's people are more qualified in technics, social skills and such. And even the economic productivity must be adjusted accordingly to this level..

It's not about more people, expansion or such, but about thinking long terms.

The idea is to use the limited resources of our planet such effective so mankind even will exist in a thousand years or far beyond .. without to be thrown back to the stone ages.

Vlerchan
September 3rd, 2016, 08:05 AM
I was watching the news and it was talking about the increased automation technologies and gradual loosening of Federal regulations on it. Do you feel that increased automation could actually negate the negatives of population rate decline?
It's difficult to determine what the impact would be:

If the costs of investment decreased - as reducing regulation would - then that would of course stimulate investment and shift us towards a new and higher-productivity equilibrium where it would be easier to fulfil to social-welfare demands of pensioners*. Here though it's also worth considering the limited impact that reducing interest rates had on investment in a climate where there is insufficient expected demand (which a rising median age prompts - to a point).

But automation tends to be quite capital-biased and there could be an upwards redistribution of wealth, as occurred in particular since the late-80s, which could reinforce a savings glut and undermine current demand further.

Nonetheless, regardless of the net impact, it's certainly going to be a long-run, welfare-positive move.

---

* Insofar as we presume that pension spending per capita remains constant.

But pensioners have significant political power and presuming that is probably naively optimistic.