Many thanks for this, which I only saw today, plus a comment and a request.
The comment: this "it may not require a shrinking population to stunt innovation; an aging one alone will do" is the same point that, quoting another study that comes to similar conclusions, I made in "Point 6" here https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/innovation-scams-education-myths
👉 Good points indeed, but the conclusion seams a bit biased by the Malthusian “end of the world” predictions, with which I tend to disagree.
👉 To keep the entropy of the system, if something bad is happening on one side, good things need to happen on the other.
👉 The population decline on a global scale, triggered by the demographic transformation, is expected to start only by the end of the century.
👉 Humanity is heading to space exploration, and colonization, as past history touched us, encompass young people starting new communities in “new worlds” (doesn’t that sound familiar looking back to how US and Brazil started?)
👉 Technology, as always, plays a key role on this puzzle. It was technology in agriculture that exponentially increased food production, something left outside Malthus equations. Technology changes things, bends the social contract, creates unforeseen circumstances and scenarios.
👉 Population decline should not be seen as an endless phenomena. And if it stabilizes in certain point? Which would be an optimal point? And if by then humankind is already restarting in new planets? And if …
👉 As a popular saying states: making predictions is very difficult, moreover predictions about the future.
Thanks for starting the discussion with such an educational article.
Great article! Very good points. I agree with the analysis, and I’m personally more interested in the solution. Is there any way to turn this demographic collapse around? Do we need new programs, new technologies?
Not sure. So far, no nation has been able to reverse the trend. Russia, Poland, Hungary, Japan, Korea are all pouring money into pro-natalist policies will little to show for it.
I think its going to take some kind of UBI for children to truly make a difference.
The problem is what they consider 'pro-natalist' ignores the dozens of cultural issues that support and surround natalism. Unless they deal with those, they won't get any real change.
I would think that over 8 billion people, we are far from having to worry about the dying off of humanity, especially since this rate of population is almost a straight statistical line upwards from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the present. It is an interesting problem, but not one that overshadows the effects we are having on the climate, let alone other harmful changes our activity is causing. Whether we suddenly begin to experience die-off or not, we still have to contend with the geographical changes and surviving the problems we're responsible for.
Will enough of us die-off in time to potentially slow down this march of madness towards irreversible climate change? Or will we either stay as we are, or increase to 10 or 11 billion, thus speeding up the process? In any case, the solutions (if you wish to think of them that way) are rather morbid, if not cruel. But we are the species that have led the way into global uncertainty. Wouldn't it be us, that has to pay in some way to rectify it before it cannot be rectified? As cold as it may sound, maybe the reduction of our numbers, thus the activity going along with it, would be a solution to the problem. Does it have to be? No. We're just not capable of accepting the responsibility for changing our behavior dramatically enough to avoid the window that will soon be closing, giving us the chance to do so.
I know there are many denying human activity as having an effect on the planet whatsoever, but over the decades, I've surmised that the reality isn't that these people do not believe, but rather they are simply denying it; either from one's inability to face such dire thoughts, or worse. . . It would require the individual, or corporation, to admit and acknowledge two things. The first would be that it would mean having to do something or change something, in one's usual manner of going about life. A very uncomfortable consideration for those who tend to look at the world as one big oyster existing solely for their own benefit. The second reason would be that since so much of what causes this problem is the production and selling of items that cause it, that would mean having to stop. What it comes down to is the unwillingness to make any sacrifices, or practice self-denial for the sake of someone or something else. Instead, it is about profit, above all else, and the fulfillment of pleasure, entertainment, coupled with the need to acquire more of this or that or profit. So it is more convenient to ones wants, to simply state climate change doesn't exist.
Whatever the situation is, it really doesn't matter. Even the issue of this slow decrease in population when you think about it. Because whether we are 10 billion or 2 billion, it comes down to accepting personal responsibility and making the changes both personally and societally for those things that cause the degradation of the only world we have. Unfortunately, too many of us in the Western world are just not good at that.
Besides, the notion that we can keep on increasing in numbers, or that we will invent medical technics or pharmaceuticals allowing the increase of our lifespans by twenty or more years, or even the fantasy that science will discover a miracle means of solving our climate issue just at the nick of time is fantastical thinking. Because the last thing we will do is enter into willing self-sacrifice, conservation, or denying ourselves of our numerous pleasures, and objects that make our lives so much easier. But, if we were to suddenly change our way of thinking, and in large enough numbers that would make a difference, it would only be because the situation had already become so evident and so frightening to them, at which point it would be far too late.
Good think AI is coming along to augment/replace our idea generation capability. (kidding/not kidding). Maybe AI will solve the income inequality conundrum as well. Does this portend the death of capitalism? Are the elite wealthy isolated from all this inverted Malthusianism?
Many thanks for this, which I only saw today, plus a comment and a request.
The comment: this "it may not require a shrinking population to stunt innovation; an aging one alone will do" is the same point that, quoting another study that comes to similar conclusions, I made in "Point 6" here https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/innovation-scams-education-myths
Lastly, I touched the same "Suddenly not enough people" issue here, feedback would be welcome: https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/pronatalism-good-on-why-more-babies
Subscribed! Will take a look.
👉 Good points indeed, but the conclusion seams a bit biased by the Malthusian “end of the world” predictions, with which I tend to disagree.
👉 To keep the entropy of the system, if something bad is happening on one side, good things need to happen on the other.
👉 The population decline on a global scale, triggered by the demographic transformation, is expected to start only by the end of the century.
👉 Humanity is heading to space exploration, and colonization, as past history touched us, encompass young people starting new communities in “new worlds” (doesn’t that sound familiar looking back to how US and Brazil started?)
👉 Technology, as always, plays a key role on this puzzle. It was technology in agriculture that exponentially increased food production, something left outside Malthus equations. Technology changes things, bends the social contract, creates unforeseen circumstances and scenarios.
👉 Population decline should not be seen as an endless phenomena. And if it stabilizes in certain point? Which would be an optimal point? And if by then humankind is already restarting in new planets? And if …
👉 As a popular saying states: making predictions is very difficult, moreover predictions about the future.
Thanks for starting the discussion with such an educational article.
Great article! Very good points. I agree with the analysis, and I’m personally more interested in the solution. Is there any way to turn this demographic collapse around? Do we need new programs, new technologies?
Not sure. So far, no nation has been able to reverse the trend. Russia, Poland, Hungary, Japan, Korea are all pouring money into pro-natalist policies will little to show for it.
I think its going to take some kind of UBI for children to truly make a difference.
The problem is what they consider 'pro-natalist' ignores the dozens of cultural issues that support and surround natalism. Unless they deal with those, they won't get any real change.
I would think that over 8 billion people, we are far from having to worry about the dying off of humanity, especially since this rate of population is almost a straight statistical line upwards from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the present. It is an interesting problem, but not one that overshadows the effects we are having on the climate, let alone other harmful changes our activity is causing. Whether we suddenly begin to experience die-off or not, we still have to contend with the geographical changes and surviving the problems we're responsible for.
Will enough of us die-off in time to potentially slow down this march of madness towards irreversible climate change? Or will we either stay as we are, or increase to 10 or 11 billion, thus speeding up the process? In any case, the solutions (if you wish to think of them that way) are rather morbid, if not cruel. But we are the species that have led the way into global uncertainty. Wouldn't it be us, that has to pay in some way to rectify it before it cannot be rectified? As cold as it may sound, maybe the reduction of our numbers, thus the activity going along with it, would be a solution to the problem. Does it have to be? No. We're just not capable of accepting the responsibility for changing our behavior dramatically enough to avoid the window that will soon be closing, giving us the chance to do so.
I know there are many denying human activity as having an effect on the planet whatsoever, but over the decades, I've surmised that the reality isn't that these people do not believe, but rather they are simply denying it; either from one's inability to face such dire thoughts, or worse. . . It would require the individual, or corporation, to admit and acknowledge two things. The first would be that it would mean having to do something or change something, in one's usual manner of going about life. A very uncomfortable consideration for those who tend to look at the world as one big oyster existing solely for their own benefit. The second reason would be that since so much of what causes this problem is the production and selling of items that cause it, that would mean having to stop. What it comes down to is the unwillingness to make any sacrifices, or practice self-denial for the sake of someone or something else. Instead, it is about profit, above all else, and the fulfillment of pleasure, entertainment, coupled with the need to acquire more of this or that or profit. So it is more convenient to ones wants, to simply state climate change doesn't exist.
Whatever the situation is, it really doesn't matter. Even the issue of this slow decrease in population when you think about it. Because whether we are 10 billion or 2 billion, it comes down to accepting personal responsibility and making the changes both personally and societally for those things that cause the degradation of the only world we have. Unfortunately, too many of us in the Western world are just not good at that.
Besides, the notion that we can keep on increasing in numbers, or that we will invent medical technics or pharmaceuticals allowing the increase of our lifespans by twenty or more years, or even the fantasy that science will discover a miracle means of solving our climate issue just at the nick of time is fantastical thinking. Because the last thing we will do is enter into willing self-sacrifice, conservation, or denying ourselves of our numerous pleasures, and objects that make our lives so much easier. But, if we were to suddenly change our way of thinking, and in large enough numbers that would make a difference, it would only be because the situation had already become so evident and so frightening to them, at which point it would be far too late.
Good think AI is coming along to augment/replace our idea generation capability. (kidding/not kidding). Maybe AI will solve the income inequality conundrum as well. Does this portend the death of capitalism? Are the elite wealthy isolated from all this inverted Malthusianism?