Pensions are not sustainable. Current mandatory CPP contribution in Canada seems like that. It's a promise that government makes that we contribute now which is taken to cover the current senior citizens. What if there isn't enough working force when we get older? How would the government keep the promise?
The global population pyramid
61–70 of 176 posts
Re: The global population pyramid
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…
> Any constructive discussion is welcome. I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. The only clearly stated problem that I've seen is how social security will likely crumble since the fewer younger people won't be able to support the large aging population. But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines. I think we can easily take care o…
That's a poor analogy, unlike bacteria we keep finding more and more efficient ways of using resources we have. And more importantly we can colonize deserts, ocean and nearby planets. So we have space for quite a few doublings before facing any real problems with population size.
Re: The global population pyramid
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…
I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I got two weeks parental leave when my child was born. Civilized nations provide 6 months or more for both mother and father. My wife could take a couple years off of work, but then her career would be set back to square one. I elected to seriously downshift my own career just so I could see my kids on a daily basis. By that I m…
> I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again).
I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected?
I'm also bothered by your swipe against traditional families. Children who grow up in two parent homes are overwhelmingly biased towards success than children in single parent homes. Traditional families have been the norm for the entirety of human existence (until very recently). We discard them at our peril.
Re: The global population pyramid
#64It seems to me that the segment of the population that is most affected by societal/political policies are the young to middle age adults who are raising kids, establishing their careers, building wealth, etc. My understanding is that in the past, due to shorter life expectancies, this was also the generation that was generally in the majority; so each generation got a fair shot at making sure society served their ne…
Aka “How brexit came true”
Re: The global population pyramid
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are your ideas about more sustainable alternatives to our "democratic, equal" society? It seems to me a social movement that we cannot put the lid back on. It appeals ideologically (at its base level of "everyone is equal") and pragmatically to most people. Your points about sustainability are valid and we need to think about them, but what else can we do aside from progress towards a more egalitarian society wi…
I only just thought about this, so it might be a crazy idea but: States could pay parents caring after children. In fact this already happens in modern western societies with some resemblence of a social state. But I think the problem is that a "family" gets the benefit. And the "family" shares the benefit. And then the mentality is: I spend all day at work, and if I lose my job, we will lose my income. But no one is…
In the US there is some pushback to giving families any more government benefits from the childless. Now that I have children it's very clear to me why such benefits are a need. This seems even more important as corporations dominate our culture with ever-increasing competitive pressures.
Still, paying out benefits does mean a sacrifice from somewhere else--even if it'll be a long-term gain for all. Education and life experience changed my entrenched views, so perhaps it can do the same for others.
(Full disclosure: I've worked for employers with no parental leave whatsoever.)
Re: The global population pyramid
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…
> Any constructive discussion is welcome. I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. The only clearly stated problem that I've seen is how social security will likely crumble since the fewer younger people won't be able to support the large aging population. But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines. I think we can easily take care o…
> I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem.
It's not really a problem, it survival. Not having kids is not really a problem, but the fact is that you genes will die along with you.
Same for culture. Your own culture dying might not be a problem, but it means that your values will die along with it.
Having equality between individuals is something to strive for (in my western opinion), but does this same value mean that your culture will die out, together with its values? Another culture might survive, because they have less 'favorable' values.
Re: The global population pyramid
#67My concern is that population will shrink after 2100 globally but it will already be shrinking in the rich countries long before that. And all indicators right now is that shrinkage will speed up. There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction…
I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…
Much isn't said enough about modern fertility rates and how they are shrinking rapidly.
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/?from=world#$state$marker$ax...
Re: The global population pyramid
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…
Words fail me reading comments like this. To say that "women" should be "women" and not do "men" things is an attitude that belongs in the dark ages. It's sexist. It's degrading. It treats women like mindless children who can't make their own choices about what work they want to do. Nobody is forcing women to go into STEM. We are encouraging them because unfortunately they have to deal with toxic attitudes all the ti…
Thank you. I was impressed of going backwards to the 60's reading nonsense like this. OP has unpopular opinion and knows it, but apparently still does not understand why it is sexist and degrading.
Re: The global population pyramid
#69My concern is that population will shrink after 2100 globally but it will already be shrinking in the rich countries long before that. And all indicators right now is that shrinkage will speed up. There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction…
>And if you encourage immigration as the solution to shrinkage you end up with rising racism and other reactionary trends to these changing demographics.
Not to mention the fact that you’re instantly lifting all those people from a third-world carbon footprint to a first-world one. I’m surprised more people in the “the world is overpopulated/global warming will kill us all” camp don’t seem to be too concerned about that.
Re: The global population pyramid
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…
> Any constructive discussion is welcome. I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. The only clearly stated problem that I've seen is how social security will likely crumble since the fewer younger people won't be able to support the large aging population. But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines. I think we can easily take care o…
> But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines.
While true for most of recorded, human history; that kind of assumption combined with hard limits like physics make your second point a more likely outcome. Unless you're suggesting humanity will re-engineer itself into a more sustainable form.
EDIT: forced typo