Live data from Hacker News

The global population pyramid

ourworldindata.org

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: The global population pyramid

#151

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?

Not only pensions. Individuals cannot save any kind of money for retirement on their own if there will be no one to give to in exchange for services after retirement. We cannot save without children, and the only answer is more automation, or just tough it out until the hump is past and we can have a more stable population. Toughing it out is not easy: young people put off having children or avoid it altogether if th…

> young people put off having children or avoid it altogether if they feel they can't afford it.

Well, people describe their behavior that way, and it may be true to an extent over very short timescales (like a short recession), but economic development empirically leads to decreased population growth overall; people don't have more kids because they are prosperous and less because they are not, but the reverse.

Re: The global population pyramid

#152
post #146
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is weird to read because I celebrate shrinking countries, they represent a path forward towards high quality of life and lower ecological impact. Why would it be an issue, assuming we weren't fighting a way, for a country to shrink? There will of course be some economic hurdles to over come as constant and unsustainable growth is done away with, but after that what is the issue?

> ... they represent a path forward towards high quality of life and lower ecological impact. Could you expand on "high quality of life"? I'm not sure how that follows from decreased population.

As someone living in a city that has over the last 20 years had a massive increase in population I believe the previous poster is referencing less competition for limited resources. In day to day life this could be less traffic jams or less competition to use shared resources such as parks or even just lower property prices.

Re: The global population pyramid

#153
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are lucky a good solution to this problem could be significant increase in life expectancy and development of artificial womb that will allow people to have children later in life when they finally want to have children. But if the technological solution doesn't come soon enough the world will have to go through a much harder transition, trying to develop new culture that would combine aspects of secular societ…

Isn’t a future secular society unlikely when the people that are having large numbers of children are highly religious? It would seem that as the secular world keeps having fewer children that eventually the vast majority of people will be highly religious.

Religiousness is not genetic, many children from highly religious families become atheists or are moderately religious people who can bend or ignore religious rules when needed.

Re: The global population pyramid

#154
post #144
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a worry? Half of the land on earth is a desert, and 70% of earth is covered by ocean, most of which is also a desert. If we had enough people in rich countries who would want to spend their money on moving to new places, we would already have floating cities and many more desalination plants, and those places simply by growing food for themselves, changing their local climate to a nicer one, and by contri…

A couple of years ago, i myself would downvote my comment above, as it is a complete heresy from a standpoint of someone who believes that people are ruining everything they are touching, and the world was so much nicer before technology, and i thought that simply having less people would solve climate change issues. But unfortunately that's a very naive view. Even if all people were removed, arctic have already star…

I don’t see anyone else in this thread arguing that we should abandon technology and go back to nature. That seems to be an argument you’re having with yourself.

Re: The global population pyramid

#155

Earlier 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".…

Maybe you should try to do ALL of the things your wife does in the house and your son will want to become a dad? (And your girls will want to be whatever your wife has now the time to achieve, like becoming CEO?) There is no such thing as girls becoming boys and boys becoming girls. It all starts in the house with sharing the childcare, housecare jobs and the mental load.

Haha, I know what you try to prove here, but you are 100% wrong. I'm the one who spends most of the time with the kids. Their mom has a serious career. So no, this doesn't influence their preference.

Actually my kids don't want to do the job their mom is doing, since she's away/abroad all the time.

Nice try, but you are talking to the wrong person for that argument.

Re: The global population pyramid

#156
post #141

My 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…

This is weird to read because I celebrate shrinking countries, they represent a path forward towards high quality of life and lower ecological impact. Why would it be an issue, assuming we weren't fighting a way, for a country to shrink? There will of course be some economic hurdles to over come as constant and unsustainable growth is done away with, but after that what is the issue?

> There will of course be some economic hurdles to over come as constant and unsustainable growth is done away with

For a long time, I've been hoping to see better theories of "managed decline". (Or perhaps "managed contraction", to avoid nastier implications.)

There's room to bicker about what economics says will happen to per-capita income as population rises and falls - does lost comparative advantage outweigh decreased marginal costs of goods? But it's pretty obvious that none of this theoretical stuff is sufficient to drive what we actually see, where even modest shrinkage leads to economic and often social collapse.

The history of the American Rust Belt is a clear demonstration of why we need better approaches to infrastructure and administration in the absence of population growth. Depopulation there has been a scattershot process that creates empty houses and half-empty neighborhoods, so the tax base has fallen far faster than the cost of providing services like garbage collection and street repair. What's more, the emptying houses are often foreclosed or simply abandoned, leaving them the responsibility of the city. They go unmaintained, driving down property values, and eventually decay until they're uninhabitable liabilities. In places like Detroit, the abandonment rate grew so high that the city couldn't even afford to tear down unsafe properties, creating attractive nuisances and environmental problems. Worse still, many of those cities had debt-financed expansion based on projected population growth, so they immediately and inescapably went broke when it stopped. Very broadly, shrinking to a given population is far more expensive and damaging than rising to the same population.

That doesn't mean shrinkage is inherently bad, I don't think. But we're still terrible at accommodating it, and I haven't seen many good plans for how to do better. Most cities in the US are functionally insolvent with flat population and modest tax hikes, much less shrinking population. For a lot of first-world countries, putting together viable financial and logistical approaches to shrinking populations is going to be a key challenge for the next 50 years.

Re: The global population pyramid

#157
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A family is made up of a man and a women, who support each other in their strengths and interests, and raise children together. So why not focus on the "together" part instead of trying to force partners into segregated roles? As you note yourself, stay at home mothers are in a precarious position (and, curiously, enthusiasm among males for traditional motherhood is NOT correlated with enthusiasm for lifelong alimo…

> being raised almost exclusively by one parent, and having the other confine themselves to cutting checks. If that's how you see the environment that a stay-at-home parent produces, with a full-time employed parent functioning only as a vending machine, then how could two working parents be an improvement?

Two part time working parents, BOTH engaged with domestic tasks.

Re: The global population pyramid

#158
post #28

My 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. One of the worst things about using immigration as a solution is that it's merely a bandaid. The worst thing is that people who encourage mass immigration are (likely) unknowingly saying their country is more deserving of the temporary benefits of immigration, and t…

I find your argument quite flawed. Have you asked yourself why people immigrate? It is often to have or provide a higher quality of life to the people they care about. It is not about where you were born.

People and countries often make choices, some choices allows them to prosper while others don't. Think of Venezuela for example, the people chose to vote for a populist government and the government's decisions destroyed their economy. The individual living there now has to make a decision to stay and whether the storm or to leave in search of a better life. Is it the fault of Colombia, Brazil, Canada, US, Mexico that Venezuelans are looking for a higher quality of life? Is it the fault of these Colombia,et al that they look to find a way to sell it to their people that they should accept migrants? Although this is an extreme case, it puts things into perspective since you can do the same exercise for famines, wars, etc at different scales and different times in history.

On another point, some countries and families are dependent on remittance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittance) to support their policies/themselves.

Re: The global population pyramid

#159
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will still be a huge unemployed cohort "moving through the snake" (the diagram in the article is not as clear as the usual "Christmas tree" diagram" that shows a snapshot in time) world wide which can be deployed to equilibrate the labor imbalance. And that doesn't inherently have to lead to racism. For example the US bracero program in the 40s and 50s didn't exacerbate these issues in through the 1970s, nor di…

> An economic system not based on an age-based pyramid scheme and a move away from zero-sum scarcity mindsets will make addressing these issues much simpler. I hope this is our future. But I am afraid that you are overestimating our society's capacity to change course without some supply shock. We'll keep doing what we're doing until something breaks and then there will be a very uncomfortable few decades and many wi…

Things are breaking both in the OECD and developing world. The transition is messy but there's really little alternative.

Re: The global population pyramid

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Anglo-American establishment is a power consensus after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, two world wars and decolonisation. It refers to the hand off of power from Great Britain to the US. It has nothing to do with "Anglo-Americans" unless you're talking about a specific small group of anglophile elite families from the north-east of America with political and industrial wealth. A ruling consensus was establis…

I believe calling it a game and using those analogies trivializes the ethical implication of some of your views. And while I definitely don't think "all human beings are playing equally for the interest of all others", I do think if the "ruling consensus" elects to share power with a more diverse group of people that would be in the greater interest of humanity in the long term.

Power diffusion leads to asymmetric instability (and inverse). It is dangerous to assume non relativistic ethics in a pluralist world.

Conflict will happen in a persons head when holding oppositions simultaneously or inevitably between persons opposing heads simultaneously.

Self interest is true, self negating and both.

Post reply on HN