Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Population Bust

foreignaffairs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 182 posts

Re: The Population Bust

#51

Post by elihu »

toasterlovin wrote: post #27
esarbe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. The use of contraceptives is cultural, not biological. So we'll hit a replacement problem long before natural selection has time to catch up. The replacement issue has already real implications, this will become much more obvious in the course of the next 30 years. Any relevant change on the population size the prope…

> Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. No it doesn’t. My wife an I both wanted to have large families, even when we were children. How will contraceptives affect people’s basic motivations and life goals? > Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest. Fi…

Some people will want to have large families, but on average it seems that most people don't.

Re: The Population Bust

#52

Post by ip26 »

scanny wrote: post #45
dmm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Birth rates are below replacement everywhere in the developed world and China and most other places except the middle east and africa. There is no need for forced sterilization or whatever you were alluding to.

Let me rephrase: what happens when the developing world, larger in population size, reaches the wealth of the developed world. Has the problem dissipated upon reaching that point?

Based on what we know, the global population would crest, and then begin to gradually subside globally. The biggest question would be, what is the peak and is that number tolerable even for a short while.

Re: The Population Bust

#53

Post by philwelch »

pascalxus wrote: post #4

Relying on a larger and larger population to keep supporting endless growth is not sustainable. I know this is unpopular, but: We need to find a way to sustainably live on this planet with a reasonably sized population. People keep talking about how the next generation needs to support all the debt and extravagances of the past generations but this unethical. the next generation was born without first being asked whe…

You can have economic growth without growing population or resource consumption. Either way, that still doesn’t address the problems of population decline.

Re: The Population Bust

#54

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

toasterlovin wrote: post #28
esarbe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my answer above; before natural selection kicks in and makes the population rebound, we'll already have hit the replacement problem.

See mine as well. Reduced population is not a problem. Life is easier, not harder, when there is less competition for resources. Our pension systems will collapse, though. People will adapt; pensions have not existed for most of human history.

From current levels maybe, but not always.

We cooperate as well as compete. A world with too few people would have its own struggles.

Re: The Population Bust

#55

Post by philwelch »

toasterlovin wrote: post #27
esarbe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. The use of contraceptives is cultural, not biological. So we'll hit a replacement problem long before natural selection has time to catch up. The replacement issue has already real implications, this will become much more obvious in the course of the next 30 years. Any relevant change on the population size the prope…

> Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. No it doesn’t. My wife an I both wanted to have large families, even when we were children. How will contraceptives affect people’s basic motivations and life goals? > Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest. Fi…

The Black Death killed people all at once, though. Especially the old and infirm. A demographic population decline would mean large numbers of people growing old and infirm while the necessary workload of producing the goods and services they consume gets concentrated among fewer and fewer people. One particular example of this might be shortages of doctors and other medical professionals, hospital overcrowding, and similar issues.

Re: The Population Bust

#56

Post by mrrrgn »

elihu wrote: post #51
toasterlovin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. No it doesn’t. My wife an I both wanted to have large families, even when we were children. How will contraceptives affect people’s basic motivations and life goals? > Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest. Fi…

Some people will want to have large families, but on average it seems that most people don't.

If the tendency to have large families is heritable in some measurable way, maybe because of beliefs or personality traits, wouldn't the carriers of whatever makes them have more babies eventually overtake the rest of the population?

It may not be the case that this is how it will work, but it's not a foregone conclusion that "on average" most people will continue to not want to have kids even in the "first world."

(Don't Mormons for instance have a fertility rate well above replacement despite also having higher than average incomes?)

Re: The Population Bust

#57

Post by thaumaturgy »

I keep being surprised that this is surprising to anyone. This is a commonly-observed pattern in biology; a simple graph called the Gompertz function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_function) is often used to model it.

I guess most folks have always assumed that humans were somehow exempt from the natural laws, maybe because of the much greater degree to which we are able to reshape our environment to suit our needs (sometimes to our long-term detriment).

But so many growth-related things seem to follow a Gompertz function that I think it's likely we just don't yet understand all of the factors when figuring out our own carrying capacity.

I'm really curious whether our asymptotic population limit only applies to our population on one world, or if, were we to eventually become multiplanetary, we'd discover that a whole other planet wouldn't really increase our overall population that much.

I wish I could be around to see the answer to that question.

Re: The Population Bust

#58

Post by philwelch »

toasterlovin wrote: post #47
sfink wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a wealth of data now that shows fertility declining with increased standard of living. (Lots of correlations obscure the exact causations, but among the correlations is female economic and social mobility.) Your example is an eminently plausible mechanism for the spread of high fertility via either genetic or social vectors - but given that it contradicts the data, I don't see how it can be any more than an…

The mechanism is that the propensity to have more children is partly genetic. So as people with those genes out-breed the rest of the population, those genes come to predominate in the population. Thus overcoming the demographic transition. Here is a recent paper that models this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381... The Black Death is pretty well accepted as a contributor to the end of feu…

> The mechanism is that the propensity to have more children is partly genetic. So as people with those genes out-breed the rest of the population, those genes come to predominate in the population. Thus overcoming the demographic transition.

Is this entirely a genetic thing or are there also cultural components? I’ve long entertained a crackpot theory that North America will be almost entirely Mormon or Roman Catholic in 200 years, partially for this reason. The only reservation being that secular-humanist culture seems to convert people from more traditional cultures even faster than they reproduce....

Re: The Population Bust

#59

Post by philwelch »

klyrs wrote: post #40
newvoiceoldphne wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is. It's only unsustainable if you restrict the population to a limited area (ie - Earth) There may come a time when we don't NEED a larger population to support increasing specialization, but until then a broader population base is needed to foster growth in technology. Not to mention that those 'one in a billion' history changing genius happen in larger numbers when we have more billions...

Exponential growth is unsustainable in a 3D universe with a finite speed of light. Space is not a magical savior

But we’re nowhere near the theoretical limits of our own solar system yet.

Re: The Population Bust

#60

Post by munificent »

scanny wrote: post #45
dmm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Birth rates are below replacement everywhere in the developed world and China and most other places except the middle east and africa. There is no need for forced sterilization or whatever you were alluding to.

Let me rephrase: what happens when the developing world, larger in population size, reaches the wealth of the developed world. Has the problem dissipated upon reaching that point?

The evidence is yes. Assuming the developing world also provides access to birth control, allows women to access education and jobs, etc. then it seems that cultures naturally reach a point where the birthrate lowers.
Post reply on HN