Live data from Hacker News

Baby Boom or Bust?

historytoday.com

111–114 of 114 posts

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...we don't need a pyramid. The core financial architecture of the world is pinned upon an assumption of monotonically-increasing global population on a 3-7 generation moving average. So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. We're into generation one or two depending upon your definition of a generation, so we have some time b…

> So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. And yet Japan has some of the highest quality of life, a huge economy despite very few natural resources, some of the most innovative companies in the world and the longest lived people on the planet. It's been the poster-child for westerners as a failed economy with a lost decade and y…

Yes, I’m watching Japan with great interest. Wish I knew Japanese and Chinese cultures more intimately to be able to parse what we’re hearing as laypeople, but yay for specialists who do study that. Now if only I could find what those specialists wrote…

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. And yet Japan has some of the highest quality of life, a huge economy despite very few natural resources, some of the most innovative companies in the world and the longest lived people on the planet. It's been the poster-child for westerners as a failed economy with a lost decade and y…

Japan is very nice example, even if some would probably argue that 30 years is not enough to observe the real consequences of demographic changes.

Exactly. For my personal purposes in this matter (YMMV), 30 years of trend is curious. 200 years is data.

Re: Baby Boom or Bust?

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...we don't need a pyramid. The core financial architecture of the world is pinned upon an assumption of monotonically-increasing global population on a 3-7 generation moving average. So far, history has not been kind to those civilizations exhibiting declining populations over sustained multi-generational spans. We're into generation one or two depending upon your definition of a generation, so we have some time b…

Just in case: to maintain the population we need about 2.3 kids per woman.

And we currently appear to globally be converging upon 1.7. We recorded instances of declines lasting “several centuries” [1], so I wouldn’t start to closely interpret trends until we hit at least 200 years of the same direction. As a species this won’t become material until it has manifested for about half a millennium maybe longer?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

Post reply on HN