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

Basement Fertility

betonit.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 239 posts

Re: Basement Fertility

#131

Post by hgsgm »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #84
jimbob45 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Any more and you have to worry about overpopulation. That said, I'm of the opinion that we'll never really need to have any tough conversations about birth rates because they've fallen so drastically across the board. It seems that it will be enough to universally encourage higher birth rates in every…

I think there will be some interesting conversations, namely around women’s civil rights. Incentivizing a woman to have a baby is extremely expensive, and I do not think any country has come up with an offer so attractive such that it causes birth rates to go up. Which brings up 2 questions: how much does a society have to offer women, and would that society continue to be competitive on a global playing field relati…

> getting birth rates up by removing women’s agency.

The USA just did this.

Re: Basement Fertility

#132

Post by sien »

User23 wrote: post #76
finiteseries wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China will depopulate >50% by 2100 (conservatively) and we’re still worrying about mid 20th century concepts like carrying capacities as if we aren’t a highly advanced (and depopulating) tool making species entirely capable of creating ecosystems wholesale and affecting said capacities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Subsaharan Africa is going to keep human population growth going to at least ten billion persons by 2100[1], even with China[2] and the rest of the world's reduced population growth[3]. [1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/9... [2] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/1... [1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/9...

This is disputed :

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02522-6

Population growth fell much faster than expected in many places such as Singapore and Iran. Today in Africa people have mobile phones and hence much better access to information on things like birth control.

That Nature article shows that the population expected at 2100 has a realistic range from about 9 Bn to 11 Bn. That difference comes from slightly different assumptions about the change in birth rates in Africa and other places.

From the article :

"In 2014, a group at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Vienna produced its own forecast. It said that world population is most likely to peak at 9.4 billion around 2070 and will fall to 9 billion by the end of the century. The group’s numbers rose slightly in a 2018 report3 that projected a peak of about 9.8 billion around 2080; a subsequent update has population cresting at a little under 9.7 billion around 2070."

Re: Basement Fertility

#133

Post by sokoloff »

causasui wrote: post #88
tony_cannistra wrote: post #44

It feels like there's an implicit "More Kids Good" tone that pervades this. What's the "right" value for TFR? Why does it have to be higher? Why is it bad that it is lower in some places? The ecosystem we exist in / that sustains us surely has a carrying capacity.

If you trace this thread backwards to its root (by essentially responding to every answer with "so what?"), you end up with the question "would it a 'bad thing' if humanity were to become extinct?" Anecdotally, the vast majority of people I've met - from all walks of life and religious/political leanings - will answer this question with an unthinking "yes, of course that's bad". I've been curious lately why this is.…

The end of human suffering also represents the end of the (IMO vastly greater) aggregated joy of being alive as a human.

Re: Basement Fertility

#134

Post by hgsgm »

moonchrome wrote: post #40
mikkergp wrote: post #11

Is there a version of economic thought that doesn't necessitate constant population growth? Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Often engineering is argued in terms of tradeoffs or meeting certain requirements. Rather than follow economic theories that depend on growth, can we develop economic theories that adapt to the trends of the population rather than the other way around(Musks' need for cheap labor n…

>Why is low fertility rate seen as a bad thing? Because you'll live way past your productive years and the things you will consume (services, goods, medical, etc.) still need to be produced/done by someone. The automation aspect in economy has been way overestimated - truck drivers were supposed to be automated 5 years ago, meanwhile we are facing real world issues because of truck driver shortages. Even jobs that we…

Consume less junk, needs less production.

Re: Basement Fertility

#135

Post by sokoloff »

jimbob45 wrote: post #78
lotsofpulp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replacement rate and “right” are not necessarily congruous. If you have the opinion that there are insufficient resources in the world to live the lifestyle you want for yourself or those you care about, you may think a lower fertility rate is more “right”. And if you think your tribe is in a competition for resources with all the other tribes, then you may want a higher fertility rate for your tribe and a lower one…

Any less than 2.1 and you have to have an uncomfortable conversation about which nation is going to be the sacrifice. Any more and you have to worry about overpopulation. That said, I'm of the opinion that we'll never really need to have any tough conversations about birth rates because they've fallen so drastically across the board. It seems that it will be enough to universally encourage higher birth rates in every…

Who’s to say that the current world population is “best”? Maybe we’d be happier in aggregate if it shrank to a stable 5 billion people. Or maybe if it grew to 9 billion.

The global optimum matters (IMO) more than an assumption of “whatever we have is just right”

Re: Basement Fertility

#137

Post by jstarfish »

fleddr wrote: post #80
ismail wrote: post #41

A Typical WEIRD (western, educated, industrialised, rich, democratic) finding. For much of human history children have been raised in multi-generational homes. Just being raised by parents is relatively new. I recall reading in a book [0] that proposes this as one of the reasons we have such an issue with mental health etc. with our children. This also seriously hampers learning as wisdom is not passed down. [0] free…

What is striking in this development is the destruction of our social fabric. From African village model to the nuclear family is a massive step, made possible by the nation state. Arguably this impoverishes community/extended family life. The most extreme form can regularly be read in the news: somebody found dead in their home, undetected for weeks or months. But not even that is enough. Even within the scope of th…

While it has its issues, I'm not altogether convinced that the nuclear family is a bad thing.

We seem to function best at tribal scale. Jokes aside, most family units are functional.

Family scales well. Large-enough families invite dysfunction jokes, but they have a shared genetic interest. You can always coerce or compel family to do things like share resources or settle disputes against their own self-interest.

More than a few families together become a community, and this is where the problems start.

We look to colonizing space as the solution to overpopulation and resource depletion. Space is not a forgiving environment.

When water is running low or other critical challenges arise, a colony bound by blood will figure that shit out quicker than the space equivalent of your HOA.

Re: Basement Fertility

#138

Post by bobthechef »

causasui wrote: post #88
tony_cannistra wrote: post #44

It feels like there's an implicit "More Kids Good" tone that pervades this. What's the "right" value for TFR? Why does it have to be higher? Why is it bad that it is lower in some places? The ecosystem we exist in / that sustains us surely has a carrying capacity.

If you trace this thread backwards to its root (by essentially responding to every answer with "so what?"), you end up with the question "would it a 'bad thing' if humanity were to become extinct?" Anecdotally, the vast majority of people I've met - from all walks of life and religious/political leanings - will answer this question with an unthinking "yes, of course that's bad". I've been curious lately why this is.…

No post body was provided.

Re: Basement Fertility

#139

Post by jstarfish »

BirAdam wrote: post #65
ozim wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that our whole economic system is basically a Ponzi scheme. You get your payoff when you are selling stocks on your retirement to "next fool in chain" so 20-30 year olds. Land, houses will not go up in value if there would be not enough people to buy them. While yes people migrate to the cities or to areas like Randstad and while yes there is housing shortage in such areas but if immigration from rural are…

It's not just a Ponzi scheme due to population growth pressure and the old cashing out. It's also a Ponzi scheme because younger folks are literally paying for the older folks through taxation. Low interest rates also disincentivize saving while subsidizing the accumulation of debt, and spurring more investment into asset classes (land and stocks mostly). This creates a Ponzi like effect where in as long as people ke…

> because younger folks are literally paying for the older folks through taxation.

This is symbiosis, not a scheme.

Like them or not, the older folks literally built and/or paid for everything the young end up inheriting. The young are otherwise parasites.

Re: Basement Fertility

#140

Post by barry-cotter »

dorchadas wrote: post #82
dybber wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly living with your parents has more to do about culture and local customs.

This might be highly dependent on where you're at. I know many in Dublin who still live with their parents because there's nowhere available (everything's gone to short-term lets) at anything reasonably resembling a decent price.

The people get what the people want. Those are the joys of democracy. Rising house prices and the young emigrating.
Post reply on HN