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

Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 273 posts

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#111

Post by DirectorKrennic »

throwaway3838g wrote: post #53
throwaway29291 wrote: post #5

Perhaps, instead, we can see this as a good thing and plan a graceful way back to a more sustainable population over the course of a century. Just yesterday yet another in a long line of reports talked about how humanity has not just bent but likely broken many of the Earth's ecological boundaries that humans and non-humans alike depend upon. We've known this for decades -- mountains upon mountains of studies in ecol…

I agree with this sentiment but wonder… as long as there are humans, is an ever increasing resource consumption and waste production inevitable? Isn’t this unquenchable desire for more intrinsic to humans? Yes, this means we will probably blow the planet it up, but is there any other way?

With a sufficiently low and stable population, of, say, 50 million, renewable resources, such as water, wood, nitrogen, and fertilizer could be reused indefinitely. But non renewable resources, like oil, natural gas, and metals will eventually become permanently extinct, like oil and natural gas, or will have to be recycled in perpetuity, like metals. This is what awaits us sooner or later anyway.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#112

Post by kajaktum »

mlsu wrote: post #54
throwaway29291 wrote: post #5

Perhaps, instead, we can see this as a good thing and plan a graceful way back to a more sustainable population over the course of a century. Just yesterday yet another in a long line of reports talked about how humanity has not just bent but likely broken many of the Earth's ecological boundaries that humans and non-humans alike depend upon. We've known this for decades -- mountains upon mountains of studies in ecol…

I've seen this take before, especially around climate and the environment. It's correct that having 20,000 humans on Earth would be more (actually indefinitely) sustainable. These "degrowth" strategies mean tremendous suffering. People have to die to make degrowth possible. Those who stick around have to suffer of curable medical complications. They have to live hard lives without the comforts of modern life. Why do…

Do you think the world can sustain the lifestyle of the average American if the whole of Africa and China have it too? We need to change, and frankly those with privileges need to. Otherwise they would rightly claim that it is unfair.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#113

Post by Clubber »

aylmao wrote: post #16

An economic system that depends on an ever-growing population is by definition not a sustainable economic system. Wether shortages happen this century or N centuries from now, at some point, like any population, a cap will be reached If this is dire to the economy, we are better off thinking at once about changing the economic system, not the fertility rate.

There is no economic system that is sustainable where there are more elderly people not working / unable to work than there are young people who do work. That's the problem. Many countries are experiencing this problem. The US evaded it currently due to immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64f7NxQKKk

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#114

Post by ChatGTP »

throwaway29291 wrote: post #5

Perhaps, instead, we can see this as a good thing and plan a graceful way back to a more sustainable population over the course of a century. Just yesterday yet another in a long line of reports talked about how humanity has not just bent but likely broken many of the Earth's ecological boundaries that humans and non-humans alike depend upon. We've known this for decades -- mountains upon mountains of studies in ecol…

IMO "AI" and Robotics will completely destroy any chance of this happening.

Imagine armies of robots working 24/7 strip mining everything, logging everything, way faster and way smarter than people ever could. This is what we're making, this is what capitalism will absolutely love. There is no sign of any regulation here from governments, they will want it even more, "GDP! GDP! GDP!".

I was really hopefully we'd actually get to a nice place, it would be rough with climate change, but there would be less people and we'd look back on the 21st century with disdain and try live more simple lives, slower lives, it looks like we're going to try 100x everything instead.

If we get to the stage where people do live much longer, this will be the next issue, people never dying and the Earth basically filling up. It will be the next drama we can obsess over :)

I might be wrong, maybe we'll start mining asteroids or maybe the economy will collapse quick enough the singularity will be cancelled due to lack of demand (funny I know).

It's very hard to say, but I hope I'm wrong and you're right!

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#115

Post by thunderbird120 »

LapsangGuzzler wrote: post #101
chii wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seeing a measurable decline of standard of living in the west is this really true? With the exception of the covid lockdown causing issues, i've found that i've been able to acquire all my necessary material needs, and more. It is true that my purchasing power is being clawed away via inflation, but this is counteracted by wage increases and investment returns (on average).

America has far and away the highest poverty rate of the modern world[0], there's a very strong economic divide in America. I earn about $175K as a software engineer, which easily puts me into the top 1% of income earners in my generation. Just because life is good to me does not mean that I reflect the average lifestyle in America. 0: https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/ameri...

> In this table, poverty is being measured as the percent of the population falling below one half of a particular country’s median household income.

That is a measure of income inequality... not poverty.

Here is a measure of inflation adjusted household income over time for to address the original point[1].

People are not getting poorer

[1]https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#116

Post by LapsangGuzzler »

mullingitover wrote: post #103

As much as Brave New World is discounted as being about a dystopian society, being able to automate fertility would be a game changer for humanity. We can’t depend on hoping people voluntarily make irresponsible financial decisions by having children in order to save the economy.

It would also be an absolute horror from an ethical standpoint

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#117

Post by throwapine »

mlsu wrote: post #93
UncleOxidant wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These "degrowth" strategies mean tremendous suffering. People have to die to make degrowth possible. But nobody's saying they have to die early. A fertility rate under replacement will lead to degrowth. Yes, it's going to be difficult during the degrowth phase (less young people to support the aged), but eventually the population will stabilize at a lower level and that will be better from both a sustainability and…

But not a human standpoint! Billions of old people, dying alone. I do not want to live in that world. Let alone encourage it!

The alternative is continue killing trillions of animals a year and polluting the air, water and soil until our biosphere is no longer suitable for many species including humans. At that point we can forget about exploring the stars or whatever.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#118

Post by airgapstopgap »

aemreunal wrote: post #8

As the article points out, having a choice, and not being pressured by society into having kids one doesn't want, certainly is a good thing. On the other hand, as the article notes: > [...] cannot afford to have more children, or because of other policy failures, such as housing shortages [...] the financial aspect is a huge blocker for those who want to have children. We live in a world where the majority of young p…

Those economic explanations are searching for keys under the lamp post. As Tanner Greer notes[1]:

> Structurally the arguments in both countries go like “life is so hard, and things generally so depressing, that I have no desire to bring children into the world.”

> In both cases generations previous, who lived through events far more harrowing and whose material circumstances were far worse, did not express similar beliefs at any scale.

Improving living conditions is always nice, so it is shoehorned into every conversation. What arguments could he raised against improving the atrocious housing situation (at least on the level of vague sentiment, "time to build", not necessarily YIMBY activism)? None at all, the very attempt amounts to a political suicide.

Yet when you see basically the same trends and very similar absolute values in countries as dramatically distinct as Argentina, Belgium, England, Iran and Russia [2], it becomes increasingly clear that no economic variable suffices, no charitable materialist analysis can account for the cultural shift. The real answer is simply the perceived value of children and lifestyle amenable to their existence plummeting worldwide. Now, even minor (by the standards of our predecessors) inconveniences and contrived long-term considerations like climate change can be cited as legitimate reason to not have any (or not have more than one).

Modernity sees no point to children. And as nations age and budget decisions are weighted in favor of older and childless people, as urban infrastructure itself evolves to make children more of a labor-intensive chore a working person would not be expected to afford, any possible remaining point becomes even less compelling. But to begin with, rationalizing the child-free lifestyle with material excuses is just a vestige of old normative morality, token respect for traditional natalism.

In fact, we would advance the discourse more if we paid attention to outliers both in terms of fertility and in terms of its trend, those being, to my knowledge: Israel, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan. And no, it's not entirely about low-education traditionalist groups, certainly not in Israel.

1. https://twitter.com/Scholars_Stage/status/165885018362973389...

2. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1662234743851700224

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#119

Post by tjpnz »

geodel wrote: post #50
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> House prices, inflation, traffic…food scarcity NIMBYism, combination of bad monetary policy and a supply shock, and bad urban planning. Tokyo has cheaper homes and less traffic than cities with a fraction of the population in America.

And how is Japanese population growing considering they have none of American problem of "bad urban planning", "bad monetary policy" , "NIMBYism" and so on? Or -0.5% growth is impressive indeed?

If you live in a place like Tokyo it's expensive and depending on your salary you're not going to get much government assistance. In my case it's equivalent to $60 USD per month, for two kids. People on HN will often decry such things but it's a huge factor in the way people make decisions on starting a family or adding more kids.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#120

Post by DirectorKrennic »

aylmao wrote: post #106
klipt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shrinking population does eventually have to lead to smaller (or fewer) cities.

IMO this is getting a bit too ahead of ourselves. IIRC, Russia and Japan are the countries with the most population shrinkage, and they've just lost 5 million and 2.5 million people off their peak. - 5 million / 148 million is 3% down from peak for Russia. - 2.5 million / 128 million is 2% down from peak for Japan. Most importantly, Russia's population decline (which started before Japan's) has leveled off. It hit a…

Unless Japan's birthrate picks up, its population is slated to fall by a lot more than 2% from its peak. Try 50% or more. A birthrate below 2.1 children per woman leads to extinction.
Post reply on HN