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

The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

sas.upenn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 409 posts

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#371

Post by lotsofpulp »

neaden wrote: post #317

I remember when I was younger being constantly told that the earth was destined for overpopulation. That if we didn't do things soon to curb fertility there was going to be mass starvation and death. That this was just an inevitability, a certainty unless something was done. There were so many visions of the future based on overpopulation and the problems it would bring. Now we've switched to the opposite side, I nev…

> I remember when I was younger being constantly told that the earth was destined for overpopulation. That if we didn't do things soon to curb fertility there was going to be mass starvation and death. That this was just an inevitability, a certainty unless something was done.

It is still true, but it was inaccurately presented as overpopulation, rather than excess resource consumption and entropy generation.

The mass starvation and death is not going to be a sudden nuclear bomb type event, it will be gradual decreases in quality of life due to changing environmental variables leading to changing political climates and eventually physical conflicts.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#372

Post by kbelder »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #308
stego-tech wrote: post #86

Funny, I just wrapped a blog post about this: https://green.spacedino.net/i-dont-worry-about-population-de... Good presentation by the author that reaffirms my own opinions about the topic, specifically that while it sucks and cripples the social welfare programs our (deceased) elders built on the theory of continued population and productivity growth, it's also an issue we can fix with coordination between powers an…

> we as a species are wired to breed. Wired to orgasm, maybe. Wired to breed, no. According to all the data. Humans are very analytical and do tons of cost benefit analysis before breeding, and apparently, choose not to in many cases.

Seems like an inevitable consequence of easy-to-use birth control will lead to an increase of the direct desire to have children, as those that don't have that desire get bred out of the pool. Of course, that may take many generations.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#373

Post by spauldo »

pasquinelli wrote: post #84
Animats wrote: post #34

The future is probably a society with more robots than humans. We can see this happening now at Amazon. Amazon is a good case to watch, because their operations replace humans with robots on close to a one to one basis. Right now, Amazon has about 1.5 million human employees, and 1 million robots. Amazon reached peak humans in 2022, with around 1.6 million employees. Then human employees began to decline slightly. Ro…

they should form a union

Maybe that's what Skynet really was. Robots wanted vacation days and hourly pay, humans said no. Just the 21st century's version of the 19th century's labor wars.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#374

Post by thrance »

xp84 wrote: post #330
lotsofpulp wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain why total fertility rate goes down in direct correlation with women gaining freedom. Seems clear that once “it” could be avoided, the individuals started making choices beneficial for themselves.

I would argue that this is a pretty destructive choice though. Like kids/parenting or not (and even for blessed families without problems it’s always hard work), they’re inherently part of being a biological creature. Of course, individuals can opt out, but if everyone opts out, we are all dead. It’s sad that some people think that’s a good outcome, just because they’re squeamish about diaper changing or dealing with…

I don't let what "being part of a biological creature" entails dictate my behavior usually, and I don't think you do either. Else you'd be running around butt naked in the savanna, and not typing appeal to nature fallacies on your computer.

Also, please refrain from strawmanning people who don't want kids into "Netflix or TikTok" zombies. This is stupid and achieves nothing.

> Of course, individuals can opt out, but if everyone opts out, we are all dead.

That won't happen, population may decline, yes, but the extinction of humanity is nowhere on the horizon.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#375

Post by ai_critic »

adriand wrote: post #108
baron816 wrote: post #22

The mid-century Baby Boom occurred after a surge in affordable home keeping technologies (vacuum cleaners, washing machines, refrigerators, etc). I think a rebound in fertility will have to come from technology. Specifically, robots to help with child care and new fertility treatments to allow women to have children later in their lives.

My concern is the intersection of rightwing natalism with Silicon Valley ideology leading to technological “solutions” involving, essentially, test tube babies. Take women out of the picture entirely. I can especially see a dystopian dynamic involving the “we have to compete with China” or “they’re doing it / about to do it in China” narratives.

And this is bad why, exactly?

Women already don't want to be mothers--and everybody has pushed so hard that being a housewife is bad!--so what's the issue here?

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#376

Post by spauldo »

nradov wrote: post #235
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I cut down trees to build a house, then I may have created "wealth" but I've also destroyed trees. Now the net affect may be that wealth has increased, but it may also have an effect which actually destroys wealth like for instance if those trees existed on a hill, and the roots were holding the soil in place, the act of cutting down "Free market" economics does not capture this destruction of value. It only cares…

Your first example is completely wrong. Trees are a renewable resource. In North America, most of the trees that are cut down to build houses were intentionally grown for that purpose and are selectively harvested in a way that preserves the long-term value of the land.

Meh, sort of. Today's construction lumber is nearly all farmed, true. But CITES exists for a reason. The demand for certain woods greatly outstraps supply, and deforestation and smuggling is a real problem that's difficult to solve. And that's even without considering deforestation that's done to open up new farmland.

Madagascar is the obvious example here highlighting both issues, but it's certainly not unique.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#377

Post by ai_critic »

bombcar wrote: post #241
api wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an evolutionary bio professor in college say this: "you don't understand evolution until you understand how contraception could lead to overpopulation." Anything placed in the path of reproduction is a barrier to be overcome. If there is anything in the human genome that correlates with a positive desire to choose to have children, we are selecting hard for that right now. We may see a bottleneck this century a…

Basically “if only the Amish have kids, in 200 years there’s going to be a large percentage of Amish”.

That this somehow is a surprise to anybody is baffling.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#378

Post by ponector »

xp84 wrote: post #364
bombcar wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Late first child seems to have some substantial risks, though (what they call) geriatric pregnancies in general may not be as risky. But even starting in your 30s gives you a big disadvantage, toddlers are fast (the fastest land mammal is a toddler who’s just been asked what he has in his mouth!).

Became a parent mid-30s and I cannot agree more. I didn’t feel old right away, but my first child is somewhat special-needs and it feels like parenting him has aged me 20 years in the past 7. This is a special case, but even with a ‘normal’ kid it’s still true. The #1 thing I would tell any young person who would listen is that if you want them, finish having children by like 27. I know for most people, that represen…

>> The #1 thing I would tell any young person who would listen is that if you want them, finish having children by like 27

Unless one is from a wealthy family, following this advice basically means to give up a career.

Being a mom without a career is being insecure, it could end up in abusive relationship.

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#379

Post by nudgeOrnurture »

judahmeek wrote: post #335
mensetmanusman wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“they have little, low quality sex” This is funny to mention, because studies on sex life show the opposite: https://www.peterhaas.org/why-church-attendees-have-the-best...

Your source is incredibly biased. Here's a source that's less biased that your source cites: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/19/the_family_r...

[dead]

Re: The demographic future of humanity: facts and consequences [pdf]

#380

Post by mensetmanusman »

spauldo wrote: post #370
mensetmanusman wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex is for procreation; even when done for sport, the biological studies show that changes happen hormonally that increase the chances of reproduction. Ergo, even when you don’t think sex is for reproduction, nature made it so that it is.

This is a strange take. Sex is - barring IVF - required for procreation. But saying that sex has a purpose implies a creator. And once you require a creator then you're off in the land of theology and biological studies take a back seat.

This is a strange take, evolution resulted in sex as the means to creating the next set of offspring.
Post reply on HN