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

Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

eco3min.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#131

Post by bryanlarsen »

pmontra wrote: post #11

So a lot of problems will be solved by 2049 (overpopulation) and probably many others will arise (we never had worldwide decreasing demographics.)

Population is not the primary problem.

Some people have a massive ecological footprint. For instance, somebody who uses a private jet ~daily.

Other people have a negative ecological footprint: their actions either actively improve the ecology of the world or act to reduce the ecological footprint of others.

The difference between the two is many orders of magnitude. A world-wide population of 100 million daily private jet users likely has a larger ecological impact than 10 billion low-impact humans.

Population change takes decades or centuries for the ecological impact to happen.

Shifts in the ecological footprint of significant populations can cause shifts over a small number of years.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#132

Post by littlexsparkee »

geye1234 wrote: post #49
Razengan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overpopulation is not a problem. That is such a privileged first-world take. You haven't lived in overpopulated places. Just try it for 1 fucking year and then see if you still wish that hell upon anyone. I swear I'm starting to wonder if that's a take pushed by ultracapitalists so they can have an endless supply of labor and consumers, like the bans on abortion etc.

No, corporations want people without children, since they have more disposable income to spend on the pointless tat they want to sell you, and are willing to work longer hours to make rich people even richer.

I don't think so - children are drivers of consumption and they also reduce the agency of workers by eliminating their financial slack (less ability to jump jobs / take it easy due to higher spending floor e.g. daycare expenses, larger apartment, etc).

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#133

Post by littlexsparkee »

palmotea wrote: post #18
dotancohen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overpopulation is not solved. Many African and Middle Eastern cultures continue to have half a dozen children per wife.

> Overpopulation is not solved. Many African and Middle Eastern cultures continue to have a dozen children per wife. It will be (eventually) when the worldwide birth rate drop below replacement. And it's close to that now : https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN .

Worldwide population keeps growing until ~2080, doesn't sound so urgent to me yet.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#134

Post by glaslong »

sdellis wrote: post #60
bearjaws wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the people disinterested in starting families (boomers, genx) are going to be the majority of the voting base? We've already seen 20 years of policy driven by people who don't care about families being started.

I hate to tell you, but no generation is particularly interested in starting families at this moment in history. This is the closest thing the world has gotten to a general strike to force capitalism to slow its roll.

Yeah, with apologies to the mill which demands more grist, we grew up hearing that if you can't afford children, then you shouldn't have them. And we learned that lesson. Lived it too, from the other side. Our parents couldn't really afford it, and it's tougher now than then, getting tougher still. So it goes.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#135

Post by roysting »

pstuart wrote: post #114
baxtr wrote: post #95

Let’s consider this logically: What kind of people will not wanting children likely select for? At least two kinds come to mind: 1) People who love children and are willing to have them regardless of the impact on their financial situation. 2) People living in societies where women (and likely some men) lack a say in whether or not to have children. The first kind could be very good. The second is definitely not some…

If things don't change, those in power in the US will succeed in making the second a reality. There is a "replacement" crisis but it's being addressed by pearl clutching and those advocating for forced birth. Having children is expensive all the way around. And women's reproductive rights have enabled them to (rightfully) make their own choices about motherhood. To state the obvious: children literally are the future…

[dead]

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#136

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

cyberax wrote: post #61
BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

15-minute neighborhoods with bike lanes are exactly the kinds of places good for raising kids in.

No, they're not. They are places where cities go to die. Walk in Tokyo and try to find children there.

> Walk in Tokyo and try to find children there

There might a few more things going on there than just density, perhaps operating on a national level.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#137

Post by JoshTriplett »

arjie wrote: post #105
JoshTriplett wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should establish UBI and universal health care, not tied to age, and then the concept of "retirement age" can go away.

I suppose we could pay everyone about $1.2k/mo and that would exhaust the entire current federal budget but that would eliminate the 60% or so of the federal budget dedicated to the aggregate of all social welfare programs. The tax increases required would be substantial to keep Medicare, Social Security, Health services, Education, and so on. Without more productive capacity the extra $1.2k/mo would cause enormous i…

> that would eliminate the 60% or so of the federal budget dedicated to the aggregate of all social welfare programs

The combination of UBI and healthcare largely should. UBI serves as a better alternative to most such programs (and has much less administrative overhead).

Also, any form of UBI will likely result in substantial spending increases (trickle-up economics is well-established as actually working, incremental dollars handed to the average person are typically spent, not saved), as well as reducing structural friction in the labor market (people can change jobs more easily).

> Without more productive capacity

UBI will also likely result in more businesses/entrepreneurship, R&D, and other substantial improvements to productive capacity. Studies generally show that UBI does not cause people to substantially leave the job market.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#138

Post by [deleted] »

subarctic wrote: post #44
bearjaws wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the people disinterested in starting families (boomers, genx) are going to be the majority of the voting base? We've already seen 20 years of policy driven by people who don't care about families being started.

They still wanna be grandparents or great grandparents

[deleted]

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#139

Post by iamnothere »

pstuart wrote: post #114
baxtr wrote: post #95

Let’s consider this logically: What kind of people will not wanting children likely select for? At least two kinds come to mind: 1) People who love children and are willing to have them regardless of the impact on their financial situation. 2) People living in societies where women (and likely some men) lack a say in whether or not to have children. The first kind could be very good. The second is definitely not some…

If things don't change, those in power in the US will succeed in making the second a reality. There is a "replacement" crisis but it's being addressed by pearl clutching and those advocating for forced birth. Having children is expensive all the way around. And women's reproductive rights have enabled them to (rightfully) make their own choices about motherhood. To state the obvious: children literally are the future…

A people that will not or cannot reproduce itself must eventually step aside for a people that will.

Those who govern us see us as an economic zone to exploit, so perpetuating core social values isn’t really a concern. Although even countries who recognize this problem are having trouble finding a solution.

It may simply be that the future doesn’t look very much like the “developed world”. The only nations (or large subcultures like the Amish) that still have high fertility rates also have values and lifestyles that appear very foreign to us.

I’m not passing judgement, it’s just Darwin in action.

Re: Adults over 65 will outnumber children by 2029

#140

Post by cyberax »

arjie wrote: post #58
cyberax wrote: post #36

Keep building these bike lanes and 15-minute neighborhoods. So that people don't even think about having children. Make sure people have no personal space and no personal time. That's how we reduce the Earth's population!

Well personal space and personal time were not in abundant supply in our times of growth. It is true that urban areas have far fewer children than rural areas and that this is a worldwide property. It’s a pity since I like the ability for kids to walk to places and take the bus or train and I’ve grown up in a rural place (pythons and peacocks, cows and birds, scorpions and cobras!) and in a highly urbanized environme…

> I personally think it’s just opportunity cost.

Nope. It's just time and personal living space. It's THAT simple.

Go on, try to plan your day with transit and no car if you have 3 children (with 2-3 year age gaps). You'll find that this really works only if everything is concentrated, or if it's a full-time job for you. That's why we hear so much about "15-minute neighborhoods".

But when everything is concentrated, it becomes EXPENSIVE and you also lose any semblance of choice. You will likely have only one school, one daycare, one community center. You become hemmed in within that "walkable" neighborhood. That park nearby? It surely can look nice, but what if it's the only park within reasonable walking distance? So you don't even have an _option_ to go somewhere else with kids, without making it a full-day trip?

People like to laugh at Texas, about how riding an SUV to a walkable park is ridiculous. But is it, really?

The way to fix all of it? Suburbs and cars. Cars provide personal freedom and personal space. That's also why the US had a higher birth rate for much longer than Europe, and it started cratering once young people were forced (by the economy) to move into dense city cores.

Post reply on HN