11–20 of 98 posts
> It is a distinct possibility — highlighted in the recent book, Empty Planet — that global population will decline rather than stabilize in the long run. What happens to economic growth when population growth turns negative? IMO, this is a pretty silly idea. The fundamental problem with this theory is that there are sub-populations that have been able to maintain high fertility despite the decline in broader society…
> It is a distinct possibility — highlighted in the recent book, Empty Planet — that global population will decline rather than stabilize in the long run. What happens to economic growth when population growth turns negative? IMO, this is a pretty silly idea. The fundamental problem with this theory is that there are sub-populations that have been able to maintain high fertility despite the decline in broader society…
There's a reason why religions exist. If they didn't increase the fitness of their adherents, they'd die out rather quickly. We may get caught off guard by shifting demographics and a decline in secular value systems. There are many religions which preach the 'fertility gospel' in one form or another. If the religion is effective in keeping the new generations devout, and that is an important question, we're going to have a population explosion.
Isn't the underlying assumption that economic growth is tied to an ever growing population being tested in the age of automation?
Sure, but one would then assume that in the age of automation, our productivity rates would be skyrocketing. It seems that that hasn't been the trend after the great recession [1]. Not to say that it couldn't change, but seems to me like there's some kind of narrative violation going on where "thought leaders" preach about automation, yet we can't see it in the statistics. Edit: Although, there's also a change that w…
1) Our standards for products have grown exponentially. It probably does take more labour-hours to produce, say, a mid-range car today than it did in 1980, but that car does unbelievably more than the 1980 model did. Everything in it is controlled and monitored by software. It has navigation and safety and vehicle control and convenience and entertainment features beyond anything you could get even 5 years ago. It'd be astounding if it didn't take more time to build.
2) Wages in real terms haven't grown significantly in a long time. This translates to labour hours being relatively cheap, so companies can spend more hours on their products for the same R&D budget.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but one would then assume that in the age of automation, our productivity rates would be skyrocketing. It seems that that hasn't been the trend after the great recession [1]. Not to say that it couldn't change, but seems to me like there's some kind of narrative violation going on where "thought leaders" preach about automation, yet we can't see it in the statistics. Edit: Although, there's also a change that w…
Productivity by automation is constrained by the available energy, also economic growth could already be limited by the lack of availale energy. https://energyeconomicgrowth.org/sites/eeg.opml.co.uk/files/...
> It is a distinct possibility — highlighted in the recent book, Empty Planet — that global population will decline rather than stabilize in the long run. What happens to economic growth when population growth turns negative? IMO, this is a pretty silly idea. The fundamental problem with this theory is that there are sub-populations that have been able to maintain high fertility despite the decline in broader society…
How do u suppose startups will cater to these 300 million Amish users?
I know very little about the Amish, except that they eschew certain kinds of technology (sort of - Amish tend to be fragmented over this issue) and somewhat insular.
I can confidently say: no one knows what 200 years will do to Amish culture.
> It is a distinct possibility — highlighted in the recent book, Empty Planet — that global population will decline rather than stabilize in the long run. What happens to economic growth when population growth turns negative? IMO, this is a pretty silly idea. The fundamental problem with this theory is that there are sub-populations that have been able to maintain high fertility despite the decline in broader society…
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_factor_(demography)
Why would you care about economic growth in absolute terms instead of productivity per person?
> It is a distinct possibility — highlighted in the recent book, Empty Planet — that global population will decline rather than stabilize in the long run. What happens to economic growth when population growth turns negative? IMO, this is a pretty silly idea. The fundamental problem with this theory is that there are sub-populations that have been able to maintain high fertility despite the decline in broader society…
This. There's a reason why religions exist. If they didn't increase the fitness of their adherents, they'd die out rather quickly. We may get caught off guard by shifting demographics and a decline in secular value systems. There are many religions which preach the 'fertility gospel' in one form or another. If the religion is effective in keeping the new generations devout, and that is an important question, we're go…
Counterpoint:
The Shakers, a Christian sect that enforced complete celibacy (pretty much the definition of decreased fitness) was founded in 1747 and apparently continues to this day [1] (although from the looks of it, it probably won't last another 50 years).
That being said, I largely agree with your point. Religions that make up substantial portions of society are probably beneficial for the fitness of their members.
___
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#20th_century_to_the_pr...
> It is a distinct possibility — highlighted in the recent book, Empty Planet — that global population will decline rather than stabilize in the long run. What happens to economic growth when population growth turns negative? IMO, this is a pretty silly idea. The fundamental problem with this theory is that there are sub-populations that have been able to maintain high fertility despite the decline in broader society…
Amish fertility has fallen just as much as overall American fertility has.
"In the modern period, we can see that, from the early 1980s to 2000, Amish fertility had actually fallen way more than U.S. TFR [Total Fertility Rate] on the whole. Then it spiked in the late 2000s, and has fallen since."