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

Japan's aging population could actually be good news

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#21

Post by Daishiman »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #3

> But fewer people in future will mean it has more living space, more arable land per head, and a higher quality of life, says Eberstadt. Its demands on the planet for food and other resources will also lessen. Different day, same Malthusian bullshit. These people can only think of humans as net negative parasites on the planet, rather than individual agents with a positive expected value to society. Density is GOOD…

> Different day, same Malthusian bullshit.

We are currently experiencing a human-induced mass extinction event and reduction of biodiversity comparable to the largest natural catastrophes in the planet. The way things are going, by the end of the century most of the large mammalian predators will be definitely extinct, and if carbon emissions are not reduced by the end of the century, by which we should become a carbon-negative society, the oceans will not be able to support most of the base of its food chain.

I question your valuation of human society above the base of the biological systems that support its very existence. A large population living in a humongous wasteland is of dubious utility for its inhabitants.

I reckon you haven't been able to see the true impacts of humans on most of the ecosystems in the planet. Ultimately, I think you're confusing density with population; a large population is not a requirement for a dense population. Furthermore, the percentage of the population that contributes to innovation is a very, very restricted subset of it.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#22

Post by ahomescu1 »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #7
gtaylor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your life raft is sinking, do you try to patch it, or do you throw someone overboard? Your instinctual answer says a lot about the type of person you are. Nobody is being thrown overboard. The article is just pointing out that it may not necessarily be catastrophic if population growth slows or even reverses for a time. We're all just speculating, whether you agree or disagree. In support of the article, slower…

A fertility rate of 1.4 is not a slowing of growth. It means population is shrinking. If you think of individuals as net negative for society, you probably think this is a good thing. I do not. Fewer people means fewer ideas. Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base - but it has ALWAYS been a problem, and a solution has always been developed that results in higher overall quality of life.…

> Fewer people means fewer ideas.

Good ideas come from a very small segment of the population. Just having more people doesn't mean we'll have more philosophy, science or art, except from scaling. If you want more creative people, then make that your goal.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#23

Post by ahomescu1 »

sn0v wrote: post #10
didgeoridoo wrote: post #3

> But fewer people in future will mean it has more living space, more arable land per head, and a higher quality of life, says Eberstadt. Its demands on the planet for food and other resources will also lessen. Different day, same Malthusian bullshit. These people can only think of humans as net negative parasites on the planet, rather than individual agents with a positive expected value to society. Density is GOOD…

A positive contribution to society and a positive contribution to the planet aren't necessarily the same. Sure, more intellectuals mean faster societal development. That doesn't take away from the pressure an increased population places on our limited natural resources.

GP isn't saying "we should have more intellectuals", he/she is saying "we should have more people because that way we get more intellectuals". IMHO it's a big difference.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#24

Post by ahomescu1 »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #3

> But fewer people in future will mean it has more living space, more arable land per head, and a higher quality of life, says Eberstadt. Its demands on the planet for food and other resources will also lessen. Different day, same Malthusian bullshit. These people can only think of humans as net negative parasites on the planet, rather than individual agents with a positive expected value to society. Density is GOOD…

> If your life raft is sinking, do you try to patch it, or do you throw someone overboard? Your instinctual answer says a lot about the type of person you are.

You try to patch it, but it also makes a lot of sense to stop bringing more people onboard. Lowering birth rates is an example of the latter, not of throwing people overboard.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#25

Post by guard-of-terra »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #15
didgeoridoo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fertility rate of 1.4 is not a slowing of growth. It means population is shrinking. If you think of individuals as net negative for society, you probably think this is a good thing. I do not. Fewer people means fewer ideas. Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base - but it has ALWAYS been a problem, and a solution has always been developed that results in higher overall quality of life.…

> Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base Overpopulation destroys quality of life. You can't fix that by throwing more technology at the problem. Technology isn't going to make more nice beachfront property accessible and affordable for middle class family vacations. Technology isn't going to make more high grade wild tuna, or quiet walks in empty woods.

We should invent a huge space water boiler; this way we can warm up nothern coasts of Canada and Russia and get nearly unlimited beach front.

In Stanislaw Lem's book the main character lived on Greenland warmed up from space to allow subtropical climate. I guess this idea will cause any environmentally-aware hipster from California to have a heart attack.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#26

Post by revelation »

Daishiman wrote: post #21
didgeoridoo wrote: post #3

> But fewer people in future will mean it has more living space, more arable land per head, and a higher quality of life, says Eberstadt. Its demands on the planet for food and other resources will also lessen. Different day, same Malthusian bullshit. These people can only think of humans as net negative parasites on the planet, rather than individual agents with a positive expected value to society. Density is GOOD…

> Different day, same Malthusian bullshit. We are currently experiencing a human-induced mass extinction event and reduction of biodiversity comparable to the largest natural catastrophes in the planet. The way things are going, by the end of the century most of the large mammalian predators will be definitely extinct, and if carbon emissions are not reduced by the end of the century, by which we should become a carb…

I don't get it. The ecosystem is not a constant system. It is summary randomness, guided by evolution. Whatever you are trying to preserve, be assured new randomness will happily take its place.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#27

Post by threeseed »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #15
didgeoridoo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fertility rate of 1.4 is not a slowing of growth. It means population is shrinking. If you think of individuals as net negative for society, you probably think this is a good thing. I do not. Fewer people means fewer ideas. Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base - but it has ALWAYS been a problem, and a solution has always been developed that results in higher overall quality of life.…

> Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base Overpopulation destroys quality of life. You can't fix that by throwing more technology at the problem. Technology isn't going to make more nice beachfront property accessible and affordable for middle class family vacations. Technology isn't going to make more high grade wild tuna, or quiet walks in empty woods.

No. But declining populations destroys quality of life.

With an ageing population you need someone to "work" in order to cover state-subsidised health care, housing, unemployment, pensions and other living costs for those that are still alive but not working.

And technology can absolutely solve a lot of problems. Being able to grow commercial quantities of meat in laboratories will change the world overnight. As will revolutionising public transportation, power grids, storage technologies, cars etc.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#28

Post by guard-of-terra »

In countries where fertility rate is much under 2.0, people tend to have two opinions on demographics:

1) If you don't have enough (read: a lot of) money then don't have children. If you're not ready to spend all your time on children while still making enough money then don't have children. If you're not the model family then don't have children. If we think you're not the best parent possible then don't have children. You better not have your children too late and certainly not too early. And yes, we're going to take your child away the first moment we suspect something from above violated.

2) People are so damn selfish, they don't understand that their prime happiness is their children, they spend their lives on themself and so we're all going to die as a nation and as an economy.

Surprisingly enough we often see both at the same time in one individual. More often than not.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#29

Post by a3n »

rayiner wrote: post #9

Here's the problem I see with both population decline and life extension: lots of research indicates that the creative peak happens from 20-40 or so. Geniuses rarely continue to be the same level of productive after that. In other words, progress is probably better served by giving two people the chance to live 50 years than one person the chance to live 100, though resource consumption is about the same. An aging so…

But if, on average, we live longer and healthier lives (healthier is not guaranteed), then our creative lives might last longer too.

It could be that creativity doesn't have as much to do with age and health as we think, and is more related to being new in a fascinating field. If we live longer we'd have more opportunities to be new with a large number of years in front of us. You can see this effect in the small when you get excited about a new programming language or industry.

Probably lots of other effects on creativity beyond mere youth. Said the old guy.

Re: Japan's aging population could actually be good news

#30

Post by rayiner »

a3n wrote: post #29
rayiner wrote: post #9

Here's the problem I see with both population decline and life extension: lots of research indicates that the creative peak happens from 20-40 or so. Geniuses rarely continue to be the same level of productive after that. In other words, progress is probably better served by giving two people the chance to live 50 years than one person the chance to live 100, though resource consumption is about the same. An aging so…

But if, on average, we live longer and healthier lives (healthier is not guaranteed), then our creative lives might last longer too. It could be that creativity doesn't have as much to do with age and health as we think, and is more related to being new in a fascinating field. If we live longer we'd have more opportunities to be new with a large number of years in front of us. You can see this effect in the small whe…

Its not a matter of health. You can give a 65 year old the brain of a 20 year old, but you can't give him back his naive unindoctrinated view of the world. And the sheer wonderment of childhood and adolescence is something you can never recapture. I have a 1 year old. There are expressions of joy you will only ever see on the face of a 1 year old, because for them the most mundane experiences are nonetheless firsts. Similarly, you only experience anything for the first time no matter how long you live. And I think there is a tremendous creative energy arising from those firsts.

I'm partial to the idea that geniuses have one or two great ideas in them per lifetime, regardless of how long that life lasts. Given 150 years of life, I don't think Picasso would invent cubism then something else.

Post reply on HN