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

381–390 of 409 posts

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

#381

Post by spauldo »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #351
triceratops wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have to release brine directly into the seaside? What about long pipes with holes that go 50-100 kilometers into the sea? There's no question of polluting all the oceans with brine. They get freshwater from the rain and the salt came from the oceans in the first place. We aren't net destroying water molecules.

That's a very theoretical point of view. How to maintain those pipes? In two or three years, they will be full of small mollusks and other seafood.

Only the outside. The inside will be full of brine. Once the salinity exceeds a certain value nothing but extremophile bacteria can survive in it.

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

#382

Post by spauldo »

FredPret wrote: post #35
Animats wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India got there on overpopulation. Total fertility rate around 6 in 1965. India does not have enough water for its population.[1] China would have hit similar problems if not for their one-child policy. China managed to avoid the overshoot when medicine starts to work but the economy hasn't developed yet. India didn't. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity_in_India

If you have access to the sea and to uranium you can make all the freshwater you need, even recycle your own wastewater nearly infinitely. This is a technological and economic problem, not an overpopulation problem.

Access to the sea, uranium, and thirty years of economic planning, money, and political will to build the infrastructure.

We'd have nuclear desalinization in Los Angeles is it was that easy.

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

#383

Post by ponector »

seydor wrote: post #45
retrocog wrote: post #3

This trend doesn't bode well for the long term survival of the social welfare state.

societies and states have been doing fine without welfare for centuries

Societies and states have been doing fine without medicines, without electricity and with slavery for centuries. Doesn't mean we need to get back there.

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

#384

Post by spauldo »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #380
spauldo wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Evolution is a process. It can't assign a purpose to anything, because "purpose" doesn't exist outside the minds of people, similar to "justice" and "hope."

The "purpose" of sex is whatever we choose it to be.

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

#385

Post by WalterBright »

myrmidon wrote: post #310
WalterBright wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does nobody ever factor in the gigantic growth in government?

"The government" is not actually accruing wealth in pretty much any western democracy-- in fact the exact opposite is happening everywhere. To me it seems clear why government budgets have increase so much. Since the emergence of modern nation states, government responsibilities have grown tremendously, and mostly for good reason: - Infrastructure basically went from dirt roads to highways/railways/airports - Tremend…

> "The government" is not actually accruing wealth

I tend to agree with that. But there's no doubt it is dissipating vast amounts of wealth.

> it seems clear why government budgets have increase so much

There's a vast amount of waste in government spending, and waste as a result of heavy regulation. If you're really interested,

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...

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

#386

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Gud wrote: post #281
worik wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. Personal experience Vs. looking at pictures from the basement.... I expect it to be USA policy soon.

One is anecdotal, one is data.

Is it weird that I can't tell which one? Guangdong has 127 million people and its just the size of Oklahoma. Ok, the Chinese government could be lying about that, but I seriously doubt it.

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

#387

Post by seanmcdirmid »

lynx97 wrote: post #47
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.

Late child birth is not about fertility but about risks for the child. The only woman I know (yeah, anecdotes) who attempted to delay getting a child until after her 40th birthday got a baby with down syndrome. I know what living with a disability in our world means, from personal experience. And given that experience, I have a hard time giving these women some slack. I think they are risking the well being of their…

There is screening for down's syndrome in the first trimester, but then it becomes a matter of whether they are comfortable with pregnancy termination in case of down syndrome detection (down's syndrome can't be treated).

It is definitely something that you need to think about if you will have kids later in life (in addition to mother safety).

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

#388

Post by adriand »

ai_critic wrote: post #375
adriand wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because children need mothers. Some women may not want to be mothers, but they all had one. Children need fathers too. They need love. When they don’t get love, they turn into fucked up adults.

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

#389

Post by Ericson2314 »

cubefox wrote: post #312
Ericson2314 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry that happened to you, but the Atlantic is such a troll, I can understand why it was flagged.

The article was not a "troll".

That one was it their worst, but I'm saying the publican in general has a bad rep.

Leading with the debt scare is not good either (yes the slides also mentioned that). It's conflating layers of abstraction to talk about a people shortage, and issuing debt. Money doesn't create more people, after all.

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

#390

Post by worik »

oh_my_goodness wrote: post #369
worik wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally and utterly wrong, a complete misunderstanding of capitalism Let me explain. Access to capital is key. If you have it you can do business, if you do not you cannot, in general terms There is more than one way to access capital, debt is very common. And to get rich you have to do business So if you are already rich getting more money, in a free market, is easier than getting started, in a free market That is t…

I don't know who you're writing this to. You're not addressing any point I brought up.

> the folks who equate new borrowings with income
Post reply on HN