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

The Population Bust

foreignaffairs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 182 posts

Re: The Population Bust

#41

Post by leetcrew »

jdkee wrote: post #5

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." -Edward Abbey

this has always seemed to be kind of a silly quote to me. it's not untrue but it seems to imply that this is something unusual about a cancer cell. growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of life itself. I don't know of any organisms that are capable of regulating their own species's growth/consumption for long term survival (although now that I've said this, I'm sure someone will respond with the odd exception).

Re: The Population Bust

#42

Post by jjtheblunt »

pascalxus wrote: post #4

Relying on a larger and larger population to keep supporting endless growth is not sustainable. I know this is unpopular, but: We need to find a way to sustainably live on this planet with a reasonably sized population. People keep talking about how the next generation needs to support all the debt and extravagances of the past generations but this unethical. the next generation was born without first being asked whe…

besides being unethical, it can't really work, as it's a pyramid scheme, no?

Re: The Population Bust

#43

Post by alfromspace »

Causality1 wrote: post #2

This phenomena is why I'm strongly pro-immigration. Speaking as an American, I want there to be more Americans. We're not making them ourselves so we need to import. The more we import now, the better since the current population is both younger and more numerous than it will be in a few decades when we'd actually need the imported population. Doing it now means the Americanization of the immigrants will be more comp…

No thanks. I don't want there to be more Americans, I want there to be a better quality of life for the Americans that exist now and their descendants.

I don't see how it figures that more people packed into the same territory competing for a dwindling pool of resources is good for my country, even if the hundreds of millions of newcomers are eventually "Americans". I support controlled immigration when it benefits our country, but immigration for the sake of growing our population seems monumentally foolish. Housing, education, and healthcare are already scarce resources - let's focus on how to build our country into a better place to live for the people who are already vested in the system. In before "they'll pay for our pensions!" - debunked, more like "we're already paying for their food, housing, clothing, education, healthcare, and children", at least when it comes to illegal immigrants.

Also, for the environmentally-conscious - people moving here, a high per-capita carbon emissions country, from low per-capita carbon emissions country, is contributing to climate change. It's very frustrating to see publications from Wapo, to Time, to NatGeo encouraging Americans to stop having children to fight climate change, while simultaneously supporting high levels of immigration that contribute very significantly to increasing our population.

Re: The Population Bust

#44

Post by sfink »

toasterlovin wrote: post #27
esarbe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. The use of contraceptives is cultural, not biological. So we'll hit a replacement problem long before natural selection has time to catch up. The replacement issue has already real implications, this will become much more obvious in the course of the next 30 years. Any relevant change on the population size the prope…

> Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. No it doesn’t. My wife an I both wanted to have large families, even when we were children. How will contraceptives affect people’s basic motivations and life goals? > Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest. Fi…

There is a wealth of data now that shows fertility declining with increased standard of living. (Lots of correlations obscure the exact causations, but among the correlations is female economic and social mobility.) Your example is an eminently plausible mechanism for the spread of high fertility via either genetic or social vectors - but given that it contradicts the data, I don't see how it can be any more than an anecdote. Perhaps the grandchildren of large families are sufficiently removed to revert to the social mean? I don't know.

As for the Black Death, the personal and societal restrictions that result from not wanting to die from casual contact were probably quite a relief to escape and reverse. I don't know enough about history, but I could imagine that kicking off a positive chain reaction. After a cold season, people love to play in the sun.

This part is just speculation on my part, though; you're welcome to continue siding with Thanos.

Re: The Population Bust

#45

Post by scanny »

dmm wrote: post #14
scanny wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes down to: Are people going to responsibly manage their family sizes at a family scale; if not then either we continue as is, or start going down a dark path. A sticking point also seems to be: Are people who are having lots of children the same people who are consuming middle-income+ levels of resources?

Birth rates are below replacement everywhere in the developed world and China and most other places except the middle east and africa. There is no need for forced sterilization or whatever you were alluding to.

Let me rephrase: what happens when the developing world, larger in population size, reaches the wealth of the developed world. Has the problem dissipated upon reaching that point?

Re: The Population Bust

#46

Post by toasterlovin »

0wis wrote: post #29
toasterlovin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d prefer to reserve as much of the country for my own descendants as possible, thanks. That’s what this country is: territory that our ancestors have bestowed upon us so we can have a place to live. We should do the same for our descendants, instead of just giving it away to whoever wants it. The rest of the humans on this planet already have their own countries.

I’d prefer to reserve as much of the planet to my own descendants. Immigrants may use more some infrastructure of your country but overpopulation surely use more the planet. By allowing immigration, you increase chances for immigrants to be more educated and therefore reduce the overall birth rate.

> By allowing immigration, you increase chances for immigrants to be more educated and therefore reduce the overall birth rate.

How do the people who immigrate here affect the behavior of people in the countries they left behind? Why would they not continue having too many children?

Re: The Population Bust

#47

Post by toasterlovin »

sfink wrote: post #44
toasterlovin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. No it doesn’t. My wife an I both wanted to have large families, even when we were children. How will contraceptives affect people’s basic motivations and life goals? > Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest. Fi…

There is a wealth of data now that shows fertility declining with increased standard of living. (Lots of correlations obscure the exact causations, but among the correlations is female economic and social mobility.) Your example is an eminently plausible mechanism for the spread of high fertility via either genetic or social vectors - but given that it contradicts the data, I don't see how it can be any more than an…

The mechanism is that the propensity to have more children is partly genetic. So as people with those genes out-breed the rest of the population, those genes come to predominate in the population. Thus overcoming the demographic transition. Here is a recent paper that models this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381...

The Black Death is pretty well accepted as a contributor to the end of feudalism. I guess you’re positing that somehow that would be the result of survivors feeling elated at having gotten past the catastrophe (which is a temporary emotion), versus their facing an easier life as a result of 50% of the population dying (an effect which lasts a lifetime). Seems implausible to me.

But also, that the reduction in labor supply lead to vastly improved outcomes for laborers is pretty well attested. Lords of the manor started competing for labor because it was scarce. As a result, laborers were able to transition into owning their own property. It was a big deal. And it has to do with permanently reducing the population to well below the Malthusian limit (the plague periodically re-occurred for centuries, culling the population each time).

Re: The Population Bust

#48

Post by yesenadam »

toasterlovin wrote: post #17
Causality1 wrote: post #2

This phenomena is why I'm strongly pro-immigration. Speaking as an American, I want there to be more Americans. We're not making them ourselves so we need to import. The more we import now, the better since the current population is both younger and more numerous than it will be in a few decades when we'd actually need the imported population. Doing it now means the Americanization of the immigrants will be more comp…

I’d prefer to reserve as much of the country for my own descendants as possible, thanks. That’s what this country is: territory that our ancestors have bestowed upon us so we can have a place to live. We should do the same for our descendants, instead of just giving it away to whoever wants it. The rest of the humans on this planet already have their own countries.

>The rest of the humans on this planet already have their own countries.

Do you not see the historical irony? Your (presumably European) ancestors had their own countries too. So did the inhabitants of the Americas before white people arrived there from 'their own countries'.

Re: The Population Bust

#49

Post by toasterlovin »

yesenadam wrote: post #48
toasterlovin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d prefer to reserve as much of the country for my own descendants as possible, thanks. That’s what this country is: territory that our ancestors have bestowed upon us so we can have a place to live. We should do the same for our descendants, instead of just giving it away to whoever wants it. The rest of the humans on this planet already have their own countries.

>The rest of the humans on this planet already have their own countries. Do you not see the historical irony? Your (presumably European) ancestors had their own countries too. So did the inhabitants of the Americas before white people arrived there from 'their own countries'.

We can’t undo the past. And, actually, European and African settlement of the Americas is an event that argues in my favor. There would be a lot more Native Americans today if their ancestors had had the ability to maintain territorial integrity. We should not voluntarily resign our descendants to the same fate.

Re: The Population Bust

#50

Post by Yetanfou »

sambal wrote: post #39
newvoiceoldphne wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to slow the pace of immigration, to preserve our culture.

You don’t have a culture if it doesn’t change, you have an ideology.

...but if you import an ideology into your culture you'll end up with escalating conflict. The refusal to see this has created something more akin to a powder keg than a melting pot (to paraphrase the old moniker) which has the - already partly realised - potential for some serious destruction.
Post reply on HN