4 ms·

7% of all humans that ever existed, are alive today. We can afford a contraction.

by pknopf 4y ago

lm28469 4y ago
Depends on the scale you look at it. It's going to be a shit show for a few generations. Especially in all the countries relying on the working force to pay for the elderly through tax &co Humanity can afford it, you might not
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  That's true of every potential future scenario, be it population contraction, climate collapse, downturn in the market, even a temporary drought. Humanity can afford it, you might not. But policy should probably be set to benefit humanity.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  > Especially in all the countries relying on the working force to pay for the elderly through tax &co I don't think it makes much of a difference in practice for this scenario if retirement is funded by savings/investments of the elderly or through taxes and other transfers from the working population. As much of the population is retired the value of the investments will go down as now now people are selling than buying new investment. It would become a indirect transfer.
dmm 4y ago
The problem (mostly) isn't fewer people, it's an ever-increasing proportion of elderly. As long as total fertility is below replacement the proportion of elderly to working-age people increases /forever/.
- danbruc 4y ago
  /forever/ It's not that bleak, only until humans are extinct.
kortex 4y ago
I think the point isn't that a contraction is bad in general, it's that too fast of a contraction leaves an inverted demographic pyramid, which has all kinds of very bad implications. You need a certain tax base to keep services funded. Then at some point on the curve, you start running out of service workers for the care industry. I think automation will help to a degree but healthcare services is right at that sweet spot of both physically intricate and nonroutine that is so hard to automate.
PedroBatista 4y ago
That argument is in line with the "Thank God for the pandemic! all people are locked at home and pollution is decreasing! also less people in the planet!" I don't know who are "we" and if they can afford it. I suspect most don't know either and think they "afford" part is not their part or imagine it's having one less latte/month in exchange for less traffic.

7% of all humans that ever existed, are alive today. We can afford a contraction.

by pknopf 4y ago

7% of all humans that ever existed, are alive today. We can afford a contraction.

Depends on the scale you look at it. It's going to be a shit show for a few generations. Especially in all the countries relying on the working force to pay for the elderly through tax &co Humanity can afford it, you might not

shadowgovt 4y ago
That's true of every potential future scenario, be it population contraction, climate collapse, downturn in the market, even a temporary drought. Humanity can afford it, you might not. But policy should probably be set to benefit humanity.
ajmurmann 4y ago
> Especially in all the countries relying on the working force to pay for the elderly through tax &co I don't think it makes much of a difference in practice for this scenario if retirement is funded by savings/investments of the elderly or through taxes and other transfers from the working population. As much of the population is retired the value of the investments will go down as now now people are selling than buying new investment. It would become a indirect transfer.

dmm 4y ago

The problem (mostly) isn't fewer people, it's an ever-increasing proportion of elderly. As long as total fertility is below replacement the proportion of elderly to working-age people increases /forever/.

danbruc 4y ago
/forever/ It's not that bleak, only until humans are extinct.

kortex 4y ago

I think the point isn't that a contraction is bad in general, it's that too fast of a contraction leaves an inverted demographic pyramid, which has all kinds of very bad implications. You need a certain tax base to keep services funded. Then at some point on the curve, you start running out of service workers for the care industry. I think automation will help to a degree but healthcare services is right at that sweet spot of both physically intricate and nonroutine that is so hard to automate.

PedroBatista 4y ago

That argument is in line with the "Thank God for the pandemic! all people are locked at home and pollution is decreasing! also less people in the planet!" I don't know who are "we" and if they can afford it. I suspect most don't know either and think they "afford" part is not their part or imagine it's having one less latte/month in exchange for less traffic.