|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 12/20/2004 : 20:28:09
|
The book Fewer by Ben J. Wattenberg makes a pretty convincing case that the world is going to experience a population decline in the next 75 years or so. He's talking about recent UN measurements of Total Fertility Rate and how the developed countries, save for the US, have TFRs far below the replacement rate - thus on the cusp of major population decline - and how the TFRs of the develped countries have declined drastically over the past 30 years and are continuing to decline. He's claiming the world population will top out around 8 billion and then drop by several billion before stabilizing. And since the economic model everyone in the world's lives are fundamentally entwined with requires population increase to function properly, there's some serious issues at hand.
Now, has anyone read this book? Does anyone know anything about population? Does anyone dispute his claims? I'm currently reading it and it's beginning to force a paradigm shift in my head regarding population, environmental and related social issues.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 20:55:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Now, has anyone read this book? Does anyone know anything about population? Does anyone dispute his claims? I'm currently reading it and it's beginning to force a paradigm shift in my head regarding population, environmental and related social issues.
Hi, chaloobi. No, I haven't read the book, but I'll look for it and have a read. I, too, have heard that some experts are suggesting the the world's population will hit its peak ca. 2050 and then start to decline. I think the journal Foreign Affairs may have had something about it last summer.
Anyhow, as a person concerned about the environment and humans' consumption of its resources, it's a topic I care much about. I'll look into it and write back... |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 05:50:17 [Permalink]
|
| I have no doubt the number will decline, but not before going way up. So in effect we will not have fewer than we do now for a long time. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 07:02:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I have no doubt the number will decline, but not before going way up. So in effect we will not have fewer than we do now for a long time.
Well, they're saying about 50-75 years on a straight line estimate. But the TFR decline has accelerated in the last 30 years for most places so it might be sooner. By the current estimate, the population will top out at 8 billion. That's a lot of people and with the development that's going on right now, the climate change underway, and so on, the environmental damage will be great. Lower population will definitely reduce population pressures, but not before a great deal of harm is done. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 08:00:44 [Permalink]
|
| Right, and those TFR declining countries are desperate to reverse that trend dont forget, so we cant really assume that they will all continue declining. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 09:29:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Right, and those TFR declining countries are desperate to reverse that trend dont forget, so we cant really assume that they will all continue declining.
Well that's one of the questions the book asks. Knowing that the population "problem" will be depopulation, not over population, should anything be done about it?
It is essentially our own damn fault. Rampant consumerism and declining wages have forced most homes to become 2-income. I for one know it is fricken' hard to raise children when you don't have a stay-at-home parent. The idea of having 5 kids like my mother did is insane. Economically, it would relegate me to poverty status in the US. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 11:08:21 [Permalink]
|
| Right chaloobi, and I understand why the pop. will eventually fall, but then why wouldn't it just rise again? Like a wave, rise & fall, rise & fall. Why would it "stabilize" several billion bellow 8? |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 11:48:39 [Permalink]
|
The idea (I haven't read that book, but have had some discussions of this topic with knowledgeable people) is that once an area becomes developed and industrialized, education levels increase, and there is less pressure to reproduce along with better ability to plan reproduction. Hence, populations level out and in some cases decline. (decline here not in a negative sense, but strictly numerical)
Of course, I am not sure it's possible to predict how the world population will end up in 10 years, not to mention 50-75. I recall predictions of a world population in excess of 12billion by 2050.
So nobody really knows, I think.
The only thing one can say with any certainty is: More people = greater environmental damage.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 12:48:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
Right chaloobi, and I understand why the pop. will eventually fall, but then why wouldn't it just rise again? Like a wave, rise & fall, rise & fall. Why would it "stabilize" several billion bellow 8?
That stabilization is just speculation. If our lifestyle doesn't change, population should continue to fall. The real question is, how far can it fall before we do something to change it. Breeding incentives, anyone? Paying women to stay home barefoot and pregnant?
Real wages have fallen so much that the average family struggles to get by on a single income. At the same time we are bombarded with materialistic incentives to spend more money.
So women now are expected to work, they are interested in real careers. In the case of my wife, she goes to college, she starts a career, and only when it is solidly established does she think about children. By this time she's 30 years old. She has a child and absolutely struggles with the expense, the time constraints, the damage to her career, the guilt of leaving the child every day, and so on - we both struggle. And then a few years later she does it again, and it's worse all the way around. This is why there's fewer children - materialism, profit, the work-or-be-a-lazy-dead-beat society. Women are integral to the work place now - if they all stayed home to have 5 children, holy shit, what would happen???
And what happens when there are far more older people who all want to be retired than the younger people who are supposed to keep society functioning? How does this smaller generation produce enough economic output to care for the older AND take care of themselves??? That's going to be the big dilema in the coming years. Perhaps it's time to start mass producing Honda's 'Mr. Roboto.' |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 12:51:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The idea (I haven't read that book, but have had some discussions of this topic with knowledgeable people) is that once an area becomes developed and industrialized, education levels increase, and there is less pressure to reproduce along with better ability to plan reproduction. Hence, populations level out and in some cases decline. (decline here not in a negative sense, but strictly numerical)
Of course, I am not sure it's possible to predict how the world population will end up in 10 years, not to mention 50-75. I recall predictions of a world population in excess of 12billion by 2050.
So nobody really knows, I think.
The only thing one can say with any certainty is: More people = greater environmental damage.
Yeah, I agree. What I really wanted to talk about in this thread is the ideas underlying this guy's book. First, whether anyone has read it. Second, whether anyone's aware of the surprising population data, is it for real or what? And then from there to discuss a little what the consequences of this might be. What does it mean for an entire civilization that is dependant on successive larger generations to suddenly have smaller and smaller following generations??? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 13:24:11 [Permalink]
|
To answer the last question, it means they need to open the borders and/or change the faulty system which relys on ever increasing population, however painful the change might be.
--
One or two smaller generations does not mean it will continue that way, really I think the generation size will level out over time. Back in the day until 1970 there was no reason not to have a ton of kids and even incentives for some like catholics or farmers or whatever. But in the changing times 6 kids is going to be a rarity and/or punishable by death.
There is more reason than ever in those places not to have kids and to wait longer to start having them, as well as better contraceptive availability for the younger generations. Since the new data is only 40 years old, personally I dont think that is enough time to determine long term population trends regarding decline.
I dont see the overall total falling anytime before 2060, short of mother nature kicking our asses, and I dont see countries falling apart from lack of citizens. [/crystal ball]
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 02:31:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And what happens when there are far more older people who all want to be retired than the younger people who are supposed to keep society functioning? How does this smaller generation produce enough economic output to care for the older AND take care of themselves??? That's going to be the big dilema in the coming years.
This is not an issue of the future, this is an issue of right now. The BabyBoomer generation is starting to retire, and they will all be retired within the next 10-15 years.
The crisis is not one that we will se, but rather one that we are seeing now. Social Security? Healthcare? Ect... how do you deal with a society that has more retirees that active workers?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 06:53:55 [Permalink]
|
Clearly the system was faulty from the get go, extending dependence on that system makes no sense.
My solution is we put crystals into peoples hands and when they reach a certain age, they will be disposed of. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 07:22:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
To answer the last question, it means they need to open the borders and/or change the faulty system which relys on ever increasing population, however painful the change might be.
--
One or two smaller generations does not mean it will continue that way, really I think the generation size will level out over time. Back in the day until 1970 there was no reason not to have a ton of kids and even incentives for some like catholics or farmers or whatever. But in the changing times 6 kids is going to be a rarity and/or punishable by death.
There is more reason than ever in those places not to have kids and to wait longer to start having them, as well as better contraceptive availability for the younger generations. Since the new data is only 40 years old, personally I dont think that is enough time to determine long term population trends regarding decline.
I dont see the overall total falling anytime before 2060, short of mother nature kicking our asses, and I dont see countries falling apart from lack of citizens. [/crystal ball]
You should read the book. I can't lay out the demography and statistics behind it to clear up your confusion. But there is a significant amount of momentum behind a falling TFR - that is once you have fewer women of breeding age, it's difficult to build up a larger population from a smaller one - much more difficult than it is to go to a smaller population from a larger one. So, assuming the people decide there's a problem and put in place policies to increase TFR, the turnaround will literally take generations. . . .
I've always been a proponent of population control. I think in the long run, fewer people will be far better for everybody. The problem is how our economic systems are structured. With global declining population, how does our growth-based economy function? How do pensions function for the retired???? How do you start and grow a new company??? How do you run retirement centers in addition to the rest of the infrastructure of modern society when there's more retirees than there are people of working age? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 07:24:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
And what happens when there are far more older people who all want to be retired than the younger people who are supposed to keep society functioning? How does this smaller generation produce enough economic output to care for the older AND take care of themselves??? That's going to be the big dilema in the coming years.
This is not an issue of the future, this is an issue of right now. The BabyBoomer generation is starting to retire, and they will all be retired within the next 10-15 years.
The crisis is not one that we will se, but rather one that we are seeing now. Social Security? Healthcare? Ect... how do you deal with a society that has more retirees that active workers?
Now, imagine our baby boomer problem on a global scale. . . . clearly the idea of retirement has to go away. Only the wealthy will be able to retire, as everyone's going to be needed to work, to take care of themselves for as long as possible. And if they can't work anymore, and there's nobody to take care of them? Euthanasia? This could turn out very ugly. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 07:38:14 [Permalink]
|
| There is always soylent green. More food = More Babies. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
