This is topic Overpopulation in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=024090

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
In another thread Ayeler said (Computer enhanced dolls thread),
quote:

Frankly, I think we have more than enough people on Earth as is. Even if, as you say, the birth rate is falling in the US, it's still never going to be anywhere near zero-growth, where there aren't enough births to replace the aging adults. Never!

I just watched a fascinating special of population and economy. Some of the major economic problems in most developed nations is that with the advent of birth control, there is either zero growth or the population is declining. Japan is being hit so hard economically because their population is declining and they do not encourage immigrants. Japan is left with a shrinking total population and a growing ageing population.

America has avoided this because all tho our birth rate is shrinking enough to shrink our population, we have enough younger immigrants to keep our workforce/population growing.

The special was a country by country look at how the population growth or the decline of population was affecting the work force.

So, when I hear,
quote:
it's still never going to be anywhere near zero-growth, where there aren't enough births to replace the aging adults. Never!
I disagree. We are fast approaching zero growth and some industrialized societies have already reached zero-growth and are now declining in population.

[ May 06, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
Interesting. I'm totally uninformed upon the subject, but interesting.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
You might be interested in taking a look at VHEMT, Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. It's not an unreasonable opinion, if you stand back and look at it in a global sense. Individual countries may be decreasing in numbers, but the world is definitely continuing to overpopulate.

Many folks are deciding to distance themselves from the Biological Imperative. And this is one reason why.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Population growth
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
But why do we have to have an economy that is based only on expansion? That's the virus method...and eventually WILL lead to us breeding ourselves to oblivion.

Why can't we develop an economy, while not so static as the old agrarian style, that is stable with or without growth?
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
What would be a good model to develop a static but sound economy on?

One of many reasons we need more younger workers then older workers is because we need them to drive the economy, support their lifestyle, pay taxes, feed money into social services, take care of dependents, et cetera. If our population is static, the percentage of wage earners to dependents and the elderly will be so small I think the economy must inevitably collapse.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
my newbie-economics gut response is that while there is an increasing number of elderly to youth, the economic impact will remain. Once the old people die off (thppt!) and the ratio is maintained, it will be more reasonable to manage.

Wasn't one idea behind social security that you'd have a bit of a pyramid scheme going on? That there would be enough young people to pay the few remaining non-dead elderly left? But because the elderly are living longer and because of the old baby boom, the young folks are going to have an absurd burden?

Please, ignore me if I'm completely wrong. Or, accept this as a common layman's understanding =)
 
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
as people have mentioned, you need expansion, because otherwise your workforce is decreasing, while your non working population is increasing (older people). This is particularly true that we have more medicines that can keep people alive longer (but in a condition unable to work). If you go to long with a shrinking population your economy will fall apart. As people start living longer and longer we will either need increasing rates of population growth...OR people will have to keep working later in their life, even if they are having health problems.
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
This article on the aging population in Asia is quite interesting and relevant. Here are select exerpts:
quote:
As women pursue careers and marry later, they are having fewer or no children, and this, combined with increased longevity, means populations are rapidly ageing.

Fourteen countries in Asia have fertility rates below the "replacement level" - the average number of children required to replace the older generation, the experts told a seminar in Singapore.

This means there will be more dependent elderly with fewer children to look after them and a smaller workforce to pay for the care they need….

The elderly population has already overtaken the younger generation in Japan and will do so by 2020 in Singapore and 2035 in China, according to Bhakta Gubhaju of the United Nation's Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).

The economic ramifications are a little scarey, but as the world population starts to curb, I guess that will have a positive effect on the environment.

[EDIT]Here is another interesting link on Russia braces for population disaster.
quote:
The Russian cabinet has approved proposals for a range of measures aimed at stemming the country's catastrophic population decline…

Russia's northern regions have suffered especially badly - the arctic Chukotka region's population has fallen by 50% over the past 10 years…

President Putin has repeatedly declared the fight against population decline one of his top priorities, saying the current situation could jeopardise national security…

I find all of this VERY interesting.

[ May 07, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'm in favor of continuing to expand the population, because we'll never get off this rock if we don't.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Generally, the more industrialized a nation is the more likely it is to have a shrinking birth rate. But there is still a population "bomb" going in the third world.

I think the U.S. is already poised to supplement it's worker base from Latin America in the upcoming Social Security Crisis.
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Yet on more good link titled Singapore couples paid for babies .
quote:
Singapore has announced it will give cash bonuses to parents who have more than one child in an attempt to reverse falling birth rates…

Singapore's fertility rate, which has been declining for many years, is currently 1.48. A fertility rate of 2.1 is needed for a population to replace itself.

Sorry to keep posting links, but I have really had my eyes opened and want to share. I did not realize the magnitude of falling populations on so many countries. I wonder how this will affect immigrations laws, security, and reshaping of world culture. What a great time to be alive and witness so much. Just think, before the information age people were largely unaware of what was going on in the rest of the world.

[Edit] added:
quote:
By the year 2050, the average Italian will be 53 years old compared to 41 now, and 41% of the country will be over 60.


[ May 07, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Speed, just becuase a movie talked about a real issue does not automatically make it void. [Wink]

Rakeesh, I have to disagree with you on that one. The larger our population is, the more we will have to divert resources to the care of that population than to space travel and colonizing.
[edit for spelling]

[ May 07, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
To make my point a bit more clear... we need a large population to be able to have the industries and energy to go into space, among many other things.

But a population that is too large, say above 9 billion, will become an ever growing burden on us. Especially now that robots and machines are doing more and more of the industrial work...there will be nothing for all these new people to do except feed off the finite reasources of Earth.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I disagree with your premise, Telperion, even though I agree with the specifics.

In the history of humanity, the one thing that has led to more expansion than any other is population pressure and scarcity of resources. I think that if we acheived zero population growth, despite the better industrial and economic abilities, the push to continue exploring and expanding would be dimmed.
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Quite possible.......
But the risk of social collapse is high...

Maybe I'm just being an idealist... that we can maintain a safe population and wait to colonize another world/moon/asteroid before we go buck wild on breeding.
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
This is not meant to be insensitive or to endorse euthanasia....

quote:
The larger our population is, the more we will have to divert resources to the care of that population than to space travel and colonizing.
[edit for spelling]

I don't think it will have as much to do with the number of people in our population that will hinder the space age, but rather the proportion of old people to young people. Consider in Italy...
quote:
By the year 2050, the average Italian will be 53 years old compared to 41 now, and 41% of the country will be over 60.

The working population in Italy is quickly going to have to cut benefits to the older generation or they are going to be taxed beyond economic growth ability.

If we don't raise the retirement age to late 70s or into the 80s, then we will be using a large part of our resources and creativity to take care of a "graying" population. If we had 9 Billion 20-50 self-sufficient somethings, we would have the industry, creativity, and resources to explore space.

The age distribution of a population has at least as much of a negative or positive impact as the number of people in the population. That seems to be what I am understanding from all these news articles.

[ May 07, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Good points Alexa...
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I guess that's one of the curses of modern medicine. People don't die soon enough. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I attribute the problem of population decline to the inconveniences that babies continue to inflict on their parents. Babies should be easier to take care of, mature sooner, and require less devoted time and attention. They should cry less, be cuter, sleep better, and not get sick. Ideally they should be able to talk as soon as they are born so we don't have to keep guessing what they want all the time. As teenagers, they should behave themselves, stay out of trouble, and be perfectly respectful. In general, babies should do everything they can to make themselves more desirable to busy parents.
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Yeah. Babies are stupid. Did you know that they don't even know how to use the restroom?! It's true, they just go whenever and wherever, and someone else always has to clean up.

I am beginning to suspect my 2 year old niece does not even know the potential consequences of her actions. She'll jump right into a pool without any safety devices and she obviously can't swim.
 
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Ok, I will not pretend that I understand all of this thread. However, I did see the documentary that Alexa mentioned and I had to study population growth in an environmental science class. In our class, it was argued that a shrinking pop. is better because we are already over-taxing our natural resources. In addition, we did discuss the fact that even though the pop. pyramid will be skewed at first (with more elderly people on top, and less working age and children on bottom) that it will eventually even out and everything will adapt. I think you can look at this from very different angles. The only thing I'm prone to worry about is the lack of natural resources; we're using up what we have at a tremendous rate and aren't developing/using alternate sources of energy, etc. at a fast enough pace. Or, perhaps it's just that even though we have some alternate source people seem very hesitant to stop using fossil fuels, recycle more, and do other things to make sure that the environment stays intact. Don't even get me going on the tremendous loss of habitat for animals that we already experience at our current pop., let alone what would happen with people/countries trying to raise the birth rate.

space opera
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You're right, Mr. Poteiro Head-advances in medicine (and food surpluses, nutrition) have led to a population explosion. Also a lessening of danger in our environment all around.
 
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
quote:
They should cry less,be cuter
You obviously never saw any of MY children if you think that's possible.

[Taunt]
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
I am not trying to point out if population growth or decline is good or bad, but rather, that there will be tremendous economic ramifications that are going to affect ME. By the time it all equalizes, I will be dead and gone.

I am a little worried that abuse of old people will become even MORE rampant then it is today. By the time I am retired, I will belong to a population that is draining resources, and I (we) will be facing serious consequences of living long. It could be not being able to retire, not getting benefits, or being put in a home that houses MANY people with underpaid/undertrained staff who takes out their frustration on me. Better start putting more into my 401K!
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
There was a time when retirement meant that you got about 2 years of vacation before you died. Now people expect to retire earlier (I know some wall street types that retired before they were 40) and let their "wealth" carry them throught the next 40 years of their lives.

My greatest heroes are two guys I used to work with. John Pelton, and John Anderson. Between the two of them they had almost 110 years of experience with the same company.

John Pelton was 84 years old, and came to work everyday. He was brilliant, hard working, and a tremendous resource to those of us with less experience. He was forced into retirement when they closed the lab, he didn't go willingly. John Anderson retired at about 72 years of age, and came back to work as a consultant the following day. This meant that instead of coming to work 5 days a week and writing up his findings in a lab notebook over the weekend, he came to work three days a week and wrote up his works on the days in between. Retirement meant working 5 days a week instead of 7. He was 74 when the lab closed.

Last I heard, John Anderson said he would be willing to work for free if he could have access to some lab space.

I'm not sure I could love a job as much as either of these two men, but that's my goal in life. I want to find a job that I love so much that I never want to retire.

Those beyond the standard "retirement age" nowadays are running, mountain climbing, weight lifting, and so forth. I see no reason why we can't expect to support ourselves into those years.
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Glenn,
quote:
I see no reason why we can't expect to support ourselves into those years.
Do you support the idea that the government should stop/phase-out social security programs and let people provide their own safety nets? [Dont Know]

Would this have a positive or negative effect on society as a whole? My questions seem negative when I read them, but they are not intended as a critique, but rather an honest search to find social solutions.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I hate the whole idea of social security. If I were emperor, I would phase it out. I plan my own retirement with the assumption that it will not exist.

Edit: I don't hate the idea so much, but I hate how it is done in the US. I also hate that it is mandatory.

[ May 07, 2004, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Alexa:

No. Social Security is just as important now as it was when it was created. As you correctly point out, it was intended to be a safety net.

Many of the safety net features of social security were already phased out by Ronald Reagan. Social security used to be available to support children of disabled or deceased parents so that they could attend college, for example. That no longer exists.

That benenfit was not based on raw age, but on medical reality. There are still those who can't really be expected to work past the age of 65 for medical reasons, but for a healthy person to just say, "OK, I'm 65, give me my money" when they could just keep working isn't really reasonable. Unless there is a need, those people should stay in the workforce and continue to contribute to social security. We are too used to thinking of social security as a retirement fund, rather than as a safety net.

Of course, in order to make any changes in the system, you'd also have to prevent businesses from forcing older people into retirement, which opens up a whole different can of worms.
 
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
Glenn, it would be easy to get the corporations to not force out older people. Government paid healthcare. The companies are tired of paying so much in insurance or healthcare costs. If the government paid for it, they would probably want to keep their most knowledgeable resources.

Paying for healthcare has a whole other set of issues. There's your can of worms.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Part of it, yeah. There's also the fact that older workers command a higher salary, and sometimes lose interest in the daily grind.

Big business usually looks at the bottom line without noticing the fine print. Older workers have more experience and often a better work ethic (I don't attribute this to "the old days," so much. Rather, I think people mature, and become more reliable). Business only sees that younger workers have lower salaries, so they sweep out the old with the trash. Yes, health care is a big part of that, but it's not the whole thing.

There are also legitimate reasons to want a younger work force. Older people sometimes cling to old skills, and refuse to learn new ones (John Pelton almost never used a computer). Believe it or not, this is sometimes an asset, especially when an old technology will solve a current problem. Us young'uns often try to reinvent the wheel, while the old guys just reach back in their memory and pull out an answer.

The real key is that companies base their layoff decisions on a formula, when you can usually get good feedback on who's worth keeping, and who's not. The decision making process may be more time consuming, but it's much better to lay off those that aren't producing, than those who are. And very often the older workers are producing quite well.

Social security could do the same thing: consider each case based on need, rather than age. I imagine if being laid off for age-related reasons was considered a "need," then society might put pressure on industry to keep older workers in the workforce, rather than laying them off to create a burden on the taxpayers.
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
I was talking with a co-worker, and she said in Australia (where she grew up) everyone pays 2% of their income into their health care, and everyone has really good health care. According to her, the system works and is as good as any health care in America. Is there anyone here from Australia that can verify that information? Does anyone know what they do about retirement?
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2