Precisely. YOu have articles talking about the huge problem that the world is facing from over-population and the earth carrying a 10Billion population load.
This article ought to be a sunny view of what the world will be in 2100.
Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
- Thread starter Sweet Square
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
This article ought to be a sunny view of what the world will be in 2100.
Which is precisely the point of the article, to start thinking about what it actually looks like around the world.
I made one. The research was US-specific but I'm sure it applies to Western society in general.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the...-having-sex-has-reached-a-record-high.446149/
Is that true? Surely it's the opposite. Progression in automation invariably eliminates the easiest jobs first. You don't need a line packer any more, but you need an engineer to maintain the machinery.The problem is that about half the jobs(maybe significantly more) that will survive automation are already fairly low paying jobs. We're talking teachers, chefs, most blue collar workers and nurses(or so I thought) etc.
If half the jobs are gone, then wouldn't that mean that taxes would have to at least double in order for the system to not crash completely? If you're in a low paying(or even average paying) job, then why bother to work? Unless you're among the top 10% highest earners, you're not gonna be better off than the people on social care(or UBI in all likelihood), unless these people suddenly are way worse off than they are today.
Ultimately the top 1% would have to take the bill. This should be a no-brainer, but seeing as human history essentially just is one long battle between the top 1% and the rest, I'm not convinced that they will. And if they do, they will probably go for a model that would leave the vast majority in poverty.
You've created your own problem there. If people won't work because they're better/as well off on UBI, then wage is going to have to increase to become desirable.
But we're digressing here. I was merely pointing out that the repeat didn't take into account some pretty significant variables.
The world has been relying on the population growth of developing nations for years. Now they're starting to slow down too.
The whole world will become like Japan, if not worse. The tax system will need to completely change, especially as it will be easier than ever for those who work to move around. Those of working age won't accept the taxes they will have to pay to support everybody else.
The world is har
Create a housing market so out of kilter with peoples wages and a far larger majority of people now live with their parents longer, assume that would hamper a lot of people getting it on.
Sooner or later there is going to be a resource crunch for everything from clean drinking water to land to live on, thanks to global warming and other assorted crimes against nature committed during the advent of the industrial era. Lesser world population might not necessarily be a bad thing.
That’s crazy.
Both yes and no. There is a ton of low-paying jobs that will be lost to automation, but many low-paying jobs are fairly safe. On flipside, many high-paying jobs are at risk. Machines are extremely good at isolated tasks, but they perform poorly when doing diverse finesse work. That's why plumbers will be safe for a long time, whereas knowledge-based jobs with clear patterns and variables will be very easy to automate.
With what money? Sure, the rich will still need chefs and plumbers, but a poor person can't afford to pay 2-3 times as much for a plumber. DIY will quickly become the norm, even for tasks that are difficult and dangerous.
Either population grows and the planet we live on is in trouble or the population shrinks and there will be hard times to come.
While it obviously comes with problems, I think it is preferable to have a livable planet and falling populace. Immigrants being fought over instead of being seen as unwanted would be a positive as well. And that is before we take into consideration that some feckers might get their eyes up about immigrants being a good thing.
If the premise currently is that we need a ever growing population in order to sustain the system then we need to improve the system, because it obviously isn't sustainable.
While it obviously comes with problems, I think it is preferable to have a livable planet and falling populace. Immigrants being fought over instead of being seen as unwanted would be a positive as well. And that is before we take into consideration that some feckers might get their eyes up about immigrants being a good thing.
If the premise currently is that we need a ever growing population in order to sustain the system then we need to improve the system, because it obviously isn't sustainable.
I, for one, welcome our new Nigerian overlords.
Really need to start taking those Prince emails seriously now.
Really need to start taking those Prince emails seriously now.
Is the planet in trouble because of overpopulation or because we have bad behaviours? If I'm not mistaken we waste most of the food we produce, we pollute water by pure laziness and carelessness, most of CO2 produced is by a minority of the population for luxury items. We could have our current population or even more and have a way cleaner and livable planet.
Yeah I'm pretty sure there were studies done that said the earth can sustain 13bn people if all of these things were managed correctly. Sadly that probably won't happen as it would require massive lifestyle changes from the western countries who have largely been the ones responsible for all this shit.
The worst thing of all is that climate change will effect poorer countries far more than developed ones due to their geographical locations.
The thing is that Pandora's box has been opened. How are you going to convince everyone that maybe we shouldn't travel to other countries several times per year? That maybe we shouldn't own all the things we do?
In order to sustain a population of e.g. 11 billion people everyone in our part of the world will have to go down in our quality of living whereas everyone else can't be allowed to progress to more than a certain threshold.
Don't think the main driving factor is just a lazy attitude or bad behaviour, but profitability/cost effectiveness. I emphatically agree with your last sentence, but I don't think these problems can be sufficiently reduced under the premises of capitalism.
This is also important to the question of this thread, the extent to which an ageing population is a problem.
Don't worry developed world - Asia and Africa have got your back.
I would assume you are right in saying that is largely down to bad behavior right now, but a always escalating population will eventually hit the mark for when it is down to overpopulation.
The way we use cars is for example how many people use their cars when they could walk or use public transports? How many people purchase new smartphones when the current one is working and far from outdated?
What do you mean? Automation improves profitability. If X used to cost Y to produce, but now only costs half that, then there is twice as much profit to be made.
Please feck each other before we go extinct. Thank you
Poperation opulation control is under way.
Money is a human construct which doesn't have to persist.
The real assets are materials and time.
Just came from the NICU and I can safely say this is not a problem in Africa.
It is, but it isn't going to be deconstructed within the next 80 years.
If anyone needs a ray of sunshine, this is it: https://www.amazon.com/More-Less-Su...keywords=more+from+less&qid=1594899841&sr=8-1
Pretty good stats-driven dialogue in how we've improved in 4 key ways and could potentially deal with the upcoming issues. Note, was written before Trump/Boris and their approach to science, knowledge and so forth, but outside of that the trends aren't what you'd expect.
Pretty good stats-driven dialogue in how we've improved in 4 key ways and could potentially deal with the upcoming issues. Note, was written before Trump/Boris and their approach to science, knowledge and so forth, but outside of that the trends aren't what you'd expect.
Ah cheers
For the earth potentially but not for humans, if you read the article.
I find the lack of care (primarily) or awareness about this issue not too dissimilar from the attitudes towards the unfolding environmental crisis these last 30-40 years. Mostly viewed as something either fictitious or overblown or too distant to worry about. Throw in the expectation that technology will magically fix the problems before they get too bad without society having to lift a finger....
Depopulation and an aging population will put tremendous stress on societies and states. Failed economies, poverty, neglected and abandoned old people, strive for increased immigration and the culture wars/backlash that will bring, wars as a result of population imbalances.... it's got the potential to get very very ugly.
Depopulation and an aging population will put tremendous stress on societies and states. Failed economies, poverty, neglected and abandoned old people, strive for increased immigration and the culture wars/backlash that will bring, wars as a result of population imbalances.... it's got the potential to get very very ugly.
Aye. Just look at the situation Japan will face a bit down the line, surely they are the poster country for this predicament?
Humans in a nutshell. This is essentially the checklist for whether or not a problem is a problem:
1. Are people dying/suffering from the problem right now?
2. Can I see the problem(fire, gunfire, explosions etc)?
3. Is it happening near me?
4. Is it happening to me or my loved ones?
If the answer to the first two questions is 'no', then people don't give a shit or simply don't believe you. And even when the answer is 'yes' they might play it down or claim it's a hoax.
I'm convinced that what appears as completely malleable individual/collective habits here (consumption, movement choices, etc.) are largely outcomes of the everyday situation people find themselves in in our society. As for the use of cars: chronic time constraints, a certain monadic type of individualism, the limitations and overcrowdedness of urban public transport (which would probably be extremely expensive to overcome), etc.
Improvements are likely possible in richer countries (albeit on the back of wealth production that includes destructive tendencies), but I think there are simply limits to what's possible under the economic logic of our society. That's why I deliberately said "sufficient" (= drastic) reduction of these harmful things in my post above.
I'm also convinced the incentive to ever replace workable old stuff with new stuff can be traced to the imperative of economic growth as well. The more people consume, the more gets produced, the more monetary wealth is generated. In my view, this hard principle is imprinting itself on our culture, leading to these values and habits, not the other way around.
The basic problem I see is this: wealth generation would go down if people wouldn't consume as much. Which in turn would limit the possibilities for state spending, welfare, etc. (Including the funding of an attractive & reliable public transport system.) The incompatibility of a systematic downscaling of production with the basic imperatives of capitalism can be seen in the fallout of the Covid-19-related reduction of production and trade, imo. It may crucially contribute to a global economic crisis.
That's why I don't buy into visions of a green welfare capitalism that's equally productive (in terms of capital growth) as our current one. Especially when looking at the global scale, not just the wealthier parts of the world.
Last edited:
Get robots to run the economy and look after old people. Once I hit 80 I want to be plugged into VR 24/7 anyway.
More likely to be in a run-down care home, rationing your vital meds and sitting in your unchanged diapers until the weekly carer visit.
My paper was actually on Japan!
There are actually many countries that have had the same(or lower) fertility rate for a long time. The reason Japan still is considered especially fecked is because:
1. Japan was possibly first. The Japanese government started to express concerns already in the 90's.
2. The Japanese have perhaps the longest life expectancy in the developed world. The men don't outlive men from the rest of the world(mainly because of stress and smoking), but the women do by a significant margin.
3. If I'm not mistaken, Japanese men have tended to retire a couple of years earlier than the European average(65 vs 67, if I'm not mistaken). Probably because they work way longer hours.
Nice one! Japan is extremely fascinating in every aspect. I just quickly Googled the retirement age, it seems like they are passing a bill to let people work until 70 now.
In 2025 one in three people are expected to be 65 or older!
I guess I was replying to the part about humanity, saving the planet and all that jazz. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that’s what the article is about.
If we start from which margins to nudge then we will get nowhere. Free-marketism will fight you every inch of the way. I'm not necessarily advocating for the banning of money, but we must get away from the reliance upon a strong or growing economy being more important than treating the ill or teaching the young.
How many jobs right now help absolutely nothing apart from the movement of money? Sales, insurance, advertising, finance etc could all be virtually eliminated if we moved to a world economy based upon need and cooperation. The amount of work required to be done by each person could be hugely reduced if we were to eliminate the massive wastage caused by the current mess of competing capitalism.
How many people the world can support in the long term depends upon the systems we have in place. The education of women has been shown to be a huge driver in bringing down birth rates while there are many ways to provide incentives for people to have children, so finding a global balance is certainly possible, if we had the understanding and organisation.
Having less young men around should, in theory, make for a more peaceful society.
Don't worry chaps. We've got this
Doesn't always work though. It seems everyone I know is doing IVF or some sort of hormone therapy to help stimulate pregnancy. Even though they were fecking regularly.
Are we also running into high fertility problems, in that women who do try to have kids are struggling to get pregnant?