Aargh! Yes, the expansion of the economy is a first-order problem! But people are talking as though the contraction of the economy is a first-order problem! No, the contraction of the economy is a second-order problem. You must see this!
Is there any chance you could explain the distinction?
But in the course of life on this planet, many species have experienced a decline in population to zero.
This seems kind of irrelevant to me, given that none of them were terribly conscious of their growth or decline, never mind capable of counting their numbers, doing math, or theorizing about the long-term prospects for their species.
I'm not so sure that the Neanderthals weren't conscious of their demise, or didn't understand what was happening to them.
But, in any case, I don't think that it counts in our favour to be intelligent enough to understand the stupidity of working towards increasing the uninhabitability of this planet, while continuing to work towards increasing the uninhabitability of this planet.
But one of the main ways in which we are working towards the uninhabitability of our planet is by increasing our population more and more. So the fact that at least we might be putting that into reverse in a few decades' time is good news, no?
Another way in which we are working towards the uninhabilitability of our planet is by expecting our economy to expand indefinitely. That is what I mean by economic expansion being a "first-order problem".
On the other hand economic contraction is more immediately painful for us but it does not in itself tend to make the planet more uninhabitable. It presents problems - severe problems - but it is not ultimately as bad as continued expansion, which as Limits to Growth said would eventually lead to some sort of catastrophic limiting event. This is what I mean by economic contraction being a "second-order problem".
I think it's a mistake to assume that worldwide situations are the same as countrywide situations - there isn't just one single economic system in place worldwide. There are also plenty of countries that are sparsely populated. Population density doesn't seem to be particularly related to how polluting a country is or not.
Also - just because the planet would be less inhabitable for humans doesn't mean the planet would be uninhabitable in general. Life would carry on without humans.
Yup. Right now we can't automate care or use AI, but sooner or later we will. Here's an interview with someone working on in-home robotics who envisions there being single-activity robots (to help someone off the toilet, e.g.) within 5-10 years and general-purpose robots in 20-25 years.
Aye - investors see keeping elderly people fed, watered and evacuated as generating reliable long-term revenue streams.
I'm OK with the basic idea of being looked after by a robot, but qualms about it happening in the context of current regulatory regimes or being operated by any of the current crop of tech bros.
The direction of travel of AI is not towards care and compassion. We'll have to wait to see whether the new foundation models being developed do a better job of faking it than the ones interacting with human beings at the moment, across a variety of activities.
The physical devices will contain cameras and microphones (and a range of other sensors, including medical) and will be connected to the internet. As above, it remains to be seen how seriously the companies involved take the privacy of elderly people and their/our personal data.
One thing that seems certain is that, as is the case now, the quality of someone's care will be strongly related to their ability to pay for it.
Thanks TurquoiseTastic. I think you're missing a rather important point of The Limits To Growth. From the forward:
The intent of the project is to examine the complex of problems troubling men of all nations: poverty in the midst of plenty; degradation of the environment; loss of faith in institutions; uncontrolled urban spread; insecurity of employment; alienation of youth; rejection of traditional values; and inflation and other monetary and economic disruptions. These seemingly divergent parts of the "world problematique," as The Club of Rome calls it, have three characteristics in common: they occur to some degree in all societies; they contain technical, social, economic, and political elements; and, most important of all, they interact.
It is the predicament of mankind that man can perceive the problematique, yet, despite his considerable knowledge and skills, he does not understand the origins, significance, and interrelationships of its many components and thus is unable to devise effective responses. This failure occurs in large part because we continue to examine single items in the problematique without understanding that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, that change in one element means change in the others.
In other words, taking an individual element such as population, and treating it in isolation, fails to address the nature of the problem.
I would certainly accept the merit of taking a holistic view. Nevertheless individual elements (e.g. CO2 level in ppm) are important in themselves and an "UP" or a "DOWN" could be broadly a "good thing" or a "bad thing" in any given situation.
I would certainly accept the merit of taking a holistic view. Nevertheless individual elements (e.g. CO2 level in ppm) are important in themselves and an "UP" or a "DOWN" could be broadly a "good thing" or a "bad thing" in any given situation.
Sounds about right to me. I'm encouraged by your OP.
If the population goes down, but agricultural production goes up, consumption of natural resources goes up, industrial production goes up, and pollution goes up #, and we're still on course for a "catastrophic limiting event", isn't what's important that we're still on course for a "catastrophic limiting event"?
# Being the 5 factors identified in The Limits to Growth.
Yes but it means we only have to fix 4 things instead of 5. And if population goes down that intrinsically exerts downwards pressure on the others. I don't see what is so difficult about this.
Yes but it means we only have to fix 4 things instead of 5.
You're continuing to treat the factors as though they're independent. But as the quote above says, this is a complex system in which, "most important of all, [the parts] interact". Complex systems don't respond well to reductionist interpretations.
And if population goes down that intrinsically exerts downwards pressure on the others.
Unless it doesn't. As an example, the consumption of livestock-derived foods (eg red meat) isn't just affected by the number of people, it is strongly correlated to prices and levels of income. There are a number of scenarios in which populations decrease, but the consumption of livestock-derived foods increases, which puts upward pressure on 3 or 4 of the other factors. (And remembering that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, even if it is much less persistent.)
Red meat consumption certainly is linked to prices and income, but also to population! Richer people eat more meat on average - people of all incomes eat more meat if it is cheaper - but also, at a given level of income and prices, fewer people eat less meat than more people.
If anything, taking a holistic view makes population decline even more important and beneficial! If you would like resources to be distributed more equitably, to make poor countries richer, then it will be even more important that the total population is less!
Unless it doesn't. As an example, the consumption of livestock-derived foods (eg red meat) isn't just affected by the number of people, it is strongly correlated to prices and levels of income.
Sure. But here's the thing. Asking people to consume less stuff, or have less stuff, will not work. Almost nobody is willing to take a hit to their standard of living in aid of some small contribution to the long-term future of our planet.
To the extent that personal consumption has dropped, it's because we have better, more efficient things that do the same things. LEDs replace incandescent bulbs in almost every application, and do it better and for 10% of the energy cost. More efficient cars aren't worse at being a car than older cars (This isn't quite true for electric cars yet - there are use cases that EVs aren't great at, and they're too expensive to buy.) Solid state electronics replaces vacuum tubes in almost all applications.
Red meat consumption certainly is linked to prices and income, but also to population! Richer people eat more meat on average - people of all incomes eat more meat if it is cheaper - but also, at a given level of income and prices, fewer people eat less meat than more people.
But in the complex system we're dealing with, the level of income and prices are *not* a given - they fluctuate, being subjected to multiple pressures.
Or just considering your non-complex scenario: in a society in which there is an overall decrease in population, but in which there is an increase in the number of richer people, will there be more or less red meat consumed?
If anything, taking a holistic view makes population decline even more important and beneficial! If you would like resources to be distributed more equitably, to make poor countries richer, then it will be even more important that the total population is less!
Unless it has the opposite effect. The idea that population decline would be distributed evenly across all demographics, or would lead to a more equitable distribution of resources, are completely unfounded assumptions.
Unless it doesn't. As an example, the consumption of livestock-derived foods (eg red meat) isn't just affected by the number of people, it is strongly correlated to prices and levels of income.
Sure. But here's the thing. Asking people to consume less stuff, or have less stuff, will not work. Almost nobody is willing to take a hit to their standard of living in aid of some small contribution to the long-term future of our planet.
Or even the long-term future of our genes. It's intriguing that people increasingly respond by choosing not to have children. For a species, it's not a great long-term strategy.
To the extent that personal consumption has dropped, it's because we have better, more efficient things that do the same things. LEDs replace incandescent bulbs in almost every application, and do it better and for 10% of the energy cost. More efficient cars aren't worse at being a car than older cars (This isn't quite true for electric cars yet - there are use cases that EVs aren't great at, and they're too expensive to buy.) Solid state electronics replaces vacuum tubes in almost all applications.
Another way of looking at this is that the market likes solutions that involve producing more stuff and selling it to people.
NB The average price of EVs is cheaper than combustion-engined cars in China, and they're cheaper to run in lots of countries.
Sure. But here's the thing. Asking people to consume less stuff, or have less stuff, will not work. Almost nobody is willing to take a hit to their standard of living in aid of some small contribution to the long-term future of our planet.
That's actually not true. During my lifetime we have moved from throwing everything away (the easiest, thoughtless way) to having rather complicated recycling regimens which we (general we) put up with for the good of the planet. A real market for organic (non-pesticide) food has developed, and people willingly pay more for it. Half or more of the eggs I see offered for sale are "cruelty-free," "free range," and/or "No antibiotics"--and they cost quite a bit more, and people are buying them. Fair trade items are finding a market. Even as inflation rises. People are in fact buying and installing solar panels. And so on, and so forth...
It's true that all this is not enough. But it is NOT true that there is no interest, and that nobody is willing to take a hit to their standard of living. Quite a few of us have, and it's becoming more routine.
Or even the long-term future of our genes. It's intriguing that people increasingly respond by choosing not to have children. For a species, it's not a great long-term strategy.
"Intriguing" - you keep using that word.
I'm reminded of St Gregory of Nyssa's defence of chastity: he argued that the desire for procreation was a displaced attempt to deal with the fear of death, and thus ultimately an idolatry of death. He seems to anticipated Freud's awareness of false consciousness. Of course, our children, or our genes, or our species are not actually forms of our personal survival: our children are people in their own right, and our genes and our species are mere abstractions.
I have no idea who the chap is who said this, but I caught a snippet of some discussion programme, and he said that he is thirty. He sounded well educated. He doesn't have children - and none of his friends have children either. "Do you know how stressed a mammal has to be to not reproduce?" he asked.
My daughter is 30, married, with a wide social circle. Only one of her friends has a child, and that couple had an unplanned, but not unwelcome pregnancy. I'm not getting the impression that "stress" is holding them back, but that it's not the norm any more.
We had our first when I was 29 - my husband's PhD delayed the point at which I was no longer the main earner. By then several of our friends had started families and we were fully into the swing of buying baby gifts and attending christenings. We were already Godparents to our eldest Godchild. Having children was just a natural progression. It's not like that any more.
I am part of a group of five schoolfriends who meet up a couple of times a year. We're all 62. Only one has a grandchild, and she thinks he may well be her only grandchild. My siblings aren't grandparents. Of the seven cousins I'm in regular contact with, only 1 has grandchildren.
I know so few grandmothers my own age, that it's not even a topic of conversation. I'd love to be a granny, but I don't feel as though I'm missing out, because I'm not looking around and seeing many other women my age, with university-educated children, who are grandmothers.
Red meat consumption certainly is linked to prices and income, but also to population! Richer people eat more meat on average - people of all incomes eat more meat if it is cheaper - but also, at a given level of income and prices, fewer people eat less meat than more people.
But in the complex system we're dealing with, the level of income and prices are *not* a given - they fluctuate, being subjected to multiple pressures.
Or just considering your non-complex scenario: in a society in which there is an overall decrease in population, but in which there is an increase in the number of richer people, will there be more or less red meat consumed?
Of course, it might be either! But what about a society in which there is an increase in population, and an increase in the number of richer people? That would make it virtually certain that more red meat will be consumed. Just as well that isn't happening! In fact the opposite is happening, a decline in population that is more pronounced amongst the rich. That should give a very good chance of decreasing red-meat consumption long-term.
If anything, taking a holistic view makes population decline even more important and beneficial! If you would like resources to be distributed more equitably, to make poor countries richer, then it will be even more important that the total population is less!
Unless it has the opposite effect. The idea that population decline would be distributed evenly across all demographics, or would lead to a more equitable distribution of resources, are completely unfounded assumptions.
Well it's just as well I didn't make them then. My point is not that population decline will cause a more equitable distribution, but rather that if we want a) a more equitable distribution of resources AND b) not too much of decline in standard of living for the currently wealthy AND c) not to deplete and exhaust the Earth's resources, then we MUST also have d) a decrease in total population.
Or even the long-term future of our genes. It's intriguing that people increasingly respond by choosing not to have children. For a species, it's not a great long-term strategy.
"Intriguing" - you keep using that word.
The world's an intriguing place. Or maybe I'm easily intrigued.
I'm reminded of St Gregory of Nyssa's defence of chastity: he argued that the desire for procreation was a displaced attempt to deal with the fear of death, and thus ultimately an idolatry of death. He seems to anticipated Freud's awareness of false consciousness. Of course, our children, or our genes, or our species are not actually forms of our personal survival: our children are people in their own right, and our genes and our species are mere abstractions.
Freud's awareness of false consciousness - the philosophy / hermeneutics of suspicion?
Survival itself is an abstract concept. And our taxonomic idea of species is related to the capacity of members to breed and produce fertile offspring.
How we understand the "biological imperative", which we appear to share with a host of species that don't have the capacity to understand it, is an intriguing question.
My daughter is 30, married, with a wide social circle. Only one of her friends has a child, and that couple had an unplanned, but not unwelcome pregnancy. I'm not getting the impression that "stress" is holding them back, but that it's not the norm any more.
We had our first when I was 29 - my husband's PhD delayed the point at which I was no longer the main earner. By then several of our friends had started families and we were fully into the swing of buying baby gifts and attending christenings. We were already Godparents to our eldest Godchild. Having children was just a natural progression. It's not like that any more.
I am part of a group of five schoolfriends who meet up a couple of times a year. We're all 62. Only one has a grandchild, and she thinks he may well be her only grandchild. My siblings aren't grandparents. Of the seven cousins I'm in regular contact with, only 1 has grandchildren.
I know so few grandmothers my own age, that it's not even a topic of conversation. I'd love to be a granny, but I don't feel as though I'm missing out, because I'm not looking around and seeing many other women my age, with university-educated children, who are grandmothers.
… But what about a society in which there is an increase in population, and an increase in the number of richer people? That would make it virtually certain that more red meat will be consumed. Just as well that isn't happening! In fact the opposite is happening, a decline in population that is more pronounced amongst the rich. That should give a very good chance of decreasing red-meat consumption long-term.
Consumption of red meat (and other livestock-derived foods) is projected to increase over the next decade.
… My point is not that population decline will cause a more equitable distribution, but rather that if we want a) a more equitable distribution of resources AND b) not too much of decline in standard of living for the currently wealthy AND c) not to deplete and exhaust the Earth's resources, then we MUST also have d) a decrease in total population.
Wanting a more equitable distribution of resources (a) doesn't seem compatible with wanting to maintain inequitable standards of living and wealth (b).
If equitable distribution of resources really was linked to total population, then looking back through human history, I'd expect to see the distribution of resources becoming more equitable, the further back I looked.
Two articles caught my eye this morning. The first one discussed why the population rate in the US declined by 22% in the last decade. Would you believe it could be due to smart phones? Think of it. If you are not interacting directly with people, you are not having sex. Interesting hypothesis. https://www.npr.org/2026/06/12/nx-s1-5851795/iphone-birth-rate-drop.
The other study was even weirder. Entitled "Oops. Scientists May Have Severely Miscalculated the World Population." This study looked at rural water resources and hypothesizes based on observed dam construction in rural areas that estimates of world population may be as far off as 35 to 84%. Critics, though, say it is pretty hard to have missed a billion or more people.
… But what about a society in which there is an increase in population, and an increase in the number of richer people? That would make it virtually certain that more red meat will be consumed. Just as well that isn't happening! In fact the opposite is happening, a decline in population that is more pronounced amongst the rich. That should give a very good chance of decreasing red-meat consumption long-term.
Consumption of red meat (and other livestock-derived foods) is projected to increase over the next decade.
Yes of course it is! Because the population is still increasing, and the average person is becoming wealthier! "The next decade" is not "long-term"! The population is not projected to actually decline until the 2050s at the earliest...
… My point is not that population decline will cause a more equitable distribution, but rather that if we want a) a more equitable distribution of resources AND b) not too much of decline in standard of living for the currently wealthy AND c) not to deplete and exhaust the Earth's resources, then we MUST also have d) a decrease in total population.
Wanting a more equitable distribution of resources (a) doesn't seem compatible with wanting to maintain inequitable standards of living and wealth (b).
b) is not about inequity but about absolute standard of living. We should aspire to raise the standard of living of those currently poor. We can allow the standard of living of those currently rich to drop. This will achieve an equitable level. We can debate what that level should be, but I suggest that it shouldn't be too low, otherwise everyone ends up poor.
If equitable distribution of resources really was linked to total population, then looking back through human history, I'd expect to see the distribution of resources becoming more equitable, the further back I looked.
I didn't say it was linked! Why do you persist in this misinterpretation?!
I said that if we did distribute resources equally, and we didn't want everybody to be poor, and we didn't want to exhaust natural resources, then we couldn't have an increasing population. The drop in population won't cause equity. But if we want both equity and a decent standard of living, then we will also need a population drop to avoid or mitigate environmental collapse.
Consumption of red meat (and other livestock-derived foods) is projected to increase over the next decade.
Yes of course it is! Because the population is still increasing, and the average person is becoming wealthier! "The next decade" is not "long-term"!
According to a study on this by the UN FAO and OECD in 2025, "The surge in consumption in middle-income economies is attributed largely to rising disposable incomes, changing dietary preferences and urbanisation."
The population is not projected to actually decline until the 2050s at the earliest...
So a more immediately relevant question would be what the trends are regarding disposable income and dietary preferences (for example). Or improving agricultural productivity, using lower-emission methods or concentrating on producing nutrition. (I don't find it surprising that the UN or OECD don't push for radical systemic change.)
Wanting a more equitable distribution of resources (a) doesn't seem compatible with wanting to maintain inequitable standards of living and wealth (b).
b) is not about inequity but about absolute standard of living. We should aspire to raise the standard of living of those currently poor. We can allow the standard of living of those currently rich to drop. This will achieve an equitable level. We can debate what that level should be, but I suggest that it shouldn't be too low, otherwise everyone ends up poor.
Wealth is a relative concept. For someone to be wealthy, other people need not to be wealthy. Standard of living is a more nuanced concept, but many of the components are relative (including wealth). Things that were previously considered luxuries are now considered necessities. Standard of living tends to be measured in comparative terms.
In order for the idea of an "absolute standard of living" to prevail, there would need to be a radical systemic change in people's thinking and attitudes. I think it would be more useful to encourage the prioritising of quality of life.
If equitable distribution of resources really was linked to total population, then looking back through human history, I'd expect to see the distribution of resources becoming more equitable, the further back I looked.
I didn't say it was linked! Why do you persist in this misinterpretation?!
What I'm doing is disagreeing with you. However you phrase it, I don't think that equity and population are related in the way that you do. I just don't see a justification.
I said that if we did distribute resources equally, and we didn't want everybody to be poor, and we didn't want to exhaust natural resources, then we couldn't have an increasing population. The drop in population won't cause equity. But if we want both equity and a decent standard of living, then we will also need a population drop to avoid or mitigate environmental collapse.
Why focus on population? Why not focus on girl's education, or energy or farming or nutrition or quality of life or debt? Especially as you point out that the population isn't going to start falling for at least another 25 years. Declining population isn't going to address any of the issues any time soon. Furthermore, the demographic shifts in population that are creating even more problems have already begun, and aren't forecast to make things any easier between now and 2050.
Consumption of red meat (and other livestock-derived foods) is projected to increase over the next decade.
Yes of course it is! Because the population is still increasing, and the average person is becoming wealthier! "The next decade" is not "long-term"!
According to a study on this by the UN FAO and OECD in 2025, "The surge in consumption in middle-income economies is attributed largely to rising disposable incomes, changing dietary preferences and urbanisation."
So people are becoming wealthier, which is part of what I said. I will certainly accept that there are other changes as well.
The population is not projected to actually decline until the 2050s at the earliest...
So a more immediately relevant question would be what the trends are regarding disposable income and dietary preferences (for example). Or improving agricultural productivity, using lower-emission methods or concentrating on producing nutrition. (I don't find it surprising that the UN or OECD don't push for radical systemic change.)
These would all be good questions, certainly. The question we should not ask is "how can we prevent population falling"?
I think it would be more useful to encourage the prioritising of quality of life.
I would agree with this, but I still think that an acceptable quality of life will require some material resources to maintain, and that the resource per person to do this will be in excess of what the majority in the Global South currently consume per person. It will be substantially less that what the majority in rich countries currently consume per person. But my bet it that it will be closer to the latter than the former.
If equitable distribution of resources really was linked to total population, then looking back through human history, I'd expect to see the distribution of resources becoming more equitable, the further back I looked.
I didn't say it was linked! Why do you persist in this misinterpretation?!
What I'm doing is disagreeing with you. However you phrase it, I don't think that equity and population are related in the way that you do. I just don't see a justification.
But I don't think that equity and population are related! But I do think that consumption and population are related. Perhaps that is what you disagree with?
I said that if we did distribute resources equally, and we didn't want everybody to be poor, and we didn't want to exhaust natural resources, then we couldn't have an increasing population. The drop in population won't cause equity. But if we want both equity and a decent standard of living, then we will also need a population drop to avoid or mitigate environmental collapse.
Why focus on population? Why not focus on girl's education, or energy or farming or nutrition or quality of life or debt? Especially as you point out that the population isn't going to start falling for at least another 25 years. Declining population isn't going to address any of the issues any time soon. Furthermore, the demographic shifts in population that are creating even more problems have already begun, and aren't forecast to make things any easier between now and 2050.
Yes exactly! Why focus on population? And yet people are focussing on population, and complaining about the birth slowdown. That is the focus I am objecting to! We should certainly be focussing on girls' education and energy and farming and nutrition and quality of life and debt. We should not be focussing on trying to arrest birth slowdown!!!!
I’m 83 and we have four grandchildren aged 27, 23, 21 and 18. By the time I was 29 we had our two children. I remember us saying “Well, all being well, we’ve got a good chance of becoming great grandparents”.
But rather like you about grandchildren, we feel the world has moved on. We may yet be great grandparents but we’ve moved from expecting to hoping.
What I'm doing is disagreeing with you. However you phrase it, I don't think that equity and population are related in the way that you do. I just don't see a justification.
But I don't think that equity and population are related! But I do think that consumption and population are related. Perhaps that is what you disagree with?
That isn't it.
You continue to make statements that make a connection between equity and population, along the lines of "If we want more equity, we need a drop in population". If there were no relation between equity and population, all you'd need to say is "we want more equity", and not mention population at all. An "inverse relationship" (one thing increases as another thing decreases) is a relationship just as much as a "direct relationship" (two things both increase, or decrease, together).
Yes exactly! Why focus on population? And yet people are focussing on population, and complaining about the birth slowdown. That is the focus I am objecting to! We should certainly be focussing on girls' education and energy and farming and nutrition and quality of life and debt. We should not be focussing on trying to arrest birth slowdown!!!!
I think the person most focused on population growth/decline on this thread is the same person who started the thread by saying that population decline is the best news imaginable:
My point is - if I haven't made it clear - is that this is not a disaster, or bad news. Rather it is an astonishing benison that the people of the world should be going down on our knees for and thanking the Lord for an almost unbelievable deliverance.
We can allow the standard of living of those currently rich to drop.
Do the rich get any say in this?
Well...the Limits to Growth (which is 50+ years old and has been criticised a lot over the years, but makes sense to me in its own terms) suggests...probably not. If the timing is out (late) then more people get rich, and the eventual collapse is even harder than if it happens earlier. The only way to avoid this is to try to knock the top off it with a 'soft' (er) landing by reduced consumption.
There is a way to avoid it personally as a rich person - by hoping that the collapse happens after one is dead, and perhaps by not having children so as to ensure one is less personally-invested in whoever does cop for it.
I’m 83 and we have four grandchildren aged 27, 23, 21 and 18. By the time I was 29 we had our two children. I remember us saying “Well, all being well, we’ve got a good chance of becoming great grandparents”.
But rather like you about grandchildren, we feel the world has moved on. We may yet be great grandparents but we’ve moved from expecting to hoping.
The general conundrum can be understood by considering total dependency ratio rather than children alone.
The solution is a socialised care system (at both ends of life) and better pensions (on aggregate), but that's not a solution any country seems capable of contemplating.
Population decline is neither a solution nor a disaster.
It removes one source of pressure from a finite system.
Whether that benefit is realised depends on what happens to consumption, technology, inequality, energy systems, agriculture, and political institutions.
Therefore declining population is probably a favourable background condition, but not a sufficient answer to the environmental crisis.
We can allow the standard of living of those currently rich to drop.
Do the rich get any say in this?
They haven't before now, as the shade of Marie Antoinette could tell you. Except for the ones who managed to position themselves as leaders of the mob. Presumably this is why the tech bros are all making plans to move to Mars.
My point was a follow-up to Eigon's post above mine, quoting someone who said that ""Do you know how stressed a mammal has to be to not reproduce?"
Anecdote is not data, but my impression (based on my kids, nieces, nephews and Godchildren, and their friends) is that if their social circle isn't having children, then having children stops being the norm that it was even one generation ago. I don't think my husband and I ever really thought about whether we would have children, the decision was when. All our friends followed the same path of graduation / engagement / marriage / kids, in that order, with just the spacing differing.
I don't think it's necessarily "stress" or, if it is, it's a stress caused by trying to work out how to juggle two careers with childcare. If two incomes are required to maintain the mortgage, then losing one income to become a stay at home parent isn't an option, but neither is using the bulk of one income to pay for childcare.
Scotland's fertility rate is 1.25, which is way, way below replacement rate, so although my observations are just anecdotal, they do seem in line with demographic trends.
My point was a follow-up to Eigon's post above mine, quoting someone who said that ""Do you know how stressed a mammal has to be to not reproduce?"
Anecdote is not data, but my impression ...
I don't think it's necessarily "stress" or, if it is, it's a stress caused by trying to work out how to juggle two careers with childcare. If two incomes are required to maintain the mortgage, then losing one income to become a stay at home parent isn't an option, but neither is using the bulk of one income to pay for childcare.
That's a very powerful stress indeed, and I think it likely that it's behind a lot of the childlessness that I see--or the "one and done" that I also see. People talk about it--"We wanted to have another/more, but..." and then you hear about those issues. And shelter is a very powerful and basic need, and the lack of security in it a powerful stress.
Where I live the rich are the only ones who have a meaningful say about pretty much anything.
That's true for now. I'm not sure how much longer it will be true. Money isn't real. The things it can buy are, but only if everyone agrees that you can use money to get them. If you're sitting on the only available clean water source for hundreds of miles, and you need it all yourself, are you going to sell it to a certain opinionated trillionaire? If it means that you and your family (and your crops and livestock) will die? I wouldn't. He'd probably hire some thugs and take it anyway, but at some point in the breakdown of civilisation, the thugs are going to realise they don't actually need him anymore. I daresay that's why all the tech bros are suddenly keen on AI and robots. Peasantry without free will!
What I'm doing is disagreeing with you. However you phrase it, I don't think that equity and population are related in the way that you do. I just don't see a justification.
But I don't think that equity and population are related! But I do think that consumption and population are related. Perhaps that is what you disagree with?
That isn't it.
You continue to make statements that make a connection between equity and population, along the lines of "If we want more equity, we need a drop in population". If there were no relation between equity and population, all you'd need to say is "we want more equity", and not mention population at all. An "inverse relationship" (one thing increases as another thing decreases) is a relationship just as much as a "direct relationship" (two things both increase, or decrease, together).
No no no there is no inverse relationship between population and equity. But there is a direct relationship between population and consumption. And there is a direct relationship between consumption and environmental degradation.
You were the one who brought up equity. And equity is an important goal. And you could have equity, even without population decline. But then you would still get the environmental degradation.
Yes exactly! Why focus on population? And yet people are focussing on population, and complaining about the birth slowdown. That is the focus I am objecting to! We should certainly be focussing on girls' education and energy and farming and nutrition and quality of life and debt. We should not be focussing on trying to arrest birth slowdown!!!!
I think the person most focused on population growth/decline on this thread is the same person who started the thread by saying that population decline is the best news imaginable:
My point is - if I haven't made it clear - is that this is not a disaster, or bad news. Rather it is an astonishing benison that the people of the world should be going down on our knees for and thanking the Lord for an almost unbelievable deliverance.
Yes I will confess to being somewhat fixated on it but that is because all my news sources got fixated on it in a way that annoyed me. They made me do it!
Where I live the rich are the only ones who have a meaningful say about pretty much anything.
That's true for now. I'm not sure how much longer it will be true. Money isn't real. The things it can buy are, but only if everyone agrees that you can use money to get them. If you're sitting on the only available clean water source for hundreds of miles, and you need it all yourself, are you going to sell it to a certain opinionated trillionaire? If it means that you and your family (and your crops and livestock) will die? I wouldn't. He'd probably hire some thugs and take it anyway, but at some point in the breakdown of civilisation, the thugs are going to realise they don't actually need him anymore. I daresay that's why all the tech bros are suddenly keen on AI and robots. Peasantry without free will!
If civilization breaks down, there will still be rich people -- the ones hoarding resources, perhaps, rather than money. @Marvin the Martian's question was whether the rich would have any say about proposals to make the standard of living more equal across populations struck me as ridiculous.
There will, maybe, be a ballot measure in November here in California that will impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires to fund healthcare. While people were gathering signatures to put it on the ballot, a billionaire-funded group massively drove the price of collecting those signatures (because you have to pay people to accost a lot of shoppers coming out of grocery stores and get them to sign the petition) by paying $15 per signature gathered when the going rate was $4. They recruited and funded (inadequately, it turns out) a candidate for the gubernatorial primary. They've got the current governor on their side, and he could get the measure removed from the ballot by negotiating with the union that sponsored it. I started getting flyers in the mail advocating a "no" vote immediately after the June primary. So yeah, the rich get a say when we're trying to lower their standard of living. As if we couldn't reduce these people's wealth by 90% without hurting them.
Money is political speech in the US. The rich have no limits on their abilities to spend money on elections.
Population decline is neither a solution nor a disaster.
It removes one source of pressure from a finite system.
Whether that benefit is realised depends on what happens to consumption, technology, inequality, energy systems, agriculture, and political institutions.
Therefore declining population is probably a favourable background condition, but not a sufficient answer to the environmental crisis.
I don't think looking at this from the point of view of population level being a "benefit" or "favourable" is conducive. I believe it's feasible for a world population of 10 billion to live sustainably. I think it's plausible that a population of 1 billion can live unsustainably. The issue is whether we are prepared to adjust our use and re-use of resources to the level of population.
…He'd probably hire some thugs and take it anyway, but at some point in the breakdown of civilisation, the thugs are going to realise they don't actually need him anymore. I daresay that's why all the tech bros are suddenly keen on AI and robots. Peasantry without free will!
Although this group significantly overlaps with the group of people who think that if enough resources are thrown at the problem, AI will achieve consciousness, at which point we'd get to find out where the robots' priorities lie.
…You were the one who brought up equity. And equity is an important goal. And you could have equity, even without population decline. But then you would still get the environmental degradation.
It believe it was this post that bought equity into play:
If anything, taking a holistic view makes population decline even more important and beneficial! If you would like resources to be distributed more equitably, to make poor countries richer, then it will be even more important that the total population is less!
Which is looking more like a non sequitur. Equitable distribution of resources isn't primarily about making poor countries richer, and doesn't depend on the number of people that there are. The equitable distribution of crayons in a classroom doesn't depend on the number of children in the class.
Yes I will confess to being somewhat fixated on it but that is because all my news sources got fixated on it in a way that annoyed me. They made me do it!
Two quick observations population contraction always leads to a demographic cliff i.e. lots more elderly than young people. Sorry that is what the maths does.
Secondly the only sustainable one economically is equilibrium that is very hard to attain.
Two quick observations population contraction always leads to a demographic cliff i.e. lots more elderly than young people. Sorry that is what the maths does.
Secondly the only sustainable one economically is equilibrium that is very hard to attain.
The balance of elderly to youthful people needs, in my opinion, to be a balance between economically active and economically inactive people. Depending on the labour required it could turn out that far fewer productive workers are needed to produce the goods and provide the services needed by the entire population. Maybe we need to move away from the notion that work is inherently good, and this may be inevitable if more work can be automated.
I suspect that the difficulty lies in the kinds of services needed by a contracting population--namely, elder care and end-of-life care. Those are always going to require human beings, and a lot of them, if they are to be done well. I've heard people speak of having robots do bathing, helping to the toilet, etc. and that might be possible--but they'll never be able to deal with the major issue of isolation and loneliness. Human caregivers can help at least a bit with that. Not so robots.
Two quick observations population contraction always leads to a demographic cliff i.e. lots more elderly than young people. Sorry that is what the maths does.
A rapid population contraction does that, particularly if life expectancy is continuing to rise. It's not clear that a trajectory with stable life expectancy but birth rates slightly below replacement (say 2.0 rather than 2.1) would be a problem.
Sure. But here's the thing. Asking people to consume less stuff, or have less stuff, will not work. Almost nobody is willing to take a hit to their standard of living in aid of some small contribution to the long-term future of our planet.
A real market for organic (non-pesticide) food has developed, and people willingly pay more for it. Half or more of the eggs I see offered for sale are "cruelty-free," "free range," and/or "No antibiotics"--and they cost quite a bit more, and people are buying them. Fair trade items are finding a market. Even as inflation rises. People are in fact buying and installing solar panels. And so on, and so forth...
Installing solar panels doesn't make your life worse, and in most places is either economically advantageous, or perhaps vaguely neutral.
Lots of people buy Organic because they think it is "better for you" in some vaguely unspecified way. If they're trying to avoid consuming pesticides by doing so, they are explicitly trying to spend more money on things they think are better. I suspect you wouldn't do nearly so well at marketing expensive vegetables as "low fertilizer runoff".
I think you're right to a point - a lot of people do make a point of buying free range eggs, fair trade coffee and chocolate, and they are paying more for it. But relative to their income, they're paying a rather small amount of extra money.
Various studies have suggested that, for example, Americans want to "buy American" and support local industry, but are only willing to pay around a 10% premium for that.
Comments
I'm not so sure that the Neanderthals weren't conscious of their demise, or didn't understand what was happening to them.
But, in any case, I don't think that it counts in our favour to be intelligent enough to understand the stupidity of working towards increasing the uninhabitability of this planet, while continuing to work towards increasing the uninhabitability of this planet.
Another way in which we are working towards the uninhabilitability of our planet is by expecting our economy to expand indefinitely. That is what I mean by economic expansion being a "first-order problem".
On the other hand economic contraction is more immediately painful for us but it does not in itself tend to make the planet more uninhabitable. It presents problems - severe problems - but it is not ultimately as bad as continued expansion, which as Limits to Growth said would eventually lead to some sort of catastrophic limiting event. This is what I mean by economic contraction being a "second-order problem".
Also - just because the planet would be less inhabitable for humans doesn't mean the planet would be uninhabitable in general. Life would carry on without humans.
I'm OK with the basic idea of being looked after by a robot, but qualms about it happening in the context of current regulatory regimes or being operated by any of the current crop of tech bros.
The direction of travel of AI is not towards care and compassion. We'll have to wait to see whether the new foundation models being developed do a better job of faking it than the ones interacting with human beings at the moment, across a variety of activities.
The physical devices will contain cameras and microphones (and a range of other sensors, including medical) and will be connected to the internet. As above, it remains to be seen how seriously the companies involved take the privacy of elderly people and their/our personal data.
One thing that seems certain is that, as is the case now, the quality of someone's care will be strongly related to their ability to pay for it.
Sounds about right to me. I'm encouraged by your OP.
# Being the 5 factors identified in The Limits to Growth.
Unless it doesn't. As an example, the consumption of livestock-derived foods (eg red meat) isn't just affected by the number of people, it is strongly correlated to prices and levels of income. There are a number of scenarios in which populations decrease, but the consumption of livestock-derived foods increases, which puts upward pressure on 3 or 4 of the other factors. (And remembering that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, even if it is much less persistent.)
Indeed. Complex systems are harder to understand.
If anything, taking a holistic view makes population decline even more important and beneficial! If you would like resources to be distributed more equitably, to make poor countries richer, then it will be even more important that the total population is less!
Sure. But here's the thing. Asking people to consume less stuff, or have less stuff, will not work. Almost nobody is willing to take a hit to their standard of living in aid of some small contribution to the long-term future of our planet.
To the extent that personal consumption has dropped, it's because we have better, more efficient things that do the same things. LEDs replace incandescent bulbs in almost every application, and do it better and for 10% of the energy cost. More efficient cars aren't worse at being a car than older cars (This isn't quite true for electric cars yet - there are use cases that EVs aren't great at, and they're too expensive to buy.) Solid state electronics replaces vacuum tubes in almost all applications.
Or just considering your non-complex scenario: in a society in which there is an overall decrease in population, but in which there is an increase in the number of richer people, will there be more or less red meat consumed?
Unless it has the opposite effect. The idea that population decline would be distributed evenly across all demographics, or would lead to a more equitable distribution of resources, are completely unfounded assumptions.
Another way of looking at this is that the market likes solutions that involve producing more stuff and selling it to people.
NB The average price of EVs is cheaper than combustion-engined cars in China, and they're cheaper to run in lots of countries.
That's actually not true. During my lifetime we have moved from throwing everything away (the easiest, thoughtless way) to having rather complicated recycling regimens which we (general we) put up with for the good of the planet. A real market for organic (non-pesticide) food has developed, and people willingly pay more for it. Half or more of the eggs I see offered for sale are "cruelty-free," "free range," and/or "No antibiotics"--and they cost quite a bit more, and people are buying them. Fair trade items are finding a market. Even as inflation rises. People are in fact buying and installing solar panels. And so on, and so forth...
It's true that all this is not enough. But it is NOT true that there is no interest, and that nobody is willing to take a hit to their standard of living. Quite a few of us have, and it's becoming more routine.
I'm reminded of St Gregory of Nyssa's defence of chastity: he argued that the desire for procreation was a displaced attempt to deal with the fear of death, and thus ultimately an idolatry of death. He seems to anticipated Freud's awareness of false consciousness. Of course, our children, or our genes, or our species are not actually forms of our personal survival: our children are people in their own right, and our genes and our species are mere abstractions.
We had our first when I was 29 - my husband's PhD delayed the point at which I was no longer the main earner. By then several of our friends had started families and we were fully into the swing of buying baby gifts and attending christenings. We were already Godparents to our eldest Godchild. Having children was just a natural progression. It's not like that any more.
I am part of a group of five schoolfriends who meet up a couple of times a year. We're all 62. Only one has a grandchild, and she thinks he may well be her only grandchild. My siblings aren't grandparents. Of the seven cousins I'm in regular contact with, only 1 has grandchildren.
I know so few grandmothers my own age, that it's not even a topic of conversation. I'd love to be a granny, but I don't feel as though I'm missing out, because I'm not looking around and seeing many other women my age, with university-educated children, who are grandmothers.
Well it's just as well I didn't make them then. My point is not that population decline will cause a more equitable distribution, but rather that if we want a) a more equitable distribution of resources AND b) not too much of decline in standard of living for the currently wealthy AND c) not to deplete and exhaust the Earth's resources, then we MUST also have d) a decrease in total population.
Freud's awareness of false consciousness - the philosophy / hermeneutics of suspicion?
Survival itself is an abstract concept. And our taxonomic idea of species is related to the capacity of members to breed and produce fertile offspring.
How we understand the "biological imperative", which we appear to share with a host of species that don't have the capacity to understand it, is an intriguing question.
Is that not grandparents or not grandparents yet?
Wanting a more equitable distribution of resources (a) doesn't seem compatible with wanting to maintain inequitable standards of living and wealth (b).
If equitable distribution of resources really was linked to total population, then looking back through human history, I'd expect to see the distribution of resources becoming more equitable, the further back I looked.
The other study was even weirder. Entitled "Oops. Scientists May Have Severely Miscalculated the World Population." This study looked at rural water resources and hypothesizes based on observed dam construction in rural areas that estimates of world population may be as far off as 35 to 84%. Critics, though, say it is pretty hard to have missed a billion or more people.
Is that not grandparents or not grandparents yet?
Not grandparents yet. But no immediate expectation of grandparenthood either.
I didn't say it was linked! Why do you persist in this misinterpretation?!
I said that if we did distribute resources equally, and we didn't want everybody to be poor, and we didn't want to exhaust natural resources, then we couldn't have an increasing population. The drop in population won't cause equity. But if we want both equity and a decent standard of living, then we will also need a population drop to avoid or mitigate environmental collapse.
Wealth is a relative concept. For someone to be wealthy, other people need not to be wealthy. Standard of living is a more nuanced concept, but many of the components are relative (including wealth). Things that were previously considered luxuries are now considered necessities. Standard of living tends to be measured in comparative terms.
In order for the idea of an "absolute standard of living" to prevail, there would need to be a radical systemic change in people's thinking and attitudes. I think it would be more useful to encourage the prioritising of quality of life.
What I'm doing is disagreeing with you. However you phrase it, I don't think that equity and population are related in the way that you do. I just don't see a justification.
Why focus on population? Why not focus on girl's education, or energy or farming or nutrition or quality of life or debt? Especially as you point out that the population isn't going to start falling for at least another 25 years. Declining population isn't going to address any of the issues any time soon. Furthermore, the demographic shifts in population that are creating even more problems have already begun, and aren't forecast to make things any easier between now and 2050.
But I don't think that equity and population are related! But I do think that consumption and population are related. Perhaps that is what you disagree with? Yes exactly! Why focus on population? And yet people are focussing on population, and complaining about the birth slowdown. That is the focus I am objecting to! We should certainly be focussing on girls' education and energy and farming and nutrition and quality of life and debt. We should not be focussing on trying to arrest birth slowdown!!!!
I’m 83 and we have four grandchildren aged 27, 23, 21 and 18. By the time I was 29 we had our two children. I remember us saying “Well, all being well, we’ve got a good chance of becoming great grandparents”.
But rather like you about grandchildren, we feel the world has moved on. We may yet be great grandparents but we’ve moved from expecting to hoping.
You continue to make statements that make a connection between equity and population, along the lines of "If we want more equity, we need a drop in population". If there were no relation between equity and population, all you'd need to say is "we want more equity", and not mention population at all. An "inverse relationship" (one thing increases as another thing decreases) is a relationship just as much as a "direct relationship" (two things both increase, or decrease, together).
I think the person most focused on population growth/decline on this thread is the same person who started the thread by saying that population decline is the best news imaginable:
Do the rich get any say in this?
Well...the Limits to Growth (which is 50+ years old and has been criticised a lot over the years, but makes sense to me in its own terms) suggests...probably not. If the timing is out (late) then more people get rich, and the eventual collapse is even harder than if it happens earlier. The only way to avoid this is to try to knock the top off it with a 'soft' (er) landing by reduced consumption.
There is a way to avoid it personally as a rich person - by hoping that the collapse happens after one is dead, and perhaps by not having children so as to ensure one is less personally-invested in whoever does cop for it.
The general conundrum can be understood by considering total dependency ratio rather than children alone.
The solution is a socialised care system (at both ends of life) and better pensions (on aggregate), but that's not a solution any country seems capable of contemplating.
Population decline is neither a solution nor a disaster.
It removes one source of pressure from a finite system.
Whether that benefit is realised depends on what happens to consumption, technology, inequality, energy systems, agriculture, and political institutions.
Therefore declining population is probably a favourable background condition, but not a sufficient answer to the environmental crisis.
They haven't before now, as the shade of Marie Antoinette could tell you. Except for the ones who managed to position themselves as leaders of the mob. Presumably this is why the tech bros are all making plans to move to Mars.
Anecdote is not data, but my impression (based on my kids, nieces, nephews and Godchildren, and their friends) is that if their social circle isn't having children, then having children stops being the norm that it was even one generation ago. I don't think my husband and I ever really thought about whether we would have children, the decision was when. All our friends followed the same path of graduation / engagement / marriage / kids, in that order, with just the spacing differing.
I don't think it's necessarily "stress" or, if it is, it's a stress caused by trying to work out how to juggle two careers with childcare. If two incomes are required to maintain the mortgage, then losing one income to become a stay at home parent isn't an option, but neither is using the bulk of one income to pay for childcare.
Scotland's fertility rate is 1.25, which is way, way below replacement rate, so although my observations are just anecdotal, they do seem in line with demographic trends.
That's a very powerful stress indeed, and I think it likely that it's behind a lot of the childlessness that I see--or the "one and done" that I also see. People talk about it--"We wanted to have another/more, but..." and then you hear about those issues. And shelter is a very powerful and basic need, and the lack of security in it a powerful stress.
That's true for now. I'm not sure how much longer it will be true. Money isn't real. The things it can buy are, but only if everyone agrees that you can use money to get them. If you're sitting on the only available clean water source for hundreds of miles, and you need it all yourself, are you going to sell it to a certain opinionated trillionaire? If it means that you and your family (and your crops and livestock) will die? I wouldn't. He'd probably hire some thugs and take it anyway, but at some point in the breakdown of civilisation, the thugs are going to realise they don't actually need him anymore. I daresay that's why all the tech bros are suddenly keen on AI and robots. Peasantry without free will!
No no no there is no inverse relationship between population and equity. But there is a direct relationship between population and consumption. And there is a direct relationship between consumption and environmental degradation.
You were the one who brought up equity. And equity is an important goal. And you could have equity, even without population decline. But then you would still get the environmental degradation.
Yes I will confess to being somewhat fixated on it but that is because all my news sources got fixated on it in a way that annoyed me. They made me do it!
If civilization breaks down, there will still be rich people -- the ones hoarding resources, perhaps, rather than money. @Marvin the Martian's question was whether the rich would have any say about proposals to make the standard of living more equal across populations struck me as ridiculous.
There will, maybe, be a ballot measure in November here in California that will impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires to fund healthcare. While people were gathering signatures to put it on the ballot, a billionaire-funded group massively drove the price of collecting those signatures (because you have to pay people to accost a lot of shoppers coming out of grocery stores and get them to sign the petition) by paying $15 per signature gathered when the going rate was $4. They recruited and funded (inadequately, it turns out) a candidate for the gubernatorial primary. They've got the current governor on their side, and he could get the measure removed from the ballot by negotiating with the union that sponsored it. I started getting flyers in the mail advocating a "no" vote immediately after the June primary. So yeah, the rich get a say when we're trying to lower their standard of living. As if we couldn't reduce these people's wealth by 90% without hurting them.
Money is political speech in the US. The rich have no limits on their abilities to spend money on elections.
Although this group significantly overlaps with the group of people who think that if enough resources are thrown at the problem, AI will achieve consciousness, at which point we'd get to find out where the robots' priorities lie.
It believe it was this post that bought equity into play: Which is looking more like a non sequitur. Equitable distribution of resources isn't primarily about making poor countries richer, and doesn't depend on the number of people that there are. The equitable distribution of crayons in a classroom doesn't depend on the number of children in the class.
The algorithms seem to have you sussed…
Secondly the only sustainable one economically is equilibrium that is very hard to attain.
The balance of elderly to youthful people needs, in my opinion, to be a balance between economically active and economically inactive people. Depending on the labour required it could turn out that far fewer productive workers are needed to produce the goods and provide the services needed by the entire population. Maybe we need to move away from the notion that work is inherently good, and this may be inevitable if more work can be automated.
A rapid population contraction does that, particularly if life expectancy is continuing to rise. It's not clear that a trajectory with stable life expectancy but birth rates slightly below replacement (say 2.0 rather than 2.1) would be a problem.
Installing solar panels doesn't make your life worse, and in most places is either economically advantageous, or perhaps vaguely neutral.
Lots of people buy Organic because they think it is "better for you" in some vaguely unspecified way. If they're trying to avoid consuming pesticides by doing so, they are explicitly trying to spend more money on things they think are better. I suspect you wouldn't do nearly so well at marketing expensive vegetables as "low fertilizer runoff".
I think you're right to a point - a lot of people do make a point of buying free range eggs, fair trade coffee and chocolate, and they are paying more for it. But relative to their income, they're paying a rather small amount of extra money.
Various studies have suggested that, for example, Americans want to "buy American" and support local industry, but are only willing to pay around a 10% premium for that.