An observation

[nitroglycol]

Many posts on this board express concern (not unfounded) about two issues:

(a) overpopulation, and
(b) the aging population.

The thing is, it seems to me that any humane solution to (a) will require us to accept, and somehow adapt to, (b).

Discuss.

[ggirod]

Re: An observation

The problem is not overpopulation, it is overconsumption. Sadly, that is a behavioral problem among the people in power so promulgating the myth of a population problem is the only way to continue profligate consumption guilt free.

THERE is a pervading myth that efforts to fight climate change and other environmental perils will be to no avail unless we "do something" about population growth. Even seasoned analysts talk about the threat of "exponential" population growth. But there is no exponential growth. In most of the world fertility rates are falling fast, and the countries where population growth continues are those that contribute least to our planetary predicament.

New Scientist Magazine has a short but excellent article that provides the above quote.

As for the aging population, the aging contribute precious little to overpopulation except as grandma and grandpa contribute effort and money to help care for the younger generation.

Lately it seems that the population issue is raised, not by the scientists who sounded the alarm over 30 years ago and led to much improved population growth, but by those who would instill fear in the populace that draconian measures would be taken broadly to reduce population. People still have full stomachs, for the most part, so the way to manipulate them for the while is through paranoia and fear.

[grapejelly]

Re: An observation

the problem is that government sucks away private investment and squanders the money. There is a lack of enough private investment and savings. There is a tremendous amount of malinvestment through fiat money and central banking.

[nitroglycol]

Re: An observation

The problem is not overpopulation, it is overconsumption. Sadly, that is a behavioral problem among the people in power so promulgating the myth of a population problem is the only way to continue profligate consumption guilt free.

There's a fair bit of truth to that (not 100%, mind you; the world is still finite so eventually we will have to reduce our birthrate to replacement levels, regardless of how we limit our consumption). My point is, a lot of people here have been harping on the population angle.

As for the aging population, the aging contribute precious little to overpopulation except as grandma and grandpa contribute effort and money to help care for the younger generation.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The point I was making is that the aging population will be an inevitable side effect of reducing the birthrate to the replacement level. We see this in developed countries now, and the solution that's inevitably proposed is to encourage people to breed more. Meanwhile, since people in the developed world generally consume more, this is worse (from a global perspective) than increased birth rates in poor countries.

Lately it seems that the population issue is raised, not by the scientists who sounded the alarm over 30 years ago and led to much improved population growth, but by those who would instill fear in the populace that draconian measures would be taken broadly to reduce population. People still have full stomachs, for the most part, so the way to manipulate them for the while is through paranoia and fear.

Yes, this is more or less true. I don't think it invalidates the point I was making, though. It just struck me as interesting that we see these two issues discussed here a lot, without anyone noticing that you can't solve one without worsening the other.

[ggirod]

Re: An observation

My point is, a lot of people here have been harping on the population angle.

I have to agree that eventually the population on the planet has to reach a stable constant level but I more strenuously agree that there is undue harping on population as the cause for our difficulties.

The point I was making is that the aging population will be an inevitable side effect of reducing the birthrate to the replacement level. We see this in developed countries now, and the solution that's inevitably proposed is to encourage people to breed more. Meanwhile, since people in the developed world generally consume more, this is worse (from a global perspective) than increased birth rates in poor countries.

The biologically wired-in solution to "social security" is to propagate an adequate number of offspring to support you. That instinct is one of the major reasons population explodes in developing countries and stagnates in developed nations. As you note, combined with excess consumption, increasing the birth rate is a catastrophe.

I have often thought that absorbing immigrants (sort of like adopting instead of reproducing) as a transitional strategy to support the aging is possible, but even then, when resident in the developed nation, the immigrants start to consume more. Same problem just a bit lower numerical population impact.

Then again, dealing with people's health such that they remain productive into later years can mean that people could be meaningful contributors to the economy for many more years and become non-productive later and for fewer years. While we may only live our allocated three score ten or more like four score ten nowadays, healthcare improvements could make more of those years productive to the benefit of the whole society. Sadly, lack of healthcare and prevention does not so much shorten life as shorten productive life.

Yes, this is more or less true. I don't think it invalidates the point I was making, though. It just struck me as interesting that we see these two issues discussed here a lot, without anyone noticing that you can't solve one without worsening the other.

I have to agree, that dealing only with the birthrate leads to almost no solution at all. Reduced consumption is the only real solution, and it eases the cost to support the aging while permitting lots more people to live comfortably on the planet. In every seemingly intractable problem there is a core that people would rather ignore (an elephant in every room) like overconsumption, because it means that everybody has to sacrifice a little for the good of the whole.

[nitroglycol]

Re: An observation

I have to agree that eventually the population on the planet has to reach a stable constant level but I more strenuously agree that there is undue harping on population as the cause for our difficulties.The biologically wired-in solution to "social security" is to propagate an adequate number of offspring to support you. That instinct is one of the major reasons population explodes in developing countries and stagnates in developed nations.

Bingo. And this highlights yet another problem; if you want to lower the birthrate you have to increase the standard of living, yet when you do that you risk increasing consumption. I'm not sure what the solution to this is.

Then again, dealing with people's health such that they remain productive into later years can mean that people could be meaningful contributors to the economy for many more years and become non-productive later and for fewer years. While we may only live our allocated three score ten or more like four score ten nowadays, healthcare improvements could make more of those years productive to the benefit of the whole society. Sadly, lack of healthcare and prevention does not so much shorten life as shorten productive life.

True again. As well, societies with better healthcare (and education) tend to have lower birth rates. But see above for the rub.

[ggirod]

Re: An observation

I am really enjoying this discussion.

I think we tend to look only at ourselves for solutions to our problems and we miss many viable methods and ideas to resolve them. Such near-sightedness is common because cultural assumptions are very persistent.

Improved standards of living do not require anywhere near the energy and material consumption that are common in the most developed nations. Starting relatively from scratch, cities can be engineered with adequate mass transit and functioning markets for food such that residents do not need to drive huge vehicles to stores where they buy preserved foods shipped via air and sea from the four corners of the globe to put in their huge energy-consuming freezers and refrigerators until the next week when they repeat the process. Instead, the people walk several times a week to the nearby marketplace and buy their fresh locally produced food and minimize (not eliminate) the need for refrigeration, etc. Traditional food production methods sometimes can eliminate pesticides and fertilizers while maintaining high productivity. Less emphasis on meat saves both energy and the people's arteries.

Older generations are enlisted for child care and housework so the parents can work and thus the oldsters earn their keep and no money needs change hands. In the US it is a tax-free childcare account that lets people not support their parents and get a tax break for the privilege. Note -- I am NOT promoting that solution to aging, (homocide could easily result in many cases) but it is a means to mitigate the problem for those who choose it.

Some solutions to the standard of living problem are astounding in their effectiveness and beautiful in their execution. For example, in some large Indian cities, a wife, who is also caring for children in their home, makes lunch for her husband in the middle/late morning. The lovingly cooked creation is picked up by a delivery service person on a bicycle, dropped off at a distribution center, sorted, transported across town via mass transit, and assigned to delivery riders who deliver the food warm and ready to eat for lunch. Now lest you consider that solution backward, the orchestrated precision that feeds the workers is under continuous improvement with Six Sigma to assure that failures are absent and efficiency is high. That is but one example of what happens when quality of life is optimized by different cultures. It also shows what quality of life can mean in different cultures. It has little to do with consumption or franchised restaurants.

A look in the crystal ball ...

So, I guess with the examples the world is providing today I think the population problem will be minimized by mid century and the economy with global competition for commodities and global competition in production will lead to a leveling of the standard of living. Excess consumption in the US and other nations will decrease as it becomes more costly while wages stagnate or decline. Elsewhere in the world, wages will rise and standards of living will rise. Nations that manage to exist in peace will prosper by mid century. In the US, materialism will decline and lifestyles will change to accommodate higher energy and commodity costs along with constant or declining real income. Exactly what those lifestyles will be like is a risky prediction. Fifty years ago there were no computers, internet, satellite communications, movies on demand, CAT scans, MRIs, chemotherapy, heart bypasses, or many other things that have contributed to our quality of life. In fact, nobody back then would have been able to predict them.

It is pretty clear, however, that our young adults will live through a dynamic and changing world with, I hope, a better life as time goes on. Better, defined maybe, in ways we cannot yet even imagine.

[nitroglycol]

Re: An observation

I agree with you in principle (note that I said that when you increase standard of living you risk increasing consumption, not guarantee it), and I'm optimistic about the long haul, notwithstanding concerns mentioned above. I think the short haul is going to be nasty, though.

[ggirod]

Re: An observation

I think the short haul is going to be nasty, though.

You can say that again. Adaptation is never easy and the American people will be dragged kicking and screaming into the wonderful new future ahead of them.:rolleyes:

[c1ue]

Re: An observation

You might want to consider an existing effect magnified by the present economy: birth rates of those on government welfare

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/9/61.pdf

Interestingly enough, according to this study the common perception of habitual welfare families having more children was true in 1994, but increasingly less true leading into 2000.

The trend is definitely one of diminishment of the lower classes.

[BK]

Re: An observation

There was a time when Mass Transit thrived in the US. My Dad had great stories about the days of riding the Street Car (the 1920s-1950s). Cheap oil ended the era of the Street Car. Americans adapted by adopting reasonable price transportation that could take them anywhere (even where the tracks didn't go).

My Uncle tells great stories about the organized car pools of the 1950s. IF you were headed to your College for the day there were Car pool spots where you lined up ( a queue just like the Brits) and waited for a car to stop by and pick you up (every day - you'd get a ride from some one different). The Street car took too long from his Boston suburb - people adapted with the use of car pooling.

Lets not forget the era of the street car will be very difficult to bring back with the wage and benefit packages that many Mass Transit employees have today. I avoid the Train when I can because it is a very expensive form of transportation compared to taking our small family in our Car.

There was a time when people in the USA would let there homes get very cold in the middle of the night. It was the era of the Coal power furnace and the fire would be almost out be early morning (lots of labor was required to keep the furnace burning. Cheap Oil became available and the citizens of the US adapted). Try and convince anyone that owns a house that its OK for the house to cool down to 45 degrees - they think you are nuts.

The Lunch delivery system in India is a fascinating. But, isn't it possible because of the over supply of labor (the massive slums of India). The massive over supply of labor in India is a tool that helps the Indian population adapt.

Americans will adapt to future changes as we always have. My Child will have a hard time convincing my grand children the way it was in the 2000s - humans have short memories and perhaps a short memory is just another tool to help humans adapt to environmental changes.

[nitroglycol]

Re: An observation

Lets not forget the era of the street car will be very difficult to bring back with the wage and benefit packages that many Mass Transit employees have today. I avoid the Train when I can because it is a very expensive form of transportation compared to taking our small family in our Car.

Actually, in western Europe public sector workers get good wage and benefit packages, yet mass transit is much more successful than in most of the US and Canada. It's a matter of managing expectations, I think (and the fact that the price of gas is not likely to stay low for long).

Don't forget, a few North American cities never abandoned streetcars. Toronto is getting more, in fact.

[ggirod]

Re: An observation

Lets not forget the era of the street car will be very difficult to bring back with the wage and benefit packages that many Mass Transit employees have today. I avoid the Train when I can because it is a very expensive form of transportation compared to taking our small family in our Car.

Mass transit can now be automated to the point that there are very few people required to operate the system so it will be a matter of the investment vs. the wages and one solution or the other will win. Trains are sadly very expensive but may get cheaper when ridership increases. Hubby or wifey can't take the car to travel alone when there is only one car ... so ridership will increase, ticket prices will drop.

Try and convince anyone that owns a house that its OK for the house to cool down to 45 degrees - they think you are nuts.

I have a wood stove and I admit, I am spoiled, and usually strive for 50 degrees or higher in the morning.

The Lunch delivery system in India is a fascinating. But, isn't it possible because of the over supply of labor (the massive slums of India). The massive over supply of labor in India is a tool that helps the Indian population adapt.

I think two things are operative - first of all there are lots of people who want jobs. Second, it is possible for somebody to add enough value by timely delivering lunch to support himself/family because the culture values that service, and, indirectly, the person who does it. I am sure it is much cheaper and more enjoyable than lunch at a US franchise joint (take your pick). Probably the single guys (or gals) at work go out to the food vendors on the street and get a very good lunch for reasonable rupees.

When I was in college I was going through the storerooms of the Physics department and found a thermoelectric generator for a radio that used a kerosene lamp to provide light while it converted some of the waste heat to electricity for a radio. Russia provided it to residents in Siberia. It looked a lot like this one. I mentioned to the department chairman that I thought it was both interesting and pretty neat as a solution to the problem of providing radio to the hinterlands. He leaned back in his chair, taking an extended puff on his pipe, as only a department chairman could, and said ... Don't you think rural electrification was a better solution? He was right in one way, but oh, so wrong in another. I was left feeling vaguely uneasy from that reply but I did not understand why. Only recently when I lived off grid for a year while building my retirement house in the woods did I learn to appreciate the many ways that power contributes and detracts from life. Needless to say I am now on grid, appreciating the benefits and conserving it.

Americans will adapt to future changes as we always have. My Child will have a hard time convincing my grand children the way it was in the 2000s - humans have short memories and perhaps a short memory is just another tool to help humans adapt to environmental changes.

I earned my living as a programmer, and I am convinced that if programmers did not have memory deficits that let them forget the pains of the last project, they would never start another one. Just try to explain to your grandchildren how you walked miles to school through blinding snowstorms uphill both ways.

[we_are_toast]

Re: An observation

Not to worry;

Your house will increase in value forever,
Deficits don't matter,
There's plenty of oil in the world,
The world is cooling,
Overpopulation isn't a problem.

[Ghent12]

Re: An observation

Not to worry;

Your house will increase in value forever,
Deficits don't matter,
There's plenty of oil in the world,
The world is cooling,
Overpopulation isn't a problem.

I find it very, very hard to accept that overpopulation is a problem in and of itself. All other species have a very natural limit to their population, but humans, in my estimate, are merely adapting to their ever-expanding "natural limit" and will continue to do so for centuries. The thing is that our natural limit is not natural. Deer do not cultivate grass.