The topic crops up in the OT thread every so often, I figured it could get its own thread.
Here's an article from the Economist on the topic:
QuoteBriefing | Shrinking without sinking - A contracting population need not be a catastrophe
The economics of a shrinking world[/u]
According to elon musk, the world's richest man and the father of at least a dozen children, the greatest potential risk to the future of civilisation is population collapse. Taking a very long-term view, he is right. If the world's population declines indefinitely, humanity will eventually disappear. But just as population growth has not exhausted the world's resources and caused mass starvation, as catastrophists have confidently predicted for centuries, shrinkage is not a calamity on the timescales that normal people use.
A shrinking population will have profound consequences. It will turn expectations about everything from housing to greenhouse-gas emissions upside down. A contracting labour force and a dwindling number of consumers will force a repricing of many goods, services and assets. Governments will need to rethink how they fund pensions and health care, and work out how to shrink cities and towns neatly. In many ways, the transition from the old to the new will be messy.
But messy is not the same as catastrophic. The insinuation of those who see population decline as a disaster is that human societies cannot flourish without expanding. The evidence for that is flimsy.
Population pessimists tend to focus on three potential problems. First, they point out that countries, and especially their governments, have some fixed costs—notably government debt. If the number of people declines, the cost per person rises. Second, they note that shrinking societies are also old ones, and that the cost of caring for the elderly becomes unaffordable because it is spread across an ever diminishing number of workers. Finally, they worry that smaller populations generate fewer good ideas and thus will have lower productivity growth, putting an obvious solution to the first two problems out of reach. But none of these problems is as thorny as it seems.
Take debt
All other things being equal, fewer people does indeed mean less economic growth. Less growth, in turn, tends to mean lower tax receipts and so can make government debt harder to sustain. But there is another variable to consider: interest rates. Keeping debts stable as a share of gdp depends not just on the size of the economy but on the cost of borrowing. In effect, the scale of the debt problem caused by a shrinking population would depend on the saving and spending patterns in the smaller, older society, which in turn would determine the interest rate.
One theory is that governments will coddle the old with handouts, initiating a grey-haired spending binge. That would send interest rates soaring, and debt-to-gdp ratios with them. But many economists are more sanguine. People around the world tend to save for their dotage because they do not trust governments to look after them. The IMF reckons the ageing societies of the future will do the same. Older workers will save more for their retirement. A relative scarcity of investment chances in a shrinking economy will force them to accept lower returns, so interest rates will decline. That would let governments service their debts more easily.
In other ways, too, an elderly population is not quite as heavy a burden as it may at first seem. There is no question that as populations contract the share of people who are of working age will shrink and the proportion who are old and in need of care will rise. In fact, that is already happening: in most middle- and high-income countries, the share of working-age adults is close to its peak or has begun to fall. That will suppress output per head.
Happily, however, there are ways of coping. The critical factor, economically speaking, is not the number of people, but the number of people in work. That is not simply a function of the working-age population, but also of the participation rate—the proportion of working-age people in or seeking work. In all rich countries, at least, the number of people in work is much smaller than the working-age population. Roughly 9m of Britain's 43m working-age adults were neither in work nor in full-time education in 2024, for example.
Raising the participation rate could compensate for a big contraction of the working-age population. What is more, economies tend to cope surprisingly well with fluctuations in the participation rate, which suggests they could also endure a shrinking population. Between 1990 and 2024 the out-of-work population in Britain has increased by 15%. In contrast, the Office for National Statistics reckons that by 2100 the working-age population will have contracted by just 7% from its peak.
Another way to cope is for retirement ages to rise. Again, this is already happening. A recent study by Goldman Sachs found that the typical worker in a rich country is now toiling four years longer than he or she did in 2000. Older workers, remarkably, are also becoming more productive. The average 70-year-old in 2022 had the same cognitive abilities as a 53-year-old in 2000.
Young people impose burdens on society, too
Youth typically lasts longer than in previous decades, as protracted educations delay young people from joining the workforce until their 20s. That has made them mightily expensive for governments in the rich world. The British state spends more each year on the average person below 25, mostly on education and health care, than it does on health care and pensions for a typical old person.
Fewer people will lessen the pain of lower growth. Investment will indeed be depressed in economies with shrinking populations, as there is little need for new capital formation. But such places nonetheless benefit from "capital deepening" as the capital stock per person rises, which should push up productivity. In a paper published last year, David Weil, an economist at Brown University, modelled the wider economic effects of consistently low or high fertility rates. Consumption per person differed little, regardless of whether the population was growing or shrinking. Even taking into account the upkeep of the young and the old, living standards flourished in both scenarios.
Then there is the question of how shrinking populations would affect innovation. That is critical, since ideas drive productivity, and greater productivity is the most obvious way to compensate for fewer workers. Larger populations tend to generate more research and set up more businesses. The slowing growth of America's labour force accounts for around a third of the recent fall in the creation of new businesses there, economists reckon. Over time such trends are bound to leave markets more concentrated and economies less efficient.
Yet the world seems a long way from exhausting its capacity for innovation. Israel, the country that employs a greater share of the workforce in research and development than any other, still devotes only 1% of workers to it. That suggests that, even with a shrinking pool of labour, a sizeable proportion could still focus on research. In developing countries such as Pakistan, where fewer than one in 10,000 people works in technology or research, the main obstacle to innovation is not the number of people, but the poor education system and business environment that prevent them fulfilling their economic potential.Furthermore, technology could make new ideas easier to find. Research so far has captured artificial intelligence's use in helping humans perform only routine tasks, such as handling data. But some think ai could do more. In 2020 Charles Jones and Nick Bloom, both economists at Stanford, documented how researchers were making fewer discoveries than in the past. The speed of innovation, they found, was slowing. Now Mr Jones thinks that ai could aid the search for frontier ideas. Ever optimistic, some ai firms reckon that by 2028 the models will be overseeing their own development.
Such breakthroughs open tantalising possibilities for the world economy over the next 75 years. Against them, the question of whether there are a few million extra academics churning out research slowly seems insignificant. Mr Jones may be proved wrong. But it seems likely that ai will help to determine whether the world has enough ideas in the next decades.
The threat of gerontocracy
The world's population is not falling fast enough to kill innovation or bankrupt governments. Mr Musk, along with other worriers, thinks the only way to avoid disaster is to reverse the trend by encouraging billions of births. But if policies to trigger a baby boom exist, governments have yet to find them. And they would produce a population bursting with young people, which is no less of a fiscal headache than a perpetually greying society.
What can governments do to prepare for the great shrink? Much will be done for them. Over the next years, as societies age, there will be more pensioners voting and consuming.
Fertility fell for much of the 19th and 20th centuries as the Industrial Revolution raised Western living standards. Then, the need to provide for oldies led to innovations like state pensions and modern retirement homes. The same forces should push governments and entrepreneurs to find solutions for ageing societies.
But as schools close, cities become less friendly places for young feet and politicians concentrate on the old, the young may be left behind. The real danger is not economic disaster. Rather, it is that, in the process of ageing, the world could become a worse place to have children. In 2024, according to the UN, roughly as many people have more children than they would like as have fewer. But without many parent peers, and with little state support, fewer couples may choose to procreate, creating a cycle of falling fertility and unfulfilled desires to have children.Rather than worry about an economic catastrophe that need not happen, or trying in vain to raise the birth rate, governments need to prepare for old societies and the new lives still to be born into them.
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/09/11/a-contracting-population-need-not-be-a-catastrophe
Is that new? Look at how the 90s and 2000s catered to the wealthier Boomers. It is already happening.
I wasn't too worried for awhile, things actually looked pretty stable back in 2010...but after COVID everybody's birthrate has just fallen off a cliff.
Life is going to be boring with just a lot of old farts.
But I did my part.
QuotePopulation pessimists tend to focus on three potential problems. First, they point out that countries, and especially their governments, have some fixed costs—notably government debt. If the number of people declines, the cost per person rises.
Notably government debt?
That's not the main one at all.
It's more basic infrastructure and suburbs.
This is why suburbia is fundamentally a ponzi scheme.
In Japan over the last two decades you've seen lots of villages merge into new on-paper cities to pool their resources as they just couldn't afford to run them alone anymore.
Japan is the prime example to look at in population decline really. The emptying of many of its villages is clear to be seen.
Important to remember it's not a universal thing and some areas will be hit harder than others.
QuotePeople around the world tend to save for their dotage because they do not trust governments to look after them. The IMF reckons the ageing societies of the future will do the same. Older workers will save more for their retiremen
Do they?
I can't comment on a global level but this is definitely not the case in the UK.
Huge numbers of people relying on the state pension and not understanding about personal saving.
QuoteYouth typically lasts longer than in previous decades, as protracted educations delay young people from joining the workforce until their 20s. That has made them mightily expensive for governments in the rich world. The British state spends more each year on the average person below 25, mostly on education and health care, than it does on health care and pensions for a typical old person.
But this is an investment. Spend money on kids and they are more productive and law abiding as adults.
Pensioners as grim as it is to say are all cost. From an economic pov the best you can say for their role is providing stimulus to undesirable areas.
QuoteThe threat of gerontocracy
This is the big one. We are already there and it's only going to get stronger.
All well and good to say logically as need to spend less on pensions and more on helping people to have kids... But those desperately working to get their lives going 20 somethings aren't voting.
70 year olds with nothing else to do on a Thursday are.
And on average their views are considerably more to the right and considerably more pro elderly than the majority.
Overall.... It is a concern. Our current economic setup is unsustainable. We need to change. And getting to a healthy birth rate would be part of that.
I've seen how expensive it is to have kids. I completely understand where those earning below the national median wage, those who do the sums and think about it, just don't do it.
Quote from: Josquius on September 13, 2025, 02:35:55 AMBut those desperately working to get their lives going 20 somethings aren't voting.
70 year olds with nothing else to do on a Thursday are.
And on average their views are considerably more to the right and considerably more pro elderly than the majority.
Throw in voter suppression like making it difficult for working people to get to the polls and it ensures this trend will continue.
The problem is the article makes a lot of assertions, but I don't really see the evidence for it. The biggest claim made in the article is that it is now more difficult to have children.
I don't know how young the person who wrote that article is, but that's simply not true. Children have never been healthier (well as long as their parents are not anti vaxxers). Parents have never had so much leisure time nor access to such a variety of food on demand.
People are forgetting how luxurious their lives are, compared to their grandparents or great grandparents.
I can't see an author name on it.
Cynically I would say "Maybe it was written by a man".
For a man it's "never" been harder to have children (never meaning a very limited "in recent times")
Both on the having to look after the kids side of things but more importantly the economics of one salary not doing the job.
And that's the other key part of declining birth rates really. Women getting a choice. They don't just have kids no matter what. They do the sums and say no. Assuming it was even a yes to begin with.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2025, 06:45:34 PMParents have never had so much leisure time ...
Leisure choice, sure. Time, no way.
Back when I was a kid only a minority of women worked. What one member of the family once did, now has to be split between both parents, on top of their jobs plus commute.
Letting the kids roam the streets is no longer acceptable, either. Which is how my dad was raised even as part of the upper-middle class in the 60s.
Yeah, both my brother and his wife have to work in order to sustain the household (mortgage, car, school, etc...). So they have to juggle that with raising their kid. Simply put, nowadays being alive is expensive. And a kid is a big burden.
I don't think it's the only reason, though - birth rate is also cratering in countries with little woman emancipation - look up Iran or Saudi Arabia for example.
Quote from: celedhring on September 14, 2025, 10:46:22 AM.
I don't think it's the only reason, though - birth rate is also cratering in countries with little woman emancipation - look up Iran or Saudi Arabia for example.
I'm not sure they're great counter examples.
For all women lack rights in many areas they have pretty good rights in others - more women getting university education than men in Saudi, Islamic divorce law, etc...
I still don't understand why I am supposed to be worried about this when for most of my life I was supposed to be worried about overpopulation. Either the decline forecast is inaccurate because the overpopulation one is still valid, or if the latter is indeed now invalid, then confidence in the population decline one can't be high at all considering how the overpopulation one ended up being bogus.
The "population decline" has been a theme for well over 100 years. Add some eugenics to it, too.
The fear of not having enough manpower for war was quite clear in France before WWI.
We have these "Great replacement" people, of course, but declining birth rates are not a bad thing, when we spend most resources on Earth before April each year.
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2025, 03:15:13 PMI still don't understand why I am supposed to be worried about this when for most of my life I was supposed to be worried about overpopulation. Either the decline forecast is inaccurate because the overpopulation one is still valid, or if the latter is indeed now invalid, then confidence in the population decline one can't be high at all considering how the overpopulation one ended up being bogus.
On a purely parochial level in the UK I think there is an issue but it's primarily that old people vote (which intersects with other factors like home-ownership). So turnout is about 35% higher among the over 65s than 18-24 year olds, and also between outright homeowners than private and social renters (and those groups overlap more or less 100%).
I think this has an impact on policy. So between the crash and now (2007-2025) expenditure on welfare and benefits for children and working age adults (excluding the NHS and housing benefit) declined from 2.8% to 1.9% of GDP. Spending on the state pension increased from 3.7% to 5% of GDP. In ash terms the average working age household are £1,500 worse off and the average pension is £800 better off. It's a good policy achievement in my lifetime that pensioner poverty has halved, but child poverty remains high. On an intergenerational level, over the last 25 years there have been net benefits for the old and net cuts for the young. I think that's a problem
But I also think there's a risk around a large and powerful voting bloc being post-economic. The elderly are largely unaffected by the economic cycle as they have state and private pensions, plus asset ownership (again through pensions but also their homes). There's been some European wide research on this (because I think this is an issue across Europe). Broadly speaking older voters prioritise short-terms spending on pensions and healthcare over childcare and education. They are far less concerned with economic growth or employment rates (and don't reward governments for delivering them or punish or failure), they are far more sensitive to inflation and punish governments for that (there's an interesting set of research basically showing that the older a country is the more fiscally conservative/anti-inflationary that country's left-wing party is). In the UK the elderly also do not like policies that might improve growth, such as planning reform, that could impact the value of their assets. So I think you basically have a risk of an electoral system that rewards low inflation over jobs and growth, health and pensions over social and infrastructure spending - which is not great.
It's one of the reasons that if I had dictatorial powers for a day the electoral reform I'd introduce would be mandatory voting to try and equalise the power of the old a bit.
Quote from: Norgy on September 14, 2025, 03:23:38 PMThe "population decline" has been a theme for well over 100 years. Add some eugenics to it, too.
The fear of not having enough manpower for war was quite clear in France before WWI.
We have these "Great replacement" people, of course, but declining birth rates are not a bad thing, when we spend most resources on Earth before April each year.
It's like a steam roller coming down the street towards us.
It's not a problem.
We have more than enough time to notice it and step out of the way.
If we step out of the way.
We aren't stepping out of the way.
We seem determined to keep standing in the middle of this street and not move an inch come what may.
Our system needs to change for so many reasons, including this.
But the only group that seems to be breaking through with demanding change are those who say we should lie down in the middle of the street instead.
Quote from: Norgy on September 14, 2025, 03:23:38 PMWe have these "Great replacement" people
Yeah. But there is not going to be a replacement. Birth rates are tanking everywhere.
I do think there is a level it is bad to go below. 1.5 for example. You want at least some youth and vigor in your country.
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2025, 03:15:13 PMI still don't understand why I am supposed to be worried about this when for most of my life I was supposed to be worried about overpopulation. Either the decline forecast is inaccurate because the overpopulation one is still valid, or if the latter is indeed now invalid, then confidence in the population decline one can't be high at all considering how the overpopulation one ended up being bogus.
The overpopulation worries were always "if trends continue as they are now, we'll be on track for [over population]; if we use resources as we do now, some of [these consequences] are likely...." Whether you should have been worried or not is kind of up to you. If you were, it might have been a waste since trends did not continue as they were.
On the flip side, shrinking populations could spell trouble in a number of ways - much less leisure time and longer work lives for the young to support the old or conversely a much lower standard of living for the old as they get less individually from the productivity of the younger population. There are also some economic bits about pension funds, interest, the stock market, and capitalism in general as the conditions for making money are different in shrinking markets and economies than in growing ones.
Should you be worried or not, I don't know. But I find it interesting to try to understand what might happen.
Last time I bothered to check, Italy is rock bottom at 0.7 or something and marry late.
Norway's sort of saved by immigrants having more children. The population has risen by a cool million since I was in middle-school. Granted, that was just after the Black Death.
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2025, 05:48:09 PMBut I did my part.
Yeah same. My 3 sisters and me have 10 children in total between us.
Yeah depopulation is a concern and in Europe it's not going to be solved by non-Western migroids because they are in large part unemployable low-human capital and just further burden social services. Maybe the state should melt you into biofuel if you reach 65 years of age without having had at least 3 children. :hmm:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G0tdqaxWIAA8hKX?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Iormlund on September 14, 2025, 10:36:29 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2025, 06:45:34 PMParents have never had so much leisure time ...
Leisure choice, sure. Time, no way.
Back when I was a kid only a minority of women worked. What one member of the family once did, now has to be split between both parents, on top of their jobs plus commute.
Letting the kids roam the streets is no longer acceptable, either. Which is how my dad was raised even as part of the upper-middle class in the 60s.
There is no doubt that many women worked in the home, but I think the point you were missing is that those women really did work in the home. They actually did all the cooking. They actually did all the cleaning etc etc etc. And here's the key point they actually did all of those things without any of the conveniences that create leisure time now.
Just the day-to-day tasks of doing the dishes, laundry, and cooking are so much easier and less time consuming now.
If there is a person who stays home now, they have so much more free time than their counterpart. I've only 30 or 40 years ago.
The argument that it's harder to have children now to my ears simply ridiculous when I remember how hard my parents and grandparents had it.
As her children going out and playing on their own, yes, I made that point here many times. And one of the reasons we did that is because our parents were busy doing other things they had no time to see our entertainment.
Parents are not forced to become hover craft around their children. That is an unfortunate consequence of parents now having far more leisure time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2025, 10:15:57 AMParents are not forced to become hover craft around their children. That is an unfortunate consequence of parents now having far more leisure time.
Well there is also a ton of social pressure and expectations that you hover craft around your kids these days.
If it's not more difficult to have children, why are birthrates dropping then? Because people have it too good?
There have been studies showing sperm quality decline in many men.
Anyway, I am past 50, I am not going to contribute.
Coaching my little girl's soccer team at 65? Don't think so.
Quote from: Norgy on September 15, 2025, 01:19:54 PMThere have been studies showing sperm quality decline in many men.
Anyway, I am past 50, I am not going to contribute.
Coaching my little girl's soccer team at 65? Don't think so.
If thats the cause then that assumes an epidemic of people trying to have kids that can't. At least in my peer group those that want kids do, but most only want one.
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2025, 11:47:12 AMIf it's not more difficult to have children, why are birthrates dropping then? Because people have it too good?
Not people in general - but it is well documented that as women become more successful in the business and professional worlds, they tend to put pregnancy off until later. That alone explains the drop in fertility rates.
And btw, that is exactly why the MAGA proponents are all about women giving up their careers - to have babies.
There are other factors too of course. But the piece you posted doesn't explore them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2025, 01:23:55 PMQuote from: Jacob on September 15, 2025, 11:47:12 AMIf it's not more difficult to have children, why are birthrates dropping then? Because people have it too good?
Not people in general - but it is well documented that as women become more successful in the business and professional worlds, they tend to put pregnancy off until later. That alone explains the drop in fertility rates.
And btw, that is exactly why the MAGA proponents are all about women giving up their careers - to have babies.
There are other factors too of course. But the piece you posted doesn't explore them.
This is just not true. Birth rates among the poorly educated are also rapidly dropping.
Its not true that the birth rate has dropped as women have become more affluent and better educated.
I would certainly like to see that stats that back up your argument.
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2025, 11:47:12 AMIf it's not more difficult to have children, why are birthrates dropping then? Because people have it too good?
Yeah I think there's different things going on in different places that are playing out in the same way which makes it tough to work out. I think the access to property/a family home is a huge issue for some rich countries like the UK or Canada with very high property prices. I think there's other shifts in Europe and the straightforward childcare/pro-natalist policies that would be a nice explanation don't really seem to work when we look at Europe.
But I think globally the single biggest factor is increased control for women through growth in female literacy and access to birth control.
My understanding is that it's one of the biggest indicators (I think the single biggest indicator is female literacy) in average family size in a country. I think it's also self-reinforcing so improved literacy and control over fertility allows women more options, while reducing class sizes and improving education for the generation coming up.
Similarly there's a very clear correlation between prevalence of contraception and birthrate - and the ability to access birth control is massively increased with women's literacy.
I also think improvements in child mortality has an impact. As recently as the 80s the child mortality rate in low in come countries was over 20% and in lower middle-income countries over 15%. Those figures are now down to about 6% and 4% respectively which is a fantastic achievement - but there are still areas with higher infant mortality rates and higher birth rates accompany it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2025, 02:04:38 PMIts not true that the birth rate has dropped as women have become more affluent and better educated.
I would certainly like to see that stats that back up your argument.
What is not true is this:
QuoteNot people in general - but it is well documented that as women become more successful in the business and professional worlds, they tend to put pregnancy off until later. That alone explains the drop in fertility rates.
That certainly might explain a drop in fertility rates in certain countries. But one all the way around the world? And up and down the economic ladder? And the extent they are dropping? No. It does not explain the drop in fertility rates.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2025, 03:15:58 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2025, 02:04:38 PMIts not true that the birth rate has dropped as women have become more affluent and better educated.
I would certainly like to see that stats that back up your argument.
What is not true is this:
QuoteNot people in general - but it is well documented that as women become more successful in the business and professional worlds, they tend to put pregnancy off until later. That alone explains the drop in fertility rates.
That certainly might explain a drop in fertility rates in certain countries. But one all the way around the world? And up and down the economic ladder? And the extent they are dropping? No. It does not explain the drop in fertility rates.
We are not talking about segments of the population; we are talking about fertility rates generally. And it is accurate to say that fertility rates have declined for the reason I stated.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2025, 03:51:14 PMWe are not talking about segments of the population; we are talking about fertility rates generally. And it is accurate to say that fertility rates have declined for the reason I stated.
You said that alone explains the drop in fertility rates. That is one factor, but I don't think it alone explains the entire phenomenon. I do not think that is accurate.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2025, 04:03:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2025, 03:51:14 PMWe are not talking about segments of the population; we are talking about fertility rates generally. And it is accurate to say that fertility rates have declined for the reason I stated.
You said that alone explains the drop in fertility rates. That is one factor, but I don't think it alone explains the entire phenomenon. I do not think that is accurate.
That alone can explain why ferality rates have dropped. And as I said in my post that you objected to, there are also other explanations that are not covered in the article. I am not sure what you are arguing about.
One of other main factors is the one Sheilbh has already identified, and that is the drop in infant mortality. You may have noticed that I covered that in my original post when I said children had never been more healthy.
I really don't know why you are arguing with me.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2025, 05:10:01 PMQuote from: Norgy on September 14, 2025, 03:23:38 PMWe have these "Great replacement" people
Yeah. But there is not going to be a replacement. Birth rates are tanking everywhere.
ongoing mass migration and lack of assimilation makes your statement moot.
And no, I don't think it's a conspiracy. Our politicians are too dumb and cowardly for that.
It's age old and usually not beneficial for the receiving population, regardless of era. It won't be this time either.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 15, 2025, 05:27:57 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 14, 2025, 05:10:01 PMQuote from: Norgy on September 14, 2025, 03:23:38 PMWe have these "Great replacement" people
Yeah. But there is not going to be a replacement. Birth rates are tanking everywhere.
ongoing mass migration and lack of assimilation makes your statement moot.
And no, I don't think it's a conspiracy. Our politicians are too dumb and cowardly for that.
It's age old and usually not beneficial for the receiving population, regardless of era. It won't be this time either.
Well as those countries empty out and are filled with 60 year olds that will not be a problem for long.
Like the United State is terrified of Mexicans overrunning us. Mexico. With a birthrate of 1.6. LOL. They are barely going to fill Mexico for long. All those cheap immigrant workers we exploit? Won't be here in a generation or two, no matter how pro immigrant our politicians are.
Yeah this is an annoying thing the far right just don't get.
You saw it all the time around brexit. This insistence 500 million foreigners were going to move to Britain any second....
They seem to have trouble thinking of other countries as places in their own right with their own ups and downs. The homeland is the only actual PC in their view.
Norway, quite honestly, would not be the affluent society it is without immigrants. While certain groups, like Somalis, have proven a burden, most others have not.
I looked back in the archives of my newspaper.
"First negro in Gjøvik". Now there is a headline that would sit well today.
Before the Yugoslavian civil war, we only had three waves of immigration. All helpful, I would say. Hungarians in 1956, Pakistani "guest workers" in the 70s, and Swedes when shit hit the fan after the "Moderaterna" took over.
There's always been some inter-Nordic emigration and immigration.
I took one of these gene tests on MyHeritage.
The colossal amount of -once-removed in the US, South Africa, Sweden, Australia and Canada amazed me. I tracked down my mum's line mostly. One was a GOP representative in Florida. I decided it was time to get out of the rabbit hole.
I have one prediction, and that is that climate change will alter this. People will be standing in line to come to our rainy, cold, icy and sometimes shitty countries.
In the EU games, Norway always lacks manpower. We still do.
I think it is the other way around, climate change will further slow the warm current that keeps your country habitable.
The North West bit of North America is the sweet spot you are looking for
Quote from: Norgy on September 16, 2025, 11:00:17 AMI have one prediction, and that is that climate change will alter this. People will be standing in line to come to our rainy, cold, icy and sometimes shitty countries.
The polar vortex will be disrupted along with the gulf stream. I think Europe will freeze under global warming, especially the northern part.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2025, 11:14:46 AMI think it is the other way around, climate change will further slow the warm current that keeps your country habitable.
The North West bit of North America is the sweet spot you are looking for
Yeah. Saw a piece recently in Danish media that the (whatever it's called) Atlantic current that keeps Denmark (and other bits of Europe) warm is much closer to collapse than previous research indicated.
Quote from: Jacob on September 16, 2025, 01:06:22 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2025, 11:14:46 AMI think it is the other way around, climate change will further slow the warm current that keeps your country habitable.
The North West bit of North America is the sweet spot you are looking for
Yeah. Saw a piece recently in Danish media that the (whatever it's called) Atlantic current that keeps Denmark (and other bits of Europe) is much closer to collapse than previous research indicated.
The Gulf Stream. We even made a ridiculous movie about this called the Day After Tomorrow. The one where UK aircraft fall out of the sky because their fuel freezes mid flight.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2025, 01:59:59 PMThe Gulf Stream. We even made a ridiculous movie about this called the Day After Tomorrow. The one where UK aircraft fall out of the sky because their fuel freezes mid flight.
No, not the Gulf Stream, but (apparently, I just looked it up) the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (also known as AMOC). It's connected to the Gulf Stream, but is distinct - or maybe AMOC is the name for the larger system that includes the Gulf Stream? I don't know. My main point is that it's AMOC I couldn't remember, not the Gulf Stream.
I think this image shows the connection:
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/dqxgAZiv3UHuQb8PtWdMh4.jpg)
Yeah, to follow up - the Gulf Stream is a component part of AMOC: https://www.whoi.edu/ocean-learning-hub/ocean-topics/how-the-ocean-works/ocean-circulation/amoc/
You can also see why Eastern North America is so cold.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2025, 01:59:59 PMQuote from: Jacob on September 16, 2025, 01:06:22 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 16, 2025, 11:14:46 AMI think it is the other way around, climate change will further slow the warm current that keeps your country habitable.
The North West bit of North America is the sweet spot you are looking for
Yeah. Saw a piece recently in Danish media that the (whatever it's called) Atlantic current that keeps Denmark (and other bits of Europe) is much closer to collapse than previous research indicated.
The Gulf Stream. We even made a ridiculous movie about this called the Day After Tomorrow. The one where UK aircraft fall out of the sky because their fuel freezes mid flight.
The difference is that back then the slowing of the current was a hypothetical that might happen one day.
A recently published paper has concluded it has been slowing for some time and will continue to slow as a result of climate change. As a result the cold water zone South of Greenland will likely grow.
Here is the paper if you would like to read it
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02403-0
Just to clarify even back in 2004 I did not doubt the temperate north could freeze under global warming, what was ridiculous was the disaster movie nature of it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 16, 2025, 03:28:01 PMYou can also see why Eastern North America is so cold.
Yeah.
I did a quick search for equivalent studies of potential impacts on Pacific current systems, but didn't find anything. Everything I came across was focused on rising water levels and soil erosion, which seems less intense than drastic changes in average temperatures and precipitation.
I wonder what the outlook is here out West?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2025, 03:29:39 PMJust to clarify even back in 2004 I did not doubt the temperate north could freeze under global warming, what was ridiculous was the disaster movie nature of it.
I think we all understood that was what you were saying :)
The mountains will remain the Eastern barrier, obviously.
Is the California current ok? Altho, it's also a cold current.
Yeah, we don't have something similar here. It's why it is one of the sweet spots for riding it out.
If you can accept being on fire that is.
Fair point - although that is more of a problem a few hours in from the coast. But I can see that being more of a problem here as things continue to dry out.
Thought this was wild (via Adam Tooze):
(https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NZ6b1_hVlC1SV6IQSkFxSL83h4mVZzf0BYUx4z7HvXXp5aIwCC4wZcaYuOsjXUhcwEETSI8Nve-AADK1mGtFC3fb-Ze5uAJXTH-DdLYNAGv-EemlZAQmSi-cntx1HXQ2VIRmasrLDWE-BLnem8CDpdojZnRGeSl-FFO5UORPAeab460iXKVdmghg0Vuaor0gwfcbRMfO7O9qVKtVZmhXto1fV4alm9EzOOiaDY1T-kNZkv-zlIpnh3YAsybtMMqpehdkKIHXMQXQDzV-VY04-qHc44_uhfLeNj2T150GYHaWoFn7x3YkmoO9vVYKcoy2-Vtpjag=s0-d-e1-ft#https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!VcwJ!,w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc8f1cdf8-54af-4911-8608-e5bed744d731_1156x1090.png)
And another reason why I think one of the biggest issues is how to integrate Africa into a global economy and enable African states to develop.
Less Africa and rather more Nigeria no?
Much of Africa is doing alright but in Nigeria there seems to still be this macho Elon Musk style culture thing of look how many kids I can splooge out aren't I great.
I don't think so:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/long-run-birth-rate
And the birthrate is falling massively across Africa - including in Nigeria.
Yep. Let's not start celebrating our African future just yet. Africa is trending our way just a few decades behind us.
You just have to figure eventually somebody is going to find a way to stabilize the population or at least manage it well because right now everybody seems hopeless to even slow the crisis. Or even react to it in a productive way.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2025, 10:45:18 PMYou just have to figure eventually somebody is going to find a way to stabilize the population or at least manage it well because right now everybody seems hopeless to even slow the crisis. Or even react to it in a productive way.
Soon enough, a significant chunk of the population will have nothing better to do with their time than fuck.
like common people
Common Eileen.
Quote from: The Brain on October 31, 2025, 07:30:10 AMCommon Eileen.
That's your first mistake if you're trying to procreate
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2025, 06:07:01 PMI don't think so:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/long-run-birth-rate
And the birthrate is falling massively across Africa - including in Nigeria.
Ah weird, my memory playing tricks on me. I'm sure I'd heard somewhere Nigeria was a particular issue which wasn't keeping up with these African trends. Maybe it was just a Nigerian as an example for Africans and the issues with getting reductions
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2025, 06:17:40 AMSoon enough, a significant chunk of the population will have nothing better to do with their time than fuck.
Yeah quite possibly.
But what if they've all been socially disconnected from one another, insulated in mutually exclusive perfectly tailored AI driven personalized porn? That might make actual sex too weird and complicated to engage in.
Man... I'd love to get a view of the social impacts of these changes from a 100 years or 200 years in the future.
That kind of reminds me of an old sci fi book the forever war. The characters kept going on missions with time dilation and each time they returned home more and more time passed. Eventually all remaining humans were genderless. Book was ahead of its time.
Quote from: Bauer on October 31, 2025, 12:58:47 PMThat kind of reminds me of an old sci fi book the forever war. The characters kept going on missions with time dilation and each time they returned home more and more time passed. Eventually all remaining humans were genderless. Book was ahead of its time.
And the graphic novel version was made by a belgian (Marvano) (which is how I read it).
Read the Marvano comic first (still have it) - gorgeous visuals,the book later, too. :)
Quote from: Jacob on October 31, 2025, 12:53:42 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 31, 2025, 06:17:40 AMSoon enough, a significant chunk of the population will have nothing better to do with their time than fuck.
Yeah quite possibly.
But what if they've all been socially disconnected from one another, insulated in mutually exclusive perfectly tailored AI driven personalized porn? That might make actual sex too weird and complicated to engage in..
Hello Japan.
As in most things like this it is now clear... Not weird. Just a decade or two ahead of the west.
It doesn't help that young folks can't afford housing.