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.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 01, 2025, 07:47:08 PMIt doesn't help that young folks can't afford housing.
Yeah there's that too.
Not just young single people. Even for people with kids our world seems designed around only having 2 max with the structure of cars, houses with more than 3 bedrooms being rare/expensive (not helped by the housing shortage leading to them being cut into flats), etc...
As well as looking at those who can't afford kids at all there's also the trend to stop at 2 for reasons beyond personal interest. Seems easier to me to win over someone who has decided they like having kids than somebody who doesn't want any.
Is population decline really a problem? Given how much resources we are taking from the planet, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there are fewer people globally anyway.
[monoriu]LINE MUST GO UP! :mad: ETERNAL GROWTH! :mad: [/monoriu]
Quote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 05:52:36 AMIs population decline really a problem? Given how much resources we are taking from the planet, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there are fewer people globally anyway.
The issue is it is a cliff and not a gentle slope. Decline is the wrong word to describe what is coming. Collapse would be a better description.
Some countries are going to lose between half and two thirds of their workforce.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2025, 06:52:15 AMQuote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 05:52:36 AMIs population decline really a problem? Given how much resources we are taking from the planet, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there are fewer people globally anyway.
The issue is it is a cliff and not a gentle slope. Decline is the wrong word to describe what is coming. Collapse would be a better description.
Some countries are going to lose between half and two thirds of their workforce.
Disagree, the dangers of population decline has been overstated. It's not going to be a cliff edge. Too many people are going with the far right narrative that population is going to collapse, which they are using it as a reason to ban abortion, the pill etc and woman's rights in general.
Quote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 06:59:27 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2025, 06:52:15 AMQuote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 05:52:36 AMIs population decline really a problem? Given how much resources we are taking from the planet, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there are fewer people globally anyway.
The issue is it is a cliff and not a gentle slope. Decline is the wrong word to describe what is coming. Collapse would be a better description.
Some countries are going to lose between half and two thirds of their workforce.
Disagree, the dangers of population decline has been overstated. It's not going to be a cliff edge. Too many people are going with the far right narrative that population is going to collapse, which they are using it as a reason to ban abortion, the pill etc and woman's rights in general.
America isn't the world.
In most places outside the civilized world these things aren't even allowed yet
Quote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 06:59:27 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2025, 06:52:15 AMQuote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 05:52:36 AMIs population decline really a problem? Given how much resources we are taking from the planet, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there are fewer people globally anyway.
The issue is it is a cliff and not a gentle slope. Decline is the wrong word to describe what is coming. Collapse would be a better description.
Some countries are going to lose between half and two thirds of their workforce.
Disagree, the dangers of population decline has been overstated. It's not going to be a cliff edge. Too many people are going with the far right narrative that population is going to collapse, which they are using it as a reason to ban abortion, the pill etc and woman's rights in general.
It's not a narrative. It's math.
Quote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 06:59:27 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2025, 06:52:15 AMQuote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 05:52:36 AMIs population decline really a problem? Given how much resources we are taking from the planet, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there are fewer people globally anyway.
The issue is it is a cliff and not a gentle slope. Decline is the wrong word to describe what is coming. Collapse would be a better description.
Some countries are going to lose between half and two thirds of their workforce.
Disagree, the dangers of population decline has been overstated. It's not going to be a cliff edge. Too many people are going with the far right narrative that population is going to collapse, which they are using it as a reason to ban abortion, the pill etc and woman's rights in general.
Alternatively people can and do argue that because of population decline we need more immigration which is not something the far-right is keen on.
When it comes to immigration, I don't think the far right concerns itself with tawdry things like numbers or math. They use a different lens.
Quote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 06:59:27 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2025, 06:52:15 AMQuote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 05:52:36 AMIs population decline really a problem? Given how much resources we are taking from the planet, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there are fewer people globally anyway.
The issue is it is a cliff and not a gentle slope. Decline is the wrong word to describe what is coming. Collapse would be a better description.
Some countries are going to lose between half and two thirds of their workforce.
Disagree, the dangers of population decline has been overstated. It's not going to be a cliff edge. Too many people are going with the far right narrative that population is going to collapse, which they are using it as a reason to ban abortion, the pill etc and woman's rights in general.
The only person I have seen making this argument for this reason is Elon Musk and it is about not educating women. I haven't heard the anti-abortion crowd get much traction with a pro-natalist argument.
I don't see much evidence denying abortion increases overall birth rate anyway. Having unwanted children probably reduces future fertility.
Population decline on a global level is a good thing.
There are indeed too many people in the world and we could do with dropping a few billion.
The trouble is we live in a world of competition where one nations population declining more than another can really shift the balance of power.
Quote from: Josquius on November 02, 2025, 03:07:17 PMPopulation decline on a global level is a good thing.
There are indeed too many people in the world and we could do with dropping a few billion.
The trouble is we live in a world of competition where one nations population declining more than another can really shift the balance of power.
Well that won't be a source of trouble since everybody seems to be declining at the same time.
I disagree it is a good thing. I think population stabilization or maybe a slow decline would be ideal.
But it is certainly better than the opposite problem.
As we mentioned in a different thread with the rich top 20% representing now over 50% of spending there is no more need for a vast middle class.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2025, 11:41:33 AMWell that won't be a source of trouble since everybody seems to be declining at the same time.
Actually the one of the big issues is that the population collapse (stop calling it a decline :P ) will affect some countries far worse than others.
"Population collapse" :lol:
There will certainly be significant adjustment issues as population grow slows and declines, but those are likely to be manageable. In fact, such declines will likely force countries to focus on improving the conditions and opportunities for such smaller generations so as to maintain an adequate GDP per capita.
Yeah, it's hilarious that the workforces of developed countries will reduce by about half while old farts continue to demand ever greater services. It's going to be great fun.
It's going to be great. I cannot wait for retirement.
Glad I had three kids. Hopefully one will take me in.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2025, 09:38:23 PMYeah, it's hilarious that the workforces of developed countries will reduce by about half while old farts continue to demand ever greater services. It's going to be great fun.
But that won't happen for another 150+ years (on current trends), so getting worked up about it seems silly to me. The potential labor force in Europe will decline from the current 58% of the population to 50% in the next 75 years. Declining to 30% will take a long time. You will never see it, nor your children or grandchildren (etc).
We have no idea what the world will be like in 100 years, or whether anyone will be working as we think of it.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2025, 09:50:12 PMIt's going to be great. I cannot wait for retirement.
Glad I had three kids. Hopefully one will take me in.
The effect of population decline will not be apparent in your lifetime, and will be drowned out by other effects in your grandchildren's time.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2025, 09:54:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2025, 09:38:23 PMYeah, it's hilarious that the workforces of developed countries will reduce by about half while old farts continue to demand ever greater services. It's going to be great fun.
But that won't happen for another 150+ years (on current trends), so getting worked up about it seems silly to me. The potential labor force in Europe will decline from the current 58% of the population to 50% in the next 75 years. Declining to 30% will take a long time. You will never see it, nor your children or grandchildren (etc).
We have no idea what the world will be like in 100 years, or whether anyone will be working as we think of it.
Exactly my point, population decline globally is unlikely to happen before 2100 according to latest predictions and migration flows between countries will easily offset any local concerns if the will is there to allow it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2025, 09:27:09 AMQuote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 06:59:27 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2025, 06:52:15 AMQuote from: PJL on November 02, 2025, 05:52:36 AMIs population decline really a problem? Given how much resources we are taking from the planet, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if there are fewer people globally anyway.
The issue is it is a cliff and not a gentle slope. Decline is the wrong word to describe what is coming. Collapse would be a better description.
Some countries are going to lose between half and two thirds of their workforce.
Disagree, the dangers of population decline has been overstated. It's not going to be a cliff edge. Too many people are going with the far right narrative that population is going to collapse, which they are using it as a reason to ban abortion, the pill etc and woman's rights in general.
It's not a narrative. It's math.
Sure, but so was the "overpopulation! doom!" math that was going for DECADES.
Quote from: PJL on November 04, 2025, 03:25:40 AMQuote from: grumbler on November 03, 2025, 09:54:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2025, 09:38:23 PMYeah, it's hilarious that the workforces of developed countries will reduce by about half while old farts continue to demand ever greater services. It's going to be great fun.
But that won't happen for another 150+ years (on current trends), so getting worked up about it seems silly to me. The potential labor force in Europe will decline from the current 58% of the population to 50% in the next 75 years. Declining to 30% will take a long time. You will never see it, nor your children or grandchildren (etc).
We have no idea what the world will be like in 100 years, or whether anyone will be working as we think of it.
Exactly my point, population decline globally is unlikely to happen before 2100 according to latest predictions and migration flows between countries will easily offset any local concerns if the will is there to allow it.
But but but, they are... brown!
Coincidentally this showed up on my youtube feed yesterday.
This guy is pretty good on economics and looks at it purely from that POV.
The TLD
RW-
* the UN traditionally over-estimated births in medium wealth countries, now it is under-estimating them
* now China wants a bigger birthrate its local governments are incentivised to lie and their reported birth rates don't line up with school starters a few years later
* the UN consistently year after year projects birth rate decline to reverse globally the next year, including in eg. South Korea. They follow a 3-phase model of decline and recovery though can't predict exactly when the bottom will be hit so always say its next year.
I've not seen any predictions for the peak being hit next century. Most seem to have it in the second half of this century some time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2025, 09:38:23 PMYeah, it's hilarious that the workforces of developed countries will reduce by about half while old farts continue to demand ever greater services. It's going to be great fun.
That should help bring up worker's wages though!
Or we'll see a return of serfdom and indentured servitude.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2025, 09:54:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2025, 09:38:23 PMYeah, it's hilarious that the workforces of developed countries will reduce by about half while old farts continue to demand ever greater services. It's going to be great fun.
But that won't happen for another 150+ years (on current trends), so getting worked up about it seems silly to me. The potential labor force in Europe will decline from the current 58% of the population to 50% in the next 75 years. Declining to 30% will take a long time. You will never see it, nor your children or grandchildren (etc).
We have no idea what the world will be like in 100 years, or whether anyone will be working as we think of it.
You seem to be confusing total population figures with the thing that is worrisome - the collapse in the number of young people entering the workforce. The only reason total population figures will decline slowl is because life expectancy is increasing dramatically.
Society doesn't work if the vast majority of the population are like old retired people arguing on Languish.
We've never experienced such a broad sustained decline in working age population since the industrial revolution so it's hard to predict what will happen. The countries on the leading edge of demographic decline, like Germany and Japan have not collapsed into insolvency. But they have experienced stagnating growth, in per capita as well as absolutely.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2025, 10:34:02 AMSociety doesn't work if the vast majority of the population are like old retired people arguing on Languish.
That is my main short term concern. A cultural stagnation and decline as youthful vigor and creativity get rarer would suck.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2025, 02:03:39 PMThat is my main short term concern. A cultural stagnation and decline as youthful vigor and creativity get rarer would suck.
It'll be interesting to see how that is going to work out with the current youthful swing towards the hard right and nationalism
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2025, 02:17:23 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 04, 2025, 02:03:39 PMThat is my main short term concern. A cultural stagnation and decline as youthful vigor and creativity get rarer would suck.
It'll be interesting to see how that is going to work out with the current youthful swing towards the hard right and nationalism
It is a swing but still a minority.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2025, 10:34:02 AMQuote from: grumbler on November 03, 2025, 09:54:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2025, 09:38:23 PMYeah, it's hilarious that the workforces of developed countries will reduce by about half while old farts continue to demand ever greater services. It's going to be great fun.
But that won't happen for another 150+ years (on current trends), so getting worked up about it seems silly to me. The potential labor force in Europe will decline from the current 58% of the population to 50% in the next 75 years. Declining to 30% will take a long time. You will never see it, nor your children or grandchildren (etc).
We have no idea what the world will be like in 100 years, or whether anyone will be working as we think of it.
You seem to be confusing total population figures with the thing that is worrisome - the collapse in the number of young people entering the workforce. The only reason total population figures will decline slowl is because life expectancy is increasing dramatically.
Society doesn't work if the vast majority of the population are like old retired people arguing on Languish.
You seem to not be comprehending what I wrote. The figures I cited are for the potential labor force (i.e. those in the working-age population), not overall pop numbers. The potential labor force number include young people entering the workforce.
If you have numbers that support your contention that there is a pending "collapse" in the number of young people entering the workforce, I can be persuaded that your argument has merit.
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2025, 06:53:13 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2025, 10:34:02 AMQuote from: grumbler on November 03, 2025, 09:54:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2025, 09:38:23 PMYeah, it's hilarious that the workforces of developed countries will reduce by about half while old farts continue to demand ever greater services. It's going to be great fun.
But that won't happen for another 150+ years (on current trends), so getting worked up about it seems silly to me. The potential labor force in Europe will decline from the current 58% of the population to 50% in the next 75 years. Declining to 30% will take a long time. You will never see it, nor your children or grandchildren (etc).
We have no idea what the world will be like in 100 years, or whether anyone will be working as we think of it.
You seem to be confusing total population figures with the thing that is worrisome - the collapse in the number of young people entering the workforce. The only reason total population figures will decline slowl is because life expectancy is increasing dramatically.
Society doesn't work if the vast majority of the population are like old retired people arguing on Languish.
You seem to not be comprehending what I wrote. The figures I cited are for the potential labor force (i.e. those in the working-age population), not overall pop numbers. The potential labor force number include young people entering the workforce.
If you have numbers that support your contention that there is a pending "collapse" in the number of young people entering the workforce, I can be persuaded that your argument has merit.
If you read my posts, I am not talking about total labour force. I am talking about the the number of people entering the labour force.
If you mix that number up with total labour force you end up with a number that ignores the fact that the only reason they total labour force numbers remain fairly stable is because people are living and working longer.
The collapse and population is the collapse in the number of young people. Not the number of people who are growing older and older due to the miracles of medical science.
A thought: we do not get to worry about BOTH the decline of young people entering the workforce, and AI destroying most of the jobs. If these both happens at a mass scale it'll even out, surely. White collar jobs will be done by AI while there'll be such a lack of chefs and carpenters that they'll get white collar wages :P
Possibly yeah. It's interesting times for sure.
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2025, 09:20:14 AMA thought: we do not get to worry about BOTH the decline of young people entering the workforce, and AI destroying most of the jobs. If these both happens at a mass scale it'll even out, surely. White collar jobs will be done by AI while there'll be such a lack of chefs and carpenters that they'll get white collar wages :P
The latter could accelerate the former. Lack of high quality jobs and income caused by AI will make it harder to have kids on a decent income. To be honest automation and outsourcing has probably already been a factor in declining birth rates in the last 20 years.
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2025, 09:20:14 AMA thought: we do not get to worry about BOTH the decline of young people entering the workforce, and AI destroying most of the jobs. If these both happens at a mass scale it'll even out, surely. White collar jobs will be done by AI while there'll be such a lack of chefs and carpenters that they'll get white collar wages :P
'
I doubt the timing will work out that cleanly.
I see little evidence of declining labor demand in the aggregate because of AI. Some sectoral shifts maybe.
What will happen is declining working pop will generate more incentive to substitute capital for labor and automate. How well that works depends on the effectiveness of the capital allocation. More reason to watch how that trillion dollar + AI investment pans out.
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2025, 09:20:14 AMA thought: we do not get to worry about BOTH the decline of young people entering the workforce, and AI destroying most of the jobs. If these both happens at a mass scale it'll even out, surely. White collar jobs will be done by AI while there'll be such a lack of chefs and carpenters that they'll get white collar wages :P
It has to do with the types of jobs being destroyed and the jobs being created. The types of jobs being destroyed are jobs people go to college for. The jobs being created are low-paying jobs taking care of the elderly. Wiping asses and cleaning bathrooms is never going to pay well, and people who spent four years getting degrees in engineering and computer science are going to be resentful working those jobs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2025, 08:07:23 AMIf you read my posts, I am not talking about total labour force. I am talking about the the number of people entering the labour force.
If you mix that number up with total labour force you end up with a number that ignores the fact that the only reason they total labour force numbers remain fairly stable is because people are living and working longer.
The collapse and population is the collapse in the number of young people. Not the number of people who are growing older and older due to the miracles of medical science.
I am seeing words like "collapse" but no numbers.
BLS statistics show that in 2024 13% of the 170 million total employed, or 22.1 million total, are aged 16-24. They project that in 2024, 11.3% of the 175 million employed people,or 19.7 million total, will be 16-24. That sounds to me like a decline, not a collapse.
Percentage by age (https://www.bls.gov/emp/images/lf_aging.png) Total employment (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf)
Feel free to share the actual data that leads you to predict a collapse.
Quote from: PJL on November 05, 2025, 10:27:54 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 05, 2025, 09:20:14 AMA thought: we do not get to worry about BOTH the decline of young people entering the workforce, and AI destroying most of the jobs. If these both happens at a mass scale it'll even out, surely. White collar jobs will be done by AI while there'll be such a lack of chefs and carpenters that they'll get white collar wages :P
The latter could accelerate the former. Lack of high quality jobs and income caused by AI will make it harder to have kids on a decent income. To be honest automation and outsourcing has probably already been a factor in declining birth rates in the last 20 years.
I'm not sure about that. Countries that in 21st centuries had the highest population growth rates are not known for automation. If anything, it seems like if you want the population to grow, you want as few of them as possible to go to college and work complex career jobs.
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2025, 09:20:14 AMA thought: we do not get to worry about BOTH the decline of young people entering the workforce, and AI destroying most of the jobs. If these both happens at a mass scale it'll even out, surely. White collar jobs will be done by AI while there'll be such a lack of chefs and carpenters that they'll get white collar wages :P
Yes, with an important caveat. If AI tools can do the job as well or better. But, with a few exceptions in the area of bench science, that assumption is not proving true.
Reading the Unmitigated Pedantry bit about about medieval people.
He speaks a lot about how high birth rates were a necessity due to the high mortality rate. That people not getting married and having kids just wasn't much of a thing because it wasn't for you that you got married and had kids, but for the community. It needed the people to survive.
This got me thinking then. Could this be a factor in birth rates today.
Having kids just...doesn't seem very good. So many people choose not to do it. It's entirely their individual choice. The social expectation from your parents has dwindled away and before that the expectation of the broader community where you spent your whole life also died.
A counter-point though. Those countries leading the way on plummeting birth-rates are the least individualistic countries on the planet. If its people no longer giving a shit about societal expectations that is to blame then explain Japan?
Sure...it could well be Japan had a hard shift to controlling your birth rates and efforts to push it back the other way haven't been enough.
Or maybe that this cultural shift is very sticky. Its hard to undo once it has happened....
I do think there's something in the community point. I've long said this is a key factor- live in a car centric dystopia where you have to drive to go to work and the shop then where the hell are you ever going to meet someone to hook up with?
Though the community pressure point, as well as the more recent parental pressure point, is something to think about.
Maybe the issue is that this is all coming from the government, in a very "government says don't eat the mercury? I better eat the mercury" age. There's not such a low level ground pressure as there would once be.
The Japanese government is panicking about its birth rates but your average little old lady in modern Japan? meh. She'd like to see more kids about. But she gets why young people aren't doing it. Its their choice.
For what might be the first time in 2000 years, Humanity is starting to not need more humans to do what Humans do.
Unforeseen consequences everywhere.
Jos, there was a time when community interests and individual interests were more aligned. For example, a close knit farming village.
Now, in most/all developed countries what is good for the country (having children) is generally not in an individual's economic interest.
I would argue there are other good reasons for having children, but I could never argue that one of them is economic benefit.
In the European Medieval period they did control the population by sending a significant number of people off to become monks, nuns, and clergy. Though under reported, I suspect that infanticide was much more widely practiced in the pre-modern world. It's not something that people want to talk about, but we know it occurred.
Clergy had children until the 1100s. And even then the rule requiring abstinence was more honoured in the breach.
Also, the rule had nothing to do with population control.
Nuns were often married and had children before entering the nunnery.
Do you have some evidence for the claim of wide spread infanticide?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2025, 10:38:39 AMIn the European Medieval period they did control the population by sending a significant number of people off to become monks, nuns, and clergy. Though under reported, I suspect that infanticide was much more widely practiced in the pre-modern world. It's not something that people want to talk about, but we know it occurred.
Oh yeah it happened a lot. I was not aware it was taboo. The other one was child abandonment which also happened all the time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 10:54:12 AMClergy had children until the 1100s. And even then the rule requiring abstinence was more honoured in the breach.
Also, the rule had nothing to do with population control.
Nuns were often married and had children before entering the nunnery.
Do you have some evidence for the claim of wide spread infanticide?
Well for one back when there were public executions women were frequently executed for infanticide. In fact I think it was by far the most common reason female criminals would be put to death back in the premodern era.
As far as evidence...um...if you look up the wikipedia article on infanticide it says this. It is not some weird notion Raz just made up.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2025, 10:56:41 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 10:54:12 AMClergy had children until the 1100s. And even then the rule requiring abstinence was more honoured in the breach.
Also, the rule had nothing to do with population control.
Nuns were often married and had children before entering the nunnery.
Do you have some evidence for the claim of wide spread infanticide?
Well for one back when there were public executions women were frequently executed for infanticide. In fact I think it was by far the most common reason female criminals would be put to death back in the premodern era.
As far as evidence...um...if you look up the wikipedia article on infanticide it says this. It is not some weird notion Raz just made up.
Women were also burned as witches. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the conclusions drawn by the finders of fact justifying the execution of a woman.
Child mortality was of course very high, and so the chances of a woman being wrongly accused of infanticide are also very high.
If we are talking medieval Europe I'm not aware of infanticide being very common.
It would be stupid. Not just immoral. Logically stupid. They needed the labour. Half of all kids died anyway.
When a famine came the kids and the old would be deprioritised over working peope. But generally not outright killed.
It helped that the church had structures in place to deal with unwanted kids.
Different cultures have different demands though. In Japan I know it was fairly common that newborns weren't seen as full humans yet and you could choose to just send them back.
Quote from: Josquius on November 12, 2025, 11:23:40 AMIf we are talking medieval Europe I'm not aware of infanticide being very common.
I guess it depends on what you mean by common.
Leaving children to die via exposure was much more common. It was a commonly observed phenomenon and lots of fiction is based on stories about it. That might as well be infanticide.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 10:54:12 AMClergy had children until the 1100s. And even then the rule requiring abstinence was more honoured in the breach.
Also, the rule had nothing to do with population control.
Nuns were often married and had children before entering the nunnery.
Do you have some evidence for the claim of wide spread infanticide?
I mean the Romans were pretty upfront about it. From the Vindalania letters, we have actually have a soldier telling his wife to kill the child if it's a girl. I think that a lot of cultures had a major imbalance between men and women mostly favoring men. Infanticide was pretty common among hunter-gatherers and neolithic cultures.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2025, 11:25:46 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 12, 2025, 11:23:40 AMIf we are talking medieval Europe I'm not aware of infanticide being very common.
I guess it depends on what you mean by common.
Leaving children to die via exposure was much more common. It was a commonly observed phenomenon and lots of fiction is based on stories about it. That might as well be infanticide.
I got the impression a lot of that was just because it was seen as absolutely horrific. Not because it was common.
See how they'd rush to baptise newborns ASAP just in case, the burying of babies right up against church foundations so they could get the maximum of holy-water poured on them, etc...
Possibly later on there could have been aspects of knowledge about the Greeks coming through, they were a lot more into killing babies.
It is a wonder though how they'd have dealt with the clearly disabled. Thats not something i've heard too much about.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2025, 11:56:37 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 10:54:12 AMClergy had children until the 1100s. And even then the rule requiring abstinence was more honoured in the breach.
Also, the rule had nothing to do with population control.
Nuns were often married and had children before entering the nunnery.
Do you have some evidence for the claim of wide spread infanticide?
I mean the Romans were pretty upfront about it. From the Vindalania letters, we have actually have a soldier telling his wife to kill the child if it's a girl. I think that a lot of cultures had a major imbalance between men and women mostly favoring men. Infanticide was pretty common among hunter-gatherers and neolithic cultures.
One letter does not make it common. And what is your source for hunter gatherers and neolithic cultures practicing it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 10:54:12 AMDo you have some evidence for the claim of wide spread infanticide?
I'm not in a position to proclaim whether the argument is correct or not, nor to state what the current scholarly consensus is, but as I understand it's been a fairly mainstream scholarly theory that infanticide was fairly common in pre-Christian Europe at least.
You've heard of changelings? A European myth that fairies would steal children and replace them with a fairy. The fairy would be useless, unable to function as human being. The solution was to take the changeling and leave it in the forest. That's how they dealt with the clearly disabled. They convinced themselves the child was a fairy and left it out in woods to die. The pre-modern world was rough.
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2025, 12:50:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 10:54:12 AMDo you have some evidence for the claim of wide spread infanticide?
I'm not in a position to proclaim whether the argument is correct or not, nor to state what the current scholarly consensus is, but as I understand it's been a fairly mainstream scholarly theory that infanticide was fairly common in pre-Christian Europe at least.
Again, source? Keep in mind that the Christian writers had a penchant for demonizing non-Christians.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 12:49:06 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2025, 11:56:37 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 10:54:12 AMClergy had children until the 1100s. And even then the rule requiring abstinence was more honoured in the breach.
Also, the rule had nothing to do with population control.
Nuns were often married and had children before entering the nunnery.
Do you have some evidence for the claim of wide spread infanticide?
I mean the Romans were pretty upfront about it. From the Vindalania letters, we have actually have a soldier telling his wife to kill the child if it's a girl. I think that a lot of cultures had a major imbalance between men and women mostly favoring men. Infanticide was pretty common among hunter-gatherers and neolithic cultures.
One letter does not make it common. And what is your source for hunter gatherers and neolithic cultures practicing it?
Other writers mention it, and note that it strange when other cultures didn't do it. Roman and Greeks had a problem with child sacrifice, but drowning a child because it was female was okay. I believe there are plenty of anthropological studies that show that infanticide was pretty common among hunter-gatherers. Like 75% of children were abandoned to death.
As for a source on Greeks and Romans one needs to look to Aristotle:
QuoteAs to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive.
-Aristotle, Politics
What is the argument being made regarding infanticide? That it occurred seems to me to be a truism.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2025, 12:53:47 PMAgain, source? Keep in mind that the Christian writers had a penchant for demonizing non-Christians.
So my impression is a synthesis of reading I've done over the years, but doing a bit of quick internet search it certainly seems that infanticide being a practice has some support among scholars:
The abstract of the article
A critical assessment of the evidence for selective female infanticide as a cause of the Viking Age (https://journals.gla.ac.uk/groundings/article/view/183) states:
QuoteThere currently exists in the study of Viking archaeology a strong support for the theory, popularised by Barrett (2015), that selective female infanticide in the Late Scandinavian Iron Age to Early Viking Age resulted in the sudden expansion of Scandinavian influence, through raiding, invading, and trading, across Europe that categorises the Viking age
To me that's sufficient to accept the fact that the idea that the vikings practiced infanticide has scholarly support.
It's an archeological fact that the remains of infants are often found buried in the floors of human dwellings. The author of
Ritual Bones or Common Waste (https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/14412504/Ritual_bones_or_common_waste.pdf) does not writing directly about whether the remains are the result of infanticide, but nonetheless states:
QuoteThe reason behind the infant burials placed in the middle of settlements that usually lack human graves is intriguing. Several possible explanations including separate burial customs for very, small children, infanticide, sacrifice or magical rituals, can be envisioned.
The abstract of the article Sex Identification in Some Putative Infanticide Victims from Roman Britain Using Ancient DNA (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440397902314) states:
QuoteInfanticide has since time immemorial been an accepted practice for disposing of unwanted infants. Archaeological evidence for infanticide was obtained in Ashkelon, where skeletal remains of some 100 neonates were discovered in a sewer, beneath a Roman bathhouse, which might have also served as a brothel. Written sources indicate that in ancient Roman society infanticide, especially of females, was commonly practised, but that females were occasionally saved and reared as courtesans. We performed DNA-based sex identification of the infant remains. Out of 43 left femurs tested 19 specimens provided results: 14 were found to be males and 5 females. The high frequency of males suggests selective preservation of females and that the infants may have been offspring of courtesans, serving in the bathhouse, supporting its use as a brothel.
My reading over the years has mostly been focused on pre-Christian Europe, but in searching for answers for you I came across
Death Control in the West 1500–1800: Sex Ratios at Baptism in Italy, France and England (https://www.routledge.com/Death-Control-in-the-West-15001800-Sex-Ratios-at-Baptism-in-Italy/Hanlon/p/book/9781032267586) - a suggestion that infanticide was quite widespread in early modern (1500-1800) Europe as well (you can read an article about it here (https://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/new-findings-suggest-historical-infanticide-in-europe-likely-more-widespread-than-estimated/)).
So the scholarship on infanticide does not seem to be all about demonizing pre-Christian populations.
Like I said in my post, I'm not sufficiently educated to have an opinion on whether the interpretations are correct or not, but it seems pretty clear to me that there's scholarship that argues that infanticide was accepted practice.
Jacob, the claims being made are:
1) Raz says that pre-modern infanticide happened more often then we think; and
2) Valmy says it happened a lot (whatever a lot means)
You are providing support that it happened selectively for females in Scandinavia. And maybe the existence of child's bones indicates it happened elsewhere, but just as likely there are child's bones because there was a high mortality rate.
There is also evidence that prostitutes in one ancient city killed unwanted babies.
Non of that is evidence which supports the claims Raz and Valmy made of it being a wide spread practice that happened a lot. And to bring us back to the topic, certainly not evidence that any of this was done to control populations.
As said the evidence for the opposite, that people cared A LOT about infants is pretty strong.
Emergency baptisms, burials up against church foundations, etc...
The church having baby boxes for unwanted children goes back quite some way. The evidence really does seem to point towards Christian Europeans seeing this as a major hang up.
Of course when you speak about medieval Europe you're speaking about a large area over a thousand years of time. Stands to reason there'd be times and places where things were different
And of course it happened. It happens today despite our even bigger hang ups.
But it wasn't a big thing. Getting enough children to keep society going was the challenge.
Read the unmotigated pedantry piece I mentioned. It's pretty interesting.
It really is difficult to make any pronouncements about how "widespread" infanticide was. It's really difficult for the early-modern period, which I know best, and has some record-keeping, so I can't really imagine people being so much more confident about earlier periods.
For London, say, the Old Bailey proceedings finds 428 trials for infanticide between 1670 and 1910; less than 2 per year. It doesn't strike me as widespread. For New France, we have 10 cases for the whole period (1660-1760).
Obviously that number only concerns trials; it doesn't concern cases that were concealed as stillbirths or infants who died shortly after birth. However, what the historiography - again, for the early modern period - shows, is that trials happen because the neighborhoods denounced the practice, or at least the most extreme cases. Usually, there was a much better support network for concealing unwanted pregnancies, or providing abortion. Infanticide was a step further.
Obviously, the above doesn't apply to enslaved population, where infanticide may have happened more frequently, though we only have impressionistic evidence.