Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Is the decline of birthrates ultimately a positive in the long term?

    In much of the developed world and even in countries like India and Bangladesh, birthrates are starting to decline. There are many factors that contribute to this, largely economic, but I hear it often dicussed in a negative light.

    However, we live in a world that is drastically automating. Menial jobs are slowly being replaced by machines and it will eventually creep into more complex ones, this will only be more evident with the rise of Artificial General Intelligence or AGI.

    As countries develop worldwide, birthrates steadily increase, then stabilize and then decline. This will eventually effect most countries and I for one believe this is a positive in the long term for the prosperity of our descendents.

  2. #2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

    I feel like that pretty much sums up a lot of what is happening in the US

  3. #3
    Banned Tennis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    You wish you lived here
    Posts
    11,771
    It's a positive for richer countries for sure. They can increase immigration levels to ensure that they have a large enough tax base to support the increasing levels of seniors. At the same time, their countries become more diverse and fun to live in.

  4. #4
    Population == marketplace == economy == GDP

    Population == national defense

    The US is the only Western country that will show positive population growth over the next 50 years.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  5. #5
    For the planet as an ecosystem, it is good overall.

    For the economy with an aging baby boomer population set to retire and being promised benefits they paid for their whole working career but politicians stole and did fuck all with, it's not ideal.

    My wife and I have a group of 6 couples we are friends with , 12 adults total all aged 32-38, and my wife and I are the only ones that have kids and are the only couple that wants kids. That's an entire generation of 5 families that won't continue. And the decision isn't economic, as combined every couple makes at least 120k per year, with some of us making more.
    People working 2 jobs in the US (at least one part-time) - 7.8 Million (Roughly 4.9% of the workforce)

    People working 2 full-time jobs in the US - 360,000 (0.2% of the workforce)

    Average time worked weekly by the US Workforce - 34.5 hours

  6. #6
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Declining birthrates in developed nations are only discussed in a negative light by people who think there is some sort of need for "more people" or "more people of a certain type". It's detrimental to consumerism yes, but consumerism is hardly something worth preserving. A stabilization of the population is beneficial to pretty much everything else that doesn't rely on "numbers" to win the game (like war and consumerism).

    Birthrates decline as social, political and personal stability increase. This is pretty much universal.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapadons View Post
    For the planet as an ecosystem, it is good overall.

    For the economy with an aging baby boomer population set to retire and being promised benefits they paid for their whole working career but politicians stole and did fuck all with, it's not ideal.

    My wife and I have a group of 6 couples we are friends with , 12 adults total all aged 32-38, and my wife and I are the only ones that have kids and are the only couple that wants kids. That's an entire generation of 5 families that won't continue. And the decision isn't economic, as combined every couple makes at least 120k per year, with some of us making more.
    Well, it is kind of economic. Less children=more savings. That in and of itself is an economic decision.
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Are you a 14 year old rebel wearing a Che Guevara shirt?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by swisscheese View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

    I feel like that pretty much sums up a lot of what is happening in the US
    this is true but the movie was being very PC because whites have the lowest birth rate out of every race in America thats why it's estimated whites will be the minority by the year 2050 so it's not them pumping the dumb kids out.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    In much of the developed world and even in countries like India and Bangladesh, birthrates are starting to decline. There are many factors that contribute to this, largely economic, but I hear it often dicussed in a negative light.

    However, we live in a world that is drastically automating. Menial jobs are slowly being replaced by machines and it will eventually creep into more complex ones, this will only be more evident with the rise of Artificial General Intelligence or AGI.

    As countries develop worldwide, birthrates steadily increase, then stabilize and then decline. This will eventually effect most countries and I for one believe this is a positive in the long term for the prosperity of our descendents.
    Although I feel like I'm reading the introduction for a high school essay (first birth rates, second automation (what's the relation with birth rates exactly?), third your topic) but if I had to choose yes or no, I would say yes, declining birthrate is a ultimately a positive for the long term.

    Less people = less impact on environment
    Less people = we've broken the fundamental requirement to procreate to sustain our species (difficult concept to explain in one sentence but it's not that we can't still enjoy making and raising children, but more that people are in a position to have other options in their life to pursue and that having children isn't just something you need to do in life)
    Automation = less people required to sustain economies (assuming this is the point you were trying to make with your 2nd statement)

  10. #10
    Bloodsail Admiral Vapo's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    It's a positive for richer countries for sure. They can increase immigration levels to ensure that they have a large enough tax base to support the increasing levels of seniors. At the same time, their countries become more diverse and fun to live in.
    How exactly is that better than having larger native population?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Karaoke View Post
    Although I feel like I'm reading the introduction for a high school essay (first birth rates, second automation (what's the relation with birth rates exactly?), third your topic) but if I had to choose yes or no, I would say yes, declining birthrate is a ultimately a positive for the long term.

    Less people = less impact on environment
    Less people = we've broken the fundamental requirement to procreate to sustain our species (difficult concept to explain in one sentence but it's not that we can't still enjoy making and raising children, but more that people are in a position to have other options in their life to pursue and that having children isn't just something you need to do in life)
    Automation = less people required to sustain economies (assuming this is the point you were trying to make with your 2nd statement)
    Yes, having a large amount of people unemployed due to having a general education is negative. In the worst case scenario, millions of unskilled workers would be laid off without factoring in birthrates. We shouldn't strive for a large quantity of children, we should strive for a society that prepares and encourages people to take up STEM careers, not obsolete menial jobs.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapo View Post
    How exactly is that better than having larger native population?
    Question is if declining birthrates are a positive thing. Tennisace said it would be for richer countries because they could attract more people in a person-deficit world while the poorer countries who may need people lose out.

    It would be easier to have a larger native population but that's not the question.

  13. #13
    Bloodsail Admiral Vapo's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Karaoke View Post
    Question is if declining birthrates are a positive thing. Tennisace said it would be for richer countries because they could attract more people in a person-deficit world while the poorer countries who may need people lose out.

    It would be easier to have a larger native population but that's not the question.
    He/she doesnt care for that. Even if each "rich" nation would take a million immigrants a year each, world would create another 60-80 million more in poor countries. If some countries need declining birthrates its the african ones and india/china.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    Yes, having a large amount of people unemployed due to having a general education is negative. In the worst case scenario, millions of unskilled workers would be laid off without factoring in birthrates. We shouldn't strive for a large quantity of children, we should strive for a society that prepares and encourages people to take up STEM careers, not obsolete menial jobs.
    I don't understand why unemployment is a negative. Most people dislike their work...if I had enough saved up I would quit tomorrow and pursue my primary interests in life.

    Since we're talking hypotheticals, couldn't we create a society where automation replaces most jobs and we can pursue our interests instead and increase the population at the same time?

  15. #15
    Immortal Zandalarian Paladin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Saurfang is the True Horde.
    Posts
    7,936
    The decline of birth rates is a necessity if we want to survive.

    But like everything else, if greed overcome need, we may very well end in a dystopia. In some ways, we're already on the wrong path.

    I understand the whole ideology behind immigration, but automation will also replace immigrant workers. This is also why it's important that the population fall back in control. This should be achieved by making sure that we bring the third world countries on par with ours. Without the survival aspect, we should see a steep decline in population's births.
    Last edited by Zandalarian Paladin; 2017-07-14 at 04:39 AM.
    Google Diversity Memo
    Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA

    Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
    [...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..

  16. #16
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    24,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    In much of the developed world and even in countries like India and Bangladesh, birthrates are starting to decline. There are many factors that contribute to this, largely economic, but I hear it often dicussed in a negative light.

    However, we live in a world that is drastically automating. Menial jobs are slowly being replaced by machines and it will eventually creep into more complex ones, this will only be more evident with the rise of Artificial General Intelligence or AGI.

    As countries develop worldwide, birthrates steadily increase, then stabilize and then decline. This will eventually effect most countries and I for one believe this is a positive in the long term for the prosperity of our descendents.
    This is a matter of perspective and ones ultimate goal. The issue is that in the short and medium term the entire structure of our welfare state and economies will crumble or our societies will rip themselves apart. The issue is that without young people we really don't have the engine of consumer demand, as the elderly are less spend oriented. We also have less capital investment since they cannot afford to take a long term risk (They have little time to spare) more over not all birthrates decline at the same rate or time.

    The issue is primarily the use of population replacement by some foolish and short sighted states to try and sustain their GDP numbers and other metrics instead of simply riding it out until things attain equilibrium.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapo View Post
    He/she doesnt care for that. Even if each "rich" nation would take a million immigrants a year each, world would create another 60-80 million more in poor countries. If some countries need declining birthrates its the african ones and india/china.
    Let me restate the concept I think he/she was going for. If world birthrates were declining, and having a positive population increase were a good thing...who would benefit...rich or poor countries?

    In your example the birthrate overall (total population) is still increasing.

  18. #18
    Titan Seranthor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Langley, London, Undisclosed Locations
    Posts
    11,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    It's a positive for richer countries for sure. They can increase immigration levels to ensure that they have a large enough tax base to support the increasing levels of seniors. At the same time, their countries become more diverse and fun to live in.
    If what you say is true then why is Canada so restrictive on immigration policy? Based on what you are claiming then you would want as many as you can get to come to Canada would increase your diversity and your tax base and make it even more fun to live in.

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapo View Post
    He/she doesnt care for that. Even if each "rich" nation would take a million immigrants a year each, world would create another 60-80 million more in poor countries. If some countries need declining birthrates its the african ones and india/china.
    China has one of the most rapidly declining birthrates of any country (largely due to the One Child Policy and the prevalent and extreme work culture there) and family planning in India and less strictly enforced two child policies on a state by state basis are decreasing birthrates.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Seranthor View Post
    If what you say is true then why is Canada so restrictive on immigration policy? Based on what you are claiming then you would want as many as you can get to come to Canada would increase your diversity and your tax base and make it even more fun to live in.
    because canada net population is still increasing. it hasn't reached the level where net population has started to decline at a point where it's detrimental to society/economy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •