Shift in Human Demographics

[Theodarzna]

Those were all natural.

Humans are not natural? Are we from Mars? Robots? Angels? Demons? Gods?

[Deleted]

Humans are not natural? Are we from Mars? Robots? Angels? Demons? Gods?

Well, last time I checked, mass extinction events were caused by natural shifts in the planet's atmosphere and/or catastrophic astronomical events such as meteor impact.
I guess we can't be 100% sure, but I'm almost certain that dinosaurs and unicorns weren't building atomic weapons and weaponised bacterium to destroy each other in a futile attempt to gain political supremacy and reap the benefits of the planet's resources.

[Theodarzna]

Well, last time I checked, mass extinction events were caused by natural shifts in the planet's atmosphere and/or catastrophic astronomical events such as meteor impact.
I guess we can't be 100% sure, but I'm almost certain that dinosaurs and unicorns weren't building atomic weapons and weaponised bacterium to destroy each other in a futile attempt to gain political supremacy and reap the benefits of the planet's resources.

Actually, the early history of our planet saw one lifeforms transformation of the planetary biosphere completely marginalize other lifeforms that previously dominated. Mainly the creation of the Oxygen rich atmosphere (Made by organic life) which marginalized the earlier organism for which Oxygen was actually poisonous to.

Your line of what is natural is purely arbitrary however. We emerged on this planet and are molded by it. We ARE it in a very literal sense.

[Flurryfang]

Having fewer people.... is not really a bad thing The system will just change, when there are getting more and more old people. They will just work later in their life. This will though only be a single generation, before we are back to a normal lvl of old and young people again. So no worries, if the old takes too much, the young will just lead them out to the ice.

[DeadmanWalking]

I personally love it when people start talking about needing to solve the population problem by reducing the human population but put themselves firmly in the 'Going to be one of the living' category. Population a problem? Do your part! Maybe then I will have one less red light wait at the interesection.

"When I said we need to reduce the population on the planet I obviously wasn't speaking about myself."

[Aggrophobic]

I personally love it when people start talking about needing to solve the population problem by reducing the human population but put themselves firmly in the 'Going to be one of the living' category. Population a problem? Do your part! Maybe then I will have one less red light wait at the interesection.

"When I said we need to reduce the population on the planet I obviously wasn't speaking about myself."

I was just about to say the same thing. People that have already decided that this is the best way, why are they still here?

[xuros]

The elderly are selfish pricks as well. Always vote for thier interests and fuck over the younger generation. Its gonna be a rough ride kids.

How are you being fucked over?

[Cradyz]

People become more prosperous, populations decline. The decline in birth rates is quite sudden, while average life expectancy steadily increases. Given that at the moment living longer does not mean living longer healthy, we have a shortage of productive young people and a surplus of unproductive old people. Eventually that will even out with people living longer and working longer, picking up the slack for the lack of young labour.

That is if you don't look at stuff like immigration.

I don't think guys are keeping it in their pants because of child support.. Young people still have children, they just have them later. The result of things like decreasing societal pressure from family, economic need and religion too have kids early or keep women from careerbuilding.

[Jibjub]

I personally love it when people start talking about needing to solve the population problem by reducing the human population but put themselves firmly in the 'Going to be one of the living' category. Population a problem? Do your part! Maybe then I will have one less red light wait at the interesection.

"When I said we need to reduce the population on the planet I obviously wasn't speaking about myself."

Reminds me of a GK Chesterton quote (in introduction to Dickens' A Christmas Carol):

“The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him, whether he is part of the surplus population; or if not, how he knows he is not.” - GKC

[Vash The Stampede]

Anti aging technology. It's something the Japanese are trying to research into. At some point we're going to get really good at keeping you from growing old and dying. So instead of trying to make more babies, maybe we should try to get the people that are alive to stay alive and healthy. It's just the next natural step of being human.

[Celista]

Not so many babies are being Born.
Guys are keeping it in their pants.

Or women don't have an incentive to have children with men who are unlikely to be faithful or stick around? Being a single mother is a one-way ticket to Povertyville in the US.

[Kraenen]

Or women don't have an incentive to have children with men who are unlikely to be faithful or stick around? Being a single mother is a one-way ticket to Povertyville in the US.

I'd blame the liberalization of marriage laws, welfare, and polyamory. It's mostly a cultural shift though, as you can't just force people to stick together.

[Techno-Druid]

I personally love it when people start talking about needing to solve the population problem by reducing the human population but put themselves firmly in the 'Going to be one of the living' category. Population a problem? Do your part! Maybe then I will have one less red light wait at the interesection.

"When I said we need to reduce the population on the planet I obviously wasn't speaking about myself."

We don't need to kill people, we just need to have less kids and in a lot of countries we are.

[Austilias]

This is down to a whole host of cultural and economic factors; more the former, I'd say, but that tends not to be welcomed by the mob for whom 'Socioeconomics' is the answer to everything.

In any case, I can't see any adequate solution. It's one topic where I tend to demonstrate how far apart I am from the Neoliberal side of the Conservative coin; Capitalism, and from that consumerism, appear to be primarily responsible (at a glance).

Nonetheless, the question I have been considering is whether economic growth demands population growth; which in real terms, is the most relevant debate on 'Quality vs. Quantity' you will ever have or find. It would be interesting to see if a stagnant (and/or declining) yet 'skilled' population could economically compete with a growing yet largely 'unskilled' population. Of course, there's the possibility for populations that are both growing and skilled; but it doesn't seem particularly likely. I don't think any experiments will be needed in that regard, however; we'll see which prevails in decades to come, if not already.

[saltytoes718]

Actually, the best thing for the planet would be if the human race was eradicated completely. We're doing the planet and it's other inhabitants no favours whatsoever.

What the hell would be the point of the planet then? Surely your are just being edgy? yes?

I believe in taking care of the planet, but humans are a very special species MORE special than anything we know. We have the ability to shape our environment and with time we may even be able to do greater things.

the more i think about your statement the more I realize that was in jest. Yes?

[Techno-Druid]

What the hell would be the point of the planet then? Surely your are just being edgy? yes?

I believe in taking care of the planet, but humans are a very special species MORE special than anything we know. We have the ability to shape our environment and with time we may even be able to do greater things.

the more i think about your statement the more I realize that was in jest. Yes?

We're not more special than any other species, but are the most advanced and have the most control over the environment and Earth.

[Zcion999]

I don't think so. The Japanese government let in 8, yes 8, refugees out of a pool of 20,000 IIRC because those were the only ones who they thought would be able to add anything of value to Japanese society.

I am convinced their is a better solution to our problems than to open the flood gates.

You can say what you want about the Japanese, but they don't shy in front of long hard work.

For them to admit 8 it means that they probably actually looked over the freaking 20k. Imagine being one of these guys looking at the files and being a number 9k and seing that only 3 made it to the "maybe" pile.

[Deleted]

This I don't think is accurate. We have a limiting factor in our lives, unlike men, we have a time limit to make children. Even if we WANT to make them, the time it takes to secure a career that could provide reasonably for one works against our natural biological cycles. You have to bust your ass for even a chance now through most of your most fertile years, then race against the clock to both compete in the increasingly cut throat world of the "market," and find a guy.

Men and women both have to play that game now, and that game is what we are convinced is needed for "the good life." But for women this game is an added source of sterilizing stress and just adds a huge time sink for us.

I think it comes down to this.

Having children and running families is hard work, for both men and women.

Most people in society - at every level of wealth, education, etc - tend to just follow the path of least resistance.

There needs to be a stable social structure for most people to just conform and follow or else most people just get a bit confused.

In the past this structure was quite simple: men led the family and earned money to support it, women produced the children and took care of households.

Everyone knew what to do and got on with it and there was a lot of social pressure on both genders to perform their role.

Now there are really no rules, and so there is no clear path of least resistance for most of society to follow.

And so both men and women just aren't sure what the right way to have children is - or whether it is worth the effort.

[Astronom]

Nonetheless, the question I have been considering is whether economic growth demands population growth;

I've wondered that myself.

Although a more important factor is that population growth and economic growth over the past 150 years or so has been mostly dependent on cheap fossil fuel energy. Look at the growth of human population over that time periods. This is a growth chart of a species which has a discovered some new resource and grows explosively. What inevitably happens after is that the population crashes once enough of the resource has been used up.

Low fertility is not what we should be worrying about here.

[saltytoes718]

Those were all natural.

Humans are part of nature, hence anything we do is natural, even if we blow the place up with atomic weapons, it is still "natural"

I think you are confusing natural with man made or man caused.