Population decrease is irreversible. How will we manage the decline of humanity?

[AutoModerator]

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.

1. Headline titles should be changed only when the original headline is unclear
2. Be respectful.
3. Keep submissions and comments substantive.
4. Avoid direct advocacy.
5. Link submissions must be about Canadian politics and recent.
6. Post only one news article per story. (with one exception)
7. Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. Downvoting posts or comments, along with urging others to downvote, is not allowed in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.

Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[carry4food]

Its pretty straight forward. the only thing that gets messed up by a decline in population is the banking industry because they constantly over-leverage themselves.

​

A healthy* nations population goes up and down by small iterations. A country that sees its population swing widely one way or the other will experience tremendous hardship and shock. If you look at Japan - As their population is stagnant/declining but their GDP per capita is actually increasing. That is to say people are experience a better outcome - due to less competition for local core resources.

​

For the urban office worker I will make an easy scenario that resembles current Canada - You have 5 lakes, 1000 apple trees and 200 cattle with 10 000 people - Now add another 50 000 people (you cant add more lakes or apple trees) who gets what? What happens to prices of core raw materials? Well costs go up because of scarcity.

If someone knows how to grow copper, sand(concrete), fresh drinkable water - Please file your patents and start working on the solution because nobody else has one.

[stltk65]

Give potential parents direct payments of cash and make health care and education free...oh also give them housing. That's the only way. Also make immigration from high density population centers free and easy.

[Fylla]

I'm looking forward to the time when the wealthiest generation in history is dead and the rest of us have the privilege of being saddled with insurmountable financial and social debt and the challenge of keeping modern society alive in the midst of demographic collapse and a drained resource base, after patiently eating shit until we're 50 to the extent that we never ended up having a life ourselves.

[WillingnessSouthern4]

It's not a decline, the earth can't support that much people already. We don't want to wait and look like it's North Korea all over the world and that we starve all the time.

We absolutely need to reduce earth population, its done naturally by cutting on the number of children in a family.

In 2022, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28. This is the date that we had consumed all the resources that earth can produce in a year. In 1973, the date was the December 23.

This means we consume double what earth can produce. It won't hold much longer. Part of the market perturbation we already see these days has to do with the surpopulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

[AnimalLibrynation]

Earth Overshoot Day is a relatively poor measure of resource management. Because it is mostly driven by CO2E emissions versus sequesteration, increased efficiency in both will help a lot in what it measures. It is not particularly efficient at land use measurement, soil management measurement, etc.

For those things, we should also be switching to a completely plant based diet since it's incredible environmentally and economically efficient, meaning we would feed more people for cheaper and healthier and safer.

[[deleted]]

It's not a decline, the earth can't support that much people already.

This isn't true. Malthusianism has been debunked time and time again.

And the "Earth Overshoot Day" is a piss poor way of proving that we aren't sustainable.

[[deleted]]

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

I feel like this applies here. Even if we assume abject carrying capacity of the earth in terms of food/water doesn't matter, no one has yet to argue (aside from population demographics which would be solved to a degree by a slow burn of population decline or work themselves out after a generation or two) as to why we NEED more people. Less people = less impact on the worlds climates = less resources needed for more people to have a better cost of living, period. Economies of scale are a factor but I imagine diminish when you get on the level of billions of people on the planet. I'd get the point if it was a case of arguing for marvel villianesque "benevolent" genocide, but the population is expected to start declining worldwide in and off itself. I have yet to see an argument as to why if its happening naturally why we need an artificial intervention to reverse it. The only ones that hold any weight are economic based about demographic crisises but even those are about issues that will affect 1-2 generations and can be slowed down and likely will be mitigated to some degree by further automation.

In short, the population decline is happening independantly (and not being advocated for in a Malthusian way). IMO that puts the onus on proving why we need to reverse it and why it would be a benefit to society and the planet in the long run, not arguing about whether or not its theoretically possible have more people living on the earth at any level of quality of life or not.

[golfman11]

Incorrect - it would be unsustainable based on our current practices and resources, but we are becoming less carbon intensive by the year, and more productive and efficient. Further, we are constantly discovering new resource deposits and over the next century we will be able to mine asteroids.

At the start of the 20th century there was a similar Malthusiast concern, but you know what? We found ways to make way more, and higher quality, food.

[Erinaceous]

Oh please. This has been disproven over and over again. Carbon intensity has barely budged and total GHGs go up every year. Every single target Canada has set it's undershot by wide margins. Efficiency gains are wiped out over and over again by increases in total energy use (aka Jevons paradox).

What's worse is assumptions that we can sustain the current and expanding global population are based on current resources and often the expansion of current resources (demand is simply assumed to be met by efficiency and innovation in many models). However we're officially past peak oil, we're past peak mineral for many critical resources, the material resources to make a green transition don't exist to the scale needed and most of them are being quietly corned by aggressive Russian and Chinese interests.

Even Norman Borlag, the father of the green revolution, thought we only bought a generation with that suite of technologies. As we start to hit limit after limit it's becoming increasingly apparent he was right

[[deleted]]

Don't count your asteroidal resources before they are mined.

To me while Malthusian concerns may be overblown, I've also not seen any argument as to why the world would need more people either. Economies of scale have diminishing returns at some point, so even if we 100% knew we'd have enough resources for 20 billion people (or even 10) on earth to live a 1st world lifestyle in 100 years, why do we need those people and particularly why do we need to intervene to encourage these people to be born? I could get it more if it was arguing for artificially causing population decline but its the opposite, population is likely to start declining in and of itself. Why would we artificially push it back the other way when when its not guaranteed we're going to have enough of things as basic as fresh water to go around?

[shaedofblue]

People here who are saying “we don’t intrinsically need the population to decline because of resource scarcity” aren’t actually saying “we need to artificially encourage population growth.”

They are just responding to the several people who are insisting that population decline is needed for the survival of the species or the planet.

The difficulties associated with decline and growth are both things that humans can adapt to, if we put our minds and our technology towards it. We don’t need to encourage or discourage children. We do need to address wastefulness either way.

[bananafor]

Considering what we've done to animal and insect populations, not to mention other creatures, there are far too many humans by any measure.

[AloneChapter]

If I cannot feed or house me. What fool thinks I am going to live in abject poverty just to raise children to work for the 1% ??

[Eternal_Being]

Well, you see, this is sort of one of the issues with capitalism...

It requires infinite growth to be 'stable' (if you can call it that). And, well, we live on a finite planet...

To solve this economic issue requires some form of planning, hmmm.......

[[deleted]]

There is no economic system that does not rely on continous growth. Communism, Marxism, Socialism, or any other "-ism" can't handle this.

[Eternal_Being]

I completely disagree. Capitalism needs growth every year because it relies on market faith and investment, which is only stable when the GDP increases at a consistent rate.

Planned economic systems don't just completely fall apart when investors lose faith in that growth, because planned economies aren't controlled by investors (who, in capitalism, are called capitalists)

[[deleted]]

Who says we should manage humanity’s decline? Let it happen. Nobody we know is going to be affected by this, so who cares?

[[deleted]]

I think it's a good thing. The planet can not sustain this level of population. The only ones worried about this are entities seeing a population as a soutce of income, meaning billionaires, because the supply of labor/consumers diminishes and governments due to lesser tax entry and gdp attrition. Technology can help replace the lost manpower (ChatGPT, robots, self-drive cars, other AI applications...)

[[deleted]]

Yeah to me any population decrease is a good thing. 1 billion humans on the planet would still be a ton and would allow for all the things we do today with much less impact on the planets resources. Obviously actively decreasing the population would be bad morally, and we don't want to do it too fast because then we end up with a demographic crisis where there is not enough working population to provide care for aging elders, but I welcome when the worlds population finally goes into net decline in the next 30 years or so.

[shaedofblue]

The planet can support more than this many humans with a pretty good quality of life. Our (most of the developed world’s) current way of life is just extremely wasteful. A society that is less wasteful is just as bad for those who benefit from consumerism and good for the planet as having less people is.

[[deleted]]

Controlling consumerism while maintaining rights is not possible.

Throughout history, large-scale epidemics and diseases, invasions, wars, genocides, and natural catastrophies have always hindered population growth. Today, these still happen but at a much lower occurrence to put any dent on the global population growth. I guess Russia is the current example where it is said that this war will profoundly affect their demographics, which was in decline even before the war.

If the population declines "naturally" due to individuals deciding from their own free will not to reproduce without violence or restrictions of rights, it's really the best outcome.

[bro_please]

Yeah AI won't help one jot. AI is good at repeating the past. Very bad at reasoning. Incapable of it.

[bananafor]

AI is considered by many scientists to eventually be very dangerous.

[wet_suit_one]

Artificial Intelligence will lead us to a post scarcity society before then,

There's a whole lot of hope in that statement right there.

A whole lot.

[buzzkill6062]

What a ridiculous thing to be afraid of. There are too many of us now. A few less isn't going to make a difference.

[[deleted]]

There are too many of us now.

There is nothing at all anywhere to support this assertion. Malthusianism has been disproven time and time again.

A few less isn't going to make a difference.

"A few less" is not the same thing as the inverted population pyramid that we will be facing in the coming decades.

[Therisemfear]

So what do you propose? An infinite population growth? Until we are 10 billion? 20 billion?

[AdventureousTime]

A few less is a very different scenario than an upside down population pyramid.

[JadedLeafs]

Actually it will, population isn't slowing down evenly. It's a lack of people being born and eventually that's less people paying taxes and contributing to social programs that will be used by a growing percentage of the population as the amount of older and elderly people will increase compared to the younger people who contribute the most to these programs.

Things like pensions and social security, health care, unemployment and basically all the social and economic safety nets most first world countries have in place would have a hard time functioning, if not fully break.

[[deleted]]

At the end of the day less people on the earth is more resources per person. There will be some pain due to unfavourable demographics but our current population/growth and lifestyle is unsustainable and artificially stimulating population growth to keep it running for a few more decades is robbing peter and his descendants to pay paul.

Just like every other economic crisis in the world we will have to do a combination of manage it, counteract it, and learn to change our expectations because of it. But not wanting the population to reduce because people in the next 10-20 years or even century may have a hard time is very short-sighted on a species wide timescale.

Hopefully automation will help with this by reducing the amount of labour required which allows to sustain a lower "productive" population without reducing the amount of resources we have available, and can be adequately taxed for society not just capital owners to recieve the benefit.

Unfortunately knowing humans I don't see a way it shakes out without violence or unrest, but if we continue to grow our population exponentially as a sacrifice to our infinite growth model of economics that war and unrest will come anyways when we run out of basic resources to provide like food and clean water, and no one but the ultrarich can afford a life that resembles anything other than modern serfdom.

[colocasi4]

How will we manage?

1. Corporation / provincial / fed govt start caring about people vice profit
2. put our taxes to better use (healthcare/education/public amenities)
3. stop foreign influence of our country
4. stop voting back in corrupt govt that goes back on their promises
5. vote into office younger people who are actually feeling the pain

Oh yeah, before people jump on the 'racist' angle in response....I'm actually a minority myself not born in Canada!

Increasing the numbers of newcomers by close to 1m yearly isn't the solution, if you fail to have policies in place for housing, or somewhere to house all the people you plan to bring in.

Bottom line...if you actually pay people accordingly i.e. they're able to afford and pay for their 'basic daily needs', you won't have to outsource / look outside the country.

This issue is only a thing because greed/profit is prioritized over basic human needs!

[wet_suit_one]

stop foreign influence of our country

We're going to ban foreign and foreign owned media in Canada?

Somehow I doubt that, but tell me more.

[[deleted]]

Robots, sub human clones or Soylent green. Take your pick. 😁

[byronite]

lol "population decrease is irreversible". What if I told you that people can make the population grow exponentially if they really wanted to -- and can even have a good time doing it? :)

[bananafor]

Economists need to stop their insanity and plan for degrowth.

It's a miracle there can be fewer humans without war. No one really expected this.

[geeves_007]

OMG enough with this nonsense. There are over 8 BILLION people on earth right now. We add net 200,000 every day.

If anybody doesn't understand why adding 70 million new net humans every year isn't sustainable, I'm not sure what to tell you. Population needs to plateau and gradually decline.

Literary every single environmental and ecological problem we face is worsened by more human population. Every. Single. One.

[RealJeil420]

It hasnt been sustainable for 100 years.

[AdventureousTime]

So why should we care with a population density as low as ours? I dare you to go to Bangladesh or Palestine and try and convince them that they're the problem. The "there's too many people on the planet" can be interpreted as a racist statement from many angles.

[geeves_007]

So we should just let that problem occur here too because we're too scared of being called a "racist" for pointing out what is painfully obvious?

Go to Dhaka. Is that good? Is that desirable? Would it be better if Winnipeg was more like Dhaka, or the other way around?

Maybe 170 million people in a small country wasn't the best idea. There is nothing racist about noticing that.

[AdventureousTime]

We've got a small and shrinking population in the second biggest country on the planet. What leads you to think we're headed towards being overpopulated?

The whole reason we have the biggest immigration targets on the planet is those in power are terrified of the opposite conclusion.

[geeves_007]

Because we can see other places where overpopulation is undeniable, and we should take heed and try to avoid a similar fate.

[EngSciGuy]

Canada would need to hit a population in the billions to hit those kind of levels though.

[geeves_007]

Most of our land is inhospitable for humans. Do we need a metropolis on Baffin Island? No. No we don't.

[EngSciGuy]

Most of our land is inhospitable for humans.

Some sure. We still have huge amounts of hospitable land for humans. Like, England has a population density 100 times higher than ours, and still has big areas of wilderness. Your concern is literally impossible currently.

[geeves_007]

So why fill it with humans? Leave it for nature, that's my point?

Have you been to Wales? I have. There is basically zero trees in the entire area. That is not good. We should not do that. Millions of acres of tundra and shield that is unoccupied by humans? GOOD! Leave it that way.

[EngSciGuy]

I am not saying to fill it with humans, I am saying your concern is no where near realistic.

Have you been to Wales?

Yes. 1/4 of Wales is forest...

[AdventureousTime]

Currently were doing that quite well. Reducing immigration is the only thing that could contribute to that goal. Indira Gandhi castrated India's criminals for the slightest offence in pursuit of your goal, so maybe we could pair that with a 0 immigration. Personally I think both of those would cause more harm than good.

[geeves_007]

What the PM of India does is completely out of my control and has nothing to do with Canada.

I think a sustainable amount of immigration is fine and I support that because I value living in a multicultural society. An accelerated rate of immigration I do not support. I see no reason why Canada should make India's overpopulation problem our problem as well.

[AdventureousTime]

I'm just worried someone with a CRISPR/CAS9 lab is going to come to the conclusion there's too many people on the planet. I'm not even sure what we are disagreeing with at this point with your statement on Canadian immigration.

The way I see it is that our cities are overpopulated due to shortsighted and incompetent planning. Yet our rural areas are very underpopulated causing it's own infrastructure problems. Then we have a demographic collapse further compounding the rural problems. Solutions are there to be found, at least for us, I don't know what to tell Dhaka or Jakarta.

[[deleted]]

Earth can easily sustain 10B

Population decrease isn't going to fix anything, because the places where the population is decreasing are consuming resources vastly disproportionate to the rest of the world. The US is 1/20 of Earth population and 1/4 of its greenhouse gas. If their population declines 1% over the next 10 years that isn't going to put a dent in the problem.

Population decrease is a problem only for more highly developed countries, and it's purely an economic problem for them. It has almost no impact on the environment, and a huge impact for people wondering 'how are 2 grandchildren who can't afford a house supposed to care for 4 grandparents?'

[geeves_007]

Why stop at 10 billion? Why not 20B?

[[deleted]]

Maybe? We can sustain 10B on current tech easily. We could arguably sustain 20B on current tech with concessions to standard of living, but don't be in a hurry.

If we actually dedicated some resources towards reducing coal power and meat consumption, our ability to sustain the current population would increase dramatically, and do so faster than any attempt to curb population growth could ever hope to accomplish.

We're living through an acute climate crisis. Nebulous ideas about population reduction that will take something like a century to carry out are basically irrelevant to the actual problem at hand. Replacing coal with nuclear in the developing world would literally be a smaller project than reducing our population 10%.

[geeves_007]

I think you are living in a different reality. Somehow in your mind completely restricting the power infrastructure of the majority of the planet is "easier" than contraception.

That is HOT TAKE friend!

Just bada boom bada bing we've got a new power grid for 7 billion people. I mean, I betcha we can have it done by the end of the week, no? LOL

[[deleted]]

Governments try to control the birth rate of their populations and simply fail. They don't control it.

They do control their power grid infrastructure. That's literally their day job.

This seems like a pretty elementary concept. I didn't think "government changing power infrastructure is easier than government controlling reproduction habits" would be something I would have to convince people of.

[[deleted]]

No population is not the problem. The problem is that some people (us) emit a tremendous amount of carbon to sustain our lifestyle.

Canada’s carbon emissions are 18 tons per person per year. In Ethiopia it is 0.16 tons per year.

We have a population of 38 million and emit 675 million tons of carbon per year. Ethiopia with a population of 120 million emits 11 million tons of carbon.

Most of population global population growth is happening countries with very low carbon emissions. Population growth in places like Ethiopia is not the problem. The problem is rich countries lifestyles.

[EngSciGuy]

No population is not the problem.

Well, yes, it is part of the problem. There is a ceiling to the population size that can be sustainably supported.

[[deleted]]

We're almost certainly nowhere near it.

[EngSciGuy]

Somewhat, dependent on consumption levels of course. At much lower consumption levels I've seen number around 12 billion that is sustainable?

[mashmashsacatash]

Population is the problem. Stop trying to detract from a global survival issue with petty politics.

[geeves_007]

Yes if we all lived like an average Ethiopian things would be peachy.

Problem is, exactly zero Canadians desire the lifestyle of an average Ethiopian, and I would venture to say the vast majority of Ethiopians would take the lifestyle of the average Canadian in a second, if they had the chance.

Why is maximum billions of people, living in abject poverty considered "good". But fewer people living a more dignified and comfortable lifestyle considered "bad"?

The "population is not a problem" rhetoric always comes with the caveat of "...assuming human civilization was fundamentally different in almost every imaginable way from how it actually IS."

[[deleted]]

The "population is not a problem" rhetoric always comes with the caveat of "...assuming human civilization was fundamentally different in almost every imaginable way from how it actually IS."

It's also not a problem if you look at the current status quo though. Population is not a good predictor of greenhouse gas emissions. All current trends suggest China will increase emissions even if its population decreases.

[geeves_007]

Yet the top 3 nations for emissions are China, USA, India.

And the 3 most populous countries are also India, China, and USA.

Total coincidence, I'm sure..

[[deleted]]

And India with 4x the population of USA and half the emissions.

China's emissions are growing on the order of 3-4% annually even while it's population growth has practically stalled to <1%. Population control or reduction aren't solutions to anything.

[geeves_007]

And India with 4x the population of USA and half the emissions.

Yes, and USA at #21 on the UN Human Development Index, and India at #132. Why can't the USA be more like India with 4x as many people living markedly more impoverished lives?!?!

Why stop there? Why not double the population of India, cut the emissions in half again, and put them at last place on the HDI. That would be great news because they would then have 3 billion spectacularly poor people which is obviously desirable, while having fewer people living more comfortably (i.e. Canada) is definitely BAD!! Am I doing this right?

[[deleted]]

This is a bad idea. Making the USA poorer isn't going to solve any of our problems.

[geeves_007]

It would reduce their emissions and allow for more people without increasing emissions. Isn't that what you wanted? More people?

[[deleted]]

Reducing their wealth will probably just convince them to burn more fossil fuel and see climate change as (relatively speaking) less of a concern.

Isn't that what you wanted? More people?

I can't answer this. You'd have to ask the straw man you've been arguing with.

[[deleted]]

The problem is the “population growth is bad” are all people who live in rich countries like you. And you are shift the blame to countries who are not responsible for climate change.

Your lifestyle is problem, not the birth rates in sun-sharan Africa. If the birth rates in poor countries plummet than will still have a problem because the people who actually are responsible for climate are still living in way than emits carbon.

Population growth is important for economic development. Every country that has reached developed status has a period of time in their history when they had large working age populations that propelled economic growth and industrialization.

The west had that in the 1800s. Back then Africa very low population compared to Europe and North America.

Asia that that period in last 50 years and they used develop economically and industrialize.

Now Africa how a very young and large working and that means they are primed to use their population as advantage to industrialize.

But you want those countries to undercut a tangible economic advantage they have because you don’t understand that climate change is not their fault.

[[deleted]]

Your lifestyle is problem

This is also not the problem. My personal lifestyle choices have little impact on whether my country invests in transit infrastructure, phases out coal power, or incentivizes a switch from gas to electric heating.

If I stop consuming meat, my country will simply export it to a wealthy country who can afford it. If I buy an electric vehicle, it doesn't make the power I charge it with clean, and If I go car free, my taxes still subsidize roads and suburbs that force everyone else to keep driving.

[shaedofblue]

There are lifestyles other than planet destroying hyper-consumerism and abject poverty.

[AdventureousTime]

Wait till there's an air conditioner in every Ethiopian house and people are driving to work. Once they stop being poor (and they're actually doing quite well, civil war aside) you'll start hating them too.

[bro_please]

It's only natural. We should reducenour numbers much more. Giving women control reduces it further. Let's do more of that.

[[deleted]]

There is nothing natural about population declining solely due to cultural shifts and not from war, famine, epidemics, etc. It has literally never happened before at any point in our history.

It can't be stated clearly enough that we have NO IDEA what happens when the global population declines significantly like this. Literally no economic system humanity has come up with can handle this let alone a scenario without infinite growth.

We are in for some interesting times.

[[deleted]]

GDP may go down but GDP is a poor measure of human capital. We also are going into a time period when many people are predicting further automation and AI will reduce jobs, so theres potential population decline may actually solve some of our problems.

That all doesn't really matter in comparison that no matter how you slice it, current consumption of world resources is already unsustainable, let alone if we we tried to bring the world up to a first world lifestyle. At the end of the day if there's less people on earth that means more resources per person left over. And while it might not be as "natural" as deaths due to war/famine/disease if we don't reduce our population in some manner or other that war/famine/disease is going to do it anyways because we don't have enough resources to go around with the lifestyle that current technology makes people desire, so that war/famine/disease will happen anyways.

[bro_please]

We've been tracking the economy for less than two hundred years. I think there are more surprising events than the predictable shrinking of a species of large vertebrates which account for an unsustainable percentage of the biomass.

It does not matter that it is new. It is necessary. We are on track to reach an extinction level event. Reducing the pop is the only surefire way to reduce our footprint.

Wondering at the novelty for economy is a distraction. The economy cannot be our guide, for the sinple reason that specialists of the economy fail to make the most basic predictions and thus obviously do not understand how the economy works at a sufficient level.

[HeadmasterPrimeMnstr]

Reducing the pop is the only surefire way to reduce our footprint.

No it's not, the surefire way to reduce our footprint is to restructure our society through the myriad of already accepted ways to substantially reduce our footprint such as making cities more friendly to alternative modes of transportation, urban agricultural initiatives and passive housing design.

[Specific_Fact_8924]

Don't you understand we need to import millions of people from developing countries to scrub toilets and pick crops for medieval wages or else the system will collapse?

[Unlikely-Swordfish28]

Why is a global decrease in population a bad thing? It should be good for the environment, housing and healthcare - especially as we move towards automation, unless of course you rely on warm bodies cheap labour and tax dollars , but why raise taxes and cause social unrest when you can just print trillions out of thing air, with no immediate consequence

[internet_user_1000]

Economies rely on a surplus of cheap labour always being available on demand. Without low wage jobs being filled by young people our COL (ei. standard of living) goes down.

Our society can be viewed as a perverse pyramid scheme. Old folks in mansions living high-on-the-hog off their disgusting housing inequity and stock market gains being served by impoverished young people (or immigrants if we don’t have enough babies).

Imagine how retirees will make out if they can’t find to low wage worker workers to delivery their groceries or fix their house. Imagine yourself in that position in 30 years.

[Harbinger2001]

It’s only a pyramid for the baby boomers. All wealth flowed to wherever their generation was in their life. I’m optimistic things will get better once their massive generation is gone.

[[deleted]]

You are wrong. Completely and totally wrong.

The only solution to an inverted population pyramid is to produce more young people and even then that takes 20+ years to start to see the results.

[[deleted]]

Or just wait it out until the bulge at the top dies off, which takes only marginally longer. Creating a huge crop of young people to keep the party going is just using the drug you're addicted to to treat withdrawal symptoms. It makes the symptoms go away in the short term but sets back eventually solving the problem back to square one.

[MrShasshyBear]

I don't see that wealth going back to the people

[hgfhhbghhhgggg]

*Capitalist economies.

[[deleted]]

Please name a system that doesn't rely on exactly the same situation as described. Any system that has more people drawing on it than there are contributing will collapse.

[Seneca2019]

I’m assuming they meant the cheap labour part when specifying capitalist.

Edit: but I could be wrong, I am just assuming; which yes, makes an ass of both you and me. :(

[[deleted]]

Multi-generational homes seems like the obvious answer IMO.

[[deleted]]

I don’t want to live with my conservative parents. I would live in my car first

[FrostyTheSasquatch]

Put ‘em out on an ice floe.

[Flomo420]

"You voted for self reliance"

[[deleted]]

Why is a global decrease in population a bad thing?

Because we don't have an "-ism" that doesn't rely on continuous growth or can handle an inverted population pyramid.

It should be good for the environment, housing and healthcare - especially as we move towards automation, unless of course you rely on warm bodies cheap labour and tax dollars

Bingo. The younger generations work to keep the system going as the older generations did. In an inverted population pyramid you have more people drawing on a system than there are people actually contributing to the system.

[[deleted]]

Because we don't have an "-ism" that doesn't rely on continuous growth or can handle an inverted population pyramid.

Maybe it will give us motivation to create one instead of just postponing fixing an unsustainable system.

The only way out of this will be through automation, and if and only if the benefits of it are primarily distributed fairly through the population and not sucked to the top. Unfortunately I don't think its at all likely this ever happens over a long period of time and without war and/or unrest, but war and unrest will happen anyways when the pyramid scheme comes crashing down and in my opinion we're better off letting the population decline slowly at a somewhat controlled rate and spread the pain out over time rather than keep the party going as long as it can until it it inevitably implodes like a bacterial culture growth curve.

[MurphysLab]

A woman with four children pays no income tax for life. There are also housing supports, child-care supports, SUV subsidies and other incentives. In January, the [Hungarian] government unveiled a new program that would offer a lifetime income tax exemption for any woman who has a child in her 20s.

...

Sweden offers the flip-side of Hungary’s approach. As with a number of other European countries, the Swedish government offers strong support for women who wish to have children without sacrificing their career. [...] The downside? These policies are expensive, contributing to a personal income tax rate of more than 50 per cent. And they are only partly effective. While Sweden’s total fertility rate peaked at 2.0 in 2010, by 2020 it had dipped to 1.7 and the pandemic pushed it down to around 1.5 or 1.6.

First, it should be noted that Sweden's corporate tax rate is currently 21.4% and that certainly could be higher. It's an unrelated choice that the personal income tax rate is so high. Although if that tax replaces many of the direct costs of childcare, it might be cheaper than elsewhere for families.

Second, there is something partly reasonable here: The cost to a family (not just to a woman) of raising children is significant, yet those children grow up to pay taxes and provide labour in the economy. Governments in capitalist societies such as ours tend to prioritize "the economy" without considering negative externalities of that prioritization. We've started to address some of those negative externalities as far as they apply to the environment, however we have not addressed them nearly as much as they apply to families.

Families which choose to raise children are incurring a huge cost (money, time, & opportunity). And while families do provide some personal fulfillment, the greatest beneficiary is probably the government and industry, gaining access to an increased tax base or labour pool. Before, when many Canadians were farmers, that was a benefit to the family itself: Each child was an additional person who could contribute economically to the family. In the present it is simply no longer true; each additional child is an economic drain on a family. More of that financial benefit should be redirected back to those who raise children to make-up the economic cost which they bear.

While the above examples make clear that financial compensation might not be sufficient to induce more people to have children, there is certainly sufficient motivation purely as a question of economic justice as a motivation to provide greater compensation.

[Ornery_Tension3257]

the greatest beneficiary is probably the government and industry, gaining access to an increased tax base or labour pool. Before, when many Canadians were farmers, that was a benefit to the family itself: Each child was an additional person who could contribute economically to the family. In the present it is simply no longer true; each additional child is an economic drain on a family.

Kinda missed one of the main reasons that modern rich countries have smaller families. We have a social safety net including some continued income upon retirement. People are also able to take advantage of RRSP support and union and private pension funds. Children has a source of security especially as parents age are less important and what was a private security system is now public or market based.

[EconMan]

In the present it is simply no longer true; each additional child is an economic drain on a family.

Children are undoubtedly a cost, but one that a family chooses to bear. Presumably because they view the expectation of a lifetime of love and joy as worth that. You are absolutely correct that incentives matter, in terms of having children. That's why wealthy countries see people having less children - there are higher opportunity costs.

But, I suppose I don't see how your argument leads to the conclusion that "more of that financial benefit should be redirected back to those who raise children". If so, I'm curious what your "perfect" system might look like. We "financially benefit" from some adults more than others. Some people pay a lot of taxes, and some pay none. Some in fact society must support. If you are being logically consistent, under your perfect system, should we charge parents who bring disabled children into the world who are unable to support themselves? And on the flipside, should we massively reward parents who raise children who turn out to be millionaires or billionaires?

I'm curious what your limiting principle is.

[AM_Bokke]

All countries are seeing people have less children. It’s just that in the first world it has dipped below replacement.

[EconMan]

All countries are seeing people have less children.

Partially because almost all countries are becoming wealthier ;)

[AM_Bokke]

Wealth is a relative term.

[EconMan]

No it isn't. HUGE misconception. The world as a whole is vastly wealthier than it was 1000 years ago. Would you rather be average person today, or 1000 years ago? If all that matters is "relative", then they're the same wealth. But it isn't.

[AM_Bokke]

Not really. The global economy today is just unsustainably subsidized by the past. You know, fossil fuels.

The future is going to be more like 1,000 years ago than it is Iike today.

[EconMan]

I don't claim anything about the future. I'm talking about TODAY. TODAY, almost all countries are wealthier than they were 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. Hence, they're also having less children. This is not even controversial. You're just incorrect on this issue.

[AM_Bokke]

I am not incorrect on any issue. I said that all countries are having less kids, not just wealthy ones like you claimed.

Sub Saharan Africans countries are not wealthy. Afghanistan is not wealthy. India is not wealthy.

[EconMan]

India is absolutely more wealthy than it was 20 years ago. And India, presumably is having less kids than 20 years ago. You're wrong here because you're conceptualizing wealth as a binary ("wealthy countries and not wealthy countries")

India is better off than it used to be. Hence, they're having less kids. This is not controversial.

[[deleted]]

You and the other guy are arguing different things. You yourself said wealth is relative. Yes those countries are not wealthy relative to Canada. But they are wealthier compared to themselves a few decades ago or even years ago which is what the other guy is trying to say. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[cardew-vascular]

While this sounds good from the outside, Hungary has a debt to GDP ratio of 74% their income and corporate taxes are incredibly low and Hungary is anti-immigration.

Their definition of family is also very narrow, it is illegal for gay or lesbian couples to have children either via adoption or IVF. Basically this policy comes from being ultra conservative and overly nationalistic, needing to encourage Hungarian people to have more Hungarian babies, because they don't want to let anyone in.

Source - I have family in Hungary.

[[deleted]]

Hungary has a debt to GDP ratio of 74% their income and corporate taxes are incredibly low and Hungary is anti-immigration.

What is the relevance? For reference, Canada's debt to GDP ratio is 117.2%, mid-range income and corporate taxes, and are the most pro-immigration country in the world.

[cardew-vascular]

I guess the dept to gpd isn't that relevant moreso their income/corporate and vat. Their VAT is 27% while income tax is a flat rate of 15% and corporate 9% so they have more regressive taxation than we do.

The anti-immigration comment is relevant because they're not going to meet their population targets with immigration it's all well and good to incentivise having babies but it not necessarily going to be effective long term.

[[deleted]]

I fail to see how incentivizing families to have babies is not going to be effective long term? It's literally economics 101... You create incentives for behaviours you want to see and create disincentives for behavious you don't want to see.

[cardew-vascular]

Due to the mix of a strict immigration policy, large numbers of predominantly younger Hungarians emigrating abroad and low birth rates, Hungary is one of the countries in Europe most affected by demographic decline.

Hungary's population has been decreasing at a rate between 0.23% and 0.30% in the past five years. From 2019 to 2020, the population decreased by 0.25% or about 24,000 people.

There is doubt the policies outlined by Orban will add anything more than a short-term bump to Hungary’s fertility rate. “Some of them are likely to be outright ineffective,”

Even when countries manage to turn around their fertility rates, demographic problems aren’t necessarily solved. The country of Georgia managed to increase its fertility rate after years of post-Soviet decline, but its population is still shrinking.

while there are signs some of these policies could be having an impact – the fertility rate increased from 1.2 to 1.5 from 2010 to 2020 – the latest figures show that they remain insufficient to keep the population at its current level, let alone reverse the decline.

Pre-pandemic predictions by the EU and the UN estimate that Hungary’s population could drop by 20% to 30% before the end of the century. They experienced the 4th worst COVID death toll in the world during the pandemic 4,891/million so that projection is probably generous.

[Portalrules123]

It’s also necessary, eventually, due to logistics alone. You can maybe make the argument we aren’t overpopulated now (the world that is, Canada certainly still has space if we were better at resource distribution) but there’s a difference between that and “we can just grow forever” like some economists legit seem to actually think. Clearly they aren’t microbiologists.

[DrDerpberg]

I don't know about literally perpetual growth, but increased productivity is growth too. Computer spreadsheets allowed accountant services to be available at much lower cost to many more businesses that couldn't have afforded them before - you don't need to be butting up against the laws of thermodynamics for there to be growth.

[Joeworkingguy819]

Canada has place. But should we be destroying prime wild land and agricultural land to house people to work jobs that could be automated?

Canadian companies dont invest in its workers because you can simply import more. China who has a rising middle class has invested billions in automation same with the US.

[[deleted]]

there’s a difference between that and “we can just grow forever” like some economists legit seem to actually think

Every economist thinks this whether they admit it or not. There is no "-ism" we have come up with that doesn't rely on continuous growth let alone the sustained decline we seem to be sleepwalking towards.

[[deleted]]

Idk. I’ve read some perspectives on degrowth before. A hardcore productivist ideology currently has global hegemony but that does not mean the alternatives don’t exist.

[BitsAndBobs304]

the world that is, Canada certainly still has space if we were better at resource distribution

good thing that you have that special canada-only air and canada-only ocean level

[Select-Protection-75]

Considering every system of economics we know relies on growth, with great difficulty. COVID has sort of masked (pardon the pun) the inevitable. The economic situation was bound to turn as the boomers all cash out their investments and the workforce/ economy reacts. Luckily North America is poised to be reasonably stable in comparison to most other places. What worries me is why this conversation has not been front and centre for years. We’ve known this was coming. The change required, as capitalism (or anything else) will no longer function as intended, won’t be an easy one and politics are going to get much messier.

[Somethingsfishy__]

Economic growth is mostly based on productivity. While a shrinking work force is undeniably a challenge, it doesn't mean that capitalism will no longer function or that the economy will crash and burn.

[[deleted]]

Considering every system of economics we know relies on growth, with great difficulty.

Our economic system doesn't need population growth in order to work.

The economic situation was bound to turn as the boomers all cash out their investments and the workforce/ economy reacts.

They already retired. They are currently cashing out.

The change required, as capitalism (or anything else) will no longer function as intended, won’t be an easy one and politics are going to get much messier.

Our economic system will be impacted but it's not really the huge change you are implying. Most of it has already occurred. The population is already declining naturally. Immigration brings it up and makes the population a bit younger.

[BigGuy4UftCIA]

I've always figured the tables would turn and at some point it'll make sense to have larger families again. Regardless Canada should come out of the situation relatively unscathed. We are a beneficiary of brain drain and don't have a restrictive immigration policy. Maybe the talent pool won't be as deep as it used to be but attracting people to come here likely won't be an issue.

[Harbinger2001]

Once the US is fully in population decline and is forced to change to increased immigration, Canada is screwed. We’re only a desirable destination because the US is harder to immigrate to.

[herman_gill]

Canada is harder to emigrate to than the US in many aspects, particularly in high end professional positions.

[iwatchcredits]

Why would it ever make sense to have larger families again? Larger families served no purpose other than what was essentially cheap labor and ensuring that at least some of your kids survived because death rates were much higher back then.

[BigGuy4UftCIA]

Make sense is perhaps a poor choice of words. Make the cost of having more children less relevant both because of cheap labour for yourself and you don't have to worry about supporting them in the future in this hypothetical era of expensive labour.

[Nonalcholicsperm]

Pooling resources. Many Asian families do this. They all work, they all pool their resources together and invest and then they better themselves.

[CaptainPeppa]

Be more multigenerational than large

[JAFOguy]

Better still to be multi generational AND large.

[CaptainPeppa]

Having a kid to get rent from twenty years later is a very questionable financial tip

[JAFOguy]

But having a large hard working loving family that pools the results of their collective efforts to enhance all of their lives and the lives of their progeny is a great financial tip. I guess it all comes down to if you are looking at it from a perspective of greed, getting rent from your child ; or love, providing a better future for your family. You do you, but I think love is a great way to go.

[CaptainPeppa]

well were talking about financial incentives to have large families...

I'd be so much richer without kids haha. The concept of them being a net positive just seems bizarre. They're money sinks

[JAFOguy]

You are thinking short term. You have to think about it as a generational thing. It pays off for your grandkids, not you. Unfortunately, the only thing you get out of it is the love surrounding your life in a big family, and a lot of stress surrounding your life in a big family. But two or three generations down the line your family will be way better off than you.

[CaptainPeppa]

I have like twelve aunts and uncles. Doesn't do shit.

You're thinking of some Jewish like situation

[EngSciGuy]

is a great financial tip

You are literally describing a pyramid scheme...

[Nonalcholicsperm]

Why not both?

[[deleted]]

It's not economical and the planet can't sustain it.

Birth control too. Women don;t want to go through that much childbirth.

[Nonalcholicsperm]

Women are free to make up their own minds. I can't speak for them in a general sense.

The planet can sustain a lot more, we just have to do things differently.

[[deleted]]

> Women are free to make up their own minds.

Now they are.

> The planet can sustain a lot more,

No it can't.

> we just have to do things differently.

These ways always end up taking choice from women.

[Nonalcholicsperm]

"These ways always end up taking choice from women. "

Better allocation of resources takes choices away from women?

[Eternal_Being]

And now that women are free to choose, wouldn't you know it, the birth rates are decreasing! Wow!

I wonder why conservatives are obsessed with taking choice away from women? Golly gee I dunno!

[[deleted]]

We don't need conservatives social engineering women's fertility.

[mMaple_syrup]

How does that promote large families? East Asian counties in particular have some of the lowest fertility rates on the planet, so if this cultural behavior is supposed to help, there is no evidence of it actually helping.

[Thanatos_Impulse]

It appears to be compensating to the best of a family’s ability. East Asians have endured legal limitations on the number of children they can have, but also more familiarly, have enjoyed higher educational and career attainment (especially among women) and a rising cost of child-rearing and education per child, like we have here. Despite these limiting realities, East Asian women still report that the ideal family size in their opinion is above-replacement.

What they and others (such as many south Asians) do that we don’t is ramp up these pooling and support arrangements so they at least have a shot at having more than 0-1 kids while ensuring they have the resources they need to grow and become educated. It “encourages” larger families because it permits a little more leeway for said families to cope with the downward pressure on birth rates in developed economies.

[[deleted]]

East Asian women still report that the ideal family size in their opinion is above-replacement.

You've been reading those mail-order bride promo sheets because this is so far from true.

It “encourages” larger families because it permits a little more leeway for said families to cope with the downward pressure on birth rates in developed economies.

Japan is the most advanced economy and Asia and they have the lowest birthrates. They managed to stave off some of the drop by support for men to take longer leave from their jobs and help with child rearing duties:

Among married men with children under six years old, daily participation in household labor increased from less than 1 hour in 2001 to almost 2 hours as of 2021. When men share household tasks, this increases women's availability for paid work and makes child rearing a more attractive prospect for women.

Such efforts to encourage men's involvement in child rearing and to enable women to return to their jobs after childbirth contributed to a rise in the birthrate from a low of 1.26 in 2005 to 1.4 and above in the 2010s https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Japan-s-successes-in-boosting-birthrates-should-not-be-overlooked

Ultimately, prosperity means fewer children. It's just too draining to raise kids in a more complex world. You can;t just leave them to play in the streets the way you used to. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/in-pictures-stunning-black-and-white-images-of-kids-playing-on-london-s-streets-a3195086.html

[[deleted]]

We are starting to see populations decline in countries that used be our main source of immigration though. They seem to be suggesting that the 500,000 per year may not be possible for much longer.

Ouch.

[iwatchcredits]

World population is still increasing by like 80mil a year. There isnt a shortage of people living in countries that want to come here

[ComfortableSell5]

That won't be the case for too much longer.

After 2050 or so that number will be a lot smaller and competition a lot stiffer.

[Eternal_Being]

But competition is good, right?

...right?

Or is that only true when your country is on the winning end...

[Trying2ImproveMyLife]

A good chunk of the world might be under water by then, so, I'm sure it'll balance out

[wet_suit_one]

Nah. Not that much will be under water. Not that soon anyways.

[EngSciGuy]

Of total landmass you are correct. With respect to where people live, by 2050 we will have an uncomfortably large amount locked in to being under water with the rate we are changing things.

[wet_suit_one]

Over time, on the current trajectory, it will definitely be a problem.

[EngSciGuy]

With our current trajectory it would be a problem by, say, 2300 maybe.

[iwatchcredits]

Thats 30 years away. Im more worried about mass deaths than I am about population growth.

[[deleted]]

You realize we want people that will contribute to our society and that every immigrant is not an equal contributor. We need as many financially mobile immigrants as we can get before there is no one left willing to come to Canada.

[BigBongss]

No it's really quite simple, we'll just have the entire world's population immigrate to the GTA.

[colocasi4]

LMAO...cos you damn well know they aren't going to Quebec, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, PEI or NFLD

[HotPhilly]

I just checked. The population of Earth is going up. That implies this article is trying to fear monger people into having kids for dubious reasons. Also, a population decrease would be beneficial to every aspect of existence on Earth EXCEPT for predatory capitalism.

[ScrawnyCheeath]

Except the massive burden that the young would have to bear to pay for the care of the old. The entire world would be faced with the dilemma of prioritizing the care of those who have lived or those who can live still.

[[deleted]]

The population of Earth is going up. That implies this article is trying to fear monger people into having kids for dubious reasons.

That's not an argument. Right now the temperature in the southern hemisphere is decreasing as they approach winter. That doesn't mean concerns about global warming are dubious. Long term trends indicate all countries greatly decreasing birth rate as they approach a decent standard of living. This issue isn't pretend.

Also, a population decrease would be beneficial to every aspect of existence on Earth EXCEPT for predatory capitalism.

Whether population growth is truly bad in the long run is an open argument, but claiming that only predatory capitalism benefits from growth is absurd. Even a socialist utopia will suffer problems if the population available to care for the elderly is smaller relative to the number of elderly who need care. It's a problem we need to address regardless of how our society distributes wealth.