Population Research Presents A Sobering Prognosis

[Guest Noodle]

Yes, I agree that nation-wide, energy will be essential, a future pension-like economic resource.

But my main point was about individual future security. I am curious about that because most population-control advocates assume that they have too many children due to lack of education, or resources. And that case was very interesting, as it raised the possibility that those peasants were being rational - more children = more future security for dependent elders. That is why I asked if, over there, there has been any change in terms of state pension, for the poor there.

I fully agree with that too!

.

Whole range of factors, not least economic, that's the main one and the driver behind demographic transition.

But other factors come into play here:

Believe it or not, lot's of girls are actually into . . . girls. Yup. Many.

Fatalism is another cultural trait. 'Oh I'll be dead by then anyway', sort of thing.

HIV probably played a part in the 1990's.

Up here in the sticks, a fair proportion of the ladies end up with old foreigners that can't get it up anyway and become instantly uber rich.

It's developing here very fast now. Infrastructure makes the place feel Hampshire/Surrey wealthy.

But I seriously think thoughts of having loads of kids have given way to the rice harvester.

[Tired of Waiting]

You do, you dirty boy.

I need to be optimistic, it's no good all this gloomerization of the future . . . wrist slitting stuff especially if you have young children.

So long as it actually rains here life will always go on.

If you lot in the UK have mentally deteriorated so far that you can't see that you're still living off and taking for granted the efforts of Ismbard and that you need a new Ismbard and quick . . . well that's your f-ing problem.

Sorry to get mad, but the West needs to sort itself out sharpish. IT NEEDS DIRECTION.

Just look at all those hydropower projects these folks are building along the Mekong. With increased energy efficiency I can see a pretty good standard of living for my kids. I hope.

You are right.

But this anti-development malarkey is not "West"-wide. It is mainly British. I've lived in the USA and in 3 Continental countries and they don't have this cr@p there. Only here you "can't build your way out of" problems. "Oh you can't solve traffic congestion by widening/building more roads"... Yes, you can! "Oh you can't solve housing needs by building more houses"... Yes you can, you bleeding lunatics!

Actually it is not really a British problem, but more specifically an English problem.

Sorry, wrong gain, it is mainly a south-east of England problem, and worse amongst the middle-classes. And worse on mid-to left wing.

OK, it is mainly the fecking BBC ! :angry:

[Guest Noodle]

But it is heading due south cant you see that ?

Wot mean?

[Guest Noodle]

You are right.

But this anti-development malarkey is not "West"-wide. It is mainly British. I've lived in the USA and in 3 Continental countries and they don't have this cr@p there. Only here you "can't build your way out of" problems. "Oh you can't solve traffic congestion by widening/building more roads"... Yes, you can! "Oh you can't solve housing needs by building more houses"... Yes you can, you bleeding lunatics!

Actually it is not really a British problem, but more specifically an English problem.

Sorry, wrong gain, it is mainly a south-east of England problem, and worse amongst the middle-classes. And worse on mid-to left wing.

OK, it is mainly the fecking BBC ! :angry:

Yup. As a person that loves 'to do' and not to be told 'No!' (by some twit that makes a personal industry out of obstruction) . . . I had to pop off for a bit.

[Guest Noodle]

the direction that they are heading is downwards.

Oh yes I know it's f-ing tragic and completely unnecessary.

That said, these things often turn around on a dime or a penny or a dinar or whatever and it all comes right again. I HOPE. Confidence still not high on this one right now.

Oh, YOU! I needed you on my Severn Barrage thread in OT, probably lost in the sands of OT time now.

Build or no build, something for civils to do right now and a future national pension?

[CokeSnortingTory]

I disagree. Look at the period 1300 -1700

population decline after 1300 and did not return to levels of the 1250s for 400 years!

admittedly this period also coincided with what people call 'the little ice age', a period of declining temperatures. However it doesn't fit with your thesis that population rises during tough times.

He's talking about birth rates and not population levels.

An increase in birth rates does not necessarily mean an increase in population level.

[skomer]

Yes, I agree, natural history in general and human history in particular tells us that as times get tougher, fertility rates rise. However, infant mortality will rise faster.

Surely that was before the advent of contraception. Latest evidence from the USA since 2007 suggests the opposite (and in the 1930's i believe)

It would appear that those states where the recession has hit hardest, places like Arizona and California, have had the biggest drops in fertility rates since 2007. In the USA at least there does appears to be a link between rising and falling income and birth rates.

The UK is lagging behind the USA but i wouldn't be surprised if we follow the same trend. Biggest drops in UK birth rate in the Midlands maybe where the recession has hit hardest?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/pew-study-us-birth-rate-d_n_527435.html

[Guest Noodle]

Next time but how did you know I was a civil ?

You are aren't you?

[Guest Noodle]

anything but

Mechanical?

[scepticus]

He's talking about birth rates and not population levels.

An increase in birth rates does not necessarily mean an increase in population level.

birth rates went down from 1340.

so did population. There were many reasons, both economic and climactic and cultural - the latter having to do with ages men and women would get married at etc.

[Guest Noodle]

I am taking the fifth on that stuff

You know, when I read some of the real end of world doomster stuff on here, sometimes I have a little panic attack, start hyperventilating . . . do you get that?

I do.

Sometimes.

[scepticus]

You know, when I read some of the real end of world doomster stuff on here, sometimes I have a little panic attack, start hyperventilating . . . do you get that?

I do.

Sometimes.

best thing to do when that happens is go and read realistbears latest output. That will put the smile back on your face.

[Guest Noodle]

best thing to do when that happens is go and read realistbears latest output. That will put the smile back on your face.

We need a bit positivity about the future around here. It's no good carrying on like this, not healthy.

Schadenfreude, I don't like that either.

Makes me miserable all of it.

[Guest Noodle]

No not really I am an optimist but I use the bearish sentiment to stop me buying Mayfair on the first roll of the dice.

That's maybe fair enough. I have a passion for progress.

[scepticus]

We need a bit positivity about the future around here. It's no good carrying on like this, not healthy.

Schadenfreude, I don't like that either.

Makes me miserable all of it.

I agree. That's why I try and show why there is no inevitable need for our world to collapse and why all paths do not lead to hyper this or hyper that.

Declining population is only a problem if you continue trying to play by the rules as when it was going up.

It really is a simple as that.

[Guest Noodle]

I agree. That's why I try and show why there is no inevitable need for our world to collapse and why all paths do not lead to hyper this or hyper that.

Declining population is only a problem if you continue trying to play by the rules as when it was going up.

It really is a simple as that.

Your posts are far too intelligent for my inferior brain to comprehend, but good work and keep it up!

Yes there really is no need for Jared Diamond style collapse.

[Johnny Storm]

You know, when I read some of the real end of world doomster stuff on here, sometimes I have a little panic attack, start hyperventilating . . . do you get that?

I do.

Sometimes.

Sounds like you're getting excited to me. We all want to watch the world burn, hence why disaster movies are so popular.

[Guest Noodle]

Sounds like you're getting excited to me. We all want to watch the world burn, hence why disaster movies are so popular.

No, that's the point. No burning. No need.

Progress. Hope. Optimism.

[scepticus]

Short bums on seats ?

go short capital, long labour

[sharpe]

the yellow line is not population stability, it falls of in 2080.

this more recent projection IIRC was revised slightly upwards as a result of increasing birth rates during the period 2000 to 2007. Now I wonder what caused that?

I'll grant you that concession but here is the kicker: If you admit that falling population constrains economic growth then it punctures your ideology that economic growth always happens no matter what if government gets out of the way. It is amusing watching you scramble to preserve this silly notion, by basically saying it might not happen, therefore my ideology is sound.

to show a link between population trends and economic growth that sensible people might like to take note of when making their future investment or career plans. Sensible investors ignore ideology when making investment decisions.

Are you a sharp investor sharpe? Are you sharper than bill gross?

There is a dip after 2080, in the graph, this is small relative to the prior 70 years of growth. It is also entirely spurious. Who prior to the agricultural revolution could have predicted its impact on populations 70 years before?

Current population 6.5bn

UN projections up to 2100:

low 5.7bn

medium 9bn

high 14bn

I have no ideology, and never espoused any economic school. I have read some of them and only been impressed by how easy the theories are to pick apart.

We already agreed economic activity results in economic growth. We were unable to show any causation the other way around.

I know quite a bit about longevity - by looking at Bill Gross's latest output - he does not know much about longevity; i am less sure on what drives birth rates. Was Bill Gross saying that gilts were on a bed of nitro glycerine, shortly before the price rocketed and the pound snapped back 10% - I suspect he took different line in private.

What I found most interesting is that the population shape we expect in the future (wrongly or rightly) will be great news for the economy as there will be more people of working age relative to non working age. I see no evidence to support this population change impact on the economy for the worse

Edited July 30, 2010 by sharpe

[Tired of Waiting]

That's maybe fair enough. I have a passion for progress.

Me too. And you are right. Well, me too.

Sorry if I'll sound a bit pompous now, but it is for a good cause: there is a consensus within academia that quality of life has been improving since the renascence/enlightenment/industrial revolution. Knowledge is a good thing. Progress is a good thing. Civilisation is a good thing. The liberal democracies won it, thank god science and philosophy.

The past was brutal, dirty and nasty. The best immages for it are really from Monty Python's, and Black Adder's Baldrick, worried about not having enough turnips.

These silly counter-culture, anti-reason, anti-science, anti-west, anti-capitalists people are just sad uneducated morons.

Science and knowledge will keep improving humanity' quality of life. It's been happening for more than 3 centuries, and it will keep happening. Progress is good.

[chris25]

Science and knowledge Fossil fuels will keep improving humanity' quality of life. It's been happening for more than 3 centuries, and it will keep happening. Progress is Fossil fuels are good.

Corrected

[Guest Steve Cook]

Corrected

exactly.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Steve Cook

[porca misèria]

The projections given rest on the assumption of economic growth carrying on at the same rate as it has done for the last century or two. It won't, though, because it can't. In fact there is going to be massive economic contraction. That being the case, we are probably looking at the peak of the human population right now or there abouts. From this point in human history going forwards, the population is set to decline. Steadily if we are lucky. However, it's perfectly possible that there will be a precipitous die-off in the coming 5 decades such that by the end of them we could be looking at a population less than half what it is now.

It won't happen steadily, because there's only one major part of the world (China) that's taken any action at all in reasonable time to avert catastrophe.

Well, maybe two if you count Europe, where birthrates have fallen. But Europe's response to overpopulation-without-major-famine was emigration, and that was only available to us because we were there ahead of the rest of the world - so there were places to emigrate to without existing overpopulation problems.

Never, ever, support famine relief efforts unless they're tied to serious population control. It only makes the next famine all the worse.

(and yes, I was saying that back when Saint Geldof was sowing the seeds for more human suffering than all the 20th century's evil dictators could create).

[Tired of Waiting]

It won't happen steadily, because there's only one major part of the world (China) that's taken any action at all in reasonable time to avert catastrophe.

Well, maybe two if you count Europe, where birthrates have fallen. But Europe's response to overpopulation-without-major-famine was emigration, and that was only available to us because we were there ahead of the rest of the world - so there were places to emigrate to without existing overpopulation problems.

Never, ever, support famine relief efforts unless they're tied to serious population control. It only makes the next famine all the worse.

(and yes, I was saying that back when Saint Geldof was sowing the seeds for more human suffering than all the 20th century's evil dictators could create).

Brilliant moving chart at 6min 30sec into the video.

Most interesting data: Children per woman / per Continent / from 1960 to 2008.

(After that the author tries a (a bit forced) sales pitch for his particular charity, or research topic, by over-emphasizing just one topic: child survival, but the chart is brilliant nevertheless.)

LINK:

I'll try to embed the video here:

Edited July 31, 2010 by Tired of Waiting