The article is quite interesting, it sums up many numbers and projections I had read in several places.
But there are 2 other interesting factors to an aging society that they did not mention:
- what will the retirees (~60+ y/o) do with their time? Not a small issue, I'm not thinking about economical consequences but simply social consequences & people's well-being. For some people, their job means A LOT, and once they retire, they don't know what to do. My dad is an example: R&D engineer, worked a lot until he retired, nowadays he just roams around the house (a sad view).
- what is going to be the impact of such a huge number of older people on the moral views & technical progress? As you know, many older people grow more & more conservative ("stuck in their ways") or even reactionary as they age. This creates a serious number of potential issues with social progress and probably technological as well. Older people are often "left behind" by new technologies & social changes. This was not a major problem when they were a small minority, but once they'll become a not so small minority, their voices will be heard much more. I wonder if this could not lead to some stagnation or at least a slowdown in some areas/subjects (things like gay marriage, acceptance of alternative sexualities, etc.), or -at worst- a throw-back in some areas (look how HARD sexual freedom -in the broadest sense- has been hit those last 10 to 15 years, will you expect conservative/reactionary people to hold liberal views on that?).
>what will the retirees (~60+ y/o) do with their time?
Depends on the country. In countries that place importance on family (e.g. central/south america), I assume they will be content with helping their children raise their children (i.e. grandchildren).
In the US the decline of communal activities (including religion), culture of independence, and people associating their identity with their job seems like a recipe of disaster to me. A coexistence of entitlement and boredom creates an addictive poison. If you've ever worked in customer service before, you deal with these people every day.
I've got a dozen hobbies that I don't have enough time for now. Plenty to do, watch and read. I'd probably also have a go at building a greenhouse to grow more of my own food.
I'm right there with you. The world is so incredible!! I could work 70 hours a week on my own hobbies. I've never even though of building a green house; but I bet it would be a ton of fun. There is so much to see and do, how do people become bored and listless.
> - what will the retirees (~60+ y/o) do with their time? Not a small issue, I'm not thinking about economical consequences but simply social consequences & people's well-being. For some people, their job means A LOT, and once they retire, they don't know what to do. My dad is an example: R&D engineer, worked a lot until he retired, nowadays he just roams around the house (a sad view).
Retirement age will move up. At some point, the retirement age in Poland for man was 67 years. (recently reverted). People in retirements will gradually become more active (better health, more opportunities).
> - what is going to be the impact of such a huge number of older people on the moral views & technical progress? As you know, many older people grow more & more conservative ("stuck in their ways") or even reactionary as they age. This creates a serious number of potential issues with social progress and probably technological as well.
You have Brexit and Trump as examples where older voter population bring "interesting" results. There will be positive effects as well. People have fewer children and would focus more on upbringing and education. Less competition for jobs would also help to balance technology displacing whole sectors.
> -at worst- a throw-back in some areas (look how HARD sexual freedom -in the broadest sense- has been hit those last 10 to 15 years, will you expect conservative/reactionary people to hold liberal views on that?).
It would work another way as well. Our generation (younger) will take sexuality and democratic freedoms as granted and as we age our conservative baseline would be more liberal than our parents.
> what will the retirees (~60+ y/o) do with their time?
They'll work: "The health trend means people will live routinely to 100 in the coming decades, and as long as 150 years, scientists say. That suggests a much longer working life, possibly involving serial careers, and lasting well into our 70s, 80s, and even 100, say researchers with Pearson and Oxford University."
I'm 72. It gets harder every year to be productive, both intellectually and physically harder. We all may live longer, but that does NOT mean we will be able to work much longer.
Interesting conclusion since people aren't healthier longer, they just exist longer. People still go senile and have the same health complications they used to, we just now keep them alive through the aid of medicine. It's even a worse situation with the amount of obesity related issues the current generation is facing.
With that in mind, it seems wise to reallocate resources towards R&D towards efforts to help humans live healthy, productive lives as long as possible, versus keeping us alive in decrepit misery.
You assert medicine is keeping folks alive longer as they deteriorate at the same rate. I believe people are living longer because medicine and healthy living keep fewer people from dying at an early age while slowing the rate of deterioration. Without clearer answers about capabilities and quality of live as one ages, it's impossible to say much that is meaningful
I've sometimes thought that it might be nice in an abstract sense to have kids. I'm sure there are some nice moments. But in practice whenever I see my friends with kids, they look so beleaguered and complain about never having time. I just think: Who needs it?
I think typical people have a real blind spot to the incredible personal costs to having kids. Something about it makes them forget about or discount the bad times and keeps them from dispassionately weighing the pros and cons of having kids. Many (for whatever reason) will simply not realize there is a choice at all.
Having kids is such a hassle, that to me it's no wonder that people are opting out once effective birth control came onto the scene.
Edit: @codersbrew (to whom I can't reply because your comment is dead) I don't understand why you think my opinions are short-sighted; I actually think they're the opposite. Also, people without kids have to be able to form opinions about having kids, otherwise how could anyone make an informed choice about it? And if it's an actual, real, choice, people can make either decision. I'm not sure if my opinion is correct either, but it's all I got.
From what I can tell, people's desire to have kids is like how many react to religion: it's beaten into our brains from a very young age that it's the right thing to do, the only true path through adulthood and life, "real men" sire children and "real women" bear them. Pressure throughout adult life continues to reinforce it: parents wanting grandchildren (and using guilt in order to persuade), parent friends wanting you to "join their club", others playing the fear card and asking who will take care of you when you're old.
Until recently, it's been taboo to talk about reproductive desires (or the lack thereof), the very real (often permanent) toll pregnancy takes on women, and the personal, career, and financial sacrifices parents must make to raise children responsibly. (And there's still a persistent stigma around discussing the negatives of child-rearing.) Many parents will even get aggressively defensive if you express a desire not to have your own kids, as if your decision has some negative effect on them.
That kind of conditioning is hard to shake off, and many people don't even seriously realize (outside of the abstract) that not having a kid is even an option.
"it's beaten into our brains from a very young age "
I think it's instinctive in a far far deeper sense than just human social conditioning.
Having 2.2 surviving children is basically an absolute minimum for survival of the species, ergo, there are very, very deep evolutionary aspects at play here.
If humans didn't have these normative instincts, maybe you and I would probably never have come to fruition.
One could easily argue that 'having children' is essentially normative - as normal as being born and dying. And that 'not having children' is 'a choice that is made' type thing.
people's desire to have kids is like how many react to religion: it's beaten into our brains from a very young age that it's the right thing to do
Wow, your first world privilege is showing, and not in a good way. You have to really believe deeply in the idea that everyone has access all the time to reliable birth control in order to think that. Historically, babies happened because sex felt good and birth control was unreliable or unavailable. In large parts of the world, this is still true.
For most of human history, having children or not having children wasn't really a choice. It more or less happened if you were fertile and sexually active, like it or not. We had cultural traditions like shot gun weddings to accommodate that fact.
It's only very recently that any significant part of the world had any real choice. To this day, in many places, having children is something you do so someone will take care of you in old age because there is no retirement system.
There are so many confounding factors here that I don't know how anyone can imagine we have a good handle on the role of individual psychology here at all.
> Many parents will even get aggressively defensive ...
Good lord, yes they will. The ego defense mechanisms are so strong. It's right up there with religion and politics in the "things not to discuss" category. I wouldn't even be brave enough to post this tied to my real name.
Having kids is THE prime biological directive, not just for humans but for every form of life on earth. You would need to have potent cultural pressures to interfere with that process. Without culture, it happens almost automatically.
You do realize having kids is a biological necessity to continue life, yes?
There would be no careers and financials to worry about if people didn’t exist. And there’s no reason to put those things on a pedestal, because they won’t matter once you’re dead.
Choosing not to have kids is effectively genetic suicide. Your DNA will be a dead end on the evolutionary scale.
For someone like me who enjoys life, seems odd that you wouldn’t want to create new life to pass down the experience to your children. That’s why it seems selfish and short sighted to me.
I think we are all slaves to DNA to the extent it determines our genetic makeup. In terms of having kids, like I said, I enjoy life and so I naturally want to pass down the experience of life to my children.
There is a biological “want” built-in of course (oxytocin, etc.) but it’s something I consciously want, too. So, no I’m not completely enslaved by my DNA.
I see myself in the context of my past and future, and I want to actively continue my chain of existence through my children. In comparison to that, extra free time and money seem trivial to me.
> I've sometimes thought that it might be nice in an abstract sense to have kids. I'm sure there are some nice moments. But in practice whenever I see my friends with kids, they look so beleaguered and complain about never having time. I just think: Who needs it?
Well, not everyone necessarily needs or enjoys having kids. Then again, if you catch many startup founders while they're building a company, they'll similarly complain about never having free time and will look similarly beleaguered. That doesn't mean it's not worth starting a startup - just that there are downsides as well as upsides. And obviously it's not for everyone.
You might only be seeing the downsides of people with kids, and missing the upsides; Partially because the upsides come at a later age (just from my read on things, not personal experience yet); Partially because a lot of the upsides are less visible in public (tender moments with loved ones tend to be in private).
Yea, thanks for asking. It's a serious topic, and I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about it.
I honestly think that for me it'll be about the same, except I'll have more money and free time. But then again, I'm a person who does not really enjoy the company of children. Obviously other people feel differently and can make other choices for their own life, but I think this is the right choice for my life. I also think it's at least slightly unethical to bring a child into the world when there aren't two parents who are 100% on board with it. I definitely don't qualify.
Yeah, that makes sense. I’d agree it’s unethical to have kids if you didn’t want them. You have an obligation to provide for them once they’re born and it’s a lot of work. Neglecting that duty can cause lots of damage. It’s not for everyone, I suppose.
I want to have kids, but human females are so unreliable and dangerous that using them for procreation is a borderline suicide. I will wait untill synthetic womb or widespread surrogacy would be a thing.
In Asia, population growth is a problem. Canada can benefit from more people. Vast tracts of empty land; vast, still-untapped natural resources; 37 million people in 9 million square km.; sound infrastructure; educated, productive populace.
India has about 1.3 billion people in under 3.3 million square km. with 1/6 Canada's per capita GDP. Population is a huge problem for them.
If Canada were to double its population in this century, they'd probably be better off. If the World does, we'll be screwed.
Uncontrolled population growth is bad (Africa) - infrastructure, ecology, political stability. Lack of skilled workers is bad (technology) - innovation, productivity, economy. It is not one of another. It depends.
Let me give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he's not talking about direct population control. I think this is reasonable because, well, nobody suggests this.
By giving food and economic aid to African countries (the small portion that actually goes to the people after the dictator filter) we subsidize their birth rate in an unsustainable way. Specifically, if the Western counties that support them have an economic crash, for example, and become no longer able to support them, they'll be left with mouths they can't feed. Mouths they never could feed on their own. It will be a tragic loss of life.
The thing is population growth is sensitive to needs - people reproduce more for their needs whether more farm labor or "social security". Giving people security paradoxically causes people to reproduce less if they can be sure that three survive to adulthood no need to go with eight children unless they have a farm.
Essentially humans are K/r adaptive - if they are risky they go r (quantity). If they are safer they tend to go K quality.
I agree that the dependence on outside help is dangerous, but I don't see why they could never feed themselves. Africa is still a fertile continent, and it has a much lower population density than Europe or Asia.
If you want to understand it, read Diet for a small planet. It is famous for being a vegetarian cookbook, but that's only the last half of it. The first half is a political piece about how no country at that time was incapable of feeding its own people -- assuming they stuck to traditional local diets, had peace, etc.
Starvation is often caused by war. It is often essentially a means to beat one side without going to battle.
When aid is sent, it may rot on the docks or be resold to fatten the pockets of local corrupt politicians.
When it gets distributed at all, it is typically Western fare. You now have locals who could afford the traditional local vegetarian diet craving hamburgers and French fries that they can't afford.
When loans are given to developing countries, the need for hard currency to pay it back means locals raise beef to sell to other countries to pay the loans while people go hungry at home.
Etc
And I have just realised this book is part of why I didn't really want a handout while homeless. This book is why I understood I needed earned income of my own, not charity, and how insidious charity can be in destroying your ability to make your own life work.
Giving aid to counties essentially guts the local economy. Local businesses cannot compete and therefore the local economy never develops. The people become entirely dependent on outside help even when otherwise they would develop their own economy and self-sustaining systems. When you take that aid away, there is famine and death. Foreign aid is one of the biggest causes of poverty currently but slowly people are starting to realize that giving aid and gutting local economies is much worse than not giving at all. There is an excellent documentary on this on Netflix I think but the name escapes me right now. I think they even convince Bono that what he is doing is causing more harm than good (giving fish rather than teaching how to fish). It definitely is.
There are issues with both things. Population growth is bad for ecological reasons, and there have been fears of simply not being able to provide food and clean water for the earth's population. Family sizes didn't really go down immediately once we figured out modern hygiene and medicine practices (many children died before modern times).
We have a better handle on much of this, in part due better ways of turning ocean water into fresh drinking water. Of course, we are still suffering from pollution and waste issues that theoretically would go down as the population drops.
On the other hand, we have uneven population growth, so some places are still exploding (Africa and some asian countries, for example). Birth control isn't readily available to all, neither is some modern hygiene and medicine. Population growth is still a problem for parts of the world.
On the other hand, other populations are shrinking and people aren't having enough children to simply replace their parents. This creates all sorts of issues in itself. Partly because of manpower issues: Who is going to take care of the elderly? Will we have enough doctors, nurses, and farmers in these areas? And things of that nature.
Some countries have addressed this through sex education, teaching both how to avoid pregnancy and how to get pregnant (and things that go along with that). Others have not. The best-bet solutions would be things like more service jobs and more automation where humans don't need to physically work, robots for care, and more open immigration policies so countries that are having overpopulation issues can freely relocate to countries with shrinking populations.
IT wasn't that you were lied to, it is just a complicated situation that has changed over time.
That doesn't match either my experience living in Canada for thirty years, nor does it match the history I have read.
Canada has had an the immigration rate of ~0.7% of the population since at least the 1960s. It's long been among the highest in per capita immigration rates among countries of its size, and it is one of the few western nations in which public support for immigration has remained consistently strong.
Calamity prediction may be right in estimating odds, despite being wrong in outcome. Wearing a seatbelt is still wise, despite never having crashed a car.
I think saying "for economic reasons" doesn't really paint the whole picture.
It's not just about "growing the economy", it's about ensuring that the economy is strong enough to support the population as it ages people out of the workforce.
Objectively, I think Canada does need more population growth, be it either immigration or more children from Canadians.
I think people under-estimated the impact of working educated women and modern financial constraints on having more children and thus projected Canadian growth more aggressively than it is so not a deliberate lie.
Immigration in Canada is definitely needed as we've been under the replacement rate for 40 yrs and it will be very hard with such a small population albeit declining and maintain the country in terms of taxes, pensions etc.
"Immigration in Canada is definitely needed as we've been under the replacement rate for 40 yrs "
I find this bizarre.
If people are not having enough kids than the 1st-order solution is to 'have more kids'. Not 'bring in others' - that would somewhere down the list of solutions.
There are plenty of things that can be done to encourage this, but they're not even trying. It's not even a policy. In Quebec, they have socialized early stage childcare and that seems to have actually made some of a difference.
"Objectively, I think Canada does need more population growth,"
As a Canadian, I don't see for a moment why this is true.
Most newcomers go to Toronto, Van or Montreal - Toronto has doubled in size since I was a kid and it can take 4 hours to drive from end to end: a sea of identical looking homes, malls and Starbuckses. Vancouver has become one of the most unaffordable places in the world to live. It's like SF but with much lower wages.
Contrary to reasonable intuition - in the last 30 years, as we have increased 'diversity' in our population, paradoxically our industrial base has become less diverse. We are no more than ever dependent on basic things like banking, making cars, exporting natural resources and construction. In addition, our ability to make sophisticated products has gone down. Switzerland and the US lead the pack with creating high-end exports like software, financial services, drugs, machinery. UK, Germany, France, Japan do well there. But Canada has gone down on the value chain. This is illustrated by the weird trade paradox Canada has with China: China buys raw materials from Canada and sells finished goods back to Canada, but usually the mapping is the other way around for 'rich/poor' countries, i.e. US buys raw materials from 'some poor place' and that 'poor place' buys iPhones, software and machinery from the US.
I think we really need to think about sustainability in population and it starts first with families, and then includes migration as a secondary but important factor.
You can't possibly expect to compete with Switzerland and the US on technology when salaries are two to three times lower in Canada and housing costs like Vancouver and Toronto exist. Immigrants might be willing to work for less but I doubt Canadians will especially when they can drive a few hours south and make two, there, or more times the salary.
"You can't possibly expect to compete with Switzerland and the US on technology when salaries are two to three times lower in Canada"
Maybe if Canadian companies paid competitively the talent would stay.
Point being, that's an issue of equilibrium.
The problem in my mind is product leadership. Canada has ample technical talent, but few are thinking in brand, product marketing terms etc., also, there's a weird open relationship with the US. The US provides stability, and opportunity for people to develop, but they have to leave so. So the US-CAN symbiosis basically turns Canada into a 'nice suburb' where things are generally very good, but there's nothing very important happening. The talent/exceptional things happen south of the border.
But in the context of migration, it's definitely an odd paradox that as 'cultural diversity' increases, that 'industrial diversity and sophistication' decreases. They may not be drivers of each other though ... the later may be a function of globalization, NAFTA etc..
I was talking about how elderly people would get increasingly less of their pensions or benefits if there are less young people to pay govt. taxes in the future because of a declining population below the replacement rate as you can see in Japan. I think you're a bit politically charged in thinking that I was talking about cultural diversity or industrial base, it could be just encouraging more White European immigrants if thats what you want, note that I even said increase more kids from Canadians in my first comment, doesn't have to specify the immigrant population but rather needs to resolve the number of workers per elderly person as I was trying to look at an objective economical data perspective and to increase labour supply via economics.
Moreover, continuing on my argument, Canada has an aging population and more seniors than children (https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-the-census-tells-us...) and it will be hard to maintain productivity with an growing aging population especially if estimates put one in four canadians will be above 65 by 2031 although it can be a flawed projection.
Moreover, most Canadian immigrants have to meet quotas as either having some kind of skill or some kind of degree before being able to immigrate, refugees is still a small number so if not economically productive, its not because of lack of skills (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/were-missing-the...)
Neither the US nor Switzerland have a higher immigrant population in the sense that Canada does.
The US has many more migrants but they make up a little less of the population.
Switzerland has an altogether view on migrants - they have a high rate of 'foreigners' but they are ultimately ex-pats. Canada brings in people to settle, Switzerland brings in people for labour.
I have no idea what you are on about regarding 'charged politics' or 'white immigrants'.
As someone who actively hires immigrants in Canada from all over the world, I'm aware of the system, their level of education etc.
The solution to Canada's aging population is mostly to accept that we are now living a very long time, and most of that time is not productive, which means slightly lower standard of living. Second - more babies and the policies that ensue.
Immigration is a helper to the above, not a primary solution.
The reason why I emphasize immigration is because it is much harder and more expensive to increase the supply of babies via policy as the current trend we've seen is of less babies as people become more educated and it takes a much longer time to raise kids until they become productive and their lives may go in the wrong direction in the growing-up process. Its much more easily just to bring in skilled immigrants or immigrants with money and to settle them in Canada and then either get rid or integrate them dependant on their actions.
Interested to see that the top ten shrinking countries on Earth are all in East Europe. Any Eastern Europeans here that can attest to the impact of this?
I'm from Belarus. There's lots of propaganda around having more children. Our president regularly says that women should stop having careers and start making more children.
Lots of people are leaving Belarus, but since we're not in EU and it's not as easy to leave, I don't think it's the main factor.
Belarus has a very poor economy and low salaries (families can't afford to have more than 1 child).
And finally, a lot of people are dying. Alcoholism issues are pretty big, a lot of men die young for example. Women would have to have looots of babies to offset the mortality rate.
It's probably a combination of all of these factors and more.
Open borders to Western Europe. Mass migration for the better wage. Basically selling our productive (both in term of jobs and kids) people for euromoneys.
Impact is our older generation is fucked because they won't get reasonable pensions. Businesses are having hard time to find people for local wages. Hard to compete on price to western europe when it's right next door. Inflation is crazy to catch up with Western salaries and pricing. Yet we don't have manufacturing and R&D base to compete on all but price. It's slowly coming up (e.g. software is doing great), but prices/wages are raising quicker than that. Hopefully we'll squeeze through to have enough to compete on by the time we're no longer price competitive.
Haha, downvoted because no one in the West gives a flying fuck about people leaving developing countries and the impact on those economies. They do care about dem too many immigrants though. It's puzzling.
West cares about individuals, not about communities or nations or states. You see crying baby - you help. You see someone hardly making a living - you invite them and pay more. Who gives a fuck about how it affects the whole society.
It's probably for the best, for now at least. At these very gradual population decline rates we don't have to worry about humans going extinct for a long time, and in the meantime we'll take pressure off a lot of critically overexploited resources.
this topic always reminds me of David Benatar's "Better Never To Have Been," wherein he lays out a moral and practical case for general cessation of human reproduction. [Famously condensed by Matthew McConaughey in a 'True Detective' monologue.]
I breezed over the article but I did see longevity mentioned.
My parents are in their mid 70s and they are more active and independent than their parents were. Even my Dad sick with COPD is quite active.
My Dad's father died at 52 his mother at 64, both were smokers. My mother's parents lived to age 96 for her dad and late 80s for her mother. Neither smoked both ate mainly vegetables, small portions, but were not vegetarian.
I can recall my mother's parents being in a retirement home in their early 70s. But contrast that with my own parents the difference is quite dramatic.
I can see it with my own generation (Gen X) many do not have kids, neither do I. And it seems Millenials the "childfree trend is a thing.
The only reason this is an issue is because of how governments setup the social security system. Each generation should have to pay for their own retirement not the next. Manufactured issue imo.
I agree with the manufactured bit, but given that generations are fluid, and alternative policies exist for realigning bad tax policy (inheritance tax), i fail to see any kind of grand problem. SS in the US will run up to a 10 trillion dollar deficit in a country with, currently, 240 trillion in assets? And a military that spends half a trillion a year without that total being a problem? Yeah, I call BS.
I also have an issue with our military spending but this post is in the context of SS so that is what I was discussing. Unreasonable expectation to have to list all the different issues with the govs spending. At some point the gov needs to get its spending together because it will just lead to massive austerity on its citizens.
Society made incredibly risky to have kids, or even marry. You are culprit of an infinite number of crimes unless you prove yourself innocent all the time. What could go wrong?
Domestic abuse, misogyny, intellectual abandonment (in case you don't spend your last penny giving your kids the absolute best trips and toys), there is a whole industry dedicated to make you feel belittled and a failure, especially if you are a man (but there is a lot in this store for women, too). The pressure comes from the least expected places - your own parents, for example.
The article is quite interesting, it sums up many numbers and projections I had read in several places.
But there are 2 other interesting factors to an aging society that they did not mention:
- what will the retirees (~60+ y/o) do with their time? Not a small issue, I'm not thinking about economical consequences but simply social consequences & people's well-being. For some people, their job means A LOT, and once they retire, they don't know what to do. My dad is an example: R&D engineer, worked a lot until he retired, nowadays he just roams around the house (a sad view).
- what is going to be the impact of such a huge number of older people on the moral views & technical progress? As you know, many older people grow more & more conservative ("stuck in their ways") or even reactionary as they age. This creates a serious number of potential issues with social progress and probably technological as well. Older people are often "left behind" by new technologies & social changes. This was not a major problem when they were a small minority, but once they'll become a not so small minority, their voices will be heard much more. I wonder if this could not lead to some stagnation or at least a slowdown in some areas/subjects (things like gay marriage, acceptance of alternative sexualities, etc.), or -at worst- a throw-back in some areas (look how HARD sexual freedom -in the broadest sense- has been hit those last 10 to 15 years, will you expect conservative/reactionary people to hold liberal views on that?).
>what will the retirees (~60+ y/o) do with their time?
Depends on the country. In countries that place importance on family (e.g. central/south america), I assume they will be content with helping their children raise their children (i.e. grandchildren).
In the US the decline of communal activities (including religion), culture of independence, and people associating their identity with their job seems like a recipe of disaster to me. A coexistence of entitlement and boredom creates an addictive poison. If you've ever worked in customer service before, you deal with these people every day.
I've got a dozen hobbies that I don't have enough time for now. Plenty to do, watch and read. I'd probably also have a go at building a greenhouse to grow more of my own food.
I'm right there with you. The world is so incredible!! I could work 70 hours a week on my own hobbies. I've never even though of building a green house; but I bet it would be a ton of fun. There is so much to see and do, how do people become bored and listless.
Energy and motivation declines with age though.
You need to get people to stop working so much and have other interests in hobbies, community, family etc.
But the modern corporate environment probably favours people who put in double digit work days.
> - what will the retirees (~60+ y/o) do with their time? Not a small issue, I'm not thinking about economical consequences but simply social consequences & people's well-being. For some people, their job means A LOT, and once they retire, they don't know what to do. My dad is an example: R&D engineer, worked a lot until he retired, nowadays he just roams around the house (a sad view).
Retirement age will move up. At some point, the retirement age in Poland for man was 67 years. (recently reverted). People in retirements will gradually become more active (better health, more opportunities).
> - what is going to be the impact of such a huge number of older people on the moral views & technical progress? As you know, many older people grow more & more conservative ("stuck in their ways") or even reactionary as they age. This creates a serious number of potential issues with social progress and probably technological as well.
You have Brexit and Trump as examples where older voter population bring "interesting" results. There will be positive effects as well. People have fewer children and would focus more on upbringing and education. Less competition for jobs would also help to balance technology displacing whole sectors.
> -at worst- a throw-back in some areas (look how HARD sexual freedom -in the broadest sense- has been hit those last 10 to 15 years, will you expect conservative/reactionary people to hold liberal views on that?).
It would work another way as well. Our generation (younger) will take sexuality and democratic freedoms as granted and as we age our conservative baseline would be more liberal than our parents.
> what will the retirees (~60+ y/o) do with their time?
They'll work: "The health trend means people will live routinely to 100 in the coming decades, and as long as 150 years, scientists say. That suggests a much longer working life, possibly involving serial careers, and lasting well into our 70s, 80s, and even 100, say researchers with Pearson and Oxford University."
I'm 72. It gets harder every year to be productive, both intellectually and physically harder. We all may live longer, but that does NOT mean we will be able to work much longer.
Yes it does. This isn't the stopgap healthcare you are accustomed to. We won't live longer if we aren't healthy.
Interesting conclusion since people aren't healthier longer, they just exist longer. People still go senile and have the same health complications they used to, we just now keep them alive through the aid of medicine. It's even a worse situation with the amount of obesity related issues the current generation is facing.
With that in mind, it seems wise to reallocate resources towards R&D towards efforts to help humans live healthy, productive lives as long as possible, versus keeping us alive in decrepit misery.
http://www.sens.org/
You assert medicine is keeping folks alive longer as they deteriorate at the same rate. I believe people are living longer because medicine and healthy living keep fewer people from dying at an early age while slowing the rate of deterioration. Without clearer answers about capabilities and quality of live as one ages, it's impossible to say much that is meaningful
I've sometimes thought that it might be nice in an abstract sense to have kids. I'm sure there are some nice moments. But in practice whenever I see my friends with kids, they look so beleaguered and complain about never having time. I just think: Who needs it?
I think typical people have a real blind spot to the incredible personal costs to having kids. Something about it makes them forget about or discount the bad times and keeps them from dispassionately weighing the pros and cons of having kids. Many (for whatever reason) will simply not realize there is a choice at all.
Having kids is such a hassle, that to me it's no wonder that people are opting out once effective birth control came onto the scene.
Edit: @codersbrew (to whom I can't reply because your comment is dead) I don't understand why you think my opinions are short-sighted; I actually think they're the opposite. Also, people without kids have to be able to form opinions about having kids, otherwise how could anyone make an informed choice about it? And if it's an actual, real, choice, people can make either decision. I'm not sure if my opinion is correct either, but it's all I got.
From what I can tell, people's desire to have kids is like how many react to religion: it's beaten into our brains from a very young age that it's the right thing to do, the only true path through adulthood and life, "real men" sire children and "real women" bear them. Pressure throughout adult life continues to reinforce it: parents wanting grandchildren (and using guilt in order to persuade), parent friends wanting you to "join their club", others playing the fear card and asking who will take care of you when you're old.
Until recently, it's been taboo to talk about reproductive desires (or the lack thereof), the very real (often permanent) toll pregnancy takes on women, and the personal, career, and financial sacrifices parents must make to raise children responsibly. (And there's still a persistent stigma around discussing the negatives of child-rearing.) Many parents will even get aggressively defensive if you express a desire not to have your own kids, as if your decision has some negative effect on them.
That kind of conditioning is hard to shake off, and many people don't even seriously realize (outside of the abstract) that not having a kid is even an option.
"it's beaten into our brains from a very young age "
I think it's instinctive in a far far deeper sense than just human social conditioning.
Having 2.2 surviving children is basically an absolute minimum for survival of the species, ergo, there are very, very deep evolutionary aspects at play here.
If humans didn't have these normative instincts, maybe you and I would probably never have come to fruition.
One could easily argue that 'having children' is essentially normative - as normal as being born and dying. And that 'not having children' is 'a choice that is made' type thing.
people's desire to have kids is like how many react to religion: it's beaten into our brains from a very young age that it's the right thing to do
Wow, your first world privilege is showing, and not in a good way. You have to really believe deeply in the idea that everyone has access all the time to reliable birth control in order to think that. Historically, babies happened because sex felt good and birth control was unreliable or unavailable. In large parts of the world, this is still true.
For most of human history, having children or not having children wasn't really a choice. It more or less happened if you were fertile and sexually active, like it or not. We had cultural traditions like shot gun weddings to accommodate that fact.
It's only very recently that any significant part of the world had any real choice. To this day, in many places, having children is something you do so someone will take care of you in old age because there is no retirement system.
There are so many confounding factors here that I don't know how anyone can imagine we have a good handle on the role of individual psychology here at all.
> Many parents will even get aggressively defensive ...
Good lord, yes they will. The ego defense mechanisms are so strong. It's right up there with religion and politics in the "things not to discuss" category. I wouldn't even be brave enough to post this tied to my real name.
Having kids is THE prime biological directive, not just for humans but for every form of life on earth. You would need to have potent cultural pressures to interfere with that process. Without culture, it happens almost automatically.
You do realize having kids is a biological necessity to continue life, yes?
There would be no careers and financials to worry about if people didn’t exist. And there’s no reason to put those things on a pedestal, because they won’t matter once you’re dead.
Choosing not to have kids is effectively genetic suicide. Your DNA will be a dead end on the evolutionary scale.
For someone like me who enjoys life, seems odd that you wouldn’t want to create new life to pass down the experience to your children. That’s why it seems selfish and short sighted to me.
That's what you DNA "wants". Are you a slave to your DNA?
I think we are all slaves to DNA to the extent it determines our genetic makeup. In terms of having kids, like I said, I enjoy life and so I naturally want to pass down the experience of life to my children.
There is a biological “want” built-in of course (oxytocin, etc.) but it’s something I consciously want, too. So, no I’m not completely enslaved by my DNA.
I see myself in the context of my past and future, and I want to actively continue my chain of existence through my children. In comparison to that, extra free time and money seem trivial to me.
Sentient life is overrated.
> I've sometimes thought that it might be nice in an abstract sense to have kids. I'm sure there are some nice moments. But in practice whenever I see my friends with kids, they look so beleaguered and complain about never having time. I just think: Who needs it?
Well, not everyone necessarily needs or enjoys having kids. Then again, if you catch many startup founders while they're building a company, they'll similarly complain about never having free time and will look similarly beleaguered. That doesn't mean it's not worth starting a startup - just that there are downsides as well as upsides. And obviously it's not for everyone.
You might only be seeing the downsides of people with kids, and missing the upsides; Partially because the upsides come at a later age (just from my read on things, not personal experience yet); Partially because a lot of the upsides are less visible in public (tender moments with loved ones tend to be in private).
Re: short sighted
Have you contemplated what your life will be like when you’re fifty, sixty or seventy years old?
I’m curious what you imagine it will be like without having children or grandchildren in your old age.
Yea, thanks for asking. It's a serious topic, and I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about it.
I honestly think that for me it'll be about the same, except I'll have more money and free time. But then again, I'm a person who does not really enjoy the company of children. Obviously other people feel differently and can make other choices for their own life, but I think this is the right choice for my life. I also think it's at least slightly unethical to bring a child into the world when there aren't two parents who are 100% on board with it. I definitely don't qualify.
Yeah, that makes sense. I’d agree it’s unethical to have kids if you didn’t want them. You have an obligation to provide for them once they’re born and it’s a lot of work. Neglecting that duty can cause lots of damage. It’s not for everyone, I suppose.
" I just think: Who needs it?"
Well, the human race? Or life as we know it? At least in some way :)
... Or depending on how you look at it!
Ha! Yea! Humanity will do just fine without my kids, though.
This seems short sighted, and without you having a kid not sure your opinion is correct.
I want to have kids, but human females are so unreliable and dangerous that using them for procreation is a borderline suicide. I will wait untill synthetic womb or widespread surrogacy would be a thing.
Growing up in Canada (now living in usa) every student was propagandized about how population growth was bad, etc.
Now we are told how much immigration is indispensable i.e. more people are needed.
Were we lied to?
In Asia, population growth is a problem. Canada can benefit from more people. Vast tracts of empty land; vast, still-untapped natural resources; 37 million people in 9 million square km.; sound infrastructure; educated, productive populace.
India has about 1.3 billion people in under 3.3 million square km. with 1/6 Canada's per capita GDP. Population is a huge problem for them.
If Canada were to double its population in this century, they'd probably be better off. If the World does, we'll be screwed.
The actual arable land is much less, however. As well as habitable land, that is, places most people would feel comfortable living in year-round.
Agricultural yields per acre or hectare are often less than in the USA, as well.
> Vast tracts of empty land; vast, still-untapped natural resources
You say it like it's a bad thing :)
Uncontrolled population growth is bad (Africa) - infrastructure, ecology, political stability. Lack of skilled workers is bad (technology) - innovation, productivity, economy. It is not one of another. It depends.
"Uncontrolled population growth is bad (Africa)"
What do you even mean by this statement?
Let me give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he's not talking about direct population control. I think this is reasonable because, well, nobody suggests this.
By giving food and economic aid to African countries (the small portion that actually goes to the people after the dictator filter) we subsidize their birth rate in an unsustainable way. Specifically, if the Western counties that support them have an economic crash, for example, and become no longer able to support them, they'll be left with mouths they can't feed. Mouths they never could feed on their own. It will be a tragic loss of life.
The thing is population growth is sensitive to needs - people reproduce more for their needs whether more farm labor or "social security". Giving people security paradoxically causes people to reproduce less if they can be sure that three survive to adulthood no need to go with eight children unless they have a farm.
Essentially humans are K/r adaptive - if they are risky they go r (quantity). If they are safer they tend to go K quality.
I agree that the dependence on outside help is dangerous, but I don't see why they could never feed themselves. Africa is still a fertile continent, and it has a much lower population density than Europe or Asia.
If you want to understand it, read Diet for a small planet. It is famous for being a vegetarian cookbook, but that's only the last half of it. The first half is a political piece about how no country at that time was incapable of feeding its own people -- assuming they stuck to traditional local diets, had peace, etc.
Starvation is often caused by war. It is often essentially a means to beat one side without going to battle.
When aid is sent, it may rot on the docks or be resold to fatten the pockets of local corrupt politicians.
When it gets distributed at all, it is typically Western fare. You now have locals who could afford the traditional local vegetarian diet craving hamburgers and French fries that they can't afford.
When loans are given to developing countries, the need for hard currency to pay it back means locals raise beef to sell to other countries to pay the loans while people go hungry at home.
Etc
And I have just realised this book is part of why I didn't really want a handout while homeless. This book is why I understood I needed earned income of my own, not charity, and how insidious charity can be in destroying your ability to make your own life work.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Giving aid to counties essentially guts the local economy. Local businesses cannot compete and therefore the local economy never develops. The people become entirely dependent on outside help even when otherwise they would develop their own economy and self-sustaining systems. When you take that aid away, there is famine and death. Foreign aid is one of the biggest causes of poverty currently but slowly people are starting to realize that giving aid and gutting local economies is much worse than not giving at all. There is an excellent documentary on this on Netflix I think but the name escapes me right now. I think they even convince Bono that what he is doing is causing more harm than good (giving fish rather than teaching how to fish). It definitely is.
There are issues with both things. Population growth is bad for ecological reasons, and there have been fears of simply not being able to provide food and clean water for the earth's population. Family sizes didn't really go down immediately once we figured out modern hygiene and medicine practices (many children died before modern times).
We have a better handle on much of this, in part due better ways of turning ocean water into fresh drinking water. Of course, we are still suffering from pollution and waste issues that theoretically would go down as the population drops.
On the other hand, we have uneven population growth, so some places are still exploding (Africa and some asian countries, for example). Birth control isn't readily available to all, neither is some modern hygiene and medicine. Population growth is still a problem for parts of the world.
On the other hand, other populations are shrinking and people aren't having enough children to simply replace their parents. This creates all sorts of issues in itself. Partly because of manpower issues: Who is going to take care of the elderly? Will we have enough doctors, nurses, and farmers in these areas? And things of that nature.
Some countries have addressed this through sex education, teaching both how to avoid pregnancy and how to get pregnant (and things that go along with that). Others have not. The best-bet solutions would be things like more service jobs and more automation where humans don't need to physically work, robots for care, and more open immigration policies so countries that are having overpopulation issues can freely relocate to countries with shrinking populations.
IT wasn't that you were lied to, it is just a complicated situation that has changed over time.
That doesn't match either my experience living in Canada for thirty years, nor does it match the history I have read.
Canada has had an the immigration rate of ~0.7% of the population since at least the 1960s. It's long been among the highest in per capita immigration rates among countries of its size, and it is one of the few western nations in which public support for immigration has remained consistently strong.
A lot of people go around predicting calamity... They’re usually wrong. Generally not liars, just evolved monkeys who are trying to avoid problems.
Calamity prediction may be right in estimating odds, despite being wrong in outcome. Wearing a seatbelt is still wise, despite never having crashed a car.
Do you buy insurance?
More population is bad for ecological reasons.
More population is vital for economic reasons.
Its two competing philosophies. (i.e. Do the financially practical things for an individual/country vs. the wisest thing for the collective species)
I think saying "for economic reasons" doesn't really paint the whole picture.
It's not just about "growing the economy", it's about ensuring that the economy is strong enough to support the population as it ages people out of the workforce.
True, it is that too.
Objectively, I think Canada does need more population growth, be it either immigration or more children from Canadians.
I think people under-estimated the impact of working educated women and modern financial constraints on having more children and thus projected Canadian growth more aggressively than it is so not a deliberate lie.
Immigration in Canada is definitely needed as we've been under the replacement rate for 40 yrs and it will be very hard with such a small population albeit declining and maintain the country in terms of taxes, pensions etc.
"Immigration in Canada is definitely needed as we've been under the replacement rate for 40 yrs "
I find this bizarre.
If people are not having enough kids than the 1st-order solution is to 'have more kids'. Not 'bring in others' - that would somewhere down the list of solutions.
There are plenty of things that can be done to encourage this, but they're not even trying. It's not even a policy. In Quebec, they have socialized early stage childcare and that seems to have actually made some of a difference.
"Objectively, I think Canada does need more population growth,"
As a Canadian, I don't see for a moment why this is true.
Most newcomers go to Toronto, Van or Montreal - Toronto has doubled in size since I was a kid and it can take 4 hours to drive from end to end: a sea of identical looking homes, malls and Starbuckses. Vancouver has become one of the most unaffordable places in the world to live. It's like SF but with much lower wages.
Contrary to reasonable intuition - in the last 30 years, as we have increased 'diversity' in our population, paradoxically our industrial base has become less diverse. We are no more than ever dependent on basic things like banking, making cars, exporting natural resources and construction. In addition, our ability to make sophisticated products has gone down. Switzerland and the US lead the pack with creating high-end exports like software, financial services, drugs, machinery. UK, Germany, France, Japan do well there. But Canada has gone down on the value chain. This is illustrated by the weird trade paradox Canada has with China: China buys raw materials from Canada and sells finished goods back to Canada, but usually the mapping is the other way around for 'rich/poor' countries, i.e. US buys raw materials from 'some poor place' and that 'poor place' buys iPhones, software and machinery from the US.
I think we really need to think about sustainability in population and it starts first with families, and then includes migration as a secondary but important factor.
You can't possibly expect to compete with Switzerland and the US on technology when salaries are two to three times lower in Canada and housing costs like Vancouver and Toronto exist. Immigrants might be willing to work for less but I doubt Canadians will especially when they can drive a few hours south and make two, there, or more times the salary.
"You can't possibly expect to compete with Switzerland and the US on technology when salaries are two to three times lower in Canada"
Maybe if Canadian companies paid competitively the talent would stay.
Point being, that's an issue of equilibrium.
The problem in my mind is product leadership. Canada has ample technical talent, but few are thinking in brand, product marketing terms etc., also, there's a weird open relationship with the US. The US provides stability, and opportunity for people to develop, but they have to leave so. So the US-CAN symbiosis basically turns Canada into a 'nice suburb' where things are generally very good, but there's nothing very important happening. The talent/exceptional things happen south of the border.
But in the context of migration, it's definitely an odd paradox that as 'cultural diversity' increases, that 'industrial diversity and sophistication' decreases. They may not be drivers of each other though ... the later may be a function of globalization, NAFTA etc..
I wasn't talking about technological change etc, moreover the USA and Switzerland has a higher immigration rate than us and a bigger immigrant population either by number or proportion (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/were-missing-the...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_St...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland).
I was talking about how elderly people would get increasingly less of their pensions or benefits if there are less young people to pay govt. taxes in the future because of a declining population below the replacement rate as you can see in Japan. I think you're a bit politically charged in thinking that I was talking about cultural diversity or industrial base, it could be just encouraging more White European immigrants if thats what you want, note that I even said increase more kids from Canadians in my first comment, doesn't have to specify the immigrant population but rather needs to resolve the number of workers per elderly person as I was trying to look at an objective economical data perspective and to increase labour supply via economics.
Moreover, continuing on my argument, Canada has an aging population and more seniors than children (https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-the-census-tells-us...) and it will be hard to maintain productivity with an growing aging population especially if estimates put one in four canadians will be above 65 by 2031 although it can be a flawed projection.
Moreover, most Canadian immigrants have to meet quotas as either having some kind of skill or some kind of degree before being able to immigrate, refugees is still a small number so if not economically productive, its not because of lack of skills (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/were-missing-the...)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/were-missing-the...
Neither the US nor Switzerland have a higher immigrant population in the sense that Canada does.
The US has many more migrants but they make up a little less of the population.
Switzerland has an altogether view on migrants - they have a high rate of 'foreigners' but they are ultimately ex-pats. Canada brings in people to settle, Switzerland brings in people for labour.
I have no idea what you are on about regarding 'charged politics' or 'white immigrants'.
As someone who actively hires immigrants in Canada from all over the world, I'm aware of the system, their level of education etc.
The solution to Canada's aging population is mostly to accept that we are now living a very long time, and most of that time is not productive, which means slightly lower standard of living. Second - more babies and the policies that ensue.
Immigration is a helper to the above, not a primary solution.
The reason why I emphasize immigration is because it is much harder and more expensive to increase the supply of babies via policy as the current trend we've seen is of less babies as people become more educated and it takes a much longer time to raise kids until they become productive and their lives may go in the wrong direction in the growing-up process. Its much more easily just to bring in skilled immigrants or immigrants with money and to settle them in Canada and then either get rid or integrate them dependant on their actions.
Don’t rock the boat!
Interested to see that the top ten shrinking countries on Earth are all in East Europe. Any Eastern Europeans here that can attest to the impact of this?
I'm from Belarus. There's lots of propaganda around having more children. Our president regularly says that women should stop having careers and start making more children.
Lots of people are leaving Belarus, but since we're not in EU and it's not as easy to leave, I don't think it's the main factor.
Education levels are very high in Belarus. Check out these stats. https://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/belarus_statistics.html Literacy rates are close to 100% and majority of women get higher education.
Belarus has a very poor economy and low salaries (families can't afford to have more than 1 child).
And finally, a lot of people are dying. Alcoholism issues are pretty big, a lot of men die young for example. Women would have to have looots of babies to offset the mortality rate.
It's probably a combination of all of these factors and more.
> Alcoholism issues are pretty big, a lot of men die young for example.
Not surprising given this is happening also in the states in non college educated males.
Impact Bad:
- More conservative/populist governments - Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Russia. These governments usually increase spending to buy voters.
- The retirement systems is a massive ticking bomb. Next economic crisis will bring some Greek moments again but in central Europe.
- Less competitive, smaller cities have a hard time to retain young people. Cities with less than 100k people are slowly collapsing.
Open borders to Western Europe. Mass migration for the better wage. Basically selling our productive (both in term of jobs and kids) people for euromoneys.
Impact is our older generation is fucked because they won't get reasonable pensions. Businesses are having hard time to find people for local wages. Hard to compete on price to western europe when it's right next door. Inflation is crazy to catch up with Western salaries and pricing. Yet we don't have manufacturing and R&D base to compete on all but price. It's slowly coming up (e.g. software is doing great), but prices/wages are raising quicker than that. Hopefully we'll squeeze through to have enough to compete on by the time we're no longer price competitive.
TL;DR: fun times
Haha, downvoted because no one in the West gives a flying fuck about people leaving developing countries and the impact on those economies. They do care about dem too many immigrants though. It's puzzling.
West cares about individuals, not about communities or nations or states. You see crying baby - you help. You see someone hardly making a living - you invite them and pay more. Who gives a fuck about how it affects the whole society.
Honestly I don't even know why you're downvoted. It's not me, so...
On the other hand, I haven't been banned yet, hmm...
Please stop and post civilly and substantively instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Perhaps of interest, an assessment of Hungary's attempts to reverse this:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-hungary-experiencing-a-policy-...
The gist of this seemed to be that we need to either allow unrestricted immigration, mainly from Africa, or up our robot game.
So really, if the "robots are going to take all our jobs" people are correct, we should just stay the course? Since we'll need those robots soon?
Or promote having kids. Just think if all of those money and propaganda for migrants was used for families with kids.
I don't know if you've read the news, but a lot of those migrants being made into ``propaganda" are families with kids.
I was talking about promoting locals to have kids to fix their own societies. Instead of leeching off other countries.
It's probably for the best, for now at least. At these very gradual population decline rates we don't have to worry about humans going extinct for a long time, and in the meantime we'll take pressure off a lot of critically overexploited resources.
this topic always reminds me of David Benatar's "Better Never To Have Been," wherein he lays out a moral and practical case for general cessation of human reproduction. [Famously condensed by Matthew McConaughey in a 'True Detective' monologue.]
I breezed over the article but I did see longevity mentioned.
My parents are in their mid 70s and they are more active and independent than their parents were. Even my Dad sick with COPD is quite active.
My Dad's father died at 52 his mother at 64, both were smokers. My mother's parents lived to age 96 for her dad and late 80s for her mother. Neither smoked both ate mainly vegetables, small portions, but were not vegetarian.
I can recall my mother's parents being in a retirement home in their early 70s. But contrast that with my own parents the difference is quite dramatic.
I can see it with my own generation (Gen X) many do not have kids, neither do I. And it seems Millenials the "childfree trend is a thing.
The only reason this is an issue is because of how governments setup the social security system. Each generation should have to pay for their own retirement not the next. Manufactured issue imo.
I agree with the manufactured bit, but given that generations are fluid, and alternative policies exist for realigning bad tax policy (inheritance tax), i fail to see any kind of grand problem. SS in the US will run up to a 10 trillion dollar deficit in a country with, currently, 240 trillion in assets? And a military that spends half a trillion a year without that total being a problem? Yeah, I call BS.
I also have an issue with our military spending but this post is in the context of SS so that is what I was discussing. Unreasonable expectation to have to list all the different issues with the govs spending. At some point the gov needs to get its spending together because it will just lead to massive austerity on its citizens.
Society made incredibly risky to have kids, or even marry. You are culprit of an infinite number of crimes unless you prove yourself innocent all the time. What could go wrong?
> You are culprit of an infinite number of crimes unless you prove yourself innocent all the time.
I don't understand. What crimes are these？
Domestic abuse, misogyny, intellectual abandonment (in case you don't spend your last penny giving your kids the absolute best trips and toys), there is a whole industry dedicated to make you feel belittled and a failure, especially if you are a man (but there is a lot in this store for women, too). The pressure comes from the least expected places - your own parents, for example.
Something something robots
Yada yada artificial organs