A new WSJ report alleges Musk is attempting to quietly build a “legion” of offspring, using his platform on X to approach influencers to have his children.
Decline population is an actual thing…? Not defending this asshole or anything but your statement is seemingly based off of a lack of information.
Birth rates in many developed countries are incredibly low well below maintenance levels. Meaning that aside from immigration the population in most developed countries is actually going down quite rapidly.
Which given the way our societies and financial systems are structured generally means some form of disaster for those countries if such decline occurs.
There’s even a pretty good recent video talking about what this looks like in South Korea
Well, we’re going to have to figure out how to level off or shrink our population eventually. Might as well do it now while there are still some wild animal species that haven’t gone extinct.
Basically, without high birth rates, countries are totally screwed. Immigration (which skews young, from high birth rate countries), has softened that issue for the US, hence you don’t hear about it as much here. One can wave their hands and say “elder care and the economy will be automated in the future,” but that’s wishful thinking if you ask me.
Figuring out how to more efficiently house/care for a glut of humans farther in the future is way more practical. Honestly we’re ridiculously inefficient now; there’s a lot of low hanging fruit to pick. And we can use much higher technology to address that.
Figuring out how to more efficiently house/care for a glut of humans farther in the future is way more practical.
Our government’s started means testing care services due to the projected costs and loss of tax income as the population ages and costs increase.
It doesn’t help that the only form of economic management they do is offer tax cuts, they’re getting less and less tax out of an already declining share of the population.
Still
one billion in 1804
two billion in 1927
three billion in 1960
four billion in 1974
five billion in 1987
six billion in 1999
seven billion in 2011
eight billion in 2022
Already too many for my taste.
And no to all, don’t react with irrelevant “there’s enough food for…” or Malthusian bla bla
And no to all, don’t react with irrelevant “there’s enough food for…” or Malthusian bla bla
So, don’t bother you with the downside of what’s actually going to happen? What’s in the middle of happening? You’re just going to do a little cherry-picking, then tell us don’t bother you with facts?
You can already see it in real time by looking at the demographics in South Korea and Japan. The only reason the numbers are offset is that a few countries are still net positive enough to offset them.
Our great-grandkids are in for one hell of a ride. If we let it drop enough, they’ll be in forced breeding situations.
If you can get even low quality robots that can provide some amount of elder care, even if it’s just reminding them to take prescriptions and helping them walk, then you can drastically reduce the economic problems. there will be massive shortages of basic CNA and nursing home care workers.
Caring for the elderly is unfortunately a very small piece of the pie. A small number of CNA can handle a pretty decent number of elderly, in a facility.
Of course, we (corporate) stretch those CNA as thin as possible.
Automation in every industry that we’re so worried about being our undoing will soften the blow.
It’s possible that nanny bots could eventually help ease daycare costs.
Problematically anytime somebody creates something that reduces financial cost for someone else, They usually end up charging them significant amounts for it. Those inexpensive elderly care robots will end up being subscriptions and have planned obsolescence. Everybody’s got to get a piece of that pie.
Studies have been wrong before.
Some things are foreseable, “the future” is a combination of plenty variables and impossible to predict.
The single subject of population isn’t even simple.
Little anecdote: I found an old school book, you know based on studies, and it had predictions for 15 years.
They were off by a billion.
Whatever it is, I’m not going to be a nihilist or fatalist for reasons and issues I have zero control over.
I am living now and do the best with what I got.
And people who just don’t like what most studies say and try to use that as an argument are overwhelmingly in the wrong. Perhaps you’re not, but I don’t like your chances.
I found an old school book, you know based on studies, and it had predictions for 15 years.
They were off by a billion.
source please, sounds like good reading.
Whatever it is, I’m not going to be a nihilist or fatalist for reasons and issues I have zero control over.
I am living now and do the best with what I got.
Settling for what you have because what’s coming is inconvenient is likely a core mechanism of the Fermi Paradox.
Cities aren’t generally overcrowded because they have no other choice, they’re overcrowded because cities typically offer the best opportunities. If the population were to drop three quarters overnight, people would flock to cities.
Land use is also about want, not need. We don’t have to do it to sustain our population and its growth, it’s just the cheapest (re: most profitable) option.
Decline population is an actual thing…? Not defending this asshole or anything but your statement is seemingly based off of a lack of information.
Birth rates in many developed countries are incredibly low well below maintenance levels. Meaning that aside from immigration the population in most developed countries is actually going down quite rapidly.
Which given the way our societies and financial systems are structured generally means some form of disaster for those countries if such decline occurs.
There’s even a pretty good recent video talking about what this looks like in South Korea
Blue indicates below replacement levels:
Well, we’re going to have to figure out how to level off or shrink our population eventually. Might as well do it now while there are still some wild animal species that haven’t gone extinct.
A lower population isn’t that bad. It’s just that the transition when you have a very large old population and a small young one is very difficult.
Watch this video, ignore the clickbait sounding title:
https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk
It completely changed my view on that.
Basically, without high birth rates, countries are totally screwed. Immigration (which skews young, from high birth rate countries), has softened that issue for the US, hence you don’t hear about it as much here. One can wave their hands and say “elder care and the economy will be automated in the future,” but that’s wishful thinking if you ask me.
Figuring out how to more efficiently house/care for a glut of humans farther in the future is way more practical. Honestly we’re ridiculously inefficient now; there’s a lot of low hanging fruit to pick. And we can use much higher technology to address that.
Our government’s started means testing care services due to the projected costs and loss of tax income as the population ages and costs increase.
It doesn’t help that the only form of economic management they do is offer tax cuts, they’re getting less and less tax out of an already declining share of the population.
Damn, Africa FUCKS.
Decades of the Catholic church demonizing birth control methods and claiming condoms cause AIDS will do that do a continent.
No… Not really. This happens to literally every country as it develops.
Africa is experiencing Stage 2 of the Demographic Transition Model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
For those that haven’t seen it, this is a great digestible video of the problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ
Still one billion in 1804
two billion in 1927
three billion in 1960
four billion in 1974
five billion in 1987
six billion in 1999
seven billion in 2011
eight billion in 2022
Already too many for my taste.
And no to all, don’t react with irrelevant “there’s enough food for…” or Malthusian bla bla
So, don’t bother you with the downside of what’s actually going to happen? What’s in the middle of happening? You’re just going to do a little cherry-picking, then tell us don’t bother you with facts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ
You can already see it in real time by looking at the demographics in South Korea and Japan. The only reason the numbers are offset is that a few countries are still net positive enough to offset them.
Our great-grandkids are in for one hell of a ride. If we let it drop enough, they’ll be in forced breeding situations.
A world with a lot less people sounds like a dream TBH.
No overcrowded cities, no chasing animals of their land or destroying it for resources, etc…
Are you dense?
Removed by mod
You just said you would murder me…so, yes?
Removed by mod
your great grandkids living in total economic collapse. peachy
Infinite growth was never gonna last forever.
Carefully planned level sustainability wasn’t off the table. No one even tried.
Applying pressure to the middle class just topples the cards
That’s a capitalism problem, not a demographic one.
Then why are communist countries also seeing the same problem?
Because they’re not communist. At best they’re state capitalism, at worst they’re dictatorships, which is just capitalism with less steps.
If you can get even low quality robots that can provide some amount of elder care, even if it’s just reminding them to take prescriptions and helping them walk, then you can drastically reduce the economic problems. there will be massive shortages of basic CNA and nursing home care workers.
Caring for the elderly is unfortunately a very small piece of the pie. A small number of CNA can handle a pretty decent number of elderly, in a facility.
Of course, we (corporate) stretch those CNA as thin as possible.
Automation in every industry that we’re so worried about being our undoing will soften the blow.
It’s possible that nanny bots could eventually help ease daycare costs.
Problematically anytime somebody creates something that reduces financial cost for someone else, They usually end up charging them significant amounts for it. Those inexpensive elderly care robots will end up being subscriptions and have planned obsolescence. Everybody’s got to get a piece of that pie.
You sure have a sunny outlook.
And it’s really going great now with all those people and their economies
My outlook is based on studies, and this crap is studied a lot. and also on readily observable evidence.
It’s dire, and it’s not based on my opinion.
Studies have been wrong before.
Some things are foreseable, “the future” is a combination of plenty variables and impossible to predict.
The single subject of population isn’t even simple.
Little anecdote: I found an old school book, you know based on studies, and it had predictions for 15 years.
They were off by a billion.
Whatever it is, I’m not going to be a nihilist or fatalist for reasons and issues I have zero control over.
I am living now and do the best with what I got.
And people who just don’t like what most studies say and try to use that as an argument are overwhelmingly in the wrong. Perhaps you’re not, but I don’t like your chances.
source please, sounds like good reading.
Settling for what you have because what’s coming is inconvenient is likely a core mechanism of the Fermi Paradox.
The only reason to believe it would be better with less people is delusional fantasy.
The problem isn’t population, it’s policy.
that’s just your oopinion
Cities aren’t generally overcrowded because they have no other choice, they’re overcrowded because cities typically offer the best opportunities. If the population were to drop three quarters overnight, people would flock to cities.
Land use is also about want, not need. We don’t have to do it to sustain our population and its growth, it’s just the cheapest (re: most profitable) option.