If the robots don't get us then nobody will

[Inkubus]

Population Collapse:



All the way from pre-industrial, to post-industrial collapse in 45 years.

The worst is China, they overcounted by 100 million people. All of those people would have been born since one child so age 40 and under. The young worker demographic, the child bearing demographic and two-thirds of them are probably women so the best guess is that China only has 1.3 billion people now. The population probably peaked more than 10 years ago and by 2030 there will be more retirees than workers and by 2050 the entire population of China will have dropped below 650 million. It's beyond terminal, the Chinese system collapses this decade.

China in the best of times is on a Razor's Edge in terms of food sustainability and they use about three to six times as much fertilizer as is used in the global average just because their land is so poor. luckily phosphate they've got covered, they produce that themselves but the nitrogen is all made with imported Natural Gas and the potash, half of that comes from a different continent. So yeah China demographic collapse is unavoidable. Food collapse, highly likely and that's before you start talking about things like energy manufacturing and trade. Does this not make China unbelievably dangerous? The question is what would you do if you're China where would you go to get what you want?

[brewerb]

Note to self, start learning Mandarin , make sure black pill ingredients haven't expired.

[Minimalist]

So yeah China demographic collapse is unavoidable.

If the West isn't careful they wil face the similar problems.

[Rhythmcs]

Country-by-country. Demographically speaking, the us is solid. We have a growing working age pop, a diverse pop, and a well educated pop. Our land is also the most productive in the world.

[Inkubus]

So yeah China demographic collapse is unavoidable.

If the West isn't careful they wil face the similar problems.

Oh absolutely. Drop 'demographic collapses' into a search box and yes, it's a global thing.

[Minimalist]

The US population is aging.....as PEW reports:

Today, there are more than 46 million older adults age 65 and older living in the U.S.; by 2050, that number is expected to grow to almost 90 million

and then there is the immigration question.....which the Know-Nothings are trying to end.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re...mmigration.

• In each of the projection scenarios except for the zero-immigration scenario, immigration is projected to become the largest contributor to population growth.
  
• In the middle series and the high-immigration scenario, net international migration is higher than natural increase (the difference between births and deaths) in all years of the time series. For the low-immigration scenario, this crossover happens in 2029.
  
• Reduced fertility and an aging population result in natural decrease — an excess of deaths relative to births — in all projection scenarios. This happens in 2038 in the main series, 2033 in the zero-immigration scenario, 2036 in the low-immigration scenario, and in 2042 in the high-immigration scenario.
  

Age and Sex

• Continued declines in fertility are projected to shift the age structure of the population so that there will be more adults age 65 or older compared to children under age 18.
  

I don't know how old you are but I won't be around to worry about it.

[Inkubus]

Country-by-country.  Demographically speaking, the us is solid.  We have a growing working age pop, a diverse pop, and a well educated pop.  Our land is also the most productive in the world.

The US is far from solid, it's heading in the same direction:

We've gotten used to this idea that things generally get better but all of that relies on certain things being in place. It's not like the population's going to glide down to some wonderful lower number. No it's ugly because there's no known solution. No society has ever come out of this.

[pattylt]

I won’t be around either but, I’ve got kids and grandkids that will.

What I wonder about is will future generations start having large families again if (big if) the US and Europe suddenly realize the stakes and actually fix the reasons families don’t have more children. I’m talking housing, medical, child care and other subsidies that make large families attractive. And a really big one, enough income from one parent to raise these kids. Women aren’t going to agree to large families if they have to raise kids and work…husbands as well.

While we can’t expect families to suddenly shift their feelings on the economics alone, include an actual appreciation of how fucking hard the job is and quit demeaning single mothers and multiple births about as honorable as cattle like it is now. It won’t look like 1950’s families either so forget that type of incentive and embrace all the various forms that families currently look like. Adoption and surrogate among the LGBTQ needs recognition for providing loving stable homes as much (more) than religious white male female families do. Society needs to make it desirable and easy to have kids. We no longer need them to work the farm but we do need them to replace and grow our economy. I’d love to see a quiverfull movement of atheists but, it has to be organically grown.

[Inkubus]

A deeper analysis and answers to your questions here:



His first words... The reason I class this as the most concerning, the most serious, is there's no known solution.

[Rhythmcs]

Country-by-country.  Demographically speaking, the us is solid.  We have a growing working age pop, a diverse pop, and a well educated pop.  Our land is also the most productive in the world.

The US is far from solid, it's heading in the same direction:

We've gotten used to this idea that things generally get better but all of that relies on certain things being in place. It's not like the population's going to glide down to some wonderful lower number. No it's ugly because there's no known solution. No society has ever come out of this.

No, we're not.  We may be heading for all sorts of calamities - but we're not running out of working age people, nor are we stuck with a unitary identity bloc, as dumb as we seem we're still better educated than most, and our soil has the benefit of not having been farmed by the plow for 10k years prior to living history. The issues that china faces that were being discussed are biological and inevitable. The issues that we face are..largely, ones of choice.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure we'll choose poorly. I'm pointing out that from a pop demo perspective we're a lesson in how to do right. That we could still fuck it all up in spite of such advantages is a given.

[brewerb]

Oh no, if this is correct and gets to the fundies I predict another wave of 'end of the world' nuts coming.

Maybe our two trolls can drop in and give us a date.

[Inkubus]

The US is far from solid, it's heading in the same direction:

No, we're not.  We may be heading for all sorts of calamities - but we're not running out of working age people, nor are we stuck with a unitary identity bloc, as dumb as we seem we're still better educated than most, and our soil has the benefit of not having been farmed by the plow for 10k years prior to living history.  The issues that china faces that were being discussed are biological and inevitable.  The issues that we face are..largely, ones of choice.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure we'll choose poorly.  I'm pointing out that from a pop demo perspective we're a lesson in how to do right.  That we could still fuck it all up in spite of such advantages is a given.

Working age people are rapidly being outnumbered by old people. I don't think you understand the severity of this problem, why not try a quick search. It will bring up something like this:

US demographic problem

Or this:

America can't handle a falling population

Or this:

America does not have a demographic problem

[SYZ]

I certainly won't be around when the global
society collapses into anarchy and murder
and mayhem.  I don't have any kids to worry
about either.

  I'm cool thanks.    

[Rhythmcs]

Working age people are rapidly being outnumbered by old people. I don't think you understand the severity of this problem, why not try a quick search. It will bring up something like this:

Yes, try a quick search, and then read the things you link.....

We shouldn't be surprised that maga drank the koolaid when it seems that people have been mainlining it regardless of their political affiliation.  The us is doing well demographically.  As zaihan has it there are just three western countries that don't have these issues.  France, New Zealand, and the US.   Not that this will matter, in his view, as the global demographic cliff will impact the us, france, and new zealand all the same.

[Rhythmcs]

What I wonder about is will future generations start having large families again if (big if) the US and Europe suddenly realize the stakes and actually fix the reasons families don’t have more children.  

I think so.  Or, I think people would if the us could.   Of those usians who say they would have or would liked to have had more kids, economic reasons are overwhelmingly cited as the reason they didn't/don't.  One happy accident away from penury.  OTOH..people in the us may start having big families again even and especially if we don't.  Poorer families tend to have more children, and poorer countries higher fertility rates.  That's one of the things that's been fucking doom demographics since malthus.  People don't act like set numbers in an equation.  We're not mindless operants.  We respond to our environment and often enough in counterintuitive and difficult to predict ways.  Every now and again we flip the whole table over.

The devil will be in the details.  If the goal is resolving the economic objection to children we could build out a bunch of windowless boxes to house employees during their unproductive hours.  The us has an option that most developed countries don't, too.  We could, using a fraction of state and federal land, a fraction of state and federal budgets, build out housing on acreage for every man woman and child in the us.

(i'm a cynic on this - I think the reason that we won't do the latter is because we need it as a carrot to dangle in front of people trapped in the former - if any Joe or Jolene could get the postcard american home on an acre of land as a fundamental right to fill full of kids why the fuck would they be wasting their time at jobs they hate "growing the economy" for bosses who never seem to trickle any of that down? )

[Inkubus]

Working age people are rapidly being outnumbered by old people. I don't think you understand the severity of this problem, why not try a quick search. It will bring up something like this:

Yes, try a quick search, and then read the things you link.....

We shouldn't be surprised that maga drank the koolaid when it seems that people have been mainlining it regardless of their political affiliation.  The us is doing well demographically.  As zaihan has it there are just three western countries that don't have these issues.  France, New Zealand, and the US.   Not that this will matter, in his view, as the global demographic cliff will impact the us, france, and new zealand all the same.

Take another look at the third link.

America does not have a demographic problem

That's what Google searched for and found This.
Now highlight it so as to show that term only and not Google's (cough) helpful suggestions.

"America does not have a demographic problem" And it found This

Yes, try a quick search, and then read the things you link.....

Doesn't The fact that I took the trouble to transcribe some of the text sort of suggests I did read it?  As to your rather oblique reference to Zaihan saying  US didn't have a problem I distinctly don't remember him saying that.

Which link was that and I'll go over it yet again.

[Fireball]

I have three sons, none of whom have seen fit to spawn. Find me a willing partner and I'll gladly do my part to keep the US' population up. 

[Inkubus]

I think so.  Or, I think people would if the us could.   Of those usians who say they would have or would liked to have had more kids, economic reasons are overwhelmingly cited as the reason they didn't/don't.  One happy accident away from penury.  OTOH..people in the us may start having big families again even and especially if we don't.  Poorer families tend to have more children, and poorer countries higher fertility rates.  That's one of the things that's been fucking doom demographics since malthus.  People don't act like set numbers in an equation.  We're not mindless operants.  We respond to our environment and often enough in counterintuitive and difficult to predict ways.  Every now and again we flip the whole table over.

The devil will be in the details.  If the goal is resolving the economic objection to children we could build out a bunch of windowless boxes to house employees during their unproductive hours.  The us has an option that most developed countries don't, too.  We could, using a fraction of state and federal land, a fraction of state and federal budgets, build out housing on acreage for every man woman and child in the us.

(i'm a cynic on this - I think the reason that we won't do the latter is because we need it as a carrot to dangle in front of people trapped in the former - if any Joe or Jolene could get the postcard american home on an acre of land as a fundamental right to fill full of kids why the fuck would they be wasting their time at jobs they hate "growing the economy" for bosses who never seem to trickle any of that down?  )

I have no idea what to make of this incoherent rambling sermon.

I've been reluctant to suggest this till now but your reaction sounds very much like American Exceptionalism.

[Rhythmcs]

I don't think there's anything exceptional in how we have a housing problem, or that we'll likely try to solve it by shelving people in windowless boxes next to the amazon fulfilment center that probably collects the damned rent. That's the centralized model, though. That's urbanization. Gather everyone up into a dense spot and leverage the scale. It's how we've been growing our economy. That has had the effect of lowering fertility rates, though. Not just in a positivist construction, where urban people realize/believe that their best economic bet is to focus their attention on a single child. Urbanization also sets the conditions that end up being the most common practical objections to having more (or any) children. Not enough space or money.

Same reason for a housing crisis...usually...and it's why other developed nations don't have this option..lacking one or the other - but in the us we have plenty of space and all kinds of money and..still.....not enough houses, and, by some peoples lights, not enough kids. So, here again...not exactly exceptional.

[Rhythmcs]

As to your rather oblique reference to Zaihan saying  US didn't have a problem I distinctly don't remember him saying that.

It's a main part of his gig as a pop demo alarmist.  The us, as he sees it, is at a sweet spot where we can maintain modest growth and continued urbanization.  Places like china are lessons in what not to do.  

So, for example, while our population rose by 7% from 2010-2020, according to the link you wanted me to focus on, theirs has declined for two years in a row. It's the one child policy - he considers it national suicide over a long timespan, more or less, lol.

[pattylt]

I realize that the US will have a painful period with our aging population but won’t that self correct after the older boomers have all died off and we’re just left with a smaller population overall? Won’t we at least reach some parity in births vs. deaths at some point? It’s not like there’s going to be no children born and many families still have 2-3 children and a lot have at least 1.

I do agree that all this is going to cause some economic turmoil but won’t it likely settle with some new model? Must it turn into serfdom? Please explain all this gloom and doom to me!

[Rhythmcs]

We aren't going to be left with a smaller pop overall when all the boomers die off. The next inflection point in all of the scenarios discussed is 2080ish, when population is expected to decline until 2100...and end up at 420 million or so, from 345 today.

[mordant]

We aren't going to be left with a smaller pop overall when all the boomers die off.  The next inflection point in all of the scenarios discussed is 2080ish, when population is expected to decline until 2100...and end up at 420 million or so, from 345 today.

2080 is the maximum population, yes, but it is expected to decline not just until 20 years later, but for the following 10 generations or so, about 250 years. And the peak population around 2080 will be 10.3 billion (vs 8.2 billion now) and IIRC, at after those 10 generations or so, we would be at around 3.5 billion.

But these projections are mostly related to the dynamics around the greying of the population and don't really contemplate climate change and other factor as far as I know. Some more pessimistic projections expect the population to fall as far as 0.5 billion, and sooner than that.

In reality it is hard to properly account for all the variables here, lacking as we do a crystal ball, but it seems clear that on some sort of uncertain timeline that a lot of really big change is coming and they probably involve more constrained circumstances than we are accustomed to, let us just say.

[Rhythmcs]

Like I said in the beginning, country by country basis. 10.3 billion is a global number, not a us number. No one expects the us population to shed half a billion, there aren't a half a billion of us here...yet. It would take us about another century (after 2100) to get there if things keep going as they have been - including the low and late parenting numbers of gen z at present driving that blip in 2080. We have no idea how the kids gen z'rs aren't having yet are going to feel about having kids. China, otoh, is experiencing actual population loss in real terms today and peaked (in zeihans view) years ago, not proportional rearrangement during population growth as we are.

I agree, ofc, that it's hard to put too much into the whole demography is destiny thing. I'm a fan of his - but not because I agree with him about the coming collapse of civilization because there aren't enough chinese people in china to make cheap goods for the us market.

[SYZ]

...Working age people are rapidly being outnumbered by old people.

Not so in Australia.  In 2021, the largest age group in Australia was
30 to 34 year olds. The group that changed the most since 2016 was
35 to 39 year olds, increasing by 277,133 people.

Also, working age people (15-74 years) in Australia massively outnumber
people aged 75+ years.