I don’t understand why we are acting as if this is a huge problem.
The traditional argument for increasing population is that if your population drops you end up with a much larger older population that needs to be supported by fewer working/productive younger people.
But AI and robotics are real. We already have self driving cars. Even the argument that leads to people not losing jobs requires some new, as yet not known, jobs to be found.
What’s extremely likely, however, is that, for the kind of work we do today, and the kinds of services and products we expect today, the need for humans to achieve them will reduce drastically.
So a smaller population is not likely to lead to worse outcomes. At worst it will lead to new services/products not being delivered.
And that’s all assuming new jobs materializing. If new jobs don’t materialize, what seems likely is a lot of turmoil and suffering as the world tries to figure out what to do with billions of unproductive young men and women, which have consistently been a source of terrible outcomes.
If you see constant economic growth as a requirement of a functioning society (also a bit silly), a shrinking population is concerning because it suggests that demand will shrink with the size of the population.
Shrinking demand can lead to deflation, and deflation is bad.
I'm not saying all of this is well-reasoned, but I do think it is the level of thinking involved.
There are also the practical realities (e.g. health care) that could become unbalanced if age profiles look like an inverted pyramid (https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2026/), but I doubt that most people are thinking that deeply about it.
On the flip side, if you redistribute effectively, going from N people on the brink of survival to N/2 people living a moderately comfortable lifestyle is unlikely to decrease overall demand much. Its only if you’re keeping those N/2 people each at the same level of household income as the N people that demand halves.
It’s my understanding that a huge percentage of “needed” jobs are healthcare-related, specifically nursing and care for older people. Especially relevant as the baby boomer generation moves into that stage of life.
It really doesn’t seem to me like LLMs and robotics are going to be universally cheap enough to solve these kinds of problems, at least within the next 10-20 years.
growth, very specifaly multiplication, is strictly biological.
the "negative growth" through un-aliveing finnishes off the last tenious connection between reality and money, and all that will be left is hydraulic despotism/denial of service, will? be left, or IS left?
I don’t understand why we are acting as if this is a huge problem.
The traditional argument for increasing population is that if your population drops you end up with a much larger older population that needs to be supported by fewer working/productive younger people.
But AI and robotics are real. We already have self driving cars. Even the argument that leads to people not losing jobs requires some new, as yet not known, jobs to be found.
What’s extremely likely, however, is that, for the kind of work we do today, and the kinds of services and products we expect today, the need for humans to achieve them will reduce drastically.
So a smaller population is not likely to lead to worse outcomes. At worst it will lead to new services/products not being delivered.
And that’s all assuming new jobs materializing. If new jobs don’t materialize, what seems likely is a lot of turmoil and suffering as the world tries to figure out what to do with billions of unproductive young men and women, which have consistently been a source of terrible outcomes.
If you see constant economic growth as a requirement of a functioning society (also a bit silly), a shrinking population is concerning because it suggests that demand will shrink with the size of the population.
Shrinking demand can lead to deflation, and deflation is bad.
I'm not saying all of this is well-reasoned, but I do think it is the level of thinking involved.
There are also the practical realities (e.g. health care) that could become unbalanced if age profiles look like an inverted pyramid (https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2026/), but I doubt that most people are thinking that deeply about it.
On the flip side, if you redistribute effectively, going from N people on the brink of survival to N/2 people living a moderately comfortable lifestyle is unlikely to decrease overall demand much. Its only if you’re keeping those N/2 people each at the same level of household income as the N people that demand halves.
Who or what is going to fund your retirement pension? Who or what is going to look after you when your health deteriorates?
It’s my understanding that a huge percentage of “needed” jobs are healthcare-related, specifically nursing and care for older people. Especially relevant as the baby boomer generation moves into that stage of life.
It really doesn’t seem to me like LLMs and robotics are going to be universally cheap enough to solve these kinds of problems, at least within the next 10-20 years.
couldn't AI ofset falling birthrates effect on the economy?
https://archive.is/6VpWy TLDR - mainly smartphones and social media, also some due to housing
Surprising that the article doesn't mention the kardashev scale, which I learned about in high school human geography.
growth, very specifaly multiplication, is strictly biological.
the "negative growth" through un-aliveing finnishes off the last tenious connection between reality and money, and all that will be left is hydraulic despotism/denial of service, will? be left, or IS left?
[flagged]