Children of Men

[hepcat]

Porn. It's porn. That's why I have Mike Johnson's kid monitor my porn intake as well.

[Holman]

FWIW, when my wife and I decided to forego birth control and have a kid, my sperm scored a win on the first try.

And they did it again three years later for the second child.

[Isgrimnur]

An Acquisition Team is en route. Please do not resist.

[Unagi]

FWIW, when my wife and I decided to forego birth control and have a kid, my sperm scored a win on the first try.

And they did it again three years later for the second child.

So, 2 for 2 ?

and not a drop between?

[Holman]

So, 2 for 2 ?

and not a drop between?

Birth control between.

[Unagi]

So, 2 for 2 ?

and not a drop between?

Birth control between.

show off

[Grifman]

Very interesting ingo about the impact of urbanization:

[waitingtoconnect]

FWIW, when my wife and I decided to forego birth control and have a kid, my sperm scored a win on the first try.

And they did it again three years later for the second child.

Perhaps a best selling book on Amazon is in the offing? The Holman Method…

[GreenGoo]

So, 2 for 2 ?

and not a drop between?

Birth control between.

show off

Sinner.

[Grifman]

[Isgrimnur]

Pat Buchanan must be spinning in his echo chamber.

[Holman]

Re: that chart above.

What's up with the sharp decline and then spiking uptick in East and SE Asia in the early 60s, with another steeper-than-average dive in the 1970s? In contrast, other world regions follow a fairly smooth curve down.

Is this related to Chinese population policies?

[Isgrimnur]

Great Leap Forward?

[Max Peck]

What's up with the sharp decline and then spiking uptick in East and SE Asia in the early 60s

The sharp decline in the late 50s into the early 60s correlates strongly with Mao's Great Leap Forward, which resulted in what may have been the worst famine in history.

Edit: Dammit Isgrimnur!

[LordMortis]

The Great Leap Forward stemmed from multiple factors, including "the purge of intellectuals, the surge of less-educated radicals, the need to find new ways to generate domestic capital, rising enthusiasm about the potential results mass mobilization might produce, and reaction against the sociopolitical results of the Soviet's development strategy."

[Isgrimnur]

What's up with the sharp decline and then spiking uptick in East and SE Asia in the early 60s

The sharp decline in the late 50s into the early 60s correlates strongly with Mao's Great Leap Forward, which resulted in what may have been the worst famine in history.

Edit: Dammit Isgrimnur!

[Holman]

D'oh to me for forgetting the famine. I've read whole books on the Great Leap Forward.

[Grifman]

Very interesting article on how cities contribute to the development human civilization, yet also to our inability to sustain that same civilization in terms of population:

https://www.razibkhan.com/p/roma-termin ... paign=post

[Jaymann]

World Population by Year

Change Net
Change Density
(P/Km²)
2024 8,161,972,572 0.87 % 70,237,642 55
2023 8,091,734,930 0.88 % 70,327,738 54
2022 8,021,407,192 0.84 % 66,958,801 54
2021 7,954,448,391 0.86 % 67,447,099 53
2020 7,887,001,292 0.97 % 75,707,594 53
2019 7,811,293,698 1.05 % 81,390,917 52
2018 7,729,902,781 1.10 % 84,284,827 52
2017 7,645,617,954 1.15 % 87,063,428 51
2016 7,558,554,526 1.18 % 88,062,654 51
2015 7,470,491,872 1.20 % 88,875,628 50
2014 7,381,616,244 1.23 % 89,822,659 50

Meh, the world population is still at an all time high. I think we could skimp by at 5 - 6 billion.

[Grifman]

World Population by Year

Change Net
Change Density
(P/Km²)
2024 8,161,972,572 0.87 % 70,237,642 55
2023 8,091,734,930 0.88 % 70,327,738 54
2022 8,021,407,192 0.84 % 66,958,801 54
2021 7,954,448,391 0.86 % 67,447,099 53
2020 7,887,001,292 0.97 % 75,707,594 53
2019 7,811,293,698 1.05 % 81,390,917 52
2018 7,729,902,781 1.10 % 84,284,827 52
2017 7,645,617,954 1.15 % 87,063,428 51
2016 7,558,554,526 1.18 % 88,062,654 51
2015 7,470,491,872 1.20 % 88,875,628 50
2014 7,381,616,244 1.23 % 89,822,659 50

Meh, the world population is still at an all time high. I think we could skimp by at 5 - 6 billion.

The problem is not where we are now, but where we will be in the future. And how did you know that the decline will stop at 5-6 billion?

[Holman]

Is it possible for economies and systems to adjust to a reasonably stable population, or is growth always necessary?

Eventually population growth causes more problems than it solves, doesn't it? (It seems possible that it already has.)

[Jaymann]

World Population by Year

Change Net
Change Density
(P/Km²)
2024 8,161,972,572 0.87 % 70,237,642 55
2023 8,091,734,930 0.88 % 70,327,738 54
2022 8,021,407,192 0.84 % 66,958,801 54
2021 7,954,448,391 0.86 % 67,447,099 53
2020 7,887,001,292 0.97 % 75,707,594 53
2019 7,811,293,698 1.05 % 81,390,917 52
2018 7,729,902,781 1.10 % 84,284,827 52
2017 7,645,617,954 1.15 % 87,063,428 51
2016 7,558,554,526 1.18 % 88,062,654 51
2015 7,470,491,872 1.20 % 88,875,628 50
2014 7,381,616,244 1.23 % 89,822,659 50

Meh, the world population is still at an all time high. I think we could skimp by at 5 - 6 billion.

The problem is not where we are now, but where we will be in the future. And how did you know that the decline will stop at 5-6 billion?

I have no idea. But IMO that is the point where we should consider steps to stabilize.

[Alefroth]

Thank you for your sacrifice. Please step through these doors.

[Kraken]

Is it possible for economies and systems to adjust to a reasonably stable population, or is growth always necessary?

As long as productivity continues to grow through the magic of technology, a stable or shrinking population can still enjoy stable or rising standards of living.

[Holman]

Is it possible for economies and systems to adjust to a reasonably stable population, or is growth always necessary?

As long as productivity continues to grow through the magic of technology, a stable or shrinking population can still enjoy stable or rising standards of living.

Why must productivity grow? If we have enough resources for everyone to be happy this year, won't having the same resources in 100 years for the same number of people suffice?

It's a naive question, I know.

[Kraken]

Is it possible for economies and systems to adjust to a reasonably stable population, or is growth always necessary?

As long as productivity continues to grow through the magic of technology, a stable or shrinking population can still enjoy stable or rising standards of living.

Why must productivity grow? If we have enough resources for everyone to be happy this year, won't having the same resources in 100 years for the same number of people suffice?

It's a naive question, I know.

That would be true if everybody currently enjoyed a comfortable standard of living.

One might argue that we'd already have ample resources if 80% of them weren't owned by 1% of the population, and that would realize your premise. But increasing productivity is doable and equitable redistribution just plain isn't.

[Holman]

increasing productivity is doable and equitable redistribution just plain isn't.

At a certain point, though, the former becomes increasingly difficult while the latter becomes morally imperative.

[Blackhawk]

I have no idea. But IMO that is the point where we should consider steps to stabilize.

We should. But which nations are going to volunteer to get smaller while their 'opponents' get larger?

Is it possible for economies and systems to adjust to a reasonably stable population, or is growth always necessary?

As long as productivity continues to grow through the magic of technology, a stable or shrinking population can still enjoy stable or rising standards of living.

Why must productivity grow? If we have enough resources for everyone to be happy this year, won't having the same resources in 100 years for the same number of people suffice?

It's a naive question, I know.

To some degree growth is an inevitable side benefit to advancing technology and scientific knowledge. In fact, I'd say that our more immediate issue is less about increasing productivity and more about changing and adapting productivity. A big part of what we need is to find ways to allow more productivity in areas that normally aren't very productive - like crops that can grow in sandy soil - and to prepare our production for the effects of climate change.

The big problem with the growing population, I think, is what's going to happen to the population when a band of uninhabitability starts to form around the equator and spreads toward the tropics. What do we do if tens of millions of people from South America start pushing north into Central America and Mexico, taxing the already limited resources there, and pushing people toward our borders? When India and South Asia start to look at China. When huge chunks of the Middle East are pushed toward Eastern Europe?

All while the places that remain uninhabitable are facing some combination of flood, drought, extreme weather, and climate change that makes current 'bread basket' regions less (or even barely) productive?

Am I doing the 'sentinel intelligence' thing again?

[gbasden]

increasing productivity is doable and equitable redistribution just plain isn't.

At a certain point, though, the former becomes increasingly difficult while the latter becomes morally imperative.

Guillotines come out eventually.

[LordMortis]

Is it possible for economies and systems to adjust to a reasonably stable population, or is growth always necessary?

As long as productivity continues to grow through the magic of technology, a stable or shrinking population can still enjoy stable or rising standards of living.

Why must productivity grow? If we have enough resources for everyone to be happy this year, won't having the same resources in 100 years for the same number of people suffice?

It's a naive question, I know.

That would be true if everybody currently enjoyed a comfortable standard of living.

One might argue that we'd already have ample resources if 80% of them weren't owned by 1% of the population, and that would realize your premise. But increasing productivity is doable and equitable redistribution just plain isn't.

We also need to take care of the elderly and infirm. Productivity has not made huge gains there AFAICT and would have to make much much larger leaps if we want to both shrink our population and take care of the populace while doing so. I agree with a goal of opting out of grow or die populace and economy but a planned opt out would be nice.

I sometimes wonder about the amble resources. That if we made "wealth" more available would scarcity and lack of productivity make "a level playing field" just much lower and more violent. If hoarding fiat wealth and accepting inequity keeps the peace while not changing things that dramatically. One day I may get curious enough to actually read up on such things. One day...