Countries like Japan and Germany are in demographic decline. They have a rising average age, and a declining birthrate. This is (supposedly) bad-older people are less productive, and are not a market for houses, cars, durables, as younger people would be.
Bud is this a bad thing? Fewer young men means lower unemployment, and a lower crime rate. It also means less traffic, pollution, and less crowded highways.
In the USA, we face a continually expanding population-and we have high unemployemnt, and the need to assimilate millions of immigrants-this will cost a lot of money.
So, is the quality of life (in a country experiencing population declines) better that one which is growing?
Declining population means lower rates of childbirth and implies lower rates of family formation. This reduces the necessity to maintain a “traditional culture,” which optimizes social interactions for formation of long-term investment in children. For those who want followers of traditional culture to fall in status, this is a good thing.
Social programs benefit older people more than younger ones. Social Security essentially REQUIRES an expanding population, otherwise the fewer young working people will have to pay more in taxes to support the more older retired people.
The only benefit I can think of is that it’s not an expanding population. This helps to preserve our natural resources.
Presuming there to be no particular limit to our natural resources, it’s all bad though.
Another benefit is the growing elderly population means we need more welfare and have fewer workers to provide it. So that will result in a boom to robotics and productivity to help us increase productivity and wealth with an ever shrinking labor force and growing demand.
Right now the Japanese are investing heavily in robotics because they know they are facing a demographic time bomb over the next few decades. So they want to be prepared for the upcoming labor shortage.
So it will likely lead to a revolution in robotics, worker productivity, affordable living (trying to find ways to let the seniors live lives of dignity, health and autonomy on the cheap) and issues like that. The elderly population is supposed to be 25-40% in the next few decades in many of these countries.
However a bad side is that you need a constantly growing tax rate to fund the welfare programs for the elderly like social security and medicare (if you have a situation where there are 2 workers for 1 elderly person, which isn’t unrealistic if you have a population that is 25% elderly, each worker needs to spend about $10,000-20,000 a year or so in taxes to fund that one elderly person). Which may make all the young people feel more and more likely to emigrate to a different country.
Another bad sign is the demographic time bomb is happening in countries that are fairly decent. The countries that lead the planet in scientific and medical advances, human/civil/political rights, etc. are usually the ones seeing this decline (OECD nations, and ex-USSR states). So a population decline means fewer citizens who live in nations that are at the forefront of science, medicine and social justice.
It seems to me that there are a lot of rather obvious benefits. Fewer people will consume less oil, coal, and natural gas, thus reducing smog and contributing less to global warming. Fewer people will produce less garbage, thus taking up less landfill space. Fewer people will consume less of everything, thus putting less pressure on forests and other natural spaces. If the population declined enough, it might even become feasible to have space that’s been cleared and built over restored to its natural state.
So, in short, plentiful advantages. Of course I don’t deny the disadvantages such as the imbalance in payments to and from pension systems. However, those can be met with adjustments in policy. Problems such as deforestation, landfills, global warming, and depletion of oil reserves and much less tractable by policy alone if the population increases. Hence I see see declining populations as generally good.
(It should be noted that those countries with declining populations are a slim minority of the world.)
Why would anyone assume that? We’re obviously on a finite planet.
Negative: old people are already unusually politically active. Having more of them will make it easier for them to agitate for more largesse from the public treasury, worsening the deficit.
Positive: accumulation of people with more experience of social changes and the limitations thereof will act as a useful moderating force on folks pushing social experimentation.
- If we are not near the edge of our resources.
- If we can get resources from beyond our planet.
- If technology can continue to stretch our resources for the foreseeable future.
Thats a negative though. It was college students who went into the south to register black voters back in the 50s and 60s, not people who were elderly.
In the short-term, economic sense, it’s not good.
In the long-term, health-of-the-planet, happiness-of-the-people, it’s good.
Yes, and it was the same Progressive movement that had supported abolition of private schools, eugenics, and communism. Not all social experiments are salutary; fortunately many of the bad ones have fallen by the wayside (and apparently, out of some folks’ memory).
Woah there buckaroo…!
Copying and pasting from my blog because I’m sleepy:
If 1 man out of every 100 is a genius, for every generation you’ll have 1 discovery. Any one discovery might increase production by the whole of society by 10%. So, each 20 years, you get a 10% increase in production. To double production, you need 8 generations (160 years). In a group of 1000, you’ll have ten geniuses with ten discoveries each year, each increasing production by 10%. Your first generation is already capable of producing your doubled growth, let alone waiting hundreds of years.
You might also read through this: http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/97-10-080.pdf (PDF)
And who’s to say they’re not just “discovering” bigger guns and more vibratinger butt-plugs? You’re making some pretty big assumptions there. We’ve “discovered” plenty that’s useless or has contributed to human suffering.
Spam reported
Nothing but technology can add to happiness (beyond the natural rate). And remember, if you really think that technology has only or in majority hurt, you’re perfectly free to go live in a cave on an island, hunting boar with your bare hands. Personally, I’ll take the internet and delivery pizza.
LOL. Ok, “buckaroo,” you and I are gonna be in deep, fundamental disagreement here, so I can go ahead and tell you this isn’t going anywhere.
My favorite hobbies are running, hiking, cycling, lifting weights, archery, acting, actually socializing in person, cooking, eating, and sex. The newest one of those, by far, is cycling, at 100+ years old.
Yes, I’m into film and I enjoy playing around on the internet but I could live very, very easily without them. In fact, it’d probably enhance my life a bit at this point, like getting rid of TV did.
And it’s hilarious that you’re accusing me of engaging in a nirvana fallacy (that I’m not engaging in), when you’re clearly engaging in a huge fallacy of the excluded middle. You somehow made the jump from “less people would be better in the long run” to fewer new discoveries to . . . living in a cave and hunting boar with my bare hands 
. The mind boggles.
But yeah, keep your Blu-Ray and pizza delivery. I don’t need them.
Happiness of the people, eh? Not really. Russia and the other Eastern European nations have the highest rates of suicide in the world while the lowest are in Third World tropical nations. I expect a lot of elderly people in Europe and Japan will be requesting euthanasia or just commit suicide as life becomes increasingly meaningless.
Curtis, buddy, you slay me. Really, you’re just too damn funny. Gimme a high five, come on, gimme one.
Whoa. Huh? And, the natural rate of what?
Nobody who knows what the word “technology” means can make such an argument, of course. That is a long, long way from the assertion that nothing but technology can add to happiness!