Why? That’s around the population at the end of WWI. Why on Earth would that population make us revert anything, technologically? Our actual tech isn’t dependent on having a huge population. Hell, it’s much less dependent on it than, say, the 19th century, with its mass factory labour and larger agricultural base.
Why would it creep you out if people willingly go along with a one-child policy when, as you say, that’s part of the growing trend in the West anyway?
Because in such a crashing population we wouldn’t be able to maintain the tech base. The population of WWI was there already, but we are talking about 3/4 of the population rapidly dying off. Even leaving the logistics aside of how society would deal with billions of dead in a short time frame you aren’t going to have enough people with the right skills to keep the lights on…unless you think that only non-productive and non-technical types are going to die off?
Because I don’t see that as happening that way. If they CHOOSE to only have 1 child, then you don’t need a government policy, right? The fact that you have to have a policy implies, strongly, that they aren’t choosing…they are being told to. By the government. Which has worked out SO well in places that have tried it.
I think you are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t need to be solved. You are doing so because you want to meet an artificial goal of 1 billion people in 200 years. Myself, I think population will level out and start to decline already, just not that fast…or that artificially. I’m a big fan of things happening organically, instead of being forced by some people who think they know what’s best. Seems to me that humanity has benefited a hell of a lot more in the last century from a market approach than from a command approach. YMMV of course.
I think you are off by nearly half a century. The world population has basically quadrupled in my lifetime.
Just to go into a bit more detail on this, let’s say that the current trend in deaths per year continues (well, with a slow acceleration as folks get older). About 60 million people current die per year currently. If we went to a 1 child policy, that would potentially be about 40-50 million kids born per year. That’s maximum, it would almost certainly be less if you actually followed the policy with draconian measures, ensuring that no more than 1 child per (presumably married) couple could have a kid. If you are going with 1 child per female, then it’s going to be more, obviously (you might actually have MORE kids if you go one per female…currently we are at 140 million births per year and dropping).
You are going to be hard pressed to get down to 1 billion in just 200 years, though obviously as folks get older you are going to have large drop offs. Of course, then you’ll be having the issue (world wide) that countries like Japan and increasingly China are having, with a graying population. Unless we get some serious life extension tech…which is, conversely, going to make it harder for you to reach that goal of 1 billion by 200 years.
The same way we’ve achieved what we have so far; solving our problems using our big ol’ brains.
There is NO politician with my EXACT ideology, nor will there ever be, unless 200 years from now every politician is created in a lab to be an exact clone of me down to my brain patterns. So let’s establish that this is total fantasy. I don’t vote for mini-me’s, I vote on issues.
Capitalist, and running strong. IF somebody found a way to have a “nordic-style” economy and healthcare system that scaled to a diverse huge country like the US, WITHOUT crushing people with taxes, I’d be happy with that. I am highly skeptical that’s possible, but that would be ideal.
Well, I think what we now call “whites” will be the minority in 200 years, and I hope they are treated equally under the law, and not discriminated against. I would like women to be able to take on any role they wanted, successfully. I would like the economy to be such that if a family could live comfortably on a single income, with one parent being able to be a stay at home mom or dad, if they so chose.
Free, but separated from the state.
Well, I would like countries to be able to retain their culture and national identity for the most part. I do not think we should force democracy on every country. I don’t want open borders, or a “new world order.” I tend to think that embracing capitalism has made the world richer outside of the USA, but they can have any economic system they want. Obviously I would like the beauty contestant answer of everyone in the world to be comfortable, healthy, free, world peace, yadayadayada. I do not think that will ever happen though.
Technology is making the state apparatus more obsolete all the time. Therefore, one single state-issued currency is a thing of the past. The economy 200 years from now is much more globally integrated, open, and free. Because of technological advances (specifically in transportation and communication), people are free to trade with whomever they desire in mutually beneficial exchanges all over the world.
The same concept applies to healthcare. The old notion of governments propping up, subsidizing, and supporting protected industries has gone by the wayside. The healthcare and health insurances industries, since they are no longer protected and subsidized by the state, are forced to compete in the open marketplace. Because of this, cost has gone down and quality has gone up. “Having health insurance” is no longer synonymous with “having access to healthcare”.
Since every woman and every “minority” is a distinct human being, they do not have defined “roles” or boxes that they have to fit into. Every individual is free to pursue the good life.
The great religions profess truths that are timeless and universal. Therefore, the great religions (Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) will still be around and will still be the (mostly) force for good that they are today.
I see national borders becoming less significant. People will have both the freedom and opportunity to pursue their happiness wherever and however they like.
No, but I do think that there’s an excess of skilled people in any field you care to mention…enough to get by with until new people are trained. Sure, power plant engineers will work double shifts for a while. I didn’t say it would be easy.
Plus there will be a whole lot of people who do have tech training but currently work in what would be less essential fields post-apocalypse - entertainment, finance, etc.
Most people choose not to commit murder, yet we have laws for that…
Maybe if it was one generation. But 200 years? Governments could only keep that up with the support of the populace.
Well, yes, because those are the bounds of the OP.
Level out, sure. Start to decline by that much? That’s not what’s predicted.
That’s not what this thread is about. This thread is all about the magic wand.
We’ve still to see where the market approach will take us. IPCC says 12 more years…
No, 25% of 7.2 billion is 1.8 billion. Population in 1920 was 1.86 billion.
I had it pegged as roughly halving every generation after the first - so 7.2->3.6->1.8->0.9. Although with a much more generous generation gap than the old 25 years. And that would be because it would be mandatory.
This is more IMHO material than GD. Moving there.
[/moderating]
My ideal world would be where everyone is loved and accepted, even so-called “evil” people. Not free to do harm. Just loved and accepted.
Actually, I may not be alone in feeling this way even now. Consider the song My Grown Up Christmas List.
Nanobots. Creation the Borg collective without all the implants. A hive mind as the bots encourage right thinking from infancy via control of the brain’s reward center. Isn’t this the type of society that R. Daneel Olivaw was working towards, just using genetic and educational methods?
>What sort of economy does your country have? What sort of healthcare?
Something like capitalism or free market as far as freedom and individual opportunity go, but something that has a low tendency to concentrate wealth and power in a small number of aggressive people.
>What is the role of women and minorities in society?
Equal. In outcome, not just theoretical opportunity.
>What about religion? What is its place in your ideal nation?
Its place would be in history museums.
>What does the world look like? Other countries, the environment?
No more nationalism or borders. The environment well cared for.
You didn’t ask about cats, but they would be very well cared for and happy.
My ideal world would only have domestic cats in natural history museums, alongside the other extinct animals. The world’s birds would be happier.
What sort of economy does your country have? What sort of healthcare?
The economy is capitalist with some socialist elements, single-payer health care, with the government producing all pharmaceuticals at cost.
What is the role of women and minorities in society? Both have made greater strides, lingering sexism/racism still exists.
What about religion? What is its place in your ideal nation? Religion fades, but personal ethics improves.
What does the world look like? Other countries, the environment? I imagine there will be a great famine in the next 100 years and biodiversity will greatly be reduced. But after another 100 years, genetic engineering will be applied to allow more crops to grow in varying environments. There will be a migration of populations north, many southern cities abandon. I do think that nuclear fusion will power most of the world, but much of that energy will be spent in ocean water desalination plants as the next big challenge after energy will be fresh water.
Humans are gone. The earth is slowly healing from the infestation. It will take another five to ten thousand years. Meanwhile an astonishing diversity of life already begins to proliferatein the ruins.
If you haven’t you should read ‘The Culture’ series by Iain M. Banks, in that society the vast majority of people are happy and well adjusted and for those who have darker attitudes this can be redirected into harmless pursuits.
But then I think everyone should read The Culture, that’s pretty much my ideal society with the caveat that I’m not comfortable with how human/biological power and direction has been ceded to machines, albeit super-intelligent and benevolent ones.
Who gets to choose what defines ‘right thinking’ though, we can see in our own contemporary societies how people and groups can have very different ideas of what constitutes right and wrong.