Peak Population

[Dauphin]

Now, its obvious that the world's population will stop increasing and one day decline, and in some parts of the world this is already happening.

This could have dramatic effects as the capitalist based economy we see in the West runs out of exploitable population to use and market to. With more and more companies seeking to exploit ever shrinking markets the US' reliance (and to a lesser degree Europe's reliance) on foreign populations to fuel its economy will only cause problems in the future. The problem is brought into acute focus when you consider China, the country with the world's largest proven reserves of population, is unwilling (or is that unable?!) to increase capacity, and at the same time is seeking to be one of, if not the, world's largest capitalist economy.

The effects of declining population reserves can be alleviated by improved technology/production methods or by developing alternative products for market which will make previously uneconomic populations viable again. Africa for example was abandoned for most of the 20th century, but as markets become tighter and population becomes scarce, the poor Sub-Saharan Africans with their still rapid rate of growth may prove just valuable enough to turn a profit on.


So anyway, what do you foresee as the real consequence of a static or slowly declining population - Japan doesn't look good, but are its problems really problems or just a sign that its not really subject to the traditional scales of healthy economy?

The peak population issue is different to the problem of an ageing population, but discuss that if you want too.

[Japher]

consequence?

IMO, the only bad thing about a declining population is that the number of smart people, hot chicks, etc. will be lower... most likely. Unless we ensure a good breedable genepool by mixing in a little chlorine.

Else, there will be less people on the planet, but they'll all like NASCAR!

[BlackCat]

Didn't know that you were that old - haven't heard that rethoric since the 70'ies - maybe you should lower your weed use.

Yes, we get fewer, older and richer, and it has speeded up after the fall of the soviet empire - even the old battlefields of the cold war are improving.

With a little luck we can reduce the population by a billion or two the next century or two and enter a golden age.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I think the main problem in this society is distribution of wealth, not generation of it. So I guess we are due a revolution, or some serious hardship like with any change, before it gets better.

[Sandman]

So anyway, what do you foresee as the real consequence of a static or slowly declining population - Japan doesn't look good, but are its problems really problems or just a sign that its not really subject to the traditional scales of healthy economy?

Japan's recession has hardly been the stuff of soup kitchens and breadlines. They're still the longest lived people in history. The world will manage, hell, it will probably thrive.

[lord of the mark]

I think we can conserve population much more so than we do now, using advanced technology, much as they do in Japan.

If that fails we can convert tar sands into population. IIUC, thats the source of most of the population of Alberta.

[RGBVideo]

This could have dramatic effects as the capitalist based economy we see in the West runs out of exploitable population to use and market to. With more and more companies seeking to exploit ever shrinking markets the US' reliance (and to a lesser degree Europe's reliance) on foreign populations to fuel its economy will only cause problems in the future. The problem is brought into acute focus when you consider China, the country with the world's largest proven reserves of population, is unwilling (or is that unable?!) to increase capacity, and at the same time is seeking to be one of, if not the, world's largest capitalist economy.

Quite frankly, I think this whole "a stable population has a finite demand" -thing you're basing your argument on is full of ****. Hence, I have to echo: What are you smoking?

[DanS]

A declining population seems to have severe economic consequences in the aggregate, even though the basis of your argument is suspect. However, there are few examples to look to for stable declines, so we'll just have to see. We can speculate, if you like.

One thing's for sure, no Soylent Green for you!

[RGBVideo]

A declining population seems to have severe economic consequences in the aggregate

If GDP/capita continues it's growth based on the amount of hours worked while population sharply declines, of course the total GDP is going to go down. The thing is, the total GDP shouldn't matter to you as an invididual unless you base your employement on leeching off from the "aggregate".

[Dauphin]

They're still the longest lived people in history.

Just more proof that they have had to improve population efficiency, anything less than 75 years per person is just a waste of people and not good for the environment either.

Originally posted by DanS
even though the basis of your argument is suspect.

You think my argument has a basis? Don't confuse me with Hubbert please.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Dauphin

They're still the longest lived people in history.

Just more proof that they have had to improve population efficiency, anything less than 75 years per person is just a waste of people and not good for the environment either.

Don't know if you're being sarcastic, but there's not a shred of evidence that the Japanese have based their social policies on the desire to maintain a larger consumer base.

[Odin]

Decreasing world population:

We need to get our population under 1 billion if we don't want to wreck the planet. People should be having no more than one child. Less people = less usage of resources = economy that is more enviromentally sustainable.

[Az]

Man, this is the biggest load of ****, ever.

From what I see, eople will have kids based on one thing only, it seems, and that's women and their position in society. Today, moms are being frowned upon as under achievers - which leads to less children in rich countries. We have to either give mothers more positive feedback, or seriously shift the burden of parenting from them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dauphin

They're still the longest lived people in history.

Just more proof that they have had to improve population efficiency, anything less than 75 years per person is just a waste of people and not good for the environment either.


You think my argument has a basis? Don't confuse me with Hubbert please.

Dauphin I think there are plenty of people available, but the Temporary Agencies and other "body shops" are holding them off the market to keep prices up.

Ive heard there are ships filled with people, waiting outside New York harbor, just waiting for prices to increase.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


Don't know if you're being sarcastic,

It does seem you dont know, nor do the other posters to the thread. I suggest reading the OP a tad more closely.