Peak Population

[PLATO]

Declining population?

Not as long as the final frontier is empty!

Colonizing Mars

[Gibsie]

Thank you Dauphin

I feel much better for having read it (And I've not even had any weed/ solyent green yet)!

[Ben Kenobi]

The only way population size could possibly affect productivity is specialisation, assuming that the more people there are, the more possibilities exist to specialise tasks. But I can't imagine population is going to drop to the point we'll have to terminate highly specialised jobs.

Concentration here is more important then the overall population. If you concentrate most of the people in a city, you will see greater specialisation then you will with everyone scattered. That is one of the big differences between the developed and the developing. For the West which has already seen most of it's population concentrated in the cities, there is no benefit to be gained by watching the population shrink.

I also think it's quite odd that at one time people argue high population growth is the cause of economic hardship (as in the 3rd world) and at another time people argue low or negative population growth is or will be the cause of economic hardship. Consistency anyone?

Actually, I don't see the folks in the third world arguing that high population growth is a cause of economic hardship. You see plenty of folks in the first world who will say that you have to decrease the rate of population increase in order to thrive, whereas one of the reasons that the West industrialised is that they were able to sustain population growth over a long period of time.

[Dinner]

The current projection is that the world population tops out at 10 billion at 2050 though they are assuming that the other countries follow the west (and Japan)'s example of richness bringing lower population growth and that people start getting married later in life having fewer children. That's not a sure thing at all. India has shown that fast economic growth doesn't equal low population growth.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by 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!

True, only the stupid people are breeding. It's the welfare moms and the white trash which shall inherite the Earth.

Or maybe it is the Indian & Chinese peasants who will take over.

[Ben Kenobi]

That ten billion estimate is the high. There are many places, not just in Europe and North America that are already below replacement and one thing that we have not seen is for any nation below replacement to increase their birthrate back to replacement, though the US is very close.

[Dinner]

The US and Mexico are well above replacement levels so I doubt Canada's population growth is so low to push the average for North America below replacement levels.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's closer then you might think.

USA TFR 2.08
CAN TFR 1.61
MEX TFR 2.45

USA POP 296 million
CAN POP 33 million
MEX POP 106 million

NA USA TFR - 0.68 * 2.08 = 1.41
NA CAN TFR - 0.12
NA MEX TFR - 0.6

2.13 NA TFR. Just a smidgen above replacement.

[Impaler[WrG]]

No. The other reason is that the productivity of someone who produces zero-marginal-cost goods (e.g. software) is directly proportional to the number of people who consume that good. Therefore that part of the GDP would increase with the square of the population rather than linearly.

This simply means that a large population will be employing a smaller fraction (a tiny fraction mind you) writing software. And in any event this is incredibly irrelivent to REAL standard of living created by things like food, shelter, fuel which are not zero-marginal-cost.

I think a senario inwhich total population shrinks, per capita consumption rises and total raw consumption remains flat is likly to occur.

[Kuciwalker]

This simply means that a large population will be employing a smaller fraction (a tiny fraction mind you) writing software.

Duh.

And in any event this is incredibly irrelivent to REAL standard of living created by things like food, shelter, fuel which are not zero-marginal-cost.

You're posting on a Civ forum and you don't think software contributes to your real happiness?

[Impaler[WrG]]

IT cant do so without the precense of HARDWARE, a HOME to place said hardware in, an INTERNET to connect said hardware too and ELECTRICITY to run said hardware, said home and said internet.

Also dont forget HotPockets to eat whial playing said software. As you can see a huge amount of marginal cost based comodities must be consumed before software even begins to come into the picture.

[Kuciwalker]

IT cant do so without the precense of HARDWARE, a HOME to place said hardware in, an INTERNET to connect said hardware too and ELECTRICITY to run said hardware, said home and said internet.

So?

Also dont forget HotPockets to eat whial playing said software. As you can see a huge amount of marginal cost based comodities must be consumed before software even begins to come into the picture.

So?

This ignores the enormous amounts of other zero-marginal-cost goods, such as scientific research. Development of new and better methods of producing goods will proceed twice as fast in a society twice as large.

[Barnabas]

I think ustatesians are above replacement level only due to immigrants

correct me If I am wrong

[Kuciwalker]

You're not wrong.

[Dauphin]

About 1/3 of the US population growth rate is net immigration.

You mean its the immigrant population who are doing all the reproducing within the US? Not that physical net immigration is causing sustainment of the population.