Japan -- Geriatric Society

[Wezil]

Or kill other people.

Or be gay.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by snoopy369 I think most countries would benefit from zero or negative population growth in the short term, at least. Spending additional resources to feed people who cannot be productive (due to the decreasing need for human capital, ie labor, as technology advances) is inefficient.

If people were inefficient they couldn't find jobs which is not the case. Most people are employed and productive. You're making a very strange case for negative population growth.

[Heraclitus]

Psshh don't try to inject reason into his world view. The "ZOMG teh Earth is overpopulated so the demograph chsiris in the evil rich countires is for teh best" bunch is immune to reason.

[snoopy369]

I don't see why I'm being painted as irrational here... the proposition was made:

"Developed countries have negative population growth. This is bad."

I said, "I don't see why this is bad, that people decide not to have as many children."

Now all of a sudden I'm arguing for mass genocide

Tell me why it is a bad thing that we have a negative population growth (and we are talking a VERY SMALL negative population growth here, aside from Japan). I don't think it's a bad thing, in most countries. Certainly it may be a bad thing in a few centuries, if it continues, but at the moment we have more people than we need, particularly in brazil/india/china/egypt/etc.

If we're going to suggest those countries enact stringent control methods - or even, simply suggest birth control to everyone - why can't we look at our own house this way?

I'm not suggesting limiting growth intentionally - or even asking people to have fewer kids. I'm saying, just let them have fewer kids if they want to. It will correct soon enough; and in the meanwhile, it will allow other countries to bleed off some of their excess growth. In fact, the only argument against it I can see is that the worst offenders in terms of excess population growth will not have as much pressure to do something about it ...

Vetlegion, there are many countries with high unemployment, and underemployment is an even larger problem. My suggestion is that, through technology, people will in the future be less needed for labor; and further, people are living longer and working longer, so fewer people over the course of time are needed, because more 60 and 70 year olds are working. Therefore, we are not suddenly going to have a labor crisis (though Japan may well be a special case.)

[Kuciwalker]

1) Negative population growth results in a smaller ratio of productive to unproductive citizens. This is a problem.

2) Negative population growth hurts economies of scale, which become even more important in an information economy.

[Lancer]

Really though, who will miss the Japanese? Not me. For that matter, what if the whole human race checked out in a million years, so what? The last guy can turn the lights out.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Lancer
Really though, who will miss the Japanese? Not me.

Racist

[David Floyd]

We could easily reduce world population by eliminating foreign, non military, aid.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
1) Negative population growth results in a smaller ratio of productive to unproductive citizens. This is a problem.

2) Negative population growth hurts economies of scale, which become even more important in an information economy.

1) How is this? Unless you are suggesting that the negative growth is only reducing 'smart' people, this is absolutely false (patently, even). If you are, I would remind you that it's not 'smart' people, but rather 'rich' (or semi-rich) ... and if you classify Paris Hilton in the former category you have problems.

2) This is not meaningfully true; we're not talking reducing from 300m people to 100m people, but from 300m people to ... 295m people. That's assuming no immigration, which is highly unlikely... we're only talking about organic growth, not immigration.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We could easily reduce world population by eliminating foreign, non military, aid.

Perhaps we shuould make a rule: If your people can't sue contraception they can't use our medicines.

[David Floyd]

Even better - and much more seriously - if people REFUSE to use contraception, then they don't qualify for our "humanitarian aid", ie, food and medicine.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by snoopy369 However, if people are voluntarily reducing the population via not having more children, how can that be a bad thing?

I feel that it is a bad thing. I find it very difficult to verbalize why it would be objectively bad, so perhaps it is not.

Perhaps a better word is "unhealthy". I think "self-perpetuating" is a neccessary condition for a society to be called healthy.

So, a society that plays video games to its extinction, achieving record per capita happiness in the process, could be labeled a "good" society (for its members), but not a "healthy" society.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by snoopy369


1) How is this? Unless you are suggesting that the negative growth is only reducing 'smart' people, this is absolutely false (patently, even).

Actually, it is true. Look up Japanese IQ vs. Indian IQ (I'm talking averages here, LS and aneeshm aren't average).

[David Floyd]

I think that if you are reproducing and can't afford to, then population growth is bad. In other words, population growth in most of Africa and some areas of Asia is a bad thing, because it will just lead to more poverty. OTOH, population growth in the First World, or even in developing nations with a chance for self-sustainability, is probably a good thing.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by snoopy369


1) How is this? Unless you are suggesting that the negative growth is only reducing 'smart' people, this is absolutely false (patently, even). If you are, I would remind you that it's not 'smart' people, but rather 'rich' (or semi-rich) ... and if you classify Paris Hilton in the former category you have problems.

I hate to brake this to you but in Europe its the middle class that doesn’t have any kids. Also the more educated you are the less likely you are to have offspring.


As to throwing Paris Hilton into the debate all I can say is


Also the way you completely misunderstand the situation makes me mad enough to start behaving like Wiglaf and just bash the heck out of you.

I mean do you know what happens if you have fever kids? A larger percentage of old people, old people tend to be sick more. Old people also generally like to retire at some point. Old people are less active. Old people find it harder to adapt to new technology.

Need I go on explaining basic stuff to you?


Now, unless you are advocating we kill off the old people to have a declining population that can still maintain its age ratios I can't see how you can possibly have a coherent opinion on this.