[extra88]

The U.S. (and Spain and Italy) are desirable places to be so immigration can make up for fertility rates being below what's needed to maintain the population. As a bonus, you don't need to wait ~18 years for an adult immigrant to be a productive, tax-paying member of society.

[dmm]

The US has a long tradition of immigration and it will certainly make the collapse less painful as compared to places like China and Russia but I'm skeptical that immigration can make up for a FR as low as 1.3.

I think

1. It's going to take a lot more immigration.

2. Significantly higher immigration is going to politically destabilizing for a variety of reasons.

Are we preparing for this? I really wish we had a functional government.

EDIT:

3. Pretty much everywhere except India, Afghanistan, and a few places in sub-sahara Africa have fertility rates below replacement. Immigration from anywhere but those places helps the destination country but makes the originating one worse. What effects is that going to have?

[lotsofpulp]

Maybe the fundamental assumption that society needs to provide help to keep people alive as long as possible has to be revisited.

I think it well may be that the tradition of supporting elders forever either worked when they were not living as long in such large numbers, and persisted due to the outsize political and economic power they have (or had).

Once the younger people have power, they might choose that the best use of their resources is not supporting those 70+ year olds.

[mapmap]

A more realistic and positive solution is to just give parents the societal support they need to be productive and also raise children.

[lotsofpulp]

I also thought that, but given the birth rates I see in my social circles full of very high earners (and worldwide data), I have come to question the assumption that women would want to have sufficient children to be able to support our large proportions of old age people.

While lack of parental support and high volatility is a cause for not having children, I also think there might be a decent portion of women that given the financial freedom of not having to do anything they do not want to do, will choose to not have children at numbers previously seen.

I think it is playing out before us in real time, especially as ACA introduce cost free birth control, and technological advances such as IUDs introduced convenient birth control.

I often wonder if the explosive population (and resulting economic) growth of the post WW2 era would have happened if women had been financially independent and had access to the same birth control we have now.

[svieira]

And from here, it is a very small step (practically speaking) to The sixty of A Pebble in the Sky

https://archive.org/details/pebbleinsky00asim/ https://archive.org/details/podcast_dimension-x_dimension-x-...

For those who haven't heard or read it, the 60 is a law on the Earth of the future that requires that on your sixtieth birthday you report to a medical center for euthanization. Those who refuse are tracked down and forcibly euthanized.

[lotsofpulp]

I would not characterize it as a very small step, although I do acknowledge the line of reasoning could lead to forcible euthanizing.

It takes orders of more resources to support people in the last weeks or days of their life. It is possible that such a huge portion of resources of society can go towards providing a very marginal benefit, that it is not worth it anymore.

I struggle to see why I should not take myself out when I will need to have constant attention from someone younger and more able. Obviously, the will to live is a powerful one and walking the walk is surely harder than just talk, but I would not want my kids to spend their time wiping my ass, and I certainly would not want a stranger to when they could be doing something else.