[3D30497420]

Fair point. Though I wonder how much the original authors/participants were thinking about the long impact of history vs the more immediate needs and impacts. (In the great tradition of internet commenting, this statement was made with minimal detailed knowledge. Perhaps the authors were primarily focused on the long sweep of history.)

I do think my original point still stands that we seem to be quite bad at making good decisions for more immediate generations. Considering our rather pressing current challenges (climate change, continued warfare, etc.) I'd settle for getting the next few generations in a better place before thinking about 25 generations from now.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It’s not a 25 generations from now problem. South Korea expects that in just 50 years, they’ll have a 25% smaller population where a near-majority of people are over 65.

[3D30497420]

I wasn't arguing that falling populations is something we only need to worry about 25 generations from now. I was saying we should probably look at solving problems in a more immediate time-frame.

For South Korea specifically, the population challenges are probably more immediate than other countries.