[gtaylor]

> If your life raft is sinking, do you try to patch it, or do you throw someone overboard? Your instinctual answer says a lot about the type of person you are.

Nobody is being thrown overboard. The article is just pointing out that it may not necessarily be catastrophic if population growth slows or even reverses for a time. We're all just speculating, whether you agree or disagree.

In support of the article, slower population growth would reduce resource consumption. Rampant population growth would speed up the resource depletion process. As certain crucial resources become more scarce, conflict is likely to follow. It'd only be a matter of time before large scale war followed, perhaps leading to an extinction event.

There are definite positives and negatives to slowing growth rates, but I think there are probably more positives if we're talking about a gradual slowing (as opposed to a sudden tanking). We can do a lot more with a lot less today. Many of us don't need massive families anymore, and that's OK.

[didgeoridoo]

A fertility rate of 1.4 is not a slowing of growth. It means population is shrinking. If you think of individuals as net negative for society, you probably think this is a good thing. I do not.

Fewer people means fewer ideas. Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base - but it has ALWAYS been a problem, and a solution has always been developed that results in higher overall quality of life. Agriculture was the technology that allowed more than a few hundred thousand humans to live on the planet. Humanity has a pretty good track record of coming up with the next tech in plenty of time.

Panglossian? Maybe. But I'd rather be Pangloss (syphilis and all) than a misanthrope like Ehrlich or Malthus.

[Retric]

New ideas are hardly limited to Japan so if there population is +/- 100 million it's not going to make much difference to technology growth. However, for people living in Japan having +/- 100 million people having fewer people may be a net win relative to their current population. Just look at all those family's living in 500sf apartments that still have long commutes. Population density is good up to a point, but Japan is pushing the limit in some of it's more populaed areas. Granted, there is still plenty of open spaces in japan, but most people want to live near jobs and infrastructure.

[ahomescu1]

> Fewer people means fewer ideas.

Good ideas come from a very small segment of the population. Just having more people doesn't mean we'll have more philosophy, science or art, except from scaling. If you want more creative people, then make that your goal.

[a8da6b0c91d]

> Resource consumption is a problem with our current technological base

Overpopulation destroys quality of life. You can't fix that by throwing more technology at the problem. Technology isn't going to make more nice beachfront property accessible and affordable for middle class family vacations. Technology isn't going to make more high grade wild tuna, or quiet walks in empty woods.

[threeseed]

No. But declining populations destroys quality of life.

With an ageing population you need someone to "work" in order to cover state-subsidised health care, housing, unemployment, pensions and other living costs for those that are still alive but not working.

And technology can absolutely solve a lot of problems. Being able to grow commercial quantities of meat in laboratories will change the world overnight. As will revolutionising public transportation, power grids, storage technologies, cars etc.

[a8da6b0c91d]

Populations are contracting because of overpopulation. I think it's clear we're in the later phases of Calhoun's rat experiments, where overcrowding sent rat birth rates crashing. In the human context I think the "overcrowding" stress includes the ever increasing complexity and flux of the society. There's not a techno/policy fix. This is a self-correcting problem that should be left alone. Fertility peaked in the industrialized world many years ago because the lands are full. Allowing immigration has been a mistake.

A contracting population is clearly a big problem for the capital class. It's bad for stock and bond holders, employers of labor, politicians, and I guess people who made poor retirement preparations. But I don't buy that it's a problem for workers Joe and Jane Blow. They eventually get cheap, high quality housing, and are more inclined to start a family.

Anyway, I also think the various futurist techno fantasies are wrong. Unless liquid thorium reactors or such-like come online next month we're entering an age of permanently escalating energy and food costs. Technology still runs on energy. The Jetsons future of electric cars and soylent for growing billions is not going to happen. The future for most is bicycles with rice and beans.

[barry-cotter]

Allowing immigration has been a mistake.

Yeah, I got mine. Fuck all those foreigners whose ancestors didn't get here fast enough.

[a8da6b0c91d]

It's a nation, not a charity operation.

[guard-of-terra]

We should invent a huge space water boiler; this way we can warm up nothern coasts of Canada and Russia and get nearly unlimited beach front.

In Stanislaw Lem's book the main character lived on Greenland warmed up from space to allow subtropical climate. I guess this idea will cause any environmentally-aware hipster from California to have a heart attack.