What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The coming population decline and its implications. (1 Viewer)

Hot Diggity Dog

Footballguy
I was inspired by the Death and Loss of religion thread, because the decline of religion of all kinds and across all societies in the world at least correlates to the population replacement rates of societies plummeting. But there is a lot more to this phenomenon then just that factor alone. It would be interesting to hear other people's reaction to this.

So, what is happening? Virtually all societies and nations across the world are now in a population decline, except the poorest countries in the world. At current rates South Korea will have 4 people for every 100 that are alive now in the year 2100, China will halve its population somewhere between the year 2050 and 2060 and continue on a downward path from there. Ethnicities and cultures like Russian and Japanese will disappear by the end of the century. There just won't be enough people to keep these places alive. The numbers are pretty straight forward on this and at some point, it is a process that a population cannot recover from.

So, why does this matter? Anyone under the age of 50 is going to witness a huge economic contraction in their lifetime first of all. Even if AI and automation can maintain output levels there isn't going to be enough people to maintain consumption. It seems logical to me that a lot of things are just going to go away because the economies of scale won't justify their production. And as production slows and international trade stops, I think there will a bit of a feedback loop where the more fragile but important supply chains fall apart, like global food production. It will vary from not getting many types of foods than ones that can be grown locally to whole nations facing starvation as access to fertilizer and food supplies stops. Beyond that who knows exactly what happens, how does an aged population care for itself? How do governments continue with dwindling resources of both population and money? All kinds of things we take for granted in an expanding industrialized world are fragile and lack of maintenance, and demand could stop or greatly curtail mass production of say electricity. Nothing that has been built will not crumble away if isn't maintained.

So, why is this happening? The cause of this isn't political, although some policies of different countries might hinder or hasten it. The main trends that correlate with the population decline are, urbanization, industrialization, higher levels of education, higher levels of national wealth, and declining rates of religious belief. The different levels of causation for each category certainly can be argued. I do think that this combination of factors has produced a belief system that rises up in every society that has gone down this path to modern industrialization, no matter their political or ethnic conditions and beliefs. Something, or probably more correctly many things, about this modern world that has been built slows what might have previously been considered the most basic urge of any species, mammalian anyways, having sex and reproducing. It is amazing when you research it, how little sex modern people have compared even to their grandparent's generation. The only people that worldwide that reproduce at a more rate that expands their population are the 1% people in regard to wealth, the highly religious, and the poorest countries mostly located in Sub Saharran Africa. An understanding of the why could lead us to an understanding of what really is fulfilling to people and how a future society could be built build that is technological and sustainable long term.

So, what do you think? This is a pretty broad stroke coverage of this topic, but I hope there is interest in it.
 
You read Zeihan's book The End of the World Is Jus the Beginning? It pretty much maps out this exact discussion, giving why's & wherefores as to how we got here and where it's going. Surprisingly the US wins in the end. Oh...spoiler alert.

Whether you agree with him or not, the premise is pretty straightforward. Our global populations are all in decline, in a pretty big way and for a lot of the countries, it's irreversible. Fun topic to discuss.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
 
You read Zeihan's book The End of the World Is Jus the Beginning? It pretty much maps out this exact discussion, giving why's & wherefores as to how we got here and where it's going. Surprisingly the US wins in the end. Oh...spoiler alert.

Whether you agree with him or not, the premise is pretty straightforward. Our global populations are all in decline, in a pretty big way and for a lot of the countries, it's irreversible. Fun topic to discuss.
I have not read his book, although I have watched a lot of his stuff online. But there are a lot of people I have watched on this subject besides Zeihan. There is a lot of academic science on populations and what happens in different conditions. If you want to have nightmares look up the Mouse Utopia studies that were done in the 60's.
 
I guess I better get that vasectomy reversed. Off to Publix to store up frozen peas.
Hmm my wife is currently pushing for me to get a vasectomy. Maybe I need to show her these trends.

Note: I'm a wimp when it comes to pain tolerance and both my wife and I suffer from fertility issues so our odds of getting pregnant naturally are very slim as is - hence my hesitation.
 
You read Zeihan's book The End of the World Is Jus the Beginning? It pretty much maps out this exact discussion, giving why's & wherefores as to how we got here and where it's going. Surprisingly the US wins in the end. Oh...spoiler alert.

Whether you agree with him or not, the premise is pretty straightforward. Our global populations are all in decline, in a pretty big way and for a lot of the countries, it's irreversible. Fun topic to discuss.
I have not read this book, but this would seem to not correlate with the Bible which seems to have no mention of the US in end times.
 
Assume population halves. There will certainly be a difficult transition period as the existing population ages. Assuming equilibrium is eventually achieved at the lower total population, that sounds like a positive to me.
Ah, the Thanos theory. “I am inevitable”.
 
Assume population halves. There will certainly be a difficult transition period as the existing population ages. Assuming equilibrium is eventually achieved at the lower total population, that sounds like a positive to me.
The problem is stabilization. If the world population halved, for it to stay at that number every woman would have to have like 2.3 kids. No modern society is near that, so the question is how a society would get it up to that and maintain it without reverting to a preindustrial society.
 
I guess I better get that vasectomy reversed. Off to Publix to store up frozen peas.
Hmm my wife is currently pushing for me to get a vasectomy. Maybe I need to show her these trends.

Note: I'm a wimp when it comes to pain tolerance and both my wife and I suffer from fertility issues so our odds of getting pregnant naturally are very slim as is - hence my hesitation.

It really wasn’t that bad - plan it out around your case work and get it done on a Thursday or Friday and watch football all weekend
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
Also people choosing to have kids later in life. It’s a decision I made and I’m a better parent for it. But in doing it, it limits the overall number of kids a person may have in their lifetime.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
I personally think it’s expense as well, at least in this country. If you are above the government assistance line, it’s crazy how much a thing as simple as child care costs and few can have one parent stay home now.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
Also people choosing to have kids later in life. It’s a decision I made and I’m a better parent for it. But in doing it, it limits the overall number of kids a person may have in their lifetime.
Definitely. Average marriage age in America is 28.5. The oldest it has ever been.
 
I guess I better get that vasectomy reversed. Off to Publix to store up frozen peas.
Hmm my wife is currently pushing for me to get a vasectomy. Maybe I need to show her these trends.

Note: I'm a wimp when it comes to pain tolerance and both my wife and I suffer from fertility issues so our odds of getting pregnant naturally are very slim as is - hence my hesitation.
It’s a piece of cake, 7 minutes out the door.
 
I guess I better get that vasectomy reversed. Off to Publix to store up frozen peas.
Hmm my wife is currently pushing for me to get a vasectomy. Maybe I need to show her these trends.

Note: I'm a wimp when it comes to pain tolerance and both my wife and I suffer from fertility issues so our odds of getting pregnant naturally are very slim as is - hence my hesitation.
It’s a piece of cake, 7 minutes out the door.
Very little discomfort too. Just don't plan much movement for 2-3 days.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
I personally think it’s expense as well, at least in this country. If you are above the government assistance line, it’s crazy how much a thing as simple as child care costs and few can have one parent stay home now.
There is a level of self-sacrifice that people won't go below for personal comfort and there is no longer an assumption that people will have a child in their 20's so there is no preparation for it. It is changing priorities and expectations that emphasizes the self over family across time have made having kids "to expensive" monetarily and personally.
 
I plead ignorance. I don't know much about the data. But for all the talk in years past about overpopulation, all in all this may be a net positive. Getting there, though, will be rough for the generations who are larger than the next one. Social security or just generally elder care will likely suffer when there aren't the numbers needed to support it. Maybe some medical technology will come to the fore in the nick of time. Aging is going to look very different in the future, too, so maybe we will not need to replace ourselves as often.
 
We cannot trust people to make economic predictions 6 months out. I am not worried about what someone says is going to happen in a generation, or two, from now.

No more unemployment. Less waste. Less resources consumed. Less starvation.

You can make a good list of the positives with as much certainty as the negatives. Maybe it's a massive net gain.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
Also people choosing to have kids later in life. It’s a decision I made and I’m a better parent for it. But in doing it, it limits the overall number of kids a person may have in their lifetime.
Definitely. Average marriage age in America is 28.5. The oldest it has ever been.

First marriage or any marriage? Lots of divorces and 2nd marriages these days.
 
In the 60s and 70s, there were books written about the coming overpopulation crisis and food shortages leading to mass starvations and societal collapse. Sold lots of books, I'm sure.

Of course hunger is still a problem and we haven't completely eliminated food insecurity, but the predictions didn't come true. In the early 70s, 35% of the global population was undernourished, that's down to about 10% now, despite having 4.4B more mouths to feed. Agricultural practices and technology provided more food. Globalization and urbanization had a part. The 17 cents a day my family sent to some organization to feed a kid in Africa after watching a tv commercial was probably what really tipped the scales (Sam Kinison's routine on those commercials was great).

And, yes, there were family planning and government policies that contributed. Maybe the scales have tipped a little too far. But I'd bet human ingenuity will find a way to tip the teeter-totter back the other way again and avoid economic collapse due to population decline. And we'll probably over-correct and have to come up with something else. We're great at finding solutions (especially if there's money in it), but not so great at finding balance.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
Also people choosing to have kids later in life. It’s a decision I made and I’m a better parent for it. But in doing it, it limits the overall number of kids a person may have in their lifetime.
Definitely. Average marriage age in America is 28.5. The oldest it has ever been.

First marriage or any marriage? Lots of divorces and 2nd marriages these days.
First.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
I personally think it’s expense as well, at least in this country. If you are above the government assistance line, it’s crazy how much a thing as simple as child care costs and few can have one parent stay home now.
There is a level of self-sacrifice that people won't go below for personal comfort and there is no longer an assumption that people will have a child in their 20's so there is no preparation for it. It is changing priorities and expectations that emphasizes the self over family across time have made having kids "to expensive" monetarily and personally.
Every american has been dealing with inflation the last 3 years. Young people, especially those that start a family, have been dealing with inflation for 2-3 decades. Its impacts were felt harder over the last 15 years because of the great recession.

There is certainly a self > whole variable at play, but it's the effect, not the cause. The man stacked the deck against them and these are the outcomes. How to fix it is outside the scope of this forum, but won't be done by the powers that be anyway.
 
We cannot trust people to make economic predictions 6 months out. I am not worried about what someone says is going to happen in a generation, or two, from now.

No more unemployment. Less waste. Less resources consumed. Less starvation.

You can make a good list of the positives with as much certainty as the negatives. Maybe it's a massive net gain.
Well the field of study isn't economics its demographics and there are some certainties that can't change. If most of your population is over 40 it isn't going to start reproducing, in fact it physically can't in most cases. To start to turn the worldwide trend around, globally Gen Z's kids would have to start having lots of children when they come of age. There might be a population number out there that a society reaches and things turn around to at least substantiable number. But again, this means a birthrate of a minimum of 2.3 kids per woman. This isn't something any modern society has been shown there are able to sustain.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
I personally think it’s expense as well, at least in this country. If you are above the government assistance line, it’s crazy how much a thing as simple as child care costs and few can have one parent stay home now.
There is a level of self-sacrifice that people won't go below for personal comfort and there is no longer an assumption that people will have a child in their 20's so there is no preparation for it. It is changing priorities and expectations that emphasizes the self over family across time have made having kids "to expensive" monetarily and personally.
Every american has been dealing with inflation the last 3 years. Young people, especially those that start a family, have been dealing with inflation for 2-3 decades. Its impacts were felt harder over the last 15 years because of the great recession.

There is certainly a self > whole variable at play, but it's the effect, not the cause. The man stacked the deck against them and these are the outcomes. How to fix it is outside the scope of this forum, but won't be done by the powers that be anyway.
The assumption being made is that personal financial security is a higher priority than having kids. If instead of people going into debt to get a degree that doesn't pay for itself, they went into debt when you were young to support having a family of two to three children, and the assumption was after children were grown you paid off your debt in the years of your life that you are likely to earn the most money anyway, in your 50s to 60s. Maybe people form coops or communities similar to Amish communities where communal labor and growing a lot of your own food defrays costs. My point is there are times in history which were at least as harsh economically as it is today, and people continued to enough kids to grow the population. For instance, population growth from 1914 to 1945 increased despite two world wars, a great pandemic, and a great worldwide depression. We live in hard times but not hard like that.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
I personally think it’s expense as well, at least in this country. If you are above the government assistance line, it’s crazy how much a thing as simple as child care costs and few can have one parent stay home now.
There is a level of self-sacrifice that people won't go below for personal comfort and there is no longer an assumption that people will have a child in their 20's so there is no preparation for it. It is changing priorities and expectations that emphasizes the self over family across time have made having kids "to expensive" monetarily and personally.
Every american has been dealing with inflation the last 3 years. Young people, especially those that start a family, have been dealing with inflation for 2-3 decades. Its impacts were felt harder over the last 15 years because of the great recession.

There is certainly a self > whole variable at play, but it's the effect, not the cause. The man stacked the deck against them and these are the outcomes. How to fix it is outside the scope of this forum, but won't be done by the powers that be anyway.
The assumption being made is that personal financial security is a higher priority than having kids. If instead of people going into debt to get a degree that doesn't pay for itself, they went into debt when you were young to support having a family of two to three children, and the assumption was after children were grown you paid off your debt in the years of your life that you are likely to earn the most money anyway, in your 50s to 60s. Maybe people form coops or communities similar to Amish communities where communal labor and growing a lot of your own food defrays costs. My point is there are times in history which were at least as harsh economically as it is today, and people continued to enough kids to grow the population. For instance, population growth from 1914 to 1945 increased despite two world wars, a great pandemic, and a great worldwide depression. We live in hard times but not hard like that.
I want to respond to this, but can't on this board. All I'll say is overlay a graph of annual gdp vs wages over the last 4 decades then ask the people why they think that happened and what they expect going forward.
 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
The impact of educated people waiting till late 30s to have two kids is massive. Daisy chain that and you eliminate three generation families entirely by 2050 for large sectors of the society. Just this alone will hurt in unimaginable ways.
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
Birth control pills became available in the 1960s.
 
My point is there are times in history which were at least as harsh economically as it is today,

“At least as harsh as today?” Well yeah, we’ve had depressions and 34 recessions since 1854 and high inflation that lasted nearly a decade. We have none of that right now. Recessions used to happen every 3-4 years. But we’ve only had three this century and one of them lasted all of two months.

Doesn’t mean one isn’t coming. We might be overdue. But this is definitely the worst vibecession we’ve ever been through.
 
And since we have a whole other thread where we discuss the economy, back to specifics on this topic….kids used to be labor. On the farm. In a factory when they were teenagers. They were net financial benefits to the family after the first decade or so, or at least pulling their own weight. More kids meant more hands to work the land or bring in money.

There are some countries where that still is the case - the ones with high birth rates. In more developed countries, it has shifted to kids now being a straight up expense until they’re in their 20s (and more and more, beyond). So what do we do about it?

Economies grow because they produce more. That comes both from more people AND more productivity. Productivity is going to have to pick up more and more of the slack as the population stops growing and declines. Do we not think that can continue to happen, and even accelerate? Maybe that’s the dividing line between people who’s think this will be a disaster and those who think we’ll figure it out?
 
I think it’s a combo of the expense of raising kids with many struggling and the effect of social media causing people to be more solitary and also more self involved.
I don't think it is expense, the poorest people in the world have the most kids and enough of them survive that the general population is raising, I think kids are much more considered an inconvenience and hinderance to a lifestyle. Modern world society just doesn't value kids.
I think social media is an accelerator to the problem but not a root cause, these trends started in the 60s and 70s in many places, and got more pronounced in the 90s.
I personally think it’s expense as well, at least in this country. If you are above the government assistance line, it’s crazy how much a thing as simple as child care costs and few can have one parent stay home now.
There is a level of self-sacrifice that people won't go below for personal comfort and there is no longer an assumption that people will have a child in their 20's so there is no preparation for it. It is changing priorities and expectations that emphasizes the self over family across time have made having kids "to expensive" monetarily and personally.
Every american has been dealing with inflation the last 3 years. Young people, especially those that start a family, have been dealing with inflation for 2-3 decades. Its impacts were felt harder over the last 15 years because of the great recession.

There is certainly a self > whole variable at play, but it's the effect, not the cause. The man stacked the deck against them and these are the outcomes. How to fix it is outside the scope of this forum, but won't be done by the powers that be anyway.
The assumption being made is that personal financial security is a higher priority than having kids. If instead of people going into debt to get a degree that doesn't pay for itself, they went into debt when you were young to support having a family of two to three children, and the assumption was after children were grown you paid off your debt in the years of your life that you are likely to earn the most money anyway, in your 50s to 60s. Maybe people form coops or communities similar to Amish communities where communal labor and growing a lot of your own food defrays costs. My point is there are times in history which were at least as harsh economically as it is today, and people continued to enough kids to grow the population. For instance, population growth from 1914 to 1945 increased despite two world wars, a great pandemic, and a great worldwide depression. We live in hard times but not hard like that.
I want to respond to this, but can't on this board. All I'll say is overlay a graph of annual gdp vs wages over the last 4 decades then ask the people why they think that happened and what they expect going forward.
Unless you are going to specifically blame one party or the other, I think you would be able to say what you want. I will say that there are lots of reasons for wages for falling and for this discussion one of them was women entering the work force which increased the labor pool and depress wages and also depressed birthrate. We can argue academically on objective facts that happened in the past. My point is people in the past and currently are poorer and in some cases much poorer than modern societies but have higher birthrates. For a society that can control its birthrate through medical and social means maintaining a stable level of population looks like it is going to need a conscious choice by that society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAA

Users who are viewing this thread

Top