HawkShack.com

Elon Musk isn't my idea of a wise man, but he ventured a very provocative opinion, that the declining birth rate could threaten human civilization:

"I think one of the biggest risks to civilization is the low birth rate and the rapidly declining birthrate," Musk said at the Wall Street Journal's annual CEO Council. The 50-year-old was answering a question about how the proposed Tesla Bot could solve some of the world's labor issues. Musk had previously called the bot a "generalized substitute for human labor over time."

"And yet, so many people, including smart people, think that there are too many people in the world and think that the population is growing out of control. It's completely the opposite. Please look at the numbers – if people don't have more children, civilization is going to crumble, mark my words."

The global birthrate has been on a steady decline since 1960, according to World Bank. The U.S. birthrate fell by 4% in 2020 – a record low – according to the Centers for Disease Control.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bu ... 414749001/

I've been in an ongoing debate with my best friend for years as he argues that the root cause of most of the world's problems, including the pandemic, pollution, et al can be traced to overpopulation, that we're going to breed ourselves into extinction.

This dovetails into the labor shortage argument, that we don't have enough younger workers to replace retiring baby boomers.

Comments?

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

You need more people to take care of the current people. You only need people to take care of other people. Otherwise people don't matter to animals and the natural world because they would be better off with less people.

You keep adding people and you add more garbage, more pollution, more people to provide jobs for and take care of when sick or dying, more people to feed requiring more land, and all this while you have a core of highly educated, powerful, and technology driven people finding ways to run the world with less people needed meaning paying fewer of them to do jobs. They are building robots and AI to automate jobs and the world.

So your question is a very mixed bag. We don't really "need" more people as more people brings all the problems associated. But as far as growth goes the way human economies are built we need more people to take care of the existing people and provide enough of a population boost to collect taxes and such for the existing infrastructure we have built and our tax system and economic system which is entirely built on the notion that our population will grow.

And the environment? Well, we know the world operates better with less people cutting down trees, tossing garbage, mining minerals out, polluting the water, and generally mucking up the world. Humans are like what happens when you elminate any predators with a rabbit or pig population. We're way overpopulated and we destroy any biological diversity wherever we go because we like to shape everything into an environment for human living and all that comes with it.

As far as Elon Musk, he says a lot of things that are dumb along with a lot of things that are intelligent. One of the last dumb things I heard him utter was that governments have a "monopoly on violence" that he thought sounded clever. Anyone that understands what government is for would know that you want the government to have a "monopoly on violence' because a government that doesn't have a "monopoly on violence" is a war torn country where the price of violence is paid for by various powerful entities like warlords, criminal enterprises, or corporations employing private armies to rule sections of the nation. People don't like to live in those types of unstable nations.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

You need more people to take care of the current people. You only need people to take care of other people. Otherwise people don't matter to animals and the natural world because they would be better off with less people.

You keep adding people and you add more garbage, more pollution, more people to provide jobs for and take care of when sick or dying, more people to feed requiring more land, and all this while you have a core of highly educated, powerful, and technology driven people finding ways to run the world with less people needed meaning paying fewer of them to do jobs. They are building robots and AI to automate jobs and the world.

So your question is a very mixed bag. We don't really "need" more people as more people brings all the problems associated. But as far as growth goes the way human economies are built we need more people to take care of the existing people and provide enough of a population boost to collect taxes and such for the existing infrastructure we have built and our tax system and economic system which is entirely built on the notion that our population will grow.

And the environment? Well, we know the world operates better with less people cutting down trees, tossing garbage, mining minerals out, polluting the water, and generally mucking up the world. Humans are like what happens when you elminate any predators with a rabbit or pig population. We're way overpopulated and we destroy any biological diversity wherever we go because we like to shape everything into an environment for human living and all that comes with it.

As far as Elon Musk, he says a lot of things that are dumb along with a lot of things that are intelligent. One of the last dumb things I heard him utter was that governments have a "monopoly on violence" that he thought sounded clever. Anyone that understands what government is for would know that you want the government to have a "monopoly on violence' because a government that doesn't have a "monopoly on violence" is a war torn country where the price of violence is paid for by various powerful entities like warlords, criminal enterprises, or corporations employing private armies to rule sections of the nation. People don't like to live in those types of unstable nations.

Yeah, like I said, I don't consider Elon Musk as one of the wise men, and I don't agree that this is the beginning of the end for human civilization.

Except as it applies to economics, I don't see the decline in the birth rate as being a huge problem. It's something that can be adjusted and controlled to some degree. They can encourage people to have kids, and in fact, the government is doing that to some degree as we speak by advancing initiatives such as child care and tax credits for children.

The female fertility rate in this country has been hanging in at around 1.78, same as it was in 1978. At 2.0 per female, each person would be reproducing once, so I don't think it's way out of whack. It popped back up, was at 2.0 for about 15 years, then in 2009 during the Great Recession, started sliding down below 1.8 again. It's something that our governments need to keep an eye on. If it starts getting significantly above or below 2.0, then they need to adjust their policies accordingly.

We are going to go through some economic contraction as the disparity between young and old is throwing a monkey wrench into the formulas that were devised to support our socialized aged programs like Social Security and Medicare and the labor shortage won't go away for some time, but it will eventually begin to right itself when the baby boomer generation starts dying off in 15 or 20 years.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U ... ility-rate

RiverDog wrote:Yeah, like I said, I don't consider Elon Musk as one of the wise men, and I don't agree that this is the beginning of the end for human civilization.

Except as it applies to economics, I don't see the decline in the birth rate as being a huge problem. It's something that can be adjusted and controlled to some degree. They can encourage people to have kids, and in fact, the government is doing that to some degree as we speak by advancing initiatives such as child care and tax credits for children.

The female fertility rate in this country has been hanging in at around 1.78, same as it was in 1978. At 2.0 per female, each person would be reproducing once, so I don't think it's way out of whack. It popped back up, was at 2.0 for about 15 years, then in 2009 during the Great Recession, started sliding down below 1.8 again. It's something that our governments need to keep an eye on. If it starts getting significantly above or below 2.0, then they need to adjust their policies accordingly.

We are going to go through some economic contraction as the disparity between young and old is throwing a monkey wrench into the formulas that were devised to support our socialized aged programs like Social Security and Medicare and the labor shortage won't go away for some time, but it will eventually begin to right itself when the baby boomer generation starts dying off in 15 or 20 years.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U ... ility-rate

Any one that is older has been listening to Armageddon theories from religion and science for almost our entire lives. I remember receiving pamphlets about the end of the world from various religious groups and listening to a few of my religious friends talk about the end times when young. I recall peak oil theory that oil would be gone in 20 years. And nuclear war would end the world. And some virus would kill us all. And we would run out of food due to the size of the population. And global warming would kill us all. And they call it climate change because it doesn't appear to be warming everywhere equally.

I'm at the point where I don't much believe any of these people. I see the media pushing the Climate Change Armageddonists who are the new religion and I'm not sure how many times they will have to be wrong before people start treating them like priests and other end of the world movements. They push people like Greta Thunberg to the forefront to screech and cry about how we left them a dying world and yet they live in the easiest times in history playing on their phones and computers why whining about Climate Change Armageddon while not providing any other solution than just shut all of society down and go back to living like druids where we're all frightened and horrified of technology because it causes Climate Change.

These people love to toss out end of the world theories or some dire prediction because if they're right, they look like geniuses. And if their wrong, no one cares. The worst ones are those making money and gaining power and control over us from the fear mongering. These are the ones you have to worry about the most and watch carefully. They have an agenda and want something. Elon's just making off the cuff predictions for his own amusement.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Any one that is older has been listening to Armageddon theories from religion and science for almost our entire lives. I remember receiving pamphlets about the end of the world from various religious groups and listening to a few of my religious friends talk about the end times when young. I recall peak oil theory that oil would be gone in 20 years. And nuclear war would end the world. And some virus would kill us all. And we would run out of food due to the size of the population. And global warming would kill us all. And they call it climate change because it doesn't appear to be warming everywhere equally.

I'm at the point where I don't much believe any of these people. I see the media pushing the Climate Change Armageddonists who are the new religion and I'm not sure how many times they will have to be wrong before people start treating them like priests and other end of the world movements. They push people like Greta Thunberg to the forefront to screech and cry about how we left them a dying world and yet they live in the easiest times in history playing on their phones and computers why whining about Climate Change Armageddon while not providing any other solution than just shut all of society down and go back to living like druids where we're all frightened and horrified of technology because it causes Climate Change.

These people love to toss out end of the world theories or some dire prediction because if they're right, they look like geniuses. And if their wrong, no one cares. The worst ones are those making money and gaining power and control over us from the fear mongering. These are the ones you have to worry about the most and watch carefully. They have an agenda and want something. Elon's just making off the cuff predictions for his own amusement.

Back in the 50's and 60's, it was the threat of nuclear annihilation had everyone building bomb shelters. There are still people that stock their homes with a year's food supply. We had a neighbor who lived by herself that had a two year supply of Costco survival meals.

Climate change is real, but we'll adjust to it. I also think that it will be possible within the next 50 years that we can control the climate, reverse the effect of the greenhouse gasses that has contributed to global warming.

Musk has a point. There are some very smart people that don't realize that over population is not a problem, or at least, it is a problem that will self-correct without any kind of intervention. I can attest to that as my friend, the smartest man I know well enough to call a friend, believes that we're going to breed ourselves into extinction.

We've done a very good job of getting a large percentage of people into their 70's, 80's and 90's, but we have not extended the maximum age at which people live. The oldest person on record that lived to be 122 years old died in 1997. If you want a good investment tip, buy stock in mortuaries as business will be booming in another 10 years.

RiverDog wrote:Back in the 50's and 60's, it was the threat of nuclear annihilation had everyone building bomb shelters. There are still people that stock their homes with a year's food supply. We had a neighbor who lived by herself that had a two year supply of Costco survival meals.

Climate change is real, but we'll adjust to it. I also think that it will be possible within the next 50 years that we can control the climate, reverse the effect of the greenhouse gasses that has contributed to global warming.

Musk has a point. There are some very smart people that don't realize that over population is not a problem, or at least, it is a problem that will self-correct without any kind of intervention. I can attest to that as my friend, the smartest man I know well enough to call a friend, believes that we're going to breed ourselves into extinction.

We've done a very good job of getting a large percentage of people into their 70's, 80's and 90's, but we have not extended the maximum age at which people live. The oldest person on record that lived to be 122 years old died in 1997. If you want a good investment tip, buy stock in mortuaries as business will be booming in another 10 years.

Climate Change is real only because it's always been real. The degree of human caused climate change I am not convinced of. I've read the science and it seems very speculative. I really wish I would live long enough to see us reduce the greenhouse gas emission and yet climate change continues unabated just as it has for many thousands of years. Climate changed has created deserts. It has shifted agriculture for ages. It has impacted us constantly over the millennia. There is zero guarantee that limiting green house gases will alter how the climate changes.

Right now Climate Change is being used to push an agenda of control I do not like. They are using it to force us all into electric vehicles whether we can afford them or not. The vegan movement is using it to try to get rid of meat consumption attributing 30% of green house gases to animal husbandry. They are using it to push additional taxes on us. And they are forming global control systems based on climate change and the "emergency" it represents.

If in another 50 years they do all this and nothing changes, then what? Declare it's not an emergency and claim they miscalculated? Or just find new scientists to reconfigure the science until it fits what they want to do?

They were wrong about peak oil theory. They were wrong about nuclear Armageddon. They were wrong about Malthusian Starvation. Why do you think the scientific community are right this time? Do you not ever wonder if scientists go into an echo chamber where they are unwilling to admit when their scientific proofs are not playing out as indicated and are thus possibly wrong? But if they admit their theory is wrong or not playing out as expected, they lose power and credibility?

I'd love to live another 100 years to see how right these scientists turn out to be. Right now they have the ear of a scared population. How long they will hold that ear? Who can say. Science is as they say the new religion. It's methods are better than religion, but sometimes they do come up with their own Armageddon Theories that prove to be about as right as the religious quacks.

Maybe there are too many people in the world now, so declining birth rates is a good thing.
In general, as a society gets wealthier the birth rates decline. Probably some exceptions
but it’s usually true.

If we look at what is happening in Japan as a microcosm of the global declining birth rate, then yeah, it's a problem.

I-5 wrote:If we look at what is happening in Japan as a microcosm of the global declining birth rate, then yeah, it's a problem.

Good point, I-5. I hadn't realized that until you forced me to search it. I can use it as ammunition with my friend that I've been debating with. It highlights the problems I noted in the labor shortage thread:

The number of babies born in Japan fell to a record low last year, the health ministry said on Friday, as more couples put off marriage and starting a family amid a global pandemic.

The number of births fell to 840,832 in 2020, down 2.8% from a year earlier and the lowest since records began in 1899, the ministry said.
The coronavirus outbreak has hit birth rates around the world, including in the United States, despite early speculation that pandemic-related lockdowns may lead to a global baby boom.

The number of registered marriages in Japan fell 12.3% last year to 525,490, a post-war record, the ministry said. The country's fertility rate, the expected number of births per woman, declined to 1.34, among the lowest in the world.

Japan has been struggling with a looming demographic crisis for years, with its birth rate continually declining -- raising concerns of the aging population and shrinking workforce. It is a "super-aged" nation, meaning more than 20% of its population is older than 65. The country's total population stood at 124 million in 2018 -- but by 2065 it is expected to have dropped to about 88 million.

Neighboring South Korea has also struggled with low birth rates for years; in 2020, it reported more deaths than births for the first time -- a marker known as the "population death cross," meaning the total population has shrunk.

And in China, the world's most populous country, the number of newborns registered dropped almost 15% last year. The government last week announced it would further ease its strict family planning policy by allowing couples to have up to three children to combat the slide.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/05/asia/jap ... index.html

Japan doesn't have a history of allowing immigrants into their country.
They've been pretty closed as far as that goes. I'm not sure about the other Asian countries like S. Korea but maybe it's
a cultural thing.
However, may previous statement is being shown correct with Japan, S. Korea, and China. As they have become wealthier
the birth rates dropped.

Here in North America it might be a different problem in that there's a narrative that I'm hearing from young people that
they can't afford to have kids. If so, we have to plan to have younger workers move into those positions older workers are
retiring from. We've moved from a society where there were a lot of career paths to one where people jump from job to
job as the opportunities arise. That instability can't help people plan for their future in the same way we used to.

NorthHawk wrote:Japan doesn't have a history of allowing immigrants into their country. They've been pretty closed as far as that goes. I'm not sure about the other Asian countries like S. Korea but maybe it's a cultural thing. However, may previous statement is being shown correct with Japan, S. Korea, and China. As they have become wealthier
the birth rates dropped.

Here in North America it might be a different problem in that there's a narrative that I'm hearing from young people that
they can't afford to have kids. If so, we have to plan to have younger workers move into those positions older workers are
retiring from. We've moved from a society where there were a lot of career paths to one where people jump from job to
job as the opportunities arise. That instability can't help people plan for their future in the same way we used to.

My daughter and son-in-law, in their mid 30's, have been trying to conceive for several years and having failed, have turned to in vitro fertilization. Having a vested interest in the process, I saw an episode on PBS's Nova about the subject and just started watching yesterday. It seems that they're not the only ones, that there's a lot of couples in this country with fertility issues:

In the United States, some 10% of people who wish to have children struggle with infertility. It’s especially common in the African American community, and fertility preservation can be difficult for transgender individuals as well. But why is this? And what can be done about it? NOVA explores barriers to fertility, from the social to the biological, and the state of assisted reproductive technologies. Follow the journeys of people navigating challenges from structural inequalities and racism to falling sperm counts, egg freezing, and IVF. (Premiered May 12, 2021)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/fig ... fertility/

In vitro fertilization is an extremely expensive process and the worst of it is that it's not guaranteed to produce a pregnancy. The odds are about 50% on the first try so it's not an option for many young couples. I'm helping my kids out with the expenses as even with the two of them holding down good jobs, it's almost out of their reach financially.

Some of the young people you are talking to may be a little embarrassed to disclose their real problem. There's quite a social stigma for a man that has a low sperm count or some other reason why the two of them can't conceive.

I'll have to finish watching the Nova program so I can weigh in a little more intelligently on the subject, but it would seem that there's a problem with fertility amongst men and women in developed countries.

I've actually been reading it in the news and hearing it on radio.
It struck me as so different from when I was young and truly had the world open to what I wanted to do.

Fertility certainly is a problem, but I'm not convinced it's a major cause - at least no more than it ever was.

NorthHawk wrote:I've actually been reading it in the news and hearing it on radio.
It struck me as so different from when I was young and truly had the world open to what I wanted to do.

Fertility certainly is a problem, but I'm not convinced it's a major cause - at least no more than it ever was.

Like I said, I'll have to finish watching the program to make an intelligent response, but if 10% of the population is having fertility issues, it would be a major cause. And from what I've seen initially, the fertility problems ARE more pronounced now than they have been in the past, at least for developed countries.

Just put republicans in charge of the world coronavirus response and accelerate the process.

I worry about climate, anyone who doesn't is deluding themselves. I worry about pandemics. Economic collapse. But I'm far more worried about something like a nuclear pearl Harbor.
I believe the Bible too and we are definitely living end times prophecies right now, revelation times and some of the prophecies aren't good. It gets a lot worse before it gets better.

And Asea I and many other are not "religious people" I detest religion, dont go to church or any kind of organized gatherings other than weddings or funerals but I have a deep and abiding faith in God. I know that's nuanced but its probably the only reason I'm on the planet. Id profess it to anyone and often do.

Why would we want more people when almost every single issue we have is attributed to problems due to more people?

1. Human caused climate change due too many people eating meat, driving cars, and producing carbon.

2. Automation is reducing the reliance on people and pushing to use fewer and fewer people where they state that we'll lose a 100 million jobs due to automation in the next few decades.

3. Social security is headed for bankruptcy because it is based on unsustainable population projections.

The world is basically pushing an agenda that wants there to be less people while using an economic system that encourages more people. The speculation is that we will reach a point where we will not have jobs for these people and thus UBI (Universal Basic Income) will be required to care for them which means they become beholden to a redistribution of wealth regardless of productivity as the government takes responsibility for caring for the human herd.

How do you expect these competing agendas to play out?

Hawktawk wrote:Just put republicans in charge of the world coronavirus response and accelerate the process.

I worry about climate, anyone who doesn't is deluding themselves. I worry about pandemics. Economic collapse. But I'm far more worried about something like a nuclear pearl Harbor.
I believe the Bible too and we are definitely living end times prophecies right now, revelation times and some of the prophecies aren't good. It gets a lot worse before it gets better.

And Asea I and many other are not "religious people" I detest religion, dont go to church or any kind of organized gatherings other than weddings or funerals but I have a deep and abiding faith in God. I know that's nuanced but its probably the only reason I'm on the planet. Id profess it to anyone and often do.

My question is do you worry about these things because they are really close to occurring or because there is a massive fear-mongering media machine firmly intent on keeping you thinking it will happen so they can exert control or sell you something?

Gold bugs and now crypto bugs sell economic collapse theories based on debased fiat currency to sell gold and crypto.

Climate Change Armageddonists are pushing EVs, plant-based food, and constant regulation for environmental control including taxes and other measures that encourage behavioral change or increase the government coffers.

And why do you believe we are living in th end times? How long do you live in the end times? Even when the Book of Revelations was first written, it was believed that the current time was the end time the Book of Revelations was written in. Now these Bible folks update it as needed. And what's funny the scientists pushing climate change or what was previously known as global warming update their theory as needed too. Which is why it is so easy to see the similarities.

The economic collapse due to fiat currency gold bugs update their theory as well.

Nearly everyone updates their Armageddon Theories because they haven't ever panned out. When you're always wrong, you have to update to convince the new generation of how close they are to destruction.

I find it very strange that humans as a while often submit themselves to this fear-mongering for as long as they do. Though I do think that many humans just start to tune things out after listening to such a constant negative barrage of rhetoric aimed as pushing them in various directions.

Even Riverdog asking the question are there too few people is a fear-mongering push that I've read before about low fertility rates that are below population replacement level. The man asking it Elon Musk is one of the people building robots and automation. I am left to wonder if he is pushing his idea for an agenda like selling robots to replace workers because he has theorized that there will be an insufficient number of human beings to sustain the workforce in the the future. Thus he is positioning his company with its newly unveiled Tesla Bot as a means to counter this drop in population.

That's why following the business news is so much more interesting than the mainstream news. What entrepreneurs are doing to change the future is far more telling than what dumbass Donald or old man Biden are spouting. The smartphone has done more to change the world than any president probably since FDR or Lincoln. The advent of cheap, affordable electricity has done more to alter the world than almost any politician. Entrepreneurs have agendas and seeing how they move can be some indication of the agenda they are pushing that may alter the world. Now Elon is joining the robotic work force push.

RiverDog wrote:My daughter and son-in-law, in their mid 30's, have been trying to conceive for several years and having failed, have turned to in vitro fertilization. Having a vested interest in the process, I saw an episode on PBS's Nova about the subject and just started watching yesterday. It seems that they're not the only ones, that there's a lot of couples in this country with fertility issues:

In the United States, some 10% of people who wish to have children struggle with infertility. It’s especially common in the African American community, and fertility preservation can be difficult for transgender individuals as well. But why is this? And what can be done about it? NOVA explores barriers to fertility, from the social to the biological, and the state of assisted reproductive technologies. Follow the journeys of people navigating challenges from structural inequalities and racism to falling sperm counts, egg freezing, and IVF. (Premiered May 12, 2021)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/fig ... fertility/

In vitro fertilization is an extremely expensive process and the worst of it is that it's not guaranteed to produce a pregnancy. The odds are about 50% on the first try so it's not an option for many young couples. I'm helping my kids out with the expenses as even with the two of them holding down good jobs, it's almost out of their reach financially.

Some of the young people you are talking to may be a little embarrassed to disclose their real problem. There's quite a social stigma for a man that has a low sperm count or some other reason why the two of them can't conceive.

I'll have to finish watching the Nova program so I can weigh in a little more intelligently on the subject, but it would seem that there's a problem with fertility amongst men and women in developed countries.

They want to blame low fertility on racism even though this country was far more racist in the past and the fertility rates for folks of African descent were super high? That kind of stuff is laughable.

I've heard so many theories as to reduced fertility from diet to lack of physical activity to strange chemicals in our drinking water or food. And current technology is working towards customization of children. Not sure how far off that is, but it is a service desired by the wealthy so they can elminate obvious bad genes but also increase desirable traits like height, intelligence, and the like.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Why would we want more people when almost every single issue we have is attributed to problems due to more people?

1. Human caused climate change due too many people eating meat, driving cars, and producing carbon.

2. Automation is reducing the reliance on people and pushing to use fewer and fewer people where they state that we'll lose a 100 million jobs due to automation in the next few decades.

3. Social security is headed for bankruptcy because it is based on unsustainable population projections.

The world is basically pushing an agenda that wants their to be less people while using an economic system that encourages more people. The speculation is that we will reach a point where we will not have jobs for these people and thus UBI (Universal Basic Income) will be required to care for them which means they become beholden to a redistribution of wealth regardless of productivity as the government takes responsibility for caring for the human herd.

How do you expect these competing agendas to play out?

As far as Reason #1 goes, the rate of world population increase has been steadily declining since 1969 when it was 2.09% annually, is currently at 1%, and is projected to continue to decline to 0% by the end of the century. Population growth is not what's driving climate change, it's industrialization.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/W ... %20rows%20

Reason #2 where are you getting your information? Total employment in the United States is currently 157 million, so you're saying that we're going to lose 2/3's of our work force due to automation? I call BS.

Reason #3 is not due to total population or population increase, it's due to the age demographics being out of whack, too many people drawing out of the pot and too few putting in.

The way I expect these 'agendas' to play out is that we're in for a sustained labor shortage/SS and Medicare crisis for at least the next 5-10 years. The last baby boomer was born in 1960, after which there was a significant decline in the birth rate due to the advent of the pill. The worst of it will occur in 2027 when the last baby boomer hits full retirement. From there for the next 20 years, the boomers will be dying off and the pendulum will gradually begin to swing back to a more normal balance.

The pill, abortion, “alternative” lifestyles…..

RiverDog wrote:As far as Reason #1 goes, the rate of world population increase has been steadily declining since 1969 when it was 2.09% annually, is currently at 1%, and is projected to continue to decline to 0% by the end of the century. Population growth is not what's driving climate change, it's industrialization.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/W ... %20rows%20

And you industrialize to do what? To provide goods and services to larger and larger populations. The more you have to feed, clothe, and the like, the more you will release gases and such into the air and water. Human caused climate change which is what this is referred to is directly caused by increasing the size of the human population. Human caused climate change is caused by human activity including humans breathing.

Reason #2 where are you getting your information? Total employment in the United States is currently 157 million, so you're saying that we're going to lose 2/3's of our work force due to automation? I call BS.

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages

If you follow the business news, this is a common idea. They are working to automate transportation, warehouse work and other forms of manual labor, nursing, and just about everything including writing software. They have AI that can apparently code far faster and more efficiently than a human.

Reason #3 is not due to total population or population increase, it's due to the age demographics being out of whack, too many people drawing out of the pot and too few putting in.

It is built on an increasing population model, while the environmental movement wants a decreasing population model. You have a competing agenda occurring where human caused climate change is competing with economic systems designed around a constantly increasing population. It is pretty easy to see that the more you expand the human population, the more land you need to build dwellings, the more land you need to produce food, the more jobs you need including workspaces for jobs, more power needed, more of everything humans use which creates waste and other factors associated with human caused climate change.

The underlying science of climate change is tied to human activity. The very basic idea being that we are producing increased greenhouse gases while reducing the plant life (Forests and trees) that used to consume these carbon gases producing a higher percentage of oxygen which we breathe and use causing an imbalance in the gases and trapping heat in the atmosphere. The most notorious gases being carbon dioxide (C02) produced through combustion and respiration and methane (CH4) produced by expulsion of gas such as cow farts or the gas released during drilling and decomposition. The entire basis of human caused climate change is exacerbated by the existence of more humans unless we perhaps go back to living like we did pre-industrialization. If we go back to living pre-industrialization there is the argument that we would cause a mass genocide as industrialization is the only reason we have been able to support this level of population growth.

That is why it is a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. We have to keep using technology to support a human population this size, but if we do then we keep producing massive amounts of waste. I'm sure technology will overcome this at some point, but when? Hard to say.

The way I expect these 'agendas' to play out is that we're in for a sustained labor shortage/SS and Medicare crisis for at least the next 5-10 years. The last baby boomer was born in 1960, after which there was a significant decline in the birth rate due to the advent of the pill. The worst of it will occur in 2027 when the last baby boomer hits full retirement. From there for the next 20 years, the boomers will be dying off and the pendulum will gradually begin to swing back to a more normal balance.

The world will look very different in 20 years. Normal balance? What does that even mean.

You think the 3rd world will be caught up enough to reduce their populations sufficiently to a normal balance? There will be what happens in the advanced first world, then there will be what occurs in the rest of the world.

You want to discuss something this complex. It's going to go very deep because the population of America makes up what? 4% of the world population? The advanced world population is slowing, but the 3rd world population is continuing to grow as they practice more of an old world culture. The entire discussion is one that is going to lead to some very strange global governance.

RiverDog wrote:As far as Reason #1 goes, the rate of world population increase has been steadily declining since 1969 when it was 2.09% annually, is currently at 1%, and is projected to continue to decline to 0% by the end of the century. Population growth is not what's driving climate change, it's industrialization.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/W ... %20rows%20

Aseahawkfan wrote:And you industrialize to do what? To provide goods and services to larger and larger populations. The more you have to feed, clothe, and the like, the more you will release gases and such into the air and water. Human caused climate change which is what this is referred to is directly caused by increasing the size of the human population. Human caused climate change is caused by human activity including humans breathing.

You have the wagon in front of the horses. Population doesn't drive population, population drives industrialization.

Reason #2 where are you getting your information? Total employment in the United States is currently 157 million, so you're saying that we're going to lose 2/3's of our work force due to automation? I call BS.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If you follow the business news, this is a common idea. They are working to automate transportation, warehouse work and other forms of manual labor, nursing, and just about everything including writing software. They have AI that can apparently code far faster and more efficiently than a human.

Link? I want to see where it's going to replace 100 million jobs in the coming decades. If you've been following the business news as you say you have, it shouldn't be too hard.

Transportation is going to be tough to automate. Even if autonomous cars and trucks are proven to be safer than human operated, one fatal crash will send the public into hysterics as our country of morons lack the ability to process information. Uber has already canceled their experiments with autonomous cars. They're going to have to start slow, with lanes on freeways on I-80 in Wyoming dedicated to autonomous trucks. It's going to take a long time.

Reason #3 is not due to total population or population increase, it's due to the age demographics being out of whack, too many people drawing out of the pot and too few putting in.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It is built on an increasing population model, while the environmental movement wants a decreasing population model.

No, it's not built on increasing population, it's built on a balanced age distribution. Active workers support retired ones. From the SSA website:

Due to demographic changes, the U.S. Social Security system will face financial challenges in the near future. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancies are causing the U.S. population to age. Today 12 percent of the total population is aged 65 or older, but by 2080, it will be 23 percent. At the same time, the working-age population is shrinking from 60 percent today to a projected 54 percent in 2080. Consequently, the Social Security system is experiencing a declining worker-to-beneficiary ratio, which will fall from 3.3 in 2005 to 2.1 in 2040 (the year in which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted). This presents a significant challenge to policymakers.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66 ... %20percent.

Not a word about increasing population as being the cause, to the contrary. It's been the decline of fertility rates, along with increases of life expectancy, that has caused the crisis.

The way I expect these 'agendas' to play out is that we're in for a sustained labor shortage/SS and Medicare crisis for at least the next 5-10 years. The last baby boomer was born in 1960, after which there was a significant decline in the birth rate due to the advent of the pill. The worst of it will occur in 2027 when the last baby boomer hits full retirement. From there for the next 20 years, the boomers will be dying off and the pendulum will gradually begin to swing back to a more normal balance.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The world will look very different in 20 years. Normal balance? What does that even mean.

When total deaths equal total births. A 2.0 per female fertility rate sustained over the span of human life.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You think the 3rd world will be caught up enough to reduce their populations sufficiently to a normal balance? There will be what happens in the advanced first world, then there will be what occurs in the rest of the world.

You want to discuss something this complex. It's going to go very deep because the population of America makes up what? 4% of the world population? The advanced world population is slowing, but the 3rd world population is continuing to grow as they practice more of an old world culture. The entire discussion is one that is going to lead to some very strange global governance.

No, it's not been growing, it's been in decline. At random, I picked Nigeria as an example. Their peak growth rate was 3.08 in 1978 and currently sits at 2.55%, has been in decline over the past 10 years, and is projected to continue to decline until the end of the century.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/N ... rowth-rate

RiverDog wrote:You have the wagon in front of the horses. Population doesn't drive population, population drives industrialization.

What does this even mean? You probably barely read on the environmental movement and their agenda or what's going on with all this like the speculation that mining the materials necessary to fuel batteries on a scale needed to supply batteries for an EV market the size of the ICE market will cause severe environmental damage possibly on par with the damage from ICE vehicles.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/

Population size is directly linked to environmental problems. More people, more stress on the environment. Population size has fueled the majority of scientific Armageddon theories whether Malthusian Starvation or Peak Oil Theory and now Climate Change. More people, more environmental problems. The environmental movement just keeps moving the goalposts when their predictions don't pan out much like religion does.

Link? I want to see where it's going to replace 100 million jobs in the coming decades. If you've been following the business news as you say you have, it shouldn't be too hard.

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages

The link was provided. Not sure why you missed it. What is going to replace it? Robots and AI are going to replace the jobs.

Transportation will not be hard to automate. Sensationalistic stories will not trump data with the government. FSD (Full Self Driving) is proving to be safer and more effective than human drivers. Companies like Mobile Eye, Nvidia, Tesla, and various others are building huge data bases to analyze how to improve driving.

Robots are being built by companies like Boston Dynamics. Irobot, and a bunch of companies (https://etfdb.com/themes/robotics-etfs/) looking to automate various industrie. I even saw an add recently on Youtube to replace grill and frier workers in fast food restaurants.

AI is being used for stock trading (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/11/automated-trading-systems.asp), writing software (https://www.wired.com/story/ai-write-code-like-humans-bugs/), and this is just the start of AI and robotics.

This is why I recommend reading the business news over the mainstream news if you want to see the direction of the world. Technology provides a far better indicator of the future than what Trump or Biden are saying or some old politician is pushing that has no clue what future entrepreneurs are building to change the world. You tell me? What changed the world more: the internet and computer or Donald Trump? Electricity or FDR? The smartphone or Obama?

Automating transportation is a when, not if. It is not even in question any longer that transportation will be automated.

The speculation is automation will displace more and more jobs causing a reduction in jobs and a deflationary environment as costs will be lowered by automation including AI and robots. This will likely lead to the need for some of the following:

1. UBI: Universal basic income.

2. Shorter work weeks that should distribute the same amount of hours to more workers.

3. An education shift to more technology driven jobs. A mechanic won't be able to learn to fix an ICE vehicle, but will need to know how to fix an electric vehicle and associated software and hardware. It will come down to jobs where people are still desirable like customer service jobs or the ability to fix the automated technology.

The link I posted is expecting a much higher level of job displacement and destruction worldwide.

No, it's not built on increasing population, it's built on a balanced age distribution. Active workers support retired ones. From the SSA website:

Due to demographic changes, the U.S. Social Security system will face financial challenges in the near future. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancies are causing the U.S. population to age. Today 12 percent of the total population is aged 65 or older, but by 2080, it will be 23 percent. At the same time, the working-age population is shrinking from 60 percent today to a projected 54 percent in 2080. Consequently, the Social Security system is experiencing a declining worker-to-beneficiary ratio, which will fall from 3.3 in 2005 to 2.1 in 2040 (the year in which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted). This presents a significant challenge to policymakers.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66 ... %20percent.

Not a word about increasing population as being the cause, to the contrary. It's been the decline of fertility rates, along with increases of life expectancy, that has caused the crisis.

This is what really makes it hard to have a good discussion with you. You post a link that directly contradicts what you're asserting, but you can't analyze the information to realize this. Fertility rates and life expectancy are both tied to population size. Lower fertility leads to a lower population growth which can fall below the replacement level. Higher life expectancy leads to more people on the planet for longer wanting to collect social security benefits while no longer paying into the tax system that pays for it. Thus you need the population to grow at a rate where the active workers to retired worker ratio is large enough to support the retired workers. The entire description is based on increasing population. Yet you are claiming "not a word about increasing the population." It shouldn't have to spelled out for you, bud. It really shouldn't.

Social security was created during a time of booming population growth. It was an easy model to sell because of this. The entire model was created based on a booming population causing surging economic growth.

Social security was based on an increasing population model to maintain or improve the active worker to retired worker ratio.

Most of this stuff you should just know. It shouldn't even be a debate that our economic models are built on increasing population size. It's literally why America is always seeking new markets with new consumers and why a mature market like America seeks a relatively small 3% GDP growth with 2% inflation for a 1% real GDP growth. It's economics 101 to understand how population size and markets work as well as percentage based tax systems like social security are calculated. I figured you at least had enough of an understanding of percentage based math and economics to see this. I shouldn't have to explain to you or anyone else engaged in economic discussions.

It is not real fun to debate with a person without even a basic understanding of what they're debating. It's like listening to trents cite the Constitution without any real knowledge of what The Founders based the Constitution on or what measures they themselves took to remedy emergencies. I'll leave you to debate with people who are less knowledgeable on this subject. It's not entertaining to have to debate ideas that aren't even question like the population model for social security or the population size in relation to the environmental movement when this issues have been so thoroughly discussed by anyone even halfway educated on either subject.

It was also designed when there was a lower age life expectancy so it's a bit of a double hit.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Fertility rates and life expectancy are both tied to population size. Lower fertility leads to a lower population growth which can fall below the replacement level. Higher life expectancy leads to more people on the planet for longer wanting to collect social security benefits while no longer paying into the tax system that pays for it. Thus you need the population to grow at a rate where the active workers to retired worker ratio is large enough to support the retired workers. The entire description is based on increasing population. Yet you are claiming "not a word about increasing the population." It shouldn't have to spelled out for you, bud. It really shouldn't.

You're going to have to start showing me some facts if you want to convince me that your theory on fertility is correct. The best I can tell is that they're not completely sure of what the contributing factors are.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Social security was created during a time of booming population growth. It was an easy model to sell because of this. The entire model was created based on a booming population causing surging economic growth.

Social security was based on an increasing population model to maintain or improve the active worker to retired worker ratio.

Not true. You're just winging it without checking the facts.

The population growth in the 1930's, as measured by the 1940 census, showed a population growth of 7.27%, less than half of what it was in the previous and succeeding decades. The 1930's were by far the lowest period of population growth in the 20th century. Social Security was a New Deal program started by Roosevelt, first elected in 1932, and was enacted in 1935. The real population explosion was from 1946-1960, 10-25 years after Social Security was first established.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ted_States

What they didn't plan for was an increase in life expectancy, plus they expanded the program to include things like worker disability, something that was not part of the original justification.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Most of this stuff you should just know.

LOL!!! Pot calling the kettle black. Come back when you brush up on your facts.