@Zervo "Strained resources and meager life tends to favour more children-making over not having childrens"
This is a MAJOR problem. Education has to be a top priority to fix this.
Unfortunately there is only one way to decline a population without War or Disease -- and that is that you will inevitably end up with a population that is older for a while until the larger generation dies. I would far prefer that and stagnant economies to the alternative -- War or Disease. Or famine. The answer to budget deficits is addressing the stark reality and raising the retirement age for public pensions/social security. (I dont know if this is the case in the rest of the world) Social Security was introduced by FDR in 1935, at a starting collection age of 62. The average lifespan at the time was 61. The simple answer is that Social Security was intended to be a last resort for people who lived longer than they expected and hence ran out of retirement funds, not a crutch for everyone to retire for 10 years on. Unfortunately this is a highly unpopular view, even if it is the most realistic one.
As long as one is fine with the cultural shifts that occur with immigration, this is a workable solution. However, there really are only a handful of cultures conducive to taking in hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The USA is one of them. Canada (WOOOO HOCKEY SEASON IS ALMOST BACK) and Australia are others. Most western european cultures -- and certainly Japan -- are NOT. This is primarily because there simply isn't room for more people in Europe and Japan.
What scares me more to this line of thinking is... what happens, say, 30 or 40 years from now, when China has this problem of too many elderly and not enough people to replace them? China has grown fantastically and they have very competent (if authoritarian) leadership. We cannot simply expect China to have a forever-growing population. There aren't enough resources to support that. The reality is that unless we manage to automate everything (which we won't -- everything in 30-40 years time will be outsourced to Africa), many, many millions of Chinese will simply have to end up working to death, which will make their economy slow because there will be fewer jobs for younger Chinese people. It is sad but such is the reality of 20th century population growth.
A new economic system will not change the realities of too many people and not enough electricity/food/water/land.
TL;DR too many people, not enough resources, but I would prefer a sluggish economy to any of the alternatives.
27
@Zervo "Strained resources and meager life tends to favour more children-making over not having childrens"
This is a MAJOR problem. Education has to be a top priority to fix this.
Unfortunately there is only one way to decline a population without War or Disease -- and that is that you will inevitably end up with a population that is older for a while until the larger generation dies. I would far prefer that and stagnant economies to the alternative -- War or Disease. Or famine. The answer to budget deficits is addressing the stark reality and raising the retirement age for public pensions/social security. (I dont know if this is the case in the rest of the world) Social Security was introduced by FDR in 1935, at a starting collection age of 62. The average lifespan at the time was 61. The simple answer is that Social Security was intended to be a last resort for people who lived longer than they expected and hence ran out of retirement funds, not a crutch for everyone to retire for 10 years on. Unfortunately this is a highly unpopular view, even if it is the most realistic one.
As long as one is fine with the cultural shifts that occur with immigration, this is a workable solution. However, there really are only a handful of cultures conducive to taking in hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The USA is one of them. Canada (WOOOO HOCKEY SEASON IS ALMOST BACK) and Australia are others. Most western european cultures -- and certainly Japan -- are NOT. This is primarily because there simply isn't room for more people in Europe and Japan.
What scares me more to this line of thinking is... what happens, say, 30 or 40 years from now, when China has this problem of too many elderly and not enough people to replace them? China has grown fantastically and they have very competent (if authoritarian) leadership. We cannot simply expect China to have a forever-growing population. There aren't enough resources to support that. The reality is that unless we manage to automate everything (which we won't -- everything in 30-40 years time will be outsourced to Africa), many, many millions of Chinese will simply have to end up working to death, which will make their economy slow because there will be fewer jobs for younger Chinese people. It is sad but such is the reality of 20th century population growth.
A new economic system will not change the realities of too many people and not enough electricity/food/water/land.
TL;DR too many people, not enough resources, but I would prefer a sluggish economy to any of the alternatives.