In my last essay I returned to the subject of the global fertility collapse, the unexpected and underappreciated trend that in my view confronts us with the permanent problem at its most devilish. What do I mean by that? Capitalism, by raising us into broad-based material prosperity, has provided us with sufficient resources and powers to allow the widespread development, exercise, and enjoyment of inborn capacities that would constitute mass human flourishing. We are thus confronted with what John Maynard Keynes referred to as mankind’s “permanent problem.” Alas, even as it brings the problem within our view, capitalist mass affluence creates conditions that make the continued ascent toward mass flourishing more difficult — see, for example,
Well mused. :) I do, however wish to turn this discussion toward what to DO to offset some of the consequences of of ageing, declining populations.:
Financing transfers to the elderly with a VAT instead of a wage tax
Focus medical and pharmaceutical research toward prolonging health working lives
And reducing the disincentives to childrearing, especially the opportunity costs to women's careers. Here I would argue that transfers to young families rearing children are as worthwhile as transfer to older adults.
In the next essay I talk about possible government responses, some of them dystopian. Sensible, modest measures are worth doing, but they don't seem capable of pushing us back above replacement fertility.
I have written about this topic a few times. So glad to see you discussing this as well. Humanity is not prepared for this. Imagine a less extreme version of "I am Legend." Empty and decaying apartment blocks. Some roads become overgrown because they are not worth maintaining. Planes still fly, but fewer and fewer routes are available as demand drops... It's not an inspiring vision at all. Beyond this a shrinking population likely means less innovation and stagnate growth.
In a world with no economic growth, getting ahead is once again a zero sum game of stealing it from others. My gain must mean your loss; the pie is getting no bigger, after all. In such a world, our deepest demons could be reawakened.
A few thoughts I would invite you to consider in your subsequent essays:
- What are the ecological up sides to fewer humans?
- How should we “load balance” the humans currently on the planet so that the most capable humans (younger and healthier) are located in proximity to where we have already concentrated resources to create value?
- What cultural conversations should we be having regarding elder and end of life care? From the front lines I can assure you that the medical institutions are starting to decay. We already augment care due to shortage of human capital (aka nurses and certain medical specialists). See Ezekiel J. Emanuel, “WHY I HOPE TO DIE AT 75”, The Atlantic Monthly, October 2014.
- What are you personally doing to provide care to children born in this decade, both within the immediate family and within the community?
Without a doubt, there's an ecological upside to depopulation. As an unapologetic speciesist, however, that's a bad trade in my book. I don't see any possibility of top-down load balancing, but I can imagine a bottom-up process in the form of increased migration flows. I haven't really focused on the fact that a shrinking society is a very old society, with lots of associated problems, but that's an important part of the picture. As to my role in all this, I'm a parent of three and stepparent of two, and I promise you I'll nag for grandchildren.
A quibble on N. Korea vs S. Korea: should we really believe N. Korean fertility figures? Given how much, for example, China has clearly falsified their economic growth statistics, wouldn't North Korean stats be worth at least as much skepticism?
It's a good point -- I poked around a little but couldn't find any skepticism expressed about the fertility numbers. Bizarre to even imagine that 100 years from now the nighttime photos of the Korean peninsula might show the opposite contrast.
I think other countries will experience the same trend that Japan/Tokyo have seen where the largest city sucks up all available population.
I especially wonder how it will skew national politics in those places where the capital and the biggest city aren't the same. Obviously that tension already exists but imagine how much tenser it will be in 2100 when Canberra, Brasilia, Ottawa, Beijing, Islamabad, Taipei, Ankara, and Hanoi are shrinking and heavily skewed towards the geriatric crowd as the biggest city continues to attract everyone.
Young people are more pessimistic than ever about our future. Climate change, COVID, economic inequality, habitat and species loss, plastics in the ocean and in our food, Donald Trump ending democracy, school shootings, opioids, economic instability, the list goes on.
This pessimism has real consequences. Many of the young people I talk with think it's unethical to have children because the world (in their view) is in a death spiral. For example nearly 40% of Americans think it's likely that climate change will make the Earth uninhabitable:
Young people are more pessimistic than ever about our future. Climate change, COVID, economic inequality, habitat and species loss, plastics in the ocean and in our food, Donald Trump ending democracy, school shootings, opioids, economic instability, the list goes on.
This pessimism has real consequences. Many of the young people I talk with think it's unethical to have children because the world (in their view) is in a death spiral. For example nearly 40% of Americans think it's likely that climate change will make the Earth uninhabitable:
I agree that deepening pessimism is a contributor to falling fertility. It's striking that this demoralization kicked in just as the world had become dramatically richer, healthier, fairer, and freer than ever before.
I mentioned the possibility briefly in this earlier essay. Bottom line: AI and robots do offer a possible replacement for missing researchers and workers. But what about the missing consumers?
Presumably depopulation will have a moderating effect on housing costs, which have outpaced median wage growth for two generations. In the surveys I’ve seen in the US, women want to have more children but don’t because of costs. Is there any evidence that cheaper housing will lead to more births?
Not necessarily. If the remaining population starts congregating in fewer and fewer cities for economic opportunities it could cause prices in those cities to remain high even while the population as a whole declines.
A declining population does not absolve us of our responsibility to build more housing.
I’m thinking it would create a rebound effect towards a new equilibrium with growth. It’s not going to happen all at once. Housing prices will just stop outpacing inflation and after 10 years they’re affordable again.
Maybe...But it's very complicated. If a supply constrained place stagnates or even declines it can still maintain property values because you have lots of induced demand. People living with roommates or in small ADU's get their own places.
And then prices start going back up again.
Long term you have to build lots to maintain affordabiity. It turns out it's pretty hard to build enough to keep up with population when it is growing for more than a few decades
As an example tons of homes were built between 1945 and 1970 when population grew from around 140M to 200M. But the overall pace of building actually slowed down post 1970 even as population grew from 200M to 350M.
I'm not one for predicting the future. But I would add this to your list of "master trends" that may influence that future. I am talking of the gathering storm that is threatening to sink what has been (for the last few centuries) the world's great economic/cultural hegemon.....Judeo-Christian, Eurocentric, Enlightement Liberalism. Whatever will replace it - whether made in SE Asia or just some global reassertion of Paganism or religious fevour - will have a big influence on the fertility or otherwise of that future. I discuss the gathering storm in this essay: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
You lost me right here: "By inducing an ongoing drop in fertility that has spread around the world, capitalist mass affluence now threatens to short-circuit social progress altogether." Periods of falling population are historically associated with major social progress. Consider Rome after it lost over 10% of its population defeating Carthage, the Black Death in Europe leading to the Renaissance, and the carnage of World War II leading to an unprecedented era of growth. Lower population meant more resources per capita which opened the way for new ways of doing things and major social and material progress.
Now, it is possible that the current slowing of population growth and possible decline might have different consequences, but it's hard to see why. Our technology isn't going to go away. We'll be forced to push it forward to increase productivity. This is what happened with European settlers moving into North America. A smaller population doesn't mean we will become less vibrant or creative. Down to four billion? Been there, did that, wore the lime green leisure suit. Were we that much less creative in 1974? Did doubling our population let us deal better with our challenges by sheer dint of an additional four billion souls? That's not the impression I get.
It's easier to argue that our rising population is suppressing social progress, innovation, [other good things] and the cause of human freedom.
P.S. Good luck with your theory that massive layoffs are a sign of imminent corporate bankruptcy. There are so many Wall Street investors who seem to get it backwards.
Well mused. :) I do, however wish to turn this discussion toward what to DO to offset some of the consequences of of ageing, declining populations.:
Financing transfers to the elderly with a VAT instead of a wage tax
Focus medical and pharmaceutical research toward prolonging health working lives
And reducing the disincentives to childrearing, especially the opportunity costs to women's careers. Here I would argue that transfers to young families rearing children are as worthwhile as transfer to older adults.
In the next essay I talk about possible government responses, some of them dystopian. Sensible, modest measures are worth doing, but they don't seem capable of pushing us back above replacement fertility.
Radical life extension. AI and robotics.
I have written about this topic a few times. So glad to see you discussing this as well. Humanity is not prepared for this. Imagine a less extreme version of "I am Legend." Empty and decaying apartment blocks. Some roads become overgrown because they are not worth maintaining. Planes still fly, but fewer and fewer routes are available as demand drops... It's not an inspiring vision at all. Beyond this a shrinking population likely means less innovation and stagnate growth.
In a world with no economic growth, getting ahead is once again a zero sum game of stealing it from others. My gain must mean your loss; the pie is getting no bigger, after all. In such a world, our deepest demons could be reawakened.
Given so many scenarios that are so weird and unsettling, it really surprises me we haven't seen more sci fi set in a depopulating world.
We will. The reality that we face an empty planet is beginning to enter the public consciousness.
A few thoughts I would invite you to consider in your subsequent essays:
- What are the ecological up sides to fewer humans?
- How should we “load balance” the humans currently on the planet so that the most capable humans (younger and healthier) are located in proximity to where we have already concentrated resources to create value?
- What cultural conversations should we be having regarding elder and end of life care? From the front lines I can assure you that the medical institutions are starting to decay. We already augment care due to shortage of human capital (aka nurses and certain medical specialists). See Ezekiel J. Emanuel, “WHY I HOPE TO DIE AT 75”, The Atlantic Monthly, October 2014.
- What are you personally doing to provide care to children born in this decade, both within the immediate family and within the community?
Without a doubt, there's an ecological upside to depopulation. As an unapologetic speciesist, however, that's a bad trade in my book. I don't see any possibility of top-down load balancing, but I can imagine a bottom-up process in the form of increased migration flows. I haven't really focused on the fact that a shrinking society is a very old society, with lots of associated problems, but that's an important part of the picture. As to my role in all this, I'm a parent of three and stepparent of two, and I promise you I'll nag for grandchildren.
A quibble on N. Korea vs S. Korea: should we really believe N. Korean fertility figures? Given how much, for example, China has clearly falsified their economic growth statistics, wouldn't North Korean stats be worth at least as much skepticism?
It's a good point -- I poked around a little but couldn't find any skepticism expressed about the fertility numbers. Bizarre to even imagine that 100 years from now the nighttime photos of the Korean peninsula might show the opposite contrast.
I think other countries will experience the same trend that Japan/Tokyo have seen where the largest city sucks up all available population.
I especially wonder how it will skew national politics in those places where the capital and the biggest city aren't the same. Obviously that tension already exists but imagine how much tenser it will be in 2100 when Canberra, Brasilia, Ottawa, Beijing, Islamabad, Taipei, Ankara, and Hanoi are shrinking and heavily skewed towards the geriatric crowd as the biggest city continues to attract everyone.
Young people are more pessimistic than ever about our future. Climate change, COVID, economic inequality, habitat and species loss, plastics in the ocean and in our food, Donald Trump ending democracy, school shootings, opioids, economic instability, the list goes on.
This pessimism has real consequences. Many of the young people I talk with think it's unethical to have children because the world (in their view) is in a death spiral. For example nearly 40% of Americans think it's likely that climate change will make the Earth uninhabitable:
https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/42262-americans-say-climate-change-earth-uninhabitable
It's hard to convince someone to have kids if they honestly feel the world is trending in such a negative direction.
And Biden and the Democrats ending democracy with lawfare, ignoring Supreme Court decisions, using regulatory powers to get around the law, etc.
Young people are more pessimistic than ever about our future. Climate change, COVID, economic inequality, habitat and species loss, plastics in the ocean and in our food, Donald Trump ending democracy, school shootings, opioids, economic instability, the list goes on.
This pessimism has real consequences. Many of the young people I talk with think it's unethical to have children because the world (in their view) is in a death spiral. For example nearly 40% of Americans think it's likely that climate change will make the Earth uninhabitable:
https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/42262-americans-say-climate-change-earth-uninhabitable
It's hard to convince someone to have kids if they honestly feel the world is trending in such a negative direction.
I agree that deepening pessimism is a contributor to falling fertility. It's striking that this demoralization kicked in just as the world had become dramatically richer, healthier, fairer, and freer than ever before.
I wonder if you could comment on if and how automation/AI/robots, etc. might mitigate the risks of depopulation?
I mentioned the possibility briefly in this earlier essay. Bottom line: AI and robots do offer a possible replacement for missing researchers and workers. But what about the missing consumers?
Presumably depopulation will have a moderating effect on housing costs, which have outpaced median wage growth for two generations. In the surveys I’ve seen in the US, women want to have more children but don’t because of costs. Is there any evidence that cheaper housing will lead to more births?
Not necessarily. If the remaining population starts congregating in fewer and fewer cities for economic opportunities it could cause prices in those cities to remain high even while the population as a whole declines.
A declining population does not absolve us of our responsibility to build more housing.
Yes but if you depend on declining population to make housing affordable you have already lost the battle.
I’m thinking it would create a rebound effect towards a new equilibrium with growth. It’s not going to happen all at once. Housing prices will just stop outpacing inflation and after 10 years they’re affordable again.
Maybe...But it's very complicated. If a supply constrained place stagnates or even declines it can still maintain property values because you have lots of induced demand. People living with roommates or in small ADU's get their own places.
And then prices start going back up again.
Long term you have to build lots to maintain affordabiity. It turns out it's pretty hard to build enough to keep up with population when it is growing for more than a few decades
As an example tons of homes were built between 1945 and 1970 when population grew from around 140M to 200M. But the overall pace of building actually slowed down post 1970 even as population grew from 200M to 350M.
Shouldn't South Korea be taking lots of immigrants from North Korea?
Hard to let em in if the other side won't let em out.
The South just has to pay for them. It's what West Germany did
I'm not one for predicting the future. But I would add this to your list of "master trends" that may influence that future. I am talking of the gathering storm that is threatening to sink what has been (for the last few centuries) the world's great economic/cultural hegemon.....Judeo-Christian, Eurocentric, Enlightement Liberalism. Whatever will replace it - whether made in SE Asia or just some global reassertion of Paganism or religious fevour - will have a big influence on the fertility or otherwise of that future. I discuss the gathering storm in this essay: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
You lost me right here: "By inducing an ongoing drop in fertility that has spread around the world, capitalist mass affluence now threatens to short-circuit social progress altogether." Periods of falling population are historically associated with major social progress. Consider Rome after it lost over 10% of its population defeating Carthage, the Black Death in Europe leading to the Renaissance, and the carnage of World War II leading to an unprecedented era of growth. Lower population meant more resources per capita which opened the way for new ways of doing things and major social and material progress.
Now, it is possible that the current slowing of population growth and possible decline might have different consequences, but it's hard to see why. Our technology isn't going to go away. We'll be forced to push it forward to increase productivity. This is what happened with European settlers moving into North America. A smaller population doesn't mean we will become less vibrant or creative. Down to four billion? Been there, did that, wore the lime green leisure suit. Were we that much less creative in 1974? Did doubling our population let us deal better with our challenges by sheer dint of an additional four billion souls? That's not the impression I get.
It's easier to argue that our rising population is suppressing social progress, innovation, [other good things] and the cause of human freedom.
P.S. Good luck with your theory that massive layoffs are a sign of imminent corporate bankruptcy. There are so many Wall Street investors who seem to get it backwards.