Empty Planet: The shock of global population decline (2019, Bricker & Ibbitson)

[pecunia]

Perhaps with less people, there may be the necessity for people to think of innovative ways to do things.

"Necessity is the Mother of Invention"

Plus - The world had less people and produced Newtons, James Watt, Thomas Edison and many many more.  The rate of innovation may slow slightly, but I suspect not too much.

Plus - People do not have the living tasks of people of the past.  Some of the men of the past did not have modern plumbing, sewage and heating.  There will still be modern labor saving devices with population decrease which the great men of the past did not have.  Until recent times, calculating machines were not readily available.  The means to store, retrieve and transmit information is a boon to almost any innovator.  No need to "reinvent the wheel," as the design can be found online.  This should have the effect of increasing the rate of innovation.  (unless, it just makes people too lazy to innovate.)

[FIPurpose]

Perhaps with less people, there may be the necessity for people to think of innovative ways to do things.

"Necessity is the Mother of Invention"

Plus - The world had less people and produced Newtons, James Watt, Thomas Edison and many many more.  The rate of innovation may slow slightly, but I suspect not too much.

Plus - People do not have the living tasks of people of the past.  Some of the men of the past did not have modern plumbing, sewage and heating.  There will still be modern labor saving devices with population decrease which the great men of the past did not have.  Until recent times, calculating machines were not readily available.  The means to store, retrieve and transmit information is a boon to almost any innovator.  No need to "reinvent the wheel," as the design can be found online.  This should have the effect of increasing the rate of innovation.  (unless, it just makes people too lazy to innovate.)

Add to that global cooperation and publication. It wasn't that long ago where you would have to wait for someone to translate your work, ship it on a boat, and be rich enough to receive one of the few copies on your continent. Info is available to just about anyone almost as soon as it's published.

[Kronsey]

Erm, you are aware that VTSAX has quite a bit of RE exposure, right?

If the economy/population both crash, so does RE. Not very complex, really.

I prefer to imagine a future where automation and cheap clean energy mean humans can do what they want without a ton of working. So your SWR failure cases? Irrelevant.

-W

Most of my portfolio is VTSAX with some VGSLX and DFREX. Too my knowledge, most all of the real estate holdings inside those funds are commercial in nature. Both RE owned by the world's largest businesses as well commercial real estate inside the REITs.

Those holdings are all reliant on an ever expanding economy to provide dividends and appreciation. They are also highly correlated to equity positions already. Do some reading on the high correlation between commercial RE and equities. Basically one and the same with very little true diversification for the investor.

Residential real estate does not share all of those characteristics. You also glossed right over my comment on residential real estate owned free and clear still providing cash flow even if RE prices drop.

Your preferred imagination for the future may very well be true for those of us who own the capital. It will not be true for your average working slub who spends 100% of his paycheck each week unless you believe the multinational mega corps will suddenly start providing resources for free to those less fortunate people who don't own/control the capital.

That view is too utopian for me to even fathom. Spend some time looking into how mega corps currently treat third world countries. They exploit the natural resources and then dump trash there by "selling it to them" with the corrupt politicians lining their own pockets while the citizens water and sewer is made up of plastic from the West.

I just don't understand how you think resources are going to matriculate down to ordinary people in the future. Shareholders aren't going to approve it and taxation is a pipe dream as the corporate lobby has dominated every election in recent history in the US. And if/when the US falls, whoever pops up to replace will have the same problems.

Having said all that, I do think about these things and sometimes conclude "who knows how it will all turn out, so I'm just going to keep buying VTSAX and hope for the best". But when I try to apply basic critical reasoning to these issues, I don't usually arrive at the same conclusion.

Or said another way, it is much easier to take the ostrich approach and stick our heads in the sand and keep buying VTSAX and hope for the best. I do hope you are correct, as that approach takes way less effort :)

[pecunia]

Who will get the patents from self learning AIs?

[rudged]

Re. automation, the authors of Empty Planet make the point that with fewer young people, we will presumably have fewer innovators.

Is innovation purely a numbers game?  Or can we foster it by better education, better nutrition, and better enrichment opportunities.  All of which should actually be easier to achieve with fewer young people crowding each other.

I took them to be making a psychological or sociological claim, namely that when one starts a career early in life, he or she tends to be more driven to succeed than those who are older.

[pecunia]

Is AI limited to producing code or can the algorithms produce improvements in machinery for the "real" world?  For example, in examining different combinations of materials, perhaps a new battery could be produced better than Lithium Ion batteries.  In each case, does someone have to ask the AI or will it take it's own initiative?  Perhaps, it could be finding solutions to problems we don't even know exist.

[waltworks]

Erm, you are aware that VTSAX has quite a bit of RE exposure, right?

If the economy/population both crash, so does RE. Not very complex, really.

I prefer to imagine a future where automation and cheap clean energy mean humans can do what they want without a ton of working. So your SWR failure cases? Irrelevant.

-W

Most of my portfolio is VTSAX with some VGSLX and DFREX. Too my knowledge, most all of the real estate holdings inside those funds are commercial in nature. Both RE owned by the world's largest businesses as well commercial real estate inside the REITs.

Those holdings are all reliant on an ever expanding economy to provide dividends and appreciation. They are also highly correlated to equity positions already. Do some reading on the high correlation between commercial RE and equities. Basically one and the same with very little true diversification for the investor.

Residential real estate does not share all of those characteristics. You also glossed right over my comment on residential real estate owned free and clear still providing cash flow even if RE prices drop.

Your preferred imagination for the future may very well be true for those of us who own the capital. It will not be true for your average working slub who spends 100% of his paycheck each week unless you believe the multinational mega corps will suddenly start providing resources for free to those less fortunate people who don't own/control the capital.

That view is too utopian for me to even fathom. Spend some time looking into how mega corps currently treat third world countries. They exploit the natural resources and then dump trash there by "selling it to them" with the corrupt politicians lining their own pockets while the citizens water and sewer is made up of plastic from the West.

I just don't understand how you think resources are going to matriculate down to ordinary people in the future. Shareholders aren't going to approve it and taxation is a pipe dream as the corporate lobby has dominated every election in recent history in the US. And if/when the US falls, whoever pops up to replace will have the same problems.

Having said all that, I do think about these things and sometimes conclude "who knows how it will all turn out, so I'm just going to keep buying VTSAX and hope for the best". But when I try to apply basic critical reasoning to these issues, I don't usually arrive at the same conclusion.

Or said another way, it is much easier to take the ostrich approach and stick our heads in the sand and keep buying VTSAX and hope for the best. I do hope you are correct, as that approach takes way less effort :)

As far as I can tell, you just made a very long argument for buying stocks/VTSAX. If Joe and Jane Lumpenproletariat are wage slaves to big corporations, then owning stock in those corporations is great, right (setting aside the ethical implications)?

If anything, I'd be uncomfortable investing in RE. If people are mostly going to be all but owned by their corporate masters and/or live in squalor, I want nothing to do with residential RE.

-W

[pecunia]

As far as I can tell, you just made a very long argument for buying stocks/VTSAX. If Joe and Jane Lumpenproletariat are wage slaves to big corporations, then owning stock in those corporations is great, right (setting aside the ethical implications)?

If anything, I'd be uncomfortable investing in RE. If people are mostly going to be all but owned by their corporate masters and/or live in squalor, I want nothing to do with residential RE.

-W

You have to work on eliminating these feelings for humanity.  One easy way to do it is to simply say, "If I don't do it someone else will do it anyway."  You can also tell yourself it has been that way for most of human history and it's time for you to get yours.  That little conscience voice will grow ever quieter over time.  You may even end up as a CEO or a trusted crony.  Heck, You can even pay folks to tell you how great you are.  They may elect you as President.

[markbike528CBX]

For automation, there is so much of it just in recent years:
Everybody is using cell phones.
My cell phone (mostly) replaces the following things that I used in the past: shopping list, walkman, phone, GPS, phone book, general notebook, audio recorder, drivers licence, radio, TV, physical games, flashlight, paper book with personal contacts, light switch, photo albums, bank transfer checks, customer cards, calculator, agenda, password notebook, paper books, navigation maps for car or for hiking, encyclopedia, small cash for train ticket machines, small cash for parking machines.

Yep, xkcd agrees. https://xkcd.com/2212/

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phone_functions.png

[Linea_Norway]

For automation, there is so much of it just in recent years:
Everybody is using cell phones.
My cell phone (mostly) replaces the following things that I used in the past: shopping list, walkman, phone, GPS, phone book, general notebook, audio recorder, drivers licence, radio, TV, physical games, flashlight, paper book with personal contacts, light switch, photo albums, bank transfer checks, customer cards, calculator, agenda, password notebook, paper books, navigation maps for car or for hiking, encyclopedia, small cash for train ticket machines, small cash for parking machines.

Yep, xkcd agrees. https://xkcd.com/2212/

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phone_functions.png

Hmm, some of these future devices are interesting but, but maybe not quite realistic (Toothbrush, nail clipper)?
:-D

By the way, from next year I intend to become a little more analoge again and use a bullet journal instead of to do app on my phone

[ChpBstrd]

The intent of automation is to free the time of human beings so that we can spend our time on better things.  It is neither a bad idea nor can you expect it to go away.  If one could have a person from just a few generations take a look at what we have today, they would not view it as a negative, but would marvel at the achievement.

^This stuck out to me because I recognize what gets produced in the future will be a factor of what people demand. So what do people still need?

In the developed world, hundreds of millions of people have ALL their basic needs met. We sit in heated and air conditioned weather shelters, fully fed at all times, with access to clean water whenever we want it, sanitation, better safety than humans have ever enjoyed, electricity, and the means to travel or communicate across any distance easily.

Although the basic needs industries are enormous, there is very little net economic growth to be had in providing what is already in surplus. In fact, automation has eliminated the need for billions of farmers, foundation diggers, power plant workers, textile workers, factory workers, and craftsmen of all flavors. There is also less need for accountants, bank tellers, retail workers, and so on. As prices and employment fall, these industries shrink in terms of profits, employment, and economic share even as production increases.

So in theory all this abundance should help people “spend their time on better things.” What better things do they choose? Here are my observations about how the developed world is spending its surplus:

1) Status symbols: fancy cars, too-large houses in gated non-communities, cosmetics, and bejeweled iPhone cases.
2) Hedonic treadmill: luxuries, interest on debts, convenience items, vacations, work avoidance (e.g. the lawn service)
3) Addictives: opiates, narcotics, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, social media, etc.
4) Boredom: electronics, streaming, man-toys, etc.

I’m guilty as charged. In fact it seems like the easier things get, the less inclined I am to spend effort and resources on “better” things like:

-Education
-Charity
-Exercise
-Cultivating friendships
-Participating in democracy
-Creativity

In fact, it seems to get anything worthwhile or meaningful done, I must forcibly tear myself away from my smartphone, Netflix, or the cultivation of my ever-growing piles of manufactured products.

All this calls into question the entire rationale for economic growth, the striving for wealth, our definition of human dignity, and even retirement.  The suicide rate is skyrocketing among those who have all the material comforts. Many of us who work, drive an overpriced SUV home, and sit in front of a screen all evening would have had more engaging, interesting, healthy, and friend/love-filled lives had we been born into a life where we had to struggle, just a little, with factors outside ourselves. Yes, the people who endured hardships will be the first to tell you they wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but at least they got to feel something during their lives. They don’t realize that the culmination of the comfort they seek to achieve is a state of numbness, isolation, control, and meaninglessness The Standard American Middle-class Lifestyle, OTOH, resembles the matrix more and more every day. It is an existence that resembles not existing.

/ramble

[maizefolk]

All this calls into question the entire rationale for economic growth, the striving for wealth, our definition of human dignity, and even retirement.  The suicide rate is skyrocketing among those who have all the material comforts. Many of us who work, drive an overpriced SUV home, and sit in front of a screen all evening would have had more engaging, interesting, healthy, and friend/love-filled lives had we been born into a life where we had to struggle, just a little, with factors outside ourselves. Yes, the people who endured hardships will be the first to tell you they wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but at least they got to feel something during their lives. They don’t realize that the culmination of the comfort they seek to achieve is a state of numbness, isolation, control, and meaninglessness The Standard American Middle-class Lifestyle, OTOH, resembles the matrix more and more every day. It is an existence that resembles not existing.

Could you expand a bit more on the bolded bit? The suicide rate in the USA is definitely climbing (part of why our life expectancy has declined 3 years in a row) as are other "deaths of despair" (drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, etc).

But my understanding was that this was driven primarily by people without financial resources or economic prospects, rather than those with all of the material comforts our society is able to offer.

That said I could certainly be misinformed or misunderstanding, so would be interested to know more about your perspective.

[ChpBstrd]

All this calls into question the entire rationale for economic growth, the striving for wealth, our definition of human dignity, and even retirement.  The suicide rate is skyrocketing among those who have all the material comforts. Many of us who work, drive an overpriced SUV home, and sit in front of a screen all evening would have had more engaging, interesting, healthy, and friend/love-filled lives had we been born into a life where we had to struggle, just a little, with factors outside ourselves. Yes, the people who endured hardships will be the first to tell you they wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but at least they got to feel something during their lives. They don’t realize that the culmination of the comfort they seek to achieve is a state of numbness, isolation, control, and meaninglessness The Standard American Middle-class Lifestyle, OTOH, resembles the matrix more and more every day. It is an existence that resembles not existing.

Could you expand a bit more on the bolded bit? The suicide rate in the USA is definitely climbing (part of why our life expectancy has declined 3 years in a row) as are other "deaths of despair" (drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, etc).

But my understanding was that this was driven primarily by people without financial resources or economic prospects, rather than those with all of the material comforts our society is able to offer.

That said I could certainly be misinformed or misunderstanding, so would be interested to know more about your perspective.

Low socioeconomic status is associated with a higher suicide rate within countries. However, the poor in a developed country often have more luxuries (air conditioning, second cars, housing quality, electricity, toilets, medicines, entertainment) than the middle class in developing countries.

The US has 13.7 deaths from suicide per 100k people. In Afghanistan, it is 6.4. In Kenya it is 5.6. In Venezuela it is only 3.8. Yes, the rankings are all over the place in terms of income, but that’s the point. More luxuries do not necessarily protect against suicide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[Linea_Norway]

All this calls into question the entire rationale for economic growth, the striving for wealth, our definition of human dignity, and even retirement.  The suicide rate is skyrocketing among those who have all the material comforts. Many of us who work, drive an overpriced SUV home, and sit in front of a screen all evening would have had more engaging, interesting, healthy, and friend/love-filled lives had we been born into a life where we had to struggle, just a little, with factors outside ourselves. Yes, the people who endured hardships will be the first to tell you they wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but at least they got to feel something during their lives. They don’t realize that the culmination of the comfort they seek to achieve is a state of numbness, isolation, control, and meaninglessness The Standard American Middle-class Lifestyle, OTOH, resembles the matrix more and more every day. It is an existence that resembles not existing.

Could you expand a bit more on the bolded bit? The suicide rate in the USA is definitely climbing (part of why our life expectancy has declined 3 years in a row) as are other "deaths of despair" (drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, etc).

But my understanding was that this was driven primarily by people without financial resources or economic prospects, rather than those with all of the material comforts our society is able to offer.

That said I could certainly be misinformed or misunderstanding, so would be interested to know more about your perspective.

Low socioeconomic status is associated with a higher suicide rate within countries. However, the poor in a developed country often have more luxuries (air conditioning, second cars, housing quality, electricity, toilets, medicines, entertainment) than the middle class in developing countries.

The US has 13.7 deaths from suicide per 100k people. In Afghanistan, it is 6.4. In Kenya it is 5.6. In Venezuela it is only 3.8. Yes, the rankings are all over the place in terms of income, but that’s the point. More luxuries do not necessarily protect against suicide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Interesting list on Wikipedia. Finland is even above the USA. But many other western countries have a rate higher than many African countries. There seems to be no obvious link between the score in "best country to live in" and the lowest suicide rate.

[ChpBstrd]

All this calls into question the entire rationale for economic growth, the striving for wealth, our definition of human dignity, and even retirement.  The suicide rate is skyrocketing among those who have all the material comforts. Many of us who work, drive an overpriced SUV home, and sit in front of a screen all evening would have had more engaging, interesting, healthy, and friend/love-filled lives had we been born into a life where we had to struggle, just a little, with factors outside ourselves. Yes, the people who endured hardships will be the first to tell you they wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but at least they got to feel something during their lives. They don’t realize that the culmination of the comfort they seek to achieve is a state of numbness, isolation, control, and meaninglessness The Standard American Middle-class Lifestyle, OTOH, resembles the matrix more and more every day. It is an existence that resembles not existing.

Could you expand a bit more on the bolded bit? The suicide rate in the USA is definitely climbing (part of why our life expectancy has declined 3 years in a row) as are other "deaths of despair" (drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, etc).

But my understanding was that this was driven primarily by people without financial resources or economic prospects, rather than those with all of the material comforts our society is able to offer.

That said I could certainly be misinformed or misunderstanding, so would be interested to know more about your perspective.

Low socioeconomic status is associated with a higher suicide rate within countries. However, the poor in a developed country often have more luxuries (air conditioning, second cars, housing quality, electricity, toilets, medicines, entertainment) than the middle class in developing countries.

The US has 13.7 deaths from suicide per 100k people. In Afghanistan, it is 6.4. In Kenya it is 5.6. In Venezuela it is only 3.8. Yes, the rankings are all over the place in terms of income, but that’s the point. More luxuries do not necessarily protect against suicide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Interesting list on Wikipedia. Finland is even above the USA. But many other western countries have a rate higher than many African countries. There seems to be no obvious link between the score in "best country to live in" and the lowest suicide rate.

The point being, the luxuries we spend most of our lifetimes earning don’t amount to genuine happiness or thriving. If that were true, there’d be a linear relationship between wealth and factors like suicide. Yet almost all of us who have all we need believe we would be happier with more things, bigger things, and fewer struggles. Perhaps marketing indoctrinated us over time. All the evidence indicates the drop-off in happiness gained from additional marginal wealth/luxury occurs much earlier than most people think.

[maizefolk]

Once your basic needs are met, a strong determinant of happiness is having health and strong human connections and relationships.

From what I've read and some personal anecdotal experiences abroad or with international folks here in the US, typical american culture (to the extent a typical culture can be say to exist) is way out on one end of the distribution in the modern world in terms of how unwilling we are to initiate and carry out meaningful conversations with strangers, maintain connections and interactions with extended families, and even in terms of the strength of our preference against physical contact in social settings.

That's a gross generalization and there are doubtless countless exceptions. But I suspect part of the increase in suicides and deaths of despair we are seeing is driven by those lack of human connections, particularly when something goes wrong in ones life that severs a lot of a person's existing connections (divorce, job loss, estrangement from immediate family).*

*Which is not to discount the role economic factors play (lots of people out there without jobs and feeling no hope of ever getting a job again or otherwise improving their situation), or the spike is drug use and heroin dependance we're dealing with today as a result of the OxyContin debacle over the last decade. 

[Kyle Schuant]

Junger's Tribe is relevant to this discussion.

[pegleglolita]

Something else to consider is that what we are really talking about with these statistics are REPORTED suicides.  Recording of causes of death is not uniform across countries, and some countries have strong cultural pressures for suicides to be under-reported.  Not all data is equally reliable. 

[Leisured]

I am about 2/3 way through the book. I did not know how many rich and not so rich countries are at mere replacement fertility or a bit below. See below; a fertility of 2.1 is replacement level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

I grew up in the mad sixties when big families were common. In the chapter on India, the authors interviewed some Indian young women, and learned that they regarded the marriages of their parents as 'cautionary tales', a good phrase. Cautionary tales also applies to young men. As a teenager, I knew some working men who had large families and who were struggling financially, so the idea that marriages of the previous generation are cautionary tales applies, in principle, to both sexes.

I was impressed with the effect of urbanisation on attitudes to family size.

If rich countries stop growing their economies, attitudes to investment will revert to the attitudes of older times. If you buy a small business, you buy an income, and the income is related to the market price of the business, just as it was in Jane Austen's day, and presumably in the ancient world. Relying on large capital growth is a recent idea, one which will end because you cannot have infinite growth in a finite world.

If companies are not expected to grow much, the stock market might adjust to lower asset prices, with corresponding high dividend yields. Yields of 10% might become normal.

[former player]

I am about 2/3 way through the book. I did not know how many rich and not so rich countries are at mere replacement fertility or a bit below. See below; a fertility of 2.1 is replacement level.

Interesting.  I suspect that a fair bit of the low childbirth rates in not so rich countries is linked to emigration - is there anything in the book about that?  Emigrants tend to be from the child-creating ages.

The corollary of course is that many of the rich countries with apparent below-replacement rates of childbirth have growing populations due to immigration.

[Hirondelle]

I am about 2/3 way through the book. I did not know how many rich and not so rich countries are at mere replacement fertility or a bit below. See below; a fertility of 2.1 is replacement level.

Interesting.  I suspect that a fair bit of the low childbirth rates in not so rich countries is linked to emigration - is there anything in the book about that?  Emigrants tend to be from the child-creating ages.

The corollary of course is that many of the rich countries with apparent below-replacement rates of childbirth have growing populations due to immigration.

Childbirth rates are usually calculated as number of children per woman. So although the leaving women will be taken out of the equation of that country and added to the equation in their new country, the rates should reflect the current numbers of the women actually in that country. At most, the number may be artificially high if the number of children the older generation got is still taken into account.

Most people in the western world dramatically overestimate the birth rates in developing countries, especially as more and more people in these countries hit middle class status. When I worked in a developing country most kids came from families of 2-4 children. My partner is from a developing country on yet another continent and most of his friends families also have 2-3 kids (which was the birth rate of 25ish years ago), his generation is expected to have less on average. It's really just a handfull of African countries driving the population growth on the birth side. For the rest it's mostly increased life expectance/less early deaths. 

ETA: Just fact-checked my own stats and although my (upper)middle class partner's family and friends have limited fertility rates, the nationwide rate is still 3+.

[maizefolk]

Yes, as Horondelle said the way fertility rates are calculated, emigration (even specifically of people of childbearing age) wouldn't effect the calculation of how many children the average woman would have over a lifetime.

[former player]

Yes, as Horondelle said the way fertility rates are calculated, emigration (even specifically of people of childbearing age) wouldn't effect the calculation of how many children the average woman would have over a lifetime.

Emigration could still have effects, for instance by emigrants delaying children in order to more easily emigrate without children, to become established in their new country and/or adapt to a later average age for having children in the new country.  That would cause a temporary drop in childbirth rates as the putative delaying effects of emigration worked their way through the stats.

Emigration to richer countries and its associated increase in consumption might be one of the quickest ways to increase environmental load on the planet.

[Hirondelle]

Ah, I think I missed your point from the previous post formerplayer. I understood it as if due to emigration the rates would be lower because these women weren't counted or when counted with less kids than they really had as they got the rest in another country. However it seems like you're asking whether the prospect of emigration can make them postpone getting children and that may be very true, although I'd expect that the % effect of this is small. Realize that except for war-torn countries, the % of people (esp young couples/women) that emigrates or tries to emigrate tends to be fairly low.

As for the environment I completely agree with you that getting richer in any way would increase consumption. Not sure how impactful that is on the overall environmental stress put on the world.

[Michael in ABQ]

I am about 2/3 way through the book. I did not know how many rich and not so rich countries are at mere replacement fertility or a bit below. See below; a fertility of 2.1 is replacement level.

Interesting.  I suspect that a fair bit of the low childbirth rates in not so rich countries is linked to emigration - is there anything in the book about that?  Emigrants tend to be from the child-creating ages.

The corollary of course is that many of the rich countries with apparent below-replacement rates of childbirth have growing populations due to immigration.

Childbirth rates are usually calculated as number of children per woman. So although the leaving women will be taken out of the equation of that country and added to the equation in their new country, the rates should reflect the current numbers of the women actually in that country. At most, the number may be artificially high if the number of children the older generation got is still taken into account.

Most people in the western world dramatically overestimate the birth rates in developing countries, especially as more and more people in these countries hit middle class status. When I worked in a developing country most kids came from families of 2-4 children. My partner is from a developing country on yet another continent and most of his friends families also have 2-3 kids (which was the birth rate of 25ish years ago), his generation is expected to have less on average. It's really just a handfull of African countries driving the population growth on the birth side. For the rest it's mostly increased life expectance/less early deaths.

I'm in Africa now and most of the people I've talked to only have a couple of kids. Though there was a few anecdotes related to me about a woman who had 15 children, or a man with multiple wives who had over 20 children. So with my six kids I'm still something of an outlier.

[FIPurpose]

I am about 2/3 way through the book. I did not know how many rich and not so rich countries are at mere replacement fertility or a bit below. See below; a fertility of 2.1 is replacement level.

Interesting.  I suspect that a fair bit of the low childbirth rates in not so rich countries is linked to emigration - is there anything in the book about that?  Emigrants tend to be from the child-creating ages.

The corollary of course is that many of the rich countries with apparent below-replacement rates of childbirth have growing populations due to immigration.

Childbirth rates are usually calculated as number of children per woman. So although the leaving women will be taken out of the equation of that country and added to the equation in their new country, the rates should reflect the current numbers of the women actually in that country. At most, the number may be artificially high if the number of children the older generation got is still taken into account.

Most people in the western world dramatically overestimate the birth rates in developing countries, especially as more and more people in these countries hit middle class status. When I worked in a developing country most kids came from families of 2-4 children. My partner is from a developing country on yet another continent and most of his friends families also have 2-3 kids (which was the birth rate of 25ish years ago), his generation is expected to have less on average. It's really just a handfull of African countries driving the population growth on the birth side. For the rest it's mostly increased life expectance/less early deaths.

I'm in Africa now and most of the people I've talked to only have a couple of kids. Though there was a few anecdotes related to me about a woman who had 15 children, or a man with multiple wives who had over 20 children. So with my six kids I'm still something of an outlier.

That's highly dependent on what country you're talking about. I spent some time in rural Mozambique and many of the people who were able had 4-5 kids. However, life expectancy is also about 25% shorter. Even in my first weeks in Mozambique, I was hearing of local 50 year old men or someone's child dying quite frequently. In a small town where I lived for maybe 3 months, I attended 2 memorial services and heard of someone dying about once a week. In the time that I've been in the States for the past year or 2, I think I can recall maybe 4-5 people in my circle dying. And even then they've all been people who were 80+.

Many countries in Africa are seeing falling fertility rates due to education and urbanization, but then countries like Niger confuse me as to why (or how!) they still have a rate close to 7 and have also had a massive increase in their life expectancy. Eventually something has to give and cause one of those 2 to plummet.

[maizefolk]

Many countries in Africa are seeing falling fertility rates due to education and urbanization, but then countries like Niger confuse me as to why (or how!) they still have a rate close to 7 and have also had a massive increase in their life expectancy. Eventually something has to give and cause one of those 2 to plummet.

Niger is still a pretty rough and rural place so I can understand why the birth rate is so high. Lots of subsistence agriculture which means families need more kids to help on the farm.

Nigeria's population boom is the come that confuses me more. The economy and infrastructure is a lot more developed (the average person in Nigeria is probably about 5x as rich as the average person in Niger), they're urbanizing really rapidly, and the population is still growing extremely rapidly (5 kids per woman in Nigeria to Niger's 7). The last estimate I read said that by 2050 Nigeria would have 400M people and it's not that big a country geographically.

[pegleglolita]

Many countries in Africa are seeing falling fertility rates due to education and urbanization, but then countries like Niger confuse me as to why (or how!) they still have a rate close to 7 and have also had a massive increase in their life expectancy. Eventually something has to give and cause one of those 2 to plummet.

Niger is still a pretty rough and rural place so I can understand why the birth rate is so high. Lots of subsistence agriculture which means families need more kids to help on the farm.

Nigeria's population boom is the come that confuses me more. The economy and infrastructure is a lot more developed (the average person in Nigeria is probably about 5x as rich as the average person in Niger), they're urbanizing really rapidly, and the population is still growing extremely rapidly (5 kids per woman in Nigeria to Niger's 7). The last estimate I read said that by 2050 Nigeria would have 400M people and it's not that big a country geographically.

Nigeria suffers from bad attitudes on the part of men against contraception, young marriage age for women, and unfortunately most family planning efforts have been targeted toward women when what is needed is for men to get with the program.  http://www.bioline.org.br/request?rh06037  Until women are more empowered to make their own reproductive choices, it will be challenging to reduce the birth rate.  It's really uniform across all cultures (except religious extremist communities): when women have the power to say when and how many children they want, they tend to choose somewhere between 1 and 3.  It's not just a financial choice either; we just don't want to be brood mares.

[Kyle Schuant]

Nigeria's rate will fall. Even Iran and Saudi Arabia's have fallen to close to 2. The fertility rate falls with rising income and education of women, but there can be a delayed effect of this, especially in very patriarchal countries. And remember that countries like Nigeria, the education and income rises aren't evenly-distributed.

[John Galt incarnate!]

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — The past year's population growth rate in the United States was the slowest in a century due to declining births, increasing deaths and the slowdown of international migration, according to figures released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau.21 hours ago

[John Galt incarnate!]

Yet almost all of us who have all we need believe we would be happier with more things, bigger things, and fewer struggles.

Yesterday I felled a large tree.

Before I cut it I climbed it to rig a line to pull it in a safe direction as it fell.

It worked perfectly which provided  the same feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction I have after completing other tasks/solving other problems.

My FIRE objective was to eliminate, as much as possible, future struggles having to do with money.

Fewer struggles concerning money as well as fewer in general align with my Epicurean tendency: more would never enhance my happiness.

[Leisured]

The book points out that large parts of the world are at or a bit below replacement level, and governments have found that paying benefits to couples who have more children does not work well. Accordingly, I suggest that a government thinking about paying child support benefits keep benefits at a modest level, but increase childcare benefits dramatically for couples who score in the top 1% in intelligence, and do not have any genetic disorders. This will only have a slight effect on the overall birth rate, but will increase the number of capable people in society.

[pecunia]

If some of these big coastal cities are going to be flooded, less people could have some benefits.  Resources are already strained world wide.

[partgypsy]

And i think that all the folks who believe that overpopulation is the problem are mistaken. 

The idea that we are going to run out of resources is an old one that has been proven wrong every time, but it just seems logical so most people still fervently believe it.  But it is as wrong today as it was in the 70’s when the Population Bomb was published predicting mass famine within a few decades.  People are creative and resourceful.  We figure out ways to not just manage but thrive. 

My bet is on human potential.  We could be just a few years from revolutionary technological advances that will make all of these concerns seem quaint.  Like the horse crap crisis in Manhattan circa 1901.  While it was piling 50 ft high and people were despairing of suffocating under a mass of equine excrement, the internal combustion engine was about to eliminate the problem in just a few years.

oh God this old chestnut. I am a scientist, and no scientists are not going to save everyone's bacon due to "revolutionary technological advances".

The fact is, that the world is already overpopulated even if we do not add a single additional person. Even if the world population drops. The humans already on the earth are using an amount of resources more than is sustainable (estimates vary but if everyone lived like an American we would need 4 earths). World-wise we are using up resources only 1 1/2 earths could provide long term.

Many areas of the world are already running out of arable water. Places are turning into deserts.
The agricultural revolution is based on many things but some of those things are hitting a wall, including limited world wide phosphorus, as well as bugs and diseases which can adapt faster than than our bioengineered seeds can keep up with. We are also wiping out the bees from over reliance on pesticides.
Ultimately, there will be less arable land to support the existing population. Whatever arable land is, honestly some of that land should be dedicated to tree cover to make this earth a "livable" one. 

True, economically it is bad when a population drops in a country. But, there are plenty of people in high population rate areas (India, Africa, some parts of south America) that can certainly migrate and replace those people if the political will allows it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
 

[Michael in ABQ]

And i think that all the folks who believe that overpopulation is the problem are mistaken. 

The idea that we are going to run out of resources is an old one that has been proven wrong every time, but it just seems logical so most people still fervently believe it.  But it is as wrong today as it was in the 70’s when the Population Bomb was published predicting mass famine within a few decades.  People are creative and resourceful.  We figure out ways to not just manage but thrive. 

My bet is on human potential.  We could be just a few years from revolutionary technological advances that will make all of these concerns seem quaint.  Like the horse crap crisis in Manhattan circa 1901.  While it was piling 50 ft high and people were despairing of suffocating under a mass of equine excrement, the internal combustion engine was about to eliminate the problem in just a few years.

oh God this old chestnut. I am a scientist, and no scientists are not going to save everyone's bacon due to "revolutionary technological advances".

The fact is, that the world is already overpopulated even if we do not add a single additional person. Even if the world population drops. The humans already on the earth are using an amount of resources more than is sustainable (estimates vary but if everyone lived like an American we would need 4 earths). World-wise we are using up resources only 1 1/2 earths could provide long term.

Many areas of the world are already running out of arable water. Places are turning into deserts.
The agricultural revolution is based on many things but some of those things are hitting a wall, including limited world wide phosphorus, as well as bugs and diseases which can adapt faster than than our bioengineered seeds can keep up with. We are also wiping out the bees from over reliance on pesticides.
Ultimately, there will be less arable land to support the existing population. Whatever arable land is, honestly some of that land should be dedicated to tree cover to make this earth a "livable" one. 

True, economically it is bad when a population drops in a country. But, there are plenty of people in high population rate areas (India, Africa, some parts of south America) that can certainly migrate and replace those people if the political will allows it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712

Well it's a good thing that there are virtually limitless resources in space and we will probably start utilizing them within the next 1-2 decades. In the last few years we've seen credible plant-based replacements for meat and lab/vat-grown meat is on the horizon as well. Electric cars are becoming a very viable replacement for those utilizing hydrocarbons, and we continue to be able to extract more and more oil and gas from reserves that were thought to be depleted a few decades ago. The examples of increased efficiency and ability to utilize scarce resources abound as market pressures provide an incentive.

Overall, I am confident that we will continue to be able to provide sufficient resources for the population of Earth. Not necessarily for every household to be at the American standard of living, but something greater than currently exists. 

[ysette9]

At some point market forces play a role as well. If oil reserves diminish then the price goes up, and people learn to do with less. Whether that is reduced consumption or improved efficiency or both, an equilibrium will be reached. If meat is too expensive then people will switch to vegetarian diets, and suddenly the ability to feed people will go up dramatically as that is a more efficient way of producing calories than raising animals.

I don’t think we will keep at our current consumption rate until we run full-speed into the wall of no more resources. There will be a natural reduction as scarcer resources are rationed via economics. The rich will continue to be able to live lavish and wasteful lifestyles and the rest of us will learn to live in smaller houses and drive fewer miles and take fewer plane trips and eat more vegetables.

[partgypsy]

There's an easy way to do things and a hard way to do things. An analogy is the miners stuck underground. If they continued to eat their rations at a normal consumption rate, none or very few would have made it out alive. In contrast by restricting and stretching out the rations, bought them enough time, another solution (was able to be made and executed). We are painting ourselves into a corner in this go for broke let's maximally exploit all resources we have until we run out. Then pray for a science miracle. Our society is complex and interconnected enough, what changes will happen if we continue in this way, will not be gradual or minimal. I can't really predict what will happen exactly, other than it will disproportionately affect the poor.

[pecunia]

You guys are such Debbie downers.  (Not sure who Debbie was or is)  I used to live in Eastern Washington.  Eastern Washington produces a lot of agricultural products.  It gets 5 inches of rain a year.  Well, folks, then how does it grow the onions, potatoes, grapes, etc?

In the 1930s while people still believed in projects to help mankind, reclamation projects were created.  A good portion of the mighty Columbia River was rerouted and the desert was made to bloom.  The Grand Coulee and other dams are still marvels of engineering and have now been able to produce food for generations.

Three quarters of the world is water.  Is it not possible to desalinate water and pump it where it is needed?  Isn't virtually unlimited energy available via Thorium nuclear reactors?  This is technologically feasible.  What is lacking are men with the vision of those of just a few generations back.  This vision was shared with others and great things were done.  Market forces did not create these man-made natural wonders.  It was not the free enterprise system.  It was men who saw beyond that who solved these problems.  With the right forward thinking attitude, we can solve the problems of today.

Since that time we've shown that men can go to the moon.

It's too bad that there seem to be so few men of such spirit today.

Oh oh Earth is calling.  Yes, we can do it, but the world will still be too damned crowded.

[partgypsy]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/rate-of-environmental-degradation-puts-life-on-earth-at-risk-say-scientists. Asking scientists to solve the problem of humans exceeding Earth's carrying capacity, is more of a hail Mary than a reasoned approach. We know what we need to do. But we won't do it, because individuals and countries and corporations are competing against each other to grab as much resources as they can. Economic principles are going to run up against hard physical limits.as leisured put it, "you can't have infinite growth in a finite world."

It is really more of a political solution than a scientific one. But the political will is not there because no politician wants to say "no".

[Leisured]

I spent most of my working life as a technician in an Australian agricultural research station, where I learned the very real problems in increasing yields indefinitely. Humans spent much of our history surviving intermittent but deadly famines, so I was amazed at the casual irresponsibility of people having large families and them relying on scientists to bail them out of the mess that they had created. Only a small minority are clever enough people to be scientists, but any fool can breed up big.

What is so marvellous about packing more and more people into the world? When world population was 100 million, the world seemed wide, but by 1920 when our population reached 2 billion, why go further? The twenties were a time of rapid electrification, a very good thing, but why electrify the country and put more people in?

I lived through the Green Revolution of the sixties and seventies, but even Borlaug, who drove the Green Revolution, recognised that it was a stop gap measure against the day when we would come to our senses and stop growing the world population.,

[pecunia]

- SNIP -

I lived through the Green Revolution of the sixties and seventies, but even Borlaug, who drove the Green Revolution, recognised that it was a stop gap measure against the day when we would come to our senses and stop growing the world population.,

Some think all the people on the Earth are a contributing factor to the big Australian fires with greenhouse gases.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50980386

Certainly, seems reasonable.

[dougules]

I spent most of my working life as a technician in an Australian agricultural research station, where I learned the very real problems in increasing yields indefinitely. Humans spent much of our history surviving intermittent but deadly famines, so I was amazed at the casual irresponsibility of people having large families and them relying on scientists to bail them out of the mess that they had created. Only a small minority are clever enough people to be scientists, but any fool can breed up big.

What is so marvellous about packing more and more people into the world? When world population was 100 million, the world seemed wide, but by 1920 when our population reached 2 billion, why go further? The twenties were a time of rapid electrification, a very good thing, but why electrify the country and put more people in?

I lived through the Green Revolution of the sixties and seventies, but even Borlaug, who drove the Green Revolution, recognised that it was a stop gap measure against the day when we would come to our senses and stop growing the world population.,

Concern about population decline doesn't equate to advocating population growth.  Both population growth and population decline can cause serious problems.  I don't think your generation even considered the latter a possibility, but now it's looking much more likely that population in the 21st century will see a steep decline instead of any kind of large increase like in the 20th century.  I think that some kind of population stability would be the ideal. 

[ChpBstrd]

It is really more of a political solution than a scientific one. But the political will is not there because no politician wants to say "no".

Science is good at answering questions and providing solutions. It is our values that get us into trouble. If we use the scientific method to solve for how to save millions of lives, we get malaria vaccines. If we ask how to kill the most people, we get nuclear weapons.

Similarly, if our values lead us to ignore science (climate change, effects of pollution on the body, consequences of eating culturally popular processed foods, bad effects of social media) or oppose scientifically validated solutions (religious opposition to contraception, opposition to renewable energy), then it is our values that are at fault for the state of our world.

The reason selfish and insincere people become our political leaders is because we are selfish and insincere to ourselves. Most people live based on a what’s-in-it-for-me mindset, regardless of what values they claim to espouse. Even more dangerous are those who cloak their meaningless selfishness in a values system or religion that simply serves as an excuse and a way to insulate oneself from accountability. A society of such people cannot be greater than the sum of its parts, so we end up where we are today, with the tools of science at our disposal, ready to solve problems, and no political will to use them.

[maizefolk]

Both population growth and population decline can cause serious problems.  I don't think your generation even considered the latter a possibility, but now it's looking much more likely that population in the 21st century will see a steep decline instead of any kind of large increase like in the 20th century.  I think that some kind of population stability would be the ideal. 

Globally? I thought the most conservative projections were flat to slightly declining between 2050 and 2100. But I could be out of date, let me know if I am.

If you look at projections for the Japan, China, Europe, yes, it does look like we're in for some pretty steep declines after 2050. In the US the x-factor is whether we continuing to invite in immigrants from the rest of the world. If so, we'll grow more slowly or stabilize. If not, we'll start to look more like Japan/Europe in terms of shrinking population.

[Plina]

Automation is the equivalent of slave labor, and is to be applauded. We now have what is in effect a slave labor force, but the slaves are mechanical, so there is no problem with ethics. A world with a large number of retirees relative to younger workers means more job opportunities for workers.

Except automation doesn't work that well, or there'd be more of it, so expecting more relies on technological breakthroughs, which is not something we can predict, it's just a matter of faith. It's no more rational to say that "technology will save us" than it is to say, "Jesus will descend on a cloud with harps playing and save us."

Let's work with what we know we've got.

Automation in any case requires cheap surplus energy. Which means fossil fuels. Which are finite, being burned and thus declining. So it ain't gonna happen. This, ladies and gentlemen, is as good as it gets. How do we know our society is declining? Because we're being constantly told how swimmingly everything is going, and how the bright technological future is just around the corner! It's like the boyfriend who tells you he's loyal and honest - if he were, he wouldn't need to tell you.

I do agree on that automation needs access to cheap energy. But that can just as well be clean energy. Some international companies are opening large data centers in Norway, because we have cheap, clean energy (and sell it way too cheap to those data centers, but that is another case).

For automation, there is so much of it just in recent years:
Everybody is using cell phones.
My cell phone (mostly) replaces the following things that I used in the past: shopping list, walkman, phone, GPS, phone book, general notebook, audio recorder, drivers licence, radio, TV, physical games, flashlight, paper book with personal contacts, light switch, photo albums, bank transfer checks, customer cards, calculator, agenda, password notebook, paper books, navigation maps for car or for hiking, encyclopedia, small cash for train ticket machines, small cash for parking machines.

Many are using a smart watch and a smart device on their table at home that takes away the need to get out of the couch. Many have a robot vacuum and robot lawn mover. All the people who I know that have one of these are very pleased with it, so they obviously work reasonably well. There exist driver-less subways and busses. Most of us book our plan tickets and hotels online, instead of through a travel agency. Practically all my bills are received electronically and paid automatically (America has a long way to go here from what I have understood). My taxes are handled automatically, I just need to verify the correctness. Doctors are sending my prescription electronically to the pharmacies and I can get my medicine anywhere. And there is probably a lot more, like Google and Facebook know everything there is to know about me.

If you look at the care of elders it is a long way from automation. If you live in China have 8 parents and maybe grandmothers and fathers to deal with you as a couple you are pretty much in trouble. Try to coordinate the doctorsappointments, other care of that much people and the doctors visits etc. Or the paying of their bills or others stuff when they are not able to do that any more. I have seen my mother and aunt juggling that with my grandmother that was in a nursinghome and grandfather that lives at home but have major health issues. Considering that this is two persons in a nordic country with pensions so you don’t have to pay the bill for all of it. It is a lot of work.

[FIPurpose]

Both population growth and population decline can cause serious problems.  I don't think your generation even considered the latter a possibility, but now it's looking much more likely that population in the 21st century will see a steep decline instead of any kind of large increase like in the 20th century.  I think that some kind of population stability would be the ideal. 

Globally? I thought the most conservative projections were flat to slightly declining between 2050 and 2100. But I could be out of date, let me know if I am.

If you look at projections for the Japan, China, Europe, yes, it does look like we're in for some pretty steep declines after 2050. In the US the x-factor is whether we continuing to invite in immigrants from the rest of the world. If so, we'll grow more slowly or stabilize. If not, we'll start to look more like Japan/Europe in terms of shrinking population.

The current UN projection is population to hit 9.5B in 2050 and 11B in 2100. The theory of this book that the thread is titled after is that the population will instead peak at 9.5B around 2040-2060 and then fall back down to 7.5B by 2100.

This depends on world fertility rate hitting replacements levels by 2025. We're currently at 2.4 (2019) and dropping. We'll have a better idea about our projection in a few years to see if birthrates continue to remain at 2.4 or drop to replacement levels.

[rudged]

I've recently been watching a couple of Youtube videos with the authors recently and am struck by their prediction that because of dramatic projected declines, the future will be more peaceful. The argument appears to be that countries simply won't have the luxury of wasting vital manpower that could be used to support the economy. And among their examples is, wait for it, Russia. Explain this to the poor people in Ukraine.

[markbike528CBX]

I've recently been watching a couple of Youtube videos with the authors recently and am struck by their prediction that because of dramatic projected declines, the future will be more peaceful. The argument appears to be that countries simply won't have the luxury of wasting vital manpower that could be used to support the economy. And among their examples is, wait for it, Russia. Explain this to the poor people in Ukraine.

I think that Putin is seeking to expand to gain population (empire building), since Russia is probably at peak and declining population. 
Russia and Bangladesh have similar populations, but Russia has been in a population flatline to decline for a while.   There is not much else that Ukraine offers that Russia does not already have, especially commodities, gas, oil, etc.

Just because wasting manpower is illogical doesn't mean it won't be done by power-mad Putin people. In fact, waste is as a sign of power/influence/status, witness 1st world consumerism/debt, examples here https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/status-spending-25-50-of-our-economy/msg2982955/#msg2982955.

[FIPurpose]

If Putin was seeking expansion, I don't know that Ukraine would make much sense. Ukraine has had a declining population for the past 30 years or so, and this war will only make that worse. Ukraine is not a growing economy. It has basically followed Russia's economy since the end of the USSR.

I really can't read this as anything other than Putin's ego and desire to rebuild the USSR. It's an extremely strange war from multiple angles.

[ChpBstrd]

A global population decline OR demographic graying means managed decline, pure and simple.

Fewer workers with more dependents and with more infrastructure to maintain per worker can only mean a reduced quality of life. Additionally, inheritance seems to be going in reverse as the older generations exhaust all their wealth during their dying years, typically leaving the younger generation with nothing after a long nursing home stay and a decade of deferred home maintenance.

All this adds up to a dissatisfied population, backed against the wall and prone to believing the impossible promises of populists because behaving according to the status quo is a strategy to decline. Given the choice between lower living standards every single year and a some populist's longshot bid for greatness through the harming of others, a lot of people will let the dictator have a chance. In addition, and sorry if this hurts some feelings, people become more gullible as they age. Just like scammers target old people, political demagogues target graying populations. 

Moscow's method of managing decline is to control the narrative with an almost complete ban on news media, and to then rob others of their wealth (e.g. Ukrainians, hacking victims, various colonies like Venezuela and Syria) while blaming outsiders for the economic hardship. In the US, our demagogues have been pointing the blame fingers around internally for decades - but the relative rise of China might change that. Despite their growth, China is on the brink of demographic decline too, and will likely take the Russian approach to re-establishing the illusion of growth and glory.

That's how a falling population could lead to more fights, not less.