I really appreciate you being able to express two conflicting sides of an issue, and being open to either side of the argument . Those kids of discussions are, in my opinion, the most valuable. For the same reason that I appreciate intelligent, respectful debate; it can open a dogmatic mind to perspectives one might not have otherwise considered.
And furthermore, I agree it’s an interesting and important discussion.
As the ERoIE of fossil fuels is in decline global population must follow its decent. At some point the energy curve will flatten to a new equilibrium. Only when nearing this flexure point will it be safe for humanity to start re-breeding at replacement rates of 2,0-2,1.
Hoping that the energy descent rate will not be steeper than 1,6-1,7, we could safely reach this new steady-state-carrying-capacity level in about two centuries. At, I guess, 20%-25% of our current numbers. The more we deviate from this descending energy curve the more people will simply be pushed off the population curve into famine and war over these resources. Why would we want to ignore this unfortunately rather realistic scenario. Unlike degrowth* a carefully managed temporary population reduction is I believe the best thing humanity can wish for.
Just using the Japan stats, all the opportunity is concentrated in places like Tokyo, all the "uninhabitable green" is in fact habitable (Having visited there, I would love to live in Japan in the forest).
So Japan appears to have hot spots of over population due to the density of opportunity in those areas. This isn't true over population, as everything is well managed.
Bangladesh on the other hand, is overpopulation, poorly resourced, and not well managed. There appears to be opportunity there, but everything is so poorly focused it has trouble taking off.
"dysfunctional megacity" is the term that caught my ear.
Odd to think as a child I lived in Dhaka, I'm told it's better now than it was.
I think the big issue is with the "forced" declines - if governments are trying to decide what is best, it will be wrong. If it's "natural" then it is what it is - as you say, it might be for the best. I don't believe humanity will die out from population decline - there might be a lot fewer of us someday, but so be it.
Food for thought and cudos for publishing- there should be no topics off for discussion-otherwise it's pandering to woke totalitarianism. First World populations will be replaced by Third World whose experience is that high birth rate is essential for survival. Ultimately humanity is doomed by accumulation of replication errors in our DNA unless our technical prowess in optimising and reformatting our genetic code.
The density of big cities are not "natural". Working for someone else is a feodal principal of enslavement but stays politically acceptable. This keeps rising up as it's not easy to start a "physical" business. "They" have fixed everything now that buying land (not even a shithouse build on) is not affordable, besides, there's very few of us left to know what to do with our hands besides clicking them on a keyboard. If we had really relied on economics of the Bible, we would have principles to stand by (and for). Indeed, it was a good thing to be fruitful and multiply. We had the responsability to be good stewarts to the land and animals (we failed miserably). Then came the commandments to get some vertues in the population. Failed there too. Bible says it's not a good thing to be a slave (interchangeable word for "employee"), and to have other dwellings right next to yours (we forgot that, too). Rest your field every 7 years. Debts cancelled, land returned after 50 years, like a reset. Give 10% of your goods back (I give 50% + 15% on every good I buy of my paycheck back to taxes Quebec, Canada). And I'm sure some of you here can add more Bible economics reminders. Overpopulation? no... just bad planning, mostly greed from multi billion companies who want us sick and dying and crowded. And nature's economics 101: when you smell death and control, you keep making more babies. Duh.
i think being fixed on one response because of one's ideology is a bad thing. i agree this situation is complex. being forcibly depopulated = obviously bad. depopulating willingly bc of the negative effects of overpopulation = responding appropriately to actual conditions.
It’s possible that future generations of women will be able to remain fertile for longer than current generations, that is, fertility could be heritable.
The point about immigration has been made. Britain might well have more people than Japan in 100 years, but there will be many more Japanese than there will be ethnic British.
I've been hearing about Tokyo whose population is decreasing by a third and I think they're the intelligent ones who's model all should follow. IMO the point of life is not to be dead because being dead lasts a very long time. Why we're here? I have no idea - perhaps a hot spark from a hot spring lit a molecule left on a leaf by an alien and such info has yet to find its way into a 'history-of-man' book. I personally, fill my life up with appreciating and respecting nature, the symbiotic structure between elements, the pure beauty, sounds and smells, and the mysterious like gravity (and 'how did we get here), orbits of the planets, things to be seen in the night sky and at the same time, walking lightly on this planet. I'm not changing anything - improving nature isn't necessary or possible - but its destruction is absolute.
Declines by themselves are not a problem. The problem is our rulers who with one corner of their mouths tell us that declines are even good for the environment, and with the others they bring in animals from the south who will produce 8 children each, to compensate for the "labor shortage". It's all a trick to introduce neofeudalism.
The how is more important than the fact itself. If population decline occurs voluntarily, without coercion, poisoning, or government acts of terror, so what? It is a natural evolution. If it is imposed as acts of murder, this kind of population decline is morally intolerable -- it is democide.
Israel is currently doing their part of the depopulation agenda by committing an ethnic genocide in Gaza... with the full support of the United States...the Covid clot shots are also helping accelerate the decline in birth rates and raise the rates of "unexplained" deaths...
"There is no evidence of a “depopulation conspiracy” perpetrated by either country’s government."
I am not so certain. Recall that South Korea was revealed to be ruled by a feminist goddess worshipping cult with the typical ties to the global deep state. I don't think they've been excised even with the impeachment of that one female cultist President.
Secondly Japan has been a US occupied defeated territory for about the same amount of time. A major conflict internally over there is how much to bow to the US, especially as the US sets up Japan to die for the US in the same way the Ukraine has been set up.
Both rulerships (The USA Deep State/Global Cults) are known to support depopulation agendas. I do not have any direct proof or links at hand, but I think the general attitude of the ruling powers of both areas are obvious.
I agree with your premise, though, that populations falling isn't ruinous. It ruins the boomer stock market, but humans could wage TWO world wars with only a half of the population we had now. Nations will be alright.
Arguably, the Black Death worked out great for many of the survivors. Particularly those lower on the socioeconomic ladder. Lot of ugly in the between years though.
I do not think it is wise to try to force depopulation to happen. That goes wrong in so very many nasty ways, and basically anybody who really wants to do it is evil. But the good news is, it seems to be the natural course of things, when humans get prosperous and overpopulated. You don't have to force it-- it happens all by itself. It'd be nice if we could bring back monasteries in a big way, as a socially acceptable life choice for people not interested in or suited to family life, and alternative to vapid childless hedonism, which is very destructive to the society. Perfect your soul instead. We'll support you. Make Asceticism Great Again?
I am often puzzled by the alarmist newsitems that pop up on the "conservative" outlets: OMG, we're below replacement! Panic! OMG they want us to turn down the thermostat! Bastards! OMG they want to take away our SUVs! Fight for your right to a $30k truck!
Do they realize how elitist they sound? I mean, in theory, I'm for freedom of choice in these matters, but holy fracking hell, we're a family of five living on one income so we can raise our own kids instead of farming them out to a crappy local school system. We can't afford that truck, and we we are *way* thriftier with our thermostat than any of those "green" recommendations (which are really quite tame), and if that's the hill you're picking to die on-- martyrs to the cause of limitless consumption-- well, I, uh... naw man. I used to think we were all "conservatives" together... but now I don't think we have anything in common. Like, that level of affluence is just a whole other universe that is totally alien, and alienating, to us. You couldn't maybe fight for something that benefits us all, like health insurance reform? Reducing bloated admin costs in public institutions? Using the monopoly-hammer on real-estate investors? Stable currency?
Nope. You're gonna fight for your right to keep your thermostat at 65 in the summer in Miami.
OK, man, you do you. Just don't come knocking when you need my vote. I'll be out weeding my garden. When "conservatives" come up with something worthwhile to conserve again, I'll be there. Till then, the onions need hoeing and it's time to put in the tomato starts.
My thoughts exactly, actually, I often am thinking of the worst case scenario. Not as bad as one may think, sometimes anyway. Maybe most of the time? I'm not sure.
I really appreciate you being able to express two conflicting sides of an issue, and being open to either side of the argument . Those kids of discussions are, in my opinion, the most valuable. For the same reason that I appreciate intelligent, respectful debate; it can open a dogmatic mind to perspectives one might not have otherwise considered.
And furthermore, I agree it’s an interesting and important discussion.
As the ERoIE of fossil fuels is in decline global population must follow its decent. At some point the energy curve will flatten to a new equilibrium. Only when nearing this flexure point will it be safe for humanity to start re-breeding at replacement rates of 2,0-2,1.
Hoping that the energy descent rate will not be steeper than 1,6-1,7, we could safely reach this new steady-state-carrying-capacity level in about two centuries. At, I guess, 20%-25% of our current numbers. The more we deviate from this descending energy curve the more people will simply be pushed off the population curve into famine and war over these resources. Why would we want to ignore this unfortunately rather realistic scenario. Unlike degrowth* a carefully managed temporary population reduction is I believe the best thing humanity can wish for.
* https://medium.com/@gl-10190/debunking-degrowth-part-ii-aded18d44652
Just using the Japan stats, all the opportunity is concentrated in places like Tokyo, all the "uninhabitable green" is in fact habitable (Having visited there, I would love to live in Japan in the forest).
So Japan appears to have hot spots of over population due to the density of opportunity in those areas. This isn't true over population, as everything is well managed.
Bangladesh on the other hand, is overpopulation, poorly resourced, and not well managed. There appears to be opportunity there, but everything is so poorly focused it has trouble taking off.
"dysfunctional megacity" is the term that caught my ear.
Odd to think as a child I lived in Dhaka, I'm told it's better now than it was.
I think the big issue is with the "forced" declines - if governments are trying to decide what is best, it will be wrong. If it's "natural" then it is what it is - as you say, it might be for the best. I don't believe humanity will die out from population decline - there might be a lot fewer of us someday, but so be it.
Food for thought and cudos for publishing- there should be no topics off for discussion-otherwise it's pandering to woke totalitarianism. First World populations will be replaced by Third World whose experience is that high birth rate is essential for survival. Ultimately humanity is doomed by accumulation of replication errors in our DNA unless our technical prowess in optimising and reformatting our genetic code.
For for thought. Thank you.
The density of big cities are not "natural". Working for someone else is a feodal principal of enslavement but stays politically acceptable. This keeps rising up as it's not easy to start a "physical" business. "They" have fixed everything now that buying land (not even a shithouse build on) is not affordable, besides, there's very few of us left to know what to do with our hands besides clicking them on a keyboard. If we had really relied on economics of the Bible, we would have principles to stand by (and for). Indeed, it was a good thing to be fruitful and multiply. We had the responsability to be good stewarts to the land and animals (we failed miserably). Then came the commandments to get some vertues in the population. Failed there too. Bible says it's not a good thing to be a slave (interchangeable word for "employee"), and to have other dwellings right next to yours (we forgot that, too). Rest your field every 7 years. Debts cancelled, land returned after 50 years, like a reset. Give 10% of your goods back (I give 50% + 15% on every good I buy of my paycheck back to taxes Quebec, Canada). And I'm sure some of you here can add more Bible economics reminders. Overpopulation? no... just bad planning, mostly greed from multi billion companies who want us sick and dying and crowded. And nature's economics 101: when you smell death and control, you keep making more babies. Duh.
i think being fixed on one response because of one's ideology is a bad thing. i agree this situation is complex. being forcibly depopulated = obviously bad. depopulating willingly bc of the negative effects of overpopulation = responding appropriately to actual conditions.
It’s possible that future generations of women will be able to remain fertile for longer than current generations, that is, fertility could be heritable.
The point about immigration has been made. Britain might well have more people than Japan in 100 years, but there will be many more Japanese than there will be ethnic British.
I've been hearing about Tokyo whose population is decreasing by a third and I think they're the intelligent ones who's model all should follow. IMO the point of life is not to be dead because being dead lasts a very long time. Why we're here? I have no idea - perhaps a hot spark from a hot spring lit a molecule left on a leaf by an alien and such info has yet to find its way into a 'history-of-man' book. I personally, fill my life up with appreciating and respecting nature, the symbiotic structure between elements, the pure beauty, sounds and smells, and the mysterious like gravity (and 'how did we get here), orbits of the planets, things to be seen in the night sky and at the same time, walking lightly on this planet. I'm not changing anything - improving nature isn't necessary or possible - but its destruction is absolute.
Declines by themselves are not a problem. The problem is our rulers who with one corner of their mouths tell us that declines are even good for the environment, and with the others they bring in animals from the south who will produce 8 children each, to compensate for the "labor shortage". It's all a trick to introduce neofeudalism.
The how is more important than the fact itself. If population decline occurs voluntarily, without coercion, poisoning, or government acts of terror, so what? It is a natural evolution. If it is imposed as acts of murder, this kind of population decline is morally intolerable -- it is democide.
Israel is currently doing their part of the depopulation agenda by committing an ethnic genocide in Gaza... with the full support of the United States...the Covid clot shots are also helping accelerate the decline in birth rates and raise the rates of "unexplained" deaths...
"There is no evidence of a “depopulation conspiracy” perpetrated by either country’s government."
I am not so certain. Recall that South Korea was revealed to be ruled by a feminist goddess worshipping cult with the typical ties to the global deep state. I don't think they've been excised even with the impeachment of that one female cultist President.
Secondly Japan has been a US occupied defeated territory for about the same amount of time. A major conflict internally over there is how much to bow to the US, especially as the US sets up Japan to die for the US in the same way the Ukraine has been set up.
Both rulerships (The USA Deep State/Global Cults) are known to support depopulation agendas. I do not have any direct proof or links at hand, but I think the general attitude of the ruling powers of both areas are obvious.
I agree with your premise, though, that populations falling isn't ruinous. It ruins the boomer stock market, but humans could wage TWO world wars with only a half of the population we had now. Nations will be alright.
Arguably, the Black Death worked out great for many of the survivors. Particularly those lower on the socioeconomic ladder. Lot of ugly in the between years though.
I do not think it is wise to try to force depopulation to happen. That goes wrong in so very many nasty ways, and basically anybody who really wants to do it is evil. But the good news is, it seems to be the natural course of things, when humans get prosperous and overpopulated. You don't have to force it-- it happens all by itself. It'd be nice if we could bring back monasteries in a big way, as a socially acceptable life choice for people not interested in or suited to family life, and alternative to vapid childless hedonism, which is very destructive to the society. Perfect your soul instead. We'll support you. Make Asceticism Great Again?
I am often puzzled by the alarmist newsitems that pop up on the "conservative" outlets: OMG, we're below replacement! Panic! OMG they want us to turn down the thermostat! Bastards! OMG they want to take away our SUVs! Fight for your right to a $30k truck!
Do they realize how elitist they sound? I mean, in theory, I'm for freedom of choice in these matters, but holy fracking hell, we're a family of five living on one income so we can raise our own kids instead of farming them out to a crappy local school system. We can't afford that truck, and we we are *way* thriftier with our thermostat than any of those "green" recommendations (which are really quite tame), and if that's the hill you're picking to die on-- martyrs to the cause of limitless consumption-- well, I, uh... naw man. I used to think we were all "conservatives" together... but now I don't think we have anything in common. Like, that level of affluence is just a whole other universe that is totally alien, and alienating, to us. You couldn't maybe fight for something that benefits us all, like health insurance reform? Reducing bloated admin costs in public institutions? Using the monopoly-hammer on real-estate investors? Stable currency?
Nope. You're gonna fight for your right to keep your thermostat at 65 in the summer in Miami.
OK, man, you do you. Just don't come knocking when you need my vote. I'll be out weeding my garden. When "conservatives" come up with something worthwhile to conserve again, I'll be there. Till then, the onions need hoeing and it's time to put in the tomato starts.
My thoughts exactly, actually, I often am thinking of the worst case scenario. Not as bad as one may think, sometimes anyway. Maybe most of the time? I'm not sure.