Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Should We Replace Our Ageing Population?

10:39 / 05.10.04

I hear plenty of talk these days about the ageing population and dwindling birth rates in wealthy countries, and how important it is to replace those of pensionable age with young people (either through births or immigration) in order to pay for pensions, healthcare, etc. for our growing proportion of ancients. I’m wondering what people here think about this strategy. I don’t know much about economics so I’m curious as to how simplistic my views on this might be.

It seems to me that we should welcome a reduced population so that we have some chance of not using up finite natural resources through over-consumption, pollution, etc. We would have to accept that there will be a strain on the national budget to fund a growing need for healthcare/pensions, etc for a certain period, but if we weather that storm then we will be in better shape for the next generation. Especially because if we increase our young population to pay for the old, then we’ll have to continue the trend, otherwise we’ll end up back in the same position.

I’ve been thinking about this subject for a while, and then today I read this article by George Monbiot which says basically the same thing, probably more eloquently than me.

So the question is this: do you think we should replace the ageing population with tax-paying youngsters or immigrants or should we allow it to die off for the good of future generations?

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:34 / 05.10.04

So the question is this: do you think we should replace the ageing population with tax-paying youngsters or immigrants or should we allow it to die off for the good of future generations?

As Monbiot says, population *levels* per se are not the problem - it's consumption. The Earth can't sustain that many American or European lifestyles. If you reduce the quality of life, you reduce consumption (in most cases) and also life expectancy (in most cases) - removing the unproductive "tail" at the end of somebody's life that in the West routinely lasts for a decade or more.

Now, logically there's a balance, where the number of younger people producing can maintain the dying off of their antecedents, while ensuring enough people are born to look after them, and so on. I'm not sure how you'd work out what it was, though, or apply it...

23:04 / 06.10.04

The best analogy I can think of (at the moment) for this issue is the "internet bubble" of a few years ago. Just as the excitement surrounding the new technology created a temporary swelling of the stock market which was eventually normalized, the current shift in demographics are largely due the the "baby boom" that came at the end of the Second World War. It is true that before that families could expect to have scads of children, but the infant mortality rates took care of that up until the early 1900's. If we were to try to maintain what is a demographic and statistic anomaly we will be setting ourselves up for an even worse fall when the system corrects itself.

Another aspect of this issue is the notion that all systems must grow, which is apparently getting some scrutiny in the more radical economic circles. The insistence on continued growth only leads to depletion. Some thinkers are suggesting that a system should evolve instead.

The part that really gets on my nerves is when people suggest that the solution here in the US is privatization of Social Security. Look how well that worked when healthcare was privatized under Reagan. Or how well the deregulation of the electrical grid here in California.

I have no illusions that Social Security will still be in place when it's my turn, but I'd prefer not to have to watch my parents (both Boomers) get screwed in the inevitable mismanagement scandal.

farseer /pokes out an i

14:28 / 11.10.04

What should we do? Besides just waiting until the starvation induced by the hydrcarbon apocalypse's lack of natural gas for fertalizer...?

Personally I'd rather not see us go down that path... But this is definitely something that folks have been thinking about for a long time- if the Georgia Guidestones are any indication.

The way I see it is thus: the older folks have a lot to impart to us, wisdom of the ages, knowledge, time available to teach kids to read, etc. Worth keeping them around for the sake of 'life' and whatnot, plus what they have to offer. Big question is, should the 'next generation' of seniors be as large? I surely hope not. How to do we 'downtrend' the population, when medical advances raise the birth-rate/survival? Will free and ready access to birth control do it (more orgasms, less kids)? Will "education" of declining natural resources do it (not likely, if given the current sitch is any indication)? Being a liberty-loving person, I'm not an advocate for forced sterilization (which is ongoing in Africa) or forced child-rate reduction (China.)

I think that if the US ejects it's criminal junta (Bush, Kerry, part of the CIA, Eschelon, TIA, 'War on Drugs' (or really any of the 'War on X'), and recovers the 3.3 trillion of stolen taxpayer's money (per GAO), while also stopping it's 'war on the world through economic domination' using the WTO, NAFTA, WB, etc. Mix in a dash of forgiving world debt and abandoning fractional reserve banking (which requires economic growth to be stable and not depress), and the US would have plenty of cash around to pay it's SS, unhook from the petrol, and have universal healthcare. Do I see any of this happening? I have my personal optimism, but not really, not without some serious insurrection/coup/successful transparency-in-government lawsuits.

Maybe the Rave Culture 'get all the kids of all races to dance any party together' will morph with the hiphop 'our generation, our time, not in our name' forces and move in that direction, while staying clear-eyed enough to not forget about those who came before, and lacked the gumption to fix it right. Not sure about the state of other countries, but that's my US commentary.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:56 / 11.10.04

Big question is, should the 'next generation' of seniors be as large? I surely hope not. How to do we 'downtrend' the population, when medical advances raise the birth-rate/survival?

Interesting question. I seem to recall, in another thread about fertility, that increasing education and employment prospects for women tended to bring the birthrate right down. Not sure how much wiggle room somewhere like the "mature" populations of the US has either for reducing birth rate or increasing standard of living... if you stop there being poor people, you do funny things to the inflation rate. But, in combination with debt relief, it could have an effect on the developing world, leading potentially to an absence of cheap "import" labour and the need to develop more efficient low-population mechanisms.

Hmmm... tricky.

14:05 / 12.10.04

How to do we 'downtrend' the population, when medical advances raise the birth-rate/survival? Will free and ready access to birth control do it (more orgasms, less kids)? Will "education" of declining natural resources do it (not likely, if given the current sitch is any indication)?

According to the articles I've read recently, we already are doing it, and that is apparently the problem. Birth rates are falling, and if we keep going like this then the next generation of seniors will be smaller.

According to this article, "As late as 1970, the world's median fertility level was 5.4 births per woman; in 2000, it was 2.9. Barring war, famine, epidemic or disaster, a country needs a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman to hold steady." Those figures are averages for the planet, but in many wealthy countries it is less.

I think this is a good thing for a number of reasons, but the main argument against this position is that if this comes to pass then we will hit a huge pensions/healthcare crisis. Governments are already wondering how to encourage their populations to breed more. In Australia for example, the government is paying families $2,000AUS for each child they produce. Mind you, that is typical of this government who keeps immigrants out because they'll take "our" jobs and welfare while simultaneously handing over money to breed new taxable units from scratch rather than letting in those who are knocking at the door, ready to work and pay tax immediately. But that's another story. Don't get me started about the Australian election result.