Thoughts on a declining population

[alancalverd]

I've been wondering for some time what would happen if we reduced the birthrate to half replacement level. Apologies for having to use an attachment but I can't upload the graphs any other way.


Please read and enjoy criticise!

Attachments:

[marchesarosa]

What would happen?

Rapid demographic "ageing" of the population structure.

Contrary to what some folk think, it is the declining birth rate rather than increased longevity that has mainly accounted for the increasing proportion of older people in a population.

So long as people remain healthy and fit for work there should not be too much of a problem with maintaining the economically productive proportion necessary to support a more elderly population. Getting all the unemployed into work should help a bit, too, as well as raising the retirement age by a few years! And fewer children means more women are available for work for longer.

Unfortunately, the scourge of dementia, which requires rather labour intensive care of the victims, is an increasing problem in more elderly populations. However, when the disease is mastered, as I am sure it will be soon, there is no reason to fear a population structure more skewed towards the older age groups. Indeed, it is the index of a mature social and economic system.

We need only look at the societies where the majority of the population is aged under 25 years to understand the problems of a high birth rate - not least of which is to grow the economy fast enough to keep all the youth in employment! Hardly surprising that countries with an over-high preponderance of children and youth are inherently unstable in various ways.

Gaza has almost the highest birthrate in the world - deliberately so, a "demographic weapon", with a massive 45% under the age of 14 years and 65% under 25 years! Algeria has 47% under 25 years, Saudi 49%, Egypt 51%, Pakistan 55% , Syria 56%, Somalia 63%, Afghanistan 65%, Sudan 62%, South Sudan 67%, Mali 67% under 25 years.

Compare these with the West and developed world. Germany 24% under 25 years, Japan 23%, Russia 28%, Canada 29%, South Korea 29%, France 30%, UK 30%, Australia 32%, USA 34% under 25 years.

Compare to the rapidly growing economies. Turkey has 43% under 25 years, Brazil 41% under 25 years, Indonesia 44%, India 48%. (Note, China's one-child policy REALLY worked. They have the same proportion of people under 25 as the USA, 34%!) Note also that these countries' economies, although growing, struggle to keep their high proportion of youth in employment so a reduction in the birthrate would benefit them as it has the developed economies and will happen as the countries become more wealthy and more educated.

Data from IndexMundi

[marchesarosa]

Forget growing plants for bio-fuel. It's more environmentally destructive that you think and STILL involves emitting a lot of CO2!

Domestically produced gas and oil plus nuclear will provide for nearly all our needs.

[jonjel]

That and people starting to be frugal as to how they use electricity and other forms of power.

[alancalverd]

I'm not much worried by CO2 emissions. But even if I was, reducing the population by 80% would reduce our CO2 emissions by 80%. 10% of all anthropogenic CO2 derives from people breathing, 25% from the farm animals we eat, and all the rest is essentially "per capita" too.

I'm intrigued by the popular belief that electricity generation is an important source of anthro-CO2 - it accounts for less than 30% of all energy use.

So long as people remain healthy and fit for work there should not be too much of a problem with maintaining the economically productive proportion necessary to support a more elderly population. Getting all the unemployed into work should help a bit, too, as well as raising the retirement age by a few years! And fewer children means more women are available for work for longer.'

but as my paper showed, simply reducing the birthrate solves the problem without anyone having to work harder or longer.

Unfortunately, the scourge of dementia, which requires rather labour intensive care of the victims, is an increasing problem in more elderly populations. However, when the disease is mastered, as I am sure it will be soon, there is no reason to fear a population structure more skewed towards the older age groups. Indeed, it is the index of a mature social and economic system.

This is not the right approach. If we want people to live indefinitely, we will need either an indefinitely expanding food supply, or a complete ban on reproduction. I don't see the first as feasible or the second as desirable. We need to afford humans the same dignity that the law requires us to give to animals. The hallmark of civilisation is that you can choose the time and method of your death, not that you can struggle with pain, incontinence and bedsores until the NHS loses interest and dehydrates you. With the exception of HeLa cells, every biological system eventually loses its integrity and capability of self-repair. Assisted suicide should be a human right.

[marchesarosa]

You come out with some weird remarks, Mr Calverd! I don't know why I bother, but here are a few of the intellectual infelicities in your last post.

I'm intrigued by the popular belief that electricity generation is an important source of anthro-CO2 - it accounts for less than 30% of all energy use.

1. Since when was 30% of ANYTHING "negligible"? 30% of total energy use is not "negligible" in any sense of the word.

2. Finding a cure for dementia is not equivalent to wanting people to live "indefinitely".

3. Reducing the population by 80% involves FAR more than "simply reducing birthrate". What time scale are you contemplating?

4. Why would the planet NEED to reduce the human population by 80%? Achieving a stable population would be enough to solve most of the apparent problems.

[alancalverd]

Have you read the attachment to my original post? The timescale for one simple model is clearly set out.

If we reduced the birthrate to zero tomorrow, the population would be almost zero by 2113, so any target is achievable within an entirely reasonable timescale.

As far as the planet is concerned, human happiness or even survival is irrelevant. We are seen by all other species (except dogs and horses) as either food, competition, or predators. The world worked OK before homo sapiens and will work OK without us. But if we want to assure a sustainable and enjoyable future for our descendants, with at least the current western standard of living, we have to find some means of providing 1.5 kilowatt per capita and 2000 nutritional calories per capita per day from indefinitely sustainable and reliable sources. The simplest - and AFAIK only - way of doing that is to reduce the number of capitas.

You could look at two extremes, say the UK and Ethiopia. We can sustain a high population density in the UK right now because we have access to fossil fuel and the technology to do useful things with it - like bulk food processing and distribution, and water purification. Famine and cholera are pretty rare here, and even in the case of a major crop failure, we (just) have the resources to import food. We are however facing a possible cull of the poor over the next few winters, and the only thing we can say with certainty about fossil fuel is that the supply is finite.

Compare that with Ethiopia and other parts of the world where even a minimal standard of survival is not normally sustainable: there are just too many people per acre of cultivable land to survive one bad harvest, and the infrastructure to distribute essential supplies or sustain public health in a crowded environment does not exist.

Did I say that electricity generation was negligible? I can't see that. But it is clear that if we reduced the UK population by 80%, we'd reduce electricity consumption by 80%, which wouldn't do any harm, surely? Fact is, however, that most of the world's energy consumption goes into inefficient heating processes like cooking over a wood fire, or direct use of primary fuels in industry.

Dementia is predominantly a disease of old age, as are cancer, heart disease, and all the other increasingly common causes of morbidity and death. Suppose we could eliminate all three tomorrow. What would you like to die from instead? Or if there was no remaining natural cause of death, how long would you like to live? It seems to me that medicine is changing from a patch-up response to infectious disease, to a matter of deliberate engineering: what end product do we want, will it be affordable, and what science do we need to achieve it? Alas, there is a lot of effort going into the science without a defined product or any notion of affordability - postcode lotteries and arbitrary budgets are not an ethical response, but birth control is an ethical step in the right direction.

[marchesarosa]

The simplest - and AFAIK only - way of doing that is to reduce the number of capitas.

It is not at all "simple" to reduce the birthrate by the amount you think necessary (80%). Look at the problem China has had "simply" to make its demographic structure resemble that of the USA with 34% under the age of 25.

To stabilise population so that it is no longer growing is achievable. Also, the world has plenty of resources and human beings are very ingenious. Giv'em the tools and they'll get on with the job! There is absolutely no demonstrable need (apart from ideological alarmism and scare-mongering) to reduce the population by 80%. Africa needs electrification, economic development and education not a cull of the population.

[buckleymanor1]

Jul 13, 2013 15:44:00 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

The simplest - and AFAIK only - way of doing that is to reduce the number of capitas.

It is not at all "simple" to reduce the birthrate by the amount you think necessary (80%). Look at the problem China has had simply to make its demographic structure resemble that of the USA with 34% under the age of 25.

To stabilise population so that it is no longer growing is achievable. Also, the world has plenty of resources and human beings are very ingenious. Giv'em the tools and they'll get on with the job! There is absolutely no demonstrable need (apart from ideological alarmism and scare-mongering) to reduce the population by 80%. Africa needs electrification and education not a cull of the population.

Politics is the problem not population.When there was a tenth of the population in the world to what there is now, people still starved and went without.When the population was a quarter people still starved and went without.When it was half the population guess what.
How on earth can anyone with reason come to the conclusion that by reduceing the population to levells acheived in the past will ensure economic stability for all is daft. Especialy when you look at what realy happened when the population was at those levells.
Do you imagine human nature will change and people with authority and power will suddenly become benevolent with a declining population for some obscure reason.
I agree with marchesarosa Africa needs electrification and education not a cull of the population.
The other alternative is small minded bunkerish mean and negative to say the least.

[marchesarosa]

Quite right Buckeymanor. This cartoon makes me smile



As you say, the necessary assumption about the benevolence of those who are engineering the "80% drop in population" is totally unfounded. States that are totalitarian enough to ensure people do not breed are not necessary benevolent. A New World Order even less so. We should be very wary of people who promote such a potentially totalitarian direction for the world - "simple" solutions are for simple minds!

[alancalverd]

I don't advocate reducing the birthrate by 80% but by 50%, and doing it by rational choice, not persuasion or coercion. Nor have I suggested that this is desirable for Africa (where clearly everyone lives to a great age in utter peace and comfort, and there is enough food for everyone, as my critics have pointed out) but I'm advocating it entirely selfishly (on behalf of my descendants) for the UK.

I somehow feel that not being beholden to Islamic dictatorships for our fuel supplies might be a Good Thing, as would an end to housing shortage and traffic congestion, and higher pensions. But clearly others disagree, so I won't press the point.

[buckleymanor1]

Jul 14, 2013 13:20:07 GMT 1 alancalverd said:

I don't advocate reducing the birthrate by 80% but by 50%, and doing it by rational choice, not persuasion or coercion. Nor have I suggested that this is desirable for Africa (where clearly everyone lives to a great age in utter peace and comfort, and there is enough food for everyone, as my critics have pointed out) but I'm advocating it entirely selfishly (on behalf of my descendants) for the UK.

I somehow feel that not being beholden to Islamic dictatorships for our fuel supplies might be a Good Thing, as would an end to housing shortage and traffic congestion, and higher pensions. But clearly others disagree, so I won't press the point.

What rational choice how do you explain to someone in there old age who has no descendants because of the rational choices they made when younger that they have no visitors and no one cares about them.
Maybe they could be inspired with some off the shelf slogan like never mind we are all in this together, or you know it makes sense.
In the meantime the pigs could move into the empty farmhouse as they die at home alone with the full knowledge of there rational choices.

[marchesarosa]

I agree that inducements to reduce family size are a good idea in achieving a stable rather than a growing population.

For starters the accumulated child allowance for 2 children for 18 years could be paid into the personal pension pot of people who undergo voluntary sterilisation.

However, it is not the West's problem, is it? We have already adopted the appropriate family size for our stage of economic development.

In countries where the family provides the welfare for the elderly the absence of offspring is seen as dangerous. So some financial provision could be made for those who undergo voluntary sterilisation so that they have the means to care for themselves in old age if necessary. Of course, there is nothing to stop those who forego breeding themselves adopting unwanted children or the children of relatives. Not adding to the population does not mean one has to forego family life altogether nor the inter-generational obligations implicit in family relationships!