We're not having enough babies

[PraedSt]

If you're interested in the up-coming demographic crisis, this week's Economist is running a series of short articles that discuss the problem and its solutions.

Intro: A slow burning fuse (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13888045): Age is creeping up on the world, and any moment now it will begin to show. The consequences will be scary.At present just under 11% of the world’s 6.9 billion people are over 60. Taking the UN’s central forecast, by 2050 that share will have risen to 22% (of a population of over 9 billion), and in the developed countries to 33%. To put it another way, in the rich world one person in three will be a pensioner; nearly one in ten will be over 80.A shortage of babies (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13888118): Most of the rich world is short of babies.
A world of Methuselahs (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13888102): The benefits, and the costs, of living longer.
Selling to older people (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13888110): There's money to be made in the grey market, but it takes thought.
Targeting pensions (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13887853): Pensions will have to become far less generous.
Work till you drop (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13887861): Retirement has got out of hand.
China's ageing predicament (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13888069): Getting old before getting rich.
Coping with global greying (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13888061): The world has never seen population ageing before. Can it cope?

We really need those robots.

[HenrikOlsen]

Extrapolating population figures 40 years into the future sounds really simplistic. :(

I expect the problem to self regulate, too many old people -> not enough people in the producing age for their care -> fewer old people -> problem solved.

[Chuck]

Later in the century, our robot servants will care for us. There's no reason not to have a robot nurse come out of wall along side the robot maid.

[Sad Tale]

Extrapolating population figures 40 years into the future sounds really simplistic. :(

It does, that's why they did something different.

I expect the problem to self regulate, too many old people -> not enough people in the producing age for their care -> fewer old people -> problem solved.

There are no parts of the world with chronic malnutrition, for the same reason.

[kleindoofy]

... the up-coming demographic crisis ...
This isn't exactly breaking news. This has been a major sociological issue for many years.

... Age is creeping up on the world, and any moment now it will begin to show ...
"Begin" to show?

It's already showing. The age graph should be /\ (young at the bottom). Presently it's more or less || in the richer countries.

Want to invest some money? Invest in retirement homes, geriatric research and such.

The trend was visible in the seventies. Schools being closed instead of being built, senior citizen housing popping up all over the place. Even after correction for post baby boom numbers and the increase of single/double generation families (instead of triple), the trend is unambiguous.

The work force is beginning to evolve. A number of years ago you couldn't get a decent new job if you were >40. Companies are now slowly beginning to realize that they need the "older" people and are changing hiring habits.

An entire industry is arising which focuses on the >60 sector.

[Tobin Dax]

The work force is beginning to evolve. A number of years ago you couldn't get a decent new job if you were >40. Companies are now slowly beginning to realize that they need the "older" people and are changing hiring habits.
Not to derail the thread, but that's also partly because people younger than 30 have different work habits, and this is apparently a big issue.

[Sticks]

This is odd to hear because the likes of Jonathan Porrit and Sir David Attenborough are saying people should be having less children because of the environment and climate change. The rule they have been saying is no more than two children, if that.

They are the environmental experts so they should know what they are talking about, I would have thought.

[Gandalf223]

The consequences will be scary.

You got that right.


"Some ... argue that even today’s population is too large to maintain without ravaging the environment and creating an inhospitable planet."

Christian Science Monitor (http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/28/earth%E2%80%99s-big-problem-too-many-people/)

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Human consumption of renewable resources is already overshooting Earth's capacity to provide."

Optimum Population Trust (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html)

--------------------------------------------------------------

"If demand continue[s] at the current rate, two planets [will] be needed to meet global demand by 2050."

People and Planet (http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2873)

[PraedSt]

Extrapolating population figures 40 years into the future sounds really simplistic. :(
True. You get more time to correct your errors in demographics though, for obvious reasons.

I expect the problem to self regulate, too many old people -> not enough people in the producing age for their care -> fewer old people -> problem solved.:lol:

[PraedSt]

Later in the century, our robot servants will care for us. There's no reason not to have a robot nurse come out of wall along side the robot maid.Yes, aside from investing in robotics, I really want my personal robot. I want to make a trip to Japan later this year to have a look myself. They're quite advanced in this field, necessity being the mother and all that.

[PraedSt]

There are no parts of the world with chronic malnutrition, for the same reason.Although I know what you mean, this is strictly not true. As you say, the same cohort doesn't have chronic malnutrition, because they die. But the next ones do- the state of chronic malnutrition can persist from one generation to the next.

That's the same with greying populations. We're talking about a stable cross-section. The high proportion of elderly may persist even if the eldest die off.

[Doodler]

Yes, aside from investing in robotics, I really want my personal robot. I want to make a trip to Japan later this year to have a look myself. They're quite advanced in this field, necessity being the mother and all that.

They're on the leading edge of this curve.

[Maha Vailo]

I don't see any issues in this. The world's population is stablizing (slowly but surely), so that coupled with conservation, technology, and and greater prosperity will take care of one end of the problem; employing the able-bodied aged, better health care, and (again) technological advances such as personal robots will take care of the old-age problem.

The big problem with extrapolating statistics like this is that pundits often assume straight-line extrapolations when in reality historical trends often follow the scribble you get when you leave a 5-year-old kid with a crayon in front of a piece of paper. This applies to birth rates as much as it does economic and technological trends.

- Maha Vailo

[PraedSt]

"Begin" to show?

It's already showing. The age graph should be /\ (young at the bottom). Presently it's more or less || in the richer countries.
You got that right.Oops. Sorry you two. The text next to the links are the subtitles on the articles. Not my words. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. I avoided using the quote function there as the whole post become too unwieldy.

[PraedSt]

The work force is beginning to evolve. A number of years ago you couldn't get a decent new job if you were >40. Companies are now slowly beginning to realize that they need the "older" people and are changing hiring habits.

An entire industry is arising which focuses on the >60 sector.
That's right. I've also read that in this recession companies are preferentially holding on to their eldest workers. But that's just what I've read, anecdotal evidence as it were; I haven't checked the figures.

[PraedSt]

This is odd to hear because the likes of Jonathan Porrit and Sir David Attenborough are saying people should be having less children because of the environment and climate change. The rule they have been saying is no more than two children, if that.

They are the environmental experts so they should know what they are talking about, I would have thought.
True. Having said that, the two are not strictly mutually exclusive. After lowering the population to the number considered "sustainable", you can raise your birth rate again to match the death rate- i.e. stabilize the population and improve the cross-section. The problem is that between here and there you have a considerable period of time when your cross-section is skewed towards the elderly. It's just something we have to deal with.

Of course the other way to do it would be to increase the death rate, but somehow that's unacceptable these days. :razz:

[eric_marsh]

My wife and I chose to be child free. I believe that there are few problems in this world that couldn't be minimized or solved by a reduction of the population by about three billion people.

The problem with these projections, as well as an unbridled capitalistic system is the essential assumption that growth and increased utilization of natural resources will go on forever. Unless we discover a major breakthrough in physics this assumption is fatally flawed. As we drive the system harder we increase the consequences of inevitable bubbles bursting.

[PraedSt]

My wife and I chose to be child free.
Who's going to support you when you're older?

[kleindoofy]

Oops. Sorry you two. The text next to the links are the subtitles on the articles. Not my words. ...
Yup, but I had to quote it some way. Sorry.

... in this recession companies are preferentially holding on to their eldest workers. ...

This change has been going on over the last few years, not months.

As to the reasons for the upset in the deomographic, the advent of DINKs (= "Double Income No Kids") is primarily a product of affluence, not worry for the environment.

[Gharlane]

If you live around my way you wouldn't say that. Just no Fathers attached!:whistle:

[filrabat]

My wife and I chose to be child free. I believe that there are few problems in this world that couldn't be minimized or solved by a reduction of the population by about three billion people.

I certainly agree about this part. However, this is not going to happen any time soon (barring some unforseeable-as-of-now disaster). Even a worldwide birth rate of 1.05 children per woman will still take about 80 years to halve the global population. A more realistic 1.5 will still mean 160 or so years to halve it.

The problem with these projections, as well as an unbridled capitalistic system is the essential assumption that growth and increased utilization of natural resources will go on forever. Unless we discover a major breakthrough in physics this assumption is fatally flawed. As we drive the system harder we increase the consequences of inevitable bubbles bursting.

Quite true, but nanotechnology and smaller scale ones will likely allow more efficient use of existing resources. So new technologies using even current-knowledge physics can still yield serendipitous surprises. Good old fashion recycling can also help.

Still, my reasons for choosing to be childfree are personal: some are lifestyle choices, others are philosophical reasons.

[peteshimmon]

Cannot really judge until we have the exact
numbers of fallers off the perch each year
and numbers of welcome new cutie pies in
each nation. The mortality histogram for
current years peaks in the seventies I think.
The more cheerful population histograms have
falloffs encroaching upwards but not as much
as claimed I suspect. But these exact diagrams
will provide real data rather than vacuous
claims without evidence.

At the moment when this subject is on the
news we have glib statements that people are
living longer without any clarifying statement
of this being on average. I have been shocked
by news of friends and people I know not
getting past their fifties. A natural thing
perhaps as 25% are said not to reach 65. These
numbers might be increased slightly if I was
able to reach through the television screen
and wring the necks of these stupid
commentators but unfortunately I cannot!

[Gillianren]

Well . . . I actually want more children. Plural, even. But there are good psychological and economic reasons it's not going to happen right now. At any rate, do figures of how many children per women include women who can't have children? Because, if so, even assuming I have the two more children I want, one of them still counts as someone else's.

[eric_marsh]

Who's going to support you when you're older?

We will have to live on our investments and social security, like so many other elderly people. But beyond that I think that the implication of your question, that one's kids can be counted on to support their elderly parents, is essentially flawed.

[Doodler]

We will have to live on our investments and social security, like so many other elderly people. But beyond that I think that the implication of your question, that one's kids can be counted on to support their elderly parents, is essentially flawed.

You do realize that Social Security is a government backed Ponzi scheme hedged upon the generation up and coming financing the generation that depends on it...

[Sticks]

You do realize that Social Security is a government backed Ponzi scheme hedged upon the generation up and coming financing the generation that depends on it...

This is getting too close to politics here, please desist

[PraedSt]

We will have to live on our investments and social security, like so many other elderly people. But beyond that I think that the implication of your question, that one's kids can be counted on to support their elderly parents, is essentially flawed.I don't mind helping my folks out really. It's the least I can do, given the fact they brought me up.

But, anyway, that was not why I asked the question. I was just trying to make the point that the younger generation always support the elderly. If not your kids, then someone else's. When you spend the money that you've saved to buy stuff, that stuff has to be produced, right then and there. So, either kids or robots are needed. :)

I personally don't believe in the resource/environment doom and gloom scenario, but neither do I object to environmentally conscious people or DINKs wanting to have smaller families. Once the demographic consequences are sorted out, or have passed, I don't see the harm in a smaller population.

But the consequences are there, no getting away from it. From fossil fuels to an ageing population, we've got a lot of adjusting ahead of us.

[Sad Tale]

Although I know what you mean, this is strictly not true. As you say, the same cohort doesn't have chronic malnutrition, because they die. But the next ones do- the state of chronic malnutrition can persist from one generation to the next.

That's the same with greying populations. We're talking about a stable cross-section. The high proportion of elderly may persist even if the eldest die off.

Yes, I know. The post was heavily tongue-in-cheek.

[Sad Tale]

The big problem with extrapolating statistics like this is that pundits often assume straight-line extrapolations when in reality historical trends often follow the scribble you get when you leave a 5-year-old kid with a crayon in front of a piece of paper. This applies to birth rates as much as it does economic and technological trends.

There is uncertainty around any forecast, but I see no evidence that this forecast was based on straight-line extrapolation.

[Sad Tale]

The problem with these projections, as well as an unbridled capitalistic system is the essential assumption that growth and increased utilization of natural resources will go on forever.

Which forecast are you reading? The one I read doesn't say anything like that.

[PraedSt]

Yes, I know. The post was heavily tongue-in-cheek.
My bad. Sorry Sad Tale. I have a severe cold today, so I think my brain's shut down.

And welcome to BAUT.

[Ara Pacis]

I expect the problem to self regulate, too many old people -> not enough people in the producing age for their care -> fewer old people -> problem solved.

Maybe... At some point the unwell-elderly will simply overwhelm the system and the poorer elderly will slip through the cracks. The young won't be able to pay to care for the older since the young will be working low-paying service jobs while the older-who-can-still-work, horde the better paying jobs. Younger people will move into an area where there are too many oldsters and not enough youngsters. This will create a shift in demographics, as is already happening in the US with current immigration. This is kinda what happened with Rome.

[slang]

I've been thinking your OP over, PraedSt, but even if it would help, if I guessed your gender correctly, we can't have any babies...

[Ronald Brak]

The world is faced with a much more serious and immediant problem. The number of farmers is rapidly decreasing worldwide and is particularly extreme in developed countries. In only about 100 years the proportion of the population working in agriculture has dropped from about 80% to around 2%. There are more World of Warcraft players in the United States than farmers. I thereby logically conclude that the United States is racked with famine. Or possibly it imports large amounts of food from countries that still have a large portion of the population working in agriculture, such as Mali?

On a more serious note, world population is expected to continue to increase for the next 40 years. Over that time the average wealth of a person in the United States, accounting for changing demographics, is expected to roughly quadruple. Older people are experincing more years of healthy life which will enable them to work longer if they wish or have the economic need to. In addition children are not free goods, but require rescources to raise and educate and a great deal is spent on them in developed countries, so having fewer children is not as great an economic problem as some may think. The greying of society will change things and have effects, but need not be a disaster. It might take a little planning and forethought to avoid problems, however.

[PraedSt]

Who knows? We've never gone through this before. The last article on the list is a fairly good synopsis (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13888061). Personally I agree, it won't be a disaster. But I do think it might require an enormous adjustment.

Also, we're talking about totals and averages here. Some countries are going to feel the effects sooner than the whole. China and Japan will be the interesting test cases in the next decade or two.

Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, accumulated wealth is always nice, but it's not the main bottleneck in this particular case. The problem is production. The young will have to become more productive, and the elderly, as you said, will have to work longer.

[Ronald Brak]

Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, accumulated wealth is always nice, but it's not the main bottleneck in this particular case. The problem is production. The young will have to become more productive, and the elderly, as you said, will have to work longer.

There is no particular reason why the elderly will have to work longer. Australia, which is aging faster than the United States is quite capable of supporting people over 65 at current or increasing standard of living with only mediocre economic growth. But it is quite possible that people will choose to work longer. As for workers becoming more productive, that is something that has been going on for a long time and to me it seems likely to continue.

I just read that last article, and don't see why younger people will have to work longer or have less generous pensions. As people in the US are expected to be roughly four times richer than they are now by 2050, taking into account demographic changes, I see no reason why pensions would have to be cut or why young people would have to work longer. I think it is difficult to predict how things will play out beyond 40 or so years. The differences between 1969 and today are considerable.

As full disclosure, I will mention that where I live, Australia, does seem better prepared for the aging of society than the US or a number of other developed countries.

[PraedSt]

There is no particular reason why the elderly will have to work longer. Australia, which is aging faster than the United States is quite capable of supporting people over 65 at current or increasing standard of living with only mediocre economic growth. But it is quite possible that people will choose to work longer. As for workers becoming more productive, that is something that has been going on for a long time and to me it seems likely to continue.

I just read that last article, and don't see why younger people will have to work longer or have less generous pensions. As people in the US are expected to be roughly four times richer than they are now by 2050, taking into account demographic changes, I see no reason why pensions would have to be cut or why young people would have to work longer. I think it is difficult to predict how things will play out beyond 40 or so years. The differences between 1969 and today are considerable.

As full disclosure, I will mention that where I live, Australia, does seem better prepared for the aging of society than the US or a number of other developed countries.
I don't know much about Australia I'm afraid. If you think your adjustment will be comparatively less, and if that turns out to be true, then great!

[Atraveller]

There is no particular reason why the elderly will have to work longer. Australia, which is aging faster than the United States is quite capable of supporting people over 65 at current or increasing standard of living with only mediocre economic growth. But it is quite possible that people will choose to work longer. As for workers becoming more productive, that is something that has been going on for a long time and to me it seems likely to continue.

So why is Australia increasing the retirement age to 67? Sorry - that may be going into a political question....

(I also live in Oz right now.)

[Ronald Brak]

So why is Australia increasing the retirement age to 67? Sorry - that may be going into a political question....

(I also live in Oz right now.)

The decision has been made to increase the retirement age, but that is different from having to increase the retirement age. The retirement age could be kept at 65 but taxes would have to be slightly higher to pay for it. From a budget point of view raising the retirement age helps reduce the cost of getting over the "hump" of people who will be retiring without enough superannuation (forced savings) to support themselves and so will be receiving a government pension. Another arguement for increasing the retirement age is that people are living longer and healthier lives than in the past. And it's possible to make a quality of life arguement for it, but I'm not really familiar with the data on that.

[Paracelsus]

With the population expected to peak at 9 bln, the problem isn't too few babies, it is too many. The upside-down ratio of old:young has occurred in rich countries because the fertility rates have dropped dramatically in a short period of time (an effect much to be desired) and the quality and quantity of life for people has concomitantly improved over the same period of time (another effect much to be desired). The older generation came from much bigger families than the younger generations, hence more old people than young people. The ratio will even out again in a couple of generations as low fertility rates persist.

[HenrikOlsen]

And if the rich countries where less paranoid about immigration, they could get their needed young and middle-age brackets filled that way.

[eric_marsh]

And if the rich countries where less paranoid about immigration, they could get their needed young and middle-age brackets filled that way.

Makes sense to me. I've had many people argue that I am somehow obligated to have kids because we are "more intelligent" than average. My take on this is that it is thinly veiled racism. There are billions of people with higher than average intelligence living in extreme poverty in places like India. All that they need is an opportunity to use their talents.

[PraedSt]

Greater immigration would certainly help. This is what one of the articles says:In many countries immigrants have been filling such gaps in the labour force as have already emerged (and remember that the real crunch is still around ten years off). Immigration in the developed world is the highest it has ever been, and it is making a useful difference. In still-fertile America it currently accounts for about 40% of total population growth, and in fast-ageing western Europe for about 90%.

On the face of it, it seems the perfect solution. Many developing countries have lots of young people in need of jobs; many rich countries need helping hands that will boost tax revenues and keep up economic growth. But over the next few decades labour forces in rich countries are set to shrink so much that inflows of immigrants would have to increase enormously to compensate: to at least twice their current size in western Europe’s most youthful countries, and three times in the older ones. Japan would need a large multiple of the few immigrants it has at present. Public opinion polls show that people in most rich countries already think that immigration is too high. Further big increases would be politically unfeasible.So yes; less paranoia, as Henrik put it, would be nice.
There's also a timing factor. If there's a period of time where every region needs immigration, then obviously this strategy will not work so well. Luckily our regions are out of phase at the moment, and hopefully they'll remain that way. Countries can take turns to "import" people.

[Spock Jenkins]

My wife and I have four, so we've done our part to balance out eric marsh.

Since having a fourth, I'm quite surprised at the number of families still having that many. Seems they all stay in hiding until you join their peer group, then they come out and introduce themselves. That, or we are all stuck doing the same family friendly activities, so we just happen to meet each other.

We know two other families that we do things with quite regularly that have four. There are also two more in our neighborhood. In my sons scout den, another family recently had a fourth and still another just had their fifth.

[PraedSt]

Welcome to BAUT Jan B. Thanks for the post, but would you mind quickly reading the rules here (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html)? We're pretty strict on not discussing religion. :)

[HenrikOlsen]

Just to avoid too much confusion you should know that the post PraedSt is referring to was removed because of its political content.

Jan B., if you read this intending to stay here for long, be aware that religious and political proselytizing are strictly forbidden here.

[thoth II]

"Age is creeping up on the world, and any moment now it will begin to show".

Age is creeeping up on me.

If 10% are over 60 now, and in 50 years, 20% will be over 60: I don't believe it. But hey, that's just me, not being a sociologist. So many factors could change in the earth to change all this. To be slightly facetious, did the dinosaurs know what was going to happen 50 years in future? I don't think humans will go extinct, but society is likely to change radically and unpredictably in the next 50 years.

[Ara Pacis]

And if the rich countries where less paranoid about immigration, they could get their needed young and middle-age brackets filled that way.

Well, you could look at it as the developed world having too few, but we also need to recognize that the developing world is having too many. I can understand why people would be paranoid about it since the immigrants may bring social systems that are at odds with those who are already living in a new location. Even if we rule out the paranoia for direct social conflict, people may also fear that those who over-breed will just over-breed in their new environs and just exacerbate the problem. Whether that would actually happen is debatable, as studies suggest rising wealth tends to cause a drop in birthrate, but it's not implausible that over-breeding could still occur.

This may be close to political, but what's wrong with being paranoid about immigration? It's their country and their culture, why not let them decide to disallow immigration for whatever reason they want. That would seem to be corrollary to "Self-Determination of Peoples". It's not like population migration is similar in process to osmosis, or maybe it is. If the people of a country want to preserve their culture, then let them decide the permability of their filter. Meanwhile, why not let the developing world continue to develop a solution but also suffer the consequences of their own overbreeding? It would be a lesson in causality.

[PraedSt]

Well, you could look at it as the developed world having too few, but we also need to recognize that the developing world is having too many. I can understand why people would be paranoid about it since the immigrants may bring social systems that are at odds with those who are already living in a new location. Even if we rule out the paranoia for direct social conflict, people may also fear that those who over-breed will just over-breed in their new environs and just exacerbate the problem. Whether that would actually happen is debatable, as studies suggest rising wealth tends to cause a drop in birthrate, but it's not implausible that over-breeding could still occur.

This may be close to political, but what's wrong with being paranoid about immigration? It's their country and their culture, why not let them decide to disallow immigration for whatever reason they want. That would seem to be corrollary to "Self-Determination of Peoples". It's not like population migration is similar in process to osmosis, or maybe it is. If the people of a country want to preserve their culture, then let them decide the permability of their filter. Meanwhile, why not let the developing world continue to develop a solution but also suffer the consequences of their own overbreeding? It would be a lesson in causality.This appears to be an inevitable outcome of human scientific and material progress, so it will happen to the developing countries as well. Indeed, it's already happening in many cases.
I have no problem with countries not wanting to increase immigration. It's just an option, that's all. There are other options, such as robots and babies. :)

[Paracelsus]

And if the rich countries where less paranoid about immigration, they could get their needed young and middle-age brackets filled that way.

That's already happening in this country, no matter what the feeling towards immigration is. The US population is growing.

[PraedSt]

A report by the French Institute for Demographic Studies came out last week. It looks at the ageing problem of the developing countries. The pdf can be found on this page (http://www.ined.fr/en/resources_documentation/publications/pop_soc/bdd/publication/1468/). It's very short, only 4 pages, and I would recommend it. Lots of nice graphs!
The abstract.
The world population is ageing. Now that families are getting smaller and people are living for longer, the proportion of adults and old people is increasing while the proportion of young people is declining. Unless large families once again become the norm - an unrealistic long-term option, resulting in unlimited population growth - this ageing trend is inevitable. Population ageing is affecting the entire planet, but has not reached the same stage everywhere. In many Southern countries it is just starting, but will become more acute over the coming decades. It will also take place more quickly than in the North. In China, for example, the proportion of over-65s is forecast to double from 7% to 14% within 25 years, and in Vietnam within just 17 years, while in France this doubling was spread over a period of more than a century.

[Tuckerfan]

Makes sense to me. I've had many people argue that I am somehow obligated to have kids because we are "more intelligent" than average. My take on this is that it is thinly veiled racism.

You've never seen the movie Idiocracy have you?

I find it interesting that the assumption is that the majority of folks in wealthy countries choose not to have so many children because things like technology give them access to birth control and they don't have to worry about children dying due to disease. But is that really the case?

Children are, so I'm told, rather expensive to raise in the developed world. Most new mothers in the developed world can't take their infants to work with them, while the mother (or father) in a less industrialized society can take the children with them when they go off to work in the fields or hunt buffalo (or even work in a factory in some of the developing countries).

In a less industrialized society, just having enough food to eat and a roof over your head, are the keys to having a "successful" life. In the developed world, however, not only do you need those things, but you also need a formal education (which can take over 16 years), transportation, and a wide variety of expensive tools to maintain your standard of living. Granted, one does not have to drive a $100K automobile or live in a multi-million dollar mansion, but your "baseline" if you will, of what you need to be successful is much higher than in the developing world. The prime fertility years for humans are from the teens to the late 20s, it is during that period of time when you have to dedicate so much of your time to getting an education (and then working to pay off your student loans) in the developed world. If you want to ensure that you're able to give your children the best start possible in the world, you have to work even longer before you start having kids. Not only does this lower the birth rate simply due to normal aging, but if, for example, it takes $100K to raise a single child, from birth to college, it makes you less inclined to have children (or more children) simply because you can't provide for them as well as you would like.

Now, let's throw out a bit of a hypothetical situation out, one which I don't see as being a huge stretch from a technological standpoint. We're told that within a hundred years or so nanotechnology will allow for the creation of "fabbers" that can take raw materials in and turn them into finished goods. (Not like the replicators in Star Trek which can spit out nearly anything, you'd have to use the right raw materials, and they couldn't turn, say, a pile of sawdust into a steak, but if you downloaded the blueprints for a 1948 Tucker into the machine and dumped in metal and other materials, it'd spit out a perfect copy of the car.) This will effectively wipe out much of the need for money, as well as the means of producing it. We'll also, at that point, have computer technology which will be capable of replacing humans in most jobs. So, in a world, where the collection of material assets is effectively meaningless (can't exactly brag about blowing money on a new $500K Phallomobile to the neighbor when he can BitTorrent the blueprints off the web and have his fabber spit out a new one the next day), what becomes a "status" symbol for people? Education? To some extent, but unless you're awarded a Nobel Prize and wear it all the time, its kind of hard to show it off to your neighbors. Travel? As the joke goes (and it dates back to at least 1909 with E. M. Forester's story The Machine Stops (http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/prajlich/forster.html)), what's the point of going to Beijing if it looks just like New York? (I imagine that if Starbuck's is around in 100 years, they'll have as many stores on the Moon as they do on Earth now.) Having children, however, is an "easy" way to show up your neighbors. So we might well see a boom in the global population much later on.

[HenrikOlsen]

Now, let's throw out a bit of a hypothetical situation out, one which I don't see as being a huge stretch from a technological standpoint. We're told that within a hundred years or so nanotechnology will allow for the creation of "fabbers" that can take raw materials in and turn them into finished goods. (Not like the replicators in Star Trek which can spit out nearly anything, you'd have to use the right raw materials, and they couldn't turn, say, a pile of sawdust into a steak, but if you downloaded the blueprints for a 1948 Tucker into the machine and dumped in metal and other materials, it'd spit out a perfect copy of the car.) This will effectively wipe out much of the need for money, as well as the means of producing it.
Apart from the rather large energy use by fab's.

Incidentally, for such a society and many of the nastier consequences I suggest you find and read Transmetropolitan.

[Tuckerfan]

Apart from the rather large energy use by fab's.Eh, all you've gotta do is download the plans for solar panels or other some such, and you can be living off the grid in no time. :D

[eric_marsh]

I find it interesting that the assumption is that the majority of folks in wealthy countries choose not to have so many children because things like technology give them access to birth control and they don't have to worry about children dying due to disease. But is that really the case?

[snipped for brevity]

Now, let's throw out a bit of a hypothetical situation out, one which I don't see as being a huge stretch from a technological standpoint. We're told that within a hundred years or so nanotechnology will allow for the creation of "fabbers" that can take raw materials in and turn them into finished goods. (Not like the replicators in Star Trek which can spit out nearly anything, you'd have to use the right raw materials, and they couldn't turn, say, a pile of sawdust into a steak, but if you downloaded the blueprints for a 1948 Tucker into the machine and dumped in metal and other materials, it'd spit out a perfect copy of the car.) This will effectively wipe out much of the need for money, as well as the means of producing it. We'll also, at that point, have computer technology which will be capable of replacing humans in most jobs. So, in a world, where the collection of material assets is effectively meaningless (can't exactly brag about blowing money on a new $500K Phallomobile to the neighbor when he can BitTorrent the blueprints off the web and have his fabber spit out a new one the next day), what becomes a "status" symbol for people? Education? To some extent, but unless you're awarded a Nobel Prize and wear it all the time, its kind of hard to show it off to your neighbors.

[snipped again]

So we might well see a boom in the global population much later on.

Who knows what people will do in the future? We have done plenty of crazy things in the past and I'm confident that that's not going to change, human nature being what it is. My observation is that those who lack an internal sense of self worth try to find it by demonstrating that they are "better" than others. Sometimes this is done in the form of conspicuous consumption (i.e. status symbols.) In the case of some groups (such as the racist white trash crowd) it is by claiming that some innate characteristic such as the color of their skin makes them better than "inferior" groups. Usually people that make that sort of a claim don't have much else going for them. So yes, I'm sure that there are those who would think they are better because they reproduce more freely than others. Why not? I guess that by that reasoning we should be in awe of those species that have hundreds of thousands of offspring before they die.

I never much understood the whole status symbol thing anyway. But then my take is that driving a phallomobile, as you put it, doesn't make someone a better person. Consequently while I may appreciate the machinery for what it is, ownership of that kind of machinery doesn't impress me.

What I'm more impressed with is a person's character and accomplishments. But I guess that may put me in a minority.

[thoth II]

Who knows what people will do in the future? We have done plenty of crazy things in the past and I'm confident that that's not going to change, human nature being what it is.

Yes, and evolutionary forces on earth and extraterrestrial are still operating. Who could have predicted when Homo erectus was on earth that Homo sapiens would evolve. No one knows what is going to happen in the future, that is a myth, the course of the history of the universe is unpredictable in detail. If quantum mechanics is just probabilistic, then bigger events which come from this quantum chaos are going to be unpredictable too.

So Newton's idea of a mechanistic clockwork universe is incredibly naive.

[PraedSt]

Having children, however, is an "easy" way to show up your neighbors. So we might well see a boom in the global population much later on.Interesting twist. Thanks Tuckerfan.

[Sam5]

” At present just under 11% of the world’s 6.9 billion people are over 60.”

Just a couple of years ago, we had 6.5 billion people in the world. Five or six years ago we had 6 billion people in the world.

The problem is NOT a lack of population growth, we’ve got plenty of that. The problem is modern medicine that keeps people alive longer. In the old days, when lifespans were only 35 to 40 years, the world’s population did not grow so fast, fewer people were “old”, and most people worked until they died young of some illness that was not treatable or curable back then.

[eric_marsh]

Yes, and evolutionary forces on earth and extraterrestrial are still operating. Who could have predicted when Homo erectus was on earth that Homo sapiens would evolve. No one knows what is going to happen in the future, that is a myth, the course of the history of the universe is unpredictable in detail. If quantum mechanics is just probabilistic, then bigger events which come from this quantum chaos are going to be unpredictable too.

So Newton's idea of a mechanistic clockwork universe is incredibly naive.

True - the unprobable is possible. But I think that my statement is essentially correct, as long as we do not live in either an infinite universe or a multiverse with an infinite number of parallel universes. I suppose that one also needs to examine what it is to be human - post humanity may be an entirely different critter.

[Ara Pacis]

Maybe we'll have to adopt a "one-elderly-parent" policy, it's just a newer Modest Proposal.

[Swift]

Not quite along the lines of the aging population, but along the lines of the limits of growth and resources, there was a very interesting article on this in the May-June 2009 issue of American Scientist (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2009/3/revisiting-the-limits-to-growth-after-peak-oil). Unfortunately, it is only free to subscribers, so you'll have to buy it or visit a library. Here is the abstract:
Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil
In the 1970s a rising world population and the finite resources available to support it were hot topics. Interest faded—but it’s time to take another look

Charles A. S. Hall, John W. Day

Thomas Mathus was perhaps the first economist to indicate that there were limits to the human population that could be sustained by the Earth’s resources. The 1970s were also a period when such limits on growth were widely discussed in research circles. In both cases, an increase in energy use, particularly of fossil fuels, has lead to greater food production, forestalling crisis. As a result, such arguments have largely been silenced in current-day academia, to the point where researchers interested in such topics cannot find a department to work in, let alone funding. Hall and Day argue that this is a mistake, that the problem has not gone away and will only take the world population by surprise if it is ignored. They have re-examined some of the data that led to the discrediting of the “limits to growth” theory and have shown that both resource use and costs have only risen, and are no longer being mitigated by market forces. Although new sources of energy have been found, they are much more expensive to extract, a declining return on investment that Hall and Day think could lead to large societal problems in the near future.

[Tuckerfan]

Many people are mistaken as to what Malthus really said, and laugh at him today, because they think that he said that Britain would starve to death in the 1800s due to population growth. What he really said was that a population will continue to expand so long as it has ample resources available to it, and unless outside forces act upon that population (disease or predation) it will continue to expand until it outstrips the resources available to it, at which point it will begin a decline.

Other people took his methods, applied them to England at the time and said, "Holy fecal matter, Batman! We're going to starve to death!" They then launched a massive effort to develop better agricultural methods and refrigeration in order that England could survive (by importing mutton from Australia, for example). Had folks not paid attention to Malthus, and those who used his theories to calculate how long Britain could sustain herself, then there might well have been a period of famine in England, while the country raced to develop better methods of farming and refrigeration.

Proof that Malthus was right can be found in the fact that the population of England didn't stabilize at 1800s levels, but has continued to rise.

[PraedSt]

Not quite along the lines of the aging population, but along the lines of the limits of growth and resources, there was a very interesting article on this in the May-June 2009 issue of American Scientist (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2009/3/revisiting-the-limits-to-growth-after-peak-oil). Unfortunately, it is only free to subscribers, so you'll have to buy it or visit a library. Here is the abstract:Sounds good. I'll make that library trip. Thanks Swift.

[PraedSt]

Many people are mistaken as to what Malthus really said, and laugh at him today, because they think that he said that Britain would starve to death in the 1800s due to population growth. What he really said was that a population will continue to expand so long as it has ample resources available to it, and unless outside forces act upon that population (disease or predation) it will continue to expand until it outstrips the resources available to it, at which point it will begin a decline.

Other people took his methods, applied them to England at the time and said, "Holy fecal matter, Batman! We're going to starve to death!" They then launched a massive effort to develop better agricultural methods and refrigeration in order that England could survive (by importing mutton from Australia, for example). Had folks not paid attention to Malthus, and those who used his theories to calculate how long Britain could sustain herself, then there might well have been a period of famine in England, while the country raced to develop better methods of farming and refrigeration.

Proof that Malthus was right can be found in the fact that the population of England didn't stabilize at 1800s levels, but has continued to rise.
I don't know much about how Malthus behaved regarding his model, but the model itself is pretty good. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he was misunderstood. Unfortunately you get that a lot in economics- what he said versus what he meant. It's much like a analyzing poetry. :D

[HenrikOlsen]

Malthus stated that unless limited by other factors, populations grow exponentially, this will mean that all populations will at some point hit a limitation that'll stop growth.

In his time it looked like food supply would be the limiting factor while in the current industrialized world the limiting factor is the prize of raising a child, which means many western countries are actually in population decline (mainly offset by immigration) because people chose not to have children.
In the time of Malthus such would have been unthinkable, as children where a net source of income 10-15 years earlier than they are now and where a necessity if you didn't want to starve to death when you got too old to work.

[Tuckerfan]

Oh, and something else I forgot to mention. If we do see a "fabber" world, I think its safe to say that the population of the world will be a lot fatter, since they won't have to actually get up and do anything.

[HenrikOlsen]

Except get out on the streets each day and steal the garbage put out by people who are too poor to have fab's so they have feed materialfor their fab.

[Tuckerfan]

Except get out on the streets each day and steal the garbage put out by people who are too poor to have fab's so they have feed materialfor their fab.

Eh, just fab yourself a robot to do that for you. Oh, and everybody will have a fabber. That's the primary goal of the Fab@Home Project (http://fabathome.org/).

[HenrikOlsen]

Actually I think I'll fab a robot to collect the neighbors' collecting robots, they're higher grade material:)