Reducing family size is one of the most beneficial things we can do to protect our planet and human life itself. When I was born there were two billion people on earth and now it’s eight heading (despite all the hand wringing by the likes of Elon Musk) to ten. Over populated Africa cannot feed itself and will certainly be subject to famine as climate change increases desertification. Even in the rich US as our addled president opens our borders to untold billions from the third world we are unable to house our own citizens.
Smaller populations will help humanity win the battle against life threatening climate disaster and save the wildlife habitat that the other species we share the planet with need to survive.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food.
Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable. Economics 101.
Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman recently looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.”
There is no reason the rest of the world can’t benefit from his wisdom.
The ad hominems are gross and unfair to you. Let me try to substantive address your points:
1. World population passed 2 billion in 1927. GDP per capita was about $750, or $14K in 2024, about what global GDP per capita is today. The rest of the world was obviously much poorer. More households in Rwanda have electricity than households in US at the time world population passed 2 billion. In 50 years, we've gone from half the world living in extreme poverty to less than 10%. The increase in people, far from creating a Malthusian nightmare, has coincided with the greatest human flourishing the world has ever known. In sum: there were no good old days, or if there are, they're right now.
2. We're not going to get to 10 billion people. Not when the world is below replacement TFR and China alone is going to lose 1 billion people in the next 100 years. As I've said elsewhere, we're on a glide arc to 6.5 billion in 2100 and 4-5 billion by 2150. No one seriously argues that that number is beyond carrying capacity.
3. Anthropogenic climate change is real and the most dangerous threat we face. But the explosion in renewables and the decarbonization coming online have lowered the "present trends and nothing more" warming arc from 3()C to 2.1 in a decade. Even Wallace-Wells is guardedly optimistic.
4. Krugman is describing a Japan that has 1.5-1.7 deaths per birth. But birth rate in Japan continues to collapse, dropping 12% in just two years, and the baby boomers haven't really started dying en masse yet. Will it be so stable when it's 3-4 deaths per birth? No one knows.
JRS: Thanks for your thoughtful response. This is what the U. S. Census Bureau said last November:
“Population Growing at Slower Pace
The rate of growth peaked decades ago in the 1960s and has been declining since and is projected to continue declining.
While it took 12.5 years for the world to go from 7 billion to 8 billion people, we project it will likely take 14.1 years to go from 8 billion to 9 billion, and another 16.4 years to go from 9 billion to 10 billion.
Despite a slowdown, we project the world population will reach 10.2 billion by 2060.”
As for Africa where much of the coming increase will occur I am less certain than you that the already built in climate change and the built in population increase will result in a favorable outcome. You will hopefully see the 2060 results and I might survive long enough to see the trend. Thanks again for your non adversarial response.
Using Krugman, the Stopped Clock of the Nobel Laureates, as your crowning point illustrates this quite nicely. He is totally whistling past the graveyard with his blithe commentary on Japan.
I just knew that I was best at something. You are the prince of ad hominem attacks. For once in your life try discussing ideas with your own ideas. Is Japan actually going downhill because of its population situation or not? It doesn’t look like it is does it.
Japan is at the height of its working age bulge (% of population age 15-64). Not a lot of kids to support and its citizens not quite yet retired. It starts to get harder from here on out.
Reducing family size is one of the most beneficial things we can do to protect our planet and human life itself. When I was born there were two billion people on earth and now it’s eight heading (despite all the hand wringing by the likes of Elon Musk) to ten. Over populated Africa cannot feed itself and will certainly be subject to famine as climate change increases desertification. Even in the rich US as our addled president opens our borders to untold billions from the third world we are unable to house our own citizens.
Smaller populations will help humanity win the battle against life threatening climate disaster and save the wildlife habitat that the other species we share the planet with need to survive.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food.
Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable. Economics 101.
Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman recently looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.”
There is no reason the rest of the world can’t benefit from his wisdom.
The ad hominems are gross and unfair to you. Let me try to substantive address your points:
1. World population passed 2 billion in 1927. GDP per capita was about $750, or $14K in 2024, about what global GDP per capita is today. The rest of the world was obviously much poorer. More households in Rwanda have electricity than households in US at the time world population passed 2 billion. In 50 years, we've gone from half the world living in extreme poverty to less than 10%. The increase in people, far from creating a Malthusian nightmare, has coincided with the greatest human flourishing the world has ever known. In sum: there were no good old days, or if there are, they're right now.
2. We're not going to get to 10 billion people. Not when the world is below replacement TFR and China alone is going to lose 1 billion people in the next 100 years. As I've said elsewhere, we're on a glide arc to 6.5 billion in 2100 and 4-5 billion by 2150. No one seriously argues that that number is beyond carrying capacity.
3. Anthropogenic climate change is real and the most dangerous threat we face. But the explosion in renewables and the decarbonization coming online have lowered the "present trends and nothing more" warming arc from 3()C to 2.1 in a decade. Even Wallace-Wells is guardedly optimistic.
4. Krugman is describing a Japan that has 1.5-1.7 deaths per birth. But birth rate in Japan continues to collapse, dropping 12% in just two years, and the baby boomers haven't really started dying en masse yet. Will it be so stable when it's 3-4 deaths per birth? No one knows.
JRS: Thanks for your thoughtful response. This is what the U. S. Census Bureau said last November:
“Population Growing at Slower Pace
The rate of growth peaked decades ago in the 1960s and has been declining since and is projected to continue declining.
While it took 12.5 years for the world to go from 7 billion to 8 billion people, we project it will likely take 14.1 years to go from 8 billion to 9 billion, and another 16.4 years to go from 9 billion to 10 billion.
Despite a slowdown, we project the world population will reach 10.2 billion by 2060.”
As for Africa where much of the coming increase will occur I am less certain than you that the already built in climate change and the built in population increase will result in a favorable outcome. You will hopefully see the 2060 results and I might survive long enough to see the trend. Thanks again for your non adversarial response.
You're very welcome. Also, one point of clarification: the $750 GDPPC in 1930/$14K in today's dollars referred to US only.
In the running for worst comment of all time.
Using Krugman, the Stopped Clock of the Nobel Laureates, as your crowning point illustrates this quite nicely. He is totally whistling past the graveyard with his blithe commentary on Japan.
I just knew that I was best at something. You are the prince of ad hominem attacks. For once in your life try discussing ideas with your own ideas. Is Japan actually going downhill because of its population situation or not? It doesn’t look like it is does it.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND?locations=JP
Japan is at the height of its working age bulge (% of population age 15-64). Not a lot of kids to support and its citizens not quite yet retired. It starts to get harder from here on out.
Critic: Autist? Internet diagnosis. Bye.
Critic: https://open.substack.com/pub/greglukianoff/p/canceling-readers-we-need-your-feedback?r=7ftfa&utm_medium=ios