Underpopulation crisis.

[an anarchist]

Claim: There is an underpopulation crisis.

I don’t have the data to back it up, and I don’t feel like fishing it up. Rather, I want to examine the logic behind the claim that we need to forever grow our population.

The basic logic is this: as technology becomes exponentially more advanced, higher specialization will be required in job fields. These specializations will become increasingly more difficult to achieve as technology advances. Therefore, we need to continuously grow the population as a smaller and smaller percentage of people will be able to complete the necessary specializations to keep up with technological advancements.

I got this idea from a “conspiracy” site who presented the idea of an underpopulation crisis. Apparently, the Deep State is trying to depopulate the world for eugenics purposes and are pushing the overpopulation fear. But that’s not what this thread is about. I want to examine the logic of the previous paragraph. The news site I got the info from put up the logic as a tangent.

 

[an anarchist]

I can’t fish up data that supposedly backs up the idea of an underpopulation crisis because that “conspiracy” news site I use is paywalled now and I am between jobs ;-;

 

[Koldo]

These specializations will become increasingly more difficult to achieve as technology advances. Therefore, we need to continuously grow the population as a smaller and smaller percentage of people will be able to complete the necessary specializations to keep up with technological advancements.

If I understood you correctly, you are saying that only people with an innate very high intelligence will be able to perform those jobs. But why do you presume this?

 

[Altfish]

It is dropping is some countries.
In the UK, in 2023 the birth rate per woman was 1.755. You need it to be 2.0, for a stable population.
Germany is worse, something like 1.5

 

[Regiomontanus]

Claim: There is an underpopulation crisis.

I don’t have the data to back it up, and I don’t feel like fishing it up. Rather, I want to examine the logic behind the claim that we need to forever grow our population.

The basic logic is this: as technology becomes exponentially more advanced, higher specialization will be required in job fields. These specializations will become increasingly more difficult to achieve as technology advances. Therefore, we need to continuously grow the population as a smaller and smaller percentage of people will be able to complete the necessary specializations to keep up with technological advancements.

I got this idea from a “conspiracy” site who presented the idea of an underpopulation crisis. Apparently, the Deep State is trying to depopulate the world for eugenics purposes and are pushing the overpopulation fear. But that’s not what this thread is about. I want to examine the logic of the previous paragraph. The news site I got the info from put up the logic as a tangent.

The problem, IMHO, is capitalism/ mass consumption/ the growth mindset, not necessarily population per say.

 

[an anarchist]

If I understood you correctly, you are saying that only people with an innate very high intelligence will be able to perform those jobs. But why do you presume this?

Not necessarily general intelligence, but highly specialized but specific skills.

I think this is an importance difference. We are more likely to have someone specialized in one area than someone who has an innate very high intelligence.

 

[Secret Chief]

Apparently, the Deep State is trying to depopulate the world

So just a lot of bollards then. Eight billion (with about 9% in extreme poverty) is enough to have ****** the biosphere and initiated the sixth great extinction. But hey we probably need to breed more christians.

 

[an anarchist]

But why do you presume this?

With my previous reply, is it clear? I feel like it just makes sense, but I can try to elaborate.

 

[an anarchist]

So just a lot of bollards then.

The logic we are examining in the thread is bollards? Because the guy is a “conspiracy theorist”?

Do you suppose everything I say is “bollards”?

Ca you compartmentalize and examine the logic that has been singled out?

 

[Koldo]

Not necessarily general intelligence, but highly specialized but specific skills.

I think this is an importance difference. We are more likely to have someone specialized in one area than someone who has an innate very high intelligence.

Why do you think that having highly specialized workers would require a huge population?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Claim: There is an underpopulation crisis.

... I want to examine the logic behind the claim that we need to forever grow our population.

Whether or not "there is an underpopulation crisis" has no bearing on whether "we need to forever grow our population."

 

[an anarchist]

Why do you think that having highly specialized workers would require a huge population?

Think about how many people are capable of working in the restaurant industry as opposed to how many people can code.

The more complex the task, the harder it is. More effort, and sometimes more intelligence is needed to achieve the degree of specialization that is required as technology progresses. This continually raises the entry bar to industries as they advance. Therefore, the logic that a smaller percentage of the population will be able to achieve the new technological tasks is within reason.

I think it’s self evident. I don’t see how I can elaborate further as I can’t pull up statistics.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... we need to continuously grow the population as a smaller and smaller percentage of people will be able to complete the necessary specializations to keep up with technological advancements.

Perhaps the answer is a more intellectually sound society achieved through creating a better learning infrastructure for a greater percentage of the population.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The more complex the task, the harder it is.

Often. But complex is not the same a specialized.

 

[Quintessence]

As difficult and unreasonable as it is to do, let's ignore the ecological and environmental ramifications of this for the moment. Let's pretend that somehow the earth has infinite resources, that the flourishing of other species doesn't matter, and that exponential or perpetual growth of humans is somehow desirable in any way. Cringe.

Koldo already pointed out one of the two major flaws in this nonsense.

I'll point out a second - automation has been a huge component of the "advancement" of technology. There is no reason to suppose that will stop and every reason to suppose it will continue. You don't need more humans when more and more processes are automated and not being done by humans at all.

 

[Secret Chief]

Think about how many people are capable of working in the restaurant industry as opposed to how many people can code.

The more complex the task, the harder it is. More effort, and sometimes more intelligence is needed to achieve the degree of specialization that is required as technology progresses. This continually raises the entry bar to industries as they advance. Therefore, the logic that a smaller percentage of the population will be able to achieve the new technological tasks is within reason.

I think it’s self evident. I don’t see how I can elaborate further as I can’t pull up statistics.

So there'll be decreasing numbers of jobs which means that we will need increasing numbers of people. Is that the logic?

 

[Koldo]

Think about how many people are capable of working in the restaurant industry as opposed to how many people can code.

The more complex the task, the harder it is. More effort, and sometimes more intelligence is needed to achieve the degree of specialization that is required as technology progresses. This continually raises the entry bar to industries as they advance. Therefore, the logic that a smaller percentage of the population will be able to achieve the new technological tasks is within reason.

I think it’s self evident. I don’t see how I can elaborate further as I can’t pull up statistics.

I see a complete different set of reasons for the lack of highly specialized individuals when it happens.

First of all, lack of information. People might not even be aware there is a demand for a given well-paying job.

Second, getting a proper education to do those jobs generally requires both time and money investiment that many people don't have. Worse yet, the demand might even cease or reduce drastically by the time the professionals are ready to enter the market.

Would you like to have a population that is able to take up highly specialized jobs? Invest in that population.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The basic logic is this: as technology becomes exponentially more advanced, higher specialization will be required in job fields. These specializations will become increasingly more difficult to achieve as technology advances. Therefore, we need to continuously grow the population as a smaller and smaller percentage of people will be able to complete the necessary specializations to keep up with technological advancements.

The abstract logic of the paragraph does not compute to me. Unless the presumption is this: that in order to accrue more of the people that actually can do specialized jobs, the population has to grow in order to produce more of the supposedly rare people who can do them. This assumes as well, that changes in education can't solve the issue to some degree. The paragraph also assumes that the idea of the 'job' itself, as we commonly understand it, is going to continue on with some sense of perpetuity

So, basically what I wrote in the above paragraph is an 'error: does not compute' message

More broadly, I do not know the ceiling population level that the planet can reach, but I think there ought to be some mature consensus that space seems good to have, in-between people, and for other things in nature to thrive

One hears about what is happening Japan, supposedly. I would like to converse with someone about that, who is from there.. I wonder if it is mostly the economists of the world who are saying that Japan's population situation is bad thing. It causes a slump in GDP, right? So then, maybe some people can't make big money.

I don't think a society always has to go above 2 births per family, it might be saner to give the planet a break now and then, so families should just have 1 offspring for a while in sustained time-frames, now and then. Just because a population level falls , does not mean it cannot rise again at a future date. A society can go from having 1 birth per family, right back to 3 at any time, or least I sense it is possible, even if an economist doesn't seem to think that can happen

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Perhaps the answer is a more intellectually sound society achieved through creating a better learning infrastructure for a greater percentage of the population.

It's a hopeful sentiment

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I see a complete different set of reasons for the lack of highly specialized individuals when it happens.

First of all, lack of information. People might not even be aware there is a demand for a given well-paying job.

Second, getting a proper education to do those jobs generally requires both time and money investiment that many people don't have. Worse yet, the demand might even cease or reduce drastically by the time the professionals are ready to enter the market.

Would you like to have a population that is able to take up highly specialized jobs? Invest in that population.

To dovetail what you said, because it maybe fits in with this, is that it also seems like the case that we have not reached a period with a very static technological state in a while. I am 38, and I grew up roughly with the development of computer technology, but not at all with actual developed computer technology. This presents a few problems, I think