Time for a rational decision on population levels?

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Assuming it does, how will this smaller population tend to the needs of the large aging population? How will Economics deal with a contracting economy?

Not a smaller population... a population that isn't growing. And we're going to have to deal with the economics of a contracting economy sooner or later. "Fixing" the problem by constantly advocating moar and moar growth isn't fixing anything, it's only multiplying the problem, and putting it off for later generations.

How do we deal with it if we decide to be the ones to say "enough"? We finally decide to limit our consumption. We innovate (after all, the technological revolution is supposed to allow us to mechanise rather than "labourise"). We take the economy into the virtual sphere, which can allow for expansion with limited physical consumption.

Just for a start.

In some regards, I am the Devil's Advocate of this thread, but then again, I have claimed that there is no solution and Devil's Advocacy is the only real way of showing that true. So apologies in advance Boxy if I question everything you say. It does not mean that I am not interested though.

First, I quite like your idea of an virtual growth economy. We are already moving in that direction. But nothing is truly virtual. Hardware is required and that hardware is priced within a physical growth economy model of supply to and demand from consumers for profit. There is no such thing as yet of a zero growth/contraction physical economy. All depends on unlimited supply of resources and consumers. It would take decades to construct a zero growth theory and then have that theory supersede the current growth model. Meanwhile, populations grow in accordance with economic drivers.

The next and significant problem is that of the rest of the world, who continue to grow their numbers whilst we sustain ours. We and other nations would be perceived to be under populated in comparison to others. We and other such nations would become the envy of the world and a destination of preference in which to live an uncluttered life. What you suggest is a recipe for war, which we won't have the numbers to win.

[Jovial Monk]

So we should build a few nice nuke plants and make a few nuke bombs but never admit to that.

Something tells me Malthus is about to start laughing.

Between GMO wiping out genetic diversity, an ever increasing population it won’t take much to tip us over the edge.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Between GMO wiping out genetic diversity, an ever increasing population it won’t take much to tip us over the edge.

I agree. I think nature will cull our numbers. I think that is the only solution that will work. Ya never know, it could lead to a leap in human evolution too.

[Jovial Monk]

Then there is climate change, collapse in fish stocks yeah Malthus will be guffawing soon enough.

[boxy]

Between GMO wiping out genetic diversity, an ever increasing population it won’t take much to tip us over the edge.

I agree. I think nature will cull our numbers. I think that is the only solution that will work. Ya never know, it could lead to a leap in human evolution too.

Oh, I agree. It is the most likely outcome.

Unfortunately, a forced leap in evolution isn't going to be a "good thing" for what we see as what it is to be "human".

But going back to your last post to me...

You want a constantly growing economy, then you need to find new territories to exploit. We've come to the end of that on this planet. Space is prohibitably expensive to expand into. The only alternative is to take someone else's territory. War. It benefits some, but is still a majorly unproductive endevour, if you are looking at things from a species POV.

The rest of the world outbreeding us, is your other point. Sure. Population control will take a global effort, everyone should be playing their part, and I am (uncharacteristically) optomistic about our future ability to work together towards global solutions. The increase in informtation getting directly to "the people" throughout the world is something that can only widen the outlook for the common pleb on the street (like me).

[Jovial Monk]

Make the NBN world wide!

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

The rest of the world outbreeding us, is your other point. Sure. Population control will take a global effort, everyone should be playing their part, and I am (uncharacteristically) optomistic about our future ability to work together towards global solutions. The increase in informtation getting directly to "the people" throughout the world is something that can only widen the outlook for the common pleb on the street (like me).

Why are you optimistic about our future ability to work together? There has never been a time in history where the global community has worked together; only alliances have been formed to increase the likelihood of winning against a common foe.

Equally, history shows that affluence has the affect of reducing population numbers, but in order to achieve that, affluent nations must use developing nations in order to reduce costs. Poor nations have large families to counter the mortality rate and ensure there are enough children to care for the parents in old age, if they are lucky enough to reach old age.

[boxy]

Why are you optimistic about our future ability to work together? There has never been a time in history where the global community has worked together; only alliances have been formed to increase the likelihood of winning against a common foe.

Not at all. There have been plenty of partnerships built on common ground without a need to fight anyone. When I say I'm confident, I mean I'm confident it "can" happen, rather than "it will" happen. There are still plenty of things that can go wrong along the way. I just think that this time in history is like none that have gone before. If information can really free us, this is the age for it to happen...