We should be thinking of it in terms of GDP per person and quality of life. Chasing growth that drags down the our quality of life is silly. It’s the same as companies chasing growth at prices that lose money.
3 Likes
.
As an individual, yes. Politicians and economists have other ideas.
Recently I’m noticing people/women “begging” on the street corners here on weekends(never seen this before in this area). They don’t seem to be native English speakers and I see multiple of them of the same background and their pitch is “I have multiple kids”. Looks like someone is dropping them off as a business and picking them up at a stipulated time. Reasonably sure whoever is dropping them off takes at least 50% of the “earnings”.
Point is, great way of increasing population in the US with people who have no productive skills for the US level of Economy.
Are you saying Afghanistan economy will outgrow everybody because the Taliban ban schools for girls?
SMH…
Intentionally use wrong anchor. Flush your CS degree down the toilet, please.
My view remain: want to increase population, discourage women to educate themselves.
Btw, the assumption is implicitly agreed by you when you commented on the China article. I didn’t make that assumption in my reply. In response to @marcus335 , I was stating the assumption what governments and economists use.
In an advanced economy like the US, more babies is better than fewer. Yes. But your proposed solution is 10x worse than the “problem” it’s trying to solve. It’s like suggesting cancer patients killing themselves to cure their cancer.
Xi may be stupid enough and powerful enough to try your solution. Xi has more in common with the Taliban than many realize.
I am surprised you didn’t mention banning contraceptives. But the Taliban have you covered. They just announced they are banning it in Afghanistan.
My view remain: want to increase population, discourage women to educate themselves.
Ignoring out of context and wrong anchoring counter-views.
Just in case some people habitually add info not stated e.g. above view didn’t side with increase or decrease population is good or bad from whatever perspectives.
At a replacement rate of less than 2.1 extinction of the human race becomes a 100% certainty.
That reminds me of the “Peak Oil” prediction. That oil is a finite resource and we will soon use all up. Turns out dead wrong.
Lesson is we need to take economic force into consideration. Market will take in all the demand and supply and compute the correct price. In a future when there are so many fewer humans, making babies would be much more “profitable” so to say. The economic force in that future will guide parents to make more babies.
1 Like
Or we automate to the point where we don’t need new humans and just leave our machines as our legacy.
In the past automation increased population by making food, fiber, shelter etc. a lot cheaper. It also increased bandwidth allowing for new technologies. Maybe there’s an inflection point where it goes the other way.
1 Like
In other words, accept the ultimate outcome of the 
Nothing to worry about:
The world population is projected to reach 8.5 billion in 2030, and to increase further to 9.7 billion in 2050 and 10.4 billion by 2100.
Also, what if we invent something that stops or even reverses aging so we can live forever? That 10B number would be seriously undercounting.
We need Elon 
to tackle the over-crowded Earth. Live in outer space (SpaceX) or underground (boring company) or in robohomes (Tesla).
All the estimates I’ve seen show peak population between 2049 and 2080 with the decline then commencing. That’s globally, not in any one country.
A drastically different projection.
1 Like
.
Elon thinks otherwise. Optimus would replace those “missed humans”. He would sell Optimus and becomes the first multi-Trillionaire.
We’ve seen them in various places mid-peninsula, and yes, they get dropped off by a man. Possibly their husband, and he’s generally driving a very nice car. Some of them borrow other people’s kids. At one point they were begging at a church, and a bunch of us gave them all the resources around here to get aid like SVDP, offered them free clothing (which they declined) and they kept coming back but hadn’t tried getting hooked up for resources. Guessing it’s a scam. Gypsy style.
Why work when you can have your wife beg for $50/hr, tax free?
2 Likes
+They pay no tax on that.
Plus they get food stamps, rent assistance, free schooling for kids,Medical is also free I believe(hospitals can’t turn away patients)… etc etc(Don’t know what else they get).
3 Likes
The number of people aged 25 to 54, a group economists call “prime-age” workers, inched up just 40,000 in 2022. Meanwhile, the number of Americans 65 and older jumped by 2 million. That continues a pattern. Since 2019, the prime-age worker population has barely changed while the size of the 65-and-older group has increased by nearly 5 million (see chart 1). These differences affect labor force growth because the prime-age population is far more likely than seniors to be in the workforce.
3 Likes