i heard an interview with a Chinese economist He commented What do we need 7 billion people for? Pointing to the obvious fact that most sectors are benefitting from increasing automation We simply do not need so many people to make our stuff, grow our food, etc. and the future trend lines just amplify this situation. So then the question becomes What will all those people do?
Business interests continually lobby for more immigration and more cheap labor; they can never get enough of it.
Well, if we look at who is overpopulating, it's developing countries. They need large populations to support industrialization.
Education other than getting a degree in counseling which almost every young person I talk to is doing.
Dont know I think china economy has been driven by cheap labor But industrialists will increasingly invest in automation Which will be good for them, but not so good for workers That is some parallel with experience in usa Corps have exported manufacturing And other jobs What is left for many people is only those jobs that cannot be exported or automated or done by illegals Mostly low paid retail type jobs I see an increasing chasm between those with good jobs And those that cannot cross the chasm Not blaming anyone But it seems a dreary future for lots of people There are a linited number of high skill jobs available Even if you do get an education Sort of like if you want to be a pro athlete You can work hard, train hard, and even be talented But there are just a limited number of opportunities And lots of competition for those If you do not make the cut You are selling shoes
And then they're dumping their excess population onto the developed countries, who have lower birth rates.
It's always sickly amusing to see discussions like this. Everyone skirts around the inevitable and obvious result. There will be war, famine, and the whole host of nasties as life becomes worth less and less. Already, we see serious trouble in the EU with some Nations refusing to accept refugees, human trafficking on the rise, and so on.
Be on unemployment or welfare in the US and probably most developed countries and starve in the third world. Or maybe the Catholic Church which opposes birth control so it's membership will increase is going to sell it's palaces and support them.
Education only works if there is a job at the end. Unfortunatly the job is going to go to a computer rather than a person. The whole job training, education shuck is just a denial of the reality that the population has increased past the need for laborers.
I'll probably get blasted for saying it, but I think someday in the future, perhaps several or many generations from now, capitalism will no longer be effective because of the imbalance of the number of people working and earning compared to the number who do not produce anything or hold jobs. We can't endlessly consume through the end of time. There's an appropriate time for different economic systems and political/social configurations, and the current capitalism we live under will not sustain billions of people when so many will be unable to do much more than exist since so much more of our lives will be automated. People will always be needed, but it seems a constant trend of technology replacing human capital in the workplace, driving down business costs and effectively reducing the disposable income at the middle and lower portions of the income chain. So what will they do? That's the magic question.
Someone will know the accurate numbers but I believe the 2050 population forecast is 9.5 billion and 2100 is 11.5 billion. 9.5 billion is 36% more than we have today while 11.5 billion is 64% more. In the USA for example, where we have a $15 trillion GDP, in order to maintain our status quo today, GDP must grow to $20.4 trillion by 2050 and to $24.6 trillion by 2100. To have something better than our status quo we probably need about 10% more than these numbers. The US government currently spends $4 trillion so by 2050 the budget might be $5.44 trillion and $6.56 trillion by 2100. However, it seems government spending per capita is more exponential than linear so I'll guess $6 trillion by 2050 and $8.5 trillion by 2100. IMO it's not even possible to build 36% and 64% more infrastructure. A current 10-lane freeway here in CA would need to be 14 to 16 lanes. Build 36% and 64% more railways and bridges and tunnels? 36% and 64% larger airports? I think there are currently 250 million registered vehicles in the USA and this would increase to 340 million by 2050 and 410 million by 2100...more gas stations, more car deanships, more car repair places, more junkyards, etc. Regarding all of this, even if it is needed, where does all the land and money come from? Lastly, good luck finding 36% and 64% more potable water! Good luck creating more energy. Good luck with 36% and 64% more pollution. Good luck growing the garbage and recycle centers. Good luck creating the necessary nutrition. Never mind the workplace and automation issues...IMO we're doomed before that even becomes a problem...
I wonder how this will affect individual liberties and freedom. When you have a centralized government that controls the whole economy, you have a government that can basically control all facets of life. It would be like how communist China was (and still is to a large extent). Maybe excessive population size, like you alluded to, is just incompatible with individual liberties. That's something we should seriously consider.
I really don't know what type of system would take over and how life would be within it. I just can't see capitalism surviving if the majority of people end up without work because so much can be done without their labor. Capitalism relies upon continued growth and strong demand for goods and services, but if people in huge numbers don't work, how do they generate demand without income? And how do they sustain without some form of money or items to barter for a lifetime?
Interesting thread, pointing to two different trends, the increase in automation causing a shedding of jobs, and overpopulation producing far more people than can be reasonably employed. It's a major problem in the industrialized world, because we have more people than can be reasonably employed as it is, and of course we're importing more and more people. But the third world has it worse. The UN says that Africa's population will be 4 billion by 2100. That's four billion people who are going to be poor and angry. I imagine for them, the solution is what's happening now with the migrants in the Mediterranean, although I imagine a billion people trying to get into Europe will create an unparalleled human crisis.
Maybe we need to think outside the box. There's all this talk about, "how will we find jobs for them", as if laboring his life away is man's highest calling, indeed, his only purpose. Why not strive for a world in which people don't have to have jobs? At least not (*)(*)(*)(*) jobs like most people have to work today. How about this: we increase the number of "one in a million" people in the world. The people who could develop a Unified Field Theory which would give us endless resources by making matter and energy interchangeable. More great minds to propel us to the stars, spreading man throughout the galaxy until 7 billion people isn't even enough. Think forward, people.
800+ million people around the world suffering from chronic undernourishment...about one out of every nine people or about 11.3%. The number is 24% in Africa so 24% of 4 billion people is 960 million who will be undernourished...a staggering number...three times the population of the USA today! By 2100 the world population forecast is 11 billion so 11.3% of this is about 1.24 BILLION people might be chronically undernourished. If the world begins to see migration in the millions or tens of millions of people seeking food and water, this will certainly be extremely chaotic times. Population growth, and it's distribution, will bring the world to the brink. And...what are the solutions to this potential? We can guess most of these people won't have money to purchase food, or the land/climate to produce food, so where will it come from and who will pay the costs?
This will happen but it takes lots of time and money. You could say the same thing about curing cancer, or diabetes, or birth defects, or old age and death, etc...just apply the best and brightest and problem solved. I'd say humans are not yet smart enough to solve the complexities we are faced with so this requires time and more money than we have...
I dunno. I've not seen any realistic answers to these sort of problems. Mostly it's been along fantasy lines like giving everyone a guaranteed income. No realistic solutions are on the horizon yet.
Don't know. What are you good for? What makes your life worth society having you exist? Is the problem that people are not serving society or is it that society as we know it is no longer serving people? Who is the master and who is the servant in this arrangement?
People are already starving and dying so I guess the quantities will simply grow. I think some form of world government, in which all nations contribute to the whole instead of the one, is a necessary step to help resolve these and other issues. Instead of funding bullets and bombs everyone can fund the production and distribution of food and water...
In the grand scheme of things humans are no different than fish, animals, or bugs...we are biological units along for the geological ride. But humans have developed a tiny bit of thought process and we see how well this is going so far. No matter that we're all from the same species, and evolved rather equally, once our personalities unload in society it's anyone's guess what happens next. We're only around for a short time, on average ~75 years, yet how much of this time can be graded as fun and productive versus all the crap in our lives and around the world? IMO it's a roll of the dice whether or not humans can significantly progress before we annihilate ourselves...
Again with the fantasies of world government. It would need to be tyranny to exist. You need a tyranny to force Sunni and Shia Arab Muslims to exist under the same government, so how much more of a brutal dictatorship would it take to get everyone to exist in under the same government? A world government would be spending plenty on bullets and bombs since it would be in constant warfare against it's own people; putting down rebellions on a weekly basis and nuking a city or town on a monthly basis in order to make it's point that it's serious about peace.
