Radical proposals to address climate change and the housing crisis

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and because of that integration with modernity, i also have the sense that a far higher percentage of mormons also leave their faith, or at least half-ass it and become "cultral mormons" (like cultural catholics or cultural jews) than those other two FAR more insular groups.

Amish actually aren't that isolated. They are famously lax about enforcing their rigid values on adolescents (rumspringa). Lots of Amish kids go through a period of rebellion where they join "English" society, but without any formal education there's little for many of them to do other than be homeless street kids. Something like 85%-90% of them either never leave or ultimately rejoin the community upon adulthood.

Interestingly, there's a lot of evidence the "defection rate" for the Amish was much higher earlier in history. This could in part be because culturally American society wasn't that different (the anti-technological bent of the Amish is relatively new) but some people suggest the practice of Rumspringa, along with essentially no outsiders becoming Amish, has led to the genetic propensity for wanderlust being literally bred out of the population.

[Steely Dan]

^ well, I didn't use the word isolated, I said insular, and I think it'd be pretty damn hard to argue against mainstream Mormons being much less insular than orthodox jews or the Amish.

Hell, the whole point of Mormonism, from what I can tell as an outsider, is to befriend every single stranger they meet and try to convert them. That's a pretty radically divergent gameplan from the other two groups.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by eschaton

[URL="https://religionnews.com/2019/06/15/the-incredible-shrinking-mormon-american-family/"]
The only way to keep high birth rates in the west is to wall yourself off culturally, and ensure that women don't have access to education.

Chicken and egg, The idea that there is a society where men are specifically educated and women aren't simply isnt real.

Most people in agrarian societies/ aka third world societies are not educated (Only the wealthy/elite are, even the women, albeit historically, not as much as men)

Mass education is a luxury of more advanced societies as they industrialize and modernize.

I would argue the correlation of birthrates and education aren't because of one or the other but both are correlated symptoms to industrialized societies for their own various reasons.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Chicken and egg, The idea that there is a society where men are specifically educated and women aren't simply isnt real.

Most people in agrarian societies/ aka third world societies are not educated (Only the wealthy/elite are, even the women, albeit historically, not as much as men)

Mass education is a luxury of more advanced societies as they industrialize and modernize.

I would argue the correlation of birthrates and education aren't because of one or the other but both are correlated symptoms to industrialized societies for their own various reasons.

It's directly correlated in that a woman's prime earning years are also her most fertile.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ well, I didn't use the word isolated, I said insular, and I think it'd be pretty damn hard to argue against mainstream Mormons being much less insular than orthodox jews or the Amish.

They don't stand out like the others because they wear their special religious dress on the inside.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It's directly correlated in that a woman's prime earning years are also her most fertile.

Nobody's prime earning years are their 20's or thirties

Prime earning years re your 50's and 60's. Most peoples highest income year is the year they retire. Which is to be expected.

But we aren't talking about earning we are talking about education. And as I said the vast majority of the population in pre industrial societies are not educated. Mass Education is entirely and outgrowth of industrial society.

In pre modern societies it was something that only happened for priest class and rulers. Once you get to the middle ages you see more of the merchant class being educated and finally mass education for all comes about in the 1800's in places like Germany and the UK (places that industrialized very early).

Education before the mid 1800's would be basic reading writing and math taught at home if you were lucky. Most people had no formal education of any kind before very recent times.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Nobody's prime earning years are their 20's or thirties

Prime earning years re your 50's and 60's. Most peoples highest income year is the year they retire. Which is to be expected.

But we aren't talking about earning we are talking about education. And as I said the vast majority of the population in pre industrial societies are not educated. Mass Education is entirely and outgrowth of industrial society.

Any overlap between education/career and childbearing years will have a statistical effect on the birthrate. It's unavoidable. All of this is a good thing btw. Population stabilizes, labor pool and productivity increases.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by badrunner

All of this is a good thing btw. Population stabilizes, labor pool and productivity increases.

I do find it interesting that western society has determined that GDP and economic efficiency is the sole purpose of human existence.

Even progressive lefties exist within this material frame. even Communist's do.

Why is not having kids good? How can you expand the labor pool while literally creating less labor in the long run?

Do not answer this with "Overpopulation" the world could handle several billion more people with todays technology, and once we can reliably get off world the carrying capacity of the solar system is trillions & trillions of people. We have less starvation and more people than ever, less poor and more people than ever. We even have more forests and more people than ever. And at current trajectories we look like we are going to level off around 10 billion regardless of anything else.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Nobody's prime earning years are their 20's or thirties

Prime earning years re your 50's and 60's. Most peoples highest income year is the year they retire. Which is to be expected.

Depends on the career. Pro sports players have their peak earning years in their 20s/30s, for example.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I do find it interesting that western society has determined that GDP and economic efficiency is the sole purpose of human existence.

Even progressive lefties exist within this material frame. even Communist's do.

Why is not having kids good? How can you expand the labor pool while literally creating less labor in the long run?

Do not answer this with "Overpopulation" the world could handle several billion more people with todays technology, and once we can reliably get off world the carrying capacity of the solar system is trillions & trillions of people. We have less starvation and more people than ever, less poor and more people than ever. We even have more forests and more people than ever. And at current trajectories we look like we are going to level off around 10 billion regardless of anything else.

And that is a good thing, is what I'm saying - a demographic soft landing without any coercion, mostly. Decades ago we would have thought it impossible.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I do find it interesting that western society has determined that GDP and economic efficiency is the sole purpose of human existence.

Yeah, pretty much the same goal as capitalism. Make more money, do what is necessary to streamline and increase productivity to make a profit. The West was first, now it's Africa.

Eventually, we're gonna need to figure out how to live without constant growth. The third world will not be poor forever and people will stop immigrating to the US, Canada, and Western Europe once their own countries prove to be much better for them.

Culture is gonna rapidly change too. We might not recognize the next 20 years from now.

As for climate change, the main thing we should all be considering in order for less people to suffer in the coming decades is to create zero growth initiatives.

I don't believe in the strongest arguments for overpopulation, but I also don't see the point of growing without a purpose. Once automation becomes the name of the game, there will be no point of having a slave-based economic society for humanity. People will be able to do whatever without the constant threat of not having enough to get by.

At least, that's the vision. Certain members of humanity may try to fuck this up, but we may eventually get there.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Yeah, pretty much the same goal as capitalism. Make more money, do what is necessary to streamline and increase productivity to make a profit. The West was first, now it's Africa.

Eventually, we're gonna need to figure out how to live without constant growth. The third world will not be poor forever and people will stop immigrating to the US, Canada, and Western Europe once their own countries prove to be much better for them.

Culture is gonna rapidly change too. We might not recognize the next 20 years from now.

As for climate change, the main thing we should all be considering in order for less people to suffer in the coming decades is to create zero growth initiatives.

I don't believe in the strongest arguments for overpopulation, but I also don't see the point of growing without a purpose. Once automation becomes the name of the game, there will be no point of having a slave-based economic society for humanity. People will be able to do whatever without the constant threat of not having enough to get by.

At least, that's the vision. Certain members of humanity may try to fuck this up, but we may eventually get there.

I hate to burst your bubble but we are a very very very long way from AI and Automation post scarcity utopia. People assume our technology in those areas are far more advanced than they are.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Hell, the whole point of Mormonism, from what I can tell as an outsider, is to befriend every single stranger they meet and try to convert them. That's a pretty radically divergent gameplan from the other two groups.

It's a bit of an aside, but one thing I've never understood about Mormonism is this: They believe that (almost) everyone gets to go to a heaven when they die, but only Mormons get into the best of the three heavens. However, Mormon souls can continue to proselytize/attempt to convert you after you're dead. That's one of the reasons why Mormons are so into family trees and baptizing dead people - so Mormon souls can "find" them in the afterlife.

But that makes me wonder - why bother converting us now, when you have an eternity to do it in the afterlife?

Originally Posted by Obadno

Chicken and egg, The idea that there is a society where men are specifically educated and women aren't simply isnt real.

Most people in agrarian societies/ aka third world societies are not educated (Only the wealthy/elite are, even the women, albeit historically, not as much as men)

Mass education is a luxury of more advanced societies as they industrialize and modernize.

I would argue the correlation of birthrates and education aren't because of one or the other but both are correlated symptoms to industrialized societies for their own various reasons.

Eh, I dunno. The Amish don't do formal education for men or women, but the Hasids and other ultra-orthodox absolutely do value education for men, just not for women.

Regardless, my understanding is more years of education are correlated with lower total fertility for women, both as individuals within a country and across countries. There is no such association for men - more education does not make men have less children.

Originally Posted by badrunner

And that is a good thing, is what I'm saying - a demographic soft landing without any coercion, mostly. Decades ago we would have thought it impossible.

It's really not though. Our entire economic system is based upon the idea that the economy will grow over time, and it's hard to have an economy grow if the population is shrinking, because this means (on the whole) demand for...everything...will be shrinking as well. On a per-capita basis, this should all even out (or more) but when it comes to investment, it's awful, because few firms will even have a real growth rate over time.

Within a generation or two, world population growth will basically have ceased outside of Africa, which means the only way to continue growing will be to accept large numbers of African immigrants. Even that is likely to only be a temporary solution.

[Obadno]

You also must consider that this declines in birthrates is quite literally unprecedented in human behavior. Its literally never happened on a long term basis outside of wars/famines/plagues. Its highly highly abnormal on a biological level let alone cultural.

this is a new thing that has only occurred in the last 50 years which is the blink of an eye in terms of history and a microsecond to biology.

Its entirely possible for cultural shifts to make childbirth popular again. religious revivals or all new religions completely, a change in gov policy to make kids more desirable and affordable, new technologies that make women fertile for longer or artificial wombs or who knows what.

This birth decline could reverse just as quickly as it began

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Obadno

You also must consider that this declines in birthrates is quite literally unprecedented in human behavior. Its literally never happened on a long term basis outside of wars/famines/plagues. Its highly highly abnormal on a biological level let alone cultural.

this is a new thing that has only occurred in the last 50 years which is the blink of an eye in terms of history and a microsecond to biology.

Its entirely possible for cultural shifts to make childbirth popular again. religious revivals or all new religions completely, a change in gov policy to make kids more desirable and affordable, new technologies that make women fertile for longer or artificial wombs or who knows what.

This birth decline could reverse just as quickly as it began

This is the way I see it:

I do not believe there is a biological drive to be a parent - because it was never actually needed. Instead there was a kludge - similar to how our desire to breathe comes not from our body sensing a lack of oxygen, but the need to purge carbon dioxide (which is why people die when in deep caves suddenly if there is no oxygen in the air). The kludge is that people desire sex, and babies tend to come naturally when they have sex. And once a baby is there, maternal instincts kick in, and the mom generally bonds with the baby. But a desire to have kids before the baby even came out? That's more of a cultural norm than anything. After all, most other animals can't even think ahead to plan out having kids. It's all just instinct - first screw, and then be a caring mother.

Birth control screwed all this up of course, because it decoupled a desire for sex and the result of children. I believe the full effects took awhile, because a social norm among adults that not having kids was acceptable needed to occur. But now, for the first time in history, people who don't want to have kids don't have them.

In the longer run, this should trigger massive changes to the distribution of human personality traits. For example, depression seems to be associated with not wanting kids, so there will be less depressed people in the future. On the other hand, being impulsive or...well...stupid...is associated with not using birth control properly and ending up with more kids, meaning those traits will be selected for. As will religiosity - though cultural rather than personality selection probably will play a larger role there.

But yeah, the modern trend towards small families will eventually - like over centuries - end, as those who prefer to have 3+ kids will create a larger proportion of the next generation, who will in turn have a higher propensity towards larger families.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Its entirely possible for cultural shifts to make childbirth popular again. religious revivals or all new religions completely, a change in gov policy to make kids more desirable and affordable, new technologies that make women fertile for longer or artificial wombs or who knows what.

Sounds like the plot to The Handmaid's Tale

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's really not though. Our entire economic system is based upon the idea that the economy will grow over time, and it's hard to have an economy grow if the population is shrinking, because this means (on the whole) demand for...everything...will be shrinking as well. On a per-capita basis, this should all even out (or more) but when it comes to investment, it's awful, because few firms will even have a real growth rate over time.

But it's that same economic system that drives these demographic changes in the first place so I don't really see a conflict. Falling birthrates are a free market outcome. And I don't foresee some kind of economic collapse as the world population stabilizes. There will be a smooth transition to a slow-growth or managed-growth phase. Even as corporate profit margins shrink, personal wealth, environmental health and overall quality of life should all increase.

[Crawford]

There have been past dramatic declines in birthrates, BTW. Post-Revolutionary France had plummeting birth rates. Late-stage Roman Empire had a sharp drop in rates. Of course the current drop appears global and may be irreversible.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Within a generation or two, world population growth will basically have ceased outside of Africa, which means the only way to continue growing will be to accept large numbers of African immigrants. Even that is likely to only be a temporary solution.

Not for wealthy Western nations, though. Places like the U.S. and Germany can grow almost indefinitely, even if the globe outside Africa has flat or declining population.

Of course that also means most of the planet will be Bulgaria, demographically.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There have been past dramatic declines in birthrates, BTW. Post-Revolutionary France had plummeting birth rates. Late-stage Roman Empire had a sharp drop in rates. Of course the current drop appears global and may be irreversible.

Seems worth mentioning here that premodern cities seem to have always been fertility sinks, where the high death rate more than canceled out the relatively low birth rate, with cities only kept afloat by continual migration from rural areas.

I mean, we now have a fair amount of ancient and historic DNA to study. And we've discovered - for example - that the urban Roman population was very cosmopolitan in terms of genetics (with lots of admixture from the near east), but they basically left no genetic impact. Modern Italians are descended from the much less worldly Roman peasants.