Conspiracy theorists would argue that nation states might have created the COVID virus and released it in order to relieve the burden of older generations on government entitlement programs and used the vaccine to decrease fertility among younger generations.
Yeah, conspiracy theorists believe a lot of dumb shit, don't they?
You're like 200 pounds living in your mothers basement and posting on LRC. You cannot mow your own lawn, let alone pick enough food to survive on your own.
That is no where near 70%. 2070 is 45 years from now. Do you doubt AI and automation will be significantly advanced by then? 45 years ago people were using rotary dial on their landline phones and smoking on airplanes.
How advanced does it need to be to take the burden off workers. Imagine if for every dollar you earned, another $1.5 dollars were needed to support the elderly.
You good with 60% tax rates?
You’re betting on a massive, massive gain in productivity. Bigger than the computer and internet revolutions gave.
Current rates of productivity increase will not be enough. You’d have to bet that AI will be completely transformative? That seems like dangerous optimism. If you’re wrong civilization implodes
That is all if AI is even transformative in the positive sense for productivity. If they outright replace workers instead of just making them more productive, then the amount of people working and paying taxes for social security goes way down. Imagine worst case scenario, AI actually replaces all form of human labor. Every imaginable job from janitor, to Biology teacher, to plumber, to doctor, to lawyer. Then the diminishing returns are such that now nearly every remaining human only lives by receiving a non-earnable universal basic income. Think of it as social security for everyone regardless of age or disability. Who’s paying it? There’s no workers or taxable income.
This isn’t science fiction. It could really happen. Nobody knows what advancements in AI await. If they were already thought of, by definition we would already have someone promoting and implementing their ideas. That’s an old Karl Popper idea. But still, there may be good reason to believe every human job is taken by AI. There would arguably be still be some kind of ruling bureaucrat class and maybe Scientists, but what else? If there are no workers, Capitalism is dead and a civilization overhaul never even attempted before will have to be thought of, implemented, and actually work. Gulp. The future looks terrifying to me. So much uncertainty and there doesn’t seem to be answer to deal with the fallout.
I don’t think most people understand how catastrophic low birth rates are and how they can decimate a population and put enormous burden on youth in just a few generations.
Let’s take South Korea’s 0.7 per woman and use it as an example for a population of 1,000 people.
Of these 1,000 people, 500 will be women which will produce 350 children. In the next generation there will be 175 women who will bear approximately 122 children. Of this 122, 61 will be women, who will bear about 43 children.
1000
350
122
43
Each generation loses 65% and in just three generations ~96% of the population is gone.
Furthermore, there is tremendous burden on each generation to take care of the elderly. There are nearly 3 times the amount of parents as there are children. Yes, there will be deaths but still imagine a world where there are more 80 year olds than 50 year olds.
This decline is sometimes referred to as an inversion of the population pyramid. If you’ve ever seen those stratified population pyramids where each level represents an age group, you’ll know what I mean.
The “no big deal, we got 8+ billion” is insanely uninformed. This 8 billion can shrink to less than 500 million in 3 generations and quite possibly be the largest crisis we have now.
How advanced does it need to be to take the burden off workers. Imagine if for every dollar you earned, another $1.5 dollars were needed to support the elderly.
You good with 60% tax rates?
You’re betting on a massive, massive gain in productivity. Bigger than the computer and internet revolutions gave.
Current rates of productivity increase will not be enough. You’d have to bet that AI will be completely transformative? That seems like dangerous optimism. If you’re wrong civilization implodes
That is all if AI is even transformative in the positive sense for productivity. If they outright replace workers instead of just making them more productive, then the amount of people working and paying taxes for social security goes way down. Imagine worst case scenario, AI actually replaces all form of human labor. Every imaginable job from janitor, to Biology teacher, to plumber, to doctor, to lawyer. Then the diminishing returns are such that now nearly every remaining human only lives by receiving a non-earnable universal basic income. Think of it as social security for everyone regardless of age or disability. Who’s paying it? There’s no workers or taxable income.
This isn’t science fiction. It could really happen. Nobody knows what advancements in AI await. If they were already thought of, by definition we would already have someone promoting and implementing their ideas. That’s an old Karl Popper idea. But still, there may be good reason to believe every human job is taken by AI. There would arguably be still be some kind of ruling bureaucrat class and maybe Scientists, but what else? If there are no workers, Capitalism is dead and a civilization overhaul never even attempted before will have to be thought of, implemented, and actually work. Gulp. The future looks terrifying to me. So much uncertainty and there doesn’t seem to be answer to deal with the fallout.
And I’m not even advocating any kind of Marxism. Marxism depends on collectivism in human labor and in my above example human labor will be gone. So it would be some kind of unprecedented altruism or targeted population quota where whatever government is in charge decides (or AI decides) how many people and of what characteristics get to be born and how much income if any each one receives. It may end up a case where currency exchange is eliminated entirely and goods are distributed and allocated based entirely on individual need and ration quotas, albeit at no cost. This stuff is incredible when you think about it. No work means a whole slew of uncertain possibilities of what will happen.
I don’t think most people understand how catastrophic low birth rates are and how they can decimate a population and put enormous burden on youth in just a few generations.
Let’s take South Korea’s 0.7 per woman and use it as an example for a population of 1,000 people.
Of these 1,000 people, 500 will be women which will produce 350 children. In the next generation there will be 175 women who will bear approximately 122 children. Of this 122, 61 will be women, who will bear about 43 children.
1000
350
122
43
Each generation loses 65% and in just three generations ~96% of the population is gone.
Furthermore, there is tremendous burden on each generation to take care of the elderly. There are nearly 3 times the amount of parents as there are children. Yes, there will be deaths but still imagine a world where there are more 80 year olds than 50 year olds.
This decline is sometimes referred to as an inversion of the population pyramid. If you’ve ever seen those stratified population pyramids where each level represents an age group, you’ll know what I mean.
The “no big deal, we got 8+ billion” is insanely uninformed. This 8 billion can shrink to less than 500 million in 3 generations and quite possibly be the largest crisis we have now.
We'll hit 9 billion 2037, 10 billion by 2050. People will work until they're 85 anyway. Population will decline at some point after that.
Let's hope we go back to about 200 mil. and start again. BC 1 - 200 million. I bet that's the population at the beginning of the 23rd century
I don’t think most people understand how catastrophic low birth rates are and how they can decimate a population and put enormous burden on youth in just a few generations.
Let’s take South Korea’s 0.7 per woman and use it as an example for a population of 1,000 people.
Of these 1,000 people, 500 will be women which will produce 350 children. In the next generation there will be 175 women who will bear approximately 122 children. Of this 122, 61 will be women, who will bear about 43 children.
1000
350
122
43
Each generation loses 65% and in just three generations ~96% of the population is gone.
Furthermore, there is tremendous burden on each generation to take care of the elderly. There are nearly 3 times the amount of parents as there are children. Yes, there will be deaths but still imagine a world where there are more 80 year olds than 50 year olds.
This decline is sometimes referred to as an inversion of the population pyramid. If you’ve ever seen those stratified population pyramids where each level represents an age group, you’ll know what I mean.
The “no big deal, we got 8+ billion” is insanely uninformed. This 8 billion can shrink to less than 500 million in 3 generations and quite possibly be the largest crisis we have now.
So some proposals:
Reduce the need for abortions. Encourage adoptions for unwanted pregnancies in trustworthy medical centers with caring professional staff. Continue to develop incubation technologies in cases where the child needs to be taken from the womb to ensure fetal survival. Increase social welfare programs and rescue programs so the incidence of rape and incest decrease. Improve access to clean water and nutritious food. Improve access to quality pre natal care. Invest in ways to drastically reduce the incidence of childbirth death and early infant death. If the replacement rate of 1.0 is so damn important to the survival of the human species, then I imagine targeting abortion as a preventative to that goal is a step towards achieving it.
Encourage families to have at least two children. Work the economy around that goal instead of screwing people outright by making every good and service so expensive that having two kids will bankrupt them.
Drastically monitor the use of AI and refuse to let it replace human labor.
I already briefly mentioned this, but drastically improve adoption and foster care services as an alternative to abortions. Right now those services suck.
I was in California a few weeks ago. Went to the pier early in the morning. Dozens of surfers out there waiting for the perfect wave. Pretty much all of them in their 40's and 50's. Aging population isn't just a European and Asian problem, we have it in the US, too. It's just masked by millions of new immigrants every year.
I read this, agreed, liked it, then realized I'm in my fifties and the term "oldster" now applies to me.
How advanced does it need to be to take the burden off workers. Imagine if for every dollar you earned, another $1.5 dollars were needed to support the elderly.
You good with 60% tax rates?
You’re betting on a massive, massive gain in productivity. Bigger than the computer and internet revolutions gave.
Current rates of productivity increase will not be enough. You’d have to bet that AI will be completely transformative? That seems like dangerous optimism. If you’re wrong civilization implodes
That is all if AI is even transformative in the positive sense for productivity. If they outright replace workers instead of just making them more productive, then the amount of people working and paying taxes for social security goes way down. Imagine worst case scenario, AI actually replaces all form of human labor. Every imaginable job from janitor, to Biology teacher, to plumber, to doctor, to lawyer. Then the diminishing returns are such that now nearly every remaining human only lives by receiving a non-earnable universal basic income. Think of it as social security for everyone regardless of age or disability. Who’s paying it? There’s no workers or taxable income.
This isn’t science fiction. It could really happen. Nobody knows what advancements in AI await. If they were already thought of, by definition we would already have someone promoting and implementing their ideas. That’s an old Karl Popper idea. But still, there may be good reason to believe every human job is taken by AI. There would arguably be still be some kind of ruling bureaucrat class and maybe Scientists, but what else? If there are no workers, Capitalism is dead and a civilization overhaul never even attempted before will have to be thought of, implemented, and actually work. Gulp. The future looks terrifying to me. So much uncertainty and there doesn’t seem to be answer to deal with the fallout.
If we get robotics and ai that replace nearly every worker then company productivity should absolutely sky rocket and we can presumably capture that through taxes and redistribution.
It’s hard to imagine we could make that policy work in the time span the transformation occurs.
I agree that transformative AI “solves” the birth rate problem but introduces its own civilization ending issue. Ah well
I don’t think most people understand how catastrophic low birth rates are and how they can decimate a population and put enormous burden on youth in just a few generations.
Let’s take South Korea’s 0.7 per woman and use it as an example for a population of 1,000 people.
Of these 1,000 people, 500 will be women which will produce 350 children. In the next generation there will be 175 women who will bear approximately 122 children. Of this 122, 61 will be women, who will bear about 43 children.
1000
350
122
43
Each generation loses 65% and in just three generations ~96% of the population is gone.
Furthermore, there is tremendous burden on each generation to take care of the elderly. There are nearly 3 times the amount of parents as there are children. Yes, there will be deaths but still imagine a world where there are more 80 year olds than 50 year olds.
This decline is sometimes referred to as an inversion of the population pyramid. If you’ve ever seen those stratified population pyramids where each level represents an age group, you’ll know what I mean.
The “no big deal, we got 8+ billion” is insanely uninformed. This 8 billion can shrink to less than 500 million in 3 generations and quite possibly be the largest crisis we have now.
We'll hit 9 billion 2037, 10 billion by 2050. People will work until they're 85 anyway. Population will decline at some point after that.
Let's hope we go back to about 200 mil. and start again. BC 1 - 200 million. I bet that's the population at the beginning of the 23rd century
There is literally no way to predict the population. Too many unforeseen black swan variables could happen. The Gaussian mathematical models used in studies you are relying on are largely unreliable. In short you are making too many assumptions and not being open minded enough.
That is all if AI is even transformative in the positive sense for productivity. If they outright replace workers instead of just making them more productive, then the amount of people working and paying taxes for social security goes way down. Imagine worst case scenario, AI actually replaces all form of human labor. Every imaginable job from janitor, to Biology teacher, to plumber, to doctor, to lawyer. Then the diminishing returns are such that now nearly every remaining human only lives by receiving a non-earnable universal basic income. Think of it as social security for everyone regardless of age or disability. Who’s paying it? There’s no workers or taxable income.
This isn’t science fiction. It could really happen. Nobody knows what advancements in AI await. If they were already thought of, by definition we would already have someone promoting and implementing their ideas. That’s an old Karl Popper idea. But still, there may be good reason to believe every human job is taken by AI. There would arguably be still be some kind of ruling bureaucrat class and maybe Scientists, but what else? If there are no workers, Capitalism is dead and a civilization overhaul never even attempted before will have to be thought of, implemented, and actually work. Gulp. The future looks terrifying to me. So much uncertainty and there doesn’t seem to be answer to deal with the fallout.
If we get robotics and ai that replace nearly every worker then company productivity should absolutely sky rocket and we can presumably capture that through taxes and redistribution.
It’s hard to imagine we could make that policy work in the time span the transformation occurs.
I agree that transformative AI “solves” the birth rate problem but introduces its own civilization ending issue. Ah well
Your last sentence reassures me that you see where I am coming from but let me dissect your first for a second. So “company productivity”. What company? Who remains? Presumably the board of directors, is that who you mean? Are you sure they can’t be replaced by AI? Ah you see, you are seeing the world as it has been shaped in your experience. No one can condemn you for that. But if you take the red pill and follow Alice down the rabbit hole, you begin to realize some comfortable possibilities of the future.
So with workers, engineers, scientists, planners, lawyers, corporate investors, marketing, sales, and the board of directors themselves replaced by AI, who is left? The shareholders aren’t workers but they could certainly still invest in a company entirely run by AI, sure. Even with all the decisions made by algorithms instead of people. No more incompetent and selfish CEOs seeking massive bonuses. You can just program the algorithm to maximize profits for shareholders with no self interest for the computer program.
Then is it still a company? It sounds like it is pretty much one highly integrated machine. In fact at that point it is just a shareholder putting his money in a sophisticated vending machine or better yet, it’s essentially a casino gambling slot machine. There’s no other people involved besides the other shareholders.
Fuel to the fire that covid vaccines have sterilization effects.
Observational studies show the covid vaccine results in slightly better pregnancy outcomes
I would hesitate to rely on the veracity of those studies. They utilize Gaussian statistical models that ignores the possibility of randomness represented by Fat Tails. There’s too many variables that would obfuscate any potential correlation between Covid vaccines and pregnancy rates. Their models don’t account for hundreds of reasons why a vaccinated woman may show higher fertility compared to an unvaccinated one. It could be a mere coincidence in every subject of the study.
That's why I advocate "childless" tax. Those without children above 30 should pay 20% of their monthly salary. It's just not fair right now and very frustrating to think about it when we have three daughters (and planning to go after a son again), have to wipe their asses, tug them into bed every single night, losing a lot of free times, while the lazy ones, usually single just reap the benefit of having more manpower without any contribution whatsoever
India has gone negative, and Africa is the last of the positive birth rate countries.
China has been in decline now for 40 years, the one child policy and famines of the Mao era. Way under replacement from 1.7 per couple to 1.2 per couple.
Chinese hold two to four official IDs with different names, they buy them ... from the government, which is a long time thing, everybody does it on all sides so there is no one to arrest.
Korea are in suicide mode metaphorically speaking with half the replacement population being born, Japan is not so far behind.
There are a multitude of factors, which are direct, gradual and micro eugenics programs, which are not under way, but in the middle to end, in that the acceleration death, of "industrial diseases" cancer, heart, inflammation from food chain pesticides phthalates in plastics etc. long term exposure is just now kicking into high gear, as it takes decades ....
So the projection worldwide, accelerated decline in birth rate is a replacement rate of 1 per couple, which is a halving of the population per generation.
This is a mathematical thing, and nothing else.
The contrarians need to do the math before speaking.
Africa’s population will go negative with USAID money getting cut off.
If we get robotics and ai that replace nearly every worker then company productivity should absolutely sky rocket and we can presumably capture that through taxes and redistribution.
It’s hard to imagine we could make that policy work in the time span the transformation occurs.
I agree that transformative AI “solves” the birth rate problem but introduces its own civilization ending issue. Ah well
Your last sentence reassures me that you see where I am coming from but let me dissect your first for a second. So “company productivity”. What company? Who remains? Presumably the board of directors, is that who you mean? Are you sure they can’t be replaced by AI? Ah you see, you are seeing the world as it has been shaped in your experience. No one can condemn you for that. But if you take the red pill and follow Alice down the rabbit hole, you begin to realize some comfortable possibilities of the future.
So with workers, engineers, scientists, planners, lawyers, corporate investors, marketing, sales, and the board of directors themselves replaced by AI, who is left? The shareholders aren’t workers but they could certainly still invest in a company entirely run by AI, sure. Even with all the decisions made by algorithms instead of people. No more incompetent and selfish CEOs seeking massive bonuses. You can just program the algorithm to maximize profits for shareholders with no self interest for the computer program.
Then is it still a company? It sounds like it is pretty much one highly integrated machine. In fact at that point it is just a shareholder putting his money in a sophisticated vending machine or better yet, it’s essentially a casino gambling slot machine. There’s no other people involved besides the other shareholders.
AGI + robotics is different from super intelligence to me.
The former is much more likely than the latter.
If we get super intelligence then we are just gong to get conquered (and hopefully not exterminated - maybe kept around like pets)
That's why I advocate "childless" tax. Those without children above 30 should pay 20% of their monthly salary. It's just not fair right now and very frustrating to think about it when we have three daughters (and planning to go after a son again), have to wipe their asses, tug them into bed every single night, losing a lot of free times, while the lazy ones, usually single just reap the benefit of having more manpower without any contribution whatsoever
Parents should get to cast an additional vote for each child until they turn 18.
Or whomever claims the dependent, I suppose.
This post was edited 16 seconds after it was posted.