This is a broad subject that I've been thinking about (in global rather than personal terms, rest assured) for some time now, and it was brought to the forefront of my mind by Andrew Breitbart's pet African-grey-parrot-with-a-keyboard, JCE2011.

Quote :

"You say "guarantee a living wage" and I see "steal people's money to fund stupid people making babies they cant afford"."

This is a dumb thing to say, and it was said by a very, very dumb person, but I'll use it as a jumping off point to talk about some issues that don't get much play.

First, population growth. In the US we already have a fertility rate (1.84) below replacement (2.1). In fact, it's lower than the fertility rates in the UK and France. Immigration is the only reason our population is growing. And population growth matters, because our entire economy and large portions of our government are predicated on the assumption that our population will grow.

In fact, we're just starting to get walloped in both areas, not even by a declining population, but by one that didn't quite grow fast enough. The swell of baby boomers was followed by a baby bust, giving us a lopsided ratio of blue haired geezers to functional, productive members of society. In terms of Social Security it's particularly stark. In 1960 there were 5.1 working folks to every 1 beneficiary. Now, there are just under 3. In 15 years, it'll be close to 2.

On the economic front, there's the simple mathematics that people generate demand. Less people, less demand. No problem in a technologically stagnant world, less people also means less supply. But increases in productivity offset that (or more), so supply is level or up and demand is down. Do the math.

I don't mean to say that an economy or country can't thrive with a declining population, and there are examples of places that appear to be doing just that. However, I would argue that they aren't particularly useful examples. Poland has had a pretty healthy economy in spite of a 1.33 fertility rate, but it's operating on a baseline of "Soviet underling." They could have doubled their economy by planting some turnips. Hong Kong is at 1.17, but it's a free trade center attached to an inconceivably enormous demand pool (though one which is predicted to undergo more economic troubles as the demographic effects of One Child start wreaking havoc).

Moreover, nobody has any experience dealing with a trend that will quite possibly begin in our lifetime: a globally declining population. Many estimates have the turn happening around 2050, with a peak of close to 10 billion people.

I think more illustrative are those examples where declining population has either caused problems already (Japan), or is so imminently presenting problems that governments changed policy. Germany isn't just letting in all these refugees as part of its ongoing reapplication for membership in the human race - they need people. And China has significantly softened its reproductive policy to allow more babies.

---

So that's the background information as I see it. I want to see what arguments people have with that information, and what they propose should be done (or not done, or what will just sort of happen) as American population growth continues to slow and eventually reverse. Because it seems very likely that this will happen, and soon.

Also, referring back to JCE2011's stupid, stupid comment, there is the "Idiocracy" argument. Less educated people have more kids. Now, I'm not a eugenicist, and I'm not overly worried that this means we will soon be drowning in a sea of slack-jawed morons. The evidence points to improving intelligence levels overall. But there is the concern that less-educated people tend to make less money. Less money and more kids is not good, as demonstrated by the Simpson Problem:

Quote :

""I have three kids and no money. Why can't I have no kids and three money?" -Homer Simpson"

If population growth (or just maintenance, or even just controlled decline) is desirable, then that's a problem that has to be dealt with. Either rich people have to be encouraged to have more kids, poor people have to be discouraged from having them (historically a dangerous prospect), or the poor people having kids ought to be supported for their kids' sake. Obviously at the moment we go with path number three. I'm happy to see alternatives.

---

As usual I fear what's happened is that I've gotten interested in a subject but don't have any clear direction for the discussion to take. I don't care. I'm just really, really sick of talking about the election, and this thread cannot possibly go worse than the last couple I tried.

10/14/2016 10:33:13 AM

The main issue is that a lot of people think poor people are subhuman and lazy and they deserve to stay poor and to be punished.

Quote :

""You say "guarantee a living wage" and I see "steal people's money to fund stupid people making babies they cant afford".""

People are going to have children regardless of whether they can afford it or not, and by not allowing the poor to earn a living wage, they're going to be on the dole, which means taxpayer money In reality, the teen birthrate is lower than it's been in decades and it's probably because sex education has gotten better, and a lot of boys these days would rather jerk off to quality internet porn than risk getting someone pregnant.

The irony of the situation is that the folks bitching about people being on welfare are the same ones that want to cut funding for planned parenthood and access to abortion. A good chunk of them want to teach creationism in school and not have their kids learn about sex. It doesn't work that way.

10/14/2016 10:51:15 AM

Quote :

"Germany isn't just letting in all these refugees as part of its ongoing reapplication for membership in the human race - they need people. "

As shown from the Podesta emails, even the Democrats realize what Germany is doing is self destructive. Importing people with no skills, no education, not fluent in the native language, and incompatible culture does nothing to alleviate the issues with an aging workforce and not enough taxpaying contributors to keep the system afloat.

10/14/2016 11:11:37 AM

Quote :

"Either rich people have to be encouraged to have more kids, poor people have to be discouraged from having them (historically a dangerous prospect), or the poor people having kids ought to be supported for their kids' sake. Obviously at the moment we go with path number three. I'm happy to see alternatives."

Here's an alternative: rich people give their money to poor people so neither is as rich or as poor. Then you don't have to worry about who to sterilize.

10/14/2016 11:26:33 AM

I'd like to have a second child, but right now I can't afford child care for 2 kids, yet I see several families bringing in multiple children who I've been told are paying next to nothing for their child care.

This isn't me saying poor people are subhuman, this is me saying I can't have a second child even though I want to, yet I see poor people doing the same exact thing I'd like to do, knowing that my taxes are funding in part the Smart Start program, or whatever it is they are calling it now.

10/14/2016 11:27:54 AM

So then quit your job and have that second kid if that's what you want to do.

10/14/2016 11:35:17 AM

We just about have to be a 2 income family. If we both don't work, can't really save up enough for college.

10/14/2016 11:36:26 AM

I actually meant go on the dole like them to see what a sweet deal it is

10/14/2016 11:40:05 AM

^

10/14/2016 11:46:41 AM

I honestly just don't see how people can have 3 or 4 kids and expect to give them all good starts for their futures.

Do they just say "fuck it, we'll have x amt of kids and let fate sort it all out" ?

10/14/2016 11:54:02 AM

The necessity of having kids and a growing population is under appreciated. I've seen lots of people say kids are a waste and just consume resources on earth, ignoring the fact that, as grumpy pointed out, our society is built up around the concept of a growing population. So i support the sentiment grumpy is making.

If we wanted to support a society with a stagnant or shrinking population, we'd have to fully embrace technocracy and more "socialism", which probably would be viewed as unethical in the world's eye, since we have such a huge landmass and lots of natural resources, and other parts of the world are having population crises.

If conservatives manage to squash immigration to the point where our population growth stagnates (which is bad policy in the long run for many reasons, including gene pool issues), then we'd have to start running ads like in japan and Netherlands telling people to start having more children.

So if we did want an anti-immigrant country, then we'd need to make sure domestic policy works aggressively against inequality so people have the resources they need to keep having kids.

If we wanted to keep our current cultural momentum of fewer people having kids, or having kids later, we'd want a growing immigration rate, and could accept a lighter touch on social programs encouraging kids.

10/14/2016 11:59:23 AM

^^ because you can't predict the future. Most people don't think that far ahead, and even if you do, plans always change.

Nomadic humans had kids because it was necessary for the tribes to thrive (and biological imperative). This was the priority. Going to the best school or best daycare are secondary to mere existence, and people just have "faith" that things will work out.

It was also more acceptable, as my parents did, to let a retired neighbor take care of your kid for a small sum, with little regard for the quality of "child care". Their goal was just to keep the child alive while the parents were at work.

10/14/2016 12:02:04 PM

I see rjrumfel is really lighting up TSB today.

[Edited on October 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM. Reason : and Smart Start isn't daycare ]

10/14/2016 12:02:47 PM

Quote :

"n reality, the teen birthrate is lower than it's been in decades and it's probably because sex education has gotten better, and a lot of boys these days would rather jerk off to quality internet porn than risk getting someone pregnant. "

Just want to chime in that it's probably more attributable to the younger generation being a bunch of bitches.

/getoffmylawn

Please continue thinking of ways to create problems by trying to solve other problems.

10/14/2016 12:10:51 PM

^^From the fucking SmartStart webpage

Quote :

"How can I get help paying for child care? There are two ways to receive help paying for child care: 1. Contact your local Department of Social Services; 2. Contact your local Smart Start Partnership."

SmartStart assists in early child care.

10/14/2016 12:15:20 PM

Most married religious people (a large population, many poor) still disagree with birth control of any kind. The kids just happen as a biproduct of sex.

IS GOD TO BLAME?

10/14/2016 12:21:51 PM

^^^wait, you're saying teen birthrates are down because they're a bunch of bitches? lol

10/14/2016 12:41:33 PM

Yes, that's literally what he said.

10/14/2016 12:52:59 PM

A lot of what I'm reading here saddens me because the economic principles of eternal growth is unsustainable but even the people here refuse to let it go. We would need five Earth's worth of resources to support the global population at current US consumption rates. The population can temporarily grow with a fertility rate below the replacement rate because we are eliminating disease and extending life expectancy (in most countries).

Quote :

"The evidence points to improving intelligence levels overall. But there is the concern that less-educated people tend to make less money. Less money and more kids is not good, as demonstrated by the Simpson Problem:"

This is the solution. Education and more specifically, female education correlates with lower fertility rates. Nations making the transition from high fertility and death rates to low, make that transition through educating females and bringing them into the workforce. 60 percent of the world's population are poor farmers right now. Their families don't get much education and help immediately on the farm. Having more children is beneficial to survival. In the us, 2 percent of the population are farmers and their kids get a lot of education and access to birth control. For some people, having children is a necessity, for some its a choice, and some just don't have the privilege of education and resources to have control of this choice.

Quote :

"Germany isn't just letting in all these refugees as part of its ongoing reapplication for membership in the human race - they need people."

They have figured out the best solution to these problems. There aren't too few people in the world. Theres just a skewed distribution of people and resources. Places that need people can help solve the problems in areas where there are too many people.

Both sides of this will continue to increase as
-modern countries embrace female reproductive rights
-climate change severely impacts unstable countries with drought and conflict

Quote :

"As shown from the Podesta emails, even the Democrats realize what Germany is doing is self destructive. Importing people with no skills, no education, not fluent in the native language, and incompatible culture does nothing to alleviate the issues with an aging workforce and not enough taxpaying contributors to keep the system afloat."

This is entirely xenophobic nonsense. Syrian refugees, for example, include highly skilled workers looking for stability. Importing low skilled workers is still more beneficial than increasing fertility because immigrants can be used to fill in gaps at any age level while babies are all 0 years old and need much more education than just language and culture. This also solves two problems at once by reducing population in unstable areas, rescuing people from conflict, and reducing environmental degradation.

Quote :

"The necessity of having kids and a growing population is under appreciated."

Its not a necessity until the immigration applications stop coming in. Our ecological footprint per capita needs to be reduced before we think about having more kids because essentially what we are doing when we have a kid is making poor kids in the world more poor. Our kids will emit the most carbon, and their kids will deal with the most severe consequences. Its an immoral position.

Quote :

"So if we did want an anti-immigrant country"

changing the identifying principle of the country should not be on the table.

Quote :

"Most married religious people (a large population, many poor) still disagree with birth control of any kind. The kids just happen as a biproduct of sex. "

[Edited on October 14, 2016 at 1:10 PM. Reason : merkel and trudeau(sp) are the best world leaders]

10/14/2016 1:07:13 PM

Quote :

"I honestly just don't see how people can have 3 or 4 kids and expect to give them all good starts for their futures. "

I think you're assuming an element of long-term planning that isn't there. People fuck because it feels good. They don't use protection because it doesn't (condoms), or it costs too much, or they don't know how to use it properly. The latter two can be blamed on conservative political policies. Pregnancy results. People don't abort because it's prohibitively difficult (red states) or because they think it is wrong. And on the personal scale, I think most people can sympathize with that position. I think most of us are fundamentally pro-choice, but we're anti-forcing-poor-people-to-abort.

Quote :

"If conservatives manage to squash immigration to the point where our population growth stagnates (which is bad policy in the long run for many reasons, including gene pool issues)"

I have a hard time believing that in a multicultural country of 300+ million people we have any gene pool issues to worry about in the next few millennia.

Quote :

"Most married religious people (a large population, many poor) still disagree with birth control of any kind."

Show me some evidence of this. The Roman Catholic Church is still pretty cut and dry opposed to BC, but most Protestants (and plenty of Catholics) are fine with it.

---

Now, onto Earl, who requires his own section:

Quote :

"A lot of what I'm reading here saddens me because the economic principles of eternal growth is unsustainable but even the people here refuse to let it go."

Of course, there is always this issue. I tend towards something like a conucopian rather than neo-malthusian view of population growth; in short, I think history indicates that technological advances will keep pace with the demands of human population - and given the tendency towards slowing population growth, will in fact surpass them. That said, I allow that there is a theoretical limit to how many people this planet or even solar system can support. As a result, I agree in principle that "eternal growth" is unsustainable.

The natural conclusion of this admission is that we eventually need to figure out a way to restructure our way of life in such a way that it can continue to thrive with a stagnant or shrinking population.

Quote :

"Places that need people can help solve the problems in areas where there are too many people."

I agree. So would any conservatives who actually believed in "the free market," since free movement of labor is part of that system. However, it isn't much of a long-term solution, given that the trend of declining birth rates is spreading into poorer countries. Eventually there might not be anywhere making more people than they're losing.

But even that's a maybe. I don't think the species is going to birth control itself into extinction. The decline will not be universal and permanent. I wonder if there won't be a reversal in some developed countries in our lifetimes.

10/14/2016 1:45:55 PM

Quote :

"This is entirely xenophobic nonsense. Syrian refugees, for example, include highly skilled workers looking for stability."

The vast majority of "refugees" are low skilled economic migrants. They suppress wages for the low skilled workers already in Europe while being a drain on the social programs of Europe. This isn't xenophobic nonsense - this is the reality of the situation. Opening up the flood gates to low skilled workers while automation is simultaneously reducing the need for low skilled workers is an idiotic policy.

[Edited on October 14, 2016 at 1:57 PM. Reason : many of the "Syrian" refugees aren't even from Syria.]

10/14/2016 1:57:07 PM

Interesting. If my comment was so “stupid, stupid” and I am so “very, very dumb” you would think in a short novel you would be able to counter my statement. Yet in your clusterfuck of a rant you didn’t.

Population growth only helps the US economy when you have more givers than takers. Your entire dumb-ass post doesn’t even consider this.

Population-based services like public education, highways, emergency response, ect all have to increase to handle population. This isn’t cheap (especially with more crime). If we include the costs associated with potentially granting amnesty to uneducated illegals from the 3rd world so they can vote democrat forever, then we get welfare added on top of that.

But hey, we can just print off more monopoly money for all these government programs, right?

Open borders in a wellfare state does not work. We are 20 trillion in debt.

So when I see a comment from the Marxists saying “college should be free” or “the government should force employers to pay me more than I’m worth” all I see is “I didn’t graduate highschool and I have 6 kids, please subsidize my poor choices while I complain that America is racist".

10/14/2016 2:07:14 PM

Quote :

"I have a hard time believing that in a multicultural country of 300+ million people we have any gene pool issues to worry about in the next few millennia. "

I don't mean gene pool collapse, I mean what we're leaving on the table. Increased genetic diversity typically conveys a lot of benefits biologically re adaptability, and there's strong evidence it creates a more creative culture (since more viewpoints are being fed into the pot).

If the US closes itself off, but Brazil or Germany or Australia embrace diversity, we'd be at a disadvantage.

10/14/2016 2:46:12 PM

So in other words, GrumpyGOP is SJW spouting false narratives.

10/14/2016 2:47:36 PM

I wonder if the Native Americans appreciated the "diversity" they got when Americans immigrated to their country.

10/14/2016 2:49:43 PM

That sounds like something a SJW would say.

10/14/2016 2:51:15 PM

Quote :

"If the US closes itself off, but Brazil or Germany or Australia embrace diversity, we'd be at a disadvantage."

I guess that must explain why the xenophobic cultures of Japan and pre-WW2 Germany lagged so far behind the rest of the world.

Oh, wait...

10/14/2016 2:56:15 PM

^ lol, and America, a nation of immigrants, nuked japan twice and Germany lost 2 world wars.

Japan is having major population issues now, but they are drifting towards a socialist technocracy it seems like. Germany is trying to be more welcoming to immigrants, and they're surrounded by different ethnicities anyway, so it'd be hard for them to close off too much.

10/14/2016 3:01:39 PM

The nation of immigrants "melting pot" thing is really a myth. America was founded by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The culture and values that allowed for separation of church and state, free speech, checks and balances, right to bare arms, was all from this homogeneous group.

When people use the predictable, weak argument of "but diversity!" they don't realize that some cultures are better than others. That doesn't mean we don't want people of other races, it means the values that made America great are important, and we should make sure people share them if they want to join. There's a reason Mexicans come into our country and not vice versa... If we import the 3rd world that "diversity" is not a strength, but democrats love votes and corporations love cheap labor.

[Edited on October 14, 2016 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 14, 2016 at 3:15 PM. Reason : ..]

10/14/2016 3:12:05 PM

Spoken like a true white supremacist.


GrumpyGOP

Economically speaking there are some folks exploring possibilities for no-growth or low-growth. You can take a look at George Monbiot, Charles Eisenstein, Rupert Read, I'm sure there are others that I'm blanking on, and they've spilt some significant ink on what post growth economics might entail (or why it's imperative). Give the "Post-growth Institute" a follow on Facebook, it reposts their writings on a regular basis.

I'm really fascinated by the topic as well, but there is one problem that really drives me nutz. Namely the complete lack of any empirical evidence to support most of the claims. Instead you are gonna see more "common-sense" or emotional appeals, environmentalism, gross domestic happiness, other hippy shit, etc.

But really what it all boils down to is: in order to cope with declining economic growth, it's going to require a significant cultural change, that will really need to happen on the individual level. Basically moving away from consumerism, competition, and isolationism toward cooperation, community building, and holism.



[Edited on October 14, 2016 at 3:34 PM. Reason : Moving toward the eschaton]

10/14/2016 3:13:28 PM

That's not an argument.

Screaming "racism/xenophobia" shows how little effort and thought you put into these topics. You should really work on developing an understanding of history/culture/politics beyond childish name calling.

10/14/2016 3:18:55 PM

Quote :

"I think you're assuming an element of long-term planning that isn't there. People fuck because it feels good."

This analysis only applies to people with options. The lower castes of America will never have the same resources no matter how much they plan. So either they make do or don't have kids.

10/14/2016 3:22:55 PM

Quote :

"I guess that must explain why the xenophobic cultures of Japan and pre-WW2 Germany lagged so far behind the rest of the world."

Japan has catastrophic level demographic problems.

10/14/2016 3:25:45 PM

as does China

10/14/2016 3:30:00 PM

Quote :

"Japan has catastrophic level demographic problems. "

and instead of collapsing, they are spurring robotics and automation faster than anyone else in response to their aging population.

10/14/2016 4:28:37 PM

Quote :

" If my comment was so “stupid, stupid” and I am so “very, very dumb” you would think in a short novel you would be able to counter my statement."

What is there to counter? Taken literally, your statement is just that you have poor reading comprehension. I wouldn't dare refute that. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt (and I'm far from sure we should), your statement is just that social programs are bad and we should let the children of poor people starve.

Quote :

"Population growth only helps the US economy when you have more givers than takers. Your entire dumb-ass post doesn’t even consider this."

What is there to consider? If we define "taker" as someone who does no work and mooches entirely off the welfare teat, then your statement is irrelevant; such people are so vastly outnumbered by working people that it is a fantasy. If you define "taker" as someone who receives more than they pay in, well, that's most of us. It's been most of us for a very long time. Arguably since the beginning of the Republic. And we've done OK.

Then you start rambling about open borders, which this thread isn't about, and repeat your inability to read good.

---

There is much more I want to respond to, but I gotta head out the door. I'll catch you tomorrow.

10/14/2016 4:30:11 PM

we need to put pressure on japan to take refugees from eritrea afghanistan syria honduras etc. we give them security for free and they need to carry their weight.

then we have to start thinking about where the 200 million sea level refugees from bangledesh will go.

by 2050 there could be another half billion refugees.

10/14/2016 4:36:57 PM

Quote :

"and instead of collapsing, they are spurring robotics and automation faster than anyone else in response to their aging population."

Have you seen their GDP projections? It's obviously a major problem that needs to be addressed. They will be forced to take more immigrants quite soon by necessity.

10/14/2016 4:54:42 PM

Quote :

"What is there to consider? If we define "taker" as someone who does no work and mooches entirely off the welfare teat, then your statement is irrelevant; such people are so vastly outnumbered by working people that it is a fantasy. If you define "taker" as someone who receives more than they pay in, well, that's most of us. It's been most of us for a very long time. Arguably since the beginning of the Republic. And we've done OK."

Not at all true. This has only happened recently (2012 study) that 60% of households receive more in transfer income than they pay in taxes. That is a problem.

As Benjamin Franklin said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic".

We are 20 trillion in debt. The solution is fiscal responsibility, not importing, as the Clinton campaign so transparently said, "needy hispanics" just because the DNC and corporations profit.

10/14/2016 5:48:22 PM

Can you link to the 2012 study? I'm not surprised by the numbers, I'd just like to see if "taxes paid" includes sales and payroll taxes, or if it is income taxes only.

[Edited on October 14, 2016 at 6:04 PM. Reason : [insert marginal propensity to spend and immigrants aren't lazy arguments here]]

10/14/2016 5:57:00 PM

Quote :

"I think you're assuming an element of long-term planning that isn't there. People fuck because it feels good."

A lot of assumptions being thrown in here about poor people and how many kids they have. While I'm sure there are some people who pop out kids deliberately left and right to be on the dole, what about people who have multiple kids and one of the parents dies or leaves? What about if one of the parents gets hurt or sick? What about if the bread winner who had a good job with steady income gets laid off?

Aside from that, there are a lot of people with college educations that are shitty fucking parents- far worse than the ones working multiple jobs and trying to keep their kids in school and out of trouble. IIRC correctly, isn't the average person on welfare for less than five years?

10/14/2016 7:05:39 PM

Free market enterprise does not require a rising population, although it does cause some sector shifts: owners of land and all other fixed assets fare better than they otherwise would in a world with a growing population. But there is nothing about capitalism or free markets which requires or functions inherently better with a growing population. Quick population growth doesn't preclude labor shortages any more than a falling population would preclude widespread unemployment (see Japan).

Quote :

"Germany isn't just letting in all these refugees as part of its ongoing reapplication for membership in the human race - they need people."

The talking heads say they need people. In reality, Germany would function just fine without them. Wages might rise a bit, profits might be a little lower than they otherwise would be, but businesses will adjust to use less labor.

This is both true in the short and long term. What is important in the long term, however, is the more people we have, the faster mankind will advance. The more people we have, the more people we have working on the world's problems. With a planet of 20 billion people, we'll colonize mars and cure cancer faster than we will with only 7 billion. And that faster technological advancement rate will eventually swamp the rivalrous resource problem (only so much copper and beach-front property to go around).

Quote :

"Open borders in a wellfare state does not work. We are 20 trillion in debt."

A welfare state doesn't work regardless of border status. It isn't just foreigners who would like to live without work.

10/14/2016 8:08:16 PM

i got a vasectomy just to deprive the government of future taxpayers

10/14/2016 10:03:00 PM

Quote :

"The nation of immigrants "melting pot" thing is really a myth. America was founded by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The culture and values that allowed for separation of church and state, free speech, checks and balances, right to bare arms, was all from this homogeneous group."

Pretty much everything about this is wrong.

It is a nation of immigrants. If your name isn't Running Bear or Crazy Horse, your ancestors immigrated to the US. And while it wasn't a "melting pot" in the traditional sense early in -- that is, by having different groups all mixed close together -- on a national scale that's exactly what it was. That's why most of the different colonies were created to cater to different groups. Catholics went to Maryland, Puritans went to Massachusetts, Quakers went to Pennsylvania, etc.

The "Anglo-Saxon" part is patently and demonstrably false, probably stemming from your poor understanding of what "Anglo-Saxon" actually means. There were large numbers of Scottish, Irish, Dutch, and German people in the country prior to independence. The country was not remotely homogeneous.

I particularly disagree with your statement that the Anglo-Saxons generated the right to bare arms. It is clear to even a passing observer that mankind has embraced bare arms throughout its history and across cultures. The Romans with their togas had bare arms. So do most tribal peoples. In fact, it was the "Anglo Saxons" during the Victorian era who decided that bare arms were unacceptably seductive, demanding that arms be covered to the wrist.

Quote :

"the values that made America great are important, and we should make sure people share them if they want to join"

You know, I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to this argument. So is the law. As I understand it, you don't get to become a citizen if you're a Nazi, Communist, or terrorist. Beyond that, I'm not sure what values tests we need to be administering.

I also don't fundamentally disagree that some cultures are better than others. American culture as a whole is better than ISIS culture. Agreed. But part of the reason ours is better is that it allows for a wide range of beliefs and ideologies.

Quote :

"Not at all true. This has only happened recently (2012 study) that 60% of households receive more in transfer income than they pay in taxes"

Aside from a brief stint during the Civil War, there really wasn't a personal Federal tax until the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913. So on a Federal level, most people were certainly on the dole (assuming that they benefited from the existence of a military, for example, which they did)

10/15/2016 12:05:13 PM

Quote :

"So on a Federal level, most people were certainly on the dole (assuming that they benefited from the existence of a military, for example, which they did)"

As they invariably used imported tools, cotton wares, drank tea, etc., nearly all Americans paid taxes in the form of import tariffs in excess of whatever the fed. gave them back.

10/15/2016 8:09:41 PM

Quote :

"As they invariably used imported tools, cotton wares, drank tea, etc., nearly all Americans paid taxes in the form of import tariffs in excess of whatever the fed. gave them back."

This claim cannot be proved, but it's dubious. Frontier people weren't sipping Earl Grey in imported trousers between bouts of swinging German hammers. For that matter the poor in well-settled areas weren't likely to be major participants in global trade until quite recently. No, as usual it was relatively small proportion of well-off people who were paying most of the indirect taxes. The rest of us got to settle the Louisiana territory and enjoy the benefits of shooting Barbary pirates and Native Americans, all of which was purchased with tax dollars that most of us didn't really pay.

I don't know why this concept is so outrageous to people. Yes, it's a minority of people that are net paying into the system. They're the minority of people who have all the money. That's how it is under any system aside from a straight up poll tax, which is to say, that's how it is under any system.

[Edited on October 15, 2016 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2016 9:16:38 PM

Is this really what you wanted to talk about?

Frontier people were wearing clothes and using tools made of iron. Things which were heavily imported well into the 19th century.

As the government then and extremely today spends a vast share of its tax revenue on things which in no way benefit the public, it is easy for me to think then as now that the average person paid more than they got back.

10/16/2016 12:24:03 AM

Yeah, we were a net importer for quite a large chunk of our first century as a country. With only a few blips we were an importer up until almost about 1890, then barely a net exporter. WWI happened and we started shipping a ton of shit, and then remained a net exporter until the 1970s.

I don't believe for one second that even replacement level reproduction is necessary or even desirable. If you want a world were people live above subsistence level you pretty much have to see that a lot of places are overpopulated and no sustainable.

I'm a big believer in technology and the promise of GMOs, more efficient farming methods, etc. but even if we can really optimize those areas it's going to be very hard if not impossible for 7-8 billion people to have "western" levels of consumption. There are simply too many limiting factors right now.

At some point there may, and probably will be, breakthrough technology that eliminates some concerns about energy, food, maybe even water but for right now we probably are overpopulated for our level of technology. People are still starving and dying of malaria because we don't have the logistical capacity to keep that from happening. Even if we could manage perfect distribution of goods, had zero food waste, etc. we'd still have 100s of millions of people living at the equivalent of poverty level/subsistence existence.

Continued technological advancement, the unlocking of human potential via the advancement of western cultural values (liberation of women, free inquiry, scientific method,etc.), and global free market economies will do more for the world at this point than making more kids.

Pure brute force and scale has gotten us a long way as species (look at the explosion in pop. and corresponding tech achievement once the Haber process revolutionized agriculture) but I think we've reached a point of diminishing returns because so much of the population gain is happening in places that don't allow for humans to do more than subsist.

I'm not doom and gloom about overpopulation nor do I subscribe to Malthusian ideas about pop. but I don't think pop. growth is the optimal method for species advancement right now.

10/16/2016 10:36:08 AM

Being an overall net importer doesn't mean much in this context if it's the wealthy few doing most of the importing and therefore paying most of the tariffs. But LoneSnark is right, this isn't really what I want to talk about. I'm not particularly concerned with which percentage of the population is paying what share of the taxes.

Kurtis636 -

At some point, replacement level reproduction becomes necessary or the species goes extinct. So I'll assume you mean it's not necessary or desirable right now, which I guess I could go either way on. In the sense that most of our institutions are built on the assumption of a growing population, it would come in handy, but obviously a smarter and more efficient solution would be to change those institutions than to keep makin' babies just to support them.

I don't necessarily agree that "a lot of places are overpopulated and not sustainable." In a vacuum, sure. But in a world connected by trade, having certain areas with very dense populations is acceptable and maybe even desirable. Probably the species would be better off if all of us lived in conditions of higher density, rather than sprawling out.

I agree that American-levels of consumption are probably not in the cards for 8 billion people, pending some serious technological advancement. I definitely think those advancements will come, and maybe sooner than you'd think. But I have some confidence that in the meantime, things will sort themselves out. Birth rates will decline even in poor countries, as education and standards of living improve. Those people will still want higher levels of consumption, which will drive up prices, which will presumably cause a reduction in Western demand. In most areas I trust market forces to manage this. There are a couple of sectors that give me pause, because they seem uniquely suited towards spilling out from the purely economic realm and into politics and warfare. Ideally increased demand for cars would drive up oil prices and make people use less gas, but I'm not convinced that when push comes to shove it wouldn't just make people invade the places with the oil. (Of course, this has happened already - not so much in our invasion of Iraq, but Iraq's of Kuwait)

Quote :

"People are still starving and dying of malaria because we don't have the logistical capacity to keep that from happening."

We absolutely have the capacity. We lack the will. This is true x2 with malaria.

Quote :

"I think we've reached a point of diminishing returns because so much of the population gain is happening in places that don't allow for humans to do more than subsist."

But the problem here is a function of politics rather than the environment or sheer number of people. Incompetent governments, weak social institutions, and unwillingness on the part of Western governments and corporations to invest in meaningful ways are what keep the overpopulation poster-child countries in the shit.

10/16/2016 11:21:37 AM

Quote :

"At some point, replacement level reproduction becomes necessary or the species goes extinct. So I'll assume you mean it's not necessary or desirable right now, which I guess I could go either way on. In the sense that most of our institutions are built on the assumption of a growing population, it would come in handy, but obviously a smarter and more efficient solution would be to change those institutions than to keep makin' babies just to support them. "

Correct, I did mean right now. I think there probably is an optimal population level and we may well have exceeded it now.

Quote :

"I don't necessarily agree that "a lot of places are overpopulated and not sustainable." In a vacuum, sure. But in a world connected by trade, having certain areas with very dense populations is acceptable and maybe even desirable. Probably the species would be better off if all of us lived in conditions of higher density, rather than sprawling out. "

I'm not sure i agree with you in terms of logistical capacity. Yes, it probably would be better if there were multiple high density areas serviced by lower pop. density industrial and agricultural areas. That's sort of the model that the US and other highly developed countries are trending towards. The unsustainable thing I think holds true unless/until terraforming. Honestly there are a lot of places that are totally inhospitable and aren't a good place for humans to live. Large swaths of Africa, South America, Asia, and North America come to mind. The fact that a couple of those regions continue to have booming populations is bad. If we want a population that is not miserable and living at a subsistence level we need to discourage pop. growth there and/or relocation.

Malaria, sure we could probably solve malaria in a very short amount of time, that was probably a poor example. Starvation, possibly but it's a mammoth undertaking that isn't really practical because of the amount of resources it would consume.

We could certainly achieve a flat and even distribution of goods, food, etc. but I'm not sure that's desirable or wise.

I'm very hopeful that technology can solve a lot of these problems, but to keep them solved will require some cultural solutions that are much harder to make happen. Oftentimes though culture is a direct result of conditions (environmental and otherwise) so maybe there is some hope.

I think concerns about oil are unfounded, it's a dying commodity as is. The sooner that we're off it the better. The internal combustion vehicle is one of those technologies that will get leapfrogged in a lot of developing areas (much like landline telephony in much of africa, coal fired power plants in some places). There will always be conflicts driven by scarcity, it's inevitable. The really scary one is water, and I'm not sure how that one gets fixed. Desalinization is one possible solution but it carries a whole raft of issues with it.

It's more than just population growth and sustainability, at some point you have to start looking at things like global happiness. Is it better to have 40 billion people each at a 1 or 5 billion people at an 8? I have a strong opinion that the latter is not only better but may actually be morally superior as well.

10/16/2016 11:50:26 AM