Where was this Mitt when he was running for President?

[Hayabusa Rider]

A reduction in population to around 10 million people would be an unmitigated catastrophe the likes of which mankind has never seen and would probably overall risk massive war and/or extinction of the species as a whole. Even if we survived human progress would grind to a halt and then likely start going backwards, leading to some sort of The Postman style gradual decline.

Also, I don't know what sort of tyrannical system it would take to reduce the population of the world by 99.9% but I know it's nowhere I want to live.

Your scientific argument please? Your basis for war with connected communities without want? Mankind has seen far far worse and science says it was so. Our population was down to perhaps tens of thousands before and we got lucky.

Extinction? Let's have enough people to ensure that climate and ecology are a crapshoot on geologically short periods and tell me how that plays out. A carbon tax? An electric car? Praying to One God, be it Jehova or Technology?

If we are going to debate "Postman" and TV apocalyptic scenarios needn't apply

So to start with refute what I have said scientifically. Show that my comments about climate change is untrue. Then back up your claim for war, as I'm not posting as if this isn't a planned progression. How to go about it? Well that's the real problem.

Extinction? Present your scientific reason why that must be. Indeed why it has to be greater than now?

The question is how does humanity AND the environment as a whole coexist?

So end pollution, deforestation, impact on ecological disruptions/disasters, ending poverty and maintaining a sustainable in all things environmental and everything surviving well. I think we may be headed towards making ourselves Passenger Pigeons.

 

[fskimospy]

Your scientific argument please? Your basis for war with connected communities without want? Mankind has seen far far worse and science says it was so. Our population was down to perhaps tens of thousands before and we got lucky.

Extinction? Let's have enough people to ensure that climate and ecology are a crapshoot on geologically short periods and tell me how that plays out. A carbon tax? An electric car? Praying to One God, be it Jehova or Technology?

If we are going to debate "Postman" and TV apocalyptic scenarios needn't apply

So to start with refute what I have said scientifically. Show that my comments about climate change is untrue. Then back up your claim for war, as I'm not posting as if this isn't a planned progression. How to go about it? Well that's the real problem.

Extinction? Present your scientific reason why that must be. Indeed why it has to be greater than now?

The question is how does humanity AND the environment as a whole coexist?

So end pollution, deforestation, impact on ecological disruptions/disasters, ending poverty and maintaining a sustainable in all things environmental and everything surviving well. I think we may be headed towards making ourselves Passenger Pigeons.

I'm not doing any of that - before I even lift a finger on it I want to hear a plausible path for a 99.9% reduction in humans that doesn't involve one of my parade of horrors. I can't see one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not doing any of that - before I even lift a finger on it I want to hear a plausible path for a 99.9% reduction in humans that doesn't involve one of my parade of horrors. I can't see one.

At the moment I haven't a unicorn and fairy solution and I doubt there is one.

Now you can accept that and respond why you are correct from a scientific perspective, disprove what I have said.

So what you opt for is a reduction path outside of all control with far more destruction and suffering. What you cannot do is have it both ways, a large population with each individual having many thousands of times the environmental impact of any other animal and sustainability of habitat.

Pick one because only magic can give you both and neither of us believes in that.

Solutions? Well I will PM you something no one likes and not appropriate for public wackos.

 

[fskimospy]

At the moment I haven't a unicorn and fairy solution and I doubt there is one.

Now you can accept that and respond why you are correct from a scientific perspective, disprove what I have said.

So what you opt for is a reduction path outside of all control with far more destruction and suffering. What you cannot do is have it both ways, a large population with each individual having many thousands of times the environmental impact of any other animal and sustainability of habitat.

Pick one because only magic can give you both and neither of us believes in that.

Solutions? Well I will PM you something no one likes and not appropriate for public wackos.

Well that was sort of my point, there is no plausible way to get there minus my parade of horrors so I think we just came to an agreement.

 

[mect]

Pretty sure America needs more people having kids, not fewer.

Having a kid today is vastly more expensive than it was 30-40 years ago and the cost of child care has skyrocketed in large part due to Baumol's cost disease. If you guys want fewer people to have children that's fine but don't be shocked when retirement programs are slashed when you come of that age - it's an inevitable consequence.

In terms of increasing the countries birth rate, from everything I've read it is next to impossible to do so long term. Several developed countries have tried through various incentives with very little success. See 11:15 in the video linked below.

Basically, the types of solutions Romney is proposing have brought up child birth rates in developed countries, but never get the birth rate constistently over 2.1. So basically, I agree with you in terms of policy solutions since it might help ease the problem and worst case just helps lower income families, but we as a country need to recognize that if we want to keep our economic engine going, we need immigrants. We are unlikely to get our birth rate back to replacement levels in our lifetimes.

This is one of the reasons I think concerns over China are vastly overblown. It is going to have huge issues with their aging population, and they aren't set up to bring in immigrants to try to offset the problem.

 

[Maxima1]

As a single guy without any kids, on the surface I'm against this but I do understand that even $1.5k/year is almost nothing compared to the cost of raising a child. At some point I'd love to have a "no child" tax credit for those responsible adults who choose not to have kids.

IMO, if you don't want to or can't handle the financial burden of raising kids, don't have them. I understand that mistakes happen, though, but it's not the government's job to support your children.

Heh, that's probably what I lived on for most of my childhood. Many kids grow up far less than the usual $200K+ figure cited in the news.

I like basic income for 18 and over far more than this. This plan has a few problems: parents will squander a large portion undoubtedly to themselves, it incentivizes the wrong people to have kids, some of the crap parents will spend ultimately aren't that worthwhile (e.g. bunch of toys in the early years), and it ignores the extra costs singles face over couples, since it's a two income economy. Maybe tax higher income brackets more and use that as incentive back for those more affluent households to have kids? Another problem is people keep saving preemies who have screwed up development. Low income households + preemies = shit hits the fan!

It is very confusing to me. Generally speaking if you look at Japan their growth 'problem' is mostly explained by demographic decline. They just kind of stopped having kids but they are super xenophobic so immigrating there is very hard. Basically Japan's stagnation is our future if Trump and the anti-immigrant people get their way.

They had both sharp birth decline plus hardline immigration restriction. The US trajectory for a number of decades without this proposal will be far less abrupt than that. By then if we're talking about multiple decades, how "poor" would the poorest be the US?

 

[hal2kilo]

Something about Mitt, I thought.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

I love these types of discussions in "upper affluent" circles when it turns to the problem of children in poor families struggling in life. And the solutions turn to how to disincentivise/prevent these families from having children. Instead of, you know; helping poor families raising children..

 

[Zorba]

Do you ahve a citation for this? I know the IPCC show calcs based on various "societal" scenarios, but not sure anyone have done calcs on impact per human, or something similar to support your statement?

Besides, having fewer than 2.1 children will still lead to a declining population. So with 2.0 children I'm doing my part, my parents with 3.0 were bastards

Here is one I could find quickly: https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...nge-damage-having-kids-research-a7837961.html

Having an additional kid is basically the worst thing an individual can do for the environment.

Which makes logical sense, think of everything a single person will consume in their life. Even if the electricity is all renewable and they drive electric cars. All that material they consume must be mined and/or grown. Mining has obvious environmental effects, but so does farming. From the massive removal of habitat, to the huge use of chemical fertilizers (which comes from mining and drilling), to the farts of the animals.

Then think about all the metals and rare earth elements required to make all of that renewable energy and batteries, etc.

 

[Paratus]

Yes, it is theoretically possible for that to happen but I see no evidence of such a trajectory in productivity growth as I think we've averaged somewhere around 1% productivity growth per year in the last decade. I mean improved productivity cures basically all ills because it's the only real way to improve human living conditions. It's also exceptionally hard to achieve.

Neutral to declining population could help the environment, depending on whether productivity growth was done in an environmentally neutral way. What's your reason for believing that the current population is somewhere near optimal?

I don’t really have a good reason. The planets indefinitely sustainable human carrying population is probably lower than our current population at the rate we are using resources, but probably able to support a higher population than we have now if we implemented every resource saving technology we currently have at our disposal.

Somebody, outside of politically motivated groups needs to do a scientific study.

 

[Bitek]

The planet needs far fewer. The best thing you can do for the long term health of the Earth is have less kids.

Capitalism and resources are coming to a crossroads, and I personally think we need to chose the planet over infinite growth capitalism.

Since that's not happening, the consequence of our low birth rate is importing people from the overpopulated countries of the Earth to fulfill the job needs we have now.

Pretty sure we can draw a straight line from this action to Trump's election and his America First policies.

 

[alcoholbob]

To be honest, I'd much rather take the amount I pay into Social Security and either be able to invest it myself or be able to dump it into my 401k. I'm not counting on it being there when I retire.

GDP growth is negative in most of the West minus immigration. Either we incentivize people to have kids or we massively increase immigration flows (which isnt a free alternative to higher birth rates as there are costs associated with it), but that wont last forever as developing countries develop their birth rates drop meaning it will be harder to find immigrants, not to mention its ultimately a zero sum game.

Also without population growth your stock returns are basically driven by central bank inflation, which means your real returns converge to zero. Aka japanification.

 

[Maxima1]

GDP growth is negative in most of the West minus immigration. Either we incentivize people to have kids or we massively increase immigration flows (which isnt a free alternative to higher birth rates as there are costs associated with it), but that wont last forever as developing countries develop their birth rates drop meaning it will be harder to find immigrants, not to mention its ultimately a zero sum game.

OK. Do something more targeted like subsidize child care. Give ample family leave by forwarding some future retirement benefits of those people. Why do we need another cash transfer favoring couples w/ dependents on top of EITC and Child Tax Credit?

Also without population growth your stock returns are basically driven by central bank inflation, which means your real returns converge to zero. Aka japanification.

We are far from that, and by the time that could occur (also assuming Trumpian immigration policy for long-term), how many in the US will be in "poverty"? How many jobs will be there for them? Japan btw also suffers from having few natural resources.

 

[nakedfrog]

I love these types of discussions in "upper affluent" circles when it turns to the problem of children in poor families struggling in life. And the solutions turn to how to disincentivise/prevent these families from having children. Instead of, you know; helping poor families raising children..

Well, that's only because they need to suffer for their poor choices/decision-making. We don't help people unless they don't need it 'round these parts

 

[Sonikku]

Pretty sure America needs more people having kids, not fewer.

Having a kid today is vastly more expensive than it was 30-40 years ago and the cost of child care has skyrocketed in large part due to Baumol's cost disease. If you guys want fewer people to have children that's fine but don't be shocked when retirement programs are slashed when you come of that age - it's an inevitable consequence.

ha ha pretty sure that boat has sailed. The system will be propped up long enough to ensure baby boomers get theirs. After that it's screw everybody.

 

[Majes]

Some interesting arguments for population reduction. I'd argue the reverse. I think we should be massively increasing the population.

The simple way to look at it is to ask a question. What do you value more? Humanity or Earth as a "living" planet. Personally I value humanity more and I think we should be doing whatever we can to become a multi-planet species. This includes things up to and even past the destruction of this planet if need be.

The reason I feel this way is the resulting outcomes. I am weighing a low population "healthy" Earth that can be destroyed by a single cosmic event against the idea that humanity can spread Earth ecology to other planets, and eventually be safe from most if not all extinction level events.

Could we do both? Could we lower the population while still becoming a multi-planet species? I suppose it's possible but I think the far more likely route to a space-faring species is to push population, and push expansion.

I already see a mindset here and in many other places that seems to say "Humanity is a failed species, and we need to accept our place and stop aggressively using resources." I think this is a super dangerous viewpoint that could/will ultimately lead to an awful end.

 

[IronWing]

I disagree.

 

[snoopy7548]

I value earth as a living planet; without it, there would be no people.

 

[Majes]

I value earth as a living planet; without it, there would be no people.

Only true if you're talking about it arguably creating us. Humanity can totally survive without Earth in the future.

 

[blankslate]

it's simple original poster this Mitt is a mask that the real Mitt triangulated is the best mask to wear when faced by this excrementitious person known as Trump being the leader of the Republican party.

He thinks that this reasonable Mitt persona that he is playing will let him run for President again in the future and win....


_____________

 

[shortylickens]

Based on how its spelled, I took a guess as to what that word means.
Looked it up.
Sure enough, I was correct!