Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

That area is radioactive as hell.

Is it, though? Or is hell just mildly exceeding Western radiation safety standards?

[SalmonGod]

PTTG:

There's a problem. 

Humans like to make babies when they feel really comfortable/prosperous.

When your calculus is "X finite resources must be supplied to an uncapped and growing population", the calculus becomes a spectrum, rather than a target, starting at "Everyone gets everything they need and then some" and ending at "Everyone is systemically impoverised when equally distributed-- some people live good while others die of neglect when unequally distributed."

The population growth will level out with resource availablitly, with people living in "adequate but not great" conditions due to increased mortality rates from the lack of resources eventually, but that is in contravention of the stated goal of everyone getting quality needs met.

That is assuming that needs remains a static target as well-- it is not. Energy needs per person has skyrocketed in the past century to astronomical levels.

This is a logistics problem where the premise denies a solution.  Modern living is unsustainable, systemically, barring some kind of miracle technology that allows construction and habitations on biosphere-less areas that are not in competition with the natural biosphere, and where all human waste products are perfectly recycled, and where there is infinite room to expand in.

In short, we would need to find a way to produce matter and energy from nothing, then move into outer space.

And yet birth rates are declining despite increasing feelings of prosperity.

The main factor is that quality of life has DIMINISHED-- People have material goods, but they LACK TIME. People spend close to 100% of their time being "Productive", and so, do not spend time making babies, because they are too drained in every capacity to even have sex, or to even contemplate making babies.

Even rabbit populations have an upper-bound where intra-colony stresses cause female infertility.

Again, the stated goal implies quality of life.  That is not an attainable target when resources are finite.

This is my interpretation as well.  And articles keep appearing at an increasing rate about "Millennials selfishly abandoning family values by not having as many children - future economy doomed!"

[smjjames]

PTTG:

There's a problem. 

Humans like to make babies when they feel really comfortable/prosperous.

When your calculus is "X finite resources must be supplied to an uncapped and growing population", the calculus becomes a spectrum, rather than a target, starting at "Everyone gets everything they need and then some" and ending at "Everyone is systemically impoverised when equally distributed-- some people live good while others die of neglect when unequally distributed."

The population growth will level out with resource availablitly, with people living in "adequate but not great" conditions due to increased mortality rates from the lack of resources eventually, but that is in contravention of the stated goal of everyone getting quality needs met.

That is assuming that needs remains a static target as well-- it is not. Energy needs per person has skyrocketed in the past century to astronomical levels.

This is a logistics problem where the premise denies a solution.  Modern living is unsustainable, systemically, barring some kind of miracle technology that allows construction and habitations on biosphere-less areas that are not in competition with the natural biosphere, and where all human waste products are perfectly recycled, and where there is infinite room to expand in.

In short, we would need to find a way to produce matter and energy from nothing, then move into outer space.

And yet birth rates are declining despite increasing feelings of prosperity.

The main factor is that quality of life has DIMINISHED-- People have material goods, but they LACK TIME. People spend close to 100% of their time being "Productive", and so, do not spend time making babies, because they are too drained in every capacity to even have sex, or to even contemplate making babies.

Even rabbit populations have an upper-bound where intra-colony stresses cause female infertility.

Again, the stated goal implies quality of life.  That is not an attainable target when resources are finite.

Then explain falling birthrates in even the poorest places in the world.

Yes, the whole having time is a factor, as does having the money, but the falling birthrate has no correlation to how rich a country is or whatever.

[wierd]

PTTG:

There's a problem. 

Humans like to make babies when they feel really comfortable/prosperous.

When your calculus is "X finite resources must be supplied to an uncapped and growing population", the calculus becomes a spectrum, rather than a target, starting at "Everyone gets everything they need and then some" and ending at "Everyone is systemically impoverised when equally distributed-- some people live good while others die of neglect when unequally distributed."

The population growth will level out with resource availablitly, with people living in "adequate but not great" conditions due to increased mortality rates from the lack of resources eventually, but that is in contravention of the stated goal of everyone getting quality needs met.

That is assuming that needs remains a static target as well-- it is not. Energy needs per person has skyrocketed in the past century to astronomical levels.

This is a logistics problem where the premise denies a solution.  Modern living is unsustainable, systemically, barring some kind of miracle technology that allows construction and habitations on biosphere-less areas that are not in competition with the natural biosphere, and where all human waste products are perfectly recycled, and where there is infinite room to expand in.

In short, we would need to find a way to produce matter and energy from nothing, then move into outer space.

And yet birth rates are declining despite increasing feelings of prosperity.

The main factor is that quality of life has DIMINISHED-- People have material goods, but they LACK TIME. People spend close to 100% of their time being "Productive", and so, do not spend time making babies, because they are too drained in every capacity to even have sex, or to even contemplate making babies.

Even rabbit populations have an upper-bound where intra-colony stresses cause female infertility.

Again, the stated goal implies quality of life.  That is not an attainable target when resources are finite.

This is my interpretation as well.  And articles keep appearing at an increasing rate about "Millennials selfishly abandoning family values by not having as many children - future economy doomed!"

Like this one, from bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/what-s-discouraging-millennials-from-starting-a-family


SMJJ:
 
I really don't need to give every possible aspect of how population growth slows to explain it.  I only need to explain enough causality to induce rate to drop below replacement rates. Natural death rates take over from there.  Human populations in excess suffer from a resource shortage; Not food, not water, not electricity--- money. Or rather, "value".

As automation, ever more excessive quarterly goals are enacted (Gotta keep that chart pointing upwards for the stock holders!!), and technological rate of development outmodes people sooner and sooner, people spend more and more time and money trying to remain occupationally relevant/valuable, because the thing they have that is valuable is their work.  As that work becomes less valuable due to over-availability (due to automation + large population), or due to being obsoleted (due to fast tech revolutions), that resource becomes less available/potent as a means of sustaining a family.

Even in poor countries this is true, as the reward for doing your work is less and less, simply because human life gets 'cheaper and cheaper' as the population grows.

This is the human equivalent of the large rabbit warren.  The large population paradoxically supplies a large number of potential mates, but the colony stress levels destroy fertility, until equilibrium at subsistence levels is attained.

AGAIN---

THE STATED GOAL IS TO HAVE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE.

That is mutually exclusive with reaching population equilibrium.

[smjjames]

PTTG:

There's a problem. 

Humans like to make babies when they feel really comfortable/prosperous.

When your calculus is "X finite resources must be supplied to an uncapped and growing population", the calculus becomes a spectrum, rather than a target, starting at "Everyone gets everything they need and then some" and ending at "Everyone is systemically impoverised when equally distributed-- some people live good while others die of neglect when unequally distributed."

The population growth will level out with resource availablitly, with people living in "adequate but not great" conditions due to increased mortality rates from the lack of resources eventually, but that is in contravention of the stated goal of everyone getting quality needs met.

That is assuming that needs remains a static target as well-- it is not. Energy needs per person has skyrocketed in the past century to astronomical levels.

This is a logistics problem where the premise denies a solution.  Modern living is unsustainable, systemically, barring some kind of miracle technology that allows construction and habitations on biosphere-less areas that are not in competition with the natural biosphere, and where all human waste products are perfectly recycled, and where there is infinite room to expand in.

In short, we would need to find a way to produce matter and energy from nothing, then move into outer space.

And yet birth rates are declining despite increasing feelings of prosperity.

The main factor is that quality of life has DIMINISHED-- People have material goods, but they LACK TIME. People spend close to 100% of their time being "Productive", and so, do not spend time making babies, because they are too drained in every capacity to even have sex, or to even contemplate making babies.

Even rabbit populations have an upper-bound where intra-colony stresses cause female infertility.

Again, the stated goal implies quality of life.  That is not an attainable target when resources are finite.

This is my interpretation as well.  And articles keep appearing at an increasing rate about "Millennials selfishly abandoning family values by not having as many children - future economy doomed!"

*rolls eyes uber hard* You know just as well as anybody that is just people complaining about "OH NOES! FAMIWY VALUUS!!"

[smjjames]

PTTG:

There's a problem. 

Humans like to make babies when they feel really comfortable/prosperous.

When your calculus is "X finite resources must be supplied to an uncapped and growing population", the calculus becomes a spectrum, rather than a target, starting at "Everyone gets everything they need and then some" and ending at "Everyone is systemically impoverised when equally distributed-- some people live good while others die of neglect when unequally distributed."

The population growth will level out with resource availablitly, with people living in "adequate but not great" conditions due to increased mortality rates from the lack of resources eventually, but that is in contravention of the stated goal of everyone getting quality needs met.

That is assuming that needs remains a static target as well-- it is not. Energy needs per person has skyrocketed in the past century to astronomical levels.

This is a logistics problem where the premise denies a solution.  Modern living is unsustainable, systemically, barring some kind of miracle technology that allows construction and habitations on biosphere-less areas that are not in competition with the natural biosphere, and where all human waste products are perfectly recycled, and where there is infinite room to expand in.

In short, we would need to find a way to produce matter and energy from nothing, then move into outer space.

And yet birth rates are declining despite increasing feelings of prosperity.

The main factor is that quality of life has DIMINISHED-- People have material goods, but they LACK TIME. People spend close to 100% of their time being "Productive", and so, do not spend time making babies, because they are too drained in every capacity to even have sex, or to even contemplate making babies.

Even rabbit populations have an upper-bound where intra-colony stresses cause female infertility.

Again, the stated goal implies quality of life.  That is not an attainable target when resources are finite.

This is my interpretation as well.  And articles keep appearing at an increasing rate about "Millennials selfishly abandoning family values by not having as many children - future economy doomed!"

Like this one, from bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/what-s-discouraging-millennials-from-starting-a-family

THAT is a better article title than "OH NOES FAMIWY VALUUS!" which just elicts an eye roll.

edit: Double post, but it was moving pretty quick, so, I thought there'd be a post or two in between.

[Rolan7]

Then explain falling birthrates in even the poorest places in the world.

Yes, the whole having time is a factor, as does having the money, but the falling birthrate has no correlation to how rich a country is or whatever.

Birthrates in the poorest places fall when aid groups provide basic sexual education, contraceptives, or inspire even basic amounts of gender equality/human rights.

[SalmonGod]

*rolls eyes uber hard* You know just as well as anybody that is just people complaining about "OH NOES! FAMIWY VALUUS!!"

Not in any honest sense, no... it's trying to avoid blatantly stating a selfish economic interest (especially because that opens a path to discussion of benefits), and apply pressure on people to have kids by inventing a moral imperative instead.  I'm pretty well convinced this is the true motive behind the reproductive politics pushed by many influential fake Christians.

[smjjames]

The thing is, that birth rates are falling in even the countries most friendly and productive to having families, so, the cost, while part of the story, isn't the whole thing. I agree that economic factors are definetly a factor, but even if you control for that, it doesn't explain everything.

[wierd]

You dont need to.  You only need to explain why reproduction rate falls below replacement rate.

[Madman198237]

Most areas of Pripyat are not very radioactive---is that area especially close to the nuclear plant or something?

Then explain falling birthrates in even the poorest places in the world.

Yes, the whole having time is a factor, as does having the money, but the falling birthrate has no correlation to how rich a country is or whatever.

I've been ninja'd horribly, but yes the demographic transition is a thing. Birthrates naturally fall as a country industrializes and modernizes, for a wide variety of reasons (not least of which are increased costs of living in industrial cities and increased likelihood of survival to adulthood for children)

[Reelya]

PTTG:

There's a problem. 

Humans like to make babies when they feel really comfortable/prosperous.

Doesn't explain falling birthrates in Europe and most of the world, so, the hedonistic when comfortable/prosperous doesn't hold up. It's true that there is a spike when times are good or right after a period of hardship ends, but if you look, that seriously doesn't hold up.

ninja'd by ispil, but I'm reinforcing his argument.

There are two separate facets: size of family vs timing of children.

Couples who are more economically stable tend to decided to have children sooner, not necessarily have more children. But having children sooner reduces the average time between generations, and the overlap between living generations, thus the stable population rises and falls in response to the average age at which people have children, even if each person doesn't individually have more children.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Whether or not the state of the US birthrate is solely due to demographic transition, the abject misery in our society is apparent to all. This is how collapse really happens, when people give up.

[PTTG??]

Those trends are astonishingly broad, though. They include any country with higher education, and the hypothesis that it's comfort that actually mitigates population growth is held up by wealthier people have smaller families is held up within countries; time-shortened laborers have more kids, earlier, than wealthy individuals here and elsewhere.

[smjjames]

Okay, take the country most friendly to child rearing (one of the Nordics maybe?), then explain the reproduction rate falling below replacement rate.

Just came to mind, the population hump that represents the baby boomers passing into the beyond would certainly have an effect, but I'm sure people who do the demographic math are probably taking that into account.