Does a smaller population not benefit everyone?
In: Planetary Science
Changing population changes a lot of things, the endlessly-cited issues around social security and such is just one issue. Consider that the rate of population increase has been steadily falling in the UK for over 150 years, and is now less than half of what it was in 1870 (-as far back as I found data). The sky has not fallen there, and the entirety of the industrialized world has seen a similar trend. In fact, life is longer, wealthier, and more literate for the average Brit than it was back then.
So steadily dropping rate of growth isn’t anathema to the economy or quality of life. What happens if the growth rate actually goes negative? Total economic output can still increase, as it’s been increasing per capita for decades, so economic collapse aren’t necessary. What about social security? When people talk about social security going bankrupt in 2035 or whatever, then mean that at that time social security will need to pay out more than they take it. In a balanced system they pay out the same amount as they take it anyhow. In general, modest (but real) decreases in benefits make social security soluble for the long term. Massive compounding increases in health care costs aren’t sustainable, but even these have been slowing down in recent years.
I don’t see any evidence that something like social security is the biggest problem of declining population, nor is it a given than economic output should decrease.
Even still, a lowering of the rate of economic increase hurts people by making credit more scarce. We’ve all seen what recessions are like. Infinite growth isn’t as important as incentivizing people to invest their money.
In my mind, the worst thing about shrinking population is that people are good and make good stuff, and less of them means less goodness. All the art and science that makes modern life good is from people. All the infrustructure that makes life comfortable is from people. All the medicine and organizing that saves us from diseases is from people. Bottom line, less people means less of all that.
It takes a very wide base to make a tall pyramid. Research, planning, technology, that is all stuff that sits at the top of the pyramid. Make their be 10% less people and you probably lose much more than 10% of scientists and artists. One of the thing that arts and science powers is getting the pyramid to be more tower-shaped so a greater portion of people are higher up.
The late antiquity collapse in Western Europe saw a big population decline – it wasn’t a paradise, it was a wasteland. People lived in castles if they could afford it because it wasn’t safe in houses. It’s easy to find evidence that growing population means growing quality of life. It’s easy to imagine that lowering population might mean lowering quality of life.
Latest Answers