There’s a _demographic_ problem, which will require economic adjustment; the population is shifting older. There’s no population problem per se, though.
That’s categorically wrong. There is a population problem. Every scientific source says so. It’s universally known.
The demographic problem is causally related to the population problem. There’s also no other way to logically categorize it.
A demographic problem means we have too little young people and too many old people. How does that even logically happen?
It happens because one demographic is not reproducing fast enough. _That_ is intrinsically a population problem. This is just derived from pure logic… outside of logic you can derive the same from numerous pieces evidence where this issue is totally evidence and unequivocally obvious for people who study the population.
A declining population would not inherently be a problem. Low population growth is a concern only in that it is associated with a demographic problem, but the demographic problem is itself a problem only in that it raises concerns about how to support lots of elderly people, and there are many solutions there, only some of which involve higher population growth (for instance, increased taxation, increased automation, raised retirement ages, etc etc). And it is inherently a _temporary_ problem; eventually birth rates will stabilise at a new normal (this may already be happening in many places), the bulge in the population chart will age out, and normality will resume at a lower base.
This isn't even _that_ novel; major wars, for instance, tend to produce a temporary deficit of working age people vs elderly, as do certain disease epidemic (the 1918 flu pandemic preferentially killed young people, for instance).
Some people seem to extrapolate low population increase to _human extinction_ or something, but this really makes very little sense; lower birth rates doesn't mean _zero_ birth rates.
obviously by population problem I mean declining population. This is just pedantism.
That being said every expert who talks about this or studies it refers to this as a problem. Everyone. You’re on a sinking ship trying to not look like an idiot and you’re failing. It’s more than just a demographic problem. It’s a major economic problem even when looked at independent from the demographic issue.
When did I extrapolate extinction or zero birth rate? Don’t be an idiot. zero birth rate means nobody is having kids. If one person out of 10 billion people has a kid then the birth rate is positive. Only a genius can come up with a statement like zero birth rate.
What the hell is up with your underscores? “_that_” as if you know what you are talking about. You said this isn’t “_that_ novel”? Are you kidding? Every major expert or study classifies our declining birth rate as completely novel. Unprecedented in the history of mankind. Nobody knows the exact cause and nobody knows where it will lead.
In general it is associated with the cultural and technological shift in human civilization that has never happened before throughout human history. Modern technology, women’s rights, birth control, the way we live. The current way we live represents about 1 percent of our collective history and we’ve never lived this way for 99 percent of our history. For most of human civilization we couldn’t afford to raise a freaking dog because doing so would compromise our survival. Things have changed and we are very sure that the changes are related to declining population but we cannot point to an exact causal source.
Wake up. Go educate yourself about the issue extensively and learn about anthropology and the economy before pretending you know what you’re talking about.
Science will also always intersect with your love of dogs, liberal beliefs or conservative values. Ignore the morals when judging truth as truth is independent of right and wrong. Then when you have clarity about what’s going on you’ll gain the ability to interpret reality for what it is rather then blindly fighting for some ideology.
For example, I love dogs. But that doesn’t change the fact that dogs offer virtually no evolutionary benefit to humans. If you want to solve the population issue without harming your dogs then address the issue truthfully rather through some misguided attempt to protect man’s best friend by making up bs.
Can you explain why you think that the population (eventually) falling is an inherent problem? (Beyond claiming that unnamed experts think that it is a problem, I mean.) There are of course problems which it implies, primarily, bluntly, "how do we pay for all the old people", but really that one was going to show up to some extent _anyway_ just due to increased lifespans, and it has many possible solutions which don't involve population increase.
If, in a couple of centuries, the world's population is, say, 3 billion, then, provided that they've weathered the economic stresses around pensions etc., why is that a problem?
Personally, I'm far from a dog enthusiast. My reasons for questioning you on this are in no way related to dogs.
> You said this isn’t “_that_ novel”? Are you kidding?
I was referring to a shortfall in working-age vs non-working-age population (for reasons other than low growth; disease or war generally, though if you go back a bit further famines sometimes also cause a similar distortion) not being that novel. And the working/non-working ratio is the only _real_ concern that I can see here.
Japan and Korea were ahead of the curve. They hit the major issues first and they are a precursor to the problems the rest of the world will face in a major way.
