Another thoughtful article. One of the problems with dwindling birth numbers is that what might be good for society, may not be good for the individual (see Prisoner's Dilemma for game theory on this point). Many times, those who are most able to afford having many children, don't feeling that with fewer children, they can spend more time (and resources) on the one(s) they have. To your cohort of families with large number of children, I would add observant Catholics, and members of the Latter Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormons). Unfortunately, neither immigration nor financial incentives (see Japan, for example) will solve the underpopulation problem. Finding ways to reduce menial work, whether through AI, robots, or re-engineering tasks, might help to encourage people to have more children, as their incomes, satisfaction with life, and discretionary time will help. If we are able to reduce childhood mortality, especially in countries where the birthrate is population sustaining, through better distribution of medical care, that would help, as well.
Michael, thank you! I thought about those other groups and you're correct. Interesting thought, although it seems that when poor nations reduce menial work they also reduce reproduction. Reducing childhood mortality and overall health certainly seems a good idea for many reasons. I think it will be an interesting couple of decades. I appreciate the comment and your kindness!
Thank you for another though provoking article. You make a good point about how many of our elderly patients do not have offspring to care for them.
I think that you make a jump in logic. Not having enough specially trained people to perform a particular task does not necessarily mean that we do not have enough humans on the planet. That's a non sequitor.
You know very well that we do not have enough physicians to serve all patients. Instead, patients are being treated by well-meaning but poorly trained non-physician midlevel providers. The answer is to train more people to perform needed tasks, not produce more mouths to feed. That seems unnecessary. What we need is more and better training of humans.
Our planet's current human population is over 8 billion. Our environment may not survive the assault of so many carbon dioxide waste producing beings. The planet would do just fine with 3 billion people.
Ted, thanks for your comment. I feel so bad for some of our older folks who feel so alone. As for whether it's a non-sequitor, I'm not so sure. I mean, I agree with the issue of non physician providers. But what we do is only a fraction of that. Much of what needs to be done is the mundane, poorly compensated work of turning people in bed at home or cleaning them up when they are sick. Neither of us do that and most physicians won't ever. The population is over 8 billion but it's believed that we may have, or be near, peak. Hey, I'm no population scientist but most of the things I see now have to do with dramatically falling populations. Who knows? I'm open to the idea that I'm way off the mark here. However, a planet of 3 billion might work but probably wouldn't be a better place necessarily. We are very interconnected and without lots of people doing lots of things we need, in every industry, we would probably live a much more limited existence. It may have to do with carrying capacity, of course. I suppose up to a point, the more we have the more we need. Great comment though, so thanks so much for your support!
Another thoughtful article. One of the problems with dwindling birth numbers is that what might be good for society, may not be good for the individual (see Prisoner's Dilemma for game theory on this point). Many times, those who are most able to afford having many children, don't feeling that with fewer children, they can spend more time (and resources) on the one(s) they have. To your cohort of families with large number of children, I would add observant Catholics, and members of the Latter Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormons). Unfortunately, neither immigration nor financial incentives (see Japan, for example) will solve the underpopulation problem. Finding ways to reduce menial work, whether through AI, robots, or re-engineering tasks, might help to encourage people to have more children, as their incomes, satisfaction with life, and discretionary time will help. If we are able to reduce childhood mortality, especially in countries where the birthrate is population sustaining, through better distribution of medical care, that would help, as well.
Michael, thank you! I thought about those other groups and you're correct. Interesting thought, although it seems that when poor nations reduce menial work they also reduce reproduction. Reducing childhood mortality and overall health certainly seems a good idea for many reasons. I think it will be an interesting couple of decades. I appreciate the comment and your kindness!
Thank you for another though provoking article. You make a good point about how many of our elderly patients do not have offspring to care for them.
I think that you make a jump in logic. Not having enough specially trained people to perform a particular task does not necessarily mean that we do not have enough humans on the planet. That's a non sequitor.
You know very well that we do not have enough physicians to serve all patients. Instead, patients are being treated by well-meaning but poorly trained non-physician midlevel providers. The answer is to train more people to perform needed tasks, not produce more mouths to feed. That seems unnecessary. What we need is more and better training of humans.
Our planet's current human population is over 8 billion. Our environment may not survive the assault of so many carbon dioxide waste producing beings. The planet would do just fine with 3 billion people.
Ted, thanks for your comment. I feel so bad for some of our older folks who feel so alone. As for whether it's a non-sequitor, I'm not so sure. I mean, I agree with the issue of non physician providers. But what we do is only a fraction of that. Much of what needs to be done is the mundane, poorly compensated work of turning people in bed at home or cleaning them up when they are sick. Neither of us do that and most physicians won't ever. The population is over 8 billion but it's believed that we may have, or be near, peak. Hey, I'm no population scientist but most of the things I see now have to do with dramatically falling populations. Who knows? I'm open to the idea that I'm way off the mark here. However, a planet of 3 billion might work but probably wouldn't be a better place necessarily. We are very interconnected and without lots of people doing lots of things we need, in every industry, we would probably live a much more limited existence. It may have to do with carrying capacity, of course. I suppose up to a point, the more we have the more we need. Great comment though, so thanks so much for your support!