28 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 30.1 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
>As the ratio of working-age adults (18–64) to older adults falls from about 3.4 today toward roughly 2.4 by 2060, the arithmetic that supports those programs tightens, all else equal. On this reading, the chart is an argument for some combination of higher productivity, longer working lives, higher fertility, or higher immigration to widen the working-age base.

Or spend less.

GOOD. We’ve done well to keep everyone alive. All that’s left is to implement sensible economic policies that allow normal folk to start families
> the arithmetic that supports those programs tightens, all else equal

We can tax the rich, we're post scarcity, time to take a look at the rest of the world an come up with a better social safety net.

In the US, despite the .fr domain.
So a lot of problems will be solved by 2049 (overpopulation) and probably many others will arise (we never had worldwide decreasing demographics.)
This has to slow stock market growth, right? Less young people buying, more older people selling.
Median age in Africa is 19.5 years.

Africa doubled it's population in the last 28 years.

Our expanding economies and improving quality of life depend on young people and a growing population. So it brings up an interesting question.

In 20 years, will countries start to compete for young people? Tax breaks, benefits, etc. Will some countries thrive while others die off completely? The proportion of young people will be a huge issue regarding military strength, innovation, etc.

Could get very ugly.

Sounds like the who age verification debate will just solve itself. Just wait until there aren't any more children and then we don't need to worry about protecting them.
(comment deleted)
Keep building these bike lanes and 15-minute neighborhoods. So that people don't even think about having children. Make sure people have no personal space and no personal time.

That's how we reduce the Earth's population!

Sorry, I'm still trying to follow how bike lanes make me less likely to think about having children...?
This will have significant consequences for the military.
I think it’s time to bite the bullet and raise the retirement^W elder benefits eligibility age and peg it to life expectancy at birth minus 15 years or some structure like that. It’s fine that my generation will have to eat the loss - having paid for the past one but not benefiting as much from the coming ones. Some generation has to, and better us than them.

As we get better at healthcare and life, we should expect to be productive and care for ourselves for longer. I hope that as I age I remain in favour of succeeding generations over my own self. Plant the tree whose shade we won’t see etc.

We're on the path to putting Augustine's City of God theory of population to the test.
It's so frustrating that Social Security reform became the "are you a good progressive?" litmus test in the early 00s. We've had our wages tithed for our whole lives - money that would be actually worth something in retirement if invested - to go into a Ponzi scheme that will go bust before we're retirement age. You could see it coming decades away, and political infighting ensured nothing would be done about it until the discourse tired and started arguing about pronouns instead.
If anybody was curious, the states that already had this prior to 2020 are:

Maine, Vermont, and Florida

Since 2020: Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia now also qualify.

Montana is a bit of a surprise there... so is Oregon for me.

Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/older-ad...

Let’s consider this logically:

What kind of people will not wanting children likely select for?

At least two kinds come to mind:

1) People who love children and are willing to have them regardless of the impact on their financial situation.

2) People living in societies where women (and likely some men) lack a say in whether or not to have children.

The first kind could be very good.

The second is definitely not something we should look forward to.

Western society is limping forward with a "yes, but me first" mentality.

We absolutely need an abundance agenda if we want people to have children. Reject the zero-sum investment thesis of NIMBY protectionism. Invest in density, efficiency, and antitrust. This is one of the most openly obvious self-owns in history. It's genuinely absurd.

We are all in this together. Make financial security easy for young people and we'll actually get children.

Adults born before computers, the public internet and the later appearance of so-called "tech" companies on the internet, will outnumber those born after computers, the internet and so-called "tech" company intermediaries
So what?

Improving healthcare and medicine should be one of the core goals of civilization, so eventually we should have healthcare good enough to enable "practical immortality": No "aging" and no deaths save in extreme cases or physical accidents/violence.

In an ideal future, the majority of humans SHOULD be all over 100 years old! and hale and healthy as a 30 year old.

The problem is not "how long most people have been alive", maybe the problem is our unwillingness to reassess social assumptions established >2000 years ago:

That everyone has to "work", everyone has to "earn", everyone has to constantly "buy", and that everyone has to constantly pump out babies so they can also keep doing the same...