Japan's Population Problem

Low fertility rates and longer life spans are leading to an older and smaller population.

Japan's population is aging and declining. Two main forces are responsible: declining fertility rates and lengthening life spans:
1. Fewer babies. A total fertility rate of 2.1 would keep a population stable, assuming no migration. Japan hit this level in 1960, falling persistently below since 1975. The total fertility rate reached a low of 1.26 in 2005.

2. Longer lives. Japanese women attained the longest life expectancy among 228 countries in 1982, according to World Bank data, and have held that position to now.

Smaller workforce
Japan's population peaked in 2004 at 127.8 million. Current projections expect the rate of decline to accelerate to 1% annually by 2050. The workforce hit its high in 1999 and is now already 2.5% smaller.

A smaller workforce and an aging population imply that the ratio of workers to non-workers will fall. The conventionally measured dependence ratio--the number of workers that must cover the dependent population of young and retired--compares the number of people in the 15-64 year old age group to all others. The fertility collapse and aging have pushed the ratio down to 1.8 this year, with a projected ratio of one worker per dependent after 2050. Were this to happen, the consequences for taxes, transfers and incentives could be enormous.
Link -
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/japan-population- aging-business-oxford-analytica.html?feed=rss_busi ness
======
Some things that await the rest of the world, over the next 20-30 years.

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 17^th, 2010 at 9:44pm:






Above are two of the charts, from the above article on the Japanese Population issue.

I'll get the hang of these new tools, sooner or later?

The Western press are in the business of attempting to frighten the Japanese with tales of a supposed imminent demographic disaster in their country unless they start opening up immigration. They have every right to give the West the middle finger; the problems aren't going to be that bad, and at any rate, trying to solve demographic problems like this by letting in millions more people is a short term solution.

The Japanese have this quaint idea that they like Japan the way it is; they want Japan to remain Japanese. I'm really sure that a few million Filipinos and Puerto Ricans are going to be huge enrichment for them. They're going to solve all of their problems, forever.

Good on them.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2010 at 8:43pm:


The "press" are also not saying anything about the Aging Boomers, AT ALL, because there are those who want the status quo to continue, which it can not!

Sorry, gotta go, diner awaits!

Quote:


Many of the benefits to China have been very short term. So will the benefits to the Japanese.

Consider, first up, the plight of a young Tokyo couple trying to buy a place to live near to where they work. Fortunately, Tokyo real estate hasn't really risen in price much in a long time. However, if you imagine that population chart being bell shaped with a lot more people in the under forty bracket, what would that do to the price of rent or land in Japan? Or the price of food?

This will make it easier for them to support the ageing population, because they won't be trying to support an exponentially increasing population of young people at the same time. An economy doe not need an ever increasing number of young people to prop up the old people in order to function. That is the sort of reasoning that makes Africans slaughter each other every time there is a drought.

You are leaving out the cost of raising and educating children. That gets a lot cheaper when the population shrinks, and it is not an insiginficant chunk of government revenue.

Plus, not all old people are useless, even if they don't know how to use a mouse.

Freediver,
You have moved the Population & Peak Oil Threads, from the Political board to the General board, along with a few others.

Obviously, you may do as you wish, but these two are actually highly political and will in fact wield an extraordinary influence over politics, in the next 20-30 years.

Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years', claims leading scientist

As the scientist who helped eradicate smallpox he certainly know a thing or two about extinction.

And now Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, has predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years.

He has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and 'unbridled consumption.’
Fenner told The Australian newspaper that 'homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years.'
'A lot of other animals will, too,' he added.
'It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.'
Since humans entered an unofficial scientific period known as the Anthropocene - the time since industrialisation - we have had an effect on the planet that rivals any ice age or comet impact, he said.

Fenner, 95, has won awards for his work in helping eradicate the variola virus that causes smallpox and has written or co-written 22 books.
He announced the eradication of the disease to the World Health Assembly in 1980 and it is still regarded as one of the World Health Organisation's greatest achievements.

He was also heavily involved in helping to control Australia's myxomatosis problem in rabbits.

Last year official UN figures estimated that the world’s population is currently 6.8 billion. It is predicted to exceed seven billion by the end of 2011.
Fenner blames the onset of climate change for the human race’s imminent demise.
He said: 'We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island.
'Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're seeing remarkable changes in the weather already.'
'The Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon dioxide and global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000 years.
‘But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way as many of the species that we've seen disappear.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-ye...

Salaries some $70,000 a year higher are making it easy for Australia to hire doctors and specialists who may never return to NZ

Newly qualified specialist doctors are being poached by the Australian health system, where salaries are $70,000 a year higher. A new survey has found half of doctors in their last year of training as senior registrars, plan to go to Australia.

The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists says the doctors leaving with every expectation they will stay overseas for good. Dr Ian Powell says it is having a vice-like effect on New Zealand's senior doctors and District Health Boards. He says we are struggling to recruit internationally, and losing our own specialists. Dr Powell says now we are also losing their replacements, with doctors we have trained and invested in for so long, also going to Australia.

The Association also says it might not be worth training doctors if New Zealand keeps losing them to Australia. Dr Powell says the absurdity of the situation means if this keeps going, we may well be better off closing a medical school and simply putting that money into recruiting from overseas. Dr Powell says that is something the association would never advocate but it is a logical consequence if things continue the way they are.

Link -
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=116203&fm=newsmain,nrhl
==============
With Health Care & Services set to become a much greater issue over the next 10-20 years, due to the Baby Boomers, how long to you think it will take for other countries to realise that this sort or thing is happening and then for them to step in, with measures to stop it?

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 19^th, 2010 at 10:44pm:


It is not a politics board. It is a politicians suck board. It is for partisan bickering and mindless cheerleaders, to separate it from the real issues, like this one.

Quote:


So, you have the numbers? What about our ability to cope? Aren't most people supposedly saving enough for their own retirement?

Quote:


This is a far too simplistic way to think about it, becuase those workers were not funding the retirement. They were raising children and paying off their own mortgage. Now they have paid it off, they have their own house to retuire in, etc etc. Our society has always had a small number doing the real work. The aging population will not change this in any major way. From the way the fearmongers talk, one would think that all people used to do is work to support the elderly.

Currently, the biggest burden on our economy is building new infrastructure to accomodate the growing population.

Quote:


It is easrier getting info on the US, than OZ, but the following should give some answers, by virtue of the large amounts set aside for Social Security, Medicare and Medicade, with the interest side about to take a hike as well.
 




We, in OZ, are actually better off than most, at least we have a relatively low National Debt to GDP ratio and we have had the Super Guarantee program since around 1990.

That said, the rest of the world are pretty much toast, the retirement allowances in most countries, is very poor & their Debt is way to high!

Unfortunately, the fact that we are not as bad as the others, will not prevent their Economic slowdown, from flowing onto to us.

Btw, retirement saving, via super was going ok, until this GFC got going and it has since gone backward, but I expect it will take some greater hits, starting around October, this year.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2010 at 7:14pm:


I agree, allowing for increasing the OZ population is a drag that we can not afford, particularly long term.

We should actually reduce the immigration intakes, instead of increasing them and gradually shrink the Population.

In the longer term, OZ & other countries, will not have the resources, to support the current Population, let alone large increases, which would require the infrastructure you refer to.

Delaying The Entitlement Bust

Karl Smith agitates for open borders:

Immigration temporarily dilutes expenditures on Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt. However, temporary counts for a lot. The future is inherently uncertain and so truly pushing off consequences into the future is inherently a net gain. There is a chance of catastrophe, in which case your sacrifices were useless and there is a chance of explosive growth, in which case your sacrifices were unnecessary. These are real possibilities and should not be ignored.

It also gives additional time to prepare for changes in Social Security. One possibility is that the continued shift away from physically intensive jobs will mean that in 50 years a retirement age of 70 is feasible even if in 25 years it is not.
Link -
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/temporary-fixes.htm...
=============
It the long delay, so far, in postponing the required actions, that is now the reason for the problems that are immediately ahead of us!

Quote:


Quote:


I don't know that I would say that immigrants are better or worse, but there will still be a place for them, just on a reduced scale.

However, I can & will say, that OZ will never support 35 million people, just as the Planet will never support 11 Biilion.

It just will not happen! So, we need to look at what we can do, with a little less, of everything.

perceptions_now.
You and freediver have put a lot of effort into your dialogue, but all the scaremongering about the population aging is mainly being pushed by economists and politicians.
The worlds population is actually rising at an alarming rate, and as this planet is finite, that risk is far greater than the aging population, although the dropping of population in some countries, while there are huge rises in other countries will change the demographic composition in the developed countries, probably not the best for people in the developed countries.
But can anyone imagine what will happen to this planet if the people in China,India and others aspire the same wastefull consumer spending that is so prevalent in the developed countries, and can we tell them, they are not entitled to it.

Quote:


What are those decisions? It looks pretty rosy to me. We are overcoming the biggest problem threatening our way of life.

Quote:


Make that the business sector and politicians. Economists tend to be a bit more philosophical about it, at least in my experience. The business sector doesn't like the problem of a labour shortage, because it means higher wages. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. If there is one thing we want to be short on, it is people looking for work.

Quote:


China is going to achieve it by keeping their population in check. India could go either way. It is going to be the problem. The implications will be mixed. As the Chinese get wealthier, the price of beef and other food items will go up, but the price of consumer goods will go down, as the global economy will get a whole lot bigger. Maybe our farmers will start making money again.

Overpopulation.

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 7:15pm:


I agree, that is the absolute centre of many of our problems and that it is slowing before finally going into reverse in 20-30 years!

But, that is a long term work in progress, in the interim, the next 20-40 years won't be anything like the last 20-40 years and there will be some great economic difficulties, at least over that timeframe!

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 8:22pm:


This would make the aging population issues worse, not better.

I take the view that it is better to start addressing the total Population issue, sooner rather than later, because the later it is left, the more serious will be the situation.

It is therefore a choice between to evils, bad in the short term or worse in the long term.

I would opt to take a not so pleasant medicine now, rather than go thru chemotherapy later and hope for the best.

Quote:


Quote:


My statement referred to the slowing Fertility artes, which have been falling for quite some time.

According to the UN medium variant rate table, which is available at the following site, the Fertility rate could fall below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman, in around 2035-2040.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Quote:


Why can't we use more, and just obtain it in a way that hos a lower footprint?

Quote:


The majority of our energy does not come from oil.

Quote:


I meant the economic numbers, not the fertility numbers. You insist that the short term downside of a decreasing population is bigger than the upside, and that the difference is significant enough to cause us problems, but you haven't presented any evidence of this.

Quote:


Quote:


Let me put it this way, this has never happened before, it is unique in history, so there are no hard numbers, at least none that I have seen.

That said, the National & Global economies, at their core, are based on the following major Drivers & Enablers -
1) Population Total & Population Growth, in fact Economics is based primarily on Growth, accross the board.
2) Energy, being cheap, Abundant and Supply being able to match &/or exceed Demand.
3) Innovation, coming thru, to enable continuing improvements in Productivity and therefore Profitability.
4) A financial system, capable of providing the Funding (Debt) required to grow the overall size of the economy (pie).

In all of this there is one common thread and that is GROWTH!

You have previously said, that our most concerning problem is over-population and that is correct.

As I have shown in previous posts, the Population issue has been in transition for some time already, as the Fertility rates started to decline some time ago and around 2030-2040, the total Global Population will actually start to fall. Whilst this is not good in the short to medium term, it is the only sane action, from a longer term perspective.

Put simply, it took all of human history, until 1930, to reach a 2 Billion Global population, IT WILL ONLY TAKE THE NEXT 20-30 YEARS FOR 2 BILLION PEOPLE TO DIE, MOSTLY BABY BOOMERS.

Obviously this event will be unprecedented, as will the impact on the Global economy, which has previously relied on exponential growth!

But, even before Baby boomers start dying, in ever increasing numbers, their economic effect has already, is still and will continue, to ripple thru the Natiuonal & Global economy.
The following article, may provide some idea of what I am referring to -
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Economys-Greatest-Depression-Downturn-Ever-Is-Now-...

From that article -
"The greatest force in the economy can be indisputably demonstrated to be consumer demographics, and within that the 45 to 54 year-olds demographic is just as clearly all-powerful. Things like interest rates, deficits, who is elected, and inflation are followers or consequences of the economy, not the makers of it."

If you take 50 as the median point, you can trace how much influence this Baby Boom generation has had, but the impact of that generation has already started to reduce and the generations that followed have a much lower net growth impact, particularly when Boomers start passing on.  

Good luck & watch the Debt!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 25^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:


For anyone wanting to check, to see how those dates relate to stock markets, the following graph may be of assistance.

Quote:


Do you know what the term majority means?
Quote:


There are hard numbers about the cost of investing in younger vs older generations. From there it is not hard to extrapolate to what happens if the proportion in each generation changes. Otherwise you are basically just scaremongering about something you know nothing about.

Quote:


The economy has never relied on exponential growth. That is a myth promoted by people who fear economic growth without understanding it. In fact there are plenty of occasions in history when a population reduction lead to an improvement in quality of life.

Quote:


Quote:


Let me put it this way, with Oil contributing what it does and the next 2 closest sources also being finite and on the endangered list, for the not too distant future, we have some serious issues to overcome & we need to address them quickly!

Quote:


Quote:


It seems that we may agree to disagree!  However, it does seem odd that you would disagree that 2 billion people dying, in the space of 20-30 years, is anything other than unprecedented?

Quote:


Quote:


As I said earlier, with respect, I must disagree with you regards Exponential Growth.

I agree that growth has been around for a lengthy part of recent history, but it is not automatic and it does depend on the basic factors of the economy, which are Population growth, Energy, Innovation & Debt.

It is in back of everything including Population, Economics, Money Supply, Energy Resources & more. Almost every time an Politician & Economist etc open their mouth, they talk about Growth.  

As I said, lets see what happens over the next 10-20 years, but I doubt we will have to wait that long, to get the idea of where events will be heading.

Quote:


Quote:


Have a look into the Bartlett & Martenson sites/video's, I think you will find the answer to that question and a few others!

freediver,
I is apparent that you didn't look thru either of those sites that I referred you to.

If you had taken the time to go thru Bartlett's video's, particularly episodes 4 & 5, you would have got the answer to your coal question (which is a lot shorter than you think) and you may not be posing some of the queries that you are raising.

As I said previously, it appears that we will agree to disagree, but irrespective what either of us may think now, the next 10-20 years will clarify the facts.

Finally, I will leave you with this thought -

Facts do not cease, because they are ignored!

Until later!

Quote:


Wouldn't it have been easier for you to just say how long you think our coal resources will last? I am not going to watch dodgy internet videos to find out what you think just because you can't bring yourself to say it.

Quote:


I studied some economics at university, here and overseas, inlcuding the role that law and government plays in the economy. My main interest has been the choice between taxation vs trading as a mechanism for reducing GHG emissions.

Perceptions_now, aka nedwin aka PiNhead is a blow hard who just likes the sound of his own voice, none of his predictions come to anything, he has been predicting a slump in house prices for years, that is why he dumped his old ID nedwin, because he has been dis-credited so many times it ain't even funny any more.
The only person who takes any notice of him is pansi the hygienically challenged, minimum wage, trolly-dolly (oh, and gold investor) and she is as daft as a brush.
I think he gets his crackpot theories from some flakey fringe publication or other, but for sure he can safely be ignored.

for once, someone's got it right.
NO MORE 2ND CLASS PPL HERE.
they are degrading Australia.
we're a becoming a dumping ground.
up your's to any Gov't that supports a big Australia.
we'll vote you out.
GOT IT?
j.

Quote:


You should start a new thread if you want to change the topic. I would start a new thread asking you to explain when you think coal will run out, but I doubt that would get me a straight answer either.

Quote:


I am more than happy to, just not as a subject changer in this thread. If you are really interested, go ahead and ask. There are plenty of other threads already where I have discussed it at length.

Quote:


There are known reserves to last at least a century on a business as usual model. we could outlast that without even having to look for more.

This one focusses on the economics of taxation vs trading and more direct government intervention:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168051896

I tend to participate less in the scientific and moral arguments, mainly because I haven't looked into the science much. But there are a heap of them on the environment board.

World Population Day Highlights an Increasing Global Issue

Attention is drawn to the Earth's population growth and its social and economic impacts when World Population Day is marked on July 11 each year

World Population Day was established after public consciousness of the ever-increasing number of global inhabitants was raised when Five Billion Day was marked on July 11, 1987. Since that significant number was reached on or about that date, the global population has continued to grow steadily, and now stands some 6.8 billion people. While the rate of increase in the global population has eased in recent years, the number of people on planet Earth continues its steady rise.

World Population Trends and Dynamics
Every aspect of human, social and economic development is affected by population dynamics. While some countries of the developed world are now experiencing a marked decrease in population growth, and some even show signs of a reduction in numbers due to aging populations, the opposite applies and will continue to do so in the majority of developing nations, most noticeably in their cities.
World Population Day is an initiative of the United Nations Development Programme, and aims to concentrate global attention on the urgency of overpopulation. Promoted by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Population Day is given a topical theme each year to provide a focus for activities within communities around the world. In 2009, the theme was Educate Girls, highlighting the role of women as economic agents in the fight to reducing poverty.

World Population Day 2010
In 2010 the spotlight falls on the importance of accurate data for development. Everyone Counts is about encouraging people to participate in their official census and other methods of collecting data on populations. Such data is the basis for the information critical to developing and implementing sound social policies and programmes that address poverty, and in the words of UNFPA itself, “ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.”

Working with national and local governments, other United Nations agencies, NGOs and the private sector, UNFPA raises awareness of the effects of population growth, mobilises support for programmes and provides access to resources.

Link -
http://worlddevelopment.suite101.com/article.cfm/world-population-day-highlights...
===
Whilst it is correct that the Global population is still growing & will continue to do so, for another 20-30 years, the actual growth rate has been in decline for over 40 years.

Given the trends, it seems likely that the Global Fertility rate & the Total Global population may both turn to negative around the period 2030-2040.

For those followers of Economics, you will understand that these reduced growth rates (fertility & Total population), will place marked stress points on the current Global mode of Economic Capitalism!

Whilst the Global economy can & in fact must deal with prolonged Economic stagnation and actual declines in growth, the transition will be difficult, given that such a large part of the world will be in transition at the same time and that the period involved will be so lengthy.

Population Growth Must Stop

Much has been written about population growth since the first edition of Malthus's famous essay was published in 1798.

The widespread acceptance and political influence of modern neoclassical economics is a central part of our global problem. In one widely used economics textbook, Principles of Economics, Greg Mankiw wrote that “A large population means more workers to produce goods and services. At the same time, it means more people to consume those goods and services.” Speaking for many neoclassical economists, Tim Harford concluded, in The Logic of Life, that "The more of us there are in the world, living our logical lives, the better our chances of seeing out the next million years." The absurdity of Harford's statement must be recognized and challenged.

Economists do not deserve all the blame. As Thomas Berry noted, in The Great Work: Our Way into the Future, "Western civilization, dominated by a cultural arrogance, could not accept the fact that the human, as every species, is bound by limits in relation to the other members of the Earth community."

Nowhere is acceptance of the twin towers of economic growth and increased consumption more apparent than in the United States, where "growing the economy" is still paramount, despite the leftovers of a financial meltdown created by banking and shadow banking systems run amok and a Gulf fouled by gushing oil. As Andrew Bacevich noted, in The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, "For the majority of contemporary Americans, the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness centers on a relentless personal quest to acquire, to consume, to indulge, and to shed whatever constraints might interfere with those endeavors." Yet evidence that modern economics has let most people down is abundant.

More than two decades ago Edward Abbey wrote, in One Life at a Time, Please, that "[W]e can see that the religion of endless growth--like any religion based on blind faith rather than reason--is a kind of mania, a form of lunacy, indeed a disease," adding that "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

Barbara Ehrenreich wrote, in This Land is Their Land: Reports from a Divided Nation, that "The economists' odd fixation on growth as a measure of economic well-being puts them in a parallel universe of their own. . .the mantra of growth has deceived us for far too long." Whether in local areas, the United States, or the world, no problem that I can think of will be more easily solved with additional millions of people.

Continued population growth is unsustainable, as is continued growth in the production of oil and other fossil fuels. As Lester Brown argued, in PLAN B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, "If we cannot stabilize population and if we cannot stabilize climate, there is not an ecosystem on earth we can save." As Alan Weisman wrote, in The World Without Us, “The intelligent solution [to the problem of population growth] would require the courage and the wisdom to put our knowledge to the test. It would henceforth limit every human female on Earth capable of bearing children to one.” Started now, such a policy would reduce Earth’s population down to around 1.6 billion by 2100, about the same as the world population in 1900. Had we kept Earth’s population at that level we would not be having this conversation.

Discussion Questions
1. Are there things we can do to get the population issue more into public discussion?

2. Are there other approaches to limiting population that might be more salable?

3. If Social Security is not sustainable, having fewer children will increase the likelihood that older adults will have no way of taking care of themselves. How does one deal with this issue?

Link -
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6676
========
I recommend this author, she is a senior writer for "The Oil Drum", but her knowledge extends into areas other than Oil!

Retiring Age Movements

France
In an effort to slash their deficit and tackle an unruly pension system, France is boosting its retirement age from 60 to 62. The country's new retirement age will take full effect by 2018.

The new plan, which also includes higher levies on capital gains, stock options and other investment income, has been heavily criticized by national trade unions. However, Labor Minister Eric Woerth forecasts that the changes will result in balanced pension accounts by 2018 and a 100 million euro surplus by 2020.

Even with the age hike, France will still have the lowest retirement age in the developed world.

Britain
This June, the British government announced they too have plans to increase the U.K.'s retirement age and reform pensions. The pension age is currently set to rise from 65 to 66 by 2016 and up to 68 by 2046. However, more recently, the U.K. government revealed that the retirement age could jump as high as 70.

Although U.K. unions and charities are attacking the new plans, British politicians say the increase is necessary due to a neglected pension system and ever-increasing life expectancies. The U.K.'s current life expectancy is 77 years for men and 81 for women.

Germany
In 2007, the German government voted to gradually raise the nation's retirement age from 64 to 67, starting in 2012. The country's incredibly low birth rate and aging population played a major role in this decision. While Germany has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe, the country's 65+ population is estimated to double by 2035.

Greece
Greece is also planning to bump up the country's official retirement age from 61 to 63 by 2015. Like many other flat broke countries, the Greek government is making the change in an effort to balance its budget and save the nation's pension system. Labor Minister Andreas Loverdos claims the pension system will be drained in five years if the country doesn't make the changes.

Greece, which has been devastated by a national debt crisis, has even considered banning early retirements altogether. Like citizens in Germany, France and the U.K., Greeks are furious and many workers are vehemently protesting the controversial plans.

Link -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/07/02/investopedia45235.DT...

WOW!!! Some of those retiring ages are absurd. Who wants to work until they're 67 or 68? There might be a mass exodus out of the cities into the country and back to 'living cheap', that's what I would do, sell up my city property and move to the country, room to grow your own food and less expenses.

Lucky for us we have that opportunity, plenty of wide open spaces and relatively cheap living. Who wants to be in the rat race in their old age?

We have to find alternatives.

muso wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 8:48am:


If you have a look thru the following video's of Dr Albert Bartlett, particularly parts 4 & 5, you will get an idea where I am coming from.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9B70AC68E1D2AA54&search_query=Dr.+Albert...

Also, the following site from Chris Martenson is a very good information source, regarding many economic issues.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

That said, there is deliberate confusion spread about this and other issues. For example, resources longevity is usually referred to by saying "at current usage", but rarely does it accommodate the EXPONENTIAL GROWTH FACTORS demanded by Economists & Politicians.

As soon as those usual growth factors are included, the longevity of our resources shrinks considerably.

In considering the effects of growth, you should take the growth %, divide that into 70 and that will give you the number of years it will take to double.

Doubling time, eg -
10% growth = 7 years  
7%   growth = 10 years
5%   growth = 14 years
2%   growth = 35 years

You may be surprised what a relatively small growth means over time? Particularly, when growth starts heading in opposite directions, as the Total Global Population and Oil Production are now set to do, over the next 20-30 years!

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 12:44pm:


I am a little curious! You have said that overpopulation is the greatest problem facing humanity, but you label Br Albert Barlett as "dodgy?

What parts of professors arithmetic were dodgy?

You may be interested in some background information on professor Bartlett -=========
Albert Allen Bartlett (born 1923 in Shanghai)[1] is an emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA. Professor Bartlett has lectured over 1,600 times since September, 1969 on Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.[2]

Bartlett joined the faculty of the University of Colorado in Boulder in September 1950. His B.A. degree in physics is from Colgate University (1944) and his M.A. (1948) and Ph.D. (1951) degrees in physics are from Harvard University. In 1978 he was national president of the American Association of Physics Teachers. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1969 and 1970 he served two terms as the elected Chair of the four-campus Faculty Council of the University of Colorado.

Bartlett is a modern-day Malthusian.

Professor Bartlett often explains how sustainable growth is a contradiction. His view is based on the fact that a modest percentage growth can equate to huge escalations over short periods of time.

He regards overpopulation as "The Greatest Challenge" facing humanity, and promotes sustainable living. Bartlett opposes the cornucopian school of thought (as advocated by people such as Julian Lincoln Simon), and refers to it as The New Flat Earth Society.

J. B. Calvert (1999) has proposed that Bartlett's Law will result in the exhaustion of petrochemical resources due to the exponential growth of the world population (as per the Malthusian Growth Model).

Bartlett has made two notable statements relating to sustainability:

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

and his Great Challenge:

"Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bartlett
===========
Btw, the fact that Dr Bartlett is well qualified to comment on these issues does not particularly impress me and nor do the qualifications of many other Economists or so called experts.

What impresses me about Bartlet & Martenson, in particularly, is the LOGIC OF THEIR ARGUEMENTS!

So, why do you regard over-population, as humanities greatest challenge?

I think what we NEED to do is increase the age we can 'voluntarily' work to...

Not like the various governments have proposed.....Allow people to still retire at 60 or 65.....but give them the option of working beyond the age of 65....

As an example, my Father retired at the age of 61, which was mandatory in those days....he did all the home  maintenance he'd been putting off for years, then he got bored, and went and found another job...which he held for about 15 years.....

Some people aren't ready to retire at 60 or 65......I think they should be allowed to continue working until much later...

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html#Population%20vs...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html#IPAT

The above links appear to be the same article.

That said, you have just done what you criticized me for, by referring to other articles, sites etc.

I have had a look thru the article and the relevant forum site -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164956379

I would venture that there are many areas, where we agree, but some clearly, where we do not agree!

So Nippon ('Japan' to the Australians, who the Nipponese call 'Arsers')
has a population decline somewhat.
Maybe its due to them being sexually fetished upon those new Designer robots that they invent. The most popular is the 'Little Schoolgirl' version. Far better an experience that the American Blow-Up Doll apparently.
Same senario as a population plagued with Condoms ...a lot of sexual activity (I really laugh at guys in this day and age who think they are the 'beez-neez' of all men, because they bed a different female each night. I'm sure he is popular because he saves the women buying batteries, let alone losing face having to buy her own drinks.) but no Pro-Creation. Its a 'sexual Dis-Ease' in itself.
Its like reving your car in the garage, but you don't have a licence to drive it outside.
Its like owning a fast, suped up car but driving around in a 60km city.

In the work place, a fair amount of guys brag about 'smashing girls' (sex) the previous night, but they are so drained from the constant 'fabricated' rooting and tooting, their eyes dark in the sockets ...that they just can't 'keep it up' in the workplace and eventually fall away.

I enjoy sex, especially pro-creative sex. No Denial.

In the end, these women who desire the company of men for only shallow sexual pleasures, end up finally relying upon 'IVF' where the child has an 80% 'problem' rate. Not only this, the children seem to walk into walls, as if swimming in a fishbowl (year after year), before finding a sense of direction and committment in life.

Australia has always had a negative population growth and a very slow rate upon the Domestic front. Having to rely heavily upon Immigration to get past the 20 million mark.
A lot of Westerner or Television Australians are worried now that this Country can't support a population over 35 million.
Well I think those people can't cope because 'they' will loose all sense of cultural empowerment here.
I think Australia can support 300 million people, but it wont be the Westerners who provide the know-how to do so.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:


You may be interested in the graph at the following site, which shows that OZ has been under the Effective replacement fertility level (2.1) since the early 1970's, but was previously over 3.5 children per woman, during the great Baby Boom (early 1960's).

Our experience may not be that dissimilar to many other countries.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:AUS&d...

Btw, the chances of OZ having a population of 300 million, are about the same as the Global Population reaching 100 Billion and that chance is ZERO!

Quote:


What do you mean by that?

Quote:


Sure, so long as you are happy to live of nothing but green goo grown in a vat of your own excrement.

Quote:


For starters, it is communicated via video. That is not exactly a sensible way to communicate arithmentic, is it? What is it with you and videos? Don't you realise how useless they are for this sort of thing, unless your purpose is to avoid scrutiny?

I have nothing against using the internet. I think it's great too. But if you want to communicate any detailed technical information, you do it in writing. If you want to fluff your way through it, you do it orally, or in video. Get it now?

No-one is going to take you seriously if you can't explain your own views in your own words and you think a video is a good reference to back up your argument.

Low population growth a big worry

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia is worried about its declining population growth rate and whether there will be enough young adults after it becomes a developed country.

Statistics show that the population growth rate has dropped to 2.2% in 2008 from 2.6% in 2000. The declining trend has been in evidence since the country’s first census in 1970.

“If we do not take appropriate steps, we will have an aging population in the next 20 to 30 years,” said National Population and Family Development Board director-general Datuk Aminah Abdul Rahman.

She was speaking to reporters at a seminar on Population, Environment and Climate Change, which was opened by Women, Family and Community Development Deputy Minister Heng Seai Kie here yesterday.

Several factors had caused the fertility rate to decline, she said, adding that more people were getting married at an older age and preferring to have fewer children.

“Malaysian families are also worried about the future, cost of living and their inability to balance their work and family responsibility.”

Aminah said that an aging population also meant that the young were increasingly made to support the elderly.
link -
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7/13/nation/6653397&sec=nation
========
A couple of observations -
1) It is apparent, from this and other articles & statements (particularly by Politicians & Economists), that LOW POPULATION GROWTH IS A GREAT CONCERN, at least in some circles, such as Politicians & Economists.
2) It is also apparent that Low Population & Economic GROWTH, are also of great concern, in those same circles.
3) It is also apparent that an AGING Population, is also of great concern, in those same circles.

I can only agree that there are legimate concerns involved in each of the above and that there will be a great deal of pain involved, in the transition periods.

However, these are SHORT TERM problems and with goodwill, from all, they are not insurmountable.

That said, if left by Politicians, Economists, Big Business & the Public, for the Future to somehow magically resolve, they will only fester into larger, species threatening problems, involving -
1) Over-Population!
2) Essential Resources Depletion/Exhaustion!
3) Catastrophic Climate Change, brought on by all that over-Population implies!

There are choices to be made, between a better now or a future for our children.

DO NOT RELY ON POLITICIANS, their timeline focus only goes to the next election!

If the RIGHT (CORRECT) things are to be done, YOU & I, will have to say what we want, clearly & unmistakeably.

If you want to be taken seriously, then vote out every incumbent Politician, at the next election & again at the following, until they get the message and take the RIGHT (CORRECT) ACTIONS!

Quote:


Quote:


Well, you could be correct?

If so, God help us, because the chaos theory, will not!

Problem is, we may then need to rely on an unproven theory of religion?

I prefer to think that we all have a brain and that it can think logically.

Hopefully there will be sufficient people who are convinced by the logic of the opinion of one, to change the future?

In any event, I am now retired, having spent far too long work in the financial sector and I have the time to invest in this venture.

Only time will tell, whether the investment will pay a reasonable dividend or as you put it, I simply wasted another valuable resource?

I must have missed that article. It sounds like it answers the questions about your economic theories. Would you mind linking to it again?

freediver wrote on Jul 14^th, 2010 at 7:54pm:



This is why most people are wrong - being right and being able to convince others are not connected in any way. But a lot of people operate along such fallacies.

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 17^th, 2010 at 9:43pm:


The Japanese also live longer than westerners because of the diet and the communal living they entail. They eat from rough memory around 147 different types of foods along with brown rice as opposed to white rice. White rice being the bad one and brown rice being the better one.

It is like the difference between eating white bread all your life and brown/husk seed/wholemeal bread.

Some also attribute the climate being very high above sea level for longevity of the Japanese. Lesser use of oxygen.

In regards to the Australian population debate. We need to find better ways of building houses. Growing our own food and buying less of the junk from supermarkets.

Mind you not all of the food from Coles Group LTD and Safeway is junk just a set principle of it is not fantastic nutritionalist food. You are free to support which ever food [corporation] you want.

Japan have already one of the world's fastest transport systems in the world's most earth quake prone region but they manage

http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=852&catid=23&subcatid=153

We could also learn from the Japanese example by making a bullet train of our own since we are not a earthquake prone region and I'd definately want one for example getting from Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne or Adelaide. The bullet train can go very fast and is a highly efficient form of transport versus our old electrical clunker system. Which is nothing to be ashamed of.

For anyone who hasn't seen it before!

Go to the below site & download -
Years to Add Each Billion to World Population  Download

We have come a long way, in a short span of time?

http://www.prb.org/Publications/GraphicsBank/PopulationTrends.aspx

Discussion Questions
1. Are there things we can do to get the population issue more into public discussion?

2. Are there other approaches to limiting population that might be more salable?

3. If Social Security is not sustainable, having fewer children will increase the likelihood that older adults will have no way of taking care of themselves. How does one deal with this issue?
1. Rather than spending much time to post here, which is read by very few people, it would maybe have more effect to contact our leaders, after all they still make some far-reaching decisions in this regard.
2.if anybody thinks that the population can go on growing forever, he/she is fooling herself, and even if they are the people who profit from it.
3.Social security in Australia is skewed towards the top 30% of income and wealth population.
Take someone who owns 40000 TLS shares, has a Self Managed Super Fund and is over sixty year of age, he/she will get some $120,000 in dividends annually, and as he/she does not have to pay tax, the government will send them another cheque for $30,000, for the dividend imputation, and as he/she does not have to put the income on the tax return, they can have additional assets of some 15-20 thousand in the bank and still not pay any tax.
Compare this to a person who paid into a defined benefit super here in Australia or overseas in a country where they had compulsory super, but no means-testing, for the last 60 or more years, when his/her income exceeds $6500, they will lose $0.50 of Centrelink pension, which is paid out of taxes which they paid while they were in the workforce, and should a couples combined income exceed $40,000 per annum, they will pay $0.315 in tax including medicare levy.

Population policy a national pyramid scheme

THE "populate or our future fortunes will perish" cry is the ultimate national pyramid scheme.

NEVER mind environmental sustainability, there's an even more fundamental disconnect in the debate, such as it is, over Australia's population. It is that between a "big Australia" and the source of our contemporary and future prosperity.

Our future growth is entirely dependent on China's -- hopefully continued -- voracious appetite for our resources.

On the one hand, population growth of unprecedented size in raw terms; on the other, an economy that will be increasingly dependent on growth in low-jobs resources.

The alternative is much more worrying. What if we run a 250,000-plus annual immigration intake and the China boom ends?

The experience of the previous high-immigration phase in the 1950s and 1960s is both instructive and concerning. Then the initial jobs for those migrants were in heavily protected manufacturing;

the broader jobs came in servicing those industries and supplying the goods and services and housing for our soaring population.

It's not difficult to understand business and especially big business support for a big and, equally important, continually rising population. It delivers customers. And customers that are much easier to tap than those pesky ones living overseas.

Nothing could have better captured the complete disconnect between utterly empty feel-good rhetoric and the reality of the challenges of our future, centred on population and China, than Julia Gillard's so-called climate change policy.

At core the new "populate or our future fortunes will perish" cry is the ultimate national pyramid scheme. We need to get to 36 -- or 50? -- million, to have the taxpaying workforce to support the now ageing baby-boomers. Beware of a Japanese-style population implosion!

Oh yeah? And when all those younger new arrivals start to age, we will presumably then need to move to 72 -- or 100 -- million, to have a sufficiently large taxpaying workforce to support them. Just as every boom busts, even our China one will; the laws of arithmetic always topple even the most elegant pyramid scheme.
Link -
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/population-policy-a-national-py...
============
We know that soaring Population Growth will engender Economic Growth, as we have seen over the period 1945-2005 and particularly the period 1995-2005, which were the Peak Baby Boomer Earning & Spending years.  

But we also know, if we revert to pure arithmetic, that endless or exponential growth is just not possible and the catch-cry now should be "POPULATE & PERISH", as we find essential Resources, such as Oil & Coal start their inevitable production decline!

And so, we face the dilemma, Economic pain now or much worse later (possibly species threatening), if we try to put our pain off to future generations?