5 Comments

But what is wrong with economies shrinking if per capita GDP remains constant or even grows (which I suspect will happen in the case of the East Asian economies like Korea and Japan). Yes there may be challenges with an ageing population but in my admittedly anecdotal experience, most people see complete retirement (i.e., relying entirely on income from pension/retirement product) as a historical relic. To me it seems like an early death warrant in any case (excuse the crudeness, just my honest thoughts).

In my experience the fertility "crisis" is far more worried about than the overpopulation one. But neither seem to me to be a crisis.

Assumptions about fertility rates remaining constant at below replacement rate seem as naive as assuming growth rates will continue forever. Birth rates have fallen across the globe regardless of any policy around reducing birth rates.

I think it's safe to assume when people reduce, there's more space, opportunity, housing, land, etc, then behaviour will change again and birth rates will grow again organically. Maybe there is just a natural population equilibrium.

But I'm still open to any arguments about the why reduced fertility is indeed a crisis situation. Just not convinced yet.

Expand full comment

It's interesting to consider whether more space, housing, etc., could indeed lift fertility rates again. This suggests that urban living is causal in lowering fertility and that, with shrinking populations, people might return to living in more rural areas.

But I don't see the importance of cities declining. With better technology, if anything, rural areas are likely to become even more sparsely populated, replaced by forests, nature reserves, etc. Consider, for example, the abandoned villages of Italy or Portugal. I suspect we'll see greater spatial concentration than ever before.

That said, you still pose an important question: Is this really a crisis? It might well not be. Perhaps fertility rates will recover. Perhaps we can find ways to substitute all human labour with AI at an affordable rate. Perhaps we can tax these robots so that we don't require the young to pay for the social services of the old.

But I suspect none of these things will be easy. And the fact that many countries that suffer from very low fertility rates are very worried about it suggests that this is something that requires attention.

Expand full comment

Thank for the response Johan.

Again speculative thinking but I would think better technology, especially related to energy, agricultural production, data connectivity and transportation coupled with shrinking populations would see the way cities are designed change (maybe not exactly counter-urbanisation but possibly).

I mean urbanisation is driven by people searching for better economic opportunities and easy/reliable access to food not an inherit interest in being packed up together densely. If opportunities and food can be accessed from anywhere, I would suspect that maybe even those abandoned villages will one day be re-inhabited and smaller decentralised communities will be more popular. More conducive environments for producing children.

On the point of governments taking it seriously. It may indicate a justified response to serious potential concerns. Or it could just be political incentives driving government agents to be seen to be acting against an issue that concerns the public interest (just like the overpopulation issue you have highlighted in the article).

Expand full comment

I’m of similar opinion. I believe it is mostly economists & whoever they advise that thinks its a crises. Economists are concerned because all their models are build on labour as the foundation of the economy. Japan’s GDP per capita has continued to grow the past 3 decades despite stagnant economy & decreasing population. Japan, Taiwan, & South Korea are advanced in substituting workers with machines (automation) to partly compensate for the decrease in labour in the broader economy. The social-political issue is how to distribute the gains from this in society as the distribution via the market economy is no longer as effective as it were previously. Through taxes & government distribution? Giving workers a bigger share in the companies? Or another method?

Expand full comment

People tend to care more about relative wealth than absolute wealth. For example, in 2000, the average Japanese person earned about 70% of what the average American earned. Today, that figure has dropped to 61% and continues to decline. While Japan has sustained a high standard of living and is likely to maintain it for years to come, achieving exponential growth seems unlikely when it depends more on a shrinking benchmark (the denominator) than on significant gains in income or productivity (the numerator).

Expand full comment