Italy needs babies.

[Robovski]

Very depressing when this is regarded as a problem instead of a blessing.

Part of the problem being that welfare state programs require a somewhat growing population to remain solvent. A population decline is a looming crisis.

Well, that is not strictly true. You could have a shrinking population if the population you did have was more productive and kept your economic base growing and if you could either expand your home market or export that extra productivity. A country could conceivably automate and invest out of the manpower problem presented by a shrinking population base, but that looks like a tricky place to get to from here.

[Antiboyscout]

Okay, are "traditional gender roles" not a form of social engineering?

No, they are biologically derived.

Yikes.

yikes is not an argument. Are you a biological denialist or something? some sort of modern Lysenkoist?

[Darth Wedgius]

So if Italy's safety nets work like the U.S.'s, they depend on a young, healthy population to support a smaller, older, sicker population. That's the only real downside I see except in the very long term of possibly not having Italians any more, but I don't want to extend a decade's trend across centuries. And the downside is balanced by lessening the pressure on the environment; not to say one equals the other, just that there's a gain as well as a loss.

And by the time that's a real problem, we'll have developed Mario into a fully-realized AI. They'll have the go-to army for fighting gorilla warfare.

[Riedquat]

You might want to reread Riedquat's post again.

Of course because he was talking about white people.

Yep he basically said its a blessing because more whiteys are dying.

Did I mention race? No. Don't be a bloody idiot trying to drag race into it. My position is simply that most places would be better off with fewer people, and the world in general certainly would. A falling birthrate nicely achieves that, no morally and ethically unacceptable means involved. It's only a problem if the rate is too rapid to adjust to. If Italy is facing a reducing population then I'm envious. Less resources needed for Italy, less pressure on housing, public services, infrastructure. More to go round, overall improved quality of life.

You're screwed up if you interpreted that as having anything to do with race.

Are you directing this at me?

Yes, although looking at it perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick from your post - I thought you were interpreting mine as saying "it's a blessing because more whiteys are dying."

[Riedquat]

Firstly, I was trying to be smart-my mistake. Malthus is dead, I was saying you can go join him in a ditch somewhere for all I care.

Oh, so you were just trying to be downright obnoxious instead. What a nasty little creature you are.

Secondly, Malthus like you advocated for a smaller number of people. Even in his time he thought there were too many people. The problem with you "argument" is that we as a species have never had it better or easier, NEVER. And yet the birth rate has fallen bellow the replacement rate. The better and easier life gets, the lower the birth rate gets to the paint it falls under the replacement rate. In mathematics terms, the human population of Italy is tending towards zero... as is the population of most of the developed world and East Asia.

You think that passes for logic? Are you seriously saying that because a continual decrease would eventually lead to zero a decrease now is bad? That you have to pick one and keep going forever? Just to illustrate how ridiculous your reasoning is, if you were to apply it all three possible cases (decrease, steady, increase) then the only options are head to zero, don't change at all, not even a tiny bit, or head to infinity.

People are concerned Panda's aren't mating and they're heading towards extinction, well, guess what? any population with a sub-replacement birth rate is heading there, not just fucking pandas.

So your position really is "set a trend and never change it no matter what happens in the future, and that's what's bad in one particular situation must be bad in all." Oh dear.

[TGLS]

Okay, are "traditional gender roles" not a form of social engineering?

No, they are biologically derived.

Yikes.

yikes is not an argument. Are you a biological denialist or something? some sort of modern Lysenkoist?

In my experience, there are basically two groups of people. Those who think that biological sex has a relatively small effect on behaviour, and those who think that biological sex has a large effect on behaviour. Between you and Rocketman, you'll just be talking in circles and get nowhere.

So if Italy's safety nets work like the U.S.'s, they depend on a young, healthy population to support a smaller, older, sicker population.

Obviously, Social Security isn't the same as the whole US Social Safety net (such as it is), but given enough political will Social Security could be made solvent into the next century, as opposed to 2034. https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

[Riedquat]

Well, that is not strictly true. You could have a shrinking population if the population you did have was more productive and kept your economic base growing and if you could either expand your home market or export that extra productivity. A country could conceivably automate and invest out of the manpower problem presented by a shrinking population base, but that looks like a tricky place to get to from here.

The way I look at it is if you require a constantly growing population then your system is unsustainable and broken anyway, so you've got to deal with that (the further you kick the can down the road the bigger the eventual problem). Conversely if you can manage fine with things remaining steady then the hit of a gradual decline over that is manageable without any real hardship. Too rapid a decline will hurt though.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well, that is not strictly true. You could have a shrinking population if the population you did have was more productive and kept your economic base growing and if you could either expand your home market or export that extra productivity. A country could conceivably automate and invest out of the manpower problem presented by a shrinking population base, but that looks like a tricky place to get to from here.

The way I look at it is if you require a constantly growing population then your system is unsustainable and broken anyway, so you've got to deal with that (the further you kick the can down the road the bigger the eventual problem). Conversely if you can manage fine with things remaining steady then the hit of a gradual decline over that is manageable without any real hardship. Too rapid a decline will hurt though.

It's not supposed to be completely precise, but a 2% birthrate is what I learned in Population Economics. Mostly for sustainable population w/ reasonable population growth, 2+ children for 2 parents, or any combination between.

[Riedquat]

Well, that is not strictly true. You could have a shrinking population if the population you did have was more productive and kept your economic base growing and if you could either expand your home market or export that extra productivity. A country could conceivably automate and invest out of the manpower problem presented by a shrinking population base, but that looks like a tricky place to get to from here.

The way I look at it is if you require a constantly growing population then your system is unsustainable and broken anyway, so you've got to deal with that (the further you kick the can down the road the bigger the eventual problem). Conversely if you can manage fine with things remaining steady then the hit of a gradual decline over that is manageable without any real hardship. Too rapid a decline will hurt though.

It's not supposed to be completely precise, but a 2% birthrate is what I learned in Population Economics. Mostly for sustainable population w/ reasonable population growth, 2+ children for 2 parents, or any combination between.

That's still carrying you upwards, albeit slowly, so no relief of pressure, having to constantly find new ways of squeezing things, and ultimately unsustainable - it'll need to stop some day, or we'll have to get off the Earth and keep expanding, eventually. An economic system that relies on everlasting population growth is not sustainable.

(FWIW the replacement rate is actually slightly greater than 2 children for 2 parents, I think it's because the ratio of male to female births isn't exactly 50:50 but I'm not certain).

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That's why I felt compelled to say 2+. Though that is vague, so is population study in general.

And I think that's just the birth rate though. So it's supposed to balance the mortality rate in the end.

It's good you included some terms. We never got a physical textbook and a lot of the work in the class was more exhibitory rather than scriptured (and my notetaking is often the equivalent of a unreliable narrator).