
For the first time there's more people worldwide aged 65+ than aged 5 & younger - erikig
https://reason.com/2019/05/01/this-one-chart-about-global-aging-changes-everything/
======
CapitalistCartr
I'm 56. Today, we got legal custody of our 13 month old son, whom we are
adopting. Three grown children; five grandchildren age 1-6. Their future
matters more to me than my own. I'm deeply concerned for the second half of
this century; I want my loved family to have a better life than I've had.

~~~
samhain
I'm in my early 20's.

I'll not be having children because I believe that we will be facing mass
extinction events in ~2030's, so I think it's immoral to bring another person
into that.

~~~
bmiller2
If that’s your belief, why bother doing anything productive at all like
earning a paycheck or learning a skill. What if you’re wrong? What does that
cost you?

~~~
Doxin
> why bother doing anything productive at all

Just because there's something awful in the future doesn't mean you should
throw away the present.

> What if you’re wrong? What does that cost you?

If he's wrong it costs him having raised a child. If on the other hand he's
right but assumes he's wrong then it'll cost him having raised a child into a
terrible world. It's a tough choice to make.

------
EthanHeilman
Population shrinking is a good thing long term.

~~~
merpnderp
If extraordinary ability is a function of a percentile of the population, then
a smaller population will have fewer geniuses and prodigies in art,
literature, science, and politics. A smaller population leaves us poorer and
less capable. There's no reason our current (or a larger) population isn't
sustainable by changing how we generate energy or dispose of waste.

~~~
aylmao
> If extraordinary ability is a function of a percentile of the population,
> then a smaller population will have fewer geniuses and prodigies in art,
> literature, science, and politics

I doubt it is, but if so, and education just "exposes" natural talent, I
wouldn't be worried. We already have a lot of natural talent in the developed
world that's untapped. India alone should have 4x more geniuses than the USA.

> A smaller population leaves us poorer and less capable.

I'd like to discuss this with HN. Less capable to do what? We won. Nature
won't kill us any more, we have no predators, we know how to produce more food
than we need [1], transportation is so easy we get access to things from all
over the world and communication so seamless we can stay in touch with anyone.

What do we need more people for?

Our largest existential enemy right now is unsustainability.

> There's no reason our current (or a larger) population isn't sustainable by
> changing how we generate energy or dispose of waste.

I don't think anyone really knows this to be true, and in fact I suspect it
might apply to small communities, but not to the world at large.

Even if we could continue growing for now, eventually we'll reach a limit. But
in any case, why do we want to keep growing?

[1]: [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-
hunger_n_1463429](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_n_1463429)

~~~
lurquer
>Our largest existential enemy right now is unsustainability.

When has 'unsustainabilty' ever caused the destruction of a large portion of a
human population? Seriously. Can you think of any?

The two existential threats -- the two things that can, have, and will -- wipe
out millions are War and Disease.

Everything else -- asteroids, climate change, sustainability -- are
speculative. But, evidence-based analysis clearly points to War and Disease.

~~~
Para2016
The destruction of the Western Roman Empire due to enormous migrations comes
to mind. Those migrations were due to 'unsustainability'.

~~~
Gibbon1
The Late Bronze age Collapse and the Classic Maya Collapse as well.

------
pedalpete
Does this statistic actually have meaning? Wasn't this always expected to
happen following the prolific height of baby boomers, and their offspring who
had a higher infant mortality rate than previously?

I know I'm mostly focused on developed world, but baby boomers are now 65+,
their children have exited the child-bearing/rearing age and many had only 1
or 2 offspring. Those children are yet to begin having children of their own
and as people are having children later in life, there is a somewhat expected
lull.

I have a sneaking suspicion as AI becomes prominent and if we are able to
convert those capabilities to giving us more free time and a higher quality of
life, this trend will reverse dangerously quickly.

------
Doyen
It's interesting to consider the long-term repercussions of this one little
fact. Soon countries will be in open competition for immigrants.

------
b_tterc_p
This is going to suck, especially for democracies. Large voting blocks of old
people with little savings and non vested interest in the long term outcome of
the world. Yikes.

~~~
JohnFen
Speaking as one who is not quite old, but can see that status coming in the
near future, I don't agree that old people are not invested in the long term
outcome of the world.

Old people tend to have children, grandchildren, and beyond, and tend to be
very concerned with what sort of world they'll be living in. That's a very
strong investment.

~~~
bumby
It's not that people don't care, it's that we're pre-wired to be biased
towards the short-term.

The relatively abstract problems of the future tend to take a backseat to the
more concrete problems of the here-and-now, disproportionately so in regards
to risk

~~~
JohnFen
> it's that we're pre-wired to be biased towards the short-term.

But that is itself a function of age. We are pre-wired to be in favor of the
continuation of the species. Below a certain age, that means a short-term
focus. Above a certain age, that means ensuring that the kids are OK.

~~~
bumby
I don't believe that this is a function of age. There's quite a bit of
behavioral economics research to support this that was done on undergraduates,
for example.

~~~
JohnFen
> that was done on undergraduates

There aren't a lot of old undergrads (and undergrads themselves are not
terribly representative of the entire population within the same age group --
this has been a known problem with tons of university research for a long,
long time).

This implies that the research you're referring to wouldn't necessarily speak
to what drives older generations.

~~~
bumby
Ah, sorry, I think I missed your point (or reversed it). To my knowledge, I'm
not aware of any research that can support that bias is function of age. Was
the claim that it's a function of age based on research or your personal
opinion?

~~~
JohnFen
> Was the claim that it's a function of age based on research or your personal
> opinion?

A bit of both. There is research that suggests, but does not prove, as far as
I am aware, that this is a function of age (or, more accurately, a function of
having children). And my personal observations are in accord with that.

The underlying hypothesis is that when you're young, the priority in terms of
species preservation is personal preservation: you have to stay alive and
healthy enough to reproduce. That encourages short-term thinking.

After you've had children, though, the priority in terms of species
preservation becomes the preservation of the children: they need to stay alive
and healthy enough to reproduce, not you. You've already done your
reproduction bit.

~~~
bumby
What's interesting is that humans are unique in their early-onset menopause.
One theory is that it's to help foster investment in later generations (i.e.
help raise the grandchildren rather than continuing having your own). I think
the trade-off to protect your offspring rather than yourself is different than
the present-bias argument I was making, though.

I'm still not aware of research that speaks specifically to the present-bias
though in terms of it changing as one ages. If you have research related to
it, it would be something I would be interested in reading.

~~~
JohnFen
> What's interesting is that humans are unique in their early-onset menopause.

It is! IIRC, the thinking is that the usual reproductive strategy is to have
as many babies as possible, so that enough will survive by chance to
reproductive age. Humans veered away from that as a result of the need to give
birth far earlier in the development process than other animals (because of
our huge skulls).

This increased the cost (in terms of time and energy from the parents) of
children significantly, making it impossible to have huge numbers of
offspring. Thus a different species survival strategy was needed, involving
increasing the chances that any single child will survive. This, the thinking
goes, led to social structures such as the continued involvement of
grandparents, etc.

If you look at other animals that have "expensive" children (such as, for
example, elephants), you see similar effects.

The whole subject is really fascinating.

> If you have research related to it, it would be something I would be
> interested in reading.

Me too, actually. I came across this stuff a long while ago while working with
a researcher in a closely related field, and haven't kept up with it much
since. I may have a list of the related research papers in my archives
somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up.

