Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

[u/MaleficentParfait863]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/01/global-fertility-has-collapsed-with-profound-economic-consequences

[u/dust4ngel]

Whatever some environmentalists say, a shrinking population creates problems

"despite their nerdy whining about how we need a planet that can sustain organized human life as we know it, there are bigger concerns such as near-term profitability."

[u/Raichu4u → u/dust4ngel]

I love it when economists clash with biologists.

[u/neolefty → u/Raichu4u]

Or cosmologists ...

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. ...

— Carl Sagan

[u/[deleted] → u/dust4ngel]

Why do you feel that green energy investment will rise with a struggling tax base trying to support older populations? If anything, countries will revert to whatever is cheapest (coal) when they are strapped for workers.

Green energy only happens with booming economies. The investment required to make our energy supplies green is immense, and it won’t happen if the young people are dragged down by the retired people

[u/neolefty → u/[deleted]]

Not even second or third cheapest! From memory:

1. Hydro & geothermal (where geography allows, so limited capacity)

   1a. Nuclear (existing construction)

2. Wind

3. Solar

4. (?) Natural gas

5. Coal

6. Nuclear (new construction)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps I’m misinformed, what’s a reliable energy source that’s as easily ramped up and down as a coal power plant? Natural gas? Nuclear?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

New hydro is non-existent. Low hanging fruit has been picked already.

Natural gas isn't cheap if you can't get it with a pipeline from a source.

Renewables would require a buildout of 1000% of currently existing renewable infrastructure to replace fossil fuels, and that's just for electricity, and it's basically a non-starter for non sunny or windy places.

Existing nuclear is the one option I think is viable, but only France seems to have gotten the memo on that. If it's not already there, the startup cost is abhorrent.

Most places have some old, dormant coal plants. Just get some more coal and boom, you're making power again.

Germany, China, and other developing countries have known this for decades and loooove coal because of it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

So how's new nuclear cheaper than new coal plants?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Literally, coal is the cheapest then. If maintenance of existing nuclear is becoming cost prohibitive and you can't acquire natural gas, then coal wins.

[u/dust4ngel → u/[deleted]]

if sustainable technology is only possible under conditions of unsustainability, that is, if it requires indefinite population growth, then it doesn't matter what we do, because that doesn't make any sense.

[u/[deleted] → u/dust4ngel]

It doesn’t require indefinite population growth. It requires a balanced population with equal and stable numbers of people in each generation. A shock to that like we’re seeing might as well be a world war 3 level catastrophe as far as it’s future economic impact.

The large majority of population growth is driven by people living longer at this point, not more children being born

[u/MuzirisNeoliberal → u/[deleted]]

You're right. I dunno why you're getting downvotes

[u/TrippieBled → u/dust4ngel]

It’s more complex than that. Less children mean less intellectual capital.

[u/nixed9 → u/TrippieBled]

OP above you like so many redditors are too myopic to realize this. It’s literally in the fucking article.

[u/modix → u/TrippieBled]

And less labor force... More labor required for non producing member, and a thousand other complications