Western GDP depends on body count growth, but GDP per capita does not.
Japan will lead the way in figuring out how fewer people can hopefully avoid deflationary debt-spirals.
I think notion that growth is dependent on body count is very dangerous, and totally unsustainable, among other things.
We need to look at growth, migration, and fertility as separate issues, each with a different set of consequences.
Upping the fertility rate a little bit, normalization migration (by 'normal' I mean the kinds of migration that exist between equal countries, not mass migration), reconfiguring our dysfunctional social security systems (at least they are dysfunctional in terms of how they are paid for by future generations), changing what retirement means, addressing massive costs of later life healthcare, and changing some of our economic targets.
This problem is as big as climate change in the sense that it affects everything and will require a re-think of some issues we haven't had to think about before.
Japan has to face the issues head-on before the rest of us, thank god they are smart because I think we'll inevitably end up following their example on a bunch of these things. At least they'll be providing us the data points.
The current globalist population redistribution policy, promoted by the UN, literally referred to as 'replacement migration' is going to be a staggeringly impossible thing to implement. [1]
As for India: hopefully there's light at the end of the tunnel.
As for Pakistan and Nigeria: it will get much worse before it gets better, they have serious problems.
> The current globalist population redistribution policy, promoted by the UN, literally referred to as 'replacement migration' is going to be a staggeringly impossible thing to implement. [1]
I thought this statement was a little outrageous so I clicked the link and read a few segments of the report.
I didn't see any section promoting specific global migration policy.
The report appears to just be a "what-if" paper modeling different levels of migration to countries projected to shrink, and how it would impact population size, age distribution, retirement age and working age/dependent ratios through 2050. Levels modeled included no migration, an extrapolation of 90's migration trends, and levels needed to maintain varying working age population ratios.
The 'replacement migration' concept is definitely under perpetual discussion in the UN, as evidenced by the link.
It's a popular concept among some groups, and has some very controversial 'anti colonialist' elements.
This strategy did not make it's way into the most recent UN compact on migration (I believe because it would be untenable under current populist conditions) but it's definitely a perennial subject among those types of officials.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of conspiratorial elements out there concerning this, but there is a basis in reality for this agenda.
When it comes to global population growth there is no "they". At this point we are using resources too quickly. In a global economy/ecosystem it doesn't matter that population in Japan has leveled out, global population is still going up far too quickly.
I don't agree. 'Where' the population growth happens is as important as anything, because some nations are much more equipped to handle the growth than otherwise.
Also, some nations citizens produce/consume much more than others, for example.
China could handle some more people. Pakistan and Nigeria cannot.
I agree that nations each handle growth differently. I don't agree that any nation is equipped to handle growth, at least from a long term ecological perspective.
There is already more consumption than our current technology can sustain.
No, they are not. It is not that economy requires growing population, it is the Ponzi scheme of taxing population and diverging govt funds to buying votes. And paying back past debts.
This is a man made conundrum not a law of physics.
