Overpopulation

[quarky]

Unnecessary

Developed world already has all that -- and guess what? Population of all developed countries is shrinking. In agrarian economy children are a labor boon, in modern industrial economy they are a financial drain. Hence people have fewer children. It is a universal trend -- when prosperity rises, birth rates drop, ALWAYS. Population problem solves itself.

yes, that is true.

But it does not address the issue of a steadily aging population.
Even if there is only 100 people on the planet, they would need to deal with the same issue I'm trying to bring to light, assuming they had already conquered disease; war; poverty; etc.

to keep it at 100, someone has to go before someone comes on.
farmers know this, but they aren't encumbered by emotional stuff, regarding cattle.

This is a brand new problem, as per the globe. We done run out of frontier, and we don't get along all that great , either. resources are dwindling; we're out on a major limb, even having this many people.

The beaches are crowded enough. The rest of the 'wildlife' is crapping out, on account of our weird need to populate the crap out of every possible niche. If I was spiritual, that would be troublesome.

Its easier to picture the globe as a small island, as per biological realities.

 

[CapelDodger]

That article spends far to little time on the fact that “tragedy of the commons” is really “tragedy of the unmanaged commons”. This is one of the most common deceptions perpetrated when citing the tragedy of the commons. It’s only when the common isn’t managed that problems occur.

I agree; the distinction is important. Where "commons" means "free-for-all" it will get trashed sooner or later. "Commons" that communities depend on for the long-term will be managed sustainably by the community.

 

[CapelDodger]

But it does not address the issue of a steadily aging population.

What's not to like about that? For one thing, old people don't breed.

Even if there is only 100 people on the planet, they would need to deal with the same issue I'm trying to bring to light, assuming they had already conquered disease; war; poverty; etc.

to keep it at 100, someone has to go before someone comes on.

If a global limit were to be set (and I'm finding it hard to conjure a reason for it) the sensible policy would be to have a limit and manage the population at a little below. By tracking population and demographics the limit could be avoided by issuing fewer baby-licences. Adjust the points-system or whatever.

This is a brand new problem, as per the globe. We done run out of frontier, and we don't get along all that great , either. resources are dwindling; we're out on a major limb, even having this many people.

Lots of those people will die in the medium-term, and lots of projected people won't get born at all.

The beaches are crowded enough. The rest of the 'wildlife' is crapping out, on account of our weird need to populate the crap out of every possible niche. If I was spiritual, that would be troublesome.

If I hadn't built my thick shell of cynicism it would trouble me too, and deep down it still does.

Its easier to picture the globe as a small island, as per biological realities.

I like living on a small island, which makes it easier to feel detached .

 

[quarky]

If the ratio between old people and young, breeding age people gets skewed any further toward the old, as is happening in the most advanced countries, society will collapse.
The solution often cited for this, is to bring in young immigrants.

Such thinking postpones the issue, but not if we ever have a population cap.
As the population decreases, assuming no wars; disease; etc, then it becomes stacked toward the side of old people.

 

[Francesca R]

That article spends far to little time on the fact that “tragedy of the commons” is really “tragedy of the unmanaged commons”. This is one of the most common deceptions perpetrated when citing the tragedy of the commons. It’s only when the common isn’t managed that problems occur.

But that's the inherent problem with commons (public goods). If they are endowments they will tend not to be managed in the common interest in the absence of coercion or selective incentives. And if they are manufactures then they will be under-supplied in the absence of either of those.

Why it's a "tragedy" (in an Aristotlean sense) is that it can be watched in real time, with the knowledge of what the direction of outcome will be, without necessarily the ability to change that direction.

 

[Francesca R]

"Commons" that communities depend on for the long-term will be managed sustainably by the community.

By whom? Logic and evidence suggests otherwise (in the absence of central authority)

 

[Francesca R]

If the ratio between old people and young, breeding age people gets skewed any further toward the old, as is happening in the most advanced countries, society will collapse.

That isn't dramatic

Society will experience a drop in real income and declining savings and lower return on capital all else equal, although productivity growth can come to the rescue. Also certain scarce assets (like land) would get less scarce.

The solution often cited for this, is to bring in young immigrants.
Such thinking postpones the issue, but not if we ever have a population cap.

Of course, postponing the "day or reckoning" can sometimes be a great idea, in the event that it gets cancelled, or pushed out a millennium or two as a result of technology and knowledge advancement.

As the population decreases, assuming no wars; disease; etc, then it becomes stacked toward the side of old people.

An additional mitigating factor may be the increased ability and willingness of older people to be productive.

 

[Francesca R]

All the community members would still police each; the greedier the individual the more suspicious they'll be of others.

I don't think I understand you correctly. You seem to imply that where there is the presence or demand for public goods, that a civic authority will "arise" as if through the application of an invisible hand to manage or supply it optimally. Not necessarily.

I'm laying no blame, just pointing out a fact. If community cannot jointly administer a common property it's no longer a common property.

A public good does not get its name by dint of there being an administrator of it. Please clarify, thanks.

People can do that, yes, and communities have in the past managed common land sustainably for many generations. Some still do - in the New Forest, for instance.

And there are many examples of them failing to do this and driving themselves to extinction too. What explains those slip-ups?

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't think I understand you correctly. You seem to imply that where there is the presence or demand for public goods, that a civic authority will "arise" as if through the application of an invisible hand to manage or supply it optimally. Not necessarily.

Communities will almost always establish a form of civic authority. Community abhors anarchy.

A public good does not get its name by dint of there being an administrator of it. Please clarify, thanks.

Common property is not public property. It is property held in common by a community. For instance, a village common is the property of the villagers, but not of people from another village.

And there are many examples of them failing to do this and driving themselves to extinction too. What explains those slip-ups?

Name a couple and I'll see what I can come up with.

Village common land and woods have been sustainably managed for centuries by the villagers themselves. Some examples still survive.

 

[Francesca R]

Communities will almost always establish a form of civic authority. Community abhors anarchy.

You miss the point and the comment about anarchy is not relevant. I am not talking about anarchy, but whether or not organisations form from groups, and whether or not they succeed in furthering the interest of the members of the group.

You are correct that organisations (civic authorities) often do form, with the objective of furthering common interests, but not always and it is less likely, and sometimes not even probable, the larger and more diverse the group of members that has that common interest is.

But more importantly, even when a civic authority does arise/exist, the incentive structure often logically implies that it will either under-supply a public good or fail to manage an endowment in the interests of its members. In short, looking after common property and the like cannot be assumed to happen naturally, even if it is obvious to all that everybody would be better off if that happened.

Common property is not public property. It is property held in common by a community. For instance, a village common is the property of the villagers, but not of people from another village.

OK you are speaking of a subset of what I understood as public or common goods then (and in my country I don't think that a village common is the property of villagers but is owned by a local government administration). But the above still applies--a common property will not necessarily be well managed by the organisation that is supposed to do that (if there is one).

Name a couple and I'll see what I can come up with.

I refer to the societies whose stories are told in Jared Diamond's "Collapse", such as the Easter Islanders, Greenland Norse and central american Maya for examples. Then Haiti, Australia and China are examples of present-day societies where increasing danger of not managing common land sustainably is observable.

 

[CapelDodger]

You miss the point and the comment about anarchy is not relevant. I am not talking about anarchy, but whether or not organisations form from groups ...

Which is precisely about anarchy.

... and whether or not they succeed in furthering the interest of the members of the group.

Anarchy never furthers the interests of a group. Most people know that, and those that don't learn it at some point. The anarchsts learn it very shortly afterwards.

You are correct that organisations (civic authorities) often do form, with the objective of furthering common interests ...

A common interest being anything but anarchy.

... but not always and it is less likely, and sometimes not even probable ...

Gold-rush mining camps established civic authorities : how unlikely is that? Anarchy serves nobody's interests, and anarchic communities fail without trace.

... the larger and more diverse the group of members that has that common interest is.

There's no doubt that the greater the disjunction between an individual and the obvious effects of their behaviour the more damage they allow. If they even hear about it.

But more importantly, even when a civic authority does arise/exist, the incentive structure often logically implies that it will either under-supply a public good or fail to manage an endowment in the interests of its members. In short, looking after common property and the like cannot be assumed to happen naturally, even if it is obvious to all that everybody would be better off if that happened.

And yet it has happened naturally, despite the theorising, and it has happened a lot. Looking after common property for the benefit of all is what communities do.

OK you are speaking of a subset of what I understood as public or common goods then (and in my country I don't think that a village common is the property of villagers but is owned by a local government administration).

Administrative innovations from the 19thCE don't cut much ice, frankly. Not with Commoners and Freemen, anyway.

 

[AWPrime]

People there is a whole spectrum between anarchy and modern order.

 

[Francesca R]

Which is precisely about anarchy.

No. Forget anarchy. Assume a civilised society with a government. Then there is some common property, such as a lake. Does an organisation form that looks after the lake in the interests of the society that "owns" it? Sometimes, sometimes not. It can not be assumed to happen naturally. There *is* a problem with this. You seem to say that there isn't one because in all circumstances, some group will organise themselves collectively to optimally manage the lake. I am seeking agreement on you that that is incorrect--it will not always happen.

There's no doubt that the greater the disjunction between an individual and the obvious effects of their behaviour the more damage they allow. If they even hear about it.

This sounds like it may be up the right street but I can't really understand it.

And yet it has happened naturally, despite the theorising, and it has happened a lot. Looking after common property for the benefit of all is what communities do.

It *does* happen but *not always*, and not because of ignorance. This is my only point so far. Do you understand it?

Administrative innovations from the 19thCE don't cut much ice, frankly. Not with Commoners and Freemen, anyway.

What does that mean? Do you mean that whatever mistakes Easter Islanders made, no society would make now?

Again, please forget about anarchy. I am not having a discussion about anarchy here.

 

[Mark6]

You are correct that organisations (civic authorities) often do form, with the objective of furthering common interests, but not always and it is less likely, and sometimes not even probable, the larger and more diverse the group of members that has that common interest is.

But more importantly, even when a civic authority does arise/exist, the incentive structure often logically implies that it will either under-supply a public good or fail to manage an endowment in the interests of its members. In short, looking after common property and the like cannot be assumed to happen naturally, even if it is obvious to all that everybody would be better off if that happened.

I believe you are saying that "civic authority" is not an abstract entity, but consists of individual humans, with their own selfish interests. And it is entirely possible that these individual humans will manage common property to maximize their own gain, instead of communal gain. Also known as "corruption".

Do I understand you correctly?

If yes, why don't you just say so?

 

[CapelDodger]

No. Forget anarchy. Assume a civilised society with a government.

Why? Common rights are established in the gaps of superior government, where anarchy is the only alternative, and as government develops it takes care not to mess with them too much. People get up in arms when their customary rights are infringed upon.

Then there is some common property, such as a lake. Does an organisation form that looks after the lake in the interests of the society that "owns" it?

The earliest people to come across said lake will indeed come to regard it as their common property, and not the property of latecomers. They will combine to enforce that impression, and from that emerges an organisation. Apart from which, everybody knows each other and that in itself creates a social ordering.

Is it possible that the insiders will screw up the lake, thereby cutting their own throats? Yes it is, people being what they are. But these wouldn't be people we remember. The people we remember are those that managed their assets, instead of pillaging them and moving on. The latter strategy rapidly runs into the sand.

 

[quarky]

Aging population is a different problem then overpopulation. I don't see it being solved by technology. Its more of a religious problem in need of a religion that doesn't exist.

Presently, we have no 'exit plan' for living a life on Earth. Even atheists are unlikely to embrace the concept. We are starting to live too long. This is bad news for children.

 

[Francesca R]

I believe you are saying that "civic authority" is not an abstract entity, but consists of individual humans, with their own selfish interests. And it is entirely possible that these individual humans will manage common property to maximize their own gain, instead of communal gain. Also known as "corruption".

Do I understand you correctly?

Not really. The "free-rider problem" is not corruption, for example.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ]

I still do not understand what you are on about, but it is not "tragedy of the commons" and nor do I think it is a realistic application of the logic of collective action. I'm going to drop this

 

[Francesca R]

Aging population is a different problem then overpopulation.

Well yes, it's "underpopulation", or a too-high dependency ratio.

I don't see it being solved by technology.

Can you argue why it couldn't be? Anything that increases total factor productivity thereby lowers the quantity of labour required for a unit of output. And less labour is the core of the problem, right?

Its more of a religious problem in need of a religion that doesn't exist.

Huh?

Presently, we have no 'exit plan' for living a life on Earth. Even atheists are unlikely to embrace the concept. We are starting to live too long. This is bad news for children.

This seems to be your assertion but are you interested in discussion of it, or simply parroting it?

 

[quarky]

I'm fine with discussing it. Its basicly a math problem. It has little to do with productivity.

Less labor isn't necessarily the problem; its the ratio of old people to children that will be the problem.