Follow up to the NY Times piece ” Can the Government get people to have more babies?” See link at Population 2050.
The previous post describes the political backdrop to the shrinkage in population overtaking the large western economies.
Why should countries care about shrinking populations at a time of climate change, increasing risk of nuclear catastrophe and the prospect of artificial intelligence taking over jobs? At a global level, there is no shortage of people. But drastically low birthrates can lead to problems in individual countries.
At first glance population in times of fewer jobs, climate change and geopolitical turmoil lower population might sound like a good thing.
Despite changes in family and work life, traditional ideas about who should take care of children — women, of course — have proved resistant to policy prescriptions. “Cultural expectations are designed to fit a way of living that doesn’t exist anymore,” said Matthias Doepke, an economist at the London School of Economics. “That is the root cause of these extremely low fertility rates that we have in rich countries.”
The article goes on to describe efforts to increase birth rates and all have failed and been relegated to tinkering on the edges.
Similar concerns arise from Italy to the United States: working-age populations outnumbered by the elderly; towns emptying out; important jobs unfilled; business innovation faltering. Immigration could be a straightforward antidote, but in many of the countries with declining birthrates, accepting large numbers of immigrants has become politically toxic.
There is no easy answer. I cannot but believe something in new business models and operational efficiencies for delivery of medical treatment, seniors support and new models for economics supported by genuine cost savings and delivery at scale are needed.
This is beyond mere human brainstorming. AI Superintelligence may be the only way to deliver this impossible challlenge.
Bankwatch 