Kind of meta: I'm glad this article goes for the "it's happening, this is a morally neutral phenomenon in itself" spin, and focuses on the changes that can be made to society to make it okay. I...
Kind of meta: I'm glad this article goes for the "it's happening, this is a morally neutral phenomenon in itself" spin, and focuses on the changes that can be made to society to make it okay.
I was ready to get mad at yet another "clearly what they need is MORE BABIES" take.
I’d argue that it’s not exactly neutral. Depopulation is probably a net good in terms of the planet, for slowing the current extinction event (for our non-human family members) and even good for...
I’d argue that it’s not exactly neutral. Depopulation is probably a net good in terms of the planet, for slowing the current extinction event (for our non-human family members) and even good for the humans (who face increasing resource scarcity and other challenges resulting from overpopulation).
This is the report referenced in the article (in Spanish).
In 2024, Latin America and the Caribbean’s population reached 663 million people, 3.8% less than what had been forecast in the year 2000, when estimates pointed to a total of 689 million people [...] Currently, the region’s population is projected to peak at approximately 730 million in 2053.
In 1950, around 41% of the population was under 15 years of age; today, that proportion has fallen to 22.5%. At the same time, the adult population between 15 and 64 years of age went from accounting for 55.6% of the total population in 1950 to representing 67.6% in 2024 [...] The population of people aged 65 and older is forecast to increase from 65.4 million in 2024 to 138 million by 2050.
Key take-aways: As a population, the largest group of people with skilled and unskilled labor experience will be larger than the incoming population of young people, but also more responsible...
Key take-aways:
In 1950, the report indicates, the median age of Latin America and the Caribbean’s population was 18; by 2024, that value had risen to 31 years of age; and by 2050, it is forecast that the median age will be approximately 40.
As a population, the largest group of people with skilled and unskilled labor experience will be larger than the incoming population of young people, but also more responsible physically and financially for the oldest population groups. In the western system, this is only acceptable if a younger generation goes through a baby boom that isn't too far away from being able to help shoulder expenses. Meanwhile, 40-year-olds and up will have to choose between caring for elderly relatives or maintaining an in-demand job they've held for 10+ years (and the convoluted emotions that go along with making that choice). In places with high levels of unemployment, like Spain and Latin America, this creates a lot more disenfranchisement and reduces upward mobility -- except for the young people able to take the jobs of the older, more experienced work force as they shift to elder care. But affordable housing, which actually solves many social ills, will remain out of reach as older generations use restrictive legislation to preserve what they have and to reduce the impact of higher costs of living (due to taking care of the elderly).
I've talked here before about my anecdotal experience of taking care of a much older relative who needed 24/7 care. It was cheaper for me to quit working and live with her (combining some expenses) than to pay unskilled nursing to come in for 18 hours a day (best case scenario there's never an emergency during the other 6 hours) at $25/hr for an indefinite time period (and $25/hr is quite cheap for that level of in-home care, largely dependent on educated immigrants). However this impacted my social life (I literally could only leave the house to get groceries, pick up prescriptions, or take her to the doctor), personal health (sleeping takes a hit), career choices in the future (having a gap in employment always looks bad, right, because there's no sympathy in a competitive work landscape), and obviously experiences and skills that would've been learned during that time that were career-applicable. On the upside I know a lot more about the shadowy world of unskilled nursing, in-home physical therapy, and medications.
So I would imagine that having a large population of higher-earners being forced into making these same decisions would have detrimental impacts. Government programs designed to help the ageing population would work well enough initially, but as that 40+ age group themselves become injured (working coffee farms, skilled construction, etc), they would need those elder care services themselves. The upcoming generation would not be able to pay for all those things due to having a smaller population. And how does the 40+ generation get back into the workforce later on? Government spending and debt rises, along with inflation. Countries like Japan will be examples of this playing out in the near-term. Without social changes, and perspective changes on social programs and spending, we'll keep rehashing the same problems with the same solutions that created those problems (to paraphrase Einstein).
I think history has shown us, and there have been studies on this I will look for to post, that building communities that are not focused on work, and more focused on providing a holistic work-live-play community, positively impacts social needs (friends, relationships, and community support) and also has the added benefit of reducing red-lining (creating isolated pockets of high-privilege areas that don't feed back their merits to surrounding communities).
Kind of meta: I'm glad this article goes for the "it's happening, this is a morally neutral phenomenon in itself" spin, and focuses on the changes that can be made to society to make it okay.
I was ready to get mad at yet another "clearly what they need is MORE BABIES" take.
I’d argue that it’s not exactly neutral. Depopulation is probably a net good in terms of the planet, for slowing the current extinction event (for our non-human family members) and even good for the humans (who face increasing resource scarcity and other challenges resulting from overpopulation).
I don't disagree. I'm describing this article as neutral; I personally think it's actively good when birth rates decrease.
This is the report referenced in the article (in Spanish).
Key take-aways:
As a population, the largest group of people with skilled and unskilled labor experience will be larger than the incoming population of young people, but also more responsible physically and financially for the oldest population groups. In the western system, this is only acceptable if a younger generation goes through a baby boom that isn't too far away from being able to help shoulder expenses. Meanwhile, 40-year-olds and up will have to choose between caring for elderly relatives or maintaining an in-demand job they've held for 10+ years (and the convoluted emotions that go along with making that choice). In places with high levels of unemployment, like Spain and Latin America, this creates a lot more disenfranchisement and reduces upward mobility -- except for the young people able to take the jobs of the older, more experienced work force as they shift to elder care. But affordable housing, which actually solves many social ills, will remain out of reach as older generations use restrictive legislation to preserve what they have and to reduce the impact of higher costs of living (due to taking care of the elderly).
I've talked here before about my anecdotal experience of taking care of a much older relative who needed 24/7 care. It was cheaper for me to quit working and live with her (combining some expenses) than to pay unskilled nursing to come in for 18 hours a day (best case scenario there's never an emergency during the other 6 hours) at $25/hr for an indefinite time period (and $25/hr is quite cheap for that level of in-home care, largely dependent on educated immigrants). However this impacted my social life (I literally could only leave the house to get groceries, pick up prescriptions, or take her to the doctor), personal health (sleeping takes a hit), career choices in the future (having a gap in employment always looks bad, right, because there's no sympathy in a competitive work landscape), and obviously experiences and skills that would've been learned during that time that were career-applicable. On the upside I know a lot more about the shadowy world of unskilled nursing, in-home physical therapy, and medications.
So I would imagine that having a large population of higher-earners being forced into making these same decisions would have detrimental impacts. Government programs designed to help the ageing population would work well enough initially, but as that 40+ age group themselves become injured (working coffee farms, skilled construction, etc), they would need those elder care services themselves. The upcoming generation would not be able to pay for all those things due to having a smaller population. And how does the 40+ generation get back into the workforce later on? Government spending and debt rises, along with inflation. Countries like Japan will be examples of this playing out in the near-term. Without social changes, and perspective changes on social programs and spending, we'll keep rehashing the same problems with the same solutions that created those problems (to paraphrase Einstein).
I think history has shown us, and there have been studies on this I will look for to post, that building communities that are not focused on work, and more focused on providing a holistic work-live-play community, positively impacts social needs (friends, relationships, and community support) and also has the added benefit of reducing red-lining (creating isolated pockets of high-privilege areas that don't feed back their merits to surrounding communities).
Apparently, the population models keep predicting the peak happening earlier and earlier. Science news.