You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘population’ tag.

It is becoming clear that current level of social security is too high for some countries to sustain.
Besides increasing taxes for social security (as well as narrowing down rich-poor gap, strengthen society and democracy), social security level will need to be “de-leveraged” to society’s “debt/economic fundamental level” for some “over-leveraged” societies.
The question is how to do it?

People need time to adapt. And this is a new “social security contract”, people did not prepare for this new state beforehand. It would be not fair to carry out it drastically – prepare for political revolutions or even wars.
So what can we do?

My idea: “de-leverage” retirement pension scheme in gradually increasing manner based on age.
For example, assuming the society’s “debt/economic fundamental level” can support 40% of the original amount of retirement pension and the statutory retirement age is 60 years:
People aged 60 years or above will still get 100% of the original amount of retirement pension.
People aged 59 years (1 more year to retire) will get 98%.
People aged 58 years (1 more year to retire) will get 96%.

People aged 30 years (1 more year to retire) will get 40%.
People aged below 30 years can stick to 40% of the original amount or devise new “social security contract” based on society’s new vision of future.

What do you think? Any unintended consequence? Inputs welcomed.


When poor families have six or eight children, many or most of them are virtually condemned to a lifetime of poverty. Too often, parents lack the wherewithal to provide decent nutrition, health care and education to most of them. Illiteracy and ill health end up being passed from generation to generation. Governments in poor countries are unable to keep up, their budgets overmatched by the need for new schools, roads and other infrastructure.

from this commentary.

Growth-pushers frequently use the pension/social security … Ponzi scheme to defend and encourage population growth

They blow the problem out of proportion, ignore some smart solutions, and jump on the easiest but most deadly solution.

from this post.

One side effect of stabilizing population by restraining birth rate is slower change of people’s mindsets, because reduced flows of young people who are catalyze of change. In other words, society becomes more conservative. This can be good or bad, depends on how useful the dominant people’s mindset is in coping with environmental change.

Interesting page, especially the animated graphs and population clocks.

I am not certain that de-automation is the only way to go, but it seems inevitable, to solve both huge young unemployed populations and peak cheap oil problems. Either we do it proactively or be forced by it. To do it, migration barrier needs to relaxed so that huge young unemployed populations in the trapped Least Developed Countries can find jobs elsewhere and this may allow them to escape the poverty trap.

The obstacle of this policy, as European Union demonstrates, is culture (includes language and religion). While the globe is more and more interconnected to share the common fate, people’s ethnic group mentality is still slow to change. This is probably the root of the collapse, if any.

If it is true, the international politics as we know will not sustain very long.

Update: debt, subsidy reform, fuel price rises, political crisis.

Overpopulation, or over-consumption?

No, not a question of either/or, it is BOTH.

The earth may support 7 billions Cubans,
but only 2 billions Americans.

… will help to propagate the pressure of unsustainability in particular region to other places, so that people in other places can aware of the unsustainability earlier and take actions sooner. This can also reduce risk of war.

An idea linking the reductions of birth rate and consumption together.

Poor can give birth by terminate the contract.

Latest Tweets


Blog Stats

  • 6,150 hits
Creative Commons License
unless otherwise noted.
%d bloggers like this: