by EdwinSm » Sun 28 Feb 2016, 03:19:48
This thread seems to highlight a problem we face looking at moving towards a lower carbon use world. I think we can all agree that population levels will have to fall if a new energy source is not developed. But as soon as we see that happening in one country the economic growth environment we have all grown up in seems to take over and so we say what a horrible thing it is to live through.... Dilemma / problem!
For years I have keep records of country and world population changes, and have felt this dilemma as many of the places with decreasing populations are not places I would like to live in. Places like Bulgaria (-0.6% 2015 data), Serbia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), Latvia (-0.4%), Romania (-0.4%), Ukraine (-0.4%).... OK Germany with -0.3% seems to be a popular exception.
I suppose the trick is to get population reduction while maintaining a high standard of living, and so far Japan seems to be doing that (even with years of economic stagnation), although I do see the problem of supporting an aging population.
One big question is "what is a sustainable level of population?" As a rough guide I tend to use figures from after WWII for a world with a restricted supply of oil [of course levels for no-oil will be a lot lower]. In Japan's case their population in 1950 was just under 84 million, so the population will need to drop by over 40 million to get back to that level. And for the USA the reduction would have to be over 165 million. The horror of this for me is almost unimaginable. So against that sort of horror I find the drop in Japanese population a tiny but positive news item.