His presentation talks about some of the topics everyone is discussing here. It’s worth checking out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

For a long time, the cities of Britain were making a net loss in population (i.e. eating people) while the countryside was producing a net surplus (large numbers of whom would move to the cities) but the system as a whole still operated and the cities still expanded.

Jaclyn: As Don points out, birth rates have decreased so far below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per person that the population is shrinking too rapidly. This becomes a concern when our social welfare system is contingent on the younger, working population supporting an older, retired population. It places a large burden on the Net Generation.

It is going to place a much larger burden on those who believe that the Net Generation is under some obligation to support them and who also seem to believe that our economic system has no ability to “correct” for such imbalances.

The problem is these changes our hard, because our entire economic system – from banking itself all the way down to social security – has been built on a leverage model that depends on continuous population growth continuing forever. If you think that sounds like a pyramid scheme, you’re not far off.

It’s a peculiar aspect of economics, and our markets in general, that we’ve been conditioned to think of a gradual decline in population as a bad thing / something to panic about – like more resources per-capita is somehow an awful outcome. I think a global birth rate below replacement levels doesn’t sound that bad at all… we just need to think about things a little differently to make it work.

Shaun: If governments continue giving larger incentives for having children, I could certainly see more people (especially low income couples) having children and then giving them up for adoption. However, the morality of this practice opens up an entirely new debate.

Jaclyn: As Don points out, birth rates have decreased so far below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per person that the population is shrinking too rapidly. This becomes a concern when our social welfare system is contingent on the younger, working population supporting an older, retired population. It places a large burden on the Net Generation.

The systems we have in place work best when the population remains constant or is growing. However, you are quite right in saying that overpopulation is a concern if the birth rate is considerably higher than 2.1. Before the single child policy, China was fighting a huge overpopulation problem. Much of Africa is facing a similar problem as well.

All countries should be aiming to be in stage 3.