From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Population decline
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:34:13 GMT


>>[loss of cultural and genetic diversity from population decline]

In article <1992Sep23.203913.11880@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye) writes:

>At what point does this kick in?  Wasn't world population 99% below present,
>some time after the Ice Age, and haven't we come along fairly nicely out of 
>that small population? 

Large, highly educated populations are required for modern societies.
Any given culture needs to be far larger than a hunter-gatherer tribe
in order to retain its traditions.  For example, cultural retention
is greatly strengthened in those cultures that have their own 
native-language TV channels; only the largest cultures can
afford this.  Economies of scale are also far more important in
today's societies than in hunter-gatherer societies.  It kicks
in as soon as the population starts to decline.

Populations do not drop evenly.  Even now, with the average world
growth rate still above 1%/year, there are several cultures dropping
rapidly.  For example, the Ashkenazi Jew population has dropped over
50% since the 1930's, due in almost equal proportion to death camps
and voluntarily birth control.  This population produced many
of the leading Nobel Prize scientists of this century (including 
Einstein); its capacity to create such talent has dropped with its
population.

As anybody who's used birth control knows, there's no such
thing as perfect birth control with the current art.  It's inconvenient
at best and has nasty side effects at worst; no methods are 100%
effective.  The conditions that "permitted" your family to have
many children is quite an exception, demographically; half of all
children are still "unplanned" or "accidents" with the birth rate
below replacement levels.   (In fact everybody comes from a 
demographically above-normal family; nobody's parents are childless.
:-)

>> [arguments why space colony would have more children than
>> developed countries]
>>I ask why does not this apply to developed
>>countries, where couples have less than 2.0 children per lifetime,
>>and the resources are much greater than in Africa, with 7 children
>>per lifetime?  
>
>A) Developed countries have pensions and social security; couples don't
>need to make enough babies to ensure that 3-4 are around to care for
>them in old age; 

This theory has been greatly overstated; birth control availability
is more causative and correlated than such economic factors.
Even granting this theory, why wouldn't a space colony have pensions
and social security?  Given the chance people save for retirement, whether 
or not social security is present, and given the chance they vote in
favor of social security.  The existence/absence of such benefits 
would be a major (dis-) incentive to migrate to the space colony in the
first place.

>B) Developed populations are mostly non-agricultural,
>and don't need the extra hands to harvest next year's meals. 

This is also true of space colonies, which will have to be
technologically more sophisticated than developed
countries, not less.  The children will require a longer
investment in education, and that correlates highly with
low fertility -- college-educated women in America average
1.4 children per lifetime, as opposed to the society average
of 2.0 children per lifetime.  (Presumably the numbers are
similar for college-educated men, who tend to marry their
peers, but it's easier to keep track of the women).


>[how to solve problem]
>Direct your creativity towards
>making childrearing less demanding and/or *lots* of fun in your space
>colony, and your concerns will be answered.

_May_ be answered.  This has so far not worked in countries that are
actively working to raise their birthrate, like Japan and Germany.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the pressures for
quality over quantity at all costs in these cultures overwhelms
the feeble government efforts.  It's an interesting idea, worth
persuing, but not garunteed. 

>>                         Fertility, not physical resources, is 
>>the main barrier to human expansion through the cosmos.
>
>I think this is pessimistic.  If you give me the same deal at a space
>colony that my old-country ancestors got in America (a cheap ride over,
>and greatly expanded opportunies upon arrival), I'll seriously consider
>going over and making you as many babies as I need and can support 
>under the circumstances there.  

But you can do that right here, right now, in the U.S.A.  There's
nothing stopping you that wouldn't stop you in a space colony. 
Mike Freidman has noted that a man could easily raise and support
20 children at above-world-average standards in the U.S., but
our own cultural expectations and motivations, not our resources,
prevent us from doing so.

I also seriously question whether your ancestors, or anybody else
before The Pill, had birth control effective enough to make such
a big difference as it does today.  The unpredicted baby boom
to baby dearth trend in the 1960's corresponds almost exactly to
the introduction of the birth control pill; it has fundamentally
changed the demographic landscape.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Xref: sparky sci.space:13630 sci.astro:10169 talk.politics.space:1296 alt.politics.bush:6818 alt.politics.clinton:7359