Blogs
Overpopulation, Part II: an Aging Population
Hot 1
In response to someone's comment on my last blog:
When I first thought about the long term, I didn't know what the human population would be like over time with an aging population. Would we end up with more younger people again in the future? How will the numbers change over time? I was not sure.
But, I'm an ecologist. I should know these things! So, I thought about it some. It is much like what a forester thinks about when he/she considers the life of a forest in an area. For example, if many forests were cut in the 1970s, that area would have a lot of forest that is now 40 years old. Think about people that way.
In the past, many people died young so the population distribution was probably like this:
Age 00-20: 40%
Age 21-40: 40%
Age 41-60: 15%
Age 61-99: 4%
Age >99: 1%
So, what happens if people start living longer? More people are in the older age groups. If the percentage increases in the older groups, the percentages of young people have to decrease. There’s no other way for this to occur.
Age 41-60: 30%
Age 61-99: 17%
Age >99: 3%
If those groups increase in numbers, then perhaps:
Age 00-20: 25%
Age 21-40: 25%
The average age gets older and the percentage of younger people has to decrease. But let’s say that life expectancy both increases AND fewer people are born. This increase the difference from the original percentages. We will double the numbers of old people to reflect that fewer people are born:
Age 00-20: 0%
Age 21-40: 0%
Age 41-60: 60%
Age 61-99: 34%
Age >99: 6%
Ok, so that’s kind of extreme. We must have had a nuclear war that made everyone sterile! We will back off those percentage a bit.
Age 41-60: 30%
Age 61-99: 24%
Age >99: 4%
That only leaves 40% for the other two:
Age 00-20: 20%
Age 21-40: 20%
The question becomes, “What will happen over time?” The more I thought about it, the more I realized that, most likely, if society remains stable, then somewhere down the line the numbers will balance with an older population with fewer young people than in our first example. We reach a new balance, perhaps at:
Age 00-20: 20%
Age 21-40: 20%
Age 41-60: 30%
Age 61-99: 24%
Age >99: 4%
Now, one of two things are likely to happen. People can live longer, or some disaster occurs. War or famine are most likely. Who dies in war? Everyone, young and old alike. Most wars are not very selective. Civilians suffer along with soldiers.
Age 00-20: 20%
Age 21-40: 20%
Age 41-60: 30%
Age 61-99: 24%
Age >99: 4%
The difference in my example here is that every age group dies in equal numbers. However, if a period of peace or plentiful food occurs, people may have more children again, thereby skewing the numbers back toward historical number. This occurred in the USA after World War II when the soldiers returned home and had large families.
Age 00-20: 50%
Age 21-40: 15%
Age 41-60: 15%
Age 61-99: 17%
Age >99: 3%
My numbers are not perfect, but you get the idea. If you add numbers in any group, old or young, the numbers in other groups have to change. So, as long as we have an aging society (that’s the term that is used) the numbers will stay skewed toward an aging population. If more deaths occur in one group compared to others, or if the birth rate increases, the percentages change.
Conclusion:
My main point is this. Having more babies only increases the risk of famine or war with a large population. It is only a temporary solution to economics (having more customers) because eventually, people start to starve or start wars. Wars are often caused by famine. If people are going to live longer, the only good and peaceful solution is learning how to live with more older people as members of society. We need to find ways to keep the lives of older people both productive and meaningful. Otherwise, we will have to depend on a smaller group of workers supported more elderly people. In reality, the real change is this. Workers used to support children. In the future, if we want a sustainable society, we need to have fewer children and instead of supporting more children, workers will need to support more elderly people. In reality, there’s not much different, except that workers may need to support someone other than their own parents (versus supporting numerous children of their own). One other solution is to force people to save money for retirement, much like the US Social Security retirement system does. Workers must contribute to a general pool. All retired workers benefit. But it is socialism, a social program designed to create a stable society. If workers rebel, the system collapses. Older people die younger and the problem is solved in a less user-friendly way.View AllAuthor's latest blogs
Post comment Comment (1 replies)
- Reply teadrinking
- You conclusion makes sense on some level. It is sure the larger population burdens the society development. More people means more resources are occupied, while the volume of the earth in certain, and it can not provide all the things we want under the condition of expanded population and the aged people. Thus the control of birth is needed, also we have to see the young is the group to power the society moving forward, it is really a complicated issue.
