Ship of Fools: Will the last one please switch off the lights? (population decline)

Thread: Will the last one please switch off the lights? (population decline) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030070

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Maybe this could be an interesting topic to discuss here. My parents in the Netherlands are living in an area that is currently experiencing population decline.

The effects of that are rather visible: In a largish town nearby, whole neighbourhoods are empty, with wood covering doors and windows. There is also a negative spiral: facilities like schools close because there are few children, this makes the place less attractive to families, and so the effect strengthens itself.

Population decline is starting to become the norm in large parts of continental Europe. I know that this isn't the case in the UK or the USA. I'm not sure about Australia and New Zealand.

One thing we could discuss here is the economic effects. Many things are being said about population ageing (the Dutch language has a word for this that translates as 'greying'). It will become more difficult for a shrinking working population to support the care for the elderly. Another rather visible thing is house prices. For many people, their house is part of their old age investment, but they are losing value rapidly.

Another thing I would like to discuss is something less tangible: does a declining population have some kind of psychological effect? Does such a region become less innovative? Less future-minded? Does it lose a bit of joie de vivre (mind you, I'm not saying that the elderly can't be cheerful)?

What do you think?

[ 15. March 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Another thing I would like to discuss is something less tangible: does a declining population have some kind of psychological effect? Does such a region become less innovative? Less future-minded? Does it lose a bit of joie de vivre (mind you, I'm not saying that the elderly can't be cheerful)?

Germaine Greer in her book Sex And Destiny predicted that that is what would happen, socieites with low birth-rates would become older and hence more conservative.

Ironically, smaller families were supposed to be one of the benefits of modernity, but, if Greer et al are correct, the trend will end up handing more power to the most regressive segements of society.

(And spare me the anecdotes about all the hip grandmas who listen to punk rock and mouth off authority figures. That's a sitcom cliche, not a statistic.)

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Well LeRoc your sources are ill informed if they so nowhere in the UK is suffering from population decline. The highland and islands of Scotland have been going through it for two centuries or more. I know about the Clearances but the history I have been given suggests that this is an ongoing process where the industrialisation of farming has brought wealth to a few and lack of work to the many. You see similar patterns in Northern Ireland with painted shops to fool the tourists.

Then there are the Declining Cities of the North.

No depopulation happens in the UK but is not a problem in the South East of England.

Jengie

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Stetson: Germaine Greer in her book Sex And Destiny predicted that that is what would happen, socieites with low birth-rates would become older and hence more conservative.

Perhaps. I guess it's difficult to show this with numbers. Of course, most areas that experience decline are rural, and they are normally politically more conservative. It's easy to show correlation, but what about causation?

quote:
Jengie jon: Well LeRoc your sources are ill informed if they so nowhere in the UK is suffering from population decline. The highland and islands of Scotland have been going through it for two centuries or more.

You're absolutely right and I do apologise. I should have considered the UK at the subnational level also.

So, the question would be: do you think the population decline in these regions has any effects?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

If there are regions with no indigenous population, maybe it would be a good place to put migrants?

Or, more generally, the problem needs to be viewed globally, because we are not alone. World population is not declining, but re-arranging.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Scotland relies on migrants to maintain its population, especially East Europeans. This seems to be working well so far. My area has more New Scots, which is the official term, arriving soon from Syria. Given that there is no shortage of people wanting to come here, I don't think we'll have a problem with population decline in the foreseeable future. That said, the New Scots from Syria are being housed in some dire places. There's a reason there are houses lying empty which they can move into. I hope they will be happy here.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Populations in some areas may be declining but overall world population is increasing, and it's not a good thing imho. The world is a limited size and will eventually fill up.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Scotland's population rose steadily until 1971, when it was 5,229,000. It then started to drop. I can remember a lot of anxiety about the population dropping below 5 million, and companies making contingency plans for a future shortage of school leavers. In-migration from East Europe turned the situation around. We are now at an all-time high of 5,347,000. If we didn't have in-migration, we'd now be below 5 million, and have a disproportionate number of elderly people.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

No depopulation happens in the UK but is not a problem in the South East of England.

Jengie

This doesn't appear to make much sense - can I assume you don't mean what it appears to mean? Other parts of your post seem to suggest you think that there are areas experiencing population decline in the UK. You also have a typo in the rest of your post which might also confuse a stupid person.

Anyway, assuming my reading of your post is correct, I'd also point to parts of South Wales as being an area experiencing ongoing population decline.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Populations in some areas may be declining but overall world population is increasing, and it's not a good thing imho. The world is a limited size and will eventually fill up.

If we are serious about this we need to work out ways in which we can live with a steady or declining population.

For similar reasons we need to work out a way of living happily with zero or negative economic growth.

Maybe Japan would be a useful country to look at?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Schroedinger's cat: If there are regions with no indigenous population, maybe it would be a good place to put migrants?

Of course, there are legal and ethical problems with 'putting' people anywhere. As long as refugees are still waiting to be recognised, they are housed in centres of which quite a lot are located in rural areas. But as soon as this has happened, they tend to leave for the cities.

quote:
Nicolemr: Populations in some areas may be declining but overall world population is increasing, and it's not a good thing imho.

True. I often wonder whether overpopulation is ever the real problem. The Netherlands are more densely populated than most areas of Africa, but it doesn't have most of its problems. This leads me to believe that other problems rather than overpopulation are at play.

quote:
Nicolemr: The world is a limited size and will eventually fill up.

The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop. This is rather unprecedented. In a sense this is good news. It means that we can plan ahead if we're smart (that's a big if).

quote:
TurquoiseTastic: For similar reasons we need to work out a way of living happily with zero or negative economic growth.

I'm not sure whether capitalism can cope with that. It doesn't even accept a steady state; it needs to grow by definition. (Japan is an interesting example but it isn't an isolated economic system.)

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.

Please show me a source for this. I would be very pleased if it were true, but I've never seen any such prediction, and would like to.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

US has a growing population (due to immigration) but there are also dying towns.

One problem with dumping newcomers in a dying town, there are reasons it is dying while some other towns aren't. Lack of transportation, lack of medical facilities, lack of "anything to do" when not at work. And those lacks are because people mostly have left to be in the cities with the desired facilities - whether office mates for the doctor or varieties of after school activities for the kids.

It's hard to bring in migrants and say "start some businesses to support yourselves" when there are barriers - a barber in Syria might be able to buy a pair of scissors and cut hair for a fee but in my country he needs a 6 month training course on things like hygiene, and a license.

And he needs people who have money to pay for haircuts, but if the jobs are elsewhere, people leave to go to where the jobs are.

There is always a business reason for a town's existence, an industry the town serves. When that industry dies or moves away, the town starts dying.

On the related topic of a community growing older, When I was a kid there were crowds of kids, parade routes were mostly lined with kids; now many gatherings have few kids, the local Halloween fest has at least as many adults as kids.

Meanwhile - kids make you laugh. I'm looking to get involved somewhat with kids because I think there's a mental health aspect to a well mixed environment. Can't prove it.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

A lot of nonsense is talked about population. A higher proportion of elderly people is a consequence of increasing life expectancy.

Trying to stave off this natural consequence by encouraging immigration of younger people who then in their turn grow elderly is like trying to borrow your way out of debt.

The solution is to make it easier for those who no longer have the stamina for commuting to full-time work to continue to contribute economically in a part-time or local or working-from-home role.

Demographic fallacies aside, areas do have a local culture which is affected by the mix of population. Areas that are "on the up" attract people who are prepared to move,those with initiative (whether entrepreneurial or merely social). There are other areas where everyone with any get-up-and-go has already got up and left, leading to a culture of limited ambitions, limited horizons.

Two different things...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this. I would be very pleased if it were true, but I've never seen any such prediction, and would like to.

Look up demographic transition.

lots of charts

UN is predicting total world population stabilizing at about 9.5 billion, give or take. (Current food production easily feeds more than 10 billion, famines are issues of distribution politics and economics, not lack of food grown.)

Basically, 4 stages. Stage 1 - high birth rate high death rate with resulting stable population.

Stage 2 - high birth rate continues, but death rate declines due to things like improved public sanitation. The difference between high birth rate and declining death rate causes total population to grow.

Stage 3, as people realize the kids aren't dying off in early childhood so they don't need as many kids to assure their own old age, birth rate declines, which gives women opportunities to do other things than just rear kids, which encourages even more lowering of birth rates. Population growth gets slower and slower. World wide we are in this phase, dramatically slower population growth than in the 50s, 60s, 70s.

Stage 4, birth and death rates are both low, population size stabilizes. UN predicts this stability, birth rate equaling death rate, on a world wide basis by 2050, and many projections show slight declining trend after that date.

Many countries (Europe, USA if you don't count immigration) are in stage 4 right now - births at or below replacement. All but a few countries have declining birth rates even though still above replacement.

4 stage chart

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this. I would be very pleased if it were true, but I've never seen any such prediction, and would like to.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

No depopulation happens in the UK but is not a problem in the South East of England.

Jengie
This doesn't appear to make much sense - can I assume you don't mean what it appears to mean?

I think it is supposed to be parsed as "No. Depopulation happens in the UK ..."

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I didn't quite catch the connection with the readings, but the sermon on Sunday included references to the declining and aging population of Japan and the increasing strains this places on an economy already struggling (relative to a decade or two back - clearly the Japanese economy is still stronger than many nations). So, looking to Japan for a solution may not be appropriate.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this. I would be very pleased if it were true, but I've never seen any such prediction, and would like to.
Look up demographic transition.

Wikipedia's article on projections of population growth is also helpful.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

quote:
The world's population is projected to peak somewhere in this century, and then drop.
Please show me a source for this.

I thought this was common knowledge? The Wikipedia article RuthW linked to is a good starting point. (If you don't trust Wikipedia, I recommend going to the links in its 'References' section).

Some estimates predict that the world's population will peak around 8.5bn around 2050, others say that it will be between 10 and 11 billion near the end of the century. I personally tend to wards the latter estimate, but peak it will.

quote:
Russ: Trying to stave off this natural consequence by encouraging immigration of younger people who then in their turn grow elderly is like trying to borrow your way out of debt.

Hmm, as long as there is a steady supply of young people somewhere in the world (which will still be the case for a couple of decades), it will help to bring some relief. Of course, it won't work very well in the 22ⁿᵈ Century anymore, but I'm not sure if the comparison with borrowing is apt.

@Belle Ringer: yes, this analysis in four stages is helpful.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The problem is that old age is a cost to society (either collectively through state welfare or pension schemes, or to families caring for their own elderly relatives). When the costs exceed the resource to meet those costs then the elderly are a net drain on society. Which means either increasing the available resource (have more young people, especially those earning to pay taxes) or reduce the costs (through, for example, cutting pensions or increasing the pension age). And, an elderly population tends to cost more in medical provision and the like. As a temporary measure, immigration to supplement the working population (including those in the medical professions caring for the elderly) works. Long term we're going to need to give up some of the perks of old age we've been led to expect - early retirement for a start.

The other issue is that of empty neighbourhoods and towns as people choose to live elsewhere. Which is a problem for those still living there, and may be a bigger problem if it means maintaining schools for a reduced number of children which is financially less efficient (or busing the kids to other schools elsewhere). Ultimately it may be that we need to make decisions that some towns and communities are no longer viable, and change the land use (to return to natural environments, wetlands as part of flood defences or whatever).

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

The "problem" of population decline in Western countries may be decisively solved by millions of climate change refugees. Rising sea levels and temperatures will mean a good chunk of land between the two Tropics will disappear or become uninhabitable. They will move north or south, not east or west.

Modeling Future Climate on a Regional Scale

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The island I live on has a population roughly 20% or perhaps less of what it was at its peak (that's not a 20% reduction, that's an 80% reduction), and it fell 15% from 2011 to 2001. The simple reason is lack of work that pays well enough to make up for the increased cost of living. If you have a croft and a house that is paid off (i.e. it's been in the family a while) then you're fine. If you work in the building industry you can do ok. Otherwise the only well paid, stable employment is in the public sector, and you can't support an economy solely on public money. The decline is not as obvious here as in towns, but more homes end up occupied only part of the year, more homes collapse into ruins. We get a fair amount of protection from cuts to public services due to remoteness but we're still going to lose our school library and the access point for council services like registering births, marriages and deaths (which may include losing access to civil marriage ceremonies). There has recently been a string of public meetings about how to reverse the situation, but it's tough and really requires some sort of industry beyond crofting and tourism to keep people in work. The issue here is not that people don't want to live here, it's that they can't afford to. It's a tough one.

[ 16. March 2016, 17:39: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

If only we could manage a very quick and non-violent population decline, here in the UK and worldwide, of about 50%. How much better the world would be, with more space, less pressure on resources, less pollution and overheating, once we had got over the initial shock.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If only we could manage a very quick and non-violent population decline, here in the UK and worldwide, of about 50%. How much better the world would be, with more space, less pressure on resources, less pollution and overheating, once we had got over the initial shock.

When I hear wishes for a quick population decline I hear a wish I would disappear, not my 30-something friend.

A lot of the pressure on resources, pollution, and chronic disease is lifestyle choices. If the 50% of people you eliminate are the poor in places like sub-sahara africa, while the rich in Western Europe remain, it wouldn't make much difference.

I recently read an article about how the invention of the flush toilet dramatically increased use of water, cities had hugely more sewage to deal with (and needed whole now sewer systems) than back in the not long ago days of cesspools. When I flush my toilet, each time I uses more water than many a person uses for all their needs in a whole day! I'm sure a lot of the world would breathe easier if we westerners weren't doing so much consuming and polluting. Which means the target for elimination includes you.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If only we could manage a very quick and non-violent population decline, here in the UK and worldwide, of about 50%. How much better the world would be, with more space, less pressure on resources, less pollution and overheating, once we had got over the initial shock.
When I hear wishes for a quick population decline I hear a wish I would disappear, not my 30-something friend.

That's not what I hear at all. I think we would do well to give some serious thought to how many people the planet can reasonably be expected to support. Though it's not going to be my problem, as I'm going to "disappear" quite naturally before any population peak, I hope the human population does peak this century and then fall off, and I hope that the sheer number of people doesn't destroy huge swathes of the habitat before that happens.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

People also create resources and solve problems. This isn't a simple sum where fixed resources divided by number of people equals standard of living. If there are fewer farmers there is less food. Fewer factory engineers leads to less production. Fewer musicians leads to a culturally poorer society.

So simply shrinking society might lead immediately to less pollution of the world, but it may also cause increasing poverty. It might even lead to more long-term pollution if there is less competence in dealing with emissions and finding better ways of doing things.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If only we could manage a very quick and non-violent population decline, here in the UK and worldwide, of about 50%. How much better the world would be, with more space, less pressure on resources, less pollution and overheating, once we had got over the initial shock.
When I hear wishes for a quick population decline I hear a wish I would disappear, not my 30-something friend. ...

I agree with Belle Ringer. I think that's a very important point. Recognition of it should underlie all debate about population. So I disagree with RuthW.

We all assume that the various different versions of 'there are too many people' or 'the world is over-crowded', mean that it's other people who need thinning out, not me and mine. There should be fewer of them, not fewer of me.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I really don't think anyone is advocating genocidal control measures. Whether the point of view is shared or not isn't the issue - if someone says it isn't a characterization of their view then we should take that at face value unless there is evidence to the contrary.

A statement may be prone to being perceived like that, and likewise I take it at face value that that is your perception, but if I tell you that's not what I meant then I expect that to be taken at face value as well.

[ 17. March 2016, 10:20: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I don't have anyone in mind (well, maybe a couple of people, but that's just personal) and I wouldn't like to wake up tomorrow to find I'm not here, if you know what I mean. If I woke up tomorrow and found that my wife or my brother or my dad had disappeared I'd be rather upset.
But that doesn't change my belief that the world would be better off, more sustainable, more balanced, with about half the human population- although i can't see a way of achieveing this. And this isn't aimed at Africa or far away places; I think that Britain, which is where I live, would be immensely improved by having rather fewer people, using fewer resources and less land.

[ 18. March 2016, 11:23: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem is that old age is a cost to society (either collectively through state welfare or pension schemes, or to families caring for their own elderly relatives). When the costs exceed the resource to meet those costs then the elderly are a net drain on society.

This is unduly negative about the elderly.

It's true that if anyone's resources are insufficient then they become a "drain on society" but I don't hear you going around saying this about immigrants or the poor or any group you sympathize with.

It's also true that economically we consume throughout our lives but our production is concentrated in the middle years. But when did you become such a materialist that this is the only sort of contribution that matters ?

Seems to me that perhaps you're over-influenced by a view of taxation in which all monies flow to and from a central public purse and this year's expenditure (including pensions) is financed by this year's receipts. Whereas others would see their pensions (and the costs of treating their health problems) as something they've earned by paying into the system over a long period of time rather than as something they're looking to others to fund.

quote:
As a temporary measure, immigration to supplement the working population (including those in the medical professions caring for the elderly) works.
[

Are you going to send the immigrants back when they came from before they get old ? Or having created a bulge in the demographic profile are you going to support that cohort through their old age by encouraging even more young immigrants?

quote:

The other issue is that of empty neighbourhoods and towns as people choose to live elsewhere.

That's a problem because there can arise a positive feedback loop whereby a declining area becomes less attractive (boarded-up buildings, lower level of service provision etc) and therefore declines in population even more.

Countering that requires a negative feedback effect whereby lower-population areas become more attractive (lower cost housing, less traffic congestion, improved environment quality). The derelict sites need to become parkland...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
....

Seems to me that perhaps you're over-influenced by a view of taxation in which all monies flow to and from a central public purse and this year's expenditure (including pensions) is financed by this year's receipts. Whereas others would see their pensions (and the costs of treating their health problems) as something they've earned by paying into the system over a long period of time rather than as something they're looking to others to fund....

It's not a matter of how people see it, so much as of how it is actually funded. And in the UK we are saddled with a pay-as-you-go system which is the first of the two that you mention. Once you start on that it's very hard to change to a properly funded one because you are asking those paying in to pay twice at once- for those receiving resources now and for themselves in the future. Beveridge propsed a funded pension system in 42 but Jim Griffiths, the postwar Minister of Pensions, in a burst of typically improvident South Walian sentimentality decided he wanted to introduce full pensions straight away.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's not a matter of how people see it, so much as of how it is actually funded. And in the UK we are saddled with a pay-as-you-go system

Don't think it matters. In a "fully-funded" model, you're still relying on the future economy to fund your old age. Either you have some kind of "social security trust fund" on the government balance sheet, which is basically an investment in the future performance of the country, or you have a real trust that owns stocks, in which case ditto (and you'd need a bigger stock market).

To first order, the size of the balance sheet "trust fund" makes no difference at all - the thing that always counts is the annual change in the balance sheet, which is the same for the funded and non-funded cases.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No, it does matter, because pay as you go is responsive to demand as it changes from year to year.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, it does matter, because pay as you go is responsive to demand as it changes from year to year.

So's fully-funded. Long-term, both systems have to maintain actuarial balance, or they fail. Short-term, it's a question of which balance sheet you keep your float on, which is an accounting difference, but not an economic one.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
As a temporary measure, immigration to supplement the working population (including those in the medical professions caring for the elderly) works.
[
Are you going to send the immigrants back when they came from before they get old ? Or having created a bulge in the demographic profile are you going to support that cohort through their old age by encouraging even more young immigrants?

Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.

Elaborate.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem is that old age is a cost to society (either collectively through state welfare or pension schemes, or to families caring for their own elderly relatives). When the costs exceed the resource to meet those costs then the elderly are a net drain on society.
This is unduly negative about the elderly.

If it's negative, it's negative about the not quite elderly - ie: myself.

In the UK at least we haven't reached the point where income from those working is less than the costs of caring for the elderly. The only reason there are problems is because of government fiscal incompetence. However, the trend is strongly towards things becoming more difficult as we live longer and there are proportionately fewer young people. Which means that I know I can't expect as much in retirement as my parents had - in particular I won't be taking early retirement and expect to keep on working much longer than those who are now in their mid 60s. I'm fine with that, I don't feel entitled to 30-40 years of retirement. But I'm not going to say that people who have worked hard for the last 40 years shouldn't retire when they had always expected to be able to.

quote:
It's true that if anyone's resources are insufficient then they become a "drain on society" but I don't hear you going around saying this about immigrants or the poor or any group you sympathize with.

That's because they usually aren't a drain on society, or at least there's no good reason why they should be. Immigrants in particular are a net gain to society, even if we only look at money - even more so if we tally up the cultural benefits they bring (which are much harder to quantify).

But, it's undeniably the case that the biggest cost to the NHS and social services is the elderly. Not the fit elderly who are able, if they wished, to contribute to society financially. But those who have failing health and need the care of others. That will always be a cost, no amount of changes to the system will remove that cost unless we want to become barbarians. The question is how, as a society, do we pay that cost? The current situation is that we pay that cost through the taxation system, and I don't think we need to so radically shake up society that we find other ways to meet that cost.

quote:
Seems to me that perhaps you're over-influenced by a view of taxation in which all monies flow to and from a central public purse and this year's expenditure (including pensions) is financed by this year's receipts. Whereas others would see their pensions (and the costs of treating their health problems) as something they've earned by paying into the system over a long period of time rather than as something they're looking to others to fund.

Of course, it's true that most people reaching retirement age would express the opinion that they have "paid their stamp" and so deserve a pension they can live on, and health care when they need it. It's a reasonable position to take, it's what we've been told all our lives will be the case. That financial ineptitude by successive governments means that what they contributed was not invested in society to ensure there was income to meet their needs is not their fault.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far. People in need of hospital treatment, care homes or a pension that they can live on deserve these things. Period. What they personally managed to contribute during their lives shouldn't be relevant. But, we need to have a society that can provide that. Which means tax payers, as well as doctors and nurses and care home managers. That's simple maths.

quote:

quote:
As a temporary measure, immigration to supplement the working population (including those in the medical professions caring for the elderly) works.
[
Are you going to send the immigrants back when they came from before they get old ? Or having created a bulge in the demographic profile are you going to support that cohort through their old age by encouraging even more young immigrants?

It's a temporary measure. It's in part to avoid denying people who have retired/approaching retirement what they have expected - a decent pension, and a health service for when they get ill. As I said, long term those of us (ie: me) who are not as close to retirement need to lower our expectations. We need to expect to work into older age, to have a shorter retirement where we don't spend 20+ years touring the world. And, as a society we need to invest in the future so that there is more income to pay for the unavoidable retirement costs. We need to invest in educating the children of the world so that they can be the doctors and nurses who care for us, the entrepreneurs who employ the taxpayers to fund our old age. We need to stop squandering the resources of the world for quick profit today.

As the world population stabilises and then declines (on whatever time scale that happens) the proportion of elderly to young will increase. For that to be sustainable we need the young to be as productive as possible and the elderly to be as small a burden as possible - and that will include recognising the ongoing productivity of the elderly. It's a peculiarly modern, western viewpoint that sees the elderly as a burden to be cared for. It's far more common to see them as a resource, a source of wisdom and advice for example. Recapture some of that attitude and things will look much rosier.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.

Only if the population growth is unsustainable. Given the increasing efficiency of agriculture that's a topic for endless discussion.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

If immigration is a Ponzi then it follows that babies are also a Ponzi (and a more expensive one at that - immigrants come ready-made for work).

Voluntary extinction would seem the only rational solution.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree with Belle Ringer. I think that's a very important point. Recognition of it should underlie all debate about population. So I disagree with RuthW.

We all assume that the various different versions of 'there are too many people' or 'the world is over-crowded', mean that it's other people who need thinning out, not me and mine. There should be fewer of them, not fewer of me.

What PJ O'Rourke summarised as "Just enough of me, way too much of you".

Anne

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Only if the population growth is unsustainable.

As long as we have only one planet to live on, population growth is long-term unsustainable. So is population decline. To avoid species extinction one way and eco-catastrophe the other way, long-term we need either stable population or expansion into space.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Only if the population growth is unsustainable.
As long as we have only one planet to live on, population growth is long-term unsustainable. So is population decline. To avoid species extinction one way and eco-catastrophe the other way, long-term we need either stable population or expansion into space.

That is very long term, however. If we continue to improve the efficiency with which we make use of the energy being put into the earth by the sun then there is no reason to think we should not be able to support a much larger population than we currently do, particularly if we improve the use of recycling. Already the consumption of physical resources in the UK is starting to fall as physical goods and media are replaced by virtual ones. It's getting to the point where a lot of things that previously were physical good requiring creation, transport and storage now simply require electrical power. I'm quietly confident that, albeit later than is ideal, humanity will tackle climate change and technology will reduce our resource footprint still further.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What PJ O'Rourke summarised as "Just enough of me, way too much of you".

Quite.

Am I, or any one else concerned about the Planet's heaving population, really prepared to take a long walk off a short cliff in order to reduce 7 billion Homo saps by the figure of one?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What PJ O'Rourke summarised as "Just enough of me, way too much of you".
Quite.

Am I, or any one else concerned about the Planet's heaving population, really prepared to take a long walk off a short cliff in order to reduce 7 billion Homo saps by the figure of one?

Dunno. Ask me again in 70 years time.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: Using immigration to keep pensions funded is basically a Ponzi scheme.
Elaborate.

In a Ponzi scheme the schemer keep up payments to investors only by getting more and more new investors to pay in. As those new investors also have to be paid a return eventually, failure is inevitable.

If the only way a government can keep up payments to pensioners is by getting more and more new citizens in, all of whom will also have to be paid a pension eventually, then I'd say the parallels are pretty clear.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

And the exact some parallels exist in terms of having babies. In fact the immigrants are a better bet since they come without the 18-year lead-time investment and there's more of a chance of them leaving the UK once they get old than the UK-born population.

But what this line of reasoning misses is that society is evolving all the time. Closing our shores to immigration misses an opportunity for economic growth. Unless we aim for a managed decline of society we should embrace immigration.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Ponzi schemes collapse because everyone in the scheme is promised the same thing, and also the people at the top of the scheme continue to receive from it up until the point that it collapses.

Managing the evolution of society is not identical (though there may be similarities) because that evolution will mean that future generations get a different deal. A short-term immigrant labour force is a means, possibly the only means, of managing that evolution without excessive hardship to those who are counting on the current deal. And, of course, the recipients of the deal do not continue to receive indefinitely, eventually they die.

I know that I'm not going to get the same deal as those currently approaching or past retirement. My pension scheme will not be as generous as that of someone just retiring. And, I won't be able to retire as early. By working longer I put more into the pot, by not having such a generous payout the pot lasts longer. (In this case the 'pot' is not just the specific pension scheme I pay into but the whole social structure that supports people in old age). If the system is to be sustainable with a declining and aging population then we will have to do that - work past current retirement age and accept that we won't have the money for a cruise twice a year.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

In USA we periodically get reports from social security estimating what year the system will stop receiving enough taxes to pay that year's commitment. It's not far off. They will have to do either a significant tax increase or cut the benefit amount or make it need based (of course the rich will have ways to park assets that make them technically in need).

Social security in USA had the age set at 65 back when the average worker died at 62. I.e. it would help the old old. If we had moved the retirement date with the life span changes it would start paying at something near 80 today.

The idea that a person should sit idle on a beach for 20 years before dying was unheard of 100 years ago or any time back in history.

Back when living to 65, when retiring from your job, was not common because most workers died in their early to mid 60s, the system was sound. In 1945 there were about 40 workers per retiree.

In 1960 there were 5 workers per retiree. Today there are three, and we're headed to 2, partly because retirees live so long, partly because fewer kids are being born and added to the workforce.

Expecting each worker to pay half the cost of a retiree's needs is not sustainable.

But the implications of a slow or no population growth go way beyond retirement pay. Many Western businesses believe a business has to grow or it dies. Growing population fed business growth.

Stable population will force change in the concept of how a business survives, but people don't give up their world view easily so transition to a no-growth world economy is gonna be messy in ways I lack the vision to predict in any specific ways.

workers per retiree (This is an old chart)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Social security in USA had the age set at 65 back when the average worker died at 62. I.e. it would help the old old. If we had moved the retirement date with the life span changes it would start paying at something near 80 today.

Although few people can work until 80. We could get the smoking rates back up - that would bring life expectancy down smartly. The only problem is that it also increases the disability rates in later life with dementia and lung disease among other things, so it might backfire with increases in the long-term infirm needing care.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

This thread has given me something to think about. I had wondered why if there are empty towns already built and people without homes, the two could not be put together. There are issues of multiple occupancy and lack of infrastructure and resources to sustain overpopulated areas. When we see how successful planned new towns are, it can't be beyond the wit of people to come up with reasonable strategies and to work together to achieve them, in everyone's interests.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
why if there are empty towns already built and people without homes, the two could not be put together.

One would think so. But then one runs into problems.

Abandoned towns often are more difficult to settle than vacant land because old structures are hazards, even if there's no dangerous environmental issues like decaying asbestos shingles on the house or toxic waste in the soil (like old leaded gasoline tanks that leaked).

There are vacant towns in Italy, in USA, etc, once viable communities, but if the water has dried up, who can live there?

Or if the only way to earn a living is to raise and milk a few animals but the neighbors no longer want to buy home butchered meat or the laws now require sanitation facilities not affordable by a small homestead.

I've heard some migrants have moved themselves into abandoned tiny towns in Italy. But how do you educate the kids or provide medical services to isolated places?

I've met people who live primitive by choice, and are happy with a rustic rural life, an outhouse and no electricity. Most of us want more convenience than that, which costs more, which requires a job, which means needing to live near a population center.

Conversion to home-generated solar energy might open up currently deserted places.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Social security in USA had the age set at 65 back when the average worker died at 62.
[snip]
Back when living to 65, when retiring from your job, was not common because most workers died in their early to mid 60s, the system was sound.

I don't believe these numbers are correct - do you have a source?

Social Security was established in 1935; according to this life table for 1930, men and women at age 20 had a mean life expectancy of 45.14 and 47.50 years, respectively. That means half of them would live beyond the ages of 65.14 and 67.50; living to 65 was hardly uncommon.

For 1940, the median ages at death for 20-year-olds would be 66.77 for men and 70.24 for women; 61% of those men and 70% of those women would live beyond the age of 65.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Will failing antibiotics stop people living as long in the future?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Social Security was established in 1935; according to this life table for 1930, men and women at age 20 had a mean life expectancy of 45.14 and 47.50 years, respectively. That means half of them would live beyond the ages of 65.14 and 67.50; living to 65 was hardly uncommon.

For 1940, the median ages at death for 20-year-olds would be 66.77 for men and 70.24 for women; 61% of those men and 70% of those women would live beyond the age of 65.

Your figures may be more accurate than mine taken from an article, but living to 65, 70, 75 is far more common today than it was in 1937.

Here's an odd factoid of minimal use: "there were more centenarians in 2010 then there were Social Security recipients in 1937, the first year benefits were distributed." Followed by the demographic observation: "There is absolutely no way that FDR thought Social Security would pay 53,364 people a monthly stipend for over 35 years. Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population was 65 or older in 1940, by 2011 that figure exceeded 18 percent." source

[ 20. March 2016, 01:30: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
What PJ O'Rourke summarised as "Just enough of me, way too much of you".
Quite.

Am I, or any one else concerned about the Planet's heaving population, really prepared to take a long walk off a short cliff in order to reduce 7 billion Homo saps by the figure of one?

No. But limiting the number of children you have would be a good idea.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

What happens, I wonder, if & when medical science gets to the point that natural death by old age can in effect be postponed indefinitely ?

If all it takes is money to keep people living to 90, 100, 110, 120 etc. Increasing amounts of money, of course, as people get older.

So that the money needed to see someone through old age becomes infinite - the more money you have (or can persuade others to spend on your behalf) the longer you live.

Not sure how far away or improbable that is...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Russ: What happens, I wonder, if & when medical science gets to the point that natural death by old age can in effect be postponed indefinitely ?

If all it takes is money to keep people living to 90, 100, 110, 120 etc. Increasing amounts of money, of course, as people get older.

In your scenario where people live until 120, are they still productive at 90?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Don't suppose slipping something in our tea when we get to 90 will make much difference to population growth. It is the large family mentality and culture which is the problem.
In the absence of war famine or pestilence, doing what China did is the only way to control the human population.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Arethosemyfeet: The island I live on has a population roughly 20% or perhaps less of what it was at its peak (that's not a 20% reduction, that's an 80% reduction), and it fell 15% from 2011 to 2001.

Wow, the picture you paint is gloomy indeed.

quote:
Arethosemyfeet: If you work in the building industry you can do ok.

It appears to me that there wouldn't be a lot of construction on your island? Unless the government is building a new bridge or there is some offshore industry or so.

quote:
Arethosemyfeet: The issue here is not that people don't want to live here, it's that they can't afford to.

I'd imagine that housing would be rather cheap? I was in my parents' village last month and I saw a detached house with separate living and dining room, three bedrooms, garden and garage for €59,000.

quote:
Raptor Eye: I had wondered why if there are empty towns already built and people without homes, the two could not be put together.

What I would really like is for teleworking to lift off. I don't see why people need to be in an office. In principle, I could do my work in any place in the world.

[ 20. March 2016, 09:06: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

And China has ended up in a real mess with a demographic profile that has excess elderly and infirm with fewer young people to look after them, leading to a belated relaxation of the one-child policy.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
rolyn: In the absence of war famine or pestilence, doing what China did is the only way to control the human population.

No. In quite a number of countries, population is already decreasing naturally. Somewhere between 50 and 100 years from now, the world's population as a whole will start to decrease.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Don't suppose slipping something in our tea when we get to 90 will make much difference to population growth. It is the large family mentality and culture which is the problem.
In the absence of war famine or pestilence, doing what China did is the only way to control the human population.

There are reliable reports of forced abortions, sometimes very late in the pregnancy and even at the point of birth. The official policy was enforcement through fines. Things often went further than that.

Source.

The only way? Certainly not that way.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In your scenario where people live until 120, are they still productive at 90?

I'm imagining that those whose work doesn't involve physical labour can keep on working - on a part-time or reduced hours basis - indefinitely. As long as they can afford the increasing-every-year costs of the treatments. And manage to avoid various diseases that lead to dementia or other forms of incapacity.

But that those in manual jobs and anyone who doesn"t get the treatments can't reasonably be expected to work beyond 70.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No. But limiting the number of children you have would be a good idea.

Why so, if it will result in decline, empty towns, and insufficient people to look after elderly citizens?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Social Security was established in 1935; according to this life table for 1930, men and women at age 20 had a mean life expectancy of 45.14 and 47.50 years, respectively. That means half of them would live beyond the ages of 65.14 and 67.50; living to 65 was hardly uncommon.

For 1940, the median ages at death for 20-year-olds would be 66.77 for men and 70.24 for women; 61% of those men and 70% of those women would live beyond the age of 65.
Your figures may be more accurate than mine taken from an article, but living to 65, 70, 75 is far more common today than it was in 1937.

Here's an odd factoid of minimal use: "there were more centenarians in 2010 then there were Social Security recipients in 1937, the first year benefits were distributed." Followed by the demographic observation: "There is absolutely no way that FDR thought Social Security would pay 53,364 people a monthly stipend for over 35 years. Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population was 65 or older in 1940, by 2011 that figure exceeded 18 percent." source

Belle, that article does not appear to be a reliable source of information.

The claim that "less than 1 percent of the U.S. population was 65 or older in 1940" seems pretty surprising! What about all those old people I seem to recall seeing in 1940's movies and photographs? How could old people possibly be so rare?

But it's fairly easily to check against official numbers, and it turns out it's quite wrong. According to numbers from the Census Bureau, in 1940 there were 9.03M US residents 65 or over out of a total population of 132.1M - that's 6.84%, a far cry from "less than 1 percent." The Census Bureau tables for 2011 give 41.4M residents 65 or over out of a total population of 311.6M, or 13.3%, not more than 18%.

I would hesitate to believe anything that author has to say about what he calls "Social Security's Longevity Nightmare".

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Arethosemyfeet: The island I live on has a population roughly 20% or perhaps less of what it was at its peak (that's not a 20% reduction, that's an 80% reduction), and it fell 15% from 2011 to 2001.
Wow, the picture you paint is gloomy indeed.

quote:
Arethosemyfeet: If you work in the building industry you can do ok.
It appears to me that there wouldn't be a lot of construction on your island? Unless the government is building a new bridge or there is some offshore industry or so.

quote:
Arethosemyfeet: The issue here is not that people don't want to live here, it's that they can't afford to.
I'd imagine that housing would be rather cheap? I was in my parents' village last month and I saw a detached house with separate living and dining room, three bedrooms, garden and garage for €59,000.

There are a lot of holiday homes, a lot of them done up to a pretty high standard, so there is a constant stream of renovations, new builds and rebuilds both from second home owners and the established families. We're planning to acquire a near-ruin and do it up and that's fairly common. 2nd home ownership means the bare minimum price for a 3 bed like you describe is around the 120k mark, if it's habitable but needs a lot of work. For one in good condition you're looking at 200k. If it is near a beach or on a rise with a good view then the sky is the limit, 300k+ is perfectly normal.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No. But limiting the number of children you have would be a good idea.
Why so, if it will result in decline, empty towns, and insufficient people to look after elderly citizens?

It will resulting in declining population - but, that's the intention surely.

Empty towns are not necessarily a problem unless you have a sentimental attachment to a particular place. Return the land to nature, or to low-intensity agriculture. Or, find new employment and bring people back in - there will always be people who will prefer a small town to the big city. The particular course taken will depend on local factors.

Looking after elderly citizens will take planning. And, as I've repeatedly said, a change in our expectations for old age - including working longer so that the costs of looking after us we impose on our children and grandchildren are smaller.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In quite a number of countries, population is already decreasing naturally. Somewhere between 50 and 100 years from now, the world's population as a whole will start to decrease.

'naturally' as in people are using contraception I take it.

Generally good news then.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Naturally, as in individual couples are choosing to have fewer children without the imposition of restrictions by government. A combination of not needing to ensure at least some survive to adulthood, with the vast majority of children born in countries not gripped in war or extreme poverty now surviving to adulthood. Add in the imposition children have on the career of parents then the cost of having children increase (the loss of earnings from taking a career break to raise children, or arranging child care to avoid long career breaks).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

One thing I'm thinking out a lot. Given that the world's population will start to decline in a couple of decades, does this mean that humanity will lose its 'drive'? (Sometimes I find this a rather convincing argument to start colonising Mars.)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
does this mean that humanity will lose its 'drive'?

I think it might do. Growing populations seem a strong stimulus to do things and to innovate. However I don't think population growth is slowing as a result of lack of room. Probably all the factors Alan lists above are as important, and so moving to Mars won't restore population growth. We will just have to accept it as inevitable and adapt to it.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I don't think that humanity will lose its "drive". 100 years ago, couples might have six to eight children who went to school till they were 14, then started to contribute to the family income. Sixty years ago, couples had three children who went to school till they were 17, and their subsequent contribution to the family income was smaller. Now couples have one or two children, with an expectation that further education until the age of 21 is normal, and there is no expectation of a financial contribution to the family income.

So long as people have any children at all there will be a drive to improve their world.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mdijon: moving to Mars won't restore population growth.

I think the argument isn't that this will restore population growth (although you never know, they'll need something to do in those long, cold Martian nights …) Rather, the hope is that something like Martian exploration may give humanity a new drive. Restoring our pioneering spirit, as it were.

quote:
North East Quine: I don't think that humanity will lose its "drive".

I hope you're right. I'm basing my estimations on my experiences of having been in some places that currently have population decline, like these half-dead French villages. There may still be some children there, but these aren't exactly places of lively innovation.

But we're basically in uncharted waters here. No-one knows for sure what will happen when the population of the world as a whole will decline.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

No one appears to have mentions PD James' sf novel Children of Men, which posits no so much decline as a catastrophic cut-off.

The Britain she paints went to hell in a handcart in short order, and quite believably so.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Doc Tor: No one appears to have mentions PD James' sf novel Children of Men, which posits no so much decline as a catastrophic cut-off.

I haven't read this one. I was thinking a bit of The White Plague by Herbert myself, although the premise is obviously different.

(There is another novel where there are no more children, but no-one cares and life goes on as normal. This book is called Left Behind.)

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We drove yesterday on Highway 5 between Wadena and Canora, Saskatchewan, as part of a longer journey. On that 102 km stretch, there are many marked villages and as you travel by, it is possible to see streets laid out and 2 or 6 houses still there. Perhaps a boarded up gas station or fallen in quonset. You have to gas up before because there's not much between. The province has had 1 million people since the 1920s, but the two largest cities have gone from about 50,000 to close to 300,000 each in 50 years.

The rural population has been emptying since mid last century. We always have had a lot of discussion, politics, and more of the same about it. Many hospitals are closed. The solution has been to train "first responders" who then call in the STARS helicopter for emergencies. Children frequently are bussed up to an hour each way to school (it is not supposed to be more than 45 minutes, but they clock it in snow-free months).

One answer has been co-operative businesses so that there are still banks (credit unions), grocery stores, supported living for elderly. Another has been direct government intervention in a socialist way. In the small community (300 homes) we're spending Easter in, we have government company (Crown corporation) provided cell phone towers and wired internet is coming this summer. It is not cost effective for a commercial business. TV cable is a cooperative. Electric and natural gas is government.

All of these leads me to the conclusion that if remote communities do not have services, you need local something like cooperative initiative and government intervention. It serms completely ridiculous that a sparsely populated area like this could have proper services and European locations don't. But I guess we avoided the privatization ideology nonsense some places didn't.

[ 24. March 2016, 21:45: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet's flag is set so...: All of these leads me to the conclusion that if remote communities do not have services, you need local something like cooperative initiative and government intervention.

Thank you. Your description is very vivid, and this certainly has given me something to think about.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Today we drove past the Cabrach, a rural area which was depopulated as a result of the First World War. The young men of the district died on the battlefields of France and Belgium, and there was no-one left to inherit the farms and crofts. Farming there was marginal anyway, the winters are fierce. (British Shipmates will probably be familiar with winter travel reports mentioning the closure of the Cockbridge to Tomintoul road; the Cabrach is the next parish along.) There was still snow on the hills today. The snowdrops are out, but the daffodils were barely budding.

We stopped twice, for morning coffee and for lunch and at both places our waitresses were Polish, though I suspect they are temporary workers, rather than young people with a wish to settle. Will the Cabrach ever be re-populated? Many houses are now just an outline of rubble; the depopulation happened too long ago for there to be empty houses for newcomers to move into.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

What hope is there for reversing the depopulation of the Highlands, when the Home Office want to deport a family like this.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
North East Quine: What hope is there for reversing the depopulation of the Highlands, when the Home Office want to deport a family like this.

Interestingly, from this article: "We were responding to the 2007 Highland homecoming programme the Scottish Government were promoting in Australia, which was also backed by the Home Office. They laid out the progression you could make to come back and help repopulate the Highlands."

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the irony in Scotland asking Australia for re-population.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Le Roc

You may find that in this case the irony is lost on your ordinary Scot. The emigration continued after Clearances finished much of the emigration from the Highlands and Islands was of economic necessity. A friendly caricature of the typical remote Highlander or Islander is of an intellectually able, hardworking person who chose poverty due to a love of landscape/home rather than the easy lucre of the industrial cities. The percentage with degrees and above in these communities far outweighs the demand. Indeed, many young people go to the cities first to University and then for work and only a few return when they have young families or retire.

The emmigration to Australia and elsewhere was often aimed at the urban poor since the decline in heavy industry since the middle twentieth century. So a generation or so on of semi-fulfilled success in the cities. To complicate matters there is also the Irish dynamic in the South West corner of Scotland where "indigenous" labour went to the cities and was replaced by cheaper Irish labour escaping the poverty in Ireland.

Basically, nothing is as simple as it seems. There has been no economic model for sustainable communities in these areas for probably three centuries. The result is that many communities have disappeared and those that still exist fear for their future. Given the limited truth of the caricature and if there was enough investment put into modern communication technology, I suspect they could become a quiet powerhouse of invention but it needs a radical rethink about how life is organised by some big companies at least. However without the effort put into sustain the communities it takes a special type of person to live in these places.

Jengie

[ 03. April 2016, 12:16: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Sorry just to say "indigenous" is in scare quotes because I mean young adults born in the parish. There is very little difference between the Irish and the Scots in that corner of Scotland. Families have hopped back and forward across the Irish Sea since time immemorial.

Jengie

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0