Systems are usually based on trends - naturally the trend for a long time has been stable to increasing population. Changes can (and should) be arranged in good time to correct as necessary. A shrinkage can thus also be safely managed - but within limits. Japan's population has been shrinking for over a decade and will almost certainly continue to, but no-one thinks Japan will fall over. China's population will probably go negative within about 10 years; India's birth rate has declined to the point that in a few decades that will probably see population decrease in 20-30 years. Across most of the world outside Africa, in fact, most countries across the world are projected to stagnate or go into decline over the coming decades. None of this should be a particular problem. The problem would be a sharp and heavy drop in population.
I agree, any catastrophe on that scale would have an impact on so many levels of society that of course upheaval and discord would result. I'm mostly referring to various talking points I've heard over the years, from people against the idea of population reduction, and other factors that would result in a reduction, or end in our constant expansion. Very often I've heard them say "We can't have that happen, it would ruin the economy. The economy is dependent on the growth of a society, if it declines, we will have problems." And my thoughts have always been "Ok but, you can't predict constant, uninterrupted expansion. Everything has limits. So that isn't really a defense, it's more pointing out a flaw in your model. Because bad things happen, that's just a fact. We wake up one day, and an oceanic earthquake happens, displacing a massive plate, and we get 250k dead, and billions/trillions in infrastructure damage in a matter of hours. A volcano decides to go boom and fuck some stuff up. The list goes on. So it would be more prudent, I think, to actually try and say "ok so, let's maybe structure this system, to account for declines as best we can. Whether it be a slow decline due to various factors, or short term events that shake it up." I personally would prefer an emphasis on the former, than the latter, as I find that the more likely scenario.
I agree however that resilience in systems is a good idea. I think if Covid taught us anything, it's that perhaps we have less than we thought - although perhaps it could also be viewed that many of our countries were able to adapt quickly and effectively. Actually, I wonder whether Covid-19 hasn't cracked some of the economic assumptions anyway. The US national debt has sailed well over 100% GDP, and Biden's talking about a $2 trillion infrastructure plan. Seems to me that someone's worked out that massive national debt is much more manageable than previously assumed, or there's a plan in the works to deal with it such that spending can be supported - like, they're going to tax someone.
Yes, I would say the Covid event has shone a light on how well some models are at adapting with minimal upheaval. Nobody came through squeaky clean, but it's pretty obvious that some of them faired much better than others. And yeah, spending itself isn't the problem, it's what you are spending the money ON, that is important. I still think that our overall system is really borked, as it's all some kind of financial dick measuring system, to see who is "winning." And that entire mindset is a problem in my opinion.
www.theguardian.com
