Elon Musk

[wdolson]

So this thread has had a lot of discussion recently about Elon's warnings about population collapse. I'm in the middle of reading my favorite geo-political/economic analyst's just released book, "The End of the World is Just The Beginning" , and I've just gotten to the point where he explains why we are staring at actual population collapse, not just a decline. Let me see if I can paraphrase it.

One of the things that people miss about our historical population increase is that in the past two hundred or so years, it has been fueled by longer lifespans, not just birth rates. If you double lifespans, but keep birthrates constant, then in one generation, you've doubled your population. And that is what we've seen as modern medicine has slowly spread through the world. But lifespans have basically hit a wall (except in some ever smaller regions of the poorest parts of the world which have yet to industrialize). So lifespan population boost has pretty much reached its end.

Meanwhile, global industrialization has resulted in people having far fewer children. There are many reasons for this (children meant free labor on a pre-industrialized farm, now they are very expensive luxuries), but the facts are undeniable. We have below replacement birthrates for much of the world (like 1.8 children per woman), and some notable countries (Korea, and China!) the latest 2022 data suggest 1.2 children.

So we've been living through a period where expanding lifespans overwhelmed the declining birthrates to give us a still expanding population, but that period is ending. So now in the 2020s, in almost all of the industrialized world we are running low of young adults which is the group that produces the most children. Unless something changes, like mass cloning technology, or WWIII throwing us back into pre-industrialization, this is an accelerating trend. Every generation going forward will be smaller than the one before it. That's why some people are worried about population collapse.

Is it inevitable? No one knows because the world has never seen this before. The industrial revolution has only happened once in human history. What comes on the other side of the population hump? We don't know, but one outcome is catastrophically bad.

Since we really don't know what the future will hold, people like Elon aren't calling for a mass forced re-population program. But he is pointing out that it is very dangerous to be thinking the opposite, that we have too many people, that we should be cutting back on having kids. It isn't obvious now, but China will absolutely be paying the price for its one child policy.

Actually what reduces birthrates is not industrialization, but reduction in infant mortality. Even in the least industrialized countries, as child mortality dropped, women had fewer kids.

The problem China is facing is with elder care as the population shrinks. With more retirees than working people, the economy is strained paying pensions for the elderly. Japan has been dealing with it for 30 years now and are beginning to come out of it as the older population dies off.

A population drop when all the structures of society are still set up for an expanding population will lead to collapse. But that's human stupidity rather than inevitability. Europe took a huge population decline in a very short period of time with the Black Death, the conservative estimates have been 1/3 of the population, but more recent estimates were 1/2.

Short term it was chaos on Europe's economies and cultures, but within a few generations the Renaissance had started and a few generations after that Europe was conquering the rest of the world.

That is a population collapse beyond anything projected as birthrates fall. A slow population decline from lower birthrates is a series of cultural problems that need to be dealt with rather than a guarantee of doom.

The US has expensive child care, health care and education. Fix that and it will be easier to have children.

A few years ago I read a book that made the point that we have gotten used to many things getting cheaper over time, but some things have not gotten cheaper, healthcare and education among them. We need to shift our thinking that those things are expensive and will remain expensive but since they are important, we need to suck it up and accept that.

 

[mspohr]

A few years ago I read a book that made the point that we have gotten used to many things getting cheaper over time, but some things have not gotten cheaper, healthcare and education among them. We need to shift our thinking that those things are expensive and will remain expensive but since they are important, we need to suck it up and accept that.

The US is unique among developed countries in that we have predominantly private health and education services. These keep costs high due to private profits.
The US spends 2to 3 times what other developed countries spend on health care but still leave many people without care. We have the worst health indicators. Every other developed country spends less, covers everyone and has better health.
Similar for higher education.

 

[Nolakai]

So this thread has had a lot of discussion recently about Elon's warnings about population collapse. I'm in the middle of reading my favorite geo-political/economic analyst's just released book, "The End of the World is Just The Beginning" , and I've just gotten to the point where he explains why we are staring at actual population collapse, not just a decline. Let me see if I can paraphrase it.

One of the things that people miss about our historical population increase is that in the past two hundred or so years, it has been fueled by longer lifespans, not just birth rates. If you double lifespans, but keep birthrates constant, then in one generation, you've doubled your population. And that is what we've seen as modern medicine has slowly spread through the world. But lifespans have basically hit a wall (except in some ever smaller regions of the poorest parts of the world which have yet to industrialize). So lifespan population boost has pretty much reached its end.

Meanwhile, global industrialization has resulted in people having far fewer children. There are many reasons for this (children meant free labor on a pre-industrialized farm, now they are very expensive luxuries), but the facts are undeniable. We have below replacement birthrates for much of the world (like 1.8 children per woman), and some notable countries (Korea, and China!) the latest 2022 data suggest 1.2 children.

So we've been living through a period where expanding lifespans overwhelmed the declining birthrates to give us a still expanding population, but that period is ending. So now in the 2020s, in almost all of the industrialized world we are running low of young adults which is the group that produces the most children. Unless something changes, like mass cloning technology, or WWIII throwing us back into pre-industrialization, this is an accelerating trend. Every generation going forward will be smaller than the one before it. That's why some people are worried about population collapse.

Is it inevitable? No one knows because the world has never seen this before. The industrial revolution has only happened once in human history. What comes on the other side of the population hump? We don't know, but one outcome is catastrophically bad.

Since we really don't know what the future will hold, people like Elon aren't calling for a mass forced re-population program. But he is pointing out that it is very dangerous to be thinking the opposite, that we have too many people, that we should be cutting back on having kids. It isn't obvious now, but China will absolutely be paying the price for its one child policy.

Dows he address climate collapse and environmental catastrophe? How these relate to population and political and economic resilience?

 

[wdolson]

The US is unique among developed countries in that we have predominantly private health and education services. These keep costs high due to private profits.
The US spends 2to 3 times what other developed countries spend on health care but still leave many people without care. We have the worst health indicators. Every other developed country spends less, covers everyone and has better health.
Similar for higher education.

The US has quite a bit of public education, but the predominantly private health care does make the US both more expensive and give poorer overall results for many areas of medicine than other countries with a public healthcare model, but every country feels a constant strain over rising cost of providing healthcare.

The NHS in the UK is under constant attack from all sides. The workers work long hours for not great wages and the politicians are always pushing for more cuts. I recommend reading the book "This is Going to Hurt" which is an autobiography of an NHS doctor who burned out and is now a BBC comedy writer. A television series was made from the book too.

He said he calculated how much he made per hour when he added up all the hours he put in over the first few years and he was making less than minimum wage per hour. His relationship with his fiance went south because he was working so much. And this was over 10 years ago, it's worse now.

The problem of healthcare costs being too high are born by some part of the medical system in some way in every country. It's a problem everywhere, it's just the worst and most obvious in the US.

 

[mspohr]

The US has quite a bit of public education, but the predominantly private health care does make the US both more expensive and give poorer overall results for many areas of medicine than other countries with a public healthcare model, but every country feels a constant strain over rising cost of providing healthcare.

The NHS in the UK is under constant attack from all sides. The workers work long hours for not great wages and the politicians are always pushing for more cuts. I recommend reading the book "This is Going to Hurt" which is an autobiography of an NHS doctor who burned out and is now a BBC comedy writer. A television series was made from the book too.

He said he calculated how much he made per hour when he added up all the hours he put in over the first few years and he was making less than minimum wage per hour. His relationship with his fiance went south because he was working so much. And this was over 10 years ago, it's worse now.

The problem of healthcare costs being too high are born by some part of the medical system in some way in every country. It's a problem everywhere, it's just the worst and most obvious in the US.

The US has lots of public higher education but most of it is not free like other developed countries where you can get free higher education. In the US, even going to a public university will require taking on substantial debt which will take decades to pay off.

There are lots of anecdotes in many countries about burned out health care workers. In the US, this is usually because they are working for some exploitative medical industry corporation.
The US has by far the most expensive and least effective health care industry and this is due to its unfettered "free market" capitalism. All of the other OECD countries spend less, cover more people and have better health outcomes.
The US spends close to 20% of GDP on heath care. The average for all OECD countries is 8%.
The US is at the bottom of health indicators for all OECD countries. To take just one example of the poor health of the US, the OECD shows PLL (Potential Years of Life Lost) for the US of 4902 whereas the average for all OECD countries is 3175.

 

[FlatSix911]

The US is unique among developed countries in that we have predominantly private health and education services. These keep costs high due to private profits.
The US spends 2to 3 times what other developed countries spend on health care but still leave many people without care. We have the worst health indicators. Every other developed country spends less, covers everyone and has better health.
Similar for higher education.

Keep in mind that we also have the medical and education systems that produce the most innovative technological advancements worldwide.

 

[JRP3]

Keep in mind that we also have the medical and education systems that produce the most innovative technological advancements worldwide.

Which puts people deeply in debt, raising costs for treatments that many can't afford.

 

[mspohr]

Keep in mind that we also have the medical and education systems that produce the most innovative technological advancements worldwide.

Our medical innovation is largely confined to things that can be monetized to increase profits. And these innovations are often of dubious value to patients.
As far as innovation in other areas, I think the rest of the world is doing better.

 

[Tiger]

Our medical innovation is largely confined to things that can be monetized to increase profits. And these innovations are often of dubious value to patients.
As far as innovation in other areas, I think the rest of the world is doing better.

I want to toast for the national cool-aid, though Wonder why we feel inclined to find something positive to say when we should put our focus on fixing the wrongs ... maybe B. F. Skinner can shed some light ...

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Which puts people deeply in debt, raising costs for treatments that many can't afford.

For a low price of $200K you can buy yourself or a loved one 6 more months of anguish.

That's where a LOT of the health care money is going.

 

[mspohr]

I want to toast for the national cool-aid, though Wonder why we feel inclined to find something positive to say when we should put our focus on fixing the wrongs ... maybe B. F. Skinner can shed some light ...

National Health Insurance (Medicare for all) would fix a lot of things.
Free university education would jump start innovation and avoid burdening students with onerous debt.

 

[mspohr]

For a low price of $200K you can buy yourself or a loved one 6 more months of anguish.

That's where a LOT of the health care money is going.

Pharma is a big cost driver.
Here's just one example that just popped up in my news feed:

'Striking' Jump in Cost of Brand-Name Epilepsy Meds

The cost of brand-name antiepileptic drugs has soared 277% in recent years, with brand-name drugs costing 10 times more than their generic counterparts.

www.medscape.com

In this case, generic epilepsy meds are cheap but the drug companies convince doctors to prescribe a new, fancy (innovative) branded drug at a much higher price. This new drug might have some marginal benefit but the main innovation here is the ability to charge more.

 

[MontyFloyd]

I agree 100%. I have said it before and I will say it again (for all it's worth) Elon needs to be removed as CEO of Tesla

In defense of that (while on fence myself), I did read that founding CEO's are generally great at starting companies, not so great at running them.

 

[MontyFloyd]

Keep in mind that we also have the medical and education systems that produce the most innovative technological advancements worldwide.

If you can afford it.

My experience in taking care of family members, the expense, complicated system, and often sub-par service in USA is maddening.

 

[MontyFloyd]

So this thread has had a lot of discussion recently about Elon's warnings about population collapse. I'm in the middle of reading my favorite geo-political/economic analyst's just released book, "The End of the World is Just The Beginning" , and I've just gotten to the point where he explains why we are staring at actual population collapse, not just a decline. Let me see if I can paraphrase it.

One of the things that people miss about our historical population increase is that in the past two hundred or so years, it has been fueled by longer lifespans, not just birth rates. If you double lifespans, but keep birthrates constant, then in one generation, you've doubled your population. And that is what we've seen as modern medicine has slowly spread through the world. But lifespans have basically hit a wall (except in some ever smaller regions of the poorest parts of the world which have yet to industrialize). So lifespan population boost has pretty much reached its end.

Meanwhile, global industrialization has resulted in people having far fewer children. There are many reasons for this (children meant free labor on a pre-industrialized farm, now they are very expensive luxuries), but the facts are undeniable. We have below replacement birthrates for much of the world (like 1.8 children per woman), and some notable countries (Korea, and China!) the latest 2022 data suggest 1.2 children.

So we've been living through a period where expanding lifespans overwhelmed the declining birthrates to give us a still expanding population, but that period is ending. So now in the 2020s, in almost all of the industrialized world we are running low of young adults which is the group that produces the most children. Unless something changes, like mass cloning technology, or WWIII throwing us back into pre-industrialization, this is an accelerating trend. Every generation going forward will be smaller than the one before it. That's why some people are worried about population collapse.

Is it inevitable? No one knows because the world has never seen this before. The industrial revolution has only happened once in human history. What comes on the other side of the population hump? We don't know, but one outcome is catastrophically bad.

Since we really don't know what the future will hold, people like Elon aren't calling for a mass forced re-population program. But he is pointing out that it is very dangerous to be thinking the opposite, that we have too many people, that we should be cutting back on having kids. It isn't obvious now, but China will absolutely be paying the price for its one child policy.

All that is good, but does not mention youth mortality (probably does in book)
Over 100 years ago YM was close to 50% , so humans needed at least 4 offspring for population to sustain itself.
Today it needs to be slightly over 2, like 2.1.

I agree with overall the indicator, but will take decades or centuries to cause impact IMHO.

 

[mspohr]

All that is good, but does not mention youth mortality (probably does in book)
Over 100 years ago YM was close to 50% , so humans needed at least 4 offspring for population to sustain itself.
Today it needs to be slightly over 2, like 2.1.

I agree with overall the indicator, but will take decades or centuries to cause impact IMHO.

Population "collapse" is probably hyperbole.
Population will probably peak and start to decrease gradually but not collapse.

 

[30seconds]

Pharma is a big cost driver.
Here's just one example that just popped up in my news feed:

'Striking' Jump in Cost of Brand-Name Epilepsy Meds

The cost of brand-name antiepileptic drugs has soared 277% in recent years, with brand-name drugs costing 10 times more than their generic counterparts.

www.medscape.com

In this case, generic epilepsy meds are cheap but the drug companies convince doctors to prescribe a new, fancy (innovative) branded drug at a much higher price. This new drug might have some marginal benefit but the main innovation here is the ability to charge more.

so what you are saying is that doctors are trained well enough to make decisions.

 

[mspohr]

so what you are saying is that doctors are trained well enough to make decisions.

What I am saying is that drug companies do a good job of sending around reps to convince doctors that their new expensive meds are much better than the cheaper old meds even though this is not usually the case. Doctors are susceptible to misleading advertising just like everyone else.
Pharma constantly tweaks their chemical compounds in the hope of finding a new variation that they can patent and gain another 17 year monopoly. Sometimes these are marginally better, sometimes worse but the drug reps will always sell them as much better.

 

[Cosmacelf]

What I am saying is that drug companies do a good job of sending around reps to convince doctors that their new expensive meds are much better than the cheaper old meds even though this is not usually the case. Doctors are susceptible to misleading advertising just like everyone else.
Pharma constantly tweaks their chemical compounds in the hope of finding a new variation that they can patent and gain another 17 year monopoly. Sometimes these are marginally better, sometimes worse but the drug reps will always sell them as much better.

Yep. I remember getting prescribed Vioxx for pain (and inflammation) after a knee surgery many years back. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but stopped using it because it didn’t feel right. Anyways, imagine my non surprise when it was pulled from the market. Existing NSAIDs would have worked just fine. Rofecoxib - Wikipedia

 

[MontyFloyd]

Yep. I remember getting prescribed Vioxx for pain (and inflammation) after a knee surgery many years back. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but stopped using it because it didn’t feel right. Anyways, imagine my non surprise when it was pulled from the market. Existing NSAIDs would have worked just fine. Rofecoxib - Wikipedia

You did great. Too many will take cyanide if doc prescribes.

Another excellent is Jublia for toenail fungus. They want like $500 for a tube good for a week, but give them your personal info and its $20 per week/tube.
Wiki on it here.
There is a cheaper alternate, almost as good.
But with daily treatment, a single jar of Vics vaporub will work just as well, and cost $5.

And then there is Prevagin.
Claims of restoring mental abaily, yet bearly any scientific study.