this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
17 points (90.5% liked)

collapse

274 readers
8 users here now

Placeholder for time being, moving from lemm.ee

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 

"The start of the collapse of the industrial production (here calculated in per capita terms) was supposed to be at some moment between 2010 and 2020. A little too early, because we passed that moment. But that calculation was made more than 50 years ago, and it is legitimate to think that it needs some readjustments. That was what Nebel et al did in a recent paper; they recalibrated the same model (word3) on the basis of the available real-world data. And here is their result. "

all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 5 points 6 days ago

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13442

^ the actual study

Pretty interesting. They say we run out of resources first before pollution (climate change) places a limit.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The model is fine but the conclusions are odd. Population decline means a food surplus. A global population decline represents an improvement in the standard of living for everyone but those who live on the backs of the workers.

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The study points out that resources decline, causing industrial production to decline, causing food production to decline causing population to decline.

So food production loss triggers the population loss.

[–] hanrahan@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Population decline means a food surplus.

Not necessarily. You're assuming the agricultural areas will remain the same, id suggest if theres a population decline it's because some system has broken down, not becase humans have come to their senses.

As to an improveing living atandards for everyone, i also don't think that will occur, we allow the wealthy to accumate most increases now, presumably they'll want to maintain that growth for themselves, so well need to sacrifice more to allow that to happen. We don't share shit now, so why would we in any futire?

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

id suggest if theres a population decline it's because some system has broken down

Modern population decline in the western world is because automation means people don't need 10 kids to do farm work so they can survive. The population decline is because the system is working so well we don't need as many people to survive.

As to an improveing living atandards for everyone, i also don't think that will occur, we allow the wealthy to accumate most increases now,

A decrease in the number of workers makes each worker more valuable. This has been seen in history after the Black Plague and more recently after the depopulation of Europe from WW2 of the most productive workers resulted in an economic boom.

[–] elvith@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

Modern population decline in the western world is because automation means people don't need 10 kids to do farm work so they can survive.

Also we have access to way better medical knowledge, procedures and treatments. If, say half of your kids die eary, you are more inclined to have more children than if it is almost guaranteed, that your children will all live and grow up.