[alancalverd]

Japanese's

No. You only quote the Japanese government and their puppet economists.
The working people, i.e 99% of the Japanese population,  are obviously happy with their rational choice to make fewer babies.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Japanese's

No. You only quote the Japanese government and their puppet economists.
The working people, i.e 99% of the Japanese population,  are obviously happy with their rational choice to make fewer babies.

Read again my previous post.

But it makes their government worries about their future.

Who "their"?

Only bankers and speculators suffer if demand falls below supply. Sadly, most politicians align themselves with  these parasites, not the productive workers.

What is apparent from the current Japanese model is that the desire to make babies can be offset or delayed by the pleasure of a high standard of education and living. It is much the same in Scandinavia.   

It's the Japanese government who worry. Some Japanese people worry as well, but some of them don't.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is it limited to direct descendants, or it includes their descendants too? How many levels down the line should we care about?

The benefits would be felt immediately by everyone except the parasites.
My calculations show that the UK would achieve full sustainability in about 100 years, so maybe 4 generations would be the optimum point to stabilise, but the choice can be made at any time.

Should we care if a known existential risk would occur on fifth or sixth generation?

[alancalverd]

It's the Japanese government who worry.

And what do they worry about? The Economy. And who benefits from the economics of a growing population? Parasites.

[alancalverd]

Should we care if a known existential risk would occur on fifth or sixth generation?

I have no idea what "existential" means, but it is always a good idea to avoid known risks. Fortunately my procedure is reversible so you can avoid any apparent future risk by simply reverting to "replacement plus" reproduction.

[alancalverd]

Any product manufacturers and service providers suffer if demand falls.

But if the population decreases, there are fewer people involved in manufacturing and service provision. And thanks to technology, those numbers are being reduced anyway!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's the Japanese government who worry.

And what do they worry about? The Economy. And who benefits from the economics of a growing population? Parasites.

Generally, service providers get the benefits of growing population due to economic of scale. Mass productions tend to have lower cost per unit of products. The same rules apply for governments, whose products are laws, rules, and public decisions in redistribution of resources.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I have no idea what "existential" means,

Existential risk for humanity means the risk of human extinction, such as major asteroid impact.
Existential risk for lives on earth means the risk of all lives on earth to go extinct, such as when the sun runs out of fuel and swallows the earth.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Fortunately my procedure is reversible so you can avoid any apparent future risk by simply reverting to "replacement plus" reproduction.

Quantity is not the only relevant factor. Quality also plays important roles.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any product manufacturers and service providers suffer if demand falls.

But if the population decreases, there are fewer people involved in manufacturing and service provision. And thanks to technology, those numbers are being reduced anyway!

If the population of a country is too small, it has higher risk of being attacked by larger countries. Making alliance with larger countries can be a way to prevent it, but it requires larger population for that larger countries to begin with. There are low limit as well as high limit to get optimal results, which depend on various factors.

[alancalverd]

Generally, service providers get the benefits of growing population due to economic of scale.

No. The managers and inverstors of service providers may benefit from expansion of the market, but those who actually provide the service generally don't. An efficient business occupies each production worker to his/her capacity.

Economies of scale are only apparent when the scale alters by orders of magnitude, which makes the investment in machinery or process redesign worthwhile. It is clear that increasing the human population by a factor  of 10 would not be sustainable or desirable, but gradually reducing it to 10  or 20% of the current number would benefit future generations. 

[alancalverd]

Quantity is not the only relevant factor. Quality also plays important roles.

The quality of the species would be unaffected by reducing reproduction rates - there are no quotas for genius or stupidity. However the probability of identifying and nurturing genius would increase  if e.g. school classes were smaller and had more resources per capita. 

[alancalverd]

If the population of a country is too small, it has higher risk of being attacked by larger countries.

The concept of "country" is pretty meaningless in this context. But for as long as we allow scum to acquire presidential powers it is certainly a good idea to form alliances with those of a similar disposition to our good selves.

I doubt that The Rest of the World versus Israel conflict has anything to do with the numerical population of Israel.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The concept of "country" is pretty meaningless in this context.

On the contrary, the concept of country has become a consensus that determines sovereignty and self governing of people who live within its territory.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

there are no quotas for genius or stupidity.

But there's normal distribution.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I doubt that The Rest of the World versus Israel conflict has anything to do with the numerical population of Israel.

There's a minimum threshold for a country to be functional effectively.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Taking Trolley Problem Memes Seriously (Again)

0:00 Dictator Clone
2:18 The Hackers
3:42 The Mona Lisa
6:24 The Same Number of People
8:00 Deal or No Deal?

Most discussions about trolley problem only consider direct consequences.
Solutions to problems require some resources. One of the most valuable resources is time. If someday we are facing a difficult situation in moral dilemma, it means we have already failed to identify, anticipate, and prevent such situation from happening in the first place.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When facing a real life moral dilemma, we need to verify first whether or not the presented proposition is true. Otherwise, we are at risk of making a wrong decision.
The Aztecs made human sacrifice thinking that otherwise, their society will collapse in natural disasters caused by God's wrath.
The Nazis commit genocides thinking that otherwise, their society will collapse by genetic impurities and resources extraction by other groups of people.

[alancalverd]

self governing of people who live within its territory.

"Self governing" rarely means what it says. What evidence do you have for the democratic process in Russia, North Korea, or Iran?  "Governed by someone who speaks your language and will kill you if you disagree with him" doesn't have quite the same ring about it.

[alancalverd]

There's a minimum threshold for a country to be functional effectively.

Please state the minimum, and define "effectively".