This isn't my idea - it is mainstream science.
The demographic timebomb is a known phenomenon that predicts a bleak future in such as Japan, based on birth rate necessary to sustain populations. The richer European countries have the same problem, google it - it is worrying.
Of course, you are right in saying there is then the challenge to keep that population productive, and increase the productivity where possible. There are also possible technological saviours. For example if nuclear fusion energy is cracked giving unlimited near free energy, which can be used to create unlimited food, and other cheap goods, then the population can have more leisure, and population size becomes less of an issue,
On the last point , life expectancy is bought at a price.
The drugs and health care that keep people living longer are increasingly expensive, almost exponentially so.
[rant]
And in my view at least, as someone connected to drug industry, a part of that is the ridiculous number and cost of the hoops new drugs are forced to clear, followed by too short a patent protection. It costs $100m dollars to do a phase III trial, because regulations demand a ridiculous combination and extent of population variations are tested. In some less prevalent conditions- it is almost impossible to find trial participants in the minority groups that regs demand. Those costs - and the massive failure rate of new drugs and new drug companies are why drugs are so expensive. Hilary Clinton should keep her mouth shut ( indeed most career politicians) about an industry of which she has not the vaguest concept, whose challenges she has not taken the trouble to study.
It is a sorry state of affairs that there are no new antibiotics primarily because it is not economically viable to develop them, at the price healthcare industry expects to buy them! If there was money to be made, big business would be all over solving the problem.
Politicians are also masters of populist inadequate thinking, far too ready to attack big business without understanding first. The shortening of patent protection( intended to reduce drug prices by allowing generics has near opposite effect.
The companies are forced to put prices up massively because it takes 7 years to even get to market, and they have to recoup costs and for all the failures in such a short time, because of short patent life.
[/rant]
The demographic timebomb is a known phenomenon that predicts a bleak future in such as Japan, based on birth rate necessary to sustain populations. The richer European countries have the same problem, google it - it is worrying.
Of course, you are right in saying there is then the challenge to keep that population productive, and increase the productivity where possible. There are also possible technological saviours. For example if nuclear fusion energy is cracked giving unlimited near free energy, which can be used to create unlimited food, and other cheap goods, then the population can have more leisure, and population size becomes less of an issue,
On the last point , life expectancy is bought at a price.
The drugs and health care that keep people living longer are increasingly expensive, almost exponentially so.
[rant]
And in my view at least, as someone connected to drug industry, a part of that is the ridiculous number and cost of the hoops new drugs are forced to clear, followed by too short a patent protection. It costs $100m dollars to do a phase III trial, because regulations demand a ridiculous combination and extent of population variations are tested. In some less prevalent conditions- it is almost impossible to find trial participants in the minority groups that regs demand. Those costs - and the massive failure rate of new drugs and new drug companies are why drugs are so expensive. Hilary Clinton should keep her mouth shut ( indeed most career politicians) about an industry of which she has not the vaguest concept, whose challenges she has not taken the trouble to study.
It is a sorry state of affairs that there are no new antibiotics primarily because it is not economically viable to develop them, at the price healthcare industry expects to buy them! If there was money to be made, big business would be all over solving the problem.
Politicians are also masters of populist inadequate thinking, far too ready to attack big business without understanding first. The shortening of patent protection( intended to reduce drug prices by allowing generics has near opposite effect.
The companies are forced to put prices up massively because it takes 7 years to even get to market, and they have to recoup costs and for all the failures in such a short time, because of short patent life.
[/rant]
I'm not sure what you mean by 'reproduction rates being too low to sustain working populations' - I know many areas already struggle with having too many unemployed people and not enough work options. And what do you mean by 'costing ever more to keep healthy?'
You are correct that having smaller families may affect having less to take care of the elderly in the future - however, this is an issue we already struggle with in US culture. We're not necessarily known for putting the needs of our elderly first in comparison to the certain countries. Unfortunate but true.
Last edited:
Upvote
0