Economics and Politics of the Future

[pickin_grinnin]

If you want to see real world examples of what people do when they have copious amounts of free time and little worry about food and shelter, look to hunter-gatherer groups. Though it's not a universal rule, in many of them the average person only spends a couple of hours a day doing necessary survival work. They spend the rest of the time socializing, making things, etc.

 

[haakon1]

People **** like rabbits. If everyone has everything they need, they spend a lot of time making babies. So the government that provides for everyone is probably also interested in shipping loads of people off the planet. Say, to go start a "colony" (Aliens, anyone?). Failing that, you'd better dream up some sort of government-imposed birth control, and then dream up the revolution that would occur after the futuristic government tells people they can't be doing their favorite, um, extra-curricular activity. Or go the Chinese route. And say goodbye to your daughters...

On the contrary, there's a direct negative correlation between how rich a country is and how many children the average woman has. Which means as countries develop, birth rates fall and the age pyramid of the population gets older.

The lowest birth rates are in highly developed, highly urbanized countries, like Japan and Singapore.

The highest birth rates are in underdeveloped, rural countries like Afghanistan.

So a future where humanity has developed super high technology but has too many people makes no sense on trends from the last few centuries. Industrialization, education, the green revolution, vaccinations, birth control & other health care improvements add up to meaning Malthus' time has long ended.

 

[haakon1]

I don't think Star Trek thinks all that hard about it.

Agreed. I think Star Trek intentionally didn't take a stand on politics and economics, just as they didn't really explain what a dilithium crystal was, or how to make one, or how precisely it enables us to go faster than light. Details weren't important.

 

[GMMichael]

On the contrary, there's a direct negative correlation between how rich a country is and how many children the average woman has. Which means as countries develop, birth rates fall and the age pyramid of the population gets older.

The lowest birth rates are in highly developed, highly urbanized countries, like Japan and Singapore.

The highest birth rates are in underdeveloped, rural countries like Afghanistan.

So a future where humanity has developed super high technology but has too many people makes no sense on trends from the last few centuries. Industrialization, education, the green revolution, vaccinations, birth control & other health care improvements add up to meaning Malthus' time has long ended.

Just for argument's sake...

There are a few disconnects between what I was saying and what you're saying here. Let's note first that I was referring to technologically and governmentally advanced cultures which don't exactly exist on Earth.

Next, you're probably measuring a nation's wealth ("rich") by its GDP, or level of infrastructure, while I was looking solely at government expenditures (on personal needs...not, say, foreign aid), not a nation's wealth in relation to other nations.

Last, I'm sure your observations about birth rates are dead-on, but what about life expectancies? I bet it's a lot higher in Japan and Singapore than in Afghanistan.

So, disconnects aside, people are mimicking rabbits more often in Afghanistan than in Japan. Probably because they a) want some spirit-uplifting from harsh conditions, b) need extra help on the farm, c) have more free time than those overworked Japanese. Well, future-society people can probably agree with (a) and (c). They obviously don't need extra help on the farm, what with really smart robots to do all the hard work.

Now let's take a brief look (speculation, mind you) at population control. In Afghanistan, well, there's war, poverty, and probably some Taliban capital punishment. In Japan, there's nutrition control (tofu), overworking (overstressing?), and the obvious amounts of pollution that result from being "developed."

Now the real question - if Japan is the closest thing to our high-providing benevolent future government, what do Japan's emigration rates look like?

 

[haakon1]

Now the real question - if Japan is the closest thing to our high-providing benevolent future government, what do Japan's emigration rates look like?

According to the CIA World Factbook, Japan was has 0/1000 net migration. That is, people leave and arrive in precisely equal numbers.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html

Looking at correlation of birth rate, GDP per capita in PPP, and migration rates, at the top and bottom of the world league tables, with honorable mention for Afghanistan as the highest birth rate country outside Sub-Saharan Africa

Japan Birth Rate 8.23 (220th) GDP $35,900 (36th) Migration Rate: 0.00/1000 (91st)
Singapore Birth Rate 7.91 (221th) GDP $60,800 (7th) Migration Rate: +15.80/1000 (5th)
Hong Kong Birth Rate 7.58 (224th) GDP $50,900 (14th) Migration Rate: +3.75/1000 (28th)
Monaco Birth Rate 6.79 (225th) GDP $70,600 (6th) Migration Rate: +1.93/1000 (44th)

Niger Birth Rate 46.84 (1st) GDP $800 (221st) Migration Rate: -0.60/1000 (139th)
Mali Birth Rate 46.06 (2nd) GDP $1,100 (214th) Migration Rate: -2.41/1000 (170th)
Uganda Birth Rate 44.50 (3rd) GDP $1,400 (205th) Migration Rate: -0.01/1000 (110th)
Burkina Faso Birth Rate 42.81 (4th) GDP $1,400 (204th) Migration Rate: 0.00/1000 (105th)
Zambia Birth Rate 42.79 (5th) GDP $1,700 (198th) Migration Rate: -0.75/1000 (144th)
Afghanistan Birth Rate 39.05 (12th) GDP $1,100 (216th) Migration Rate: -2.16/1000 (166th)

So rich countries with low birth rates tend to pull in extra population from less developed countries.
-- People go where the money is, unless they aren't allowed to (Japan).
-- Rich countries like Singapore are growing due to immigration, not birth rates.

If the whole world were highly developed, I think we'd have shrinking population until it reached equilibrium, probably with government encouragement to have more kids. Singapore actually has a number of policies to encourage growth of their native-born population, like housing and tax benefits, but as you can see they've had little effect on a small crowded island with lots of highly educated people.

Of course, with mass cloning and "live forever" medical technology in the far future, all bets are off, I suppose.

For those playing at home, it's interesting also to note that the low birth rate countries are extremely stable and peaceful places (no wars since WWII, low crime rates), whereas the high birth countries often have civil wars and Al-Qaeda problems now (Niger, Mali, Afghanistan) or had serious problems in the previous generation (Uganda under Idi Amin).

Of the low birth rate countries, 2 don't control their own politics (St. Pierre & Miquelon, Hong Kong), 1 is a monarchy with substantial foreign control by a neighbor (Monaco), 1 is a "semi-democracy" with elections, strong rule of law, and a very strong, competent, and successful bureaucracy, but only one party ever winning elections because it's genuinely popular (Singapore), and 1 used to be like a slightly-less organized Singapore and now has multiple parties winning elections after decades of economic stagnation (Japan).

So, yes, the future might resemble Singapore, if we're lucky. Not that different from the Federation, I think.

Or might be dystopian and resemble South Africa crossed with California, as seen in Elysium, if capitalism goes seriously wrong.

 

[GreyLord]

I've also seen the correlations that show the more advanced a society, the fewer pre capita children are had.

I think some of that also is the availability of birth control or the ability to do certain things without having to fear about the effects that others would have had to in less advanced civilizations.

 

[pemerton]

There are some good mini-essays on some of these issues in Rolemaster Companion VI, written by Lev Anderson (who I believe is the same person as Lev Lafeyette who posts on rpg.net).

 

[WayneLigon]

In Star Trek ... In many ways, the way they present it, seems almost like a socialistic society.

Star Trek, in many ways, is a poor example to bring up because it's a TV show with a requirement for drama and adventure, and because too many cooks have long ago spoiled that soup since the original series closed it's doors. Roddenberry's original vision was that they'd gone past the need for money (and this is reinforced in the TNG episode where they encounter people from the 20th century), they'd defeated racism and such, etc.

He wisely didn't attempt to explain much more than that, because that leads into the next item: in a post-scarcity, possibly post-singularity society, almost any form of government we've ever had will also be obsolete because most of the point of government boils down to the power to adjudicate limited resources.

Once that requirement is removed, there probably won't be any democracies or socialist states or really much in the way of any governmental form we recognize. There may not be a requirement for any government or law as we know it at all. Most modern PS Sci-fi seems to postulate a kind of stateless quasi-anarchy based on rational actors, where the only thing that 'enforcers' have to do is to simply make sure that outsiders don't kill citizens. Basically, people 'grow up' and don't do so much foolish stuff as have babies they cannot support.

Their favorite activity certainly would not be outlawed - since there probably are no laws per se - but rather they'd choose to use contraception. Or there's probably room for plenty of immortal babies once you spread out into the universe.

I point everyone to 'The Culture' novels by Iain Banks. There's plenty of descriptions of how The Culture deals with outsider civilizations, how it fights a 'war', etc.