65G and Future Urban Warfare

[stanc]

Not sure why you seem to think that's an issue. As long as births exceed deaths each year, won't the population -- and the number of young people -- continue to increase?

No. The aging population continues to increase because they aren't dying at normal life expectancies, so population growth is driven by this in most of the world and has been since the 1950s...

Illogical. The population does not increase because people are living longer. It increases because there are more births than deaths.

If no children were born each year, the population would not increase. It would decrease, regardless of increases in life expectancy.

Why should it? The US has historically shown very little interest in getting involved in Africa.

...to the shores of Tripoli. We've been involved in Africa to some degree dating back centuries, but more so lately. North Africa goes without saying, including the North Africa campaign in WWII, US focus on peace accords between Egypt and Israel, US commitment to the UN Sinai mission, as well as our involvement in Somalia, our hub in Djibouti even before, but especially since 9/11, and the growing threat of terrorist expansion into Africa, compounded with Chinese thirst for resources in the Dark Continent.

Tripoli was two centuries ago. The US invaded North Africa during WWII only to fight the Germans and Italians, not because of a desire to get involved in Africa.

Somalia was the only example of a commitment of large numbers of combat troops, and that effort was soon abandoned. As I said, very little historical interest.

We're looking at more of a global LE mission than a traditional military one, if you read between the lines of their mission profile mindset.

That's reasonable. After all, global law enforcement is what the mission has typically been since the Vietnam War ended.

In other words, they've written off any Fulda Gap scenarios for Europe, since Russia is in decline.

I don't know how much of a decline Russia is in, but I always considered the obsession with the Fulda Gap scenario to have been based more on wishful thinking of American Generals who wanted to emulate Patton's exploits, than on any real likelihood of a Russian invasion.

[JASmith]

Illogical. The population does not increase because people are living longer. It increases because there are more births than deaths.

If no children were born each year, the population would not increase. It would decrease, regardless of increases in life expectancy...

True but wrong -- start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal. Then increase the life span by 20% and wihat happens?

The death rate will have decreased resulting in population growth.

The biggest example is China's attempt to lomit their population growth woth the "one child" policy. If I recall the open source article correctly, their population would have doubled over 50 years eaven if every family was limited to just one child.

Over the longer term, however, the "one child" policy would cause a dramtic decline in population.

The time constant of a few generations makes figuring these things out a bit challenging.

[stanc]

True but wrong -- start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal. Then increase the life span by 20% and wihat happens?

The death rate will have decreased resulting in population growth.

Faulty reasoning. The population growth would result only from births, not from increased life span.

To borrow from your example, start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal.

Then cut the birth rate to zero, increase the life span by 100% (or even 200%), and what happens?

The population would decrease, not increase.

Population growth results only from births, not extended life span.

[JASmith]

Do the math -- increasing life span increases the population even with a steady birth rates.

Specious counter examples will not change the facts.

[85_Ranger4x4]

True but wrong -- start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal. Then increase the life span by 20% and wihat happens?

The death rate will have decreased resulting in population growth.

The biggest example is China's attempt to lomit their population growth woth the "one child" policy. If I recall the open source article correctly, their population would have doubled over 50 years eaven if every family was limited to just one child.

Over the longer term, however, the "one child" policy would cause a dramtic decline in population.

The time constant of a few generations makes figuring these things out a bit challenging.

Since firstbornes are usually males it starts feeding on itself too, they are getting a very lopsided population out of the deal with fewer females. Fewer couples = fewer firstborns in the next generation... and then the process repeats.

[JASmith]

Since firstbornes are usually males it starts feeding on itself too, they are getting a very lopsided population out of the deal with fewer females. Fewer couples = fewer firstborns in the next generation... and then the process repeats.

China, I believe, is one of the countries where the culture places great stock in male children so the bias toward males surviving the first few months increases significantly.

This adds to the feedback loop...

[stanc]

Do the math -- increasing life span increases the population even with a steady birth rates.

But the population increase occurs only because more people are being added to the population.

According to your math, if the life span is doubled, and the birth rate is held steady at zero, the population would still increase.

Specious counter examples will not change the facts.

Heh, heh. Neither will flawed reasoning.

[85_Ranger4x4]

But the population increase occurs only because more people are being added to the population.

According to your math, if the life span is doubled, and the birth rate is held steady at zero, the population would still increase.

So if life span was halved it wouldn't effect the population either?

[gmaxx]

So if life span was halved it wouldn't effect the population either?

Lifespan will not effect population size over the long term. Population growth over the long term is determined only by the ratio of births(and immigration if dealing with a nation/geographic area) to deaths (and emigration).

Total Pop: 100
Death rate per year:2
Birth rate per year: 2
life span: 50yr
Population after 1 year: 100
Population after 2 years: 100

Total Pop: 100
Death rate per year:2
Birth rate per year: 0
life span: 50yr
Population after 1 year: 98
Population after 2 years:96

Total Pop: 100
Death rate per year:2
Birth rate per year: 2
life span: 70yr
Population after 1 year: 100
Population after 2 years: 100

Total Pop: 100
Death rate per year:2
Birth rate per year: 0
life span: 70yr
Population after 1 year: 98
Population after 2 years:96

With a birth rate of zero there can never be population growth (if you have 7 rifles and never buy/make/acquire more, 7 is the most you will ever have, no matter how long they last), only a possible slowing of population decrease (due to the decrease of deaths attached to the increase in lifespan) for the number of years that the life span increased. In this case 20 years. Death rate will never be zero, so with a zero birth rate the population will always decline. After this period of time, it will level out and lifespan will again be irrelevant.

I believe the point of the paragraph was that a decrease in birth rate combined with an increase in lifespan is leading to an aging population requiring more care and automation. This also means fewer people of fighting age.

[stanc]

So if life span was halved it wouldn't effect the population either?

As it is, only a small percentage of women who give birth are older than 35, and almost none who are older than 45.

If life span were halved, it would prompt women to have children earlier in life, as was actually the case prior to a century or so ago.

So, I would expect the result of your hypothetical would be as it was historically: A gradual increase in population over time.

[stanc]

Lifespan will not effect population size over the long term. Population growth over the long term is determined only by the ratio of births(and immigration if dealing with a nation/geographic area) to deaths (and emigration).

<snip>

With a birth rate of zero there can never be population growth (if you have 7 rifles and never buy/make/acquire more, 7 is the most you will ever have, no matter how long they last), only a possible slowing of population decrease (due to the decrease of deaths attached to the increase in lifespan) for the number of years that the life span increased. In this case 20 years. Death rate will never be zero, so with a zero birth rate the population will always decline. After this period of time, it will level out and lifespan will again be irrelevant.

Good analysis. Well said.

I believe the point of the paragraph was that a decrease in birth rate combined with an increase in lifespan is leading to an aging population requiring more care and automation. This also means fewer people of fighting age.

No doubt an increase in lifespan will result in a greater number of the elderly who need care. But, I fail to see any reason why that would have significant impact on combat in megacities.

Or, since old people don't reproduce, why living longer would result in fewer people of fighting age. It seems to me that, as long as women of childbearing age continue to give birth, there will always be an adequate supply of people of fighting age.

[JASmith]

This is the math:

Birth Rate 2
Total Pop 100
Age at Death 50
Death Rate 2 people per year

Pop at 10 yr 100

Birth Rate 2
Total Pop 100
Age at Death 100
Death Rate 1 people per year

Pop at 10 yr 110

Now, of course, the population growth will level off and then decline back to about 100, but that will take more than a generation.

[Trock03]

More births than deaths = population growth. People living longer (while the birthing thing keeps going) = over population. Neither is good when they're not making any more land.

You're all correct so pats yourselves on the back and let it go so that we can get back to talking about how the military is going to adopt the Grendel and we can all brag about how we recognized its benefits long before it went mainstream.

TC

[Troutguide]

Yup

[LRRPF52]

Faulty reasoning. The population growth would result only from births, not from increased life span.

To borrow from your example, start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal.

Then cut the birth rate to zero, increase the life span by 100% (or even 200%), and what happens?

The population would decrease, not increase.

Population growth results only from births, not extended life span.

Negative. A zero growth population is a balance of births and deaths.

We no longer have a balance of deaths because people are living way longer than they normally did. So if your population declines 37% in births, but instead of dying at age 40 like they did before, they live to 60, 70, or 80, and things get out of hand.

This is all from the work of demographers, not my claims. These are people who watch and record these rates globally as their profession.

They are talking about demographic winter in the future, where your conclusion finally happens, but global population growth rates have been driven by longer life expectancies and a lot less births than normal.

High birth rates in the underdeveloped world have led to low life expectancies due to disease, lack of infrastructure, wear and tear on mothers, malnutrition, and starvation even.

As those birth rates declined, the aging populations ballooned, with a peak occurring over the next 13 years.

I would strongly suggest anyone interested in learning more about it to watch this video: