65G and Future Urban Warfare

[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:

[INDENT]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
[/INDENT]

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:

[video=youtube;lZeyYIsGdAA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA[/video]

[LRRPF52]

Yes, my reason for bringing this up is fighting age males.

An able-bodied male without a job in the future will become a smaller and smaller % of the population, since demand will be so high for labor to sustain the aging population.

You will see more and more cases of able-bodied males and females working multiple jobs to support the system, even with automation.

How murderous death cults, terrorists, and foreign agitators work their way into that mess will be more of a challenge for them with ideological recruitment, but it will still happen.

Due to advances in technology, they don't need a lot of people, but they will be the outliers with no real rewards to offer the populace.

I can see them gaining more traction in failed states, and it will be interesting to see how Europe deals with immigration and violent murder cults who target innocents.

Again, a small arms cartridge is a very grassroots piece of the pie in this whole labyrinth. I see metallic cartridges being something left to the 20th century with the US and her allies when looking into my crystal ball for all of this.

[BluntForceTrauma]

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.

THIS!! Bwahahahaha!

[stanc]

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

Of course it is. I didn't say otherwise.

We no longer have a balance of deaths because people are living way longer than they normally did.

This is all from the work of demographers, not my claims.

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.

That birth rates have decreased doesn't change the fact that longer life expectancy does not cause population growth. Only births do (i.e., adding more people to the existing population).

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

I can't recommend it. Far too long and tedious for the few bits of worthwhile information.

Plus, it's more like a propaganda film, clearly intended to appeal to emotion, with the somber mood music and scenes of children vanishing into thin air.

[stanc]

Yes, my reason for bringing this up is fighting age males.

An able-bodied male without a job in the future will become a smaller and smaller % of the population, since demand will be so high for labor to sustain the aging population.

The percentage will be smaller, but the absolute numbers are expected to be about the same.

How murderous death cults, terrorists, and foreign agitators work their way into that mess will be more of a challenge for them with ideological recruitment, but it will still happen.

Due to advances in technology, they don't need a lot of people, but they will be the outliers with no real rewards to offer the populace.

So, if there will be a lot fewer terrorists, and if all countries will be concerned mostly with caring for the elderly population, then there will be no need for large standing armies, causing the size of military forces to shrink.

I'm not seeing how significant combat in megacities becomes a real prospect in such a future.

Again, a small arms cartridge is a very grassroots piece of the pie in this whole labyrinth.

And again, while that's true, this is a gun forum dedicated primarily to a specific small arms cartridge, which makes a discussion on that subject far more appropriate than the socio-economic issues with which we have sidetracked the thread. :o

I see metallic cartridges being something left to the 20th century with the US and her allies when looking into my crystal ball for all of this.

Since we are nearly one-fifth of the way into the 21st century, and metallic cartridges are still preeminent, it looks like your crystal ball needs recalibration.

[stanc]

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.

THIS!! Bwahahahaha!

Sounds good to me.

[LRRPF52]

The big picture is that we are no longer talking about warfare as it has been waged in the 20th Century.

That is going to have a huge impact on force structure and small arms.

[stanc]

The big picture is that we are no longer talking about warfare as it has been waged in the 20th Century.

That is going to have a huge impact on force structure and small arms.

I'm not so sure about any of that, especially small arms. Why would they change because of demographics?

I think that a far more important issue than the economic aspects of increased life span is the reported high breeding rates of religious folks versus the low rates of secular people.

If that disparity goes far enough, it raises the potential for a return to:

1. Religious wars. (Think something like the Crusades, except with modern weaponry.)

2. Religious government. (Think update of Salem witch trials, Spanish Inquisition, etc.)

[Troutguide]

Um... what wars aren't religious nowadays?

[stanc]

Um... what wars aren't religious nowadays?

Current hostilities are religious on only the enemy side, against secular Western armies.

I'm talking about such as Christian versus Muslim, or Catholic versus Protestant, where both sides are motivated by religion.

[LRRPF52]

When you have the possibility of ending up entangled in a massive urban morass, the ability to sustain a prolonged fight might be a more important consideration.

You also have collateral damage effects that will undermine the legitimacy of the government and order of the society if people perceive that you don't care about hurting, killing, and breaking them or their property.

Insurgents use these concerns to their advantage by stirring up trouble in urbanized places as much as they can.

The use of hospitals by Asian and Middle Eastern armies or insurgents dates back decades, complete with their own propaganda film crews, role players, and audio-visual people to feed their version of events to the global presstitutes.