<story><title>As Japan&apos;s population shrinks, bears and boars roam among schools and shrines</title><url>http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-population-snap-story.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sgt101</author><text>Perhaps this is what will happen across the world in 200 years time? People in advanced economies seem less keen to have lots of children, perhaps vast tracts of the earth will be abandoned to wildlife?&lt;p&gt;I actually hope so, I wonder if culture will change and adapt and eventually find a new equilibrium, but at a much lower population. Perhaps people will enjoy reliving the experiences of people from &amp;quot;the crush&amp;quot;. Perhaps they will struggle to understand the science of the artifacts that surround them and progress will effectively end - after all 10 billion people can go a lot faster than 100 million. There are no facts about the future.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Animats</author><text>&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;Perhaps vast tracts of the earth will be abandoned to wildlife?&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s already happened in the US.[1] The Buffalo Commons proposal, to depopulate a large part of the Great Plains and let buffalo roam, was a joke when it was first proposed in 1987. Much of the depopulation has already happened.  So far, not many buffalo, but they may come back.&lt;p&gt;Small town America is slowly emptying out.[2]  It has no function. Small towns existed mostly to support agriculture. Agriculture is only 3% of the US workforce.  Most of the food comes from about 20% of the farms; the rest are marginal producers.  Farming is doing fine; it just doesn&amp;#x27;t take many people.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Mill towns&amp;quot;, where one big employer dominates, die when their mill closes.  These can be sizable cities, such as Youngstown, OH. More often, they&amp;#x27;re small towns with one big plant.  Young people leave; old people stay and die in place.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Buffalo_Commons&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Buffalo_Commons&lt;/a&gt;
[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wsj.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;SB10001424052702303325204579463761632103386&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wsj.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;SB100014240527023033252045794637...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>As Japan&apos;s population shrinks, bears and boars roam among schools and shrines</title><url>http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-population-snap-story.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>sgt101</author><text>Perhaps this is what will happen across the world in 200 years time? People in advanced economies seem less keen to have lots of children, perhaps vast tracts of the earth will be abandoned to wildlife?&lt;p&gt;I actually hope so, I wonder if culture will change and adapt and eventually find a new equilibrium, but at a much lower population. Perhaps people will enjoy reliving the experiences of people from &amp;quot;the crush&amp;quot;. Perhaps they will struggle to understand the science of the artifacts that surround them and progress will effectively end - after all 10 billion people can go a lot faster than 100 million. There are no facts about the future.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mrexroad</author><text>...or maybe there are advantages with not being faced with the crisis of how to handle unsustainable growth? I&amp;#x27;d love to see population &amp;#x2F; GDP growth models reflect the &amp;quot;oh sh*t, there&amp;#x27;s no food for half the population&amp;quot; inflection point&lt;p&gt;[edit: Any commentary for the downvote? impact on max-size of military aside, wouldn&amp;#x27;t a non-growing population be an advantage when many countries will be scrambling (with varying degrees of success) to scale food production to match population growth?</text></comment>