Investment returns in the era of the decline

[zbigi]

> So, the question becomes: can population taper off to stay at under 10 billion without major geopolitical chaos (ie. Decline in pop growth without decline of civilization)?

Some ecologists are saying that the Earth can sustain at most 1-2 billion people, if we want people living in conditions we consider humane today. Even that number of course is not fully sustainable, but it should give us much better chance at hundreds of years of breathing room.

[zbigi]

I think your premise is wrong here. It was build on human ingenuity. I bet that will continue.

It was build on both fossil fuels and human ingenuity. Imagine alternative Earth, where humans are as ingenious but, for some reasons, there are no fossil fuels in the ground. Even with all that ingenuity, we'd still be living pre-industrial lifestyles (as we were for the previous couple thousands of years, before we started digging up easily available coal). The ingenuity would allow at as most to build even more impressive cathedrals, pyramids, maybe figure out better ways to do realistic painting etc., but the economic explosion would simply not happen without almost free energy.

[Dream of Freedom]

It was build on both fossil fuels and human ingenuity. Imagine alternative Earth, where humans are as ingenious but, for some reasons, there are no fossil fuels in the ground. Even with all that ingenuity, we'd still be living pre-industrial lifestyles

The industrial revolution would have just started later with nuclear.

[Hristo Botev]

I'm a Luddite, and as such, I tend to think Zeus may have been right in punishing Prometheus for stealing fire from the gods and giving it to the humans. That said, this article came up in my news feed/aggregator the other day, not surprisingly, and I thought it was funny; also, somewhat relevant to this discussion: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the- ... f-luddism/

FWIW, my own answer to OP's question is to invest in family, work/skills, and productive land and other fixed assets, in that order of priority.

[zbigi]

The industrial revolution would have just started later with nuclear.

Nuclear requires highly developed technologies - computers to run simulations, electronics for sensors and controls, high-grade steel, concrete for construction (not to mention probably dozens of other things that I didn't bother to look up). Not to mention processing the uranium ore... How do you envision first reactor being built with XVII century technologies?

[zbigi]

FWIW, my own answer to OP's question is to invest in family, work/skills, and productive land and other fixed assets, in that order of priority.

That is the most logical/safest answer. Relying most on being kept alive by investment returns (or even by gradually selling off existing investments) seems risky if the decline starts happening.

[Dream of Freedom]

How do you envision first reactor being built with XVII century technologies?

Because I don't assume that humans would stay at XVII century technology just because they don't have fossil fuels. Lack of industry doesn't necessarily equal a lack of scientific advancement. Sure some of it was funded that way in the last couple of centuries, but it hasn't always played such a major role.

[white belt]

Because I don't assume that humans would stay at XVII century technology just because they don't have fossil fuels. Lack of industry doesn't necessarily equal a lack of scientific advancement. Sure some of it was funded that way in the last couple of centuries, but it hasn't always played such a major role.

A typical agrarian society without fossil fuel technology requires something like ~90% of people to work sun up to sun down in food production. Throughout history, any gains in productivity due to technology were quickly cancelled out by an increase in the population to consume the excess yields. Therefore, the scientific/technological advancement over the past few hundred years is inextricably linked to the fact that fossil fuels free[d] large amounts of human labor to focus on other tasks not directly related to food production. I just checked and as of 2019, 23.4% of the global population works in agriculture. Unsurprisingly, developed countries are way lower and developing countries are way higher than the average. How many technological innovations come out of Burundi (86% of population working in agriculture)?

Would there still be scientific and technological advances without fossil fuels? Sure, as there have been throughout all of history due to human ingenuity. However, the rate of advancement would return to historical averages since <10% of the population (usually the elites) are the only ones who have time/energy to focus on such things.

[zbigi]

Because I don't assume that humans would stay at XVII century technology just because they don't have fossil fuels. Lack of industry doesn't necessarily equal a lack of scientific advancement. Sure some of it was funded that way in the last couple of centuries, but it hasn't always played such a major role.

Let's not mix up scientific advancement with technical progress. Science is "merely" understanding the world - the same way we currently, thanks to astrophysics, understand a ton about the universe, but can't do that much with it, because we don't have technology for space travel etc. Similarly, XVIII century people might have even been able to eventually discover early XX century physics without having access to fossil fuels (I'm not a physicist, so I may very well be missing some blockers here though), but wouldn't be able to do much in practice re: nuclear energy. They could probably just dream about nuclear reactors, similar to how we dream about space travel (i.e. - knowledge alone does not equal ability to execute).

[Dream of Freedom]

Would there still be scientific and technological advances without fossil fuels? Sure, as there have been throughout all of history due to human ingenuity. However, the rate of advancement would return to historical averages since <10% of the population (usually the elites) are the only ones who have time/energy to focus on such things.

It still is the top 10% doing the innovation. If they weren't born into the 10% they most likely get there.

[Dream of Freedom]

Let's not mix up scientific advancement with technical progress. Science is "merely" understanding the world - the same way we currently, thanks to astrophysics, understand a ton about the universe, but can't do that much with it, because we don't have technology for space travel etc.

Most practical technology in history has been invented for war and then works its way into common uses. There are great reasons to develop nuclear tech and all the prerequisites you mentioned (computers to run simulations, electronics for sensors and controls, high-grade steel, concrete** for construction) for war. They would definitely be less common without fossil fuels, but I think we would have them.

*Concrete has been around since Roman times by the way.

[macg]

Would there still be scientific and technological advances without fossil fuels?

Random thought of mine, not meant to derail anything ...

I would posit that this question in and of itself is limited, because it is asked from a society that grew on/from fossil fuels. Had there never been any, there are numerous possibilities of what could have happened. Sure, one is that we would NOT have become as advanced, which would be our natural thought because it's all we know. But wouldn't it be just as likely that we would have found *something else* to use and advance with? And who knows, maybe that would have made us advance at a greater rate.

[zbigi]

Most practical technology in history has been invented for war and then works its way into common uses. There are great reasons to develop nuclear tech and all the prerequisites you mentioned (computers to run simulations, electronics for sensors and controls, high-grade steel, concrete** for construction) for war. They would definitely be less common without fossil fuels, but I think we would have them.

A "XVII century society developing nuclear reactor" would be pretty cool topic for a non-fiction book.
By the way, the guy who researched building a toaster from scratch came to the conclusion that you only need most of XX century civilization to be able to make that toaster. In terms of difficulty, nuclear reactor is basically the toaster times a trillion... Maybe we would've eventually arrived at it without fossil fuels, but it could have easily taken thousands of years of slow progress to get there.

[Hristo Botev]

The questions of "decline," "progress," and "advancement" are all metaphysical questions that folks on this forum aren't going to come to a consensus on. E.g., is it "progress" to live in a society where, thanks to technology, I'm free to live a life largely without labor, to pursue video games, pornography, engagement on online forums, constantly evolving existential crises, etc.? (You can probably guess at what my own answer is.)

Re nuclear energy: in the world I actually live in I can't rely on our county watershed to keep the taps flowing with potable water. I don't have a lot of faith that, 100 years from now (or 20 years from now), our institutions will produce the know-how, infrastructure, and manpower needed to keep nuclear power plants from turning habitable places into uninhabitable ones.

[zbigi]

The questions of "decline," "progress," and "advancement" are all metaphysical questions that folks on this forum aren't going to come to a consensus on. E.g., is it "progress" to live in a society where, thanks to technology, I'm free to live a life largely without labor, to pursue video games, pornography, engagement on online forums, constantly evolving existential crises, etc.? (You can probably guess at what my own answer is.)

For the purpose of this particular discussion we can limit "progress" to just "economic progress", i.e. whether the economy will keep increasing and the stonks will keep giving us monies so that we can do nothing but, say, indulge in video games and pornography till the day we die.

EDIT: The motivation for my original question is that, if the money eventually will end up being semi-useless anyway (due to contracting economy, currency debasement, economics shocks etc.), then why the hell am I working and saving right now?

Re nuclear energy: in the world I actually live in I can't rely on our county watershed to keep the taps flowing with potable water. I don't have a lot of faith that, 100 years from now (or 20 years from now), our institutions will produce the know-how, infrastructure, and manpower needed to keep nuclear power plants from turning habitable places into uninhabitable ones.

I have very limited faith in that. No institutions are immortal or even resistant to decay over time. Historically all empires so far have decayed and/or fallen, but only one of them so far had nuclear reactors. Even though the collapse of Soviet Union was shockingly peaceful, it still resulted in Chernobyl, which wasn't far away from irreversibly polluting a major part of Europe. Imagine if the collapse was accompanied by a military conflict ongoing in that area... Nuclear is basically playing with fire.

[Married2aSwabian]

I would just like to add that the future is here and according to this fine film that some of you may be familiar with, we are ALREADY in decline:

https://www.imdb.com/video/vi2020082969 ... t_pr_ov_vi


Unfortunately, Charlton Heston does not give any investment advice, but one could deduce that he would advise against buying stock in the Soylent Corp.

[steveo73]

That is the most logical/safest answer. Relying most on being kept alive by investment returns (or even by gradually selling off existing investments) seems risky if the decline starts happening.

What is the alternative ? I'm retired and I'm taking the approach of selling of my investments. The key point is I don't have to go to work and I doubt I ever have to go again. I may choose to go but I don't have too.

I bet any alternative requires working a lot longer that I have so there is a cost associated to any alternative approach.

Write it down logically:-

Option 1:- invest into indexes and build a portfolio that you feel will last. Test that assumption with the data. This took me about 20 years of working time. This isn't including when I specifically focused on FIRE just my working career,
Option 2:- come up with some other plan. Invest in family ? What does that really mean ? Invest in property ? Again what does that mean ? Detail it out. Cost it out. Be honest about it. I can't see a quicker plan for me than say 20 years especially if I'm using alternative investments. It probably takes double.

Then you say is that worth it ?

[steveo73]

FWIW, my own answer to OP's question is to invest in family, work/skills, and productive land and other fixed assets, in that order of priority.

Detail it out.

I have 3 kids. Is that investing in family. FWIW I think having 3 kids is a massive financial cost to bear.
Work/Skills - sure but I've already done that. How does this help ? I mean ERE style sounds good in theory but saving more money to me is a heaps better idea. It's also empirical.
Productive land. Where is the value in this ? Grow your own vege's ? It doesn't scale. Producing food ? That can turn out to be a job.

Honestly I don't see rational reliable implementable plans yet alone any plan that stacks up anywhere near as well as the approach of owning your house, investing into index funds and having no debt.

I mean it's cool to discuss but will it outperform the index fund approach. You'd have to be delusional to think it will. You'd have to give it a chance of about .0005%.

All that on the premise that we are in an era of decline when we have random people flying into space and vaccines being produced for viruses that mutated like 18 months or so ago.

Let's be honest - you've got a set of kahunas to follow that approach. I'd have to go back to work tomorrow and work for a long time. All in the vast probability I'm completely wrong.

[steveo73]

Random thought of mine, not meant to derail anything ...

I would posit that this question in and of itself is limited, because it is asked from a society that grew on/from fossil fuels. Had there never been any, there are numerous possibilities of what could have happened. Sure, one is that we would NOT have become as advanced, which would be our natural thought because it's all we know. But wouldn't it be just as likely that we would have found *something else* to use and advance with? And who knows, maybe that would have made us advance at a greater rate.

Exactly. It's not relevant to the discussion in this thread. We have advanced to where we are at today. We will advance in different ways going forward.

[steveo73]

The questions of "decline," "progress," and "advancement" are all metaphysical questions that folks on this forum aren't going to come to a consensus on.

Exactly. We can all do this but we start talking high falutin BS. It sounds good. You might think you are smart. Whatever.

Here is reality:- you gotta save and invest your savings. Your investment choices can have a big bearing on how long it takes you to develop a portfolio that has the potential to last for life.

The simple approach of investing into index funds works great. All the high falutin BS surrounding whatever metaphysical discussion you want to have probably loses hand over foot to the simple index approach.

I should add that it's fine to talk metaphysical stuff but practicalities are much more important to creating a good life for yourself especially in this context.