A good and thought provoking read. This is obviously navel-gazing, but looking at this from an individual or family perspective, I'm wondering about how you could prosper in a depopulating, aging, and warming world.
Traditional investments like real estate and property may not be solid bets if there are suddenly a lot of it to go around due to there being less of us around. Then again, city growth seems stable.
Another point is what happens to stock markets when there are less consumers and producers. Stagnating GDP and indices do not make attractive investments. Where do I invest my hard earned cash then? Private elderly care, drug companies, robotics companies?
We should probably look to the countries mentioned in the article, like South Korea or Japan for answers. But I'm not sure I'm able to pick out winning strategies looking at those, or even be sure they would work where I'm based.
I'm curious what your thoughts are - how do you invest and prepare for the next fifty years?
I realize this is a selfish comment to make, but shoring up oneself is at least actionable for us as individuals, in addition to trying to make the world a better place for everyone else.
I just fundamentally do not understand the economics of why everybody is so worried about aging and depopulation. TECHNOLOGY. ROBOTS. We us technology to increase production. We create more with less. Automation and technology should create an environment where less people can care for more more efficiently than ever before. Food production should require less people than ever before. Shipping. And not even just mechanical robots. Sunlight and yeast -> food.
The problem becomes the banks financing private ownership of the robots. Maybe the populations livelihood shouldn't be a profit center. Or in the case of the modern economy, where consistent profit is failure, an wealth extraction growth center.
I think we are on the same page actually - I'm not dismissing the notion that we might engineer ourselves out of a declining work force. But then the question is, if human labor (me, you, us) is -gradually- becoming unwanted, then how do I make a living?
Maybe there is a Star-Trek utopia at the far end, but in the meantime we are looking at potentially several years where me and a chunk of other white-collar workers are unemployable. I'm not sure UBI will be enacted before a large chunk of the general population is unemployable. And how will we fund UBI? Taxing the automators? They can just move their business to a tax haven.
Maybe I can find a job in some sector that's hard to automate, but I imagine a lot of people will be looking for those jobs. And that would probably lead to a pay cut.
So, what then if we want to maintain or even improve our standard of living? Invest in tech stocks? Sure. But we will still need to pick out winners or spread our bets. Will the gains in the stock market be enough to cancel out job loss?
Tech does useful stuff like cure smallpox, provide ample food, central heating and so on. Salvation is more of a Jesus thing - I'm not sure tech is really promising to deliver our souls from sin but might be ok for food and shelter.
> I'm not sure tech is really promising to deliver our souls from sin but might be ok for food and shelter.
Tech cannot promise anything. That's silly! There are people, on the other hand, that go around and preach their gospel, where technology is placed in the center.
Stock market? As you write - what will happen when the next generation of consumers and workers won't be born? On the other hand it is clear that market is anything but rational, and maybe it doesn't really need people in the same way internet doesn't need real people. Maybe the future is bots trading with each other, pumping up the bubble.
Bonds? The same problem, lack of next generations.
Real estate? Land? Maybe if you already have something in very good location, though even then I am a bit skeptical.
Then one needs to remember that money is just a number. It doesn't matter how much digits you have, but what can you get with them - real resources and services. So maybe the question is wrong from the very beginning.
I sometimes believe that ironically the best insurance in childless world are your own children. Unless, of course, we will face a scenario where old people, constituting majority of the population, will squeeze those few remaining young hard to get their pensions and healthcare. Yes, the same people that today preach about how it is good to not have children etc. will be first to put a boot on them in the future. For this reason I expect growing tensions between those people with children and childless ones.
This is why I constantly find most such discussions on demography pointless, as participants rarely understand how everything in our society depends on the assumption that no longer holds - that there will be more people, and that young will be more numerous than old.
In the end probably best things to safeguard you in the upcoming crisis will be the same as always - local community, family (including children), friends and your own skills. People living in more agrarian societies, or just in the countryside, generally have better situation in that regard.
Agreed, children were the original pension scheme and might well become one again!
Jokes aside I agree with you on strengthening bonds with local community, and it's something that many people neglect, not even knowing their neighbors. Especially so for city dwellers. Strong social bonds are an end in its' own right!
On your agrarian note I wonder if we will see a return to the country side as younger people are priced out of cities and more jobs accept remote work. Then again, RTO and "affordable" rentals may nullify that. But as real estate prices grow I keep wondering how anyone has the money to buy real estate in the city any more. Corporations I guess.
Regarding money being just a number I don't disagree exactly, but it sure feels like my flavor of white collar work might be among the first to be automated. If not, and the stock market flat-lines and taxes shoot up because we need to support the super-centenarians then my investments and cash flow are shot. I don't count on UBI to save me before pretty much everyone is out of a job, and in the meanwhile I will need to exchange money for goods that I'm not certain will plummet in price to match my lack of funds. So that's part of the reason I'm thinking about how to hedge or even gain in a future that might look different from our past.
I feel like a lot of people are vaguely aware of the skewed demography in the northern hemisphere, but I don't feel like there is a lot of talk about how it will affect the way we work and invest.
One statement in there grates: the idea that there never was a big population drop before.
We know it from genetic records that human population dropped to a very low number. The human population bottleneck around 70,000 years ago, ie Toba supervolcano eruption, with 1,000 to 10,000 breeding individuals. There may have been other humans around, their lines all died out.
Problem is not shrinking population. Problem is shrinking population with shrinking share of children and young adults and growing share of old people in the time when most people are completely helpless without access to modern goods and services.
>One statement in there grates: the idea that there never was a big population drop before
Nobody actually thinks there was never a population drop. The issue is there never was an economic, pension and welfare system built on population growth, so that when populations did dip, nobody was affected by the dip.
But on the contrary, in the past of agrarian societies, population declines massively benefited the working class, as they had more bargaining power with the landlords.
This doesn't work in the economies and societies of today when your retirement depends on there being constant economic and population growth.
> Because Homo sapiens went through a series of near extinction level events before eventually triumphing – periodically reduced to a few thousand surviving members clinging on in a handful of African enclaves – we have very little genetic variation. The human family tree spreads out from a few individuals to encompass all of us.
I was wondering the same question, and IIRC it's due to the DNA diversity we have today. This is roughly calculated with the successive generations of humans and accounting possible mutations.
If this is the case, how can we know whether that number represents a drop in population or not? Can we measure population size 100,000 years ago? 50,000? Then compare them? What about that number represented as % of total population? 1,000-10,000 sounds low, but our population probably wasn't very high that long ago either.
Hypothetically if you took a random sample of present humans you would have a low # of say skin tones in wide range, whereas a small isolated and stable population should have a low # of low variety. So you can tell by that kind of difference whether it was a sudden drop or more of a sustained thing. Presumably in a more sophisticated statistical way across a wide variety of genes of course.
Apparently there is another bottleneck ~900K years ago that has decent fossil record support but the Toba one is more disputed.
I'm not sure. I know a lot of people who want to have kids, but are not because of the current economic situation. Whether this is real or perceived I am not sure; I have 3 kids, but I am doing alright at the moment.
The simple answer is that our current way of life (in the west at least) does not accommodate kids. We USED to have kids because they were an economic benefit to agrerian cultures, but have since become a burden since our society does not make time or resources for them, least of which is physical space when you consider urban life.
IF we want to increase the birth rate again, we need to shift our lifestyles away from being as career centric as they are today. We could for instance, remove the stigma of working part time or having a stay at home parent. We could encourage people not to grind long hours to climb the corporate ladder. Actually fix the housing problem without bending to NIMBYists and investors and provide affordable/accessible childcare.
Since children are the future tax-base and labor force of a nation, pay parents for raising kids, like its a job. It is kind of gross to view children in this perspective, but if we are talking about economics, well-adjusted children are just as much an input just as much as energy is.
Technologically speaking, we as a species are basically magic at this point, so I reject the notion that strategically recovering the birth rate is impossible, rather there is no will to.
China is now encouraging higher birth rates after many years of the one-child policy. But the general consensus is that it hasn’t been very successful, even with the CCP’s authoritarian power. The causes are multi-dimensional and difficult to solve: high living costs, changing social values, and younger generations who no longer want to marry young—or marry at all.
Even North Korea has to encourage women to give birth[0]; the Kim dynasty can’t simply issue an order and shoot anyone who disobeys. It simply doesn’t work that way.
The CCP has not really exercised its authoritarian power to raise birth rates yet because it's not a big enough problem and might never become one.
The birth rate fell in North Korea because people are genuinely starving, whereas in other places it's mostly because of birth control. These are not comparable situations.
You could also skip all that noise and just force women to have kids.
Thankfully most people have realized such things are insane and sexist, and don't want to see millions of more kids born to parents unable to properly care for them.
> My feeling is that birth rate could be solved in properly authoritarian country. With policies that won't fit to most "western" schemes.
Nazi-Germany had a pretty illiberal and authoritarian family policy which basically reduced women to their role as housewives and mothers by banning married women from the job market and incentivizing having multiple children. They didn't achieve their goal of increasing the birth rate in any significant means. Their family policy also backfired hard during the war. Because women were not supposed to work and received financial support in the absence of their husbands, women refused to go to work during the hot phase of the war. Note that this was in a time where access to birth control was practically non-existent and access to abortion difficult.
>My feeling is that birth rate could be solved in properly authoritarian country.
Socialist Romania did all that during communist rule and it exploded spectacularly 30+ years later when communism ended, that we're still feeling the negative backlash effects today.
The answer to birth rate issues, is not more forced government intervention, but less to none of it. The reason we're in a mess in the west is the governments putting too many thumbs on the economic and regulatory scales for far too long, manipulating the natural order of life. Modern industrialized highly skilled societies are detrimental to human biological reproduction.
If you built an economic system where kids need to leave the parents' village to go spend time grinding studying and upskilling till their mid 20s in a big city and then working till their mid 30s before they afford to move out of shoebox, with their parents nowhere near to help with childcare, you can't be surprised demographics collapse. As per the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child.
You can't fuck with mother nature and not have it fuck you back. It's Newton's Third Law.
Plus, contrary to Reaganomics, the economy can't grow infinitely and neither can the population. Everything created by man eventually has a plateau and an end. So then why not reform the dated and broken "infinite growth" Ponzi-scheme economic system now towards a more sustainable model, instead of delaying its inevitable failure with stuff like 50 year mortgages and unlimited migration?
This problem is more nuanced that any party involved in the discussion admits.
It is a combination of consumerist, pseudo-individulistic, hedonistic, nihilistic culture, economic exploitation under late-stage capitalism, destruction of familial and local ties, access to birth control, women emancipation etc.
Even such authoritarian countries like China are still very much soaked in the same systemic goo, so you may ban abortions if you like, but that won't change much.
Banning the pill alone would be sufficient.[0] And you don't even need to ban it entirely, just slightly limiting the supply would be enough. Banning it entirely would double the fertility rate because the pill had cut it in half from 1960-1975 when it was introduced in the US.[1]
>Does that mean we are doomed to die out? Henry Gee thinks so, if only because all species die out in the end. The question is simply how long it takes.
Why isn’t this the default position?
The most firmly predictable position is that every biological species will go away eventually. Even humans are vastly different chimeral species from the proto-humans that made up modern anatomical human.
Most europeans have significant Neanderthal genetics, and yet all Neanderthal are existinct. Same with homo denisovian, habilis, etc…
As a species working on transitioning human level intelligence into something that can last longer than human species should be our only goal.
If we're going by "all species die out in the end" then anything we transition to will die too: entropy will get the whole universe in the end. Past that there's nothing that says any species can't expand out, settle whatever planets they want and stick around to the end. I'm also pretty cool with my millions-of-years-from-now descendants looking back at me and thinking about how different they are from me. I would consider it an incredible success to go that long without catastrophically destroying ourselves.
Human history is full of this ridiculous hand-wringing over nothing. some people don't actually do shit, just sit around pointing fingers and nitpicking. They skip the real work of digging into social change and fixate on surface-level bullshit.
The fertility rate mess really boils down to just two core reasons: in fancy democratic developed countries, folks are so damn self-absorbed that the whole system screws over regular people and kills their vibe for having kids. And in poorer countries, it's solar panels and TikTok exploding everywhere, giving way too many fun distractions to keep things lively. But the real root of it all? It's baked into the political systems and setups. Still, barely anyone wants to face the music and admit their "great" democracy and any other policical system is straight-up trash.
This article just flat-out refuses to face the real damn problem.
Either you're banking on robots to save the day, or you gotta crank up the birth rate. But ramping up the birth rate? Only three ways to pull that off: straight-up tank women's rights across the board, socialize childcare big-time, or just smash the current political system to bits and build something better. Thing is, none of those are any more doable than hoping robots magically fix everything.
For a lot of woman in "somehow develoed countries" the labour market is today more attractive than the "marriage market" as women rights etc. give them much more freedom than it was in older days (e.g. in some EU countries the woman had to ask their spouse if they allow them to work up into the 70s).
If you are for women rights etc., then you have to accept that this includes much lower birth rates (as having childrend is not the only way to survive).
Birth rates are only up in countries without any social development of women rights.
> Or maybe, just maybe,having kids just isnt that great and people (and especially women) are finally realising it.
Reproduction's a straight-up genetic instinct in humans. You're basically talking about something so screwed up that it makes people straight-up ignore their built-in drive to have kids.
> Reproduction's a straight-up genetic instinct in humans.
Sex is the straight-up genetic instinct with a strong drive. It used to correlate very closely with reproduction, so the difference between the two was meaningless. The issue is we managed to decouple them, with modern reliable hormonal birth control.
> But ramping up the birth rate? Only three ways to pull that off: straight-up tank women's rights across the board, socialize childcare big-time, or just smash the current political system to bits and build something better.
Actually it's probably more about smashing the cultural and economic system. IMHO the problem with fertility isn't so much with "women's rights" or the "political system" per se, but capitalism (including capitalism-inflected feminism that idealizes careers, which is pretty much all mainstream feminism).
Under the current system you exist to be maximally exploited to increase profits (ideally consuming all your capacity, including that which you'd use to reproduce and raise children), and childcare (socialized or no) is a foolish attempt to solve that problem with more of the problem (and of course that doesn't actually work).
The solution is a system the allocates a significant fraction of everyone's labor to cultural continuity (reproduction, child-rearing, and civic engagement), which would require a significant re-ordering of priorities.
Beware of explaining everything with one reason, and I certainly noticed the tendency of contemporary Americans to explain everything with "capitalism".
It doesn't really fit the picture. Capitalism is about 250 years old and most of that time it correlated with a massive population explosion, not a collapse. The current world also isn't uniformly capitalist. Socioeconomic conditions and systems differ across the globe, but the collapse seems to be nearly universal.
There are more things at play. For example, we spend our most fertile years in school and we mostly eliminated teenage pregnancies in the developed world. Which is likely better for the socioeconomic level of the now-not-mothers, but it also has negative biological effects and sank the overall birth rate in a non-trivial way.
What is entirely new is the loneliness epidemic, though. I would blame that on the specific combination of Covid lockdowns (which killed off a lot of real-world institutions where people met in person) and the smartphone attention economy. That is a very small subset of "capitalism", though.
> Beware of explaining everything with one reason, and I certainly noticed the tendency of contemporary Americans to explain everything with "capitalism".
Capitalism probably not the only cause, but I think it's a pretty central cause, and may be driving some of the other causes. I also think its worth pointing out because it can be one of those things that's so familiar that it can become invisible.
Birth control technology is probably the other big cause, because it would have the effect of "unblocking" the effect of other cultural trends on birthrate.
> There are more things at play. For example, we spend our most fertile years in school...
I assume you're talking about 18-22, but my impression is that historically, most women had their first children after that age, even before widespread college education.
I think a bigger factor is probably early focus on career pushing many women to try to start having children even later in their late 20s/early 30s. And that goes back to capitalist workplaces being pretty unaccommodating to parents (it's a bit better now, but work still demands your first priority to be your work).
> What is entirely new is the loneliness epidemic, though. I would blame that on the specific combination of Covid lockdowns (which killed off a lot of real-world institutions where people met in person) and the smartphone attention economy.
That's not that new though: the book Bowling Alone was published in 2000 and is apparently based off a 1995 essay. COVID and smartphones just accelerated existing trends.
"I assume you're talking about 18-22, but my impression is that historically, most women had their first children after that age, even before widespread college education."
In cities and in richer families, yes. In rural settings, everything was sped up a bit, and, until very recently, most population worldwide was rural. Even if we look at highly fertile regions today (Afghanistan, Niger, Chad...), the first-time mothers tend to be between 16 and 18 and live outside the few cities that are there.
My own grandmother grew up in a rather underdeveloped corner of Slovakia in the 1930s (no electricity, wooden huts etc.), and a peasant girl who wouldn't be at least betrothed by 20 was seen as a bit weird.
Quite a lot of our previous fecundity was driven by rural mothers having six or seven children. This was a major source of "kid surplus". The urban population was never as fertile, plus there was some extra mortality from diseases and higher cost of food.
your suggestion of "socialize childcare big-time" is tried in EU, countries like sweden offers the best support of families and yet are parley getting the numbers up without immigration, the root of the drop is the change of women role in society, finding a political sweet spot is required, if women get a salary from the government when they have more than 3 kids then it might encourage families to take the big step and the women to spend more time doing the real full time job of home care, also families needs help with bigger housing, logistics and home duties when they have more kids, normally that help came from the grandparents but it's not happening anymore because the average age of the grandparents is higher, and baby boomers and "older generations" are assholes by blocking the housing options for their kids, i can also suggest that a adults with no kids can get some money by hour from the government for helping families with many kids as it is also needed sometimes.
solve this:
- Housing issues.
- Income issues.
- Care and time issues.
It's really alarming when governments see their society collapsing and do nothing, if you have such government, remove it, it's a stupid government.
Some countries are even working against people having children. Germany introduced a new law that now if the parents have their combined salaries over a certain amount, you get 0 child care. And the funny thing is that that limit is very low for people living in a big city. This policy came from the Greens actually, which are supposed to be more left leaning. But they couldn't care about this, or women or families, for them anyone who earns a bit above average needs to be punished. In our case, just when we were actually thinking of having a baby, we realised that if we actually would do it, our income would be basically more than halved because my wife earns even more than me, so not only would we earn way less, but we would earn way less with an extra child in our family, so yeah, thanks for the support.
I mean a more radical fix. Like, some kinda government-run breeding facility where folks drop off their newborns right after birth, and the state takes over raising 'em with standardized management and training. Then, once the kids are past the heavy-care phase, hand 'em back full-time to the parents.
I want to be proven wrong, but I feel that demographic collapse is the single biggest crisis facing the developed world today. In this regard, the US is actually doing better than East Asian countries and Europe, but the trend is unmistakable — modern, affluent states are committing voluntary suicide because their citizens are simply not willing to have children.
Generally, populations with higher birth rates come from poorer countries or communities with lower living standards. Israel is the only major exception, but once you analyze the social strata it becomes clear why: higher-income groups still have lower fertility than the religious ones (especially the ultra-Orthodox and Arab Muslims) by a wide margin, even though the higher-income groups still have higher birth rates than other OECD countries. This creates long-term strains on society.
Another interesting fact is that groups with higher socioeconomic status (SES) tend to have lower birth rates. If SES correlates with IQ, then there’s an uncomfortable but politically incorrect implication: the smarter groups are having fewer children, while the less advantaged groups are having more. A few generations later, it’s not hard to see where this leads — human intelligence may trend downward. That is simply evolution at work.
Climate change, wars, pandemics, and natural disasters won’t wipe out humanity; we’ve survived all of those and recovered. But demographic collapse driven by high living standards is new territory, and I am genuinely, deeply worried.
You can have a spiral of bad economic decisionmaking through demographic biases in natalism, but that's likely to be a product of cultural transmission, not of any biological property of intelligence, which is mean-reverting and only dubiously and marginally correlated with genetic variation.
Which is to say, you can make the point you're making without going out on a politically (and probably scientifically) incorrect limb.
Yes thank you. The concept of Natural Selection has a lot more dependencies and complications than typically attributed. Especially for a complex outcome like “intelligence” or economic success.
Demographic collapse paired with high fertility for scientifically illiterate religious groups (Like the amish, who have a fertility rate of over 6) might still pair terribly with climate change driven by positive feedback loops (like methane leaking from thawing permafrost). We'll lose the technological and state capacity needed to mitigate & adapt while the global climate slowly trends towards an uninhabitable equilibrium.
stage right enter homo paganicus, accompanied by those twins homo philosiphus and homo philobaccus
pass the wine around.
True story, I took a course in environmental microbiology, and at a certain point, the instructor had a slide titled, "Ideal Conditions for Reproduction" and below that the words, "A Swiss Chalet on a cold night, a bottle of wine, and a warm fireplace"
Pressure seems to be another factor why many women don't have kids. That and mixed messages about what constitutes a good person and not being told that your fertility starts tanking after 30
> not being told that your fertility starts tanking after 30
It baffles me that science books in school don't have a nice graph showing how fertility changes with age. It's plain negligence. It causes people to set unrealistic expectations regarding their expected life trajectory.
it's so true, and most won't learn until their first visit to a fertility clinic with the spouse who wants to enjoy a few more years of independence from having a child... the truth can be very painful.
No, it wont:
Population statistics are among the most robust & stable one and one with the most accurate data that we have across the globe.
Populatoin statistics are running reaaaallly slow - on that one day when you see the decrease in the graph, it is already too late.
Demographers can predict when people are going to die but they have no way to predict how many children they will have.
They have been getting it wrong for a long time, assuming that the gradual decrease in birthrate will stop, only to be proven wrong.
They can't just extrapolate assuming that birth rates will keep dropping since that would reduce the birthrate to 0. So they do the next best thing and assume it will stay constant.
But in reality, we just don't know which way it will go.
The one thing many people miss - or utterly fail to acknowledge - is how the entire edifice of capitalism is violently against any attempt to reverse fossil fuels, simply because it is far too profitable to turn away from. And when you realize that the only responsibility corporations have is to their shareholders, it makes perfect sense.
It’s why CO2e levels continue to accelerate, why heating has similarly accelerated such that we might see more heating in the next 10 than we have in the last 75, and why we are still on the absolute worst-case-path-possible, all because of “business as usual” being too profitable to ignore.
We’re fucked, not because we aren’t doing anything, but because those who can are the 1% who aren’t, and those who actually want to do something are the 99% who have absolutely no power to affect the former.
Natural selection has been strongly optimizing for pro-natal genes and cultures since the introduction of the birth control pill. The labor gap is a short-term problem and can be fixed with immigration and maybe AI. Birth rates aren't plummeting around the world at the same time. By the time the birth rate becomes a problem in Africa, America would have long recovered.
> Birth rates aren't plummeting around the world at the same time.
They are "plummeting around the world at the same time," they just didn't start plummeting everywhere at the same time.
> The labor gap is a short-term problem and can be fixed with immigration and maybe AI. Birth rates aren't plummeting around the world at the same time. By the time the birth rate becomes a problem in Africa, America would have long recovered.
Except Africa can't fill the gap for everywhere else, and if immigration is the "solution" then what do you do about Africa after it's been sucked dry of its prime labor force? Just leave all its poor elderly to die on their own?
> They are "plummeting around the world at the same time," they just didn't start plummeting everywhere at the same time.
This is pedantic. Do you understand what "at the same time" means? By the time birth rates plummet below replacement rate in Africa, they would have risen well above replacement again in Europe and North America.
> Except Africa can't fill the gap for everywhere else, and if immigration is the "solution" then what do you do about Africa after it's been sucked dry of its prime labor force? Just leave all its poor elderly to die on their own?
We won't need to import labor from Africa when they have their own labor shortage because the birth rate in the US would have already recovered. The labor gap won't hit everywhere at the same time. That's why immigration works. In fact, Africa might need to import labor from America when the gap hits them.
> By the time birth rates plummet below replacement rate in Africa, they would have risen well above replacement again in Europe and North America.
What makes you think they will rise again in a timely manner? Demographers naively predicted the rates would stop decreasing and magicaly stabilize close to replacement levels, and failed miserably. To my best knowledge there is no indication the current trends will reverse or at least stabilize any soon.
Demographers were kinda right, it's just that we've had new socioeconomic problems [0][1] post-pill, and we're really starting to feel the effects since around 2008. Post-pill fertility rates in Europe and NA had been slowly rising before that. I think we're likely to fix at least one of these problems in the coming decades. Or rather, we have to because we'd be royally screwed otherwise. And in the event we fail, most democratic societies would turn authoritarian, in which case they'd be able to implement population engineering measures like banning birth control.
Traditional investments like real estate and property may not be solid bets if there are suddenly a lot of it to go around due to there being less of us around. Then again, city growth seems stable.
Another point is what happens to stock markets when there are less consumers and producers. Stagnating GDP and indices do not make attractive investments. Where do I invest my hard earned cash then? Private elderly care, drug companies, robotics companies?
We should probably look to the countries mentioned in the article, like South Korea or Japan for answers. But I'm not sure I'm able to pick out winning strategies looking at those, or even be sure they would work where I'm based.
I'm curious what your thoughts are - how do you invest and prepare for the next fifty years?
I realize this is a selfish comment to make, but shoring up oneself is at least actionable for us as individuals, in addition to trying to make the world a better place for everyone else.
reply