Rotundus.com

Foreign Policy magazine recently published an article on the population aging problem. Some of the points that it makes:

• The problem isn't just in Western Europe and North America, it applies to many other regions (e.g. Iran). Money in the West may help to alleviate the problem, but when such problems exist in developing countries, they're even more difficult to resolve.
• It appears to be a cultural shift, more than a government shift
• The situation in the West may be difficult, but the problem in Asia appears to be larger
• This appears likely to change immigration patterns. e.g. in the U.S., which sources many immigrants from Latin America, immigration may come almost to a halt: "Consider what happened with Puerto Rico, where birth rates have also plunged: Immigration to the mainland United States has all but stopped despite an open border and the lure of a considerably higher standard of living on the continent." i.e. staying home rather than emigrating becomes a more likely option for such people.
• Due to a more sedentary lifestyle and declining fitness, a greater number of impairment is to be expected amongst the next generation of seniors ... and that's not just the case in North America
• There are arguments to suggest that life in an elderly world may not be more peaceful... possibly even the reverse.

You'll have to read the article to get the details. Personally I think that this is one of the larger problems being more or less ignored.

On a related note, I was confused by the statement accompanying this picture in the accompanying photo essay that "Belarus was one of few Eastern European countries not to raise its retirement age after the Cold War -- it is still 55 years for women and 60 for men." Looking at life expectancy by gender would suggest that the average man can expect to live about 4 years after retirement before death compared to 20 for women. That's quite a gap. Why the earlier retirement age for women given their longer life expectancy?

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

- Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship

I'd argue that this view is a pretty tough view of reality for any non-theists to dodge.

Inside Corrupt-istan, a Loss of Faith in Leaders

The U.S.-supported regime in Afghanistan doesn't really look all that much better than its precessor.

Fund manager finds plenty of virtue in sin stocks

The fund seems to be doing better than its competitors. It's focus: "cigarettes, alcohol, gaming and casinos, and defense." I'm okay with alcohol in moderation and possibly defense in a small number of cases, but I think that I'd pass on investing in the rest.

Your child is a wuss

It seems that the Australians are working hard to catch up to Britain's claim to the title of nanny state. Schools banning swings, tag, soccer, merry-go-rounds, etc.

Beijing Blocks Travelers To Christian Conference

Seems pretty typical for the Chinese government - as long as you herald the state as a higher authority than whatever deity or deities you believe in, they'll probably be OK with it.

Some words to remember from the New York Times Green blog.

Typical perceptions of the relative riskiness of various professions are inaccurate. People typically view "Protective services" (which I'm assuming includes police and firefighters) as very risky. However, they're not nearly the most risky occupration. If you look at the relative riskiness of various professions (as you can find in this University of Chicago paper, particularly on page 27), they're actually 8th on the list of dangerous classes of occupation.

Forestry and fishery rank ahead of them, with an occupational death risk over 10 times as high. Transportation workers, farmers, and certain groups of construction workers also fit ahead of them on the spectrum.