this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
99 points (93.0% liked)

World News

32285 readers
1 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sorry but this is a good thing. Earths population is too large for the resources available.

[–] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

My instinct is that you’re right, but I wonder if what we’re really saying is that earth’s population is too large under the currently dominant socioeconomic and lifestyle constructs.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago

In the end, that's more or less the same thing. But the question is, do we need more people? It's also easier to be sustainable if we require less.

[–] Skyline969@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago

I mean, yes but also no. There's just way too many people, period. Merely 60 years ago the human population was sitting around 3 billion people. Now it's 8. Earth's resources are finite, and at this rate of growth I would not be surprised if we ran out of non-renewables (with no renewable alternatives that scale as well as non-renewables) in our lifetime or our children's.

[–] blakeus12@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

sorry comrade, but under capitalism any amount of people is too much as capitalism itself is predicated on infinite growth.

Absolutely true and correct.

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Of course this is a good thing, but there are still serious negative consequences to a reducing population, which must be mitigated. Primarily, old people who are past working age are an expensive population to maintain. When there are as many or more old people as there are young, the burden is too heavy for young people to bear. And I say this as a 70 year old. Young people today CANNOT hit old age without their own substantial retirement resources.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

A new robot factory is going live in Oregon that is manufacturing general purpose humanoid robots, so guess you could just buy a few to keep around the house.

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I am not an expert, but it seems like most developed countries are learning to deal with a shrinking population. The current decline hasn't had effects like loosening up the job market, so it seems to me this means it's not currently causing any problems that would be catastrophic. There's clearly enough workers for the work that needs to get done.

I think there's not yet been a article of all the 'doom and gloom' of population decline that actually explains why it's worse than overpopulation.

[–] momocchi@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Because the problems come years after the birthrate decline when a large portion of your population is retired and you don’t have enough young workers to fill the roles they typically fill

[–] variants@possumpat.io 7 points 2 years ago

It's going to be tough but it needs to happen eventually, plus now we have ai which should help alleviate some of that once it really gets going

[–] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

You'll also run out of young people who can just take care of the elderly.

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

For one, those roles dont pay worth a damn anymore. Two, many roles are being automated.

This society we built is now too expensive for anyone but the top 10 to 20 percent to afford. All these old people are expecting youngsters to foot the bill, but the young cannot even afford to look after themselves let alone an entire generation of seniors. How the hell are they supposed to afford kids?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

and you don’t have enough young workers to fill the roles they typically fill

This is a myth. Immigration guarantees that you'll ALWAYS have workers to fill whatever roles you need filled.

[–] Duralf@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I can't tell if you are sarcastic or serious. Population growth is slowing globally so it's not like there is an infinite supply of young people.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 years ago

Population growth is slowing globally so it’s not like there is an infinite supply of young people.

There doesn't need to be an infinite supply... of any age group.

This is simply a course correction for what's been an unsustainable pace of population growth worldwide in the last 100 years.

[–] deur@feddit.nl 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh man let's tell that to the Koreans and see how they feel about that...

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

Hey, if they have a solution to a problem that they "don't like", too bad for them.

[–] tintory@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Except we need really tight labor shortages to jack up wages and house prices to go down

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago

This is because by and large koreans are smart.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yay for Korea! A constantly growing population is not sustainable.

This isn't a Children of Men scenario, so there's no need to fear intentional low birthrates.

[–] tintory@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Except

  1. Young Koreans aren’t getting better jobs
  2. Housing isn’t slowing down fast enough
  3. Yoon and South Korean Government are trying to raise working hours

Koreans are having a low birth rate because they are destroying their youth

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Those points seem to all be a result of rapid growth, which will (eventually) have to correct itself.

The only people who should worry about low birth rates are corporations who know that won't be selling their garbage to as many people as they forecasted for shareholders. 😁

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Also universities will have declining enrollment, and pension funds will have declining contributions.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Also universities will have declining enrollment

Naturally. Fewer people = fewer students. A smaller country would have fewer students, and a larger country would have more.

Enrollment rates matter more than how many are going, and universities will adjust.

pension funds will have declining contributions.

There will also be fewer pensioners to look after, so not as many contributions are needed.

The real problem with pensions is that people are living longer, so they get money over a longer period of time. Adjustments to pension contributions are more likely to reflect that fact.

But we are talking about a lower birthrate, not a zero birthrate. These "problems" are happening a percent at a time over decades... society would have no issue adjusting.

[–] tintory@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Low Birthrates aren't the problem

The problem here is low birthrates are caused the despair and hopelessness of the young

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You'd think "people can't afford to fuck" would be some kind of wake up call for capital.

[–] Lols@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

famously, people get more kids the more money they have