kind of like "“Children of Men” but people just choosing not to have children. I see people my age in their 40’s having only 1 or 2 children and people in their 30’s just not deciding to have children at all.
Luckily, it’s still within our power to choose not to reproduce.
Governments, along with the corporations who will struggle to find employees when this happens have all brought this upon themselves. Treating people like dogshit all the time doesn’t pay off in the long run.
CHUCK’S SUCK FOR FREE SUCK CITY SLICKER SUCK FOR FREE ON LEMMY CITY SLICKER SEETHE AND ON LEMMY COPE SNEED SEED HOT POCKETS SUCK SNEED’S JANNY ON LEMMY FEED CITY SLICKER SNEED CHUCK FUCK FOR FREE SEED CHUCK’S FUCK FLOYD FLOYD DILATE DILATE HOT POCKETS HOT POCKETS CITY SLICKER CHUCK’S DILATE DILATE SUCK HOT POCKETS DILATE FOR FREE SNEED’S FEED CHUCK’S DILATE AND FOR FREE FEED
FLOYD HOT POCKETS CITY SLICKER FEED COPE CITY SLICKER SEED FLOYD FOR FREE AND SEED COPE CITY SLICKER CLEAN IT UP CITY SLICKER SUCK I CAN’T SNEED CLEAN IT UP COPE FUCK FUCK SNEED HOT POCKETS SUCK SEETHE CHUCK’S SEED DILATE JANNY SEETHE ON LEMMY I CAN’T FUCK FUCK ON LEMMY FLOYD CITY SLICKER CITY SLICKER CHUCK’S SUCK FEED SNEED FOR FREE FOR FREE CHUCK’S SNEED’S FLOYD SEETHE ON LEMMY
SNEED’S FEED FOR FREE CHUCK’S CLEAN IT UP HOT POCKETS HOT POCKETS SEETHE SNEED SUCK CITY SLICKER CITY SLICKER FLOYD CITY SLICKER CHUCK’S CHUCK’S AND FUCK ON LEMMY JANNY I CAN’T COPE CITY SLICKER FUCK SNEED CITY SLICKER CITY SLICKER FEED ON LEMMY JANNIES FEED CLEAN IT UP JANNY JANNY SEED CLEAN IT UP ON LEMMY SNEED’S FOR FREE CHUCK COPE HOT POCKETS SNEED CITY SLICKER FEED JANNY DILATE FOR FREE FOR FREE HOT POCKETS
I love how they blame this on a declining birth rate instead of on climate change leading to loss of habitable land to sea level rise and loss of farmland to changing temperatures. And pests. Don’t forget warmer temperatures lead to more pests.
I will be shocked if civilization hasn’t collapsed before 2100 based on our current trajectory.
When growth is so inherent to your system that the opposite is “negative growth”.
Well, if you used the correct mathematical term, population decay, then you’re gonna have a lot of rubes rioting about some conspiracy on how a population can’t decompose or some shit.
Scientist had to change global warming to climate change when they realized some people can’t look past the buzz words and learn something.
We built a system based on continuous growth and consumption. People freeze like deer in the headlights when it gets brought up that it isn’t sustainable and get offended that maybe we should try to make some changes to it.
I CAN’T JANNY JANNIES ON LEMMY HOT POCKETS SEED AND JANNY JANNIES SUCK COPE FEED FUCK SNEED’S JANNY CHUCK’S ON LEMMY ON LEMMY HOT POCKETS FUCK COPE DILATE HOT POCKETS JANNY JANNY JANNIES AND DILATE HOT POCKETS SUCK CLEAN IT UP JANNIES FUCK SNEED’S FUCK AND FUCK FLOYD SNEED SNEED FEED JANNIES SNEED SNEED FLOYD HOT POCKETS FLOYD FEED HOT POCKETS SUCK
That’s good. Infinitely growing populations aren’t sustainable, and I don’t know that there are any viable arguments for continued population growth.
There is the repugnant conclusion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox but I don’t really buy it.
I can’t initially agree that A+ is better than A. I think A is better. So his argument falls apart right there.
Median happiness is the important factor not average happiness.
The basic paradox is that you’re better off with more miserable people who barely want to live than with less people who enjoy their lives a tiny bit more than that.
I ultimately think it’s a load of bunk, but that’s the supposed paradox.
That’s like saying perpetual war isn’t sustainable and you have to make peace. Formally true, but in practice:
Your country (a developed one, with virtually universal literacy, functional school education, water and electricity everywhere, universities, internet, etc) stops growing in population.
Some another country (with basically nothing except for dirt and dirt-poor people who mostly can’t read, sometimes burn witches and kill infidels) doesn’t fscking stop.
The problem is the word “significant”
We can all agree the population can’t continue to grow. We can also agree it probably needs to shrink, especially by the time this starts making a difference.
However, if it shrinks too rapidly, there’s a lot of potential disruption of society and economy. If it continues to shrink, it could be a serious problem for all of humanity.
We should make changes now to encourage more people to have kids. The goal should be a slow, controlled decrease, to level off, without major disruption
Personally, I like 6B as a good place to plateau. We’re probably already beyond the planet’s carrying capacity so need to be less than today. However a lot of the advancements in society (technology, space, medicine, science, innovation) really require a fairly large population. Establishing a number ought to be someone’s thesis, but in the meantime: 6B
sonally, I like 6B as a good place to plateau. We’re probably already beyond the planet’s carrying capacity so nee
With the current food growing technologies, we can handle 10 billion comfortable well. We will obviously not reach that number anytime soon. But we are on track to shrinking rapidly in many nations. That will destroy these nations.
I doubt that. Current conventional food production is highly fossil fuel dependant (everything from fertilizer to processing to transport). Earth’s ariable land and top soil is decreasing quickly. Ecosystems are collapsing from the effects of agriculture and climate change. Most “advances” require more inputs and energy, which means more fossil fuel use, further accelerating resource degredation and climate change. I forget the statistic, but humans already control a significant proportion of Earth’s biomass. This chart from https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans/ might be what I was thinking of:
Summary: The article from EL PAÍS discusses a study predicting a significant decline in the global population by 2100. Here’s a summary:
Global Population Decline: The study, published in The Lancet by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, forecasts that by 2050, 155 out of 204 countries will have fertility rates too low to maintain their populations. By 2100, this will rise to 97% of countries.
Fertility Rate Drop: The fertility rate is plummeting worldwide. For instance, Spain’s fertility rate decreased from 2.47 children per woman in 1950 to 1.26 in 2021, with projections of 1.23 in 2050 and 1.11 in 2100. This trend is mirrored globally, with France, Germany, and the European average also experiencing declines.
Economic and Social Impact: The study urges governments to prepare for the economic, health, environmental, and geopolitical challenges posed by an aging and shrinking population.
Regional Differences: While rich countries already face very low fertility rates, low-income regions start from higher rates. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, will see a significant increase in its share of global births, from 18% in 2021 to 35% in 2100.
Migration as a Temporary Solution: The authors suggest that international migration could temporarily address demographic imbalances, but as fertility decline is a universal phenomenon, it’s not a long-term solution.
The article highlights the need for strategic planning to address the impending demographic shifts and their associated challenges¹.
Yet another issue that I’d too long-term for anyone to understand or focus on. If we address it now, changes can be small and simple. However history shows we’ll wait until it’s a crisis, then panic.
Hey rekt, me!
The researcher points out that births “will increasingly be concentrated in the areas of the world that are most vulnerable to climate change, resource scarcity, political instability, poverty and infant mortality.”
Well, this can only end well …
Having 0-2 happy children vs having 8-12 children running around dirty, hungry and naked.
Yup. People naturally choose the former if they can, but a country with fewer people is weaker and may become poorer.
So it’s a government’s job to make it affordable to have children.
This part of reality is explained best via logic which may seem a bit fascist, but it does exist. It’s not a good thing to be eaten.
Negative population growth or negative economic growth? Huge difference.
Both. Economies suffer when the populations cannot replenish workforces and when average age gets older and older.
You end up with too many people to support and not enough people to do the work.
Good, I can’t wait!
Good, let’s make that happen sooner.
