you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Dumb question: do we really need more people? It feels very much like technology/productivity will allow us to support a good lifestyle with fewer people.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The problem developed nations are currently facing is that we need enough young people working to continue to support the current population as it ages and retires. The absolute population probably doesn't need to be as big as it is (unless you plan on starting a war like Russia for example) but it's not clear how to manage a reducing population gracefully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    By taxing corporations and reversing this insane wealth concentration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Mhmm the uber wealthy have all the toys that the rest of the population could ever dream of. Taking away their extra ones allows you to pay for everyone else to get the level of care they deserve. Even then you will have an absurd amount of surplus that can be used to pay for decades of services that the general population needs while still letting the rich have some of their toys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    To me, that's the most disgusting part: they could live the most lavish lifestyle possible and not put a dent in their savings.

    Nobody deserves that kind of wealth, nor should any one person control that much wealth. All those billions they're sitting on are funds that should have been allocated for better education, healthcare, transportation improvements and upgrades, affordable housing, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • What if we, instead if taking their toys, just voted for them?

    They are a menace. They have ruined our earth and stolen our futures. They should lose everything. Fuck compromise; you'd have to fight just as hard for it; just take all of it. Vote for them all. Vote for their vile spawn too. Put them all in elected office.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think it is worth figuring out how to manage it - the alternative isn't super sustainable. The other thing is that it is like a 50 year challenge, which isn't insurmountable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    It’s only a dumb question if you’re looking at all the people now. Birth rates across the board are declining and most developed countries are well below replacement. We’re just not noticing yet because people live like 80 years.

    Most population projections have us peaking in 25-50 years, then population declines. That’s not all bad but how steeply does population decline and when does it stop? How does it impact economies, politics, who had influence and power. It looks like it could be steep and disruptive, with no prediction on when it will level off.

    However if we start mitigating that, start encouraging people to have children, provide more support for raising children, give more hope to potential parents, working together for a brighter future consistently for the next 50 years perhaps we can manage the decline for least disruption. Perhaps we can find a sustainable population to level off at which is still big enough for today’s rapid advancements

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We need some more people. Much as I agree as the future is bleak, if we all simply stopped procreating then there wouldn't really be any point to anything and truly no reason to want to make the world better. Can't get to Star Trek future without a future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't think I mean a complete stop. I mean like a managed approach of tax incentives that over time encourage smaller families. Predicting and paying for degrees or training so we have a workforce that can fit into the economy easily. And a targeted immigration policy scaled to supplement gaps in the workforce or population.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Most places are actually experiencing a birth rate decline. South Korea is having statistically less than one child per woman. Other places like Europe are also projected to shrink.

    So, it’s already happening, that’s why countries are freaking out and trying to force births now. The policy shift in the US on abortion isn’t based on religion, it’s economics.

    US birth rate hit 1.6, a “stable” birth rate is just over 2.1… mind you that’s the estimate for a population not growing or declining.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment