772
Anon isn't worried about population decline (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 days ago by [M] to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
187 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 day ago* (5 children)

They are fundamentally different; the west is looting their country for resources and cheap labor, they will maintain high birthrates so long as neocolonialism prevents them from developing their own means of production.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Put down the socialist theory and look up actual demographic numbers. You're just wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Are you suggesting that birthrates don't remain high in the global south?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    You're trying to move the goalposts. We're talking about the future and how birth rates are trending. Now you're trying to change the conversation to the present, "Are you suggesting that birthrates don’t remain high in the global south?" Obviously they're higher in some countries, but those rates are collapsing like they are everywhere else. And there isn't a good match between those countries and what is usually described as the global south.

    Since you're too lazy, I did your homework for you: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034075/fertility-rate-world-continents-1950-2020/

    You can look up more information here: https://www.birthrate.io/fertility

    We're talking about the future need for workers, not the present. So please don't try to move the goalposts by asking the obvious question of are birth rates still higher in the SOME PARTS of the global south relative to the north.

    But there's a very clear trend here. Every single country undergoes a decline in birth rates as it industrializes. The global south is not an infinite source of labor you can rely on forever.

    You need to let go of this myopic North/South, Imperialist/Colonized framework you seem to be trying to shoehorn into every problem. Here are the countries that have above replacement fertility rates (in green):

    There's no real connection here between these countries and "the global south." Counties such as India, most of South America, Iran, SE Asia, etc are all below replacement rates.

    Here's what fertility rates are currently projected to look like in 2100:

    We're on track to have less than a handful of countries around the world with above-replacement fertility rates. The global south doesn't have elevated fertility rates, the specific regions of Subsaharan Africa and Central Asia do. Even Somalia will barely be above the replacement rate.

    You're too lost in a surface-level understanding of "theory" (read: socialist memes) that it's clouding your judgment. Within a generation, countries all over the world, including countries in the global south, will be fighting each other to attract immigrants.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    Thanks for actually bringing the receipts, that is sadly rare even here.

    The future is uncertain and the end is always near. 2100 is a long way to go, if we make it there without a global war, mass death due to land becoming inhabitable with climate change, and good ol' empires violently collapsing, that would be something already.

    Many of the countries that experience lower fertility rates are way below what they should realistically carry. India for example, a country with lots of poverty that is already struggling to feed its population after just a little bit of fuel price jumping, has no business being at what, 1.4 billion? Why should we continue to grow even further beyond the limits of a country?

    There’s no real connection here between these countries and “the global south.”

    Well, there is, if you don't use a binary indicator of above/below replacement rate, and don't just take "south" as geographically south, but rather as "poor, exploited countries, usually (but not always and exclusively) in the south".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    India for example, a country with lots of poverty that is already struggling to feed its population after just a little bit of fuel price jumping, has no business being at what, 1.4 billion? Why should we continue to grow even further beyond the limits of a country?

    India is already below replacement rate.

    Well, there is, if you don’t use a binary indicator of above/below replacement rate, and don’t just take “south” as geographically south, but rather as “poor, exploited countries, usually (but not always and exclusively) in the south”.

    You're missing the point. This isn't about geography. This is about the actual countries that get labeled as the global south. That includes India, China, Southeast Asia, South America, etc. These are the countries that experienced the worst of colonialism. And they're all heading straight towards population decline, just like the global north.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent