all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 24 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It's almost like abusing humans continuously makes them not want to reproduce

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    This happens everywhere as the standard of living rises. Most countries solve it through immigration.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    China is a bit unique due to the 1 child policy era though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    In this case they have to import labor from other parts of China, if not allow limited numbers of migrant workers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I think the issue is that the 1 child policy resulted in there being more men than women, because traditionally families preferred males. So now there's a pretty big imbalance of men to women in China.

    Immigration wouldn't really fix that, unless they specifically only allowed women to immigrate. And the Chinese government is too racist for that solution - I think they'd rather see a population collapse and civil unrest than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    Popu decline is best thing currently for all Eastern nations, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China etc etc.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    for all Eastern nations

    Correction: the world. If we want a sustainable population, it's population and consumption that matter. We need to fix both. A world population around 1-2 billion would be an amazing start to fixing things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    What about when the majority of the population is old and the economy can't support them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    I say this as an old guy - who cares? We had our fun and time on earth. Let us not be a burden on future generations, at least any more than we already have.

    With apologies to Dylan Thomas, let's not rage, but go softly into that good night.

    I'll gladly take the MAID route, but if not, when my time comes, I'll go the old fashioned way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    The elderly would not have to die or suffer if we got rid of capitalism. It's only because we work hundreds of thousands of bullshit jobs to survive that there will be a shortage of care for the elderly.

    If we switched to a decentralized socialist system, we would only need to voluntarily work around 3 to 4 months out of the year to be able to give everyone on the planet access to basic needs (housing, healthcare, food, transport) for free, with the rest of the year to do with as you please.

    Trying to keep using a system that requires infinite growth to function (capitalism) in an actively shrinking world is akin to a death cult.

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

    not have to die or suffer if we got rid of capitalism. It's only because we work hundreds of thousands of bullshit jobs to survive that there will be a shortage of care for the elderly.

    I find your argument in good faith, and quite reasonable, but respectfully disagree. Have you ever taken care of a bedridden elderly who can't feed themselves? I have. It's brutal on the patient and the caregiver. There is no quality of life. It's unnatural. It's often physically painful and emotionally devastating. Wanna see some pics of bedsores? I bet you don't.

    It's a fundamental part of why I'm pleading for a compassionate MAID option for volunteers. Our societies' desire to cling to life at any cost is what's cruel and unusual. Give people a compassionate out and they will take it. Those who don't want to are fine, regardless of sociopolitical systems in place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    That's a different argument entirely, I have no issue with having MAID be an option for people with no chance at a good quality of life, even with assistance. I have personally taken care of a terminally ill person and seen far worse than bedsores.

    The issue of younger demographic collapse under capitalism will cause a tremendous amount of suffering for elderly who are still capable of a good quality of life with financial or medical assistance, is what I am referring to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Into the volcano you go!

    Seriously though, sacrificing the old to save the young is not so unethical. That's sort of how life is supposed to work.

    "Last one in is a rotten old person!" -I'll shout as I cut the line and jump off in front of you.

    "Cannonball!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    So to clarify - your solution is mass euthanasia of the old?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    So to clarify, is your solution:

    A) cripple a minority of youth with an unbearable burden of aged and infirm.

    And

    B) kill everyone and nearly everything in the 6th great mass extinction, due to an ecological collapse because we needed to keep the old and infirm alive at ALL costs.

    Yes. I am proposing a simple painless, moral, ethical and voluntary MAID service to save human civilization and let us rapidly degrow until we achieve sustainability. Yes, yes and fuck yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    That's mostly a problem in capitalist economies. We already support some 3 times more elderly per person today than we did after WWII. How did that happen without the economy scuttling? Productivity growth. We pooduce way more products and services per head than we did back then. The problem is most of that is collected by the owner classes. If the owner class consuped less resources we'd be able to provide more to our elderly. A non-capitalist economy can allocate production and distribution more based on need and not on return on investment on private capital. Part of that would be using productivity gains from mass automation to fulfill these needs with fewer people. Under the capital system automation gains go into more hyperyachts and private space trips.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The concern over a falling population is perplexing. It wasn’t more than a decade or 2 ago the over population was the biggest issue. We all had some sense of relief that China had the courage to implement the 1 child policy as it would help address it. It also meant that people in countries with negative growth rates like most of the western world didn’t need to worry about limiting birth rates (we made up the short fall through immigration).

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    Our world goes too far against our nature. Having a child is too much of a burden. Childbirth is the creation of suffering out of thin air. The one child policy in China skewered the demographics too far out of balance. It's no wonder they're going to face serious population decline.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Watching birthrates fall into the fucking abyss sparks joy

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This is also what the richest in the world want.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    I love not having kids.

  • source
  • [+] -6 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Cultures that don’t have kids will be replaced by ones that do so this is a shame. Incredible that they insisted on one child policy for so long (though it had its exceptions), the transition will be so painful

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    It's not "culture", it's economics.

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

    Amish and Mormons and Heredi Jews continue to have large families be they poor or rich. Culture is definitely a factor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Those are outliers. Even within many of those subcultures, birthrates will fall over time. A few generations ago, Catholics in the US regularly had a dozen children. Not very common here now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    Why do you expect it to fall? Amish and Haredi Jews intentionally stay at arms length from wider society. They maintain strict social pressures that encourage their members to focus on children and discourage the dizzying alternative uses for time socially available to Catholics and the wider US population. Certainly in Israel the Haredi growth rate is remaining stable and has taken them from a marginal groups of a few tens of thousands up to one and a half million, 14% of the population.

    Anyway say they do defy their customs and assimilate and follow suit, then other currently marginal groups that do find some way to keep birth rates propped up over time or raise them will eventually inherit the world. Not in our lifetime to be sure.

  • source
  • parent