top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 13 minutes ago

With fewer people more things will count as "too niche to be commercially viable". I lived in a village where I couldn't find a pencil 3b or softer at local stores.

I hope anon enjoys mainstream music more than i do

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 hours ago*

    This is the true purpose of religion: to maintain the conveyor belt of cheap workers/soldiers through 'marriage', also the same reason religious folk universally agree on banning abortion.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    The biggest problem is the aging population and the need to support them via social security, etc. As the population ages, the distribution becomes an inverted pyramid and we’ll need to pay for more and more people’s retirement. It’ll slowly become worse and worse as one person will eventually be responsible for the survival of 4-5 old people (and their family notwithstanding). Otherwise I think a declining population is fine.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 hours ago

    I'm not worried about population decline but regret to inform Anon that I was around when there were half as many people and it was not better. Sorry. There was terrible pollution and more crime.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

    We are humans and as such we have always adapted. We will adapt again. You can all live in fear re population decline if you like but I’m just getting on with it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

    Who will pay to care for the aging population? Welp, whether you live in a socialised care country or the United hellscapes of America, the answer is: you will. Or your kids will, or whatever generation we're talking about here.

    Even if you do live in the US and have no elderly relatives, the insurance companies will have to hike the shit out of their premiums to remain profitable.

    The fewer working age people there are compared to people past working age, the worse it will be.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    I would imagine that the most cost-effective (realistic) way of solving it would be through some sort of culling.

    Nothing flashy like forced euthanasia. But a reduction in available healthcare here, a drop in funding for elderly services there, some "dead weight" propaganda, and life expectancy would sink like a brick; all the while these policies would be presented as unavoidable cost-cutting measures to keep up appearances.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 22 hours ago

    Population decline is fine. It’s the population boom driven by World War II panic that was the oddity instead.

    In a matter of time, we might return to population levels from the 17th century, and if we do, then so what? A single individual will become all the more valuable, similar to how European nations valued labour more after the Black Death occurred. History likes to repeat itself, even if not necessarily by events like the plague.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago (3 children)

    What's the connection between population decline and tight knit communities and crime? I can't see any

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 15 hours ago (1 child)

    Big anonymous city is better environment for crime than village of 50 where everyone knows each other by name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    Considering how people struggle with the comparatively small hiccup that is the current Iran-US war, I find it hard to believe that all commenters here would be fine when global trade dwindles.

    I however am built different and would simply survive economic and societal collapse.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    If society is constantly getting richer every single year and has for decades... Why are people still struggling? Either poor people are unreasonable/irrational, we don't actually care about reducing cost of basic necessities,or the wealth increases are being siphoned out elsewhere.

    Population decline would be a non-issue in a functioning economy, because a small shrinkage of the economy would be a non-issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    I always hate it when someone says that we would need to reduce our standard of living to remain sustainable. It's 100% bullshit predicted on using a definition of "standard of living" that nobody understands (roughly speaking I think it's only used to compare two different persons or groups in an idealized snapshot in time). We waste so much food. Some of it's necessary, but, 40%??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

    “I guess we’ll have to increase wages”. Doesn’t work when there aren’t enough working people to maintain critical infrastructure.

    World wide population decline is going to cause some serious problems. The US will need to establish a strong immigration policy to absorb people fleeing failing countries/geographies while continuing to provide food, and the transportation of that food, to the rest of the us.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours ago* (4 children)

    The US will need to establish a strong immigration policy to absorb people fleeing failing countries/geographies

    Why would anyone be running to the US? Do you think people dream of being forced into labor camps?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 hours ago

    People still illegally immigrate to the USA right now despite everything that is going on. The reason is also still the same and I see no reason why that should change in the next decades. I mean other than a civil war, but that is not going to happen even if Trump grabs power so...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    The US has a lot of space and a lot of farmland. Most countries don’t. As ocean transportation of food (amongst other resources) becomes less reliable due to lack of security, people will be fleeing their failed or failing country to one that’s more stable.

    You’re right to think that the US has shit policies for immigration now but I think that will change once population decline starts affecting how much food is stocked at grocery stores.

    I anticipate things being a lot worse than they are even now over the next 15 years. Multiple wars, state-sanctioned sea piracy, and a failure in the complex supply chain that creates advanced chipsets used for things like servers/workstations, satellites, weather prediction, stock markets, etc. leading to a mini-collapse as a best-case scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    My dude, it's not just the shit policies for immigration, its the fact it's rapidly turning into to the sort of country most migrants have fled from

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 13 hours ago

    I’m well aware. I think it’s temporary though. I believe that there will be significant problems when the cost of importing food skyrockets, the cost of domestic food skyrockets, and the farmers are telling their local news that they need immigrants back.

    This might happen soon too, we just signed a deal with the devil to try to cap the exploding cost of diesel. That fuel is used to create and move food.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Look what happened after the plague, 50% of the population was gone.

    It broke the back of the Catholic church and feudalism. Peasants got their first pay raise... ever.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 15 hours ago* (1 child)

    It broke the back of the Catholic church and feudalism. Peasants got their first pay raise... ever.

    You're missing maybe the most important part of this: ...eventually. It was at least 40 years after the plague hit, and probably more like 70-100, depending how exactly you're counting. AKA it might get better after we're all dead

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)

    Even the fears about the economy and government spending are bullshit. Notice the folks obsessing over birthrates always quote the retiree to worker ratio. They don't talk about the dependent to worker ratio, and that's what really matters. Yes, our populations are aging, and yes that means relatively more old people to take care of. But we in turn also have far fewer children to take care of. If we can adapt to the Baby Boom era, we can adapt to an aging population.

    Further afield, fears about human extinction are total bullshit. No country is a monolith; every nation has groups within it with higher and lower relative birth rates. If the birth rate stays low and never recovers among the mainstream society, eventually the smaller groups end up composing most of the population, and then the birth rate recovers. The Amish inherit the Earth.

    Or, if even that fails, ultimately technology loss alone stabilizes your birthrates. Eventually your population falls so low that you just can't physically manufacture reliable birth control anymore. That's a product of industrial production. It requires a certain minimum population size to run a factory. Below that and we just regress to earlier technological eras. Eventually we end up back in a mostly agrarian state, and suddenly having kids is once again economically beneficial.

  • source
  • [–] 188 points 2 days ago (7 children)

    The people that want higher birth rates don't care about higher wages, the environment, or people's safety.

    They just need workers they can milk them until they can't work anymore. They need these workers to spend all their money so they have to keep working.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 43 points 1 day ago

    Houses are already kept artificially empty to retain prices. Capitalism always finds a way to screw you over.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Well, the Japan's population is declining and they've been in stagflation for the last 30 years.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 20 hours ago

    Japan is a whole other mess caused by the exotic monetary policy used to cushion the real estate crash and a risk adverse corporate culture unwilling to properly make use of it, causing investment to stagnate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago (10 children)

    who will work unskilled jobs if there aren't enough people to do them?

    Immigrants usually

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 49 points 2 days ago (14 children)

    When the population was predicted to explode into the 21st century, the news said this was a big problem. Now the population is expected to gradually decline. The news is saying this is a big problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›