• @douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Decline population is an actual thing…? Not defending this asshole or anything but your statement is seemingly based off of a lack of information.

    Birth rates in many developed countries are incredibly low well below maintenance levels. Meaning that aside from immigration the population in most developed countries is actually going down quite rapidly.

    Which given the way our societies and financial systems are structured generally means some form of disaster for those countries if such decline occurs.

    There’s even a pretty good recent video talking about what this looks like in South Korea

    Blue indicates below replacement levels:

    • @WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      167 days ago

      Well, we’re going to have to figure out how to level off or shrink our population eventually. Might as well do it now while there are still some wild animal species that haven’t gone extinct.

      • @MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 days ago

        A lower population isn’t that bad. It’s just that the transition when you have a very large old population and a small young one is very difficult.

        • @brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Watch this video, ignore the clickbait sounding title:

          https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk

          It completely changed my view on that.

          Basically, without high birth rates, countries are totally screwed. Immigration (which skews young, from high birth rate countries), has softened that issue for the US, hence you don’t hear about it as much here. One can wave their hands and say “elder care and the economy will be automated in the future,” but that’s wishful thinking if you ask me.

          Figuring out how to more efficiently house/care for a glut of humans farther in the future is way more practical. Honestly we’re ridiculously inefficient now; there’s a lot of low hanging fruit to pick. And we can use much higher technology to address that.

    • @Bloomcole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -47 days ago

      Still one billion in 1804
      two billion in 1927
      three billion in 1960
      four billion in 1974
      five billion in 1987
      six billion in 1999
      seven billion in 2011
      eight billion in 2022

      Already too many for my taste.
      And no to all, don’t react with irrelevant “there’s enough food for…” or Malthusian bla bla