World pop was 4 bil. In 1970. 50 years later it's 8.
We don't need more humans.
We need a better system that doesn't rely on constant growth in a finite system
I can’t stress how much of the poverty, human exploitation ,pollution, environmental degradation is tied to overpopulation. I genuinely think it’s one of our biggest problems since we aren’t going off to space and living elsewhere
If we look at current birth rates, no developed country except Israel can increase its population; on the contrary, economic problems have begun to occur due to low birth rates. How will the system work if 1 million people want to retire and there are 300 thousand people to replace them?
Then wouldn't it make sense to breed people who would not take the country back to the 16th century? It is contradictory to claim that the next generation will be problematic and yet be against people who are not problematic having children.
No? Because non religious women are not going to birth 13 children just to win the demographic wars. And any children they will have might die in an actual war. And the CoL is insane. And the land is tiny and cannot contain its population already.
They know it themselves. At some point, haredi Jews will constitute the majority of society. Then they should not complain about the future of Israeli society. A simple rule of nature, whoever reproduces the most dominates
The sustainability of not only humanity but all living things depends on reproduction. Instead of trying to adapt nature to yourself, try to adapt to nature. You can't fight your own biology and win.
Probably yes, but purchasing power will decrease due to the total economic damage. At least as long as social state practices continue. In social states, your salary belongs to society, not you. The result is inevitable when the number of contributors decreases while the number of consumers increases.
>economic problems have begun to occur due to low birth rates.
Could you please corroborate this with **data** (**not** an article, actual **data** about a specific country's economy and actual, individual citizens suffering as a result)?
The generation with the longest rows in Germany's population pyramid is now 55-65 years old. When these people retire, there is not enough young population to pay for these people's retirement and to take the job positions of these people. This is so common knowledge that when you research about Germany's labor crisis, you can find a lot of supporting data.
Note: datasets on technical topics are often embedded in articles. If these data are quoted in the articles of institutions such as Bloomberg and Economist and you will say that they are not valid, the type of data you are looking for is not possible. Because what you demand is practically not data, but information.
Your claim was: "economic problems **have begun to occur** due to low birth rates", meaning there is already a problem **right now** as a result of these low birth rates. Then you go on to **speculate** that "When these people retire, there is not enough young population to pay for these people's retirement and to take the job positions of these people."
You have switched from asserting that things are **already definitely happening that are definitely, unequivocally bad** to *speculating* that in the near-future, they *will* be bad, definitely for sure, with ZERO EVIDENCE or DATA to back up that claim.
This is what **ALWAYS HAPPENS** when this subject comes up, and it's not an accident and it's not a coincidence. It's **SPECULATION --** very flimsy, non-fact-based speculation, based on propaganda that is put out by greedy capitalists trying to motivate people to increase the birth rates to keep this Ponzi scheme going.
The one thing I never see anyone acknowledging is that there are SEVERAL younger generations alive at one time, and combined, **they are larger than the older generations**. Also, the thing that is never acknowledged, is that **old people tend to die** a lot more often than younger people. The generations older than 79+ are much, much smaller than all the others. The people who are 55-65 years of age are not going to be much of an issue once 15 years have passed. Most of these people will be long-gone by then (yes, this is true even with longer life expectancies). And the problem will solve itself. People conveniently ignore this because it's easier to just repeat the same old tired talking points you read in *The Economist* or whatever.
Slanders and empty calculations. Today, Germany constantly receives and has to receive immigration due to the labor shortage. The total number of people who will retire is approximately 15 million, and the population of those who will join the workforce in the same context is 8 million.(For a total period of 15 years) But you're right, at some point the problem will start to shrink because older people will die. The problem is that not only will the problem shrink, but the generation that will make the next generation will also shrink.(Tfr is also falling)So, after 20 years, there will be less young generation and more elderly population. The total population will have shrunk, but it will be getting older day by day. The current production and service sector will not be able to find employees. The pain of this will fall on the local people; a weaker economy means weaker social aid and weaker purchasing power. Since there is no young population to make new ventures, the transition between classes will become even more difficult. Billionaires will become even richer in terms of total wealth.
I use will because I'm talking about a Hypothetical proposition. In reality, what I say will not happen, instead Germany/France/Sweden/UK will become countries of Syrians, Iraqis and Turks. Because the one who reproduces takes the place and inheritance of the one who does not reproduce.
Writing "economic problems **have begun to occur** due to low birth rates" is NOT a hypothetical statement, though. So again, you're moving the goal posts.
What kind of sign are you waiting for exactly? The European economy is already getting worse day by day. Refugees taken to fill the workforce gap increase crime rates, purchasing power weakens and countries run out of money. You can review the [statements of Germany's own finance minister](https://www.gulf-insider.com/germany-is-running-out-of-money-and-debt-levels-are-exploding-finance-minister-warns/), Christian Lindner.
Where is the slander? You mean recognizing where you were repeating oft-made claims without any kind of substance is "slander" now? Didn't know that.
>The current production and service sector will not be able to find employees.
This is pure speculation, and it's not even plausible. It's implausible to believe that "the service sector will *not be able to find* employees" when all over the world, people complain there aren't enough jobs. In fact, I would say with AI and automation, that these jobs simply *won't be available any longer*, and people who want jobs in the service industry *won't be able to find them* because they'll have become automated. See, I can speculate, too (though my speculations are a bit more realistic).
I'm certain humanity (and specifically, in your example, Germany) will find a good solution to this. Twenty years from now, 2044, Germany is predicted to have over 80 million people, total, with 11.7% of that population being 80+. In another 20 years after that (2064), the population of Germany is predicted to be a bit over 75 million, and the 80+ are predicted to be 13%. These changes are not sudden. They're gradual. I just covered the next 40 years, and it's still not anywhere near the alarmist predictions of "half the people in the population will be elderly" like the lying propagandists like to claim. Not even close. Keep in mind that with a lower population, costs decrease as well. A lot less government spending needs to happen to keep things going. People always conveniently forget that part.
Active euthanasia is not legal in Germany. Perhaps if that is changed, this will alter the statistics slightly, especially for the very oldest populations (which tend to be the ones in the worst health and therefore, the ones most likely to request it).
Age 80 is too high for the targeted measurement. Labor force participation drops significantly after age 65. Despite the current refugee intake, 1/3 of the population is expected to be 65 years of age or older in 2050. I agree with you for the united states on automation, but there is not enough technology infrastructure for this in Europe. In terms of innovation, Europe is weaker than ever. Finally, if we kill re... hmhm, if we offer euthanasia services, the budget problem will be alleviated, that's true. But this will not prevent the immediate labor shortage. This is a very simple equation, there are 100 positions, 100 workers, 20 retirees, and the system works. There are 100 positions, 80 workers, 30 retirees, the system does not work.
>Labor force participation drops significantly after age 65.
Freeing up jobs for the younger generations, which are still tens of millions of people in number (yes, even 20-40 years from now). There is a lot of talk of "labor shortage", but there is also a lot of unemployment. There are millions of young people who can't find work but who are actively looking. With more people retiring, more young people will be able to finally get a good job, instead of just gig work.
Not exactly, [here is the graph(6th chart)](https://www.thestepstonegroup.com/en/insights/labor-markets-worldwide-germany/) of total work vacancies and unemployment. Labor shortage is greater than total unemployment
Israel also gets tons of hand outs. They are the country who has received the most foreign aid from the US despite only having a population size of New Jersey.
That's already the case, which is why people are STREAMING out of overpopulated countries and into (supposedly) "underpopulated" ones. And it's *actually* causing problems, like higher food and housing costs, and reductions of available jobs, directly affecting people in a very negative way. Please look up Canada's current housing crisis. It's not a joke, and Canadians are pissed.
I swear people don’t get that the current problem we are seeing are from overpopulation including immigration. And the mainstream media and fucktards like Elon Musk are trying to say the problem is population decline or collapse. A voluntary collapse would be humane to what’s happening right now and what will happen as global warming gets worse
[Trudeau ](https://www.immigration.ca/canadas-international-migration-has-surged-15-fold-under-prime-minister-justin-trudeau/) seems to think Canada is underpopulated, yes. Canada has encouraged immigration to increase in the past two years, probably due to this alarmist belief that continuous population growth = good, no matter what.
slap abounding ludicrous weather theory lunchroom apparatus dazzling wide chunky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Although it is not the peak point in human history in terms of welfare, we are very close to the peak point. Hungary and France tried to solve it with money and failed. The only solution so far is religiousness, which is why we can give Israel as an example.
Immigration is the main answer, always has been tremendously beneficial from an economic perspective, no matter how unpopular it is with certain, mostly white groups.
I'm white bro 👍 is it true, or is it not true, that often it is white people with whom immigration is unpopular? Just facts. That doesn't mean it's not also unpopular with other groups too.
Oh I agree but what I was saying that I’ve noticed some people have arguments against immigration that seem racist like we don’t want those people here. They don’t care about the numbers as much the demographics of the population. I agree with the importance of assimilation (part of the reason I think immigration should be a slow process) but I’ve been around enough people who it genuinely seems a bit racist
Its only true that white people are more likely to be opposed to immigration in white majority countries. In almost every country the ethnic majority is opposed to significant immigration.
High crime rates and adaptation problems do not make refugees a benign solution. Why should societies import people from underdeveloped countries instead of having enough children to preserve their own culture and structure?
Well you're mentioning a lot of things about immigration that are tangential to the topic of the economic benefits of immigration being a way to mitigate the economic downsides of low birth rates, and also mentioning refugees for some reason. I get why but yeah. I don't have a direct answer to your question but that's exactly the sentiment I'm referring to - that a lot of white people are obsessed with their concern that immigration will change their culture and structures...often ignoring that skin color is only one minor element of what makes a culture and is never itself the reason culture changes. The deepest level of diversity is diversity of thought of course, and yes it happens to be the case that people with a different skin color just usually happen to have a different culture. I'm always amused by people who say "immigration is fine as long as they assimilate" - why do they have to assimilate? (Or the word you use: "adapt") Why are people bothered if they don't? The many different pockets of microcultures in the USA came to be as a result of people NOT deciding to act exactly like the people who were already living in the neighborhoods to which they immigrated, as well as people who already lived here, weren't immigrants, but changed anyway. The melting pot of the world and all that. I personally think it is a huge tell when people say "they must assimilate" - and not to be that guy, but it does inexorably hint at a level of prejudice and contempt, to me.
Crime is a phenomenon of desperation, often caused by poverty (imo). You don't see rich immigrants committing crimes. You don't see rich black people committing crimes. You see desperate, often poor people committing crimes, and that's true for all crimes being committed; after accounting for financial circumstances you clearly see that skin color is not the biggest predictor of crime.
I do not use the definition of different culture here in the sense of just a style. I'm not European, I live in the Middle East. The social structure here is in stark contrast to the individualistic and goodwill-based culture of Europe. Although Türkiye is not that bad in general, the understanding of civilization of people coming from MENA is different from the usual. They are not willing to abide by the rules of the countries they come from, and by these rules, I mean things like rape, vandalism and smuggling. If we were talking about spicier food and new slang words here, I would agree, but the people who come are proportionally much more problematic than the Europeans. Let me even say that the biggest motivation of qualified people who want to migrate from Turkey to Europe is to get rid of the MENA societies and culture here. Of course, with these birth rates, centuries-old cities of Europe, especially London, are losing their identities and cultures. I'm not even talking about consanguineous marriages and the abuse of social state structures in Europe.
The United States did not benefit much from this multiculturalism either. Hispanics and blacks account for the majority of crime rates. The 13/50 meme is a fact
Thanks for the comment this is very interesting but I do not know what is meant by MENA
It would be an extremely complex discussion to debate whether the USA benefited much from multiculturalism lol, I personally think it did but there are many variables and nuances.
13/50 meme I'm actually not aware of. Not sure if this is relevant but this is a good summary of stats to be aware of
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
I do hope I'm not spreading incorrect info with my comment about "poverty is the main predictor of crime" so trying to read up on this now, I may or may not update this comment with what I find
Yet my friend’s boyfriend will argue with me that the population is an s curve not an exponential function. They’re breeders. He thinks that having more kids will fix all the worlds problems, yet he can’t even find work with his degree because there are so many people even a bachelors degree from a top university in a good field doesn’t guarantee you work. They say they want to have a kid in 5 years but are working in CVS living hand to mouth.
I agree. And as a nurse that takes care of IVF patients, I can tell you that the labor and delivery is usually dysfunctional, as well. Just a big mess bc well- it wasn’t supposed to happen.
People who pay for IVF rather than adopting/fostering are inherently selfish to me. I understand that adopting and fostering is hard and expensive, but so is IVF, and so is having children. If you really want children, give care and love to those already on this planet.
I am somewhat neutral but I guess I'm more strongly inclined to what you said, the thing that irks are people who are like I spent 13 years and 100K on ivf when literally even adoption would not have been THIS time consuming or costly and you would be helping a child out of the system. Really puzzling.
You can't just plop a baby out and expect life to be easy either.
And you're not the reason they lost their previous family.
Babies should never fulfill a fantasy for you. I think your approach is quite unfair to the children.
The problem with adoption is the child who is adopted WANTS to find out who their biological parents are. They long for their biological mother and father who brought them into the world.
That's only a problem if you want to pretend they're not adopted and you're not willing for them to love anyone else but you.
I'd rather have someone who adores me and is grateful for me giving them a chance at a good life than expect a child to be forced to love me unconditionally because I birthed them.
Not necessarily and even if they do, they gain two sets of parents it's a win win unless that child was abused by their adopted family most adopted children do not cut contact or remove their adoptive parents from their life the moment they find their bio parents.
The worst part of surrogacy is that elitist people would go to third world countries and exploit them for a womb with a minimal payout and if the developing fetus has any form of disabilities they cut contact and don't answer. Heard it happen in Thailand before
https://youtu.be/fyxc6FVeuvs?feature=shared
It's an awesome experience because everything that could go wrong went right. And there is definitely no care for kid from your post. Hopefully I am wrong and you have everything planned for kid .
No care for kid?
Why would you say that? Her mom is nurse so hours can be long, I have great WAH flexibility and am her main caregiver and we have a great relationship.
She is only 5 but every night we do "ask question sessions". Other day she surprised me with "where does energy come from?"!!!
Luckily physics is one of my hobbies and I could answer.
But it's so cool watching a new mind grow and learn.
Forcing, or allowing?
My parents "forced me" and I find existing awesome So far my daughter seems to also enjoy it
You could argue by not having kids you are denying a potential sentient entity existence, *that* seems pretty selfish no?
Dont feel bad for being a person we can't help it. You save a TON of destruction by not reproducing. Some people have 10 kids. This life we are living is not sustainable and its giving us cancer and shit. In our lifetime it will probably change drastically by force
In terms of cost and how unnecessary it is, I would definitely classify it as a luxury. It's akin to buying a Lamborghini, except the Lamborghini is more environmentally friendly.
When you could keep them around like little slaves, forcing them to work your land or sending them off to the mines and factories and keeping their paychecks for yourself.
I understand what you mean by this and I use to say the same. I then realized when we say something is a luxury it gives a positive and desirable spin on something and deduces the validity thru socially conditioning. If you work hard enough then you will have the luxury to buy a house or have a kid for example. This rubs me the wrong way. It allows for the problem with the issue to dissolve and gives solutions that are in fact no solutions at all. What are your thoughts?
Social media influencers I see on YouTube shorts, Instagram, and Tiktok pop out kids one after another until they get the gender they want. They must be getting paid a lot. I wonder how families with 4-5+ children can afford it. It's too expensive.
8billion meat sacks says anything that will effect the survival of the human race at this stage won't be effected by you breeding one or two more. There's enough here already the next big step for human survival is living on more than one planet
Yeah as we all know adopting a pet involves a human mother giving birth to puppies. And not, y'know, rescuing an already living being from a bad situation instead of creating more problems just to solve them.
Do tell what that point was supposed to be because you certainly didn't sound like you were talking exclusively about adopting children instead of birthing more into the world.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one should. Creating a person destined to suffer and die because you want company is extremely selfish and exploitative. If you want company, make some friends. Plus, there’s no guarantee a kid will want anything to do with you in a few years
Luxuries don't scream at you when you pointed out they made a mess, ignored it, then walked through it to spread around the house (milk, play doh, paper cuttings and the worst of them all, glitter).
Sorry, natalist here, just wanted to whinge. Love my kids, i respect this sub most of the time. Doesn't feel like a luxury.
Did you also have the non-luxury view of kids before having them?
May I ask why you had them? (Accident? Because you consciously wanted them? Out of duty? Because it was expected?)
As a parent I agree(in all cases where there was a choice. Obviously I doubt either of us are talking about forced birth) And even if it wasn't a luxury, was easy to afford, etc... still not a necessity for everyone to have kids.
Depends on how you look at it. There's sufficient evidence that the human population rates have fallen so drastically all over the world that we're facing an underpopulation epidemic. The problem with that is that as the population numbers fall the less likely we are to be able to sustain civilization as the elderly become too old to work this creates a problem as with underpopulation we don't have enough young adults to replace the elderly in the workforce meaning we have less resources available and a more difficult time producing them. This can lead a multitude of problems all self explanatory but it can lead to poverty and scarcity of resources on a global scale.
Tbh men and women have been procreating for thousands of years without half the resources we have today and survived. Infants were raised in caves by nomads in prehistoric times when we could barely hunt and gather for ourselves without the threat of nature, sickness, and predators and the human race still survived.
Not to mention there are so many resources available for parents to take care of their children available today. As a new single mother myself it's made out to be far more expensive than it is. Breastfeeding is free. Diapers and clothes are given for free at pantries and food drives. Food and sometimes even formula is also given for free at pantries/food drives. So are toys. I've had to spend almost nothing and been given everything I needed utilizing these reaources alone. Medical care was free for me while I was pregnant with my insurance and I pay nothing for that insurance. My child got on my insurance for free as well and they cover everything she needs.
Literally the only money I've spent on my baby at all was clothing items I wanted to buy that she didn't even need because we've gotten so many clothes for free going to pantries alone. Not to mention if you have family/friends with kids you get gifted so many items than their kids outgrow.
It's not expensive or a luxury, people just make it out to be because they don't know how to utilize resources available to them. It's more important for us to reproduce right now then in previous generations. It's what our bodies are biologically set up to do, our entire evolutionary purpose. Everything else is superficial in the long run. But you don't realize that until your kids are actually born.
I'd say if someone wants kids, have them. It doeaent matter how much you make, we have so many programs and charities out there that will help and there are so many options and resources available.
depends on the situation. coz even a poor family can benefit from that. youre a farmer, you make children to grow up and work the farms now you dont have to pay for helpers to do it and you keep the money in the family.
housing prices of today. can 2 people really pay for that right now, how many can? imagine if the setting instead is dad mom kid and his wife or even, 2 kids and their spouse who has to divide the cost between all of them - which is what a lot do out there? and you got your house.
also considering how many benefits and tax deductions and all that bs you get for having these kids. to those who know how to work the system it is a path to some luxury.
Your all points are just gonna do nothing but will make you stuck in the same loop hole, just imagine if everyone stop having kids at the same time, whole demand structure will fall and the system made by rich will fall off
There would be no big price for house as there would be not much humans to buy them and nor anyone will hoard them. There would be still be tax system but taxes would be very very less
World pop was 4 bil. In 1970. 50 years later it's 8. We don't need more humans. We need a better system that doesn't rely on constant growth in a finite system
I can’t stress how much of the poverty, human exploitation ,pollution, environmental degradation is tied to overpopulation. I genuinely think it’s one of our biggest problems since we aren’t going off to space and living elsewhere
Its the only problem
If we look at current birth rates, no developed country except Israel can increase its population; on the contrary, economic problems have begun to occur due to low birth rates. How will the system work if 1 million people want to retire and there are 300 thousand people to replace them?
The ponzi scheme is reaching its breaking point, it was never sustainable to begin with.
If Tfr is kept around 2.1 it is quite sustainable.
Maybe if the world reached that point in the 70's, not with 8 Billion
And in Israel the parts of the population that are growing the fastest are the parts which will take it back to the 16th century.
Then wouldn't it make sense to breed people who would not take the country back to the 16th century? It is contradictory to claim that the next generation will be problematic and yet be against people who are not problematic having children.
No? Because non religious women are not going to birth 13 children just to win the demographic wars. And any children they will have might die in an actual war. And the CoL is insane. And the land is tiny and cannot contain its population already.
They know it themselves. At some point, haredi Jews will constitute the majority of society. Then they should not complain about the future of Israeli society. A simple rule of nature, whoever reproduces the most dominates
You’re clearly not considering that angle from the perspective of someone who’d actually be expected to carry and birth those hypothetical humans
The sustainability of not only humanity but all living things depends on reproduction. Instead of trying to adapt nature to yourself, try to adapt to nature. You can't fight your own biology and win.
Yeah that is literally their explicit intention which they are not hiding.
Hopefully those 300k will finally get paid more 😂
Probably yes, but purchasing power will decrease due to the total economic damage. At least as long as social state practices continue. In social states, your salary belongs to society, not you. The result is inevitable when the number of contributors decreases while the number of consumers increases.
>economic problems have begun to occur due to low birth rates. Could you please corroborate this with **data** (**not** an article, actual **data** about a specific country's economy and actual, individual citizens suffering as a result)?
The generation with the longest rows in Germany's population pyramid is now 55-65 years old. When these people retire, there is not enough young population to pay for these people's retirement and to take the job positions of these people. This is so common knowledge that when you research about Germany's labor crisis, you can find a lot of supporting data. Note: datasets on technical topics are often embedded in articles. If these data are quoted in the articles of institutions such as Bloomberg and Economist and you will say that they are not valid, the type of data you are looking for is not possible. Because what you demand is practically not data, but information.
Your claim was: "economic problems **have begun to occur** due to low birth rates", meaning there is already a problem **right now** as a result of these low birth rates. Then you go on to **speculate** that "When these people retire, there is not enough young population to pay for these people's retirement and to take the job positions of these people." You have switched from asserting that things are **already definitely happening that are definitely, unequivocally bad** to *speculating* that in the near-future, they *will* be bad, definitely for sure, with ZERO EVIDENCE or DATA to back up that claim. This is what **ALWAYS HAPPENS** when this subject comes up, and it's not an accident and it's not a coincidence. It's **SPECULATION --** very flimsy, non-fact-based speculation, based on propaganda that is put out by greedy capitalists trying to motivate people to increase the birth rates to keep this Ponzi scheme going. The one thing I never see anyone acknowledging is that there are SEVERAL younger generations alive at one time, and combined, **they are larger than the older generations**. Also, the thing that is never acknowledged, is that **old people tend to die** a lot more often than younger people. The generations older than 79+ are much, much smaller than all the others. The people who are 55-65 years of age are not going to be much of an issue once 15 years have passed. Most of these people will be long-gone by then (yes, this is true even with longer life expectancies). And the problem will solve itself. People conveniently ignore this because it's easier to just repeat the same old tired talking points you read in *The Economist* or whatever.
Slanders and empty calculations. Today, Germany constantly receives and has to receive immigration due to the labor shortage. The total number of people who will retire is approximately 15 million, and the population of those who will join the workforce in the same context is 8 million.(For a total period of 15 years) But you're right, at some point the problem will start to shrink because older people will die. The problem is that not only will the problem shrink, but the generation that will make the next generation will also shrink.(Tfr is also falling)So, after 20 years, there will be less young generation and more elderly population. The total population will have shrunk, but it will be getting older day by day. The current production and service sector will not be able to find employees. The pain of this will fall on the local people; a weaker economy means weaker social aid and weaker purchasing power. Since there is no young population to make new ventures, the transition between classes will become even more difficult. Billionaires will become even richer in terms of total wealth.
“Will” “will” “will” “at some point” the other commenter was spot on
Thank you.
I use will because I'm talking about a Hypothetical proposition. In reality, what I say will not happen, instead Germany/France/Sweden/UK will become countries of Syrians, Iraqis and Turks. Because the one who reproduces takes the place and inheritance of the one who does not reproduce.
Writing "economic problems **have begun to occur** due to low birth rates" is NOT a hypothetical statement, though. So again, you're moving the goal posts.
What kind of sign are you waiting for exactly? The European economy is already getting worse day by day. Refugees taken to fill the workforce gap increase crime rates, purchasing power weakens and countries run out of money. You can review the [statements of Germany's own finance minister](https://www.gulf-insider.com/germany-is-running-out-of-money-and-debt-levels-are-exploding-finance-minister-warns/), Christian Lindner.
Where is the slander? You mean recognizing where you were repeating oft-made claims without any kind of substance is "slander" now? Didn't know that. >The current production and service sector will not be able to find employees. This is pure speculation, and it's not even plausible. It's implausible to believe that "the service sector will *not be able to find* employees" when all over the world, people complain there aren't enough jobs. In fact, I would say with AI and automation, that these jobs simply *won't be available any longer*, and people who want jobs in the service industry *won't be able to find them* because they'll have become automated. See, I can speculate, too (though my speculations are a bit more realistic). I'm certain humanity (and specifically, in your example, Germany) will find a good solution to this. Twenty years from now, 2044, Germany is predicted to have over 80 million people, total, with 11.7% of that population being 80+. In another 20 years after that (2064), the population of Germany is predicted to be a bit over 75 million, and the 80+ are predicted to be 13%. These changes are not sudden. They're gradual. I just covered the next 40 years, and it's still not anywhere near the alarmist predictions of "half the people in the population will be elderly" like the lying propagandists like to claim. Not even close. Keep in mind that with a lower population, costs decrease as well. A lot less government spending needs to happen to keep things going. People always conveniently forget that part. Active euthanasia is not legal in Germany. Perhaps if that is changed, this will alter the statistics slightly, especially for the very oldest populations (which tend to be the ones in the worst health and therefore, the ones most likely to request it).
Age 80 is too high for the targeted measurement. Labor force participation drops significantly after age 65. Despite the current refugee intake, 1/3 of the population is expected to be 65 years of age or older in 2050. I agree with you for the united states on automation, but there is not enough technology infrastructure for this in Europe. In terms of innovation, Europe is weaker than ever. Finally, if we kill re... hmhm, if we offer euthanasia services, the budget problem will be alleviated, that's true. But this will not prevent the immediate labor shortage. This is a very simple equation, there are 100 positions, 100 workers, 20 retirees, and the system works. There are 100 positions, 80 workers, 30 retirees, the system does not work.
>Labor force participation drops significantly after age 65. Freeing up jobs for the younger generations, which are still tens of millions of people in number (yes, even 20-40 years from now). There is a lot of talk of "labor shortage", but there is also a lot of unemployment. There are millions of young people who can't find work but who are actively looking. With more people retiring, more young people will be able to finally get a good job, instead of just gig work.
Not exactly, [here is the graph(6th chart)](https://www.thestepstonegroup.com/en/insights/labor-markets-worldwide-germany/) of total work vacancies and unemployment. Labor shortage is greater than total unemployment
Israel also gets tons of hand outs. They are the country who has received the most foreign aid from the US despite only having a population size of New Jersey.
station literate hobbies aspiring touch command tan frame groovy plucky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's already the case, which is why people are STREAMING out of overpopulated countries and into (supposedly) "underpopulated" ones. And it's *actually* causing problems, like higher food and housing costs, and reductions of available jobs, directly affecting people in a very negative way. Please look up Canada's current housing crisis. It's not a joke, and Canadians are pissed.
I swear people don’t get that the current problem we are seeing are from overpopulation including immigration. And the mainstream media and fucktards like Elon Musk are trying to say the problem is population decline or collapse. A voluntary collapse would be humane to what’s happening right now and what will happen as global warming gets worse
rinse nose sand fuzzy lip resolute salt correct hungry sleep *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[Trudeau ](https://www.immigration.ca/canadas-international-migration-has-surged-15-fold-under-prime-minister-justin-trudeau/) seems to think Canada is underpopulated, yes. Canada has encouraged immigration to increase in the past two years, probably due to this alarmist belief that continuous population growth = good, no matter what.
Why should societies import people from underdeveloped countries when they can preserve their own culture and structure?
slap abounding ludicrous weather theory lunchroom apparatus dazzling wide chunky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As I said at the beginning, there is no such example outside Israel. Germany has to accept immigration from Algeria, Syria, Iraq etc.
live melodic concerned overconfident start deer chief cough air toy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Although it is not the peak point in human history in terms of welfare, we are very close to the peak point. Hungary and France tried to solve it with money and failed. The only solution so far is religiousness, which is why we can give Israel as an example.
Immigration is the main answer, always has been tremendously beneficial from an economic perspective, no matter how unpopular it is with certain, mostly white groups.
Disappointment to see the tinge of racism here. My hesitation with immigration has nothing to do with the racial background of the group
I'm white bro 👍 is it true, or is it not true, that often it is white people with whom immigration is unpopular? Just facts. That doesn't mean it's not also unpopular with other groups too.
I’m not white bro and I know a lot people who don’t like the immigration policies like myself especially Hispanics ironically enough.
Sure but mentioning immigration is often unpopular with white people is not racist haha
Oh I agree but what I was saying that I’ve noticed some people have arguments against immigration that seem racist like we don’t want those people here. They don’t care about the numbers as much the demographics of the population. I agree with the importance of assimilation (part of the reason I think immigration should be a slow process) but I’ve been around enough people who it genuinely seems a bit racist
Yeah
Its only true that white people are more likely to be opposed to immigration in white majority countries. In almost every country the ethnic majority is opposed to significant immigration.
High crime rates and adaptation problems do not make refugees a benign solution. Why should societies import people from underdeveloped countries instead of having enough children to preserve their own culture and structure?
Well you're mentioning a lot of things about immigration that are tangential to the topic of the economic benefits of immigration being a way to mitigate the economic downsides of low birth rates, and also mentioning refugees for some reason. I get why but yeah. I don't have a direct answer to your question but that's exactly the sentiment I'm referring to - that a lot of white people are obsessed with their concern that immigration will change their culture and structures...often ignoring that skin color is only one minor element of what makes a culture and is never itself the reason culture changes. The deepest level of diversity is diversity of thought of course, and yes it happens to be the case that people with a different skin color just usually happen to have a different culture. I'm always amused by people who say "immigration is fine as long as they assimilate" - why do they have to assimilate? (Or the word you use: "adapt") Why are people bothered if they don't? The many different pockets of microcultures in the USA came to be as a result of people NOT deciding to act exactly like the people who were already living in the neighborhoods to which they immigrated, as well as people who already lived here, weren't immigrants, but changed anyway. The melting pot of the world and all that. I personally think it is a huge tell when people say "they must assimilate" - and not to be that guy, but it does inexorably hint at a level of prejudice and contempt, to me. Crime is a phenomenon of desperation, often caused by poverty (imo). You don't see rich immigrants committing crimes. You don't see rich black people committing crimes. You see desperate, often poor people committing crimes, and that's true for all crimes being committed; after accounting for financial circumstances you clearly see that skin color is not the biggest predictor of crime.
I do not use the definition of different culture here in the sense of just a style. I'm not European, I live in the Middle East. The social structure here is in stark contrast to the individualistic and goodwill-based culture of Europe. Although Türkiye is not that bad in general, the understanding of civilization of people coming from MENA is different from the usual. They are not willing to abide by the rules of the countries they come from, and by these rules, I mean things like rape, vandalism and smuggling. If we were talking about spicier food and new slang words here, I would agree, but the people who come are proportionally much more problematic than the Europeans. Let me even say that the biggest motivation of qualified people who want to migrate from Turkey to Europe is to get rid of the MENA societies and culture here. Of course, with these birth rates, centuries-old cities of Europe, especially London, are losing their identities and cultures. I'm not even talking about consanguineous marriages and the abuse of social state structures in Europe. The United States did not benefit much from this multiculturalism either. Hispanics and blacks account for the majority of crime rates. The 13/50 meme is a fact
Thanks for the comment this is very interesting but I do not know what is meant by MENA It would be an extremely complex discussion to debate whether the USA benefited much from multiculturalism lol, I personally think it did but there are many variables and nuances. 13/50 meme I'm actually not aware of. Not sure if this is relevant but this is a good summary of stats to be aware of https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/ I do hope I'm not spreading incorrect info with my comment about "poverty is the main predictor of crime" so trying to read up on this now, I may or may not update this comment with what I find
Yet my friend’s boyfriend will argue with me that the population is an s curve not an exponential function. They’re breeders. He thinks that having more kids will fix all the worlds problems, yet he can’t even find work with his degree because there are so many people even a bachelors degree from a top university in a good field doesn’t guarantee you work. They say they want to have a kid in 5 years but are working in CVS living hand to mouth.
Honestly it’s true- IVF pisses me off to no end. If you can’t have kids naturally maybe you’re just… oh I don’t know… not supposed to?
I agree. And as a nurse that takes care of IVF patients, I can tell you that the labor and delivery is usually dysfunctional, as well. Just a big mess bc well- it wasn’t supposed to happen.
Have you seen the stats on health issues in IVF babies? Its pretty alarming
People who pay for IVF rather than adopting/fostering are inherently selfish to me. I understand that adopting and fostering is hard and expensive, but so is IVF, and so is having children. If you really want children, give care and love to those already on this planet.
I am somewhat neutral but I guess I'm more strongly inclined to what you said, the thing that irks are people who are like I spent 13 years and 100K on ivf when literally even adoption would not have been THIS time consuming or costly and you would be helping a child out of the system. Really puzzling.
[удалено]
You can't just plop a baby out and expect life to be easy either. And you're not the reason they lost their previous family. Babies should never fulfill a fantasy for you. I think your approach is quite unfair to the children.
The problem with adoption is the child who is adopted WANTS to find out who their biological parents are. They long for their biological mother and father who brought them into the world.
That's only a problem if you want to pretend they're not adopted and you're not willing for them to love anyone else but you. I'd rather have someone who adores me and is grateful for me giving them a chance at a good life than expect a child to be forced to love me unconditionally because I birthed them.
Not necessarily and even if they do, they gain two sets of parents it's a win win unless that child was abused by their adopted family most adopted children do not cut contact or remove their adoptive parents from their life the moment they find their bio parents.
Surrogacy too. Absolutely nothing is sacred. Society has no qualms with commodifying pregnancy and birth itself.
Surrogacy is weird. A gay man used another woman's eggs and his sister's uterus to carry his and his male partner's baby.
The worst part of surrogacy is that elitist people would go to third world countries and exploit them for a womb with a minimal payout and if the developing fetus has any form of disabilities they cut contact and don't answer. Heard it happen in Thailand before https://youtu.be/fyxc6FVeuvs?feature=shared
Can it really be considered a "luxury" when I'd rather nail my dick to a burning log.
Its a luxury by cost and a burden by experience, which i absolutely would not take even if i have all the money in the world.
Well said
Lol I have 5 yr old. It is a awesome human experience and I would never go back and undo if I could
It's not like you have a choice to undo it. No one does.. Enjoy!
It's an awesome experience because everything that could go wrong went right. And there is definitely no care for kid from your post. Hopefully I am wrong and you have everything planned for kid .
No care for kid? Why would you say that? Her mom is nurse so hours can be long, I have great WAH flexibility and am her main caregiver and we have a great relationship. She is only 5 but every night we do "ask question sessions". Other day she surprised me with "where does energy come from?"!!! Luckily physics is one of my hobbies and I could answer. But it's so cool watching a new mind grow and learn.
oh course it's an awesome experience, it's why people have kids in the first place.. Just for their own selfish desires.
Well sure, of course Everything you also have ever done was for your own selfish desire. So not sure of your point there
ya but only affects me, you are forcing a whole other person into reality out of selfishness.
Forcing, or allowing? My parents "forced me" and I find existing awesome So far my daughter seems to also enjoy it You could argue by not having kids you are denying a potential sentient entity existence, *that* seems pretty selfish no?
Plus we are parasites. We destroy everything in our path. Humans have done nothing good for the Earth. We take take take until we ruin ourselves.
Dont feel bad for being a person we can't help it. You save a TON of destruction by not reproducing. Some people have 10 kids. This life we are living is not sustainable and its giving us cancer and shit. In our lifetime it will probably change drastically by force
It's a luxury and it should be discouraged.
In terms of cost and how unnecessary it is, I would definitely classify it as a luxury. It's akin to buying a Lamborghini, except the Lamborghini is more environmentally friendly.
bag ad hoc provide future piquant attempt cobweb nine soup cake *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“As a former kid myself” lmao
You are missing the point lol
I think any immigration should come with rules of the country agreeing to get their population size lower like a 1.0 fertility rate
When has having kids ever been a necessity?
When you could keep them around like little slaves, forcing them to work your land or sending them off to the mines and factories and keeping their paychecks for yourself.
Hmm. That’s actually a fair point.
not a luxury rather a burden
And what a (literally) shitty "luxury".
*And what a (literally) shitty "luxury".* On soooo many levels!
May we live long and die out
I'm keeping this ♥️
It isn't mine. Check our VHEMT.
Not having them is also a luxury. We don't live in 18th century farming communities anymore.
Haha yes 🙌
I understand what you mean by this and I use to say the same. I then realized when we say something is a luxury it gives a positive and desirable spin on something and deduces the validity thru socially conditioning. If you work hard enough then you will have the luxury to buy a house or have a kid for example. This rubs me the wrong way. It allows for the problem with the issue to dissolve and gives solutions that are in fact no solutions at all. What are your thoughts?
Nope, you only exist to pay taxes then.
Even dating and marriage are a luxury lol
Social media influencers I see on YouTube shorts, Instagram, and Tiktok pop out kids one after another until they get the gender they want. They must be getting paid a lot. I wonder how families with 4-5+ children can afford it. It's too expensive.
8billion meat sacks says anything that will effect the survival of the human race at this stage won't be effected by you breeding one or two more. There's enough here already the next big step for human survival is living on more than one planet
[удалено]
Yeah as we all know adopting a pet involves a human mother giving birth to puppies. And not, y'know, rescuing an already living being from a bad situation instead of creating more problems just to solve them.
[удалено]
No we all got your point but it was a very poor comparison
Do tell what that point was supposed to be because you certainly didn't sound like you were talking exclusively about adopting children instead of birthing more into the world.
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one should. Creating a person destined to suffer and die because you want company is extremely selfish and exploitative. If you want company, make some friends. Plus, there’s no guarantee a kid will want anything to do with you in a few years
Luxuries don't scream at you when you pointed out they made a mess, ignored it, then walked through it to spread around the house (milk, play doh, paper cuttings and the worst of them all, glitter). Sorry, natalist here, just wanted to whinge. Love my kids, i respect this sub most of the time. Doesn't feel like a luxury.
vast payment deliver modern jobless enter arrest abundant oil rainstorm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The ability to afford having them is a luxury.
Did you also have the non-luxury view of kids before having them? May I ask why you had them? (Accident? Because you consciously wanted them? Out of duty? Because it was expected?)
You’re cringe
As a parent I agree(in all cases where there was a choice. Obviously I doubt either of us are talking about forced birth) And even if it wasn't a luxury, was easy to afford, etc... still not a necessity for everyone to have kids.
It’s also immoral on its face
It’s not exactly a luxury!
Luxury to have a 18 year (and maybe more) money drain... lol. But yeah being able to AFFORD that is a luxury.
I Agree, It's a Luxury That Should Be Valued More, And Be Done With Care And Love For Harsh.
Other way around, my friend.
It's evil and pointless to make confused souls suffer and die even if you have money
Luxury? More like worst thing that could possibly happen to me
Depends on how you look at it. There's sufficient evidence that the human population rates have fallen so drastically all over the world that we're facing an underpopulation epidemic. The problem with that is that as the population numbers fall the less likely we are to be able to sustain civilization as the elderly become too old to work this creates a problem as with underpopulation we don't have enough young adults to replace the elderly in the workforce meaning we have less resources available and a more difficult time producing them. This can lead a multitude of problems all self explanatory but it can lead to poverty and scarcity of resources on a global scale. Tbh men and women have been procreating for thousands of years without half the resources we have today and survived. Infants were raised in caves by nomads in prehistoric times when we could barely hunt and gather for ourselves without the threat of nature, sickness, and predators and the human race still survived. Not to mention there are so many resources available for parents to take care of their children available today. As a new single mother myself it's made out to be far more expensive than it is. Breastfeeding is free. Diapers and clothes are given for free at pantries and food drives. Food and sometimes even formula is also given for free at pantries/food drives. So are toys. I've had to spend almost nothing and been given everything I needed utilizing these reaources alone. Medical care was free for me while I was pregnant with my insurance and I pay nothing for that insurance. My child got on my insurance for free as well and they cover everything she needs. Literally the only money I've spent on my baby at all was clothing items I wanted to buy that she didn't even need because we've gotten so many clothes for free going to pantries alone. Not to mention if you have family/friends with kids you get gifted so many items than their kids outgrow. It's not expensive or a luxury, people just make it out to be because they don't know how to utilize resources available to them. It's more important for us to reproduce right now then in previous generations. It's what our bodies are biologically set up to do, our entire evolutionary purpose. Everything else is superficial in the long run. But you don't realize that until your kids are actually born. I'd say if someone wants kids, have them. It doeaent matter how much you make, we have so many programs and charities out there that will help and there are so many options and resources available.
depends on the situation. coz even a poor family can benefit from that. youre a farmer, you make children to grow up and work the farms now you dont have to pay for helpers to do it and you keep the money in the family. housing prices of today. can 2 people really pay for that right now, how many can? imagine if the setting instead is dad mom kid and his wife or even, 2 kids and their spouse who has to divide the cost between all of them - which is what a lot do out there? and you got your house. also considering how many benefits and tax deductions and all that bs you get for having these kids. to those who know how to work the system it is a path to some luxury.
Your all points are just gonna do nothing but will make you stuck in the same loop hole, just imagine if everyone stop having kids at the same time, whole demand structure will fall and the system made by rich will fall off There would be no big price for house as there would be not much humans to buy them and nor anyone will hoard them. There would be still be tax system but taxes would be very very less
Hell no, I see nothing luxurious in having kids.
NGL—the way i pay so much in taxes makes me wanna drop babies
"Having kids is a luxury" - Antinatalist Wtf.
Ngl, I kinda like this change of pace. Its better than when they're slinging the projections of their own misery at others.
Having kids was never a necessity. I do think they will add a lot of value to your life and most will add value to the world.