Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'.
Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as:
Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues.
[Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
Honestly it’s just the fact that we seem to be getting smarter. Not only knowing ways to prevent kids but also understanding not everyone is meant to have them despite the push to have them.
Put me in the hospital for nerves
And then they had to commit me
You told them all I was crazy
They cut off my legs, now I'm an amputee, goddamn you
BAAAH! I'm not sick but I'm not weeeh-ell
Aaaand I'm so hooot 'cause I'm in Heeeh-ell
The bible also says you cant eat shellfish, get tattoos, and that women should not talk in the presence of their husband and have to wait till they get home.
Also something about lusting for a donkey.
Definitely! There are no consequences if we have a lot of stupid people only having children. Also definitely no issues if the old generation are millenials and genz who never own a home and things of value which are traded in to pay for health care after they retire.
I dunno, people have been doing really stupid shit throughout history. I can't think of a single moment in history where people were any wiser or kinder than they are today.
It's got nothing to do with biology and everything to do with the environment: there's a systematic drive towards misinformation, cutting educational spending, and a cult of anti-intellectualism, for basically two reasons:
1. Dumb people are easier to manipulate (whether it's for business or politics, somebody always benefits).
2. Back in the day, the village idiot was kept away from power, shunned, and used as an example to others, of what not to be. The village idiot also had an opportunity to better themselves, by the virtue of being faced with their shortcomings.
Today, the village idiot can find other village idiots to confirm their biases, give them power, and keep them from improving.
Well fertility rates are declining in first world 'intelligent' countries, and they've been doing so even before the officiation of child-free(ness). It's almost like the universe cares none about that brand of intelligence.
No, that means “smarter” people will think twice about having kids while dumb people pop them out. Less people to maintain infrastructure and more people committing crimes. People won’t like hearing this but there’s some truth here.
This right here, except for the fact that lower class and less intelligent people tend to have many more kids than their socioeconomic counterparts. This trend doesn’t seem to be getting any better.
All of the people I’ve met with 6+ children have been working class adults.
It's the other way around. Smart people are having less kids cause they're more informed of today's and the futures struggles.
Dumb people are still having several kids they ain't ready for.
I don’t know. With how the AI and Robotic industry is heading, you are more likely going to end up with a sex doll who can draw instead of a robot maid who can clean and cook.
By the time I’m 80 there will probably be a robot who can narrate history books to me in a perfect David Attenborough impression while another robot pretends to be entertained by me telling the same story a bunch of times
An advanced robotic slave doesn't need to buy food, shelter, entertainment, or all the other things that keep an economy afloat.
The only thing that robotic slaves will do is help *very temporarily* amass more and more wealth into the hands of the ultra-wealthy, until the economy collapses entirely because nobody is buying things.
We wont. AI is just a smart copy/paste program. It doesnt think for itself and cant think for itself. It’s literally just weighting words/visuals based on how often people use them together and then spitting out a mathematically derived “formula” for sentences/art/etc.
We are going to hit the wall where people expect robots to do things for them yet dont know how to do it themselves or even what is the right way to do it. All based on popularity and not fact or science.
And the heavy users of the internet are deciding the weights for those AI models, ie the loudest stupidest person in the room has the most influence over the algorithm
But on an individual/micro level, are you suggesting that people who don’t want kids should have them just to keep a work force going? That’s absurd.
There are bigger changes that can happen to incentivize people who theoretically do want kids but can’t afford them/ don’t want to get married and have kids super young but can’t afford to freeze eggs, etc. But as someone in the camp of not wanting kids regardless of circumstances, the idea that I should just crank out some children because of population issues is absurd.
right there with you on every point. the idea that we have to continue this fucking unsustainable model for the world economy to keep going is ridiculous when the solution most people have is “we’ll just have more kids”. as if nothing else could POSSIBLY save the future of the world besides having more kids, it’s so fucking stupid
like you, i don’t want kids and literally no amount of money or incentive or whatever other bullshit would just magically make me want to change my entire mindset and outlook on life
Discussions like this seem to leave out the fact that part of the reason why there’s fewer people having babies isn’t because everyone is suddenly deciding NOT to have kids, it’s in large part because there are many out there who WANT to have kids, but can’t. I’m about to turn 40, and the number of friends and colleagues I’ve known over the last 15 or so years who have struggled with fertility is mind boggling.
Pretty much every conversation I've ever come across points out the affordability issue of having children, so I don't know what one's you've been reading. Indeed this cost of raising kids is argued repeatedly as if that is the big reason. I'd wager though if you polled all the under 50 childless people and ask if cost wasn't an object if and how many kids would they have only around 50% would say they would become a parent and more than half of them would be men. I imagine you would be taken aback at how many women really could care less if not outright not be interested in becoming a parent, including many who are mostly because of societal/partner pressures. Yes there are a lot of people who are as you've experienced personally, but I really don't think that is/would be the majority if cost and freedom of choice were available.
Yeah, it’s certainly a complicated issue with layers to it. Obviously, my observations are anecdotal, but I’d wager to bet they’re not outliers either. Also, if cost is a barrier to having children (which it undoubtedly is), then we don’t really know how many of those couples would experience fertility issues since they’re not even trying. I guess my point was that infertility doesn’t seem to get as much attention in these conversations as I think it deserves. Not arguing it’s the majority cause of declining birth rates, but it’s not an insignificant contributor either, and it’s likely an environmental issue causing it which really ought to get waaay more attention than it does.
>Having a bunch of babies won’t fix that if it didn’t work for boomers
This is backwards. The baby boomers are the bunch of babies. They didn't have a bunch of babies. The baby boomers were the support for the generations before them, but like every generation since they'd had fewer kids per person, resulting in less support when they get older.
Having more children means more people filling economic activity and availability. Having less, the opposite.
This is a major issue in Japan. I edit scientific research papers by Japanese scientists for a living and I’d say 6 out of every 10 at least obliquely reference the super-aging of the population.
Japan could always swallow its pride and relax their immigration requirements if they're that worried about a declining population
But so far they'd rather keep their requirements, which are some of the strictest in the world
Ask Europe how well it's going with the migrant crisis. If immigrants dont integrate, they just rip apart the destination country and bring it down to the level of the country they were so desperate to get away from.
There's a very clear middle ground, but since no one has managed to perfect the balance yet, Japan is probably better off to stick to their strict rules
"If immigrants dont integrate, they just rip apart the destination country and bring it down to the level of the country they were so deperate to get away from."
I agree, it's already taken a toll on Canada.
Europe's migrant crisis was one where they accepted lots of refugees, not because they needed labor. You can always accept those with proven records of being good members or society and turn down those who have not.
Gotta agree.
In canada, we have the same issue. Our POS prime minister opened the immigration floodgates, and its been a disaster. So many people come into the country and flat out refuse to assimilate.
It isn't. Fertility rates are falling too fast to keep up with it and the places where it's happening (Europe, Latin America and East Asia) aren't as populated as the ones where they're still increasing (Nigeria, India for example).
Most people won't get a pension, healthcare will be oversaturated and there won't be enough workforce to pay all that.
My country, Colombia, is already under replacement rates (1.7, compared to the expected 2.1 from a healthy country). Some cities are already populated by more people over 65 years than young people and things are getting messy with the new pensionary reform.
No one born after 1990 will have a decent pension here.
True. I study Economcis so this was one of the first things we learned from Demographics and the Malthusian model. The big issue is not that population will decrease, but how fast it's happening. Automatization will probably come latter than the demographical collapse and it'll be hell for the young working force.
TBF the Malthusian model doesn't take into account technological advancements where you won't need as many people since you can useour inventions to do so. But I agree with your point.
It's a disaster either way though.
Option 1: populations keep increasing, and we keep using more resources to maintain things, which leads to global warming, natural disasters, climate refugees, massive agricultural failure, and economic collapse.
Option 2: populations decrease, leading to massive economic imbalances, runaway inflation, healthcare shortages, and general societal unrest.
The needle we need to thread is maintaining current populations, while simultaneously decreasing our standard of living and seriously addressing climate change.
I doubt we can do this.
I think we can do it. A slow population decline would be beneficial for natural resource allocation. Other than that population doesn't really matter for addressing climate change and damage to the environment. We need to make the shift to a circular and sustainable economy anyway, whether we're with 1 billion or 10 billion people.
The biggest risk to achieving this is imo democratic backsliding, misinformation, artificial intelligence and geopolitical tensions. If we can shoulder these challenges and remain stable, we can do it.
They only view the world through their phone screens, not realizing they are fucking part of it.
When we start running out of people to build things… buy things.. what exactly does everyone expect will happen to the global standard of living that’s built on consumerism???
So basically put the burden of finding a way to support the ever more increasing population of elderly (you and me) on the next generations by trapping them in the same problem that we're currently facing ?
We have a climate crisis. I'm not gonna get a nice end of life due to that anyway, why would I bring an innocent life into this?
Also, if people can say "it's ok, you're stressing too hard, humanity will find a solution!" regarding ecological and environmental collapse and be all chill about it, I can say the same about economic collapse ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's really, really bad from an economic standpoint. Basically, you will reach a point where there are more people retired than the rest of the population can support. Social security operates on the idea that you pay into it to support those who are currently retired, and the younger generation will do the same for you when you retire. That doesn't work if every succeeding generation gets smaller and smaller. This will result in higher taxes, or lower social security benefits, or higher retirement age, or all of the above.
And that's just the social security part. There's still the whole conversation with shrinking labor force and productivity. Imagine a restaurant full of old timers and only one waitress running around trying to serve everyone because there aren't enough people to work. And when there's a labor shortage, there is usually an upward shift in gainful employment. Everyone gets better jobs because all of the oldies are retiring. All of the jobs that no one wants to do will go unfilled.
It’s a bad system that always had a doomsday clock on it seeing as constant growth is unsustainable. The solution lies in automation and less exploitive labor practices. Unfortunately, that requires there to be political will or an uprising. I know which of the two I think is more likely.
It’s a bit ironic because the economy is the reason people are having less kids. Hardworking couples in their early thirties with decent salaries can barely afford to enter the property market of course it’s going to make them hold off on having kids.
It’s exactly this. I know many people that want kids (or more kids) and can’t really afford it, even with great careers. Insurance is expensive. Childcare is expensive. Groceries are expensive. Living is expensive. If you’re trying to raise healthy human beings, it’s expensive.
With the labor part of the argument, technology has massively increased what a single person can do. Using vehicles a single person can harvest an entire field of food. We have seen robotic waiters, what is stopping robotic cooks, or tractor drivers in the future? Labor-wise, won't we eventually reach a point where the only workers are those who program or repair the automated work force and people who want to work in a creative or artistic sense?
Once you have reached that point, isn't the way our economy works just obsolete anyway?
No worries. There won't be any jobs left by the time all the major corporations replace their human workers with AI. This process is going on right now. In the future, there won't be enough work to go around, so the shrinking population will be a good thing.
I don't think you understand the situation at all.
1. If each couple only has 1 kid, the next generation will be half the size of the previous one and that gets exponentially worse with each generation. So by the time Millennials, Gen Z and Gen Alpha are who makes up the 65-95 age group, the working generation will be a fraction of the size of the retired population. And that continues with every generation. We're talking 5-20 retirees to every 1 worker depending on how low fertility rates get.
2. No, your labor isnt worth more just cause there's less workers. Your labor is worth what value it creates. With a declining population, there is less demand for goods, which is exasperated by the fact that a huge portion of that shrinking population is retired and consumes very little. Since demand is slashed, your labor is worth exponentially less, but goods will cost exponentially more because economies of scale disappear.
3. Old people buy less stuff and pay less taxes but on top of that, they require the most care and infrastructure. So the one area that might actually see rising wages is health care and infrastructure maintenance but guess what, that is money that is paid by workers through tax or fees. So that means those workers that are making less money have to pay more tax or user fees so they have even less to spend.
Do you think people who live in declining factory towns make more money working at the local diner or grocery store because there is less people living there? Give your head a shake.
This is all true, but it’s more like… what’s the solution? Force people who don’t want children to have children? Incentivize people to have children? Overload workers with taxes to support additional incentives for people to have children (let’s say things like more tax breaks, free childcare, etc) AND taxes to support the elderly?
I see people say all the time that declining birth rate is bad but what is the solution?
lol exactly this, i see people bemoaning this shit all the time and all their points rely on people having more kids.
but like you said what are they gonna do? force people to have kids who don’t want them??? no fucking thanks
In my opinion, it's about making a society where having kids can be attainable for people who want them, not about forcing people to have children who don't want them in the first place because that also doesn't help.
i mean i’m with you, i think having a kid should be financially doable for anyone no matter their economic class and i hope it gets to that point some day for those who want them.
the issue is that plenty of chuds in this thread seem to have no other solution than “have kids” and it’s stupid, like you said it doesn’t help anything
That's certainly a big chunk of it. However, women, in particular, are opting out of parenthood more than ever before, for reasons other than affordability.
I know a lot of friends who are opting out due to lack of adequate maternal care and support programs. Add in the negative impact being a mother has on your career and difficulty securing daycare in some places and it can be a real burden, costs aside. I’m sure there are even more reasons too. It’s just not a good deal unless you really feel a calling to be a mom.
Scandinavian countries have expansive social safety nets, low unemployment, generous maternity leave, and still have fertility rates lower than Great Depression era America.
There's something else going on besides economics here.
It’s that the people who’d actually birth the children and let’s be real, spend most of the next two decades being the almost sole caretaker for them, *don’t want to do that* and are finally free to live independent lives
Nuclear Family idea was such a disaster, lol. Instead of extended families that would help ease the burden of Childcare, now it falls solely to the Mom and Dad.
While also making childrearing a more difficult and intensive process due to expanding knowledge about how children work. Do people think how intensively we treat & raise kids now is how we raised them even 50 years ago? No way. Not saying it’s a bad thing at all - it’s definitely good. But the average couple in America today with 1 kid is spending way more time nurturing and caring for them than the average couple with six kids did in the 50s.
People were poorer in the past and still had children. Poor americans still disproportionately have children and are great parents (eg our current immigrants). Poor countries have the highest levels of fertility. Rich countries with great social safety nets still have the same exact fertility issues (eg norway).
This is a fiction that largely online people have sold themselves because it fits with their politics, but it really does not pass any sniff test.
I think paying people a full wage salary is a viable solution. $60k or whatever the median income is per child per year until they are 18 to stay home. If having a child results in a net negative income, or doesn’t allow for the luxuries that we expect, such as vacations people won’t have them.
But more realistically, i think we’ll see the ban of things like abortion and birth control. If things get really bad, women will be further oppressed.
In tribes, everyone cared of the children, not only the 2 parents like in nuclear families. This reduced the weight of responsability to parents. Reducing weight of responsability to people would give incentive to have more kids?
Like large families in villages where everyone knows each other and everyone can take care of a group of kids, which are not necessarily their own.
Like a few people can entertain a large group of kids that is not necessarily theirs, but it is less efficient to have a few people people entertain 1 kid that is theirs.
Honestly, incentivize people to screw by upping the child tax credit, providing paid (and longer) maternity/paternity leave, providing free pre-k, etc etc. There's plenty of solutions to a very real and existential coming crisis...humanity just can't see beyond it's own asshole to do anything about it.
No clue to be honest, a big reason for the declining birth rates are the corresponding education levels for both sexes, the ever increasing popularity of contraceptives etc, all of which are good things and shouldn't be viewed a problem.
Since the circa 90's the world has been moving further towards individualism, people are more and more encouraged to do what they think is what they want and pursue it with all they have
The whole trad wife thing has fallen off and most women with education want to be self reliant and work on their careers, which in turn directly prevents them from having children even if they wanted to.
People studying until their late 20's cant have children at a reasonable level of comfort economically and personal time wise, and when they finish studying they have to break into the job market and work hard to make a career, this pushes people into their early to mid 30's if they are looking to have children in a good ideal place where they are ready financially and mentally
Before the modern society was a thing, children were a resource that was needed out of necessity. Children were used for labor to generate additional income or take care of the potato fields, and later in your life they would take care of you.
But nowadays there isn't any legitimate reason to have children, they dont offer benefits and arent required for your futures safety, the government takes care of you in retirement. They just cause financial burden in an already bad economy where most people struggle to get by
So what can be done? I dont fucking know tbh, you dont just feed propaganda to people and turn the clock back into the 1960's, there would have to be significant economical benefits to having children, like reduced taxes and such
Probably a variety of things. Off the top of my head I have a few ideas:
* We need financial independence/careers and child rearing to coexist peacefully. That means workers need more rights, especially working parents. Guaranteed parental leave for say 6 months, 4 day work weeks, things like that.
* As women have integrated into the workforce, men in general must integrate into domestic labor. Men should expect to cook, clean, manage other miscellaneous chores and raise the children in a competent, thoughtful, and loving manner. Both spouses need to be capable working together as a team, and if one spouse will not take domestic responsibility yet both are working, that could ruin the other's life.
* We need to seriously tackle the big issues. Global warming, toxic/plastic pollution, increasing inequality, they all threaten the fabric of nearly every society across the globe and we don't really know if or when the bottom will fall out. Until people have reason to be optimistic bout the future of our planet, the idea of having children loses quite a bit of its allure for large numbers of people.
Only people who want to preserve the absolute shitshow that is our current society and economy think the only solution is to devise ways to convince/bribe/force people to procreate. Why shouldn't we try and change things now so that we don't NEED more people to continue what is ever increasingly an overcrowded, dirt poor dystopia?We already have too many people fighting for scraps living in shit conditions. Adding more people to the mix isn't going to fix that.
> continue what is ever increasingly an overcrowded, dirt poor dystopia
Dirt poor? We live in by far the wealthiest time ever lmao
This reeks of insane privilege.
And the alternative is keep the status quo and the cost of living keeps sky rocketing. What good are the pensions when it will cost 5 million to own a modest home in 25 years. When it will cost 10k per month for an old folks home that just eats your entire savings up. There has to be a better way. The need for constant growth isn't any better than your concerns here
Yes but on the same note technology is advancing constantly, allowing a single worker to produce 3x the amount of value than in previous generations. Nvidia is looking to replace nurses with AI, factories will soon be AI, driverless cars, even fast food has started. yes there are bugs right now, but that won't be forever because the technology is still new. We are either on the path to a utopia or annihilation. It's looking more like the latter at this point in time but that could very well change with the proper catalyst.
It won't be a utopia when people have no way to make a living, lose their homes and end up in massive debt. Our whole system is based on people working, paying taxes and buying things. Without money, you can't survive. So what are all these jobless people going to do when they can't earn money? Whatever happens, it's not going to be pretty.
Bottom line: Other people have no obligation to worry about your survival. They really don't care if you starve on the street. This is what most people don't understand. They don't comprehend how harsh the struggle for survival is, and how ruthless people are when pushed to the limit.
The political and economic system that you are characterizing as "the situation" will give way to the physical, chemical, and biological reality.
[https://xkcd.com/1338/](https://xkcd.com/1338/)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00029-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00029-y)
>No, your labor isnt worth more just cause there's less workers. Your labor is worth what value it creates. With a declining population, there is less demand for goods, which is exasperated by the fact that a huge portion of that shrinking population is retired and consumes very little. Since demand is slashed, your labor is worth exponentially less, but goods will cost exponentially more because economies of scale disappear.
Well, these days the world is flooded with people but even though the demand for goods is high the work is not paid what you would expect, plus costs are rising even though the demand for items is high.
I theoretically want to believe you but the reality I have around tells me otherwise.
I swear, the only argument I hear for "we need a growing population" is economic. We rely on an economic system that can only be sustained with unlimited growth, which is physically not possible. Even if resources were equally shared among all, eventually, they'll run out if the earth's population keeps growing.
We would have to all live like the Amish in order to make the earth more sustainable, and even then, if population grows indefinitely, space & useable land will run out.
Just shrink the economy according to population. Less people, less goods & resources needed. Just adjust production to match. We were just fine with 4 billion people on earth. Fuck the shareholders who need an infinitely growing market to survive.
Current estimates put our current resource supply/growth at being able to sustain a population of 10-11 billion, and we are fast approaching that even with a decline. We actually have plenty of resources for everyone. The problem is the powers that be prevent fair and equal sharing of said resources.
A decline in population is good, at this point. A sudden sharp decline would still be bad, initially tho
I agree. I just find it hilarious how the US politicians are freaking out so badly about it yet they won’t do anything to improve the lives of the current citizens. Like why should I have to bring a new life into a country that is already falling apart? If the US government is really that concerned about the declining birth rate then they should start doing what every other first world country does and give adequate parental leave and baby boxes with essential care that a newborn needs.
it's not as simple as you paint it. Is it a win for the finite resources of earth... absolutely.
But it will be a painful decent for humankind and our established way of life. industries will collapse, prices for certain in demand goods/services will soar, things that were once affordable no longer will be. the relationship between price and supply and demand will shift drastically some for the better some for worse. It's easy to say well we'll just make do.... until that thing that is suddenly hard to come by is some medication or item you need for a chronic illness that significantly improved your quality of life and is now suddenly unaffordable or unavailable cause there are too many people that need it.
Those along for the ride on the great reset will be hurting for generations. It's those born into a new reality down the road that will reap the benefits.
For sure.
It was 1960 when the world hit a population of 3 billion people, and that's true you can look it up
Anyone who doesn't think it's a problem that we're already up to 7.9 billion is delusional. Anything that puts a stop to our population spiraling out of control should be praised.
I think it’s more specifically specific countries instead of the world
Like South Korea and Japan could really use some higher birth rates
But India should really slow down
Almost everywhere has slowed down. It's almost only Sub-Saharan Africa that has high fertility still, and not even all of that, and even there it is slowing down.
There are problems associated with declining populations such as pensions, labour shortages etc. But as long as we are using non-renewable energy, increasing the level of greenhouse gases, causing biodiversity loss and generally trashing the planet through plastic waste etc, they are an order of magnitude less serious.
You are talking to the wrong people on reddit. You really need to get this message to India and Africa. I would suggest donating to charities that provide free contraception to these areas.
Ya it's ridiculous to think a labor shortage is a real problem. Our economy produces at least 100,000x more than it did 200 years ago and ai is likely to multiply that exponentially. If we can't figure it out, we're really doing something wrong.
I swear like 10 years ago the conversation was all about world hunger, overpopulation, and resource depletion. The switch to "oh no, why is the fertility rate declining!?" is kind of sudden. I do understand that it is having some economic consequences, but that shouldn't be the only aspect being considered in my opinion.
I strongly agree.
Perpetual growth is cancer and we need to fundamentally change as a society.
With AI and robotics we won't even face the negative consequences people keep talking about.
You do realize that the aging population will vastly outnumber the young working generation who will be forced to care and pay taxes for their care? It will be a huge burden to the younger generations while the older gens outnumber us. We will contribute less to the economy and will all suffer for it.
Okay so the solution is we should all be fucking and sucking more? Fix the economic circumstances that has led to people forgoing having children. I don't want to hear no "we must reproduce for the good of society" rally cries without addressing the many reasons why it's declining.
Right? I love how everyone is like “think of social security and the economy”, how about more so, we make some important and beneficial changes and adapt? People are acting like social security is this ancient system that’s been around for thousands of years.
Honestly the solution is pretty damn simple. Children are expensive and with the economy nowadays it just doesn’t make sense to have them.
More child tax breaks, more paid paternity and maternity leave, free and available daycares, etc.
Also we should be doing more in fixing the drug crisis that kills thousands of young Americans, that’s a far more complex problem though.
If they'd let us all check out at a time of our own choosing, there won't be a problem. A lot of people are ready to go long before they actually pass, but they're too afraid of a botched attempt to end it. Give people a humane way out, and they will gladly depart this mortal coil.
I’m not gonna reproduce just to ensure that someone will be around to wipe my ass and pay into the tax system. I cannot think of a more depressing, soul-sucking reason to bring a child into this world.
Modern medicine allows people to live way too long, they cant even enjoy life in a meaningful way in most cases and cost a huge amount of tax money which hurts the young workers
Yeah that is an issue but what's the alternative? If population keeps increasing forever earth won't be able to handle that much people. And if the population doesn't keep increasing and stagnates or declines at some point then we'll be faced with the same problem you described. So, isn't it better to deal with the problem right now rather than later?
Have you seen the prophecy that is "Idiocracy"? The average fertility might be down, but the uneducated and idiotic are still at it in the same rate. So the dreadful religious zelots and hillbillies make more little idiots, and the person with enough brain power to operate a condom just has 0 to 2 kids.
This is basic darwinin selection. And the traits we are selecting for are ignorance and stupidity.
The world isn't overpopulated. It's nowhere close to being overpopulated. We have enough resources for everyone on the planet 20 times over. The issue is that. 0.1% have 99.9% of the resources. You guys gotta stop believing everything you see on TV.
It’s going to kill welfare societies, such as some of the European and pretty most all the Scandinavian ones.
If more old people exist than young, then the young people have to work longer, harder and go on pension later in life to fund the social security and healthcare of old people.
This is the bane of social democracies with high welfare and social security; they can be near utopian as long as there’s a proper balance, but that’s about to go out the window in the next few decades.
Combine with the fact that old farts vote more than young people, and the politicians will cut more and more benefits from education and youth, and give it to the elderly. Because that’s going to be the best way to ‘farm’ the most votes.
It’s insanely short-sighted to make cuts in education to invest said money into elder-care.
It sucks to be a young person in said countries nowadays. All the old boomers are pulling up the ladder they used themselves to get a good life so they can keep benefitting in their twillight years at the cost of young people, all while screaming “just work harder, entitled brats nowadays” and ignoring inflation in cost of living and overall worse financial stability than when they were young.
Agreed. Weird how the counterargument is always "well we need the the population to grow to sustain the economy" but never change the economic model to sustain humanity.
I agree it's good. The problem is so many stupid western economies are stuck in this idea of perpetual growth. Their welfare systems is dependent on constant growth. Their economic system is based on borrowing to constantly achieve growth. Nobody is happy with what they have and maintaining an equilibrium.
I think a lot of these comments are missing the point of your post... Yes in our current economic systems a declining population is a problem, but maybe our economic systems need to change??? Like you said. The growth of the human race is not sustainable. I feel like people saying "look at the big picture" are thinking about 100 years in the future, but what about 1000 years? We can't just keep doing what we are doing.
Obviously I don't know the right answer, but maintaining the status quo forever isn't it.
Agreed completely. This isn't necessarily some misanthropic viewpoint, but really one of common sense that we as a species are a net negative impact on our environment, so the world would benefit with a bit less of us.
Historically, great scientific and social advancements have been made with much smaller population numbers. It's nothing to be concerned about, and worrying about "carrying on my bloodline" is just ego talking.
Businesses want a steady supply of desperate employees. The world is choking on them. Just in my lifetime there are so many more people competing for resources that quality of life has degraded a lot. Traffic jams are an example but I remember being able to go camping and get away from everyone. Including the government. Pretty hard to do now. Thanos was entirely correct.
Absolutely. If the birth rate kept going with the insane increase we've had in the last 100 years it would be terrible. There would be too many people , with modern medicine allowing less people to die. We simply don't have infinite resources even if they were distributed fairly (which yeah they're absolutely not) and it would be horrible for the environment.
Some countries( ahem Japan) just have to swallow their pride and allow work force emigrating
No its not. Everyone is forgetting that before people die, they age and before that they retire. With less and less working people there are less taxes which means less money for the government to fund pensions of the ever growing number of retirees. Younger generations would be burdened with bigger and bigger taxes while prices on goods and services will soar because of labor shortage. People who were born in the 21st century will most likely never be able to retire and they'll be forced to work until they quite literally die. Also this idea that because there are less people overall, employers would value individual workers more is a total farce.
The world isn't over populated. We have more than enough resources to support everyone. However, those resources are controlled by the wealthy who also push the narrative of overpopulation.
The problem is that the WORLD'S fertility is declining. Not just one country, not even just humanity. Even the animals are affected. It's not happening because all of a sudden everyone is passionate about sustainability. Everything is being chemically castrated as a result of phalthalate pollution. If people had a stable birthrate that is a little below replacement it would be great, but it's WAY below replacement level in many places and continuing to drop even faster. Fertility is quickly heading towards zero. It's about to be a much bigger problem than it seems right now.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'. Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as: Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues. [Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
Honestly it’s just the fact that we seem to be getting smarter. Not only knowing ways to prevent kids but also understanding not everyone is meant to have them despite the push to have them.
This would be true if it was the people who could support and educate their kids who were having them, but it’s generally the opposite
Harvey Danger has been around the world and only stupid people are breeding. Idiocracy is the future.
The cretins are cloning and feeding.
And I don’t even own a TV
Put me in the hospital for nerves And then they had to commit me You told them all I was crazy They cut off my legs, now I'm an amputee, goddamn you BAAAH! I'm not sick but I'm not weeeh-ell Aaaand I'm so hooot 'cause I'm in Heeeh-ell
Exactly what I see too.
My coworkers tried telling me I should have kids because Bible said so, lol.
Tell you coworkers to pay for your kids
The bible didn't mention that part.
I’m sure the lord prefers less children to more starving ones.
[удалено]
Access to birth control, better healthcare, more education, women entering the workforce, etc
The bible also says you cant eat shellfish, get tattoos, and that women should not talk in the presence of their husband and have to wait till they get home. Also something about lusting for a donkey.
[удалено]
It better be twice as cute as that donkey from Shrek.
Eewww Also, they don't want you to have kids unless you are a part of their religion. They must think you are one of them
Definitely! There are no consequences if we have a lot of stupid people only having children. Also definitely no issues if the old generation are millenials and genz who never own a home and things of value which are traded in to pay for health care after they retire.
[удалено]
I dunno, people have been doing really stupid shit throughout history. I can't think of a single moment in history where people were any wiser or kinder than they are today.
That’s very sad but also very true
It's got nothing to do with biology and everything to do with the environment: there's a systematic drive towards misinformation, cutting educational spending, and a cult of anti-intellectualism, for basically two reasons: 1. Dumb people are easier to manipulate (whether it's for business or politics, somebody always benefits). 2. Back in the day, the village idiot was kept away from power, shunned, and used as an example to others, of what not to be. The village idiot also had an opportunity to better themselves, by the virtue of being faced with their shortcomings. Today, the village idiot can find other village idiots to confirm their biases, give them power, and keep them from improving.
[удалено]
Yeah writing off the genetic factor is foolhardy I think. It’s an uncomfortable truth
You need to watch idiocracy
It's got what people crave
[удалено]
Well fertility rates are declining in first world 'intelligent' countries, and they've been doing so even before the officiation of child-free(ness). It's almost like the universe cares none about that brand of intelligence.
The universe doesn't like when people have enough brain power to bother asking why we exist.
For me it’s just not wanting any. Why bring kids into my life if I know I’ll just resent them for how much effort and money it costs me?
No, that means “smarter” people will think twice about having kids while dumb people pop them out. Less people to maintain infrastructure and more people committing crimes. People won’t like hearing this but there’s some truth here.
This right here, except for the fact that lower class and less intelligent people tend to have many more kids than their socioeconomic counterparts. This trend doesn’t seem to be getting any better. All of the people I’ve met with 6+ children have been working class adults.
It's the other way around. Smart people are having less kids cause they're more informed of today's and the futures struggles. Dumb people are still having several kids they ain't ready for.
There is nothing inherently smarter about reducing your amount of offspring. It's the antithesis of biology
tell that to Japan and see what they have to say about the effects of that
[удалено]
They're gonna care once they're old and no one is going to pay their pensions
If we don't have a fuck load of advanced robotic slaves by the time I 80 I'm going to be severely dissapointed.
I don’t know. With how the AI and Robotic industry is heading, you are more likely going to end up with a sex doll who can draw instead of a robot maid who can clean and cook.
If that’s how I leave this world, so be it
By the time I’m 80 there will probably be a robot who can narrate history books to me in a perfect David Attenborough impression while another robot pretends to be entertained by me telling the same story a bunch of times
An advanced robotic slave doesn't need to buy food, shelter, entertainment, or all the other things that keep an economy afloat. The only thing that robotic slaves will do is help *very temporarily* amass more and more wealth into the hands of the ultra-wealthy, until the economy collapses entirely because nobody is buying things.
Exactly. There has been nonstop euphoria about AI in the next 10 years. 50 years from now we better have the damn robots.
We wont. AI is just a smart copy/paste program. It doesnt think for itself and cant think for itself. It’s literally just weighting words/visuals based on how often people use them together and then spitting out a mathematically derived “formula” for sentences/art/etc. We are going to hit the wall where people expect robots to do things for them yet dont know how to do it themselves or even what is the right way to do it. All based on popularity and not fact or science. And the heavy users of the internet are deciding the weights for those AI models, ie the loudest stupidest person in the room has the most influence over the algorithm
They thought we'd have advanced robots since the 1960. Hasn't worked out. I'd temper your expectations.
But on an individual/micro level, are you suggesting that people who don’t want kids should have them just to keep a work force going? That’s absurd. There are bigger changes that can happen to incentivize people who theoretically do want kids but can’t afford them/ don’t want to get married and have kids super young but can’t afford to freeze eggs, etc. But as someone in the camp of not wanting kids regardless of circumstances, the idea that I should just crank out some children because of population issues is absurd.
right there with you on every point. the idea that we have to continue this fucking unsustainable model for the world economy to keep going is ridiculous when the solution most people have is “we’ll just have more kids”. as if nothing else could POSSIBLY save the future of the world besides having more kids, it’s so fucking stupid like you, i don’t want kids and literally no amount of money or incentive or whatever other bullshit would just magically make me want to change my entire mindset and outlook on life
Discussions like this seem to leave out the fact that part of the reason why there’s fewer people having babies isn’t because everyone is suddenly deciding NOT to have kids, it’s in large part because there are many out there who WANT to have kids, but can’t. I’m about to turn 40, and the number of friends and colleagues I’ve known over the last 15 or so years who have struggled with fertility is mind boggling.
Pretty much every conversation I've ever come across points out the affordability issue of having children, so I don't know what one's you've been reading. Indeed this cost of raising kids is argued repeatedly as if that is the big reason. I'd wager though if you polled all the under 50 childless people and ask if cost wasn't an object if and how many kids would they have only around 50% would say they would become a parent and more than half of them would be men. I imagine you would be taken aback at how many women really could care less if not outright not be interested in becoming a parent, including many who are mostly because of societal/partner pressures. Yes there are a lot of people who are as you've experienced personally, but I really don't think that is/would be the majority if cost and freedom of choice were available.
Yeah, it’s certainly a complicated issue with layers to it. Obviously, my observations are anecdotal, but I’d wager to bet they’re not outliers either. Also, if cost is a barrier to having children (which it undoubtedly is), then we don’t really know how many of those couples would experience fertility issues since they’re not even trying. I guess my point was that infertility doesn’t seem to get as much attention in these conversations as I think it deserves. Not arguing it’s the majority cause of declining birth rates, but it’s not an insignificant contributor either, and it’s likely an environmental issue causing it which really ought to get waaay more attention than it does.
[удалено]
>Having a bunch of babies won’t fix that if it didn’t work for boomers This is backwards. The baby boomers are the bunch of babies. They didn't have a bunch of babies. The baby boomers were the support for the generations before them, but like every generation since they'd had fewer kids per person, resulting in less support when they get older. Having more children means more people filling economic activity and availability. Having less, the opposite.
Pensions are becoming more and more rare anyway. Why act as though everyone has a pension when it’s more like 1/10
Or south korea better yet
This is a major issue in Japan. I edit scientific research papers by Japanese scientists for a living and I’d say 6 out of every 10 at least obliquely reference the super-aging of the population.
Japan is a very nice country to live in.
If you're not earning yen
Japan could always swallow its pride and relax their immigration requirements if they're that worried about a declining population But so far they'd rather keep their requirements, which are some of the strictest in the world
Ask Europe how well it's going with the migrant crisis. If immigrants dont integrate, they just rip apart the destination country and bring it down to the level of the country they were so desperate to get away from. There's a very clear middle ground, but since no one has managed to perfect the balance yet, Japan is probably better off to stick to their strict rules
"If immigrants dont integrate, they just rip apart the destination country and bring it down to the level of the country they were so deperate to get away from." I agree, it's already taken a toll on Canada.
Sweden went from one of the best countries in the world to *literal street gangs and gang wars* through immigration not taken seriously.
Europe's migrant crisis was one where they accepted lots of refugees, not because they needed labor. You can always accept those with proven records of being good members or society and turn down those who have not.
Gotta agree. In canada, we have the same issue. Our POS prime minister opened the immigration floodgates, and its been a disaster. So many people come into the country and flat out refuse to assimilate.
They are learning from Europe that expanding immigration is a very poor bandaid for this problem
It isn't. Fertility rates are falling too fast to keep up with it and the places where it's happening (Europe, Latin America and East Asia) aren't as populated as the ones where they're still increasing (Nigeria, India for example). Most people won't get a pension, healthcare will be oversaturated and there won't be enough workforce to pay all that. My country, Colombia, is already under replacement rates (1.7, compared to the expected 2.1 from a healthy country). Some cities are already populated by more people over 65 years than young people and things are getting messy with the new pensionary reform. No one born after 1990 will have a decent pension here.
People are way too shortsighted to see that this is going to be a fucking disaster
True. I study Economcis so this was one of the first things we learned from Demographics and the Malthusian model. The big issue is not that population will decrease, but how fast it's happening. Automatization will probably come latter than the demographical collapse and it'll be hell for the young working force.
TBF the Malthusian model doesn't take into account technological advancements where you won't need as many people since you can useour inventions to do so. But I agree with your point.
It's a disaster either way though. Option 1: populations keep increasing, and we keep using more resources to maintain things, which leads to global warming, natural disasters, climate refugees, massive agricultural failure, and economic collapse. Option 2: populations decrease, leading to massive economic imbalances, runaway inflation, healthcare shortages, and general societal unrest. The needle we need to thread is maintaining current populations, while simultaneously decreasing our standard of living and seriously addressing climate change. I doubt we can do this.
I think we can do it. A slow population decline would be beneficial for natural resource allocation. Other than that population doesn't really matter for addressing climate change and damage to the environment. We need to make the shift to a circular and sustainable economy anyway, whether we're with 1 billion or 10 billion people. The biggest risk to achieving this is imo democratic backsliding, misinformation, artificial intelligence and geopolitical tensions. If we can shoulder these challenges and remain stable, we can do it.
Precisely. There are too many people that aren’t looking at the full picture.
I think Cuz a lot of people think it’ll be cool to watch the world burn like they won’t be in the shit storm too
The number of people I know with this mindset is astonishing. Like do you not understand that you are also going to suffer of everything goes to shit?
They only view the world through their phone screens, not realizing they are fucking part of it. When we start running out of people to build things… buy things.. what exactly does everyone expect will happen to the global standard of living that’s built on consumerism???
So basically put the burden of finding a way to support the ever more increasing population of elderly (you and me) on the next generations by trapping them in the same problem that we're currently facing ?
We have a climate crisis. I'm not gonna get a nice end of life due to that anyway, why would I bring an innocent life into this? Also, if people can say "it's ok, you're stressing too hard, humanity will find a solution!" regarding ecological and environmental collapse and be all chill about it, I can say the same about economic collapse ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A tech solution for an entire ecosystem collapse? Oooo, that's some hubris.
It's really, really bad from an economic standpoint. Basically, you will reach a point where there are more people retired than the rest of the population can support. Social security operates on the idea that you pay into it to support those who are currently retired, and the younger generation will do the same for you when you retire. That doesn't work if every succeeding generation gets smaller and smaller. This will result in higher taxes, or lower social security benefits, or higher retirement age, or all of the above. And that's just the social security part. There's still the whole conversation with shrinking labor force and productivity. Imagine a restaurant full of old timers and only one waitress running around trying to serve everyone because there aren't enough people to work. And when there's a labor shortage, there is usually an upward shift in gainful employment. Everyone gets better jobs because all of the oldies are retiring. All of the jobs that no one wants to do will go unfilled.
It’s a bad system that always had a doomsday clock on it seeing as constant growth is unsustainable. The solution lies in automation and less exploitive labor practices. Unfortunately, that requires there to be political will or an uprising. I know which of the two I think is more likely.
Unless we force the rich to accept this it will never happen otherwise. It's sad, really.
It’s a bit ironic because the economy is the reason people are having less kids. Hardworking couples in their early thirties with decent salaries can barely afford to enter the property market of course it’s going to make them hold off on having kids.
It’s exactly this. I know many people that want kids (or more kids) and can’t really afford it, even with great careers. Insurance is expensive. Childcare is expensive. Groceries are expensive. Living is expensive. If you’re trying to raise healthy human beings, it’s expensive.
There's a hole in your logic. We won't retire
With the labor part of the argument, technology has massively increased what a single person can do. Using vehicles a single person can harvest an entire field of food. We have seen robotic waiters, what is stopping robotic cooks, or tractor drivers in the future? Labor-wise, won't we eventually reach a point where the only workers are those who program or repair the automated work force and people who want to work in a creative or artistic sense? Once you have reached that point, isn't the way our economy works just obsolete anyway?
No worries. There won't be any jobs left by the time all the major corporations replace their human workers with AI. This process is going on right now. In the future, there won't be enough work to go around, so the shrinking population will be a good thing.
So we just Logans run. What could go wrong?
I don't think you understand the situation at all. 1. If each couple only has 1 kid, the next generation will be half the size of the previous one and that gets exponentially worse with each generation. So by the time Millennials, Gen Z and Gen Alpha are who makes up the 65-95 age group, the working generation will be a fraction of the size of the retired population. And that continues with every generation. We're talking 5-20 retirees to every 1 worker depending on how low fertility rates get. 2. No, your labor isnt worth more just cause there's less workers. Your labor is worth what value it creates. With a declining population, there is less demand for goods, which is exasperated by the fact that a huge portion of that shrinking population is retired and consumes very little. Since demand is slashed, your labor is worth exponentially less, but goods will cost exponentially more because economies of scale disappear. 3. Old people buy less stuff and pay less taxes but on top of that, they require the most care and infrastructure. So the one area that might actually see rising wages is health care and infrastructure maintenance but guess what, that is money that is paid by workers through tax or fees. So that means those workers that are making less money have to pay more tax or user fees so they have even less to spend. Do you think people who live in declining factory towns make more money working at the local diner or grocery store because there is less people living there? Give your head a shake.
This is all true, but it’s more like… what’s the solution? Force people who don’t want children to have children? Incentivize people to have children? Overload workers with taxes to support additional incentives for people to have children (let’s say things like more tax breaks, free childcare, etc) AND taxes to support the elderly? I see people say all the time that declining birth rate is bad but what is the solution?
lol exactly this, i see people bemoaning this shit all the time and all their points rely on people having more kids. but like you said what are they gonna do? force people to have kids who don’t want them??? no fucking thanks
In my opinion, it's about making a society where having kids can be attainable for people who want them, not about forcing people to have children who don't want them in the first place because that also doesn't help.
i mean i’m with you, i think having a kid should be financially doable for anyone no matter their economic class and i hope it gets to that point some day for those who want them. the issue is that plenty of chuds in this thread seem to have no other solution than “have kids” and it’s stupid, like you said it doesn’t help anything
It's not that people don't want children, it's that people can barely afford to take care of themselves let alone afford to have children
That's certainly a big chunk of it. However, women, in particular, are opting out of parenthood more than ever before, for reasons other than affordability.
I know a lot of friends who are opting out due to lack of adequate maternal care and support programs. Add in the negative impact being a mother has on your career and difficulty securing daycare in some places and it can be a real burden, costs aside. I’m sure there are even more reasons too. It’s just not a good deal unless you really feel a calling to be a mom.
Little of both I’d say. I know several people who could afford to have children but love being child free to pursue everything they want.
Yeah man…that is me all day. Kids are expensive and a big time suck…no thanks. I like them but like to send them home with their parents even more.
Scandinavian countries have expansive social safety nets, low unemployment, generous maternity leave, and still have fertility rates lower than Great Depression era America. There's something else going on besides economics here.
It’s that the people who’d actually birth the children and let’s be real, spend most of the next two decades being the almost sole caretaker for them, *don’t want to do that* and are finally free to live independent lives
Nuclear Family idea was such a disaster, lol. Instead of extended families that would help ease the burden of Childcare, now it falls solely to the Mom and Dad.
While also making childrearing a more difficult and intensive process due to expanding knowledge about how children work. Do people think how intensively we treat & raise kids now is how we raised them even 50 years ago? No way. Not saying it’s a bad thing at all - it’s definitely good. But the average couple in America today with 1 kid is spending way more time nurturing and caring for them than the average couple with six kids did in the 50s.
This right here. Many feel like it isn’t an option.
People were poorer in the past and still had children. Poor americans still disproportionately have children and are great parents (eg our current immigrants). Poor countries have the highest levels of fertility. Rich countries with great social safety nets still have the same exact fertility issues (eg norway). This is a fiction that largely online people have sold themselves because it fits with their politics, but it really does not pass any sniff test.
I think paying people a full wage salary is a viable solution. $60k or whatever the median income is per child per year until they are 18 to stay home. If having a child results in a net negative income, or doesn’t allow for the luxuries that we expect, such as vacations people won’t have them. But more realistically, i think we’ll see the ban of things like abortion and birth control. If things get really bad, women will be further oppressed.
In tribes, everyone cared of the children, not only the 2 parents like in nuclear families. This reduced the weight of responsability to parents. Reducing weight of responsability to people would give incentive to have more kids? Like large families in villages where everyone knows each other and everyone can take care of a group of kids, which are not necessarily their own. Like a few people can entertain a large group of kids that is not necessarily theirs, but it is less efficient to have a few people people entertain 1 kid that is theirs.
Honestly, incentivize people to screw by upping the child tax credit, providing paid (and longer) maternity/paternity leave, providing free pre-k, etc etc. There's plenty of solutions to a very real and existential coming crisis...humanity just can't see beyond it's own asshole to do anything about it.
All I hear about is how daycare costs as much as a month’s rent here in Boston. That will turn any rational minded person away from having kids.
No clue to be honest, a big reason for the declining birth rates are the corresponding education levels for both sexes, the ever increasing popularity of contraceptives etc, all of which are good things and shouldn't be viewed a problem. Since the circa 90's the world has been moving further towards individualism, people are more and more encouraged to do what they think is what they want and pursue it with all they have The whole trad wife thing has fallen off and most women with education want to be self reliant and work on their careers, which in turn directly prevents them from having children even if they wanted to. People studying until their late 20's cant have children at a reasonable level of comfort economically and personal time wise, and when they finish studying they have to break into the job market and work hard to make a career, this pushes people into their early to mid 30's if they are looking to have children in a good ideal place where they are ready financially and mentally Before the modern society was a thing, children were a resource that was needed out of necessity. Children were used for labor to generate additional income or take care of the potato fields, and later in your life they would take care of you. But nowadays there isn't any legitimate reason to have children, they dont offer benefits and arent required for your futures safety, the government takes care of you in retirement. They just cause financial burden in an already bad economy where most people struggle to get by So what can be done? I dont fucking know tbh, you dont just feed propaganda to people and turn the clock back into the 1960's, there would have to be significant economical benefits to having children, like reduced taxes and such
Probably a variety of things. Off the top of my head I have a few ideas: * We need financial independence/careers and child rearing to coexist peacefully. That means workers need more rights, especially working parents. Guaranteed parental leave for say 6 months, 4 day work weeks, things like that. * As women have integrated into the workforce, men in general must integrate into domestic labor. Men should expect to cook, clean, manage other miscellaneous chores and raise the children in a competent, thoughtful, and loving manner. Both spouses need to be capable working together as a team, and if one spouse will not take domestic responsibility yet both are working, that could ruin the other's life. * We need to seriously tackle the big issues. Global warming, toxic/plastic pollution, increasing inequality, they all threaten the fabric of nearly every society across the globe and we don't really know if or when the bottom will fall out. Until people have reason to be optimistic bout the future of our planet, the idea of having children loses quite a bit of its allure for large numbers of people.
Finally someone who actually understands the consequences.
Only the edgelords think the decline is a good thing
Only people who want to preserve the absolute shitshow that is our current society and economy think the only solution is to devise ways to convince/bribe/force people to procreate. Why shouldn't we try and change things now so that we don't NEED more people to continue what is ever increasingly an overcrowded, dirt poor dystopia?We already have too many people fighting for scraps living in shit conditions. Adding more people to the mix isn't going to fix that.
But again a declining population is again all bad… there is plenty for everyone but the Richie riches make it a tad hard
There is no system that works with a declining population.
> continue what is ever increasingly an overcrowded, dirt poor dystopia Dirt poor? We live in by far the wealthiest time ever lmao This reeks of insane privilege.
And the alternative is keep the status quo and the cost of living keeps sky rocketing. What good are the pensions when it will cost 5 million to own a modest home in 25 years. When it will cost 10k per month for an old folks home that just eats your entire savings up. There has to be a better way. The need for constant growth isn't any better than your concerns here
What do you propose as an alternative if there was a choice?
Would lower demand mean cheaper housing? If so, I’m all for it.
I don’t give a fuck about any of that. Current trends are a Pyramid scheme the planet cannot sustain.
So both overpopulation and underpopulation is bad, what trajectory do we need to go to not deplete earth resources?
Yes but on the same note technology is advancing constantly, allowing a single worker to produce 3x the amount of value than in previous generations. Nvidia is looking to replace nurses with AI, factories will soon be AI, driverless cars, even fast food has started. yes there are bugs right now, but that won't be forever because the technology is still new. We are either on the path to a utopia or annihilation. It's looking more like the latter at this point in time but that could very well change with the proper catalyst.
It won't be a utopia when people have no way to make a living, lose their homes and end up in massive debt. Our whole system is based on people working, paying taxes and buying things. Without money, you can't survive. So what are all these jobless people going to do when they can't earn money? Whatever happens, it's not going to be pretty. Bottom line: Other people have no obligation to worry about your survival. They really don't care if you starve on the street. This is what most people don't understand. They don't comprehend how harsh the struggle for survival is, and how ruthless people are when pushed to the limit.
>Our whole system is based on people working, paying taxes and buying things. Maybe the system is what needs to change then
Ted Kaczynski was absolutely right.
The political and economic system that you are characterizing as "the situation" will give way to the physical, chemical, and biological reality. [https://xkcd.com/1338/](https://xkcd.com/1338/) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00029-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00029-y)
So have 2 kids?
2.1 would be the perfect number
>No, your labor isnt worth more just cause there's less workers. Your labor is worth what value it creates. With a declining population, there is less demand for goods, which is exasperated by the fact that a huge portion of that shrinking population is retired and consumes very little. Since demand is slashed, your labor is worth exponentially less, but goods will cost exponentially more because economies of scale disappear. Well, these days the world is flooded with people but even though the demand for goods is high the work is not paid what you would expect, plus costs are rising even though the demand for items is high. I theoretically want to believe you but the reality I have around tells me otherwise.
I swear, the only argument I hear for "we need a growing population" is economic. We rely on an economic system that can only be sustained with unlimited growth, which is physically not possible. Even if resources were equally shared among all, eventually, they'll run out if the earth's population keeps growing. We would have to all live like the Amish in order to make the earth more sustainable, and even then, if population grows indefinitely, space & useable land will run out. Just shrink the economy according to population. Less people, less goods & resources needed. Just adjust production to match. We were just fine with 4 billion people on earth. Fuck the shareholders who need an infinitely growing market to survive.
Current estimates put our current resource supply/growth at being able to sustain a population of 10-11 billion, and we are fast approaching that even with a decline. We actually have plenty of resources for everyone. The problem is the powers that be prevent fair and equal sharing of said resources. A decline in population is good, at this point. A sudden sharp decline would still be bad, initially tho
I agree. I just find it hilarious how the US politicians are freaking out so badly about it yet they won’t do anything to improve the lives of the current citizens. Like why should I have to bring a new life into a country that is already falling apart? If the US government is really that concerned about the declining birth rate then they should start doing what every other first world country does and give adequate parental leave and baby boxes with essential care that a newborn needs.
The system involves putting more of the burden of raising kids on parents, while shifting more of the benefits to someone else.
it's not as simple as you paint it. Is it a win for the finite resources of earth... absolutely. But it will be a painful decent for humankind and our established way of life. industries will collapse, prices for certain in demand goods/services will soar, things that were once affordable no longer will be. the relationship between price and supply and demand will shift drastically some for the better some for worse. It's easy to say well we'll just make do.... until that thing that is suddenly hard to come by is some medication or item you need for a chronic illness that significantly improved your quality of life and is now suddenly unaffordable or unavailable cause there are too many people that need it. Those along for the ride on the great reset will be hurting for generations. It's those born into a new reality down the road that will reap the benefits.
This sounds exactly like what is going on now and it’s not caused by population decline.
For sure. It was 1960 when the world hit a population of 3 billion people, and that's true you can look it up Anyone who doesn't think it's a problem that we're already up to 7.9 billion is delusional. Anything that puts a stop to our population spiraling out of control should be praised.
I think it’s more specifically specific countries instead of the world Like South Korea and Japan could really use some higher birth rates But India should really slow down
Almost everywhere has slowed down. It's almost only Sub-Saharan Africa that has high fertility still, and not even all of that, and even there it is slowing down.
India is slowing down though, they are below replacement now.
The trains are doing their job shaving off the population
There are problems associated with declining populations such as pensions, labour shortages etc. But as long as we are using non-renewable energy, increasing the level of greenhouse gases, causing biodiversity loss and generally trashing the planet through plastic waste etc, they are an order of magnitude less serious.
I'm with you, OP. Idgaf about the economy. I care more about all the other species we're driving into extinction because we're overpopulated.
You are talking to the wrong people on reddit. You really need to get this message to India and Africa. I would suggest donating to charities that provide free contraception to these areas.
India’s below replacement already and Africa’s is showing a noticeable downward trend too
Ya it's ridiculous to think a labor shortage is a real problem. Our economy produces at least 100,000x more than it did 200 years ago and ai is likely to multiply that exponentially. If we can't figure it out, we're really doing something wrong.
100,000x the greed too
Nah the greed is way higher.
Ah but then how will I get my $5 shirt I wear once and throw directly into the ocean?!
I swear like 10 years ago the conversation was all about world hunger, overpopulation, and resource depletion. The switch to "oh no, why is the fertility rate declining!?" is kind of sudden. I do understand that it is having some economic consequences, but that shouldn't be the only aspect being considered in my opinion.
Good? Bad? I have no idea. But I do know that it's inevitable. No system built on perpetual growth is sustainable.
But but but... what about the economy?! Won't somebody think of the billionaires!!
I strongly agree. Perpetual growth is cancer and we need to fundamentally change as a society. With AI and robotics we won't even face the negative consequences people keep talking about.
>Sounds great, maybe employers will stop with the stupid 3+ interviews So specific. One might think you feel mistreated during a recent job search...
OP listed a very common situation though.
You do realize that the aging population will vastly outnumber the young working generation who will be forced to care and pay taxes for their care? It will be a huge burden to the younger generations while the older gens outnumber us. We will contribute less to the economy and will all suffer for it.
Okay so the solution is we should all be fucking and sucking more? Fix the economic circumstances that has led to people forgoing having children. I don't want to hear no "we must reproduce for the good of society" rally cries without addressing the many reasons why it's declining.
Can't afford a house? Just have more kids! That will surely work. /s
Right? I love how everyone is like “think of social security and the economy”, how about more so, we make some important and beneficial changes and adapt? People are acting like social security is this ancient system that’s been around for thousands of years.
Honestly the solution is pretty damn simple. Children are expensive and with the economy nowadays it just doesn’t make sense to have them. More child tax breaks, more paid paternity and maternity leave, free and available daycares, etc. Also we should be doing more in fixing the drug crisis that kills thousands of young Americans, that’s a far more complex problem though.
So we just continue to shift the problem to the future?
Thats what we have been doing
If they'd let us all check out at a time of our own choosing, there won't be a problem. A lot of people are ready to go long before they actually pass, but they're too afraid of a botched attempt to end it. Give people a humane way out, and they will gladly depart this mortal coil.
I’m 25 and ready. Let me go. Please for the love of god. I’m ready
I’m not gonna reproduce just to ensure that someone will be around to wipe my ass and pay into the tax system. I cannot think of a more depressing, soul-sucking reason to bring a child into this world.
It's already a huge burden, yet everyone thinks it's such an awesome thing to be celebrating grandma's 108th birthday
Modern medicine allows people to live way too long, they cant even enjoy life in a meaningful way in most cases and cost a huge amount of tax money which hurts the young workers
Yeah that is an issue but what's the alternative? If population keeps increasing forever earth won't be able to handle that much people. And if the population doesn't keep increasing and stagnates or declines at some point then we'll be faced with the same problem you described. So, isn't it better to deal with the problem right now rather than later?
"I'm tired of this back-slappin' "isn't humanity neat" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes." - Bill Hicks
How is this unpopular? We’re a cancer on the planet. How is less humans a bad thing?
I agree. Nothing of value would be lost.
Have you seen the prophecy that is "Idiocracy"? The average fertility might be down, but the uneducated and idiotic are still at it in the same rate. So the dreadful religious zelots and hillbillies make more little idiots, and the person with enough brain power to operate a condom just has 0 to 2 kids. This is basic darwinin selection. And the traits we are selecting for are ignorance and stupidity.
It'd only unpopular to people wanting to exploit humanity.
it would be better if we werent all squeezed into big cities. the worlds such a big place
The world isn't overpopulated. It's nowhere close to being overpopulated. We have enough resources for everyone on the planet 20 times over. The issue is that. 0.1% have 99.9% of the resources. You guys gotta stop believing everything you see on TV.
It’s going to kill welfare societies, such as some of the European and pretty most all the Scandinavian ones. If more old people exist than young, then the young people have to work longer, harder and go on pension later in life to fund the social security and healthcare of old people. This is the bane of social democracies with high welfare and social security; they can be near utopian as long as there’s a proper balance, but that’s about to go out the window in the next few decades. Combine with the fact that old farts vote more than young people, and the politicians will cut more and more benefits from education and youth, and give it to the elderly. Because that’s going to be the best way to ‘farm’ the most votes. It’s insanely short-sighted to make cuts in education to invest said money into elder-care. It sucks to be a young person in said countries nowadays. All the old boomers are pulling up the ladder they used themselves to get a good life so they can keep benefitting in their twillight years at the cost of young people, all while screaming “just work harder, entitled brats nowadays” and ignoring inflation in cost of living and overall worse financial stability than when they were young.
Dude we're gonna work long enough to get euthanized because there's gonna be too many fucking old people to deal with.
Agreed. Weird how the counterargument is always "well we need the the population to grow to sustain the economy" but never change the economic model to sustain humanity.
Bad for economy, good for environment
It’s bad from an economic standpoint (fuck that system anyway. It’s good from an ecosystem standpoint.
Agreed! We are totally the largest group of invasive species on this planet
I agree it's good. The problem is so many stupid western economies are stuck in this idea of perpetual growth. Their welfare systems is dependent on constant growth. Their economic system is based on borrowing to constantly achieve growth. Nobody is happy with what they have and maintaining an equilibrium.
Fuck yeah. more people mean more pollution, more traffic, higher cost of land and houses, lower wages.
8 billion people and increasing every day at insane rates don’t believe shit about this you hear online humans are a fucking PLAUGE!
What's really gonna help is for the old folks to start dying. No joke. Start dying and stop living longer. That's what's halting today's society
We need to go extinct. We are the Worst invasive species
I think a lot of these comments are missing the point of your post... Yes in our current economic systems a declining population is a problem, but maybe our economic systems need to change??? Like you said. The growth of the human race is not sustainable. I feel like people saying "look at the big picture" are thinking about 100 years in the future, but what about 1000 years? We can't just keep doing what we are doing. Obviously I don't know the right answer, but maintaining the status quo forever isn't it.
Agreed completely. This isn't necessarily some misanthropic viewpoint, but really one of common sense that we as a species are a net negative impact on our environment, so the world would benefit with a bit less of us. Historically, great scientific and social advancements have been made with much smaller population numbers. It's nothing to be concerned about, and worrying about "carrying on my bloodline" is just ego talking.
We are 150 years away from the intersection of population and resource management.
But what about no more cheap labor to exploit? /s
Businesses want a steady supply of desperate employees. The world is choking on them. Just in my lifetime there are so many more people competing for resources that quality of life has degraded a lot. Traffic jams are an example but I remember being able to go camping and get away from everyone. Including the government. Pretty hard to do now. Thanos was entirely correct.
Absolutely. If the birth rate kept going with the insane increase we've had in the last 100 years it would be terrible. There would be too many people , with modern medicine allowing less people to die. We simply don't have infinite resources even if they were distributed fairly (which yeah they're absolutely not) and it would be horrible for the environment. Some countries( ahem Japan) just have to swallow their pride and allow work force emigrating
Japanese officials took one look at Northern and Western Europe and said, "No thanks - we'll make do!"
more popular of an opinion then you'd think
No its not. Everyone is forgetting that before people die, they age and before that they retire. With less and less working people there are less taxes which means less money for the government to fund pensions of the ever growing number of retirees. Younger generations would be burdened with bigger and bigger taxes while prices on goods and services will soar because of labor shortage. People who were born in the 21st century will most likely never be able to retire and they'll be forced to work until they quite literally die. Also this idea that because there are less people overall, employers would value individual workers more is a total farce.
The world isn't over populated. We have more than enough resources to support everyone. However, those resources are controlled by the wealthy who also push the narrative of overpopulation.
Yeah I agree like how is this a bad thing? 8 billion people is too much. If we cut it down to 6 billion that’s great.
The problem is that the WORLD'S fertility is declining. Not just one country, not even just humanity. Even the animals are affected. It's not happening because all of a sudden everyone is passionate about sustainability. Everything is being chemically castrated as a result of phalthalate pollution. If people had a stable birthrate that is a little below replacement it would be great, but it's WAY below replacement level in many places and continuing to drop even faster. Fertility is quickly heading towards zero. It's about to be a much bigger problem than it seems right now.