• @Graphy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Is less people really such a bad thing? We’re at a point where everyone’s already complaining about housing and climate change.

    We can blame the 1% and we can say the elderly will suffer but something’s gotta give. I feel we’re all buying into a pyramid scheme.

    • @ahnesampo@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      382 years ago

      It’s not fewer people that’s the problem, but fewer people too fast. A society needs labor to provide the goods and services people need. If the share of people who do labor (working age) to people who don’t (children and the elderly) becomes too lopsided, the burden on those who work becomes unsustainable. (The Boomers had the opposite: they had a smaller older generation and didn’t have many children, so during their prime years the working age population was much larger than dependants on both ends of the age pyramid. That’s part of the reason why they were so prosperous.)

      Going by total fertility rate (children per woman):

      • 2.1 is enough for replacement. No problems.
      • 1.8 means every generation is 10 % smaller than the previous. We can deal with that.
      • 1.5 means every generation is 25 % smaller than the previous. This starts to cause problems.
      • 1.0 means generation size halves every generation. This is not sustainable.
      • 0.8 RIP South Korea
      • @tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        I think that’s slippery slope or presumptive, at best. Birth rates shift and flow and there will always be people that have kids.

        I have more respect for people that see the trend and don’t want to create wage slaves.

        If governments addressed real issues instead of maximizing corporate interests, they might create a stable birth rate.

    • @SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      172 years ago

      It is a pyramid scheme. We have an economic system based on continuous growth. When it doesn’t grow, it’s a huge panic, such as during the pandemic or 2008 economic crisis. Now the number of workers and consumers, the base of the whole system, is starting to shrink and nothing much van be done without changing the essence of the system.

      Of course those that became rich and powerful because of the system don’t want to change the system that keeps them rich and powerful. But without change the system might not survive.

    • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      82 years ago

      People aren’t so much the issue as policy.

      If politicians didn’t try to make everything dependant on fossil fuels and embrace renewables we’d probably be carbon neutral already.

    • @otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      The “problem” is that other parts of the world are more than making up for the declining birth rates in the developed world

      • @GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        If you’re nodding at the concept of overpopulation that’s not really a “problem” as we’re expected to top out around 15 billion as the rest of the world develops and then replacement rate is expected around 12 bil as things level back out from an earlier peak iirc.