Unpopular Opinion

6297 readers

47 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Rooki@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

admiralpatrick@lemmy.world

lemann@lemmy.world

ptz@dubvee.org

General population decline trends in the last years is actually a good news. (feddit.org)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by 101@feddit.org to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If we really thought about it, there will be a raising amount of people who don't have a job and will not be able to get a job ever due to the decline in human labour needs, which lead to fewer jobs being offered globally which means that with fewer humans around there will be a higher chance for people to get a good job.
Humans consume resources, with less humans around there will be more resources for each humans and they will collectively consume less resources in total.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd rather focus on raising up the lowest into a tier of stability

What you're describing, then, has nothing to do with birth rates. That's what I'm saying in this thread: reduced birth rates won't fix the problem of runaway consumption and emerging scarcity.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Reduce birthrates A LOT (via non eugenic methods, I'm not playing with that), and prefer to remove (again, via absence) the most consumptive.

Give it a few hundred years and baby, you got a stew goin.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm saying that you can reduce birthrates a lot and it won't make much of a difference, because you can't go below zero and the rich/high consumption countries are already low.

If your goal is to reduce net consumption, then reduce consumption (or replenish consumed resources through increased production or restoration/replenishment of what is consumed). Preventing births itself won't meaningfully move the needle.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Over a few generations reducing birthday near zero would absolutely love the needle.

I think we generally agree, I'm just focused on a wider time span