this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
54 points (82.9% liked)

World News

38554 readers
2764 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 117 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We don't need a higher birth rate .... we need a better quality of life for everyone.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

It's almost like if people had free time, a positive outlook on life, and resources to live comfortably that babies would be a natural outcome.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Yeah, Hans Rossling had a cool tes talk about the direct correlation between family sizes and access to healthcare. If the life expectancy goes up, family sizes go down. The talk

Now we have reached a point where the system in a lot of countries works against the forever growth as people need to work work work and don't see a future for themselves, let alone for a family.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 67 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that as long as global population is going up, we're having too many, not too few. Once it levels off we may have to think about whether we want to degrow the population or just leave it.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if by the 2080s, "peak human" according to the quoted estimate, Brave New World baby factories are an option should we need them.

[–] erusuoyera@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The main driver of population growth is people living longer. The problem with less babies being born means less young labourers for all the old fucks to exploit. Logan's Run would be a better sci-fi system to adopt.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Right now it's still birth rate, to be clear. Life expectancy as gone up by mere years over the decades, while births per adult woman is still double digit in a few select countries.

Biology is a field that's growing explosively these days, though, and I fully expect aging to settle down suddenly. I'll have to look up what Logan's Run is.

Edit: 30 is definitely too low for a maximum age, lol. People commonly work into their 60s. I expect that decline in age will slow down as well, so that helps offset things, and then if there's still a population crunch geezers like me should start doing "lotteries". Maybe literal Russian roulette, for the style factor.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The issue is growth rates are wildly different among different areas and cultures. The population in some places is dropping precipitously which will cause economic problems, especially around elder care.

While I agree that a gradual population reduction would be beneficial, rapid declines will increase human suffering and should be avoided.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

different areas and cultures

It's really more wealth and education based. Muslim Kazakhstan has a birth rate near replacement, neighboring Tajikistan has a big one, and Afghanistan a couple of stans down has one sky high. Further south yet, India still has a very family-centric culture, but they've dropped below replacement now.

All problems right now, when there's a global surplus, are due to lack of immigration. I say we work on that.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Once it levels off we may have to think about whether we want to degrow the population

The problem is this is one of those long term things that people have a hard time understanding. By the time you see it level off, it’s decades too late to change things. Let’s not make the same mistake as we continue to do with climate: instead of putting it off until it becomes a crisis let’s make small changes now so the crisis doesn’t happen.

We definitely can’t grow population forever and are likely beyond a sustainable population already, but let’s try for a smooth leveling off and soft landing rather than flying off a cliff and crashing into the rocks

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] don@lemm.ee 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’m so glad I didn’t selfishly pull my unborn children out of perfectly peaceful nonexistence and into this horrid timeline.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

"I love my unborn children far too much to bring them into this dumpster fire of a society."

My parents were pestering the wife and I about when we're going to give them grandbabies. Hit em with that line a few years ago, and they haven't brought it up since.

The idea of having a kid in today's world just seems cruel.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 43 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't know. Do we really need to replace another 8.2 billion people, does that line really need to go up?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, but we also don’t want that line to suddenly plummet either.

Think of it this way: birth rate of one is half replacement value and most developed countries are there. We’re already having half the children we need to stay level but it’s not obvious because of the larger generations still living. In 20 years, that half population will half yet again, one quarter the children to level off. Then those older generations age out, and you get larger generations replaced by multiple halvings. For example if you live three generations, then at the end of your life, the population is only 1/8 what it was. Obviously it won’t be this simple and many things could affect birthrate but I find this trend frightening for humanity’s future. We’re not talking lower population but facing the possibility of a crashing population

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The birthrate BS is already being used as reasons for controlling women. The only down fall is Religious nut bags and Republican assholes losing control over the other sex.

A better way of life automatically equals the natural number of children. There's no need for another 9 billion people. There is a very strong need of a better life for 8 billion of us.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There’s no need for another 9 billion people. There is a very strong need of a better life for 8 billion of us.

Agreed, but there are many possibilities for where this trend heads and when it levels out.

  • there’s no need for a chaotic, disrupted life for 5 billion of us
  • there’s no need for widespread societal collapse as we no longer have the population to afford the infrastructure we’ve built out
  • there’s no need to live in a dystopia of limitation with collapsing hope and vision, dying innovation and arts, ever constriction g, ever decreasing

If we try to tweak the birth rate starting now, we’re more likely to land at a sweet spot like “ a better life for 8 billion of us.”

And no, controlling women is not the way. Being evil always seems the faster and easier path, but where do you end up? Evil

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

Maybe we don't need more people in the world?

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

good luck with the greedy little fuck twat corporations believing that their workers exist solely for the purpose of making their owners richer

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The world population has nearly doubled in my lifetime. That's not sustainable. We need to build systems that promote and function within a state of equilibrium.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago

The first publishing of "Limits to Growth" suggested that if immediate actions were done to curtail growth and use of resources, the world could possibly in many decades peak and then come back down to a sustainable flat line. That was in 1970. 54 years ago we may have had a chance - although the research didn't include many things not known to them, including the impact of climate change that was already underway and just not obvious (the ocean was buffering much of the effects for a long time).

My non-scientific opinion is that crossing the line of hunter-gatherer to agriculture was the real point of no return. We gained a lot from that, but it also sealed our path and fate. Finding the rich energy source of petroleum was the final accelerant.

[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

2 billion was perfect. Let's get back to that and stay there.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago

Oh, someone else who read 'The Ministry for the Future'?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

We simply need money.

Give me 3x my finances and I'll have 2 kids.

Edit: There appears to be a significant lack of education in this comment thread.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

not if the cost goes up 3x to. give me enough for a house and yard and reliable car or make reliable transit where the house is and enough for the family to eat healthy with some spoilage treat behavior and get them standard stuff like a laptop and have decent chance for a good educaton and in my case make me 30 years younger.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Money is not enough, especially if both parents have to work. At least as importantly, most of us no longer have the support of extended family and communities, or the ability to have a stay at home parent to help make it work and those are equally important

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is an high birthrate actually a good thing?

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For the planet? No. For capitalism, yes.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago

Hard to have infinite growth without infinite growth.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Governments needs more slaves and army conscripts, hurry up and have more children

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Without unemployment, without bullshit jobs and with automation, we could probably do all we do today just 1 billion people worldwide, no?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Society at large says weath, career, possessions and vacations are the most important thing. Those are all easier without children.

Things would be a lot different if household and caring tasks would be seen as important and not just some unpaid chore to be dumped on women. If instead of business class it would be family class to give those traveling with ~~chicken~~ children the best seats.

But that is unthinkable in a capitalistic system.

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I would always travel with chicken if that was the case!

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Chicken class is best class

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

They could they're just not willing to do what would be required.

[–] rickdg@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›