386
submitted 3 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] anguo@lemmy.ca 92 points 3 months ago

When growth is so inherent to your system that the opposite is "negative growth".

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

We built a system based on continuous growth and consumption. People freeze like deer in the headlights when it gets brought up that it isn’t sustainable and get offended that maybe we should try to make some changes to it.

[-] Huckledebuck@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 months ago

Well, if you used the correct mathematical term, population decay, then you're gonna have a lot of rubes rioting about some conspiracy on how a population can't decompose or some shit.

Scientist had to change global warming to climate change when they realized some people can't look past the buzz words and learn something.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 61 points 3 months ago
[-] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 61 points 3 months ago
[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The economic system built on infinite growth will also collapse and leave most of those people in inescapable cut throat poverty and starvation

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We won’t starve if we eat the rich. Once they are gone, we can build a new economic system.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

We'll be lucky if it goes that smooth. Usually the whole thing at least partially collapses, followed by is a few hundred years of dark age to sort things out and then rebuilding starts with a new system in place for another go.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Personally, I’m counting on Zephram Cochran flagging down some Vulcans to help us out. Rebuilding should take 100 years tops

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 18 points 3 months ago

Someone wants people to believe we need to grow... The environmental impact says otherwise.

[-] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

They won't care. The investors can't think past next quarter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Current difficulties caring for elderly will continue to get worse, as the population of working age people continues to shrink faster than the population of elderly

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 00x0xx@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Only bad for nations that are shrinking too fast, like some nordic nations and South Korea. But most other nations will benefit from the less population growth rate.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 53 points 3 months ago

That's good. Infinitely growing populations aren't sustainable, and I don't know that there are any viable arguments for continued population growth.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

The problem is the word “significant”

We can all agree the population can’t continue to grow. We can also agree it probably needs to shrink, especially by the time this starts making a difference.

However, if it shrinks too rapidly, there’s a lot of potential disruption of society and economy. If it continues to shrink, it could be a serious problem for all of humanity.

We should make changes now to encourage more people to have kids. The goal should be a slow, controlled decrease, to level off, without major disruption

Personally, I like 6B as a good place to plateau. We’re probably already beyond the planet’s carrying capacity so need to be less than today. However a lot of the advancements in society (technology, space, medicine, science, innovation) really require a fairly large population. Establishing a number ought to be someone’s thesis, but in the meantime: 6B

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Maybe society needs to be disrupted. There is lots of room for improvements

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Maybe, but I think of disruption sort of like mutation. We all like to think it creates superhuman but most same actually negative , and reality is we get more improvements with continuous increments

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago

That's a good thing right?

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It will be very tough economically as fewer people will need to work to support those in retirement. Economic problems, in turn tend to lead to social unrest and a turn to extremist political positions and solutions.

But it should at least take some pressure off the planet. Maybe AI can pick up the slack. Time will tell.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

This is exactly why Japan is investing so much in robotics. They have a rapidly aging population without enough young people to replace them or care for them when they're too old to work.

They will probably eventually have to relax their immigration policies, but that will be a last resort for them.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] scripthook@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

kind of like ""Children of Men" but people just choosing not to have children. I see people my age in their 40's having only 1 or 2 children and people in their 30's just not deciding to have children at all.

[-] altec@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

Luckily, it's still within our power to choose not to reproduce.

[-] Paragone@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

Perfect example of Newspeak gaslighting.

"negative growth" instead of diminuition, population-recession, reduced population, or ANY proper rendition of the concept.

Nobody in mainstream media speaks plainly anymore, because .. money requires befuddlement instead of clear-understanding?

Or is there some/any other explanation??

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] athos77@kbin.social 13 points 3 months ago

The researcher points out that births “will increasingly be concentrated in the areas of the world that are most vulnerable to climate change, resource scarcity, political instability, poverty and infant mortality.”

Well, this can only end well ...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MyDogLovesMe@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Lol. By then it will be done for us, unwillingly.

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

If you read the article, that’s basically what it says.

[-] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago

Good, let’s make that happen sooner.

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 months ago

Don't worry, this doesn't account for the people that will die, directly or indirectly, from climate change.

[-] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago

Well that’s not where I was going with that, but you aren’t wrong..

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

Good, I can't wait!

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 months ago

If capitalism continues unabated. This is far from certain.

[-] MyNamesNotRobert@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Governments, along with the corporations who will struggle to find employees when this happens have all brought this upon themselves. Treating people like dogshit all the time doesn't pay off in the long run.

[-] Usernamealreadyinuse@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Summary: The article from EL PAÍS discusses a study predicting a significant decline in the global population by 2100. Here's a summary:

Global Population Decline: The study, published in The Lancet by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, forecasts that by 2050, 155 out of 204 countries will have fertility rates too low to maintain their populations. By 2100, this will rise to 97% of countries.

Fertility Rate Drop: The fertility rate is plummeting worldwide. For instance, Spain's fertility rate decreased from 2.47 children per woman in 1950 to 1.26 in 2021, with projections of 1.23 in 2050 and 1.11 in 2100. This trend is mirrored globally, with France, Germany, and the European average also experiencing declines.

Economic and Social Impact: The study urges governments to prepare for the economic, health, environmental, and geopolitical challenges posed by an aging and shrinking population.

Regional Differences: While rich countries already face very low fertility rates, low-income regions start from higher rates. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, will see a significant increase in its share of global births, from 18% in 2021 to 35% in 2100.

Migration as a Temporary Solution: The authors suggest that international migration could temporarily address demographic imbalances, but as fertility decline is a universal phenomenon, it's not a long-term solution.

The article highlights the need for strategic planning to address the impending demographic shifts and their associated challenges¹.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Tiny people

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

By then, I’ll have done my part!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago

Negative population growth or negative economic growth? Huge difference.

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Both. Economies suffer when the populations cannot replenish workforces and when average age gets older and older.

You end up with too many people to support and not enough people to do the work.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
386 points (98.2% liked)

World News

37319 readers
2579 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