We are in no way at risk of dying out from negative population growth. If we start to go down below a few million, then maybe let’s talk.
World population is still increasing, and is set to maybe stabilize in a couple decades. Fingers crossed. If we could (gently, without mass starvation) reduce the population down to a more sustainable level, that is an unmitigatedly good thing.
What might kill us is infertility from pollution or disease, but this won’t do it.
Then fix that first instead of delaying it. Climate change is more directly caused by capitalism than it is caused by natalism. It’s easier to (proverbially) eat the rich than it is to tell people to stop having the children you need to wipe your grandparent’s ass.
I’n not telling anyone to have kids or not, I’m actually saying that having kids is a personal decision, and society should not care beyond making sure those kids grow up safe in loving families.
The real issue is that we have a rapidly aging workforce and there’s not enough young people to replace them. With the average age of parents raising, the gap is getting larger. In the 50s it was 16 workers for every 1 retired. The 70s, 5:1. That number is now almost 2:1. This is bad. Very bad.
Higher bar for jobs. Lower wage for entry level. Later retiring age. Higher need for migrant and seasonal workers.
Aw, crapitalism will break because line cannot always go up.
Cry me a fucking river. Humanity is a cancer, and we need to be about half our current population. Yeah, we’re not gonna like it when we drop that population. Our kids, my daughter, are going to have it fucking tough. But if we want to survive long term… We gotta stop.
Says Thanos who did nothing wrong. Really though, it’s not rocket science to understand eternal growth is not a viable strategy. It’s also obvious that the number of people on the Earth now is too much if we want them all to live a comfortable life and not to destroy the planet at the same time. How big should the population be to make things ok longterm? That is open to discussion and depends on many factors, so there’s not just one correct answer.
I’m not advocating for eternal growth. But the malthusians claim the population should be smaller without telling you how smaller or how to reach the objective. It’s candid ideology that’s not very different from eugenics if brought to its logical conclusion. They tell you some will suffer, but they don’t tell you who and how. The answer is of course: some poor schmuck that’s not them.
And they fail to realize that, even after the population’s been reduced, we’d still suffer from the same issues we’re facing now because population reduction didn’t address the real issue, which is capitalism.
I totally agree with you. I just hate all of these “don’t have kids” arguments from liberal people. It’s not a viable solution, because the fascists and the idiots are gong to have kids. We need at least some sane people to continue on.
But the is all emotional and subjective, I’ll admit that. I’m not really thinking about this topic with a clear head anymore.
And it doesn’t work, either. When they tell you we need half the population, they don’t tell you how to reach that objective, when the objective is considered to be achieved.
They might recognize that some people will have to suffer, but they don’t tell you who will suffer and how.
Malthusianism is yet another unclear ideology that offers vague promises but assured hardships from dilettantes that are spared enough to not feel the full weight of capitalism.
That talking point died decades ago. We have a clear path to reducing our population. Well-off people with access to contraceptives don’t have high birth rates. We can roll back the human birth rate to sub-replacement levels and over time, reduce it.
There will be a problem with increasing population in 2250 or so, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
The moral thing to do is to ensure that all humans have access to clean water and food, contraceptives, and comfortable lives. The population will naturally go down and we can stabilize it over time.
People are not not having kids because of contraceptives, but because they can’t afford them anymore. It is a luxury older people have enjoyed, but that just isn’t realistically achievable anymore.
Give them a more certain future, they will start having more babies again.
The new estimated global peak population is 10.3B in 2084. But now, looking at the break down by region, you may be talking about North America? That graph looks wildly 3rd world… If you edit the graph to show US and Nigeria’s 2024 projections side by side it’s samepicture.jpg
The Earth can sustain the current population levels. Imagine we decrease those, at what point do we stop?
The problem with malthusianism is that it doesn’t give any tangible answer to the issues it claims to solve.
First off, when do we stop that decrease? Secondly, when we reach the coveted equilibrium point, how do we stop the plundering of resources capitalists will still subject us to?
I’m not arguing for an ever-increasing demography, but I’m against a system that’s unattainable (because, even with violent rule enforcement, people will keep having kids), does not meaningfully address the issue with the plundering of terrestrial resources, and means the lower class will have to bear the brunt of the work of dealing with an aging population.
I don’t think it can sustain the current population levels, at our North American standard of living. If we could distribute resources evenly, sure, we could keep everyone alive, but energy consumption, plastic production, all that adds up to an ecological footprint of resource use that isn’t sustainable.
World wildlife levels have gone down dramatically. We’re expanding human life at the expense of all other life. The other life on earth isn’t superfluous: it’s an ecosystem that keeps us alive, recycles our waste, provides our medicines and cultural wealth of all sorts.
We can’t keep our wealthy lifestyle and at the same time tell the poor people of the world that they have to stay poor so that we can remain wealthy.
I mostly agree but I think we could maintain a lifestyle that is near Western levels, but done more efficiently. It wouldn’t be the same lifestyle, but it would be a good one.
I.e.
dense, walkable neighbourhoods with mixed-use zoning
trains, trams and electric buses instead of cars
any job that can be done from home should be mandatory to do from home
minimal to no meat consumption, especially emissions intensive meat like beef
economic incentives and disincentives to minimise energy consumption and waste
circular economies that re-use and recycle most things
100% renewable energy production (and eventually, green manufacturing).
Although even with that, it would be an easier job if there is some level of population decline, but I don’t think any encouragement is needed (societies where women are highly educated tend to have declining birth rates).
I’m not saying the north american lifestyle is sustainable. Just that planet Earth can sustain 7 billion people if things are managed a bit more efficiently.
I’m well aware that our lifestyles are causing suffering on the other side of the planet. And I solemnly condemn spoiled westerners that have the gall of telling the people they cause suffering to to stop having kids (because those faraway regions is where population levels grow the fastest).
Malthusianism, like eugenics, is half-baked. It’s surface-level ideology that offers no real answer and is more of a feeling than anything with nothing concrete to show for it. Push it to its logical conclusions, and you get to nazi-style forced sterilization and similar policies. And you still didn’t address climate change.
We are in no way at risk of dying out from negative population growth. If we start to go down below a few million, then maybe let’s talk.
World population is still increasing, and is set to maybe stabilize in a couple decades. Fingers crossed. If we could (gently, without mass starvation) reduce the population down to a more sustainable level, that is an unmitigatedly good thing.
What might kill us is infertility from pollution or disease, but this won’t do it.
Even more gently if you want to make sure there’s enough younger people to care for the elderly
A fuckton of people work bullshit jobs that should not exist. We could run the same society with much, much less people working.
Then fix that first instead of delaying it. Climate change is more directly caused by capitalism than it is caused by natalism. It’s easier to (proverbially) eat the rich than it is to tell people to stop having the children you need to wipe your grandparent’s ass.
I’n not telling anyone to have kids or not, I’m actually saying that having kids is a personal decision, and society should not care beyond making sure those kids grow up safe in loving families.
Ok, so just make a shitload of people homeless in the meantime?
That’s precisely what I accuse malthusianist solutions of 👌
The real issue is that we have a rapidly aging workforce and there’s not enough young people to replace them. With the average age of parents raising, the gap is getting larger. In the 50s it was 16 workers for every 1 retired. The 70s, 5:1. That number is now almost 2:1. This is bad. Very bad.
Higher bar for jobs. Lower wage for entry level. Later retiring age. Higher need for migrant and seasonal workers.
Aw, crapitalism will break because line cannot always go up.
Cry me a fucking river. Humanity is a cancer, and we need to be about half our current population. Yeah, we’re not gonna like it when we drop that population. Our kids, my daughter, are going to have it fucking tough. But if we want to survive long term… We gotta stop.
Says who? Who needs half the population? To what end?
Says Thanos who did nothing wrong. Really though, it’s not rocket science to understand eternal growth is not a viable strategy. It’s also obvious that the number of people on the Earth now is too much if we want them all to live a comfortable life and not to destroy the planet at the same time. How big should the population be to make things ok longterm? That is open to discussion and depends on many factors, so there’s not just one correct answer.
I’m not advocating for eternal growth. But the malthusians claim the population should be smaller without telling you how smaller or how to reach the objective. It’s candid ideology that’s not very different from eugenics if brought to its logical conclusion. They tell you some will suffer, but they don’t tell you who and how. The answer is of course: some poor schmuck that’s not them.
And they fail to realize that, even after the population’s been reduced, we’d still suffer from the same issues we’re facing now because population reduction didn’t address the real issue, which is capitalism.
Why would bars raise and entry level wages go down if supply is decreasing?
I totally agree with you. I just hate all of these “don’t have kids” arguments from liberal people. It’s not a viable solution, because the fascists and the idiots are gong to have kids. We need at least some sane people to continue on.
But the is all emotional and subjective, I’ll admit that. I’m not really thinking about this topic with a clear head anymore.
And it doesn’t work, either. When they tell you we need half the population, they don’t tell you how to reach that objective, when the objective is considered to be achieved.
They might recognize that some people will have to suffer, but they don’t tell you who will suffer and how.
Malthusianism is yet another unclear ideology that offers vague promises but assured hardships from dilettantes that are spared enough to not feel the full weight of capitalism.
Nothing that stands rigorous scrutiny.
That talking point died decades ago. We have a clear path to reducing our population. Well-off people with access to contraceptives don’t have high birth rates. We can roll back the human birth rate to sub-replacement levels and over time, reduce it.
There will be a problem with increasing population in 2250 or so, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
The moral thing to do is to ensure that all humans have access to clean water and food, contraceptives, and comfortable lives. The population will naturally go down and we can stabilize it over time.
People are not not having kids because of contraceptives, but because they can’t afford them anymore. It is a luxury older people have enjoyed, but that just isn’t realistically achievable anymore.
Give them a more certain future, they will start having more babies again.
This is a good read: https://ourworldindata.org/un-population-2024-revision
The new estimated global peak population is 10.3B in 2084. But now, looking at the break down by region, you may be talking about North America? That graph looks wildly 3rd world… If you edit the graph to show US and Nigeria’s 2024 projections side by side it’s samepicture.jpg
The Earth can sustain the current population levels. Imagine we decrease those, at what point do we stop?
The problem with malthusianism is that it doesn’t give any tangible answer to the issues it claims to solve.
First off, when do we stop that decrease? Secondly, when we reach the coveted equilibrium point, how do we stop the plundering of resources capitalists will still subject us to?
I’m not arguing for an ever-increasing demography, but I’m against a system that’s unattainable (because, even with violent rule enforcement, people will keep having kids), does not meaningfully address the issue with the plundering of terrestrial resources, and means the lower class will have to bear the brunt of the work of dealing with an aging population.
I don’t think it can sustain the current population levels, at our North American standard of living. If we could distribute resources evenly, sure, we could keep everyone alive, but energy consumption, plastic production, all that adds up to an ecological footprint of resource use that isn’t sustainable.
World wildlife levels have gone down dramatically. We’re expanding human life at the expense of all other life. The other life on earth isn’t superfluous: it’s an ecosystem that keeps us alive, recycles our waste, provides our medicines and cultural wealth of all sorts.
We can’t keep our wealthy lifestyle and at the same time tell the poor people of the world that they have to stay poor so that we can remain wealthy.
I mostly agree but I think we could maintain a lifestyle that is near Western levels, but done more efficiently. It wouldn’t be the same lifestyle, but it would be a good one.
I.e.
Although even with that, it would be an easier job if there is some level of population decline, but I don’t think any encouragement is needed (societies where women are highly educated tend to have declining birth rates).
These are all good measures, but I doubt they would be enough to stop the wildlife decimation.
I’m not saying the north american lifestyle is sustainable. Just that planet Earth can sustain 7 billion people if things are managed a bit more efficiently.
I’m well aware that our lifestyles are causing suffering on the other side of the planet. And I solemnly condemn spoiled westerners that have the gall of telling the people they cause suffering to to stop having kids (because those faraway regions is where population levels grow the fastest).
Malthusianism, like eugenics, is half-baked. It’s surface-level ideology that offers no real answer and is more of a feeling than anything with nothing concrete to show for it. Push it to its logical conclusions, and you get to nazi-style forced sterilization and similar policies. And you still didn’t address climate change.