How about enabling young couples to actually afford raising children?
Corporations are going to want the cheapest possible solution, so immigration is far more likely.
Exactly this. When a family could buy a house and raise a whole bunch of kids on one minimum wage income, you had a baby boom. Now wages have stagnated where you can barely make it as a childless couple on two wages, why the hell would you have kids in that environment? They spent 50 years chipping away at any kind of social program that helps people, and now they’re complaining that the capitalist eternal growth Ponzi scheme could collapse.
Indeed. I think providing assistance to parents would be the best solution.
Yea no of course they aren’t going to do this, they are going to do the most blunt pigheaded way to solve the problem (for the time being)
I think asking why population needs to continue to rise?
We got a huge percentage of humans who are struggling. Many under educated. We got slavery. We got wars. We got food issues. We literally were just in a worldwide pandemic.
How about fixing that before we fix “the population” problem?
Most economies are rooted in growth based policies. As if there is an unlimited amount of everything for everyone.
And we see this because it is a system that brutally punishes you if you aren’t able to have things
(Massive oversimplification)
yes
We got a huge percentage of humans who are struggling. Many under educated. We got slavery. We got wars. We got food issues.
I’m not convinced that these problems would be addressed by a smaller population. On average, people today are better educated, more peaceful, and better nourished than they were 100 or 500 years ago. I think this is mainly due to technological progress rather than population size.
I think asking why population needs to continue to rise?
I don’t think the population needs to rise, but there will definitely be problems if the population shrinks rapidly over just a few generations, one of the main ones being “who will take care of all the old people?”. Japan and Korea are already struggling with this, and other countries are not far behind.
I’m not convinced that these problems would be addressed by a smaller population. On average, people today are better educated, more peaceful, and better nourished than they were 100 or 500 years ago. I think this is mainly due to technological progress rather than population size.
I didn’t read it as saying smaller populations would fix this necessarily, but that we should focus on fixing those problems before we worry too much about falling birth rates outside of countries like Japan and Korea that have such elderly populations. Even if letting the population drop doesn’t directly cause the prevalence of these problems to drop as well, I think trying to force the matter of growing the population before addressing these problems would likely only aggravate them. We can’t necessarily count on technological progress to keep up with infinite population grow, so we’ll continue to outpace our ability to find adequate solutions with our ability to generate massive problems for ourselves.
I think trying to force the matter of growing the population before addressing these problems would likely only aggravate them.
An excellent point.
Not. Thats it. Ignore it.
I agree we should let our populations decline, but it still needs to be a managed process. That’s how they should respond; manage the declining population in ways that minimize human suffering.
No Management. Management means some rich guys trying to control that for cheap labor.
No management means millions dying from hunger or preventable disease, entire cities falling into dangerous disrepair and causing danger to remaining people or the animals that inhabit them when we leave, war, slavery, abandoned older gen nuclear sites melting down and probably 100 other calamities I can’t imagine.
Thats complete BS birth rates aim naturally towards sustainable levels (1,5 to 2) when you actually think that having less people is bad you are the problem. We don’t die out, we just have less people, and at the same time many jobs will be taken by automation.
-
Nature doesn’t “aim” for anything…including sustainability.
-
if 1.5 - 2 was the “natural” birthrate, the population wouldn’t have ever increased to this level.
-
I already I agree that there are too many humans. But countries with decreasing populations also have aging populations, which won’t be able to feed or care for those people without young workers. Meaning they either starve, start invading other countries with robot armies to capture slave laborers and resources, or…someone manages the decline through immigration policy, tearing down unneeded infrastructure and recycling those materials, etc.
Here are two Kurtzgesagt videos that might help to educate you on this topic, even though they are a rudimentary explanation and don’t go into too much detail, even a child should be able to understand them.
TLDR: 1. Wrong 2. Completely wrong 3. Mental gymnastics on Olympics level. For further details watch the videos and maybe educate yourself with the help of the internet, try to avoid a confirmation bias because many people like you blast out their OPINION and frame it as facts.
Btw
Thinly veiled ad hominem attacks notwithstanding…
Here’s a peer-reviewed published study detailing how 30 invasive species have led to the extension of 738 other species. They all continue to grow at unsustainable levels until the ecosystem collapses and a new equilibrium is left in the ruins. They aren’t YouTube videos, but I’m confident you can read.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1602480113
In case you can’t, here’s another actual scientific article (I hope you’ll look. This one has pictures!) detailing how declining populations are also aging populations and the problems that result.
Upvoted for Kurtzgesagt. De-upvoted for the condescending tone of the comment.
-
Tax the rich.
Issues I see
Having two kids in daycare, costs more than the average mortgage around here.
A lot of healthcare premiums double for adding a family.
Taking a bus out riding your bike to pick up your kids doesn’t work for most.
People that plan are going to come to the conclusion there is no good time to have kids.
Fix global warming. Fix political polarization, bigotry, hate, etc. The economy isn’t the only reason this generation is holding back from bringing children into the picture.
Any way, maybe a smaller population on our limited resource rock ain’t too bad an idea?
Political polarization?
Polarization isn’t a problem, fascism is. Authoritarianism is. Oppression is. That’s a one-sided issue. Nobody wants to live under someone else’s boot-heels, being told whether or not they are allowed to enjoy fundamental human rights and liberties.
When we start aggressively crushing right wing ideals and ringleaders, THEN - and only then - will civilization have the opportunity to heal.
I think what they’re saying, and what I agree with, is polarization leads to extremists. Our society is full of stupid people, and catering to the lowest common denominator means painting your opposition as a caricature and yourself to be the polar opposite of them.
Fascism and authoritarianism are extremes. If we have a less polarized political environment then there is room for subtlety, nuance, and understanding.
Fascism and authoritarianism are the same extreme… and they are on the rise globally in a big way. So what do you think are (1) the opposite “extreme” and (2) a “less extreme” approach to answering to such extremism?
I think a better example than the Git one I gave is the whole idea that anyone anti-Trump needs to vote blue no matter who. I was a huge supporter of Sanders, but I do not want to support Clinton. The entire vote blue no matter who thing really exemplifies exactly what we’re talking about here: it doesn’t matter if you dislike Clinton or Biden - you need to vote for them because they aren’t Trump.
Your actual opinion doesn’t matter. You need to vote for the candidate your party picks. Seems pretty authoritarian to me.
To build on my response to your last comment: you walked right into the answer but didn’t see it.
America has two right wing parties.
The first step toward a solution is RCV, which shifts power left… back to the people. But look at the states proactively banning RCV, because they know it removes corrupt, undemocratic power from their own leaders. And what are Democrats doing to fight this? Nothing. Because stealing choice from the American people serves them, too.
Again, liberals are all about lip service. Pretend to be progressive only insofar as certain policies can be abused for personal gain.
There is no leftist party in the US.
Maybe we’re talking past each other here. We aren’t saying there is an opposite of authoritarianism which is extremist. We’re saying opposites like liberal vs conservative can be polarized to extremes, and the result of both is authoritarianism.
For example, a lot of Republicans try to ban books on homosexuality, trans people, etc. from libraries / public schools. There are also a lot of Republicans who seem support some racist political policies.
That leads to extremist views from the other side as well. For example, some software development companies ban the use of the word “master” for the main Git branch. This was the standard name since the beginning of time for Git, and was used in the context of it being the source of truth, like “master’s degree” or “master blacksmith”. It has absolutely nothing to do with a master / slave relationship, and isn’t racist in any way. Yet a LOT of people argue that it doesn’t matter - if someone feels uncomfortable about the word being used, we shouldn’t use it.
I think that’s a form of authoritarianism as well. Both examples are uneducated people who dislike something wanting to see it banned for everyone due to their own ignorance. It doesn’t matter that the second example is trying to be socially/ racially conscious. They’re wrong, uneducated, and trying to impose their own beliefs on others due to ignorance.
The less extreme approach to educate people more, and for people to calm down, have open, constructive discussions. Trying to understand the person you perceive as an enemy can be very rewarding for both parties and for society in general.
Oh no. No no no. The problem here is that you have some fundamental misunderstandings about… well, a bunch of things. Let’s break some of this down…
For example, a lot of Republicans try to ban books on homosexuality, trans people, etc. from libraries / public schools. There are also a lot of Republicans who seem support some racist political policies.
Glad that you understand this. Let’s set this as our baseline.
That leads to extremist views from the other side as well.
What is the “other side” here? The opposite of authoritarianism is egalitarianism. Maybe you are thinking “conservatives vs liberals” - but both of those things are right wing. You seem to be considering only a very narrow window of political ideology… and that entire window is right of center.
or example, some software development companies ban the use of the word “master” for the main Git branch.
Sweet jesus. Choosing your naming conventions is not a ban. Dear God. I am godsmacked by how absolutely out-of-touch and off-base this entire rant is. This is not even a political issue. Wow. Nobody is passing laws demanding software developers follow certain naming conventions. And if you don’t see how the terms master-slave could be seen as icky and therefore people might opt for using different terms for their own projects… well, my dude, that is on you and only you. Wow. Just… WOW.
I think that’s a form of authoritarianism as well.
No. Wow. Just no. Not even close. See above.
Both examples are uneducated people who dislike something …
Oh my god. This keeps getting worse. You keep using words like “ignorant” and “uneducated” but you just EXPLICITLY misrepresented software developers voluntarily choosing their own naming conventions and AT THE SAME TIME conflated it with formal, on-the-books laws banning books and oppressing vulnerable minorities. I just… I can’t even… this is so deeply irrational and clueless… ignorant and uneducated even… there is nowhere for me to even BEGIN. You are flinging insults while proudly and loudly exemplifying the very things you are accusing others of…
The less extreme approach to educate people more, and for people to calm down, have open, constructive discussions. Trying to understand the person you perceive as an enemy can be very rewarding for both parties and for society in general.
So here’s a little bit of that education you’re asking for: The Republican and Democratic parties are both RIGHT WING PARTIES. Liberals are right-wing enablers who pretend to support left-wing ideals only insofar as they can use those to their personal benefit. The political spectrum goes far beyond the DNC in terms of leftism. You are spouting rightist propaganda and I think you don’t even realize it. You’ve been duped.
Rightism is about consolidating power and authority. It’s natural extremes are monarchism, oligarchy, dictatorship, and the like. Many things called leftist are explicitly rightist… see literally any country who current does (or ever has) called themselves communist. Did the state wither away? No? Not communist. Nationalizing everything under a single leader or ruling class is still rightist. Even a “benevolent monarchy” is still rightist.
Leftism is egalitarian. The power and authority belongs to the people. Consolidation is not tolerated. Because wealth and power are the same thing, both are Constitutionally regulated. Representative systems must be kept limited as a ruling class must never be tolerated. Wealth hoarding must never be tolerated. It’s natural “extremes” are anarchism, direct democracy, and self-organized communism.
Between those is an infinitely complex web of systems and ideologies that try to balance freedom and liberty (leftism) with stability (rightism).
With this background you can start to see that, in American politics, you have extreme rightists (Republicans) and right-leaning centrists (Democrats). Leftists - actual leftists (like myself) - tend to vote democrat only because we have no other choice. If someone thinks it’s okay to ban books, to deny others medical care, to deny others basic human rights, to restrict others personal freedoms when they do not infringe on or affect anyone else… then there is no dialogue or discussion to be had.
There is no compromise or meeting in the middle on such subjects.
There is no “misunderstanding” nor any situation where “maybe the fascists have a good reason for putting their metaphorical boot on my throat”.
We do NOT surrender rights, freedoms, or liberties. You do not compromise on them. We do not discuss compromising them. Those who would oppress others in such a way have declared war on their fellow humans and countrymen. Until the attacks end, there is no room for dialogue.
deleted by creator
Okay. If you don’t think polarization leads to tribalism and is a first step to civil war, then perhaps you should pick up a history book or two.
Edit: You’re even showing it your response. Us v. “them”.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted for a pretty solid, common sense take. You’re 100% right.
“Let them murder, torture, and torment you and your loved ones just a little bit. Stop being so uppity about this. Both sides! Both sides!” - You
Yup you got me. That’s my quote.
It sure is.
Your sarcastic response is reductive and dismissive of a serious issue. Political polarization isn’t about excusing harmful behaviors; it’s about recognizing that extreme divisions are tearing society apart. Simply mocking the idea of understanding the widening chasm between “both sides” ignores the reality that effective solutions come from constructive dialogue, not from deepening the divide.
Political issues are complex and often involve legitimate concerns from multiple perspectives. In s normally functioning society, there aren’t two sides; free thought leads to a continuum of beliefs. Dismissing these concerns with sarcasm doesn’t help. Instead, it perpetuates the very polarization you’re deriding. Real progress comes from engaging with these issues thoughtfully, not from trivializing them with inflammatory rhetoric.
If you genuinely cared about reducing harm and making society better, you would consider how your words either contribute to the problem or help solve it. If you can’t contribute constructively, perhaps consider that you don’t need to contribute at all?
“Meet in the middle” says the unjust man.
You take a step forward, he takes a step back.
“Meet me in the middle” says the unjust man.
We do not negotiate with the unjust man. We do not take steps in his direction. Our refusal to surrender to his demands is not a cause of “polarization”.
Do not shift the blame on those who will not step toward the unjust man. If you are so blind to what is going on and who is at fault, that is your failing. Yours, and yours alone. Not others.
Rhetoric like yours is nothing more than shameless victim blaming. It makes you the unjust man.
Create better pathways for legal immigration and make life in modern society less dystopic so that people actually want and can financially afford to reproduce.
But who would be villified in thier place???
When population declines enough, population will go back up.
Population decline isn’t a bad thing. The Black Plague, WW1, WW2. All were more severe population declines and the result was improved lives for everyone.
the result was improved lives for everyone
*for everyone who survived.
I’d argue that the lives of those who died from wars and plagues got much worse, particularly due to the whole “dying” part.
But not having babies isn’t killing anyone. It’s the best type of population decline. It’s also slower than war/plague so it’s an easier transition.
It’s also slower than war/plague so it’s an easier transition.
It is easier, but not without challenges. Each person (on average) caring for four elderly grandparents could be quite the burden.
Let population go down.
Remove low density housing downtown and built higher density. Have a land value tax. Prices will drop.
Actually educate and train the local workforce. Only allow immigration when it meets certain requirements or from very close countries. E.g. you have a business with 10 engineers with 5 years of experience. Prove you have tried to hire 10 engineers with 0 years of experience and none have been made redundant in the last 5 years. If there is a country wide shortage of those engineers with 5 years of experience then you can hire foreigners. Have lower business taxes in places with high unemployment. Public works for things like high speed rail and cycle paths.
Have free child care and free things for teenagers to do.
Taxes would go up but so would employment and discretionary income. Crime would drop.
Would be a win, win, win.
All it would require it telling members of the aristocracy, land owning MPs, and rich baby boomers all to fuck off.
Edit: also cheap renewable energy, robotics and precision fermentation is going to destroy the labour market anyway. So that’s going to be a whole thing we need to deal with.
I nominate this guy for president.
This question ends with that a country shouldn’t compete with other countries but provide a good living environment for it’s citizens.
End capitalism, Degrowth
regulation to make poisoning the populace immensely punishable, and make living affordable
Some people see global population increase as a cause for concern. Some, often the same people consider national population decline a problem. Is it really that difficult to arrive at a conclusion under these circumstances?
Guulotines for the oligarchy.
Developed countries should make a family affordable.
As additional support, make it easy for cities to organize events where people can meet. Maybe love hotels and mixers like in Japan would be good too.
