• morgan423@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    If you wanted the younger generation to continue producing workers for the capitalist machine, you should have made sure that potential parents had enough resources to actually maintain a family if they started one.

    But yeah, that would have slightly reduced quarterly profits, and we can’t have that kind of long-sightedness messing with the short-term returns of our shareholders.

  • exohuman@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    My family basically adopted a kid that was in need. We aren’t having our own kids. It’s too expensive and we both don’t want to pass on our own mental health traits.

  • Evono@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Me and my gf make ends meet ( sometimes not) just by being alive and eat, we go super rarely out and didn’t had vacation the last 10 years.

    Doesn’t help that I got I’ll and need to hold now a special food diet till I die which makes mostly everything I can eat like 2x as expensive and it was rough for us before my illness.

  • AnnaPlusPlus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The part I don’t understand is why it’s important to hit the “replacement level”. Wouldn’t it be better for the planet if there were fewer people living on it and competing for resources?

    • CIWS-30@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Actually, you’re right, and I think that lowered populations are a good thing. World needs quality people, not just quantity. A world filled with a smaller amount of environmentally conscious and responsible people is better than a world filled with a large amount of meat eating, gas guzzler driving jackasses that spend all their time being racist, while overconsuming everything and yelling and shooting at anyone who even suggests that maybe they should cut down on consumption.

      • hydra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s true but the largest impact is caused by billionaires who fly even-more-gas-guzzling private jets, hunt and/or eat endangered species, buy gold and jewelry made with blood materials from Africa and use their spending power to influence the world negatively in multiple ways for profit.

    • drkt@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      It would be, but the economy was built on perpetual growth schemes.
      Don’t forget, the economy is here to be served by us, not the other way around!

      • Sahqon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        The economy will crumble if we don’t get to replacement levels at least, but it will also crumble, along with everything else if we do. Only way out of this is to change the whole model before it crumbles. But that would mean the rich need to get (willingly) less rich, so I’m not holding out hope…

        • keeb420@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          There’s plenty of poor people who’ve bought into the propaganda and refuse to sign on even if it’d help them.

    • John937@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes, but our whole economy, and maybe even society itself is built on the requirement and assumption of growth.

      We steal tomorrow to pay for today.

      If we stop having enough people to grow, we will collapse under the requirements of our system until a new non-growth economy/society is formed from the ashes.

      I don’t think it will be possible to have a smooth transition to a non-growth or low-growth society since very few people will willingly sacrifice the amenities we pay with in debt, which is paid for by predicted growth.

      When that predicted growth goes negative, collectively, we will not be able to afford the things we want, and that will cause mass chaos and potentially even resource wars.

    • seeCseas@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      but then the megacorporations can’t hit their iNfInItE gRoWtH and we can’t keep making the billionaires richer.

    • AttackBunny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The Ponzi scheme, that is American “social security” (I mean actual social security, but all the rest of the social services too), would collapse if there arent more poor people pumping money into, than are taking out of it. Instead of doing shit like taxing the fuck out of the rich, or AI/robots.

      But, yes, it would solve A LOT of the worlds problems if there were less people.

        • AttackBunny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          How do you figure. If the workforce becomes by and large robotic, taxing the businesses, based on that, like you would humans, would work well enough. If not, then there needs to be some concession from businesses to pay the same or more as when humans were doing the jobs.

  • query@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Replacement level shouldn’t be a goal when the population increases every year. At the very least house prices should be neutral or decreasing relative to wages, if you want more people than you’re already getting.

  • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m 33 and me and my so are not having children. Cope you capitalist pigs. I’m living my one life the way I want and you can fk off with your credit cards and apple pies.

  • Domille@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    That, and the planet cannot sustain our population with our current systems. Why have a kid when you know their future is doomed?

    • DulyNoted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      That’s the funny thing to me about this. There’s a direct contradiction between the needs of capitalism and the needs of the planet. Infinite growth, overpopulation, it’s all grand for $$$

      The economy requires growth, but the actual planet requires less people. The only sustainable countries on earth right now are places like Japan, where the economy is crumbling due to the aging population.

      Really makes it clear that our artificial systems aren’t in sync with our actual needs.

    • Navi1101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I forget where I heard this stat, but the Earth could support 12 billion people if resources were distributed equitably. But, alas, :gestures broadly:

  • TAG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    If only there were people in this world who would want to come to our country . Heck, we could set up a system where employers can post jobs that they have trouble filling and we could match up people outside country who can fill that need. Then, if those people turn out to be decent and moral, we can let them stay in the country permanently.

    It is too bad that everyone outside of the country is a foreigner who wants to steal jobs.

    • Dexies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I mean immigration exists in every western country, I dunno what you’re complaining about.

    • CIWS-30@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Immigrants help out in the short term, but then they and their children realize the same thing that people who already live here do: that wages are too low, and that rent and cost of living is too high to support children.

      Plus, corporations can use those immigrants to bust unions and keep wages down and rent prices up. Supply and demand, because we live in an oligrarchic dystopia that doesn’t have enough social safety nets to make sure that new workers coming in don’t sabotage the ones currently working.

      I’m the children of immigrants and hang around with the children of other immigrants, and we’re not having children ourselves, or ware waiting until increasingly later ages (minimum 30) because of how expensive it is to live, even without children. It only takes 1 generation to realize that new immigrants will just get stuck in the same rut that non-immigrants are already in.

      Adding more people just increases the power of corporations (the real government) to treat workers as disposable objects. It’s probably why corporate run governments don’t try to stabilize unstable regions, but rather prefer to exploit them until there’s a mass migration. More people to use for dangerous labor = more expendables that no one can afford to care about.

      • hydra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The very same reason NATO destroyed Libya’s infrastructure including water pipelines and plunged all their inhabitants back to the dark ages back in 2011, and now NATO countries are complaining they are getting full of immigrants. Maybe if they hadn’t commited war crimes there they would have stayed there. That waterway increased the country’s carrying capacity and destroying it could arguably be classified as genocide.

    • PenguinJuice@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Then you’re just committing them to taking low paying jobs. Don’t you see what is going on? This is what happened after the black plague that ended feudalism. We need to stick to our guns and make them increase wages. Your argument to have immigration solve the baby crisis is EXACTLY what business owners want. They WANT to keep wages low with an infinite influx of people from poor countries because these immigrants won’t know they are getting fucked in the ass with low pay.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’ve started rolling my eyes at “Who decides?” prompts. Whether it’s judging people, interpreting laws, etc.

        PEOPLE. People process your grocery purchase at checkout, and verify you found everything okay. People determine whether the charge of murder is substantially proven and justified. People evaluate a person’s immigration application.

        This is not a brand new science. Fallible, sure. Imperfect, sure. Useless, absolutely not.

        • blueskiesoc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Thank you for responding. My “who decides” comment was an unuseful shortand for what I wanted to express, which is that I don’t have much trust in our institutions to carry out the will of the people.

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            My response to that clarification is the same as my first response. The institutions we use to represent our wills are made up of people, just like us. In the end, it comes down to distrust of other people; be it those you see as “Government people” or “Other side people”.

            If your problem with a new system is that you don’t trust the decisions made by other people, I think ultimately that is the real issue - and it can either be considered an issue with your own levels of trust, or issues with people’s trustworthiness. One way or another, society will rely on systems run by itself.

            • blueskiesoc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Yes, the real issue is trust. Agreed. The Supreme Court is my example of mistrust.

              I hope you read this as a continuing discussion, not an argument.

      • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        ‘Not a rapist, tax cheat, or murderer’ seems like a pretty low bar that most could manage to get over.

        • teuast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Which is itself fine, until you take into account the long and ongoing history that immigrants, marginalized demographics, and particularly immigrants from marginalized groups are treated by our justice system, whether or not they’ve actually committed a serious crime or any crime at all.

  • sailsperson@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Looking at the way things have been going for years (decades) now, giving someone a birth would be a huge disservice - they’ll inherit a simultaneously more globalized and divided world, a world with technology that has the potential to trivialize sharing knowledge and experience, which is instead use to drive up engagement for the sake of profits, effectively breeding hate groups and echo chambers, a world with economy consisting of bubbles and not-so-careful manipulations, leaving our offspring in a position few would probably envy. Oh, and there’s rapid climate change that is being ignored and actively accelerated by the people and other entities that are capable of doing anything about it.

    I know more than a few people who have never considered any of the above, and I’m sure many people here know such people as well, so it’s more than safe to say that whatever the humanity is facing in the near future, it’s nothing similar to extinction through lack of birth.

    The future seems really good for certain groups of people, but I doubt my kids could be a part of these groups, or even want to a part of these groups. Not that I would actively indoctrinate them, but I’d imagine that living with me through the years when they’re developing and shaping themselves is going to leave its mark regardless.

    Maybe I’ll regret that decision when it’s already too late, of course, but then again, this is not going to be a world-ending decision by no merit.

  • Tyson712@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    “Accused”, by who, YPulse? Why the fuck would I care about some shitpost article from a dumpster site?

  • HollandJim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    It’s not just millennials. I was born 5 years after the end of the Baby Boomers and by the time I was 20 everything was becoming out of reach. Add a energy crisis or two, 40 years of Republican austerity for anyone but themselves, and a few financial crashes We the People ended-up bailing out, and I never got anywhere enough traction to do more than just get by without a mountain of debt. We never outran the entitlement of the Boomer generation.

    Good luck Millennials - and I mean it - but the only way out is to get out of the US while you can.

  • JediDP@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Bwahahaha. There are already a billion people in my country. I don’t need to make more.