486
submitted 1 day ago by Garibaldee@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -1 points 5 hours ago

Fuck this narrative. Decreased birth rates is a major success

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Why are you of that opinion? Something like 30% of Japan's population is over 65. Low birth rates are obviously not sustainable for them and will have extreme issues for their country if it continues.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago

Low birth rates are obviously not sustainable

Please explain why this is obvious. Less people seems more sustainable, not less.

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

The two biggest issues off the top of my head are rural towns in Japan will continue to lose population and completely disappear, and there won't be enough young working people paying into health care and social funds to support the old non-working population. I think there are a lot of other major negative impacts Japan will face as a country but I'm just not that knowledgable on the subject.

I assume we just have fundamentally different views on this topic because I really wish humanity would change to a more scientific and explorative approach entirely, where we expand outward into space and become a multi-planetary species, which will need a huge sustained population growth to support. I assume you don't support that.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 53 minutes ago

We need to inhabit at least one other plant on a continuous basis before we encourage exponential population growth.

We are going to be resource constrained on this planet long before we expand to others.

[-] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago

It's not obvious. Low birth rates are completely sustainable, you just kill anyone who can't afford to retire and can't work anymore, and society functions perfectly well.

[-] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 hours ago

We have machines that can do the work of 100 people in the past

I'm sure that we could make it work without killing anyone

[-] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

While the alternative is everyone who is unable to wotk is killed anyway by the apathy of the system?

We are doing what you are describing already, in the system we currently live in.

[-] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Old people can’t work and need someone to pay for their retirement.

If there are more old people than young people (population pyramid wrong way round) every young person needs to pay a crapton of taxes so that old folks don’t starve to death

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 52 minutes ago

Nah. Food is cheap and plentiful. We don't need young people working in fields for old people to be fed.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

Why can't immigration replace births?

[-] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Because Japan doesn’t do that.

There is an -ism they’re pretty big on, it starts with R

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 56 minutes ago

Because Japan doesn’t do that.

They apparently don't do procreation, either.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 hours ago

Okay, but then we can't just frame the discussion as "increase birth rates or society collapses" because there's a very obvious third option that they aren't taking.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

Our current growth has almost made the planet uninhabitable. We need degrowth.

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 0 points 2 hours ago

"Has almost made the planet uninhabitable" The Earth is definitely worse off since we have proliferated, but this is such a clickbaity untrue statement.

Humanity has and will continue to cause changes to the world that are negative, I agree, and that sucks. But like it or not, humanity is good at adapting and surviving, and we will be fine, even with the worldwide population overall continuing to grow for a very long time into the future.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 59 minutes ago

This isn't just about humans. We're in a mass extinction period caused by humans. We need to lower our population to save other species

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

LoL. You think we’re gonna grow gills or something? How do you think we’ll adapt to food chain collapse?

[-] Alpha71@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

Because it means less people to fuck up the planet.

[-] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 3 points 5 hours ago

Infinite growth is unsustainable. A decreasing population will accelerate the collapse of capitalism, when the capitalists run out of cogs.

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz -1 points 2 hours ago

I just disagree on the infinite growth being unsustainable thing. Humanity, in my opinion, is destined to expand to the stars where we will continue to grow Indefinitely on a time scale that actually matters to you and me.

Obviously, that could not happen if we somehow all die, but despite all the doom and gloom, I really don't think that's likely.

[-] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

So the solution is to rip off souls from the non-existence aether, bring them to this ever-bizarre world in order to condemn them, like Sisyphus, to a lifetime pushing of a social boulder which is fated to always go downhill? (In other words, why the unborn should sustain the faults of an unsustainable society that weren't their faults to begin with?)

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

"Unsustainable Society" No matter your opinion on current governments, humanity has been around for an awful long time, and it will likely continue to be around for significantly longer into the future of the universe. In my opinion, that's pretty cool.

In the grand scheme of things, just looking back over the past couple hundred years, the vast majority of humanity is in a better spot than we were, no matter how bad things may seem on a small time scale.

[-] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 2 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, global climate, carbon dioxide levels and even biodiversity are in a better spot nowadays than they were before, huh? That's pretty cool! /s

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago

You definitely are right some things are worse, but I more so meant quality of life in almost every single aspect for people that are alive. No shit, there are atrocities across the world still and things locally suck in many ways to varying degrees for a significant portion of the population in the world. Either way you can't argue I'm good faith that the average humans quality of life hasn't gotten exponentially better over the past thousand years. And I think that trend will continue into the next thousand years.

this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
486 points (99.6% liked)

World News

32506 readers
1057 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS