43
Lab-grown sperm and eggs just a few years away, scientists say
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
43 points (97.8% liked)
science
20284 readers
317 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Population decline is not a problem for humanity. It is a problem for capitalism.
Even worse they're probably looking at the projection and seeing a loss of revenue directly related to population rates. They want more sheep to feed their money making systems.
Well of course
People would have lots of kids if each subsequent child didn’t make their existing family’s life much more difficult
People used to have 5+ kids and it was considered fine. It's a cultural thing.
The culture is linked to the income. People have more kids in poorer countries because they typically don’t have a social safety net so the only way to survive in old age is by having lots of children. When the countries become richer and get social security they start having less kids, especially when kids become a financial burden
Depopulation is a problem for any economic system. You can't run any form of government or economy when young workers aren't contributing to the tax base and the aging population requires more and more care.
Sure as clockwork someone will come along and say tax the rich. That only works for so long in this scenario. The rich get rich off our backs. No backs, no rich.
Not true lol
What a succinct, compelling argument!
Alright, ill do a mostly complete argument. Define depopulation please :3
No, see, what if we just had way less people? Fuck taxes, fuck the economy, just have everyone commit to a one child policy. Yeah, I won't be able to sit on my ass and play WoW all day, but is that really helping anyone?
Responses will be delayed by WoW marathons.
When you hit retirement, so will literally everyone else. You want to hire a nurse to wipe your ass because you can't, there's a 25 year waiting list because everyone is old.
Your one grandchild has 6 older people to take care of in addition to their one child (spouse exactly in the same position)
Yeah? And? Intergenerational households are a thing. Communities are a thing. A culture of small communities would be, in my opinion, superior to this isolating capitalist society.
Pivoting now, why would I want anyone to wipe my ass? I'm not a king. If I die because my immediate community and I cannot take care of myself, then that's how it goes. I don't plan on living forever and I certainly don't plan on life being free of suffering. It is my sincere hope and goal to be the kind of person that people want in their lives. *I want to contribute positivity and love, which is, again, in my opinion, the pathway to a good life and thereby maintain a close community that helps one another. *
Third pivot. If, and I do mean IF, you read that last sentence and responded cynically, reflect on where that is coming from and let me know. (I have italicized the sentence for clarity.)
Doesn't matter, you need working age people. A society can't function if it's all old people. Period
I hear what you're saying but also see that you have introduced a new idea into the discussion.
I agree that a society comprised solely of the elderly would not work and am not proposing a society comprised of only elderly people. Limiting the number of children people have does not mean that there will be no children. It means that there will be less children. I concede that during the transition to a smaller population there will be periods of suffering as resources and communal abilities to provide care rebalance. However, I also think that is fine. There is no guarantee or promise of an easy or happy existence. That is not to say that there will not be ease and mirth, but rather that experiencing periods of suffering is also part of the human experience.
So, I return to where I started, and state again that declining population is only a concern for capitalism, but will now add that this is because it forces everyone into the same social status. It is less likely that there will be billionaires, millionaires, or independently wealthy non-workers in a society that is focused on existing in the moment. Without an abundance of lower-class people to exploit, I believe that equality would increase.
Why accept the suffering of having fewer workers? If the fertility rate of the world is around 2, there are enough workers to sustain a perfectly good life for everyone
You want it to get worse before it gets better, I don't believe it's necessary
Am I correct that you are proposing to stop population at two children per couple?
Not necessarily at that exact number, replacement is 2.1 which is what I'm actually proposing