Why the panic regarding dropping birth rate? I think less is more knowing where we are heading.

[informationsuperhighway]

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/09/nx-s1-5779627/birthrate-united-states-babies-immigration

NPR article on lowering birth rates. Why the concern, if it's because they need new people born to take care of old people/pay for them that is a stupid shortsighted idea. Find another solution for that. Is that really the reason?

We did fine in 1950s with a significantly lower population than today. In fact we had a bigger middle class, etc. With AI supposed to remove the majority of jobs according the the "Techbroligarchy" Then why push for a surplus unemployed population taking up resources if we will need less and less people.

It just seems less is more in terms of resource destruction etc.. when it comes to the Human race. With modern technology etc.. won't the world be a better place with let's say 2.5 billion (1950s world population estimate) vs 8.1 billion today.

It seems we are starting to reach the "Behavioral Sink" stage as in the John B. Calhoun experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

 

[Coriolanus]

There's a smaller tax base to support an aging population that will have increasingly more expensive needs and medical treatments and social safety net programs.

Can you clarify what you mean by this being a short term problem? Who do you think will pay for a growing elder population? This is not a problem that can be easily handwaved away.

 

[Vlip]

There are many issues caused by shrinking populations:

1: Sociologic: How do you take care of all the elderlies financially and practically when there are more old people in pension homes than young productive people
2: Economic: How do you avoid being stuck in a permanent recession once your population shrinks which might cause endless social strife
3: Racism: OMG WHITE PEOPLE ARE BEING OUTBRED BY NON-WHITE PEOPLE (<- This being the loudest part of the debate but can be safely ignored imho. cough*Elon*cough*Bannon*cough).

Me? I'm solidly in the "kids shouldn't be about quantity but quality" camp. But even then the big question is how quick the population reduction is. If we are talking about a soft glide downwards then I don't see much problems. But when you get into South Korea levels of population potentially halving over a generation then I'm also in the camp: This is uncharted territory and I doubt this will end well.

 

[spacekobra]

Japan has had what is considered a "staggeringly low" birthrate for quite some time now. So you can point to them as to what problems arise if the birthrate becomes problematic.

The gist is, that society literally does not have enough people to maintain itself. Nobody to take care of old people is a massive societal issue.

But there's then also nobody to take care of your children. Nobody to take your job when you retire. Nobody to farm your land. Whatever you want to put in that list.

 

[trapine]

Long term we have two options, live within the resources of the environment or burn up the only planet we have and then reduce population in a really ugly fashion. Perpetual growth is an impossibility, and we are already suffering from the consequences of environmental degradation species collapse and human suffering.

To answer Vlip's questions
1. Senicide. There's no reason to pour vast resources into the final months/ years of people's lives. No one wants to die in a nursing home - especially the ones that poor people end up in.
2. Equitable distribution of resources. End of capitalism.
3. See #2 - breed them out, change of values? Long term not a problem for many.

 

[sword_9mm]

Yeah we need a population reduction and it's either going to be 'stop having so many babby' or 'blown the fuck up' or 'starved'.

Pick one or more really cause we're speed running to blown up or starving.

 

[Coriolanus]

Okay, this thread escalated quickly. We're already at "kill all the old people" stage.

This is not a serious thread.

 

[Shavano]

The real answer is that it's a local problem, not a world problem.

Spoiler: world population pyramid

We need to either move people from countries that produce lots of kids to countries that don't, or find another way for people in those countries to be part of the productive and consumptive economies of countries that look more like this:

Spoiler: Japan population pyramid

 

[Coriolanus]

The real answer is that it's a local problem, not a world problem.

Spoiler: world population pyramid

View attachment 133030

We need to either move people from countries that produce lots of kids to countries that don't, or find another way for people in those countries to be part of the productive and consumptive economies of countries that look more like this:

Spoiler: Japan population pyramid

View attachment 133033

It's a developed world problem. Developed economies are the ones experiencing reductions in fertility rate. In places like Africa, the fertility rate is steady or increasing.

 

[Vlip]

The real answer is that it's a local problem, not a world problem.

Spoiler: world population pyramid

View attachment 133030

We need to either move people from countries that produce lots of kids to countries that don't, or find another way for people in those countries to be part of the productive and consumptive economies of countries that look more like this:

Spoiler: Japan population pyramid

View attachment 133033

IIRC that's oversimplifying the problem.

IIRC the only place with a positive birth balance is Africa. Even India is going to tip under the replacement rate soon:

The trend is global and even the traditional high birthrate countries have seen their birth rates go down.

It might not be a global problem yet, but it'll be one "soon" (on demographic timelines)

 

[Sajuuk]

Okay, this thread escalated quickly. We're already at "kill all the old people" stage.

This is not a serious thread.

I mean, it’s literally part of the public discourse in Japan already. Historically speaking, humans take “killing the problem” very seriously.

 

[Coriolanus]

I mean, it’s literally part of the public discourse in Japan already. Historically speaking, humans take “killing the problem” very seriously.

Being part of the public discourse doesn't mean it's a serious solution. I mean, Trump telling people that their problems will be solved if he builds a wall between US and Mexico was part of the popular discourse.

 

[cgo_12345]

Senicide. There's no reason to pour vast resources into the final months/ years of people's lives. No one wants to die in a nursing home - especially the ones that poor people end up in.

Please specify which younger relative you would prefer to kill you once you're old enough to be a waste of resources.

 

[Sajuuk]

Being part of the public discourse doesn't mean it's a serious solution. I mean, Trump telling people that their problems will be solved if he builds a wall between US and Mexico was part of the popular discourse.

Sure, and yet you’ll never believe who was seriously made the President.

 

[Coriolanus]

Sure, and yet you’ll never believe who was seriously made the President.

It still doesn't mean it's a serious solution.

 

[Coriolanus]

Please specify which younger relative you would prefer to kill you once you're old enough to be a waste of resources.

Trapine has been on the forum for 26 years. Chances are, he's probably already old.

 

[trapine]

Please specify which younger relative you would prefer to kill you once you're old enough to be a waste of resources.

they won't have to, I'll take care of the problem myself.
There's no way I'm going to spend my last years in life wasting away in a nursing home. I've seen enough people in that situation to know it's not for me.

 

[Coriolanus]

they won't have to, I'll take care of the problem myself.
There's no way I'm going to spend my last years in life wasting away in a nursing home. I've seen enough people in that situation to know it's not for me.

And that's your choice. Senicide implies that it won't be the older person's choice.

 

[trapine]

Trapine has been on the forum for 26 years. Chances are, he's probably already old.

Early 50's. Not ancient but looking at my parent's generation checking out has helped me to make up my mind on aging.

 

[DrDuuude!]

1: Sociologic: How do you take care of all the elderlies financially and practically when there are more old people in pension homes than young productive people
2: Economic: How do you avoid being stuck in a permanent recession once your population shrinks which might cause endless social strife
3: Racism: OMG WHITE PEOPLE ARE BEING OUTBRED BY NON-WHITE PEOPLE (<- This being the loudest part of the debate but can be safely ignored imho. cough*Elon*cough*Bannon*cough).

I think the solutions for all of these problems will be that society will need to change its paradigm with regards to capitalism, growth, retirement, etc.

1. People will need to work longer, and it's likely that elderly care will be much more expensive (giving younger people more $$$). Social Security/pensions will need to change to not be so generous. This is a political problem, but a solvable one.
2. The stock market will likely take a hit as people realize growth isn't endless - but realistically this needed to happen at some point anyway. As stock gains are concentrated in the upper echelons of society, this is likely less of a problem than you think and would bring back some semblance of income equality.
3. Racists are gonna racist. Education is really the only way out of this, and it's likely easier to educate a smaller number of kids with finite resources.

Finally, it's not clear to me why people simply take a trend and then extrapolate that to infinity. The human population will NOT go to zero. Eventually, when there's less people, it will be cheaper to raise children, there will be more space per person, etc. and people will have more kids. I suspect all of this is self correcting, but at a lower equilibrium population. It wasn't that long ago (when I was a kid) that the world population was 4 billion, and... we were fine.

 

[trapine]

And that's your choice. Senicide implies that it won't be the older person's choice.

Society makes choices about how to distribute resources all the time. Should we spend money on a young person's education or a 96 year olds second artificial hip? Right now we're picking the stupid hip.
If there's a crisis incoming of how to take care of the elderly when there aren't enough young people to pay for it, we can stop spending resources where it doesn't do any good.
If we disenfranchised to ancient from voting, there will be different choices made. Currently the boomers vote for MediCare instead of MediAid.

 

[Coriolanus]

1. People will need to work longer, and it's likely that elderly care will be much more expensive (giving younger people more $$$). Social Security/pensions will need to change to not be so generous. This is a political problem, but a solvable one.

This is already set to happen, when the Social Security Trust Fund surplus (partly created due to the glut of contributions from a large population of baby boomers) is set to run out in 2030.

2. The stock market will likely take a hit as people realize growth isn't endless - but realistically this needed to happen at some point anyway. As stock gains are concentrated in the upper echelons of society, this is likely less of a problem than you think and would bring back some semblance of income equality.

A lot of people's retirement savings or pensions depend on stock and equities, so it will have a lot of detrimental effects across a broad section of the population.

 

[Coriolanus]

Society makes choices about how to distribute resources all the time. Should we spend money on a young person's education or a 96 year olds second artificial hip? Right now we're picking the stupid hip.
If there's a crisis incoming of how to take care of the elderly when there aren't enough young people to pay for it, we can stop spending resources where it doesn't do any good.
If we disenfranchised to ancient from voting, there will be different choices made. Currently the boomers vote for MediCare instead of MediAid.

So now we're proposing to remove people's right to vote now too?

 

[Coriolanus]

I don't know about you, but a society where the elderly are no longer allowed to vote and are sent off to be killed because they are no longer deemed productive or contributing members of society seem like a very dystopian future.

Are we going to do the same thing for the disabled people who can't work? What about people who are homeless and can't find work? Or drug addicts? Or some other category of people that the remaining voting society deems unworthy?

 

[SedsAtArs]

So now we're proposing to remove people's right to vote now too?

It'll make it a lot easier to deny them hip operations, which in turn will make them easier to chase when the time comes to kill them.

 

[DrDuuude!]

A lot of people's retirement savings or pensions depend on stock and equities, so it will have a lot of detrimental effects across a broad section of the population.

True, though even in retirement accounts, most equities are held by the well off.

And the reality is that it's going to happen regardless of policy at the federal level. I don't know of a single democratic government that's been able to incentivize people to have more children on a long term basis than they want to. Capitalism will eventually need to adjust to non-perpetual growth, at least in the developed world. Africa will still have many years of growth, as will India, China, SE Asia, etc. but unless we find another planet to colonize I can't see how the assumption of limitless growth won't have to be revisited.

 

[flipside]

Why do people need to work longer? Automation and technological improvements should be able to compensate demographics at some point, no? Yes, consumption and standards all went up, but essentially we‘re urged to work and work more for little more return, at least concerning the fundamentals you can‘t buy on Temu. (You suspect where this is heading?)

 

[DrDuuude!]

They won't necessarily HAVE to work longer, but would like be incentivized to by lower pensions, and higher salaries for a dwindling workforce.

 

[Coriolanus]

This thread is dumb.

 

[SedsAtArs]

But there's then also nobody to take care of your children. Nobody to take your job when you retire. Nobody to farm your land. Whatever you want to put in that list.

Kinda, but this assumes you can't shape what jobs people take up to any degree. Perhaps in a shrinking population you will have to simply find a way to nudge people away from becoming a pet manicurist or social media influencer and instead become nurses and farmers? I hate to line up with the world's dumbest man, but perhaps a society where you don't have 30 dolls and instead have 4 is acceptable. That quote is only hideously stupid to me because of the person making it never being close to living it, not because it's inherently a bad idea.

 

[trapine]

So now we're proposing to remove people's right to vote now too?

I wrote IF. Currently choices are made by the people with consistent voting blocks. Right now the elderly make decisions in their own interests to the detriment of younger cohorts. If that changed then different decisions might be made.

I wish that the elderly would make choices that would benefit the future, but I see very little large scale thinking along those lines. We need more renewables, we need basic education improvements, we need universal healthcare. The list goes on and on.

If they want to have us take care of them it shouldn't be on the future suffering that they won't have the "good" luck to experience.

 

[Quirinus]

If only 30 % of this country (and others, like Italy and Japan) weren't so stupid and short-sided about immigration from the entire world. Hell we already had several million people here who are/were working quietly but this 30% portion decided spending billions to snatch them in the streets was the better idea culturally and economically.

 

[Welcome to Darwin]

Instead of involuntary "senicide" how about we work on breaking cultural taboos around medically-assisted suicide?

 

[SunRaven01]

Trapine has been on the forum for 26 years. Chances are, he's probably already old.

I'll just sit over here and wither into dust, I guess.

 

[Welcome to Darwin]

I'll just sit over here and wither into dust, I guess.

Gonna be a lot of that. Someone get a broom and dustpan.

 

[HiroTheProtagonist]

Kinda, but this assumes you can't shape what jobs people take up to any degree. Perhaps in a shrinking population you will have to simply find a way to nudge people away from becoming a pet manicurist or social media influencer and instead become nurses and farmers? I hate to line up with the world's dumbest man, but perhaps a society where you don't have 30 dolls and instead have 4 is acceptable. That quote is only hideously stupid to me because of the person making it never being close to living it, not because it's inherently a bad idea.

I feel like you're making two separate arguments here. The 30 dolls set is pretty much the capital owning class, of which the pet manicurists/influencers largely aren't, and the main reason people aren't taking nursing/farming jobs is because the work is incredibly stressful/arduous compared to the payout. You fix that by making nursing/farming jobs more attractive, mainly by making the pay not suck ass.

And to hammer on farming, the vast majority of farming jobs went away by the 70s because of increasing automation that rendered loads of farm jobs obsolete. The jobs left in farming are mostly shitty manual labor that rely on illegal immigration because not even the least-skilled citizens are willing to do it. Unless your solution involves some kind of mandatory youth service akin to a farm draft, getting people to take those jobs is going to require some kind of societal collapse.

 

[SedsAtArs]

I'll just sit over here and wither into dust, I guess.

Only until we can locate you and put you down so you stop consuming our resources.

 

[Welcome to Darwin]

Only until we can locate you and put you down so you stop consuming our resources.

Well it's about time.

 

[SedsAtArs]

I feel like you're making two separate arguments here. The 30 dolls set is pretty much the capital owning class, of which the pet manicurists/influencers largely aren't, and the main reason people aren't taking nursing/farming jobs is because the work is incredibly stressful/arduous compared to the payout. You fix that by making nursing/farming jobs more attractive, mainly by making the pay not suck ass.

And to hammer on farming, the vast majority of farming jobs went away by the 70s because of increasing automation that rendered loads of farm jobs obsolete. The jobs left in farming are mostly shitty manual labor that rely on illegal immigration because not even the least-skilled citizens are willing to do it. Unless your solution involves some kind of mandatory youth service akin to a farm draft, getting people to take those jobs is going to require some kind of societal collapse.

Yes, it's two arguments. One is accepting a (slightly) lower (but still well clear of my grandparents) material standard of living and the other is shifting people into more useful jobs. Let me withdraw my facetious example of pet manicurist to nurse and replace it with having a factory worker produce parts for farm machines rather than dolls instead.

 

[sword_9mm]

Kinda, but this assumes you can't shape what jobs people take up to any degree. Perhaps in a shrinking population you will have to simply find a way to nudge people away from becoming a pet manicurist or social media influencer and instead become nurses and farmers? I hate to line up with the world's dumbest man, but perhaps a society where you don't have 30 dolls and instead have 4 is acceptable. That quote is only hideously stupid to me because of the person making it never being close to living it, not because it's inherently a bad idea.

I think folks will need to come to grips with things not being as rosy and consumer as they once were.

So yeah Trump saying that is stupid but it's the damn truth of the matter. Stopped clock and all that.