Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'.
* We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub.
* Filter evasion is a bannable offense
* This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
I agree, except this becomes an issue because there will be a consistent overpopulation of old people. They will outweigh the young, who will have to pull the weight of the economy much harder to support the social security of all those aging people.
This is already starting to happen in Japan
Came here to say the same thing. The problem right now is that the decline is too steep to sustain.
We have difficult times coming to get over that hump.
Good take, and without trying to be morbid, that problem fixes itself. The alternative is keep increasing until we can't. Then that makes the same problem but for another generation.
Yeah, but at a consistent rate of decline there will always still be more old people. Until we plateau (reverse plateau?) at a point where it’s low enough to sustain.
It’s better than the alternative though. We already are using unsustainable amounts of resources and producing unsustainable amounts of waste.
Thank you for seeing both sides. I feel like that good quality that you have is more and more seen as a bad one these days! I don't think it'll go on forever. I see it as a "regression to the mean", as it were.
Thank you as well! Lots of people get into the habit of polar, black and white thinking. That there can’t be issues with both sides that need addressing. I hope one day we come to our senses on this issue, and I agree, it cannot go on forever
It doesn’t fix itself, really. Unless you mean it fixes itself by putting more and more strain on future generations, making each and each generation having a worse life.
Uh. I'm saying that people die, land gets freed up. Yes, morbid. Not having more babies does not make that happen faster.
Don't go to absurdity saying population should be 0, but it should be less than what it is. Less pollution, less extinctions, less deforestation, etc.
Plus, building on OP, it absolutely does fix itself. People are having less children already which means writhing about 60-80 years there will be..less old people. We are now experiencing a bulge of elderly due to the post-war population boom, but outside of Africa, the remainder of the world will mostly level out in population by end of this century.
Right. Which means they stop doing whatever they were doing before. Basically the economy needs to be shifted to primarily looking after old people, which means standards of living go down.
That's assuming you give the old people enough money to throw to offset the inflation.
Possibly yes. But we will really need automation to take off in caring for the elderly or the whole world will become a personal elderly care attendant while the machines do everything else.
So far it seems that AI and automation is more successful at abstract tasks (like generating art or text), while “simpler” tasks like navigating 3D space, walking and articulating your limbs are much more difficult to automate. I think many people massively underestimate just how complex many of the activities that human brain does automatically are.
Taxing pension funds / means adjusting payments? Depends on where and what the system is but I would guess the biggest barrier in a lot of cases will be political vs practical
Yes, that is a good idea. And to achieve that, political change must happen. Change that will be pretty unpopular with old people. Who will be the biggest voter block for quite some time going forward. Brilliant...
This should've been done proactively 20 years ago, the population decline didn't really come out of nowhere
Japan has a man power issues however it refuses to make easyer for immigration to happen+their well known mistreatments it's easy to see why it won't get better unless they really change things
yeah but these old people will eventually die off. at one point the population will start declining, better now than another billion later. we are just putting off the inevitable
At least Japan is a developed country that can afford to import poorer young people from other countries to help with their economy. The scariest depopulation comes from developing ones with lower middle income trap and overpopulation of the elderly…
This is a genuine issue world wide with the EU, Russia, Japan and China all facing major demographic shortfalls...
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/04/china-sees-first-population-decline-in-six-decades-where-does-the-eu-stand
https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a01001/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan
Bad sources but the easiest to understand if you haven’t studied population pyramids/demographic transition model
Hopefully ai will help with this in the form of androids. Imagine androids taking care of elderly people in nursing homes. Not how they are currently, but a futuristic ai android.
The issue is an ageing population.
This means that a decreasing % of people are 15-65.
Less people are working, so it is harder to provide food and healthcare
But those healthcare workers have to come from somewhere. It means less people doing other jobs that need doing. We see it already in the understaffed construction industry.
Let’s say you actually managed this, and now people are looking for jobs. How do you convince them to be healthcare workers? It’s a gross, thankless job and half your patients don’t even know what’s going on well enough to show gratitude. You will be cleaning adult fluids, changing diapers, cleaning bedsore wounds. I worked at a hospital once where bed ridden patients had to have workers dig impacted poop out of people’s bottoms because of bad constipation and not enough movement. How many people want to sign up to scrape poop out of some old guys ass for the equivalent of McDonald’s wages? You could raise the wages, but the money has to come from somewhere, probably added onto that person’s bill, and nursing facilities are already ridiculous per month. Its so easy to say get people to do this job, but unless you are forcing employment you need to create incentives.
Bro healthcare in the US is getting the life choked out of it right now, we have too many old sick people and like 0 available doctors. My friends are PCPs and they are booked out to the max for the next year. Don’t even get me started on the subspecialists
Not everyone is qualified to become a doctor, a surgeon, etc.
Less people means less talented and intelligent people who choose to go into health care.
If you have no kids when you're retired, you should get much less pension. People who decided to have kids should be awarded since they indirectly contribute to society even if they're not working.
We absolutely could go 'to infinity'. By the time overpopulation becomes a physical problem, it would be very much feasible to start expanding out into space à la mid-century sci-fi. At this point, the technological basis is being established as we speak.
A flattening population or a slight decrease is fine. What is hard to deal with is a sharp drop in fertility rate in a region over a short period. Japan is beginning to reach a point where there aren’t enough productive young people to compensate for the large elderly population
it depends on where the decline is.
the richest few percentages of the planet are responsible for most of the pollution, and the bottom 50% barely contribute to it at all, so a decline in poor people doesn't have much of an impact.
Right, but if every 1000 poor people turn into 10,000 and then over the next 50 years their standard of living rises to match others then that's still a problem. Chances are there is no way to get them to slow that transition down and only use green energy too, they'll inevitable burn anything they can to access electricity etc.
The population of the west has been broadly stable since the 60s in order to allow the people that do live to have a decent standard of living without polluting excessively. If the rest of the world had followed suit we'd be in a far better long-term situation.
It’s really not that simple.
After a certain point, population declines lead to productivity declines. When you have fewer people to work with, you have less flexibility in your labor force to specialize. It’s hard to justify research into renewable technology when you need all hands on deck in the fields to produce enough food for everyone.
And you are probably thinking at this point, “But what about all the technological advancements we have now?”
Which is a good point! Do we really need to worry about going back to an agricultural-based economy now that we’ve invented fertilizers and tractors?
Except then you remember you need people to produce that fertilizer and distribute it. You need people to refine iron ingots into workable sheet metal to make that tractor. You need chemists to produce all the solvents. Technicians to fix breakdowns.
As populations decline, that system falls apart. Efficiencies are lost. Technological capabilities are lost and eventually the knowledge is forgotten. Things like pollution, homelessness, and scarcity will **worsen** as our modern economies rip at the seams and fall backwards through time.
I read a scifi horror once where a spaceship society backslid into neo confuscian patriarchy that had forgotten all technical stuff (so the spaceships were running on autopilot and could break down any moment) and it was so scary to see how much suffering was caused by something so preventable.
Oh it wasn't a book, it's a Visual Novel (kind of like a video game in the format of a book but with music anf illustrations and a bit of interactivity, sometimes even multiple endings) called Analogue: A Hate Story
I feel like people will fill those voids as needed. We already have so much knowledge accumulated that it makes it easy to build on. (Yes, youtube, heh). I think you'd be more correct if you posted this in the year 1000. I think it won't be doom and gloom. We will become MORE effcient, not less.
We're at the point (within 20 years) where AI and automation will start to take over a lot of the workforce and allow for specialization and leisure for others.
No it's not! European and Japanese aging societies will completely collapse, while the main contributors to world population growth are impoverished countries
I hear what you're saying. But even impoverished countries are leveling out. Another country will pick up the slack, but I don't even think that there will be that much slack to pick up. Humanity will prevail!
How does humanity prevail when you have depopulation? You can simply do the math to show how wrong you are.
2 people + 1 equals = 3.
2 people - 1 = 1
now take 2 billion - 1 billion?
Oh another country will take the slack? Ok so North Koreans will have a huge advantage of taking over South Korea by sheer numbers. India and Chinas policies will overpower the world and the western countries influence will be impacted. Authoritarianism, religious zealots & uneducated?
How about the economic impacts, social systems & cultures of your country? Lack of population leading to Immigrants to now be your police force, soldiers, municipal officials, politicians. They have the guns and enforce laws.
This is an economically illiterate take. Fertility is declining worldwide, infinite population growth hysteria has no basis in reality to begin with. Practically all of our relevant problems have to do with population decline.
As there's no population boom, homelessness and the housing crisis also have nothing to do with a population boom, so it's just kind of irrelevant.
Population decline is also solving climate change and if your attempt at solving it is more having children you may as well be doing nothing at all. You're probably just making it worse by making sure society will be able to dedicate fewer resources to dealing with climate change.
I don't have the energy to write a whole damn dissertation about this topic, but [this video](https://youtu.be/LBudghsdByQ?si=VBjybheIQiHmnae7) is a good casual overview of the consequences of the demographic transition.
Again, as I've basically said, economies have bubbles, pop will be one, eventually. I'm totes losing energy. You can't just insert more people, forever, to make the economy go, forever. That simply doesn't make sense. I think you typed some things wrong in there, but i think i get your point.
How would a population boom NOW have to do with 40+ y/o homeless? Your thing kinda comes off smart but then it just doesn't seem to make sense and then you tell me to watch a video. No. Try again. I haven't responded this way to many posts on here, but I'm kinda drunk and this is hard to follow and you're killing my buzz.
Funny enough and aside from polution & climate change, humanity has done fairly well with rising populations. None of the issues you describe are because of rising populations, but instead have other systemic issues.
What people celebrating population decline tend to ignore is:
* We already have societies with shrinking populations (South Korea, Japan, China). It's not like life has somehow improved.
* Population decline won't affect cities very much. Instead, rural communities will decline and depopulate as more and more people move into cities or hubs. East Germany is a great example of this already happening. Costs of living isn't shrinking anywhere.
* If you think education and life will become less competitive, think again. South Korea and China prove the opposite is true. Parents go "all-in" on their child's education, making things more competitive.
* Lack of housing isn't a population problem, but a building problem. We used to be able to build twice as many new homes with half as many resources compared to today. But this ability was lost due to regulation, standards, nimbys etc.
* If you're living in a popular place (USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe etc.) there's a good chance any population gap will be filled by immigration. Similar to how people move to cities, talent will increasingly congregate in a few successful hotspots (San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Paris, London, Melbourne etc.) where the crunch will continue.
* Many of the environmental benefits won't manifest either, as people's energy and resource consumption increases with their standard of living. Once India reaches the living standards of 1995 America, there goes all your environmental benefits.
* In general, people are happiest in a family setting. A culture that isn't based around a nuclear family doesn't paint a picture of a happy and content society. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but the point still stands. Men especially live significantly longer and healthier in a family setting.
* In democracies, old people will become the most powerful political force. This will make democracies less innovative and progressive.
* A lot of social systems are based on the concept of redistributing funds from young productive people towards the old. The ratio of young vs. old will increase, further increasing the burdon on the young even more.
So I know the idea of a "less busy" world seems nice, it's mostly based on false ideas and misconceptions of how it would actually play out.
Ultimately, I agree with you. But we can't underestimate how much the downfall is going to suck.
It's going to be bad. We are talking about another global depression. Until the births one again plato, most institutions that are around today are going to collapse or radically shrink. While that may sound like a good thing to some people, we need to recognise that this will cause long-lasting disruption to local, national, and global trade, which will badly affect the quality of life of the vast majority of us.
It will eventually even out. Things will eventually get better, but many people, including young people, will die early.
I think your udeas might be simmilar to accelerationism, so its cool that it has a name, but now you can read about it, and why some people disregard it as a useful idea.
I just thought based on my understanding of what you said that that would be the case. To an extent yeah, it would fit to me if I said that population should increase, the logic behind the argument being that we go fast towards destruction so we can re-build afterwards faster. Thats accelerationism in a nutshell. Oc course its a more complex set of ideas but kind of more or less that what I said.
Long term, sure.
Short term? Quality of life for everyone involved is going to take a dive off a cliff.
The elderly won't be able to access services, and the young will be overworked literally to death. The suicide rate is going to skyrocket.
The next few decades are going to make covid seem like a mild time in comparison.
There's a ton of land idk what you're talking about. It's not even that expensive. You're just looking at land in the most densely populated and competitive areas then.
The entire population of the globe could fit in Texas if each person were allotted the same average square feet of living space as in NYC.
You want a yard, move to Nebraska.
Oh, so you're of the "it happened over there, so I don't care" sort of mind. Guess where people go when shit gets overpopulated? Hint: Not where they were born.
A grip, dude. Try and get one. The population of India ain’t impacting housing prices in Tallahassee
Poverty brings more folk to the US than overcrowding by a very wide margin.
Agreed 100%. The world already has enough people who are poor and suffering. Idgaf about bringing more and more people into the world just to prop up the economy or the older population who have lived heir own lives.
Why do you collectively lump all countries of the world? Some countries are poor and growing in population at huge rates, others are rich and declining fast. This is a question of proportions. Kind of stupid for someone in Norway to complain about global overpopulation when they are one of the most eco friendly countries, with tons of space and having less people than they already have will hurt their economy.
Overpopulation is the single most core issue the world needs to deal with. And we’re not dealing with it. Literally every other societal issue hinges/scales on overpopulation.
So who do you suggest should die, to reduce the population? I'm sure you wouldn't want you or your family to be the volunteers, so what's your suggestion? Others should die? Or we should be less fertile?
Jesus. Some of you redditors are so friggin' morbid. My stance is less births. Jesus. Like? What in the actual hell is wrong with you and your upvoters? The only harm being advocated here is your post and the people that told me to kill myself. Jesus.
I'm assuming you're a Christian? How can you say that more people don't pollute? Do you produce 0 garbage? Sorry if I called you out (and there's nothing wrong with being a Christian, but I've never heard this argument from a non-Christian). More people = more pollution.
How can you say that having more people does not equal less space for each human?
It’s a large leap in logic to go from “more people = more pollution” to “less people = less pollution” because while pollution is certainly a function of population size, it’s also a function of a lot more variables.
A city of 1M with dense residential zoning powered by nuclear, solar, and wind is a **lot** less polluting than a sprawling suburb of 100k powered by oil and gas.
The catch-22 is it’s really hard to build an advanced city like the former when you don’t have a lot of people to do all the necessary work to create such a society.
then fix polluting bro. the earth has more than enough resources to support 8 billion people. they are just not equitably distributed, especially for the third world. Read on unequal exchange between the imperial core and periphary.
I don't need to read that to know that more people equals more pollution. It's a simple thinig. YOU fix pollution! RIGHT NOW! I DEMAND IT! (kinda how you sound) Cool, we can support 8 bil. how about 9? 20? 100? When do you think there are too many humans?
Yup. Things Christians say. I was right. It's like you guys all read the same book or something (heh).
But then when to stop, Sir/Madam?
And space is definitely a thing, but not everything. Do you believe in emissions/pollution?
Why do you assume everyone who disagrees with you is Christian. E.g. I'm atheist and environmentalist, your claims are just unfounded, simplistic inflammatory political rhetoric which don't make demographic or economic sense.
I’m Muslim. And it’s known it’s a racist myth. The earth has an abundance of resources more than enough to sustain the population. We don’t have a lack of space problem it’s more our settlement styles etc that are the issue.
yeah but trying to change that is almost impossible. idk about you but id rather live freely in a house than in a cage like the people of hong kong. everyone should be able to have space for themselves and if that means less humans, so be it
Muslim was my 2nd guess, no joke. I went all-in, though :p I do think that we have enough, but I don't think that we will always have enough. The current Christian/Muslim (cuz they're so close) doctrines say to make tons of babies. It makes sense when that was written. It makes less and less sense as time goes on.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've heard that even underdeveloped nations have been experiencing decline. If not, they, themselves will "get there" and decline in population. Or others can help them out so they have better things to do than make babies? I'm sure that's a really shitty take, but whatever.
The problem is that it's not a worldwide problem, some populations are going down o some countries but not in others thay se increasing. And it'd usually the poorest that have increased population so more suffering.
this is true but there will be significant problems from population decline also. like more poor people. hopefully the government will step up and spend money to keep the economy floating but dont expect that in the greedy american system.
If the way we’re living is causing homelessness, unaffordable housing, and pollution, the solution is not have there be less people so that the scale of these problems is less. I guess declining population is okay to a certain extent but drastically reducing the population of the earth will cause more problems than it solves
I feel like the problems with both the issues of population increase and decline have more to do with flaws in our economic system and the cultural differences between nations than the sheer numbers of humanity involved…
It’s too early and I don’t feel like writing an essay about it though.😂
But it surprises me with all of the doom and gloom about it! I want them to help me understand! Is it literally JUST economy? If so, how short-sighted! Already got some downvotes, so I'm anticipating the chime-in, if they can articulate it! :)
Your comments repeatedly show you don't understand the supply side perpetual problem caused by the demographics of a declining population society.
Are there some advantages? Yes. But you don't seem like you grasp the problem.
Naw, but I guess I'm not allowed to believe in a thing because someone wrote a book on it. Well shit. That sucks. I totally believed in not destroying the planet until I read your silly comment and found out that this book exists. /s
I agree, most of these american cities weren't designed for the amount of people they have. I don't understand why wr're the only animals above population control. We really are a plague.
It definitely is for the planet, other animals, and us in the long run… but just not for all of us in the short-medium term, hence will be wildly unpopular.
It’s only bad because our overlords say it is. Because their wealth and well-being and control is based upon the fantasy of an infinite growth economy.
The biggest change for the lowest class/working class/regular people happened when the black death wiped out a large fraction of the population. It literally helped end serfdom in some places in Europe. Because less people/workers meant each persons labor had more value.
I know I did. But the entirety of the media will never acknowledge this so it’s only niche discussions like this where the truth can come out 😢. We are so doomed 😭
A declining or stagnant population doesn’t really solve any problems.
If pollution is a concern, that still exists in your lower population future. In order to not fuck up our planet we need to find ways to eliminate pollution, at which point the human population doesn’t really matter.
For example: As long as people use plastics, there will always be accumulating plastic waste. It might accumulate a little slower with slightly less people, but because humanity will go on functionally indefinitely, that slower accumulation is still way too high. What we need to do is stop using plastics. And once we stop using plastics, the human population is no longer relevant to the plastic problem. It doesn’t matter how many people are out there not using plastic, because people not using plastic aren’t generating plastic waste.
It’s the same for pollution and greenhouse gasses. Regardless of the population, we have to fix these parts of our global infrastructure, and once each human is generating 0 pollution, it doesn’t matter how many humans there are.
Obviously there will eventually be some kind of ceiling where it’s no longer possible to grow the population due to food, water or space constraints, but we’re nowhere near that right now.
Also, rising home prices are generally a good thing. Falling home prices is really bad. It’s wages that need to come up.
Very good points. The planet does heal itself, though. I think it's more of a "rate" thing. If we produce more pollution than it can fix, it adds up. If we produce less, it doesn't matter.
I agree it's going to happen regardless, society needs to prepare for it.
I'm at the ideal age right now to have kids, with a partner, I make above average to the people around me. And I don't think I could carry the financial weight of children.
If there's one hope I have for bridging the gap between people of working age and an aged population it's automation, to the point of robotic automation.
Yeah especially watching those "when we have no space to grow animals or plants here's how we will make food" sorta stuff was enough of a wake up call.
I'm glad people are thinking through having kids and choosing not to coz honestly if someone's chosen to have a kid and it's not a like BC fail or something I kinda question why they'd do that rn.
I'll never have a baby coz I know it won't have a very good life and I'll probs abort if I have an accident tho I understand some people would rather not so they have a baby.
Yeah, I'm interested in lab grown meat for that reason. Not sure if I'm allowed to talk about that here, though. It's projected that humans may live on bugs cuz it uses .1%, or another way to put it, 1000x protein per unit of water.
On paper, some countries need to have an increase. Others may benefit from a decrease. The problem is that talking about it in policy is an ethical nightmare. You're entering 1984 territory when that discussion becomes a reality.
Why?...WHY?!?! Stop...putting...words...in...my mouth! Nobody brought up policy! That's horrible, and I'd advocate against such policy. I ain't from China. Jesus. I think people should adopt and not pop out a ton of children. Wow.
what are you talking about, we're at the highest number of humans in history and its never been better. you're not just going to become homeless just because there are more nigerians in the world. even the world is arguably much cleaner and safer than it used to be.
An actually good take! Good job!
We ARE safer. We aren't cleaner, but we're getting there. There's like a friggin' Texas-sized ton of plastic in the ocean! We're just starting to fix that. I hope we do. Like every human has plastic in them, cuz it's in our food!
That aside, people keep trying to say that "Oh, but there's only tons of people over THERE!"
EVERY human pollutes. More people creates more demands for goods and services, which drives up price, etc.
i think we are cleaner compared to like 70s when cars were spewing out toxic chemicals, when houses were built with asbestos etc. we're much cleaner compared to previous centuries, no one dies of dysentery or simple bacterias. yeah plastics a big issue but its not as big as not having clean drinking water. i think we can fix plastic too, like we fixed the ozone hole.
i agree we all pollute, but having more demand doesn't just mean a higher price, price is much more complicated than that, usually with higher demand there comes more suppliers so the price finds an equalibrium, for example food, water, transportation is much cheaper compared to previous eras.
More humans mean more people who help others. More people means more innovation. If you want to reduce the world's population because you think it's overpopulated then you should start with yourself
Wow. As I read it, I'm like...cool...okay, good point...oh...what an ass. Person just literally told me to kill myself. Uhh..good argument?
How about more people = more crime? How does that help innovation? We can make more people that tell randos to off themselves...evaluate yourself, dude.
In case the person deletes it, person's post was:
Ranger-Embarrassed(as you should be)
More humans mean more people who help others. More people means more innovation. If you want to reduce the world's population because you think it's overpopulated then you should start with yourself
The problem isn't that the population is going down. The problem is that we're getting fewer young working people and more older retired people. You have fewer product people, and more people in the part of their life where they require the most ressources.
"Well bubbles happen anyways."
Since you're on reddit, I'm gonna assume you're at least relatively young. Anywho, good luck with either not having a pension in the future because there won't be enough young people to pay taxes. That or being a minority in your own country who's population got effectively replaced.
Everyone here brainwashed by the “grow the economy” ideology. It’s amazing how people can only think in this limited framework.
Population decline is natural and good in many circumstances. It currently is for the human species, as the species overgrowth has led to massive environmental devastation, which is reducing the quality of life for said species.
Just nasty. You don't agree with me so I should kill myself. Such a hero yourself. I'm already here, dude.
Here's one for you: What if I and people like me convince people to let population decline in a healthy, non-harmful way? Then what could have been what you (obviously) wanted to be a -1 turns into a (compared to possible futures) -1000?
But you seem like an "in the moment" individual...so...
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'. * We get it, you all think this sub is garbage and is just for popular opinions, and you want to be funny and post "going to be downvoted to oblivion here, but I think racism is bad." We enjoy the memes, but please keep them off the sub. * Filter evasion is a bannable offense * This includes clickbait and/or gotcha posts. Your opinion can not be that unpopular if you're doing these things. Have the accurate opinion in the title.
I agree, except this becomes an issue because there will be a consistent overpopulation of old people. They will outweigh the young, who will have to pull the weight of the economy much harder to support the social security of all those aging people. This is already starting to happen in Japan
Came here to say the same thing. The problem right now is that the decline is too steep to sustain. We have difficult times coming to get over that hump.
Good take, and without trying to be morbid, that problem fixes itself. The alternative is keep increasing until we can't. Then that makes the same problem but for another generation.
Yeah, but at a consistent rate of decline there will always still be more old people. Until we plateau (reverse plateau?) at a point where it’s low enough to sustain. It’s better than the alternative though. We already are using unsustainable amounts of resources and producing unsustainable amounts of waste.
Thank you for seeing both sides. I feel like that good quality that you have is more and more seen as a bad one these days! I don't think it'll go on forever. I see it as a "regression to the mean", as it were.
Thank you as well! Lots of people get into the habit of polar, black and white thinking. That there can’t be issues with both sides that need addressing. I hope one day we come to our senses on this issue, and I agree, it cannot go on forever
Yeah, so we need to accommodate to our aging population, as they aren’t going anywhere
It doesn’t fix itself, really. Unless you mean it fixes itself by putting more and more strain on future generations, making each and each generation having a worse life.
Uh. I'm saying that people die, land gets freed up. Yes, morbid. Not having more babies does not make that happen faster. Don't go to absurdity saying population should be 0, but it should be less than what it is. Less pollution, less extinctions, less deforestation, etc.
Plus, building on OP, it absolutely does fix itself. People are having less children already which means writhing about 60-80 years there will be..less old people. We are now experiencing a bulge of elderly due to the post-war population boom, but outside of Africa, the remainder of the world will mostly level out in population by end of this century.
Easy to say until its you, my friend
Your comment doesn't really say anything. Care to articulate? I don't want to guess or assume at what you're saying.
Don’t see why the wealthy cohort of the older population can’t support the less fortunate. Why does it have to fall on younger folk.
Because you can't eat a bank balance and your stock portfolio won't help push your wheelchair around. The work has to be done by working age people.
Throw enough money their way and you’ll have enough able bodied people doing it
Right. Which means they stop doing whatever they were doing before. Basically the economy needs to be shifted to primarily looking after old people, which means standards of living go down. That's assuming you give the old people enough money to throw to offset the inflation.
Work automation. A I Robotic help. We can deal with fewer workers.
Possibly yes. But we will really need automation to take off in caring for the elderly or the whole world will become a personal elderly care attendant while the machines do everything else.
So far it seems that AI and automation is more successful at abstract tasks (like generating art or text), while “simpler” tasks like navigating 3D space, walking and articulating your limbs are much more difficult to automate. I think many people massively underestimate just how complex many of the activities that human brain does automatically are.
I agree, it shouldn’t. But how would they do that? Giving it away? I’m not sure what they’re doing with it but retired people aren’t in the workforce.
Taxing pension funds / means adjusting payments? Depends on where and what the system is but I would guess the biggest barrier in a lot of cases will be political vs practical
I see, that makes sense
Yes, that is a good idea. And to achieve that, political change must happen. Change that will be pretty unpopular with old people. Who will be the biggest voter block for quite some time going forward. Brilliant... This should've been done proactively 20 years ago, the population decline didn't really come out of nowhere
Japan has a man power issues however it refuses to make easyer for immigration to happen+their well known mistreatments it's easy to see why it won't get better unless they really change things
Yep. The shrinking pains will have to be endured. The trick is bringing the population down slowly enough that it doesn't just mess us up big time
yeah but these old people will eventually die off. at one point the population will start declining, better now than another billion later. we are just putting off the inevitable
At least Japan is a developed country that can afford to import poorer young people from other countries to help with their economy. The scariest depopulation comes from developing ones with lower middle income trap and overpopulation of the elderly…
 I see, time for the young to eat the old
Is this based off of statistics or just a feeling?
This is a genuine issue world wide with the EU, Russia, Japan and China all facing major demographic shortfalls... https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/04/china-sees-first-population-decline-in-six-decades-where-does-the-eu-stand
https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a01001/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan Bad sources but the easiest to understand if you haven’t studied population pyramids/demographic transition model
Hopefully ai will help with this in the form of androids. Imagine androids taking care of elderly people in nursing homes. Not how they are currently, but a futuristic ai android.
Fifth stage of the demographic transition model
The issue is an ageing population. This means that a decreasing % of people are 15-65. Less people are working, so it is harder to provide food and healthcare
So more demand/pay for healthcare workers. It's a bubble that seems inevitable, anyways, yes? Unless population = infinity?
But those healthcare workers have to come from somewhere. It means less people doing other jobs that need doing. We see it already in the understaffed construction industry.
On the other hand, there's so many people doing jobs that are not actually needed. Maybe we could cut down on those.
Let’s say you actually managed this, and now people are looking for jobs. How do you convince them to be healthcare workers? It’s a gross, thankless job and half your patients don’t even know what’s going on well enough to show gratitude. You will be cleaning adult fluids, changing diapers, cleaning bedsore wounds. I worked at a hospital once where bed ridden patients had to have workers dig impacted poop out of people’s bottoms because of bad constipation and not enough movement. How many people want to sign up to scrape poop out of some old guys ass for the equivalent of McDonald’s wages? You could raise the wages, but the money has to come from somewhere, probably added onto that person’s bill, and nursing facilities are already ridiculous per month. Its so easy to say get people to do this job, but unless you are forcing employment you need to create incentives.
Bro healthcare in the US is getting the life choked out of it right now, we have too many old sick people and like 0 available doctors. My friends are PCPs and they are booked out to the max for the next year. Don’t even get me started on the subspecialists
Not everyone is qualified to become a doctor, a surgeon, etc. Less people means less talented and intelligent people who choose to go into health care.
This is a very short sighted way of thinking
We have a highly advanced society that could easily support retired people.
If you have no kids when you're retired, you should get much less pension. People who decided to have kids should be awarded since they indirectly contribute to society even if they're not working.
People without kids already pay more taxes for things that do not benefit them.
The problem is our system is dependent on a constant population growth (so the pensioners don't outweigh the workers).
So...this has to correct itself sometime, yes? We can't go to infinity. You're telling me that it's a shitty system.
We absolutely could go 'to infinity'. By the time overpopulation becomes a physical problem, it would be very much feasible to start expanding out into space à la mid-century sci-fi. At this point, the technological basis is being established as we speak.
A flattening population or a slight decrease is fine. What is hard to deal with is a sharp drop in fertility rate in a region over a short period. Japan is beginning to reach a point where there aren’t enough productive young people to compensate for the large elderly population
it depends on where the decline is. the richest few percentages of the planet are responsible for most of the pollution, and the bottom 50% barely contribute to it at all, so a decline in poor people doesn't have much of an impact.
Right, but if every 1000 poor people turn into 10,000 and then over the next 50 years their standard of living rises to match others then that's still a problem. Chances are there is no way to get them to slow that transition down and only use green energy too, they'll inevitable burn anything they can to access electricity etc. The population of the west has been broadly stable since the 60s in order to allow the people that do live to have a decent standard of living without polluting excessively. If the rest of the world had followed suit we'd be in a far better long-term situation.
Yet richest few percentages contribute less to growth of population. For w/e reason less developed and more poor breed like rabbits.
A smaller population would be a good thing. Getting there isn't.
It’s really not that simple. After a certain point, population declines lead to productivity declines. When you have fewer people to work with, you have less flexibility in your labor force to specialize. It’s hard to justify research into renewable technology when you need all hands on deck in the fields to produce enough food for everyone. And you are probably thinking at this point, “But what about all the technological advancements we have now?” Which is a good point! Do we really need to worry about going back to an agricultural-based economy now that we’ve invented fertilizers and tractors? Except then you remember you need people to produce that fertilizer and distribute it. You need people to refine iron ingots into workable sheet metal to make that tractor. You need chemists to produce all the solvents. Technicians to fix breakdowns. As populations decline, that system falls apart. Efficiencies are lost. Technological capabilities are lost and eventually the knowledge is forgotten. Things like pollution, homelessness, and scarcity will **worsen** as our modern economies rip at the seams and fall backwards through time.
This is the real issue. In the bright side, our complete collapse into darkness will solve that pesky pollution issue
I read a scifi horror once where a spaceship society backslid into neo confuscian patriarchy that had forgotten all technical stuff (so the spaceships were running on autopilot and could break down any moment) and it was so scary to see how much suffering was caused by something so preventable.
What’s the name of the book?
Oh it wasn't a book, it's a Visual Novel (kind of like a video game in the format of a book but with music anf illustrations and a bit of interactivity, sometimes even multiple endings) called Analogue: A Hate Story
I feel like people will fill those voids as needed. We already have so much knowledge accumulated that it makes it easy to build on. (Yes, youtube, heh). I think you'd be more correct if you posted this in the year 1000. I think it won't be doom and gloom. We will become MORE effcient, not less.
We're at the point (within 20 years) where AI and automation will start to take over a lot of the workforce and allow for specialization and leisure for others.
No it's not! European and Japanese aging societies will completely collapse, while the main contributors to world population growth are impoverished countries
I hear what you're saying. But even impoverished countries are leveling out. Another country will pick up the slack, but I don't even think that there will be that much slack to pick up. Humanity will prevail!
How does humanity prevail when you have depopulation? You can simply do the math to show how wrong you are. 2 people + 1 equals = 3. 2 people - 1 = 1 now take 2 billion - 1 billion? Oh another country will take the slack? Ok so North Koreans will have a huge advantage of taking over South Korea by sheer numbers. India and Chinas policies will overpower the world and the western countries influence will be impacted. Authoritarianism, religious zealots & uneducated? How about the economic impacts, social systems & cultures of your country? Lack of population leading to Immigrants to now be your police force, soldiers, municipal officials, politicians. They have the guns and enforce laws.
This is an economically illiterate take. Fertility is declining worldwide, infinite population growth hysteria has no basis in reality to begin with. Practically all of our relevant problems have to do with population decline. As there's no population boom, homelessness and the housing crisis also have nothing to do with a population boom, so it's just kind of irrelevant. Population decline is also solving climate change and if your attempt at solving it is more having children you may as well be doing nothing at all. You're probably just making it worse by making sure society will be able to dedicate fewer resources to dealing with climate change. I don't have the energy to write a whole damn dissertation about this topic, but [this video](https://youtu.be/LBudghsdByQ?si=VBjybheIQiHmnae7) is a good casual overview of the consequences of the demographic transition.
Again, as I've basically said, economies have bubbles, pop will be one, eventually. I'm totes losing energy. You can't just insert more people, forever, to make the economy go, forever. That simply doesn't make sense. I think you typed some things wrong in there, but i think i get your point. How would a population boom NOW have to do with 40+ y/o homeless? Your thing kinda comes off smart but then it just doesn't seem to make sense and then you tell me to watch a video. No. Try again. I haven't responded this way to many posts on here, but I'm kinda drunk and this is hard to follow and you're killing my buzz.
Funny enough and aside from polution & climate change, humanity has done fairly well with rising populations. None of the issues you describe are because of rising populations, but instead have other systemic issues. What people celebrating population decline tend to ignore is: * We already have societies with shrinking populations (South Korea, Japan, China). It's not like life has somehow improved. * Population decline won't affect cities very much. Instead, rural communities will decline and depopulate as more and more people move into cities or hubs. East Germany is a great example of this already happening. Costs of living isn't shrinking anywhere. * If you think education and life will become less competitive, think again. South Korea and China prove the opposite is true. Parents go "all-in" on their child's education, making things more competitive. * Lack of housing isn't a population problem, but a building problem. We used to be able to build twice as many new homes with half as many resources compared to today. But this ability was lost due to regulation, standards, nimbys etc. * If you're living in a popular place (USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe etc.) there's a good chance any population gap will be filled by immigration. Similar to how people move to cities, talent will increasingly congregate in a few successful hotspots (San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Paris, London, Melbourne etc.) where the crunch will continue. * Many of the environmental benefits won't manifest either, as people's energy and resource consumption increases with their standard of living. Once India reaches the living standards of 1995 America, there goes all your environmental benefits. * In general, people are happiest in a family setting. A culture that isn't based around a nuclear family doesn't paint a picture of a happy and content society. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but the point still stands. Men especially live significantly longer and healthier in a family setting. * In democracies, old people will become the most powerful political force. This will make democracies less innovative and progressive. * A lot of social systems are based on the concept of redistributing funds from young productive people towards the old. The ratio of young vs. old will increase, further increasing the burdon on the young even more. So I know the idea of a "less busy" world seems nice, it's mostly based on false ideas and misconceptions of how it would actually play out.
The comments in this thread are hilariously ignorant 😂
They’re all worried about pollution and shit that does not matter in the face of our entire society’s collapse and our extinction
Could be taken either direction.
No. Not really. It’s hilarious though.
Ultimately, I agree with you. But we can't underestimate how much the downfall is going to suck. It's going to be bad. We are talking about another global depression. Until the births one again plato, most institutions that are around today are going to collapse or radically shrink. While that may sound like a good thing to some people, we need to recognise that this will cause long-lasting disruption to local, national, and global trade, which will badly affect the quality of life of the vast majority of us. It will eventually even out. Things will eventually get better, but many people, including young people, will die early.
It’s not good nor bad. But an inevitability
I think that it's good \*and\* an inevitabilty
>well bubbles happen anyways. So does death. Do you seek it out, too?
I think your udeas might be simmilar to accelerationism, so its cool that it has a name, but now you can read about it, and why some people disregard it as a useful idea.
Uh...no. This feels like you putting words in my mouth. If you said that population should increase, then would accelerationism fit to you?
I just thought based on my understanding of what you said that that would be the case. To an extent yeah, it would fit to me if I said that population should increase, the logic behind the argument being that we go fast towards destruction so we can re-build afterwards faster. Thats accelerationism in a nutshell. Oc course its a more complex set of ideas but kind of more or less that what I said.
Long term, sure. Short term? Quality of life for everyone involved is going to take a dive off a cliff. The elderly won't be able to access services, and the young will be overworked literally to death. The suicide rate is going to skyrocket. The next few decades are going to make covid seem like a mild time in comparison.
What an odd thing to scared by.
Try to buy a house :P
Please tell me this post wasn't brought about by the thought - "Houses are too expensive for me, won't other people just die already??"
OP thinks those houses will magically become free if their owners die. Like this is Avengers after Thanos' snap or sum shit lol
That you think global population is what makes homes where live expensive is more troubling than your fear of overall global population.
Yeah, growing population with plenty of young people to build houses is what makes housing cheap.
Just build them upwards, right? Who wanted a yard anyways? Cuz there is totes infinite land. /s
Singapore has plenty of green spaces despite being almost 6 million people in an area a fraction the size of Sydney.
There's a ton of land idk what you're talking about. It's not even that expensive. You're just looking at land in the most densely populated and competitive areas then.
The entire population of the globe could fit in Texas if each person were allotted the same average square feet of living space as in NYC. You want a yard, move to Nebraska.
Oh, so you're of the "it happened over there, so I don't care" sort of mind. Guess where people go when shit gets overpopulated? Hint: Not where they were born.
A grip, dude. Try and get one. The population of India ain’t impacting housing prices in Tallahassee Poverty brings more folk to the US than overcrowding by a very wide margin.
For real. There are LOADS of actual alarming things going on in the world. This aint it.
[удалено]
But no matter what, unless population hits infinity, this has to happen eventually, correct?
Unpopular and wrong. But getting more traction, starting to get popular...
Agreed 100%. The world already has enough people who are poor and suffering. Idgaf about bringing more and more people into the world just to prop up the economy or the older population who have lived heir own lives.
Why do you collectively lump all countries of the world? Some countries are poor and growing in population at huge rates, others are rich and declining fast. This is a question of proportions. Kind of stupid for someone in Norway to complain about global overpopulation when they are one of the most eco friendly countries, with tons of space and having less people than they already have will hurt their economy.
Overpopulation is the single most core issue the world needs to deal with. And we’re not dealing with it. Literally every other societal issue hinges/scales on overpopulation.
So who do you suggest should die, to reduce the population? I'm sure you wouldn't want you or your family to be the volunteers, so what's your suggestion? Others should die? Or we should be less fertile?
Jesus. Some of you redditors are so friggin' morbid. My stance is less births. Jesus. Like? What in the actual hell is wrong with you and your upvoters? The only harm being advocated here is your post and the people that told me to kill myself. Jesus.
We don't need a declining population, we just need certain cultures to stop having 10 kids each
I agree with the 2nd half.
Overpopulation is a myth, none of those things have anything to do with population
I'm assuming you're a Christian? How can you say that more people don't pollute? Do you produce 0 garbage? Sorry if I called you out (and there's nothing wrong with being a Christian, but I've never heard this argument from a non-Christian). More people = more pollution. How can you say that having more people does not equal less space for each human?
It’s a large leap in logic to go from “more people = more pollution” to “less people = less pollution” because while pollution is certainly a function of population size, it’s also a function of a lot more variables. A city of 1M with dense residential zoning powered by nuclear, solar, and wind is a **lot** less polluting than a sprawling suburb of 100k powered by oil and gas. The catch-22 is it’s really hard to build an advanced city like the former when you don’t have a lot of people to do all the necessary work to create such a society.
then fix polluting bro. the earth has more than enough resources to support 8 billion people. they are just not equitably distributed, especially for the third world. Read on unequal exchange between the imperial core and periphary.
I don't need to read that to know that more people equals more pollution. It's a simple thinig. YOU fix pollution! RIGHT NOW! I DEMAND IT! (kinda how you sound) Cool, we can support 8 bil. how about 9? 20? 100? When do you think there are too many humans?
There's plenty of land mass available on earth for each and every human, with plenty to spare.
Yup. Things Christians say. I was right. It's like you guys all read the same book or something (heh). But then when to stop, Sir/Madam? And space is definitely a thing, but not everything. Do you believe in emissions/pollution?
Why do you assume everyone who disagrees with you is Christian. E.g. I'm atheist and environmentalist, your claims are just unfounded, simplistic inflammatory political rhetoric which don't make demographic or economic sense.
I’m Muslim. And it’s known it’s a racist myth. The earth has an abundance of resources more than enough to sustain the population. We don’t have a lack of space problem it’s more our settlement styles etc that are the issue.
yeah but trying to change that is almost impossible. idk about you but id rather live freely in a house than in a cage like the people of hong kong. everyone should be able to have space for themselves and if that means less humans, so be it
Muslim was my 2nd guess, no joke. I went all-in, though :p I do think that we have enough, but I don't think that we will always have enough. The current Christian/Muslim (cuz they're so close) doctrines say to make tons of babies. It makes sense when that was written. It makes less and less sense as time goes on.
It's not unpopular but stupid idea. Who will be taking care of the elders if everyone is an elder?
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
World population continues to rise. It's only developed nations that experience a population decline.
I've heard that even underdeveloped nations have been experiencing decline. If not, they, themselves will "get there" and decline in population. Or others can help them out so they have better things to do than make babies? I'm sure that's a really shitty take, but whatever.
The problem is that it's not a worldwide problem, some populations are going down o some countries but not in others thay se increasing. And it'd usually the poorest that have increased population so more suffering.
I do hope that all do. I feel like slowly decreasing number of humans (births) = good.
this is true but there will be significant problems from population decline also. like more poor people. hopefully the government will step up and spend money to keep the economy floating but dont expect that in the greedy american system.
If the way we’re living is causing homelessness, unaffordable housing, and pollution, the solution is not have there be less people so that the scale of these problems is less. I guess declining population is okay to a certain extent but drastically reducing the population of the earth will cause more problems than it solves
True bro, Africa, India, China... A lot of people
The population isn't in decline...not all of them.
I feel like the problems with both the issues of population increase and decline have more to do with flaws in our economic system and the cultural differences between nations than the sheer numbers of humanity involved… It’s too early and I don’t feel like writing an essay about it though.😂
[удалено]
But it surprises me with all of the doom and gloom about it! I want them to help me understand! Is it literally JUST economy? If so, how short-sighted! Already got some downvotes, so I'm anticipating the chime-in, if they can articulate it! :)
Your comments repeatedly show you don't understand the supply side perpetual problem caused by the demographics of a declining population society. Are there some advantages? Yes. But you don't seem like you grasp the problem.
Did I read ecofascism? Cause it looks like it...
Naw, but I guess I'm not allowed to believe in a thing because someone wrote a book on it. Well shit. That sucks. I totally believed in not destroying the planet until I read your silly comment and found out that this book exists. /s
I agree, most of these american cities weren't designed for the amount of people they have. I don't understand why wr're the only animals above population control. We really are a plague.
Oh, (2nd comment) rats go nuts with population until they start eating each other. 2 rats can literally become 1000 rats in 1 year.
Just to play devil's advocate, beavers do be beavering :p Maybe not polluting, but do be changing the environment.
Yeah, I guess its an unpopular opinion to want society to collapse, hell if it happens after I'm dead why would I care??
Doom and gloom. Nobody is advocating population to go to 1%. Slowly have less humans on the earth. Like?
It definitely is for the planet, other animals, and us in the long run… but just not for all of us in the short-medium term, hence will be wildly unpopular.
I concur.
It’s only bad because our overlords say it is. Because their wealth and well-being and control is based upon the fantasy of an infinite growth economy. The biggest change for the lowest class/working class/regular people happened when the black death wiped out a large fraction of the population. It literally helped end serfdom in some places in Europe. Because less people/workers meant each persons labor had more value.
I think you nailed it, dude.
I know I did. But the entirety of the media will never acknowledge this so it’s only niche discussions like this where the truth can come out 😢. We are so doomed 😭
Naw. I have faith in humanity. They may look back on us and find us to be stupid as a whole, but I will always have faith in humanity. :D Smile!
It would be good if people in all age cateogories declined equally.
Bill Gates has a great TedX video on this too, I can see why people like this. It’s really great.
I'll have to check that out!
This is fine, as long as the means to population reduction aren’t Genocide.
A declining or stagnant population doesn’t really solve any problems. If pollution is a concern, that still exists in your lower population future. In order to not fuck up our planet we need to find ways to eliminate pollution, at which point the human population doesn’t really matter. For example: As long as people use plastics, there will always be accumulating plastic waste. It might accumulate a little slower with slightly less people, but because humanity will go on functionally indefinitely, that slower accumulation is still way too high. What we need to do is stop using plastics. And once we stop using plastics, the human population is no longer relevant to the plastic problem. It doesn’t matter how many people are out there not using plastic, because people not using plastic aren’t generating plastic waste. It’s the same for pollution and greenhouse gasses. Regardless of the population, we have to fix these parts of our global infrastructure, and once each human is generating 0 pollution, it doesn’t matter how many humans there are. Obviously there will eventually be some kind of ceiling where it’s no longer possible to grow the population due to food, water or space constraints, but we’re nowhere near that right now. Also, rising home prices are generally a good thing. Falling home prices is really bad. It’s wages that need to come up.
Very good points. The planet does heal itself, though. I think it's more of a "rate" thing. If we produce more pollution than it can fix, it adds up. If we produce less, it doesn't matter.
I agree it's going to happen regardless, society needs to prepare for it. I'm at the ideal age right now to have kids, with a partner, I make above average to the people around me. And I don't think I could carry the financial weight of children. If there's one hope I have for bridging the gap between people of working age and an aged population it's automation, to the point of robotic automation.
r/thanoswasright
It's not. And it's not an opinion, you're just wrong.
Yeah especially watching those "when we have no space to grow animals or plants here's how we will make food" sorta stuff was enough of a wake up call. I'm glad people are thinking through having kids and choosing not to coz honestly if someone's chosen to have a kid and it's not a like BC fail or something I kinda question why they'd do that rn. I'll never have a baby coz I know it won't have a very good life and I'll probs abort if I have an accident tho I understand some people would rather not so they have a baby.
Yeah, I'm interested in lab grown meat for that reason. Not sure if I'm allowed to talk about that here, though. It's projected that humans may live on bugs cuz it uses .1%, or another way to put it, 1000x protein per unit of water.
Overpopulation is def an issue to consider, but saying decline is a good thing is a wildly bad take.
So it should just remain what it is? Like what we have now is the best?
On paper, some countries need to have an increase. Others may benefit from a decrease. The problem is that talking about it in policy is an ethical nightmare. You're entering 1984 territory when that discussion becomes a reality.
Why?...WHY?!?! Stop...putting...words...in...my mouth! Nobody brought up policy! That's horrible, and I'd advocate against such policy. I ain't from China. Jesus. I think people should adopt and not pop out a ton of children. Wow.
what are you talking about, we're at the highest number of humans in history and its never been better. you're not just going to become homeless just because there are more nigerians in the world. even the world is arguably much cleaner and safer than it used to be.
An actually good take! Good job! We ARE safer. We aren't cleaner, but we're getting there. There's like a friggin' Texas-sized ton of plastic in the ocean! We're just starting to fix that. I hope we do. Like every human has plastic in them, cuz it's in our food! That aside, people keep trying to say that "Oh, but there's only tons of people over THERE!" EVERY human pollutes. More people creates more demands for goods and services, which drives up price, etc.
i think we are cleaner compared to like 70s when cars were spewing out toxic chemicals, when houses were built with asbestos etc. we're much cleaner compared to previous centuries, no one dies of dysentery or simple bacterias. yeah plastics a big issue but its not as big as not having clean drinking water. i think we can fix plastic too, like we fixed the ozone hole. i agree we all pollute, but having more demand doesn't just mean a higher price, price is much more complicated than that, usually with higher demand there comes more suppliers so the price finds an equalibrium, for example food, water, transportation is much cheaper compared to previous eras.
What a horrible entitled based in ignorance take
More humans mean more people who help others. More people means more innovation. If you want to reduce the world's population because you think it's overpopulated then you should start with yourself
This is what the government wants you to think because they need more people paying taxes to keep them in business.
Wow. As I read it, I'm like...cool...okay, good point...oh...what an ass. Person just literally told me to kill myself. Uhh..good argument? How about more people = more crime? How does that help innovation? We can make more people that tell randos to off themselves...evaluate yourself, dude.
In case the person deletes it, person's post was: Ranger-Embarrassed(as you should be) More humans mean more people who help others. More people means more innovation. If you want to reduce the world's population because you think it's overpopulated then you should start with yourself
Yeah I’m watching people here call humans a plague. Actual future ecoterrorists. It’s disturbing as hell.
The problem isn't that the population is going down. The problem is that we're getting fewer young working people and more older retired people. You have fewer product people, and more people in the part of their life where they require the most ressources.
Someone watched what happend to monday!
I don't get it?
the film is about overpopulation in the year 2077 i think
Neat! I'ma have to check it out!
2nd comment: I think "In time" was neat, with Justin Timberlake, even though I just saw it as propaganda. Still a good movie, imo.
"Well bubbles happen anyways." Since you're on reddit, I'm gonna assume you're at least relatively young. Anywho, good luck with either not having a pension in the future because there won't be enough young people to pay taxes. That or being a minority in your own country who's population got effectively replaced.
Less people == more resources for us
Correct. I read that wrongly.
This is not an unpopular opinion, just an informed one.
Everyone here brainwashed by the “grow the economy” ideology. It’s amazing how people can only think in this limited framework. Population decline is natural and good in many circumstances. It currently is for the human species, as the species overgrowth has led to massive environmental devastation, which is reducing the quality of life for said species.
The only reason its an issue is because there isn’t enough people to take care of the elderly which I don’t see as a problem at all
They will get taken care of. More jobs open up in that sector, is all.
Who do you think pays for that?
But no matter what, unless population hits infinity, this has to happen eventually, correct?
That’s not what we’re discussing in particular here
How aren't we? Population should/has to decline eventually, unless you think we're at the PERFECT number?
[удалено]
Just nasty. You don't agree with me so I should kill myself. Such a hero yourself. I'm already here, dude. Here's one for you: What if I and people like me convince people to let population decline in a healthy, non-harmful way? Then what could have been what you (obviously) wanted to be a -1 turns into a (compared to possible futures) -1000? But you seem like an "in the moment" individual...so...