this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
407 points (98.6% liked)

me_irl

8117 readers
659 users here now

All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nonfuinoncuro@lemmy.zip 4 points 17 hours ago

in a way, this is my username:

Epicurus rejected any possibility of an afterlife, while still contending that one need not fear death: "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us."[72] From this doctrine arose the Epicurean Epitaph: Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo ("I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."), which is inscribed on the gravestones of his followers and seen on many ancient gravestones of the Roman Empire.[73]

While I understand the reason why a demographic dropout would be a catastrophe, I fucking hate how they say it's our fault, when they were the ones who fucked up everything in the first place

[–] Sauvandu60@lemmy.ml 2 points 16 hours ago

I would blame declining birth rates to liberalism and capitalism.

[–] Puddinghelmet@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

In 20 years its stabilized tho, just gotta get over the baby boomers bump right? that are creating gray pressure on health and housing rn, soon a lot of people will inherit their gold, rich stay rich, tax inheritance. Japan is a glimpse in our future, they have to work 60 hours, and focus on automation and rely heavily on immigration even tho they don't want to.

current population of Europe

Prediction in 50 years:

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 3 points 17 hours ago

The area under the curve above 65 vs the area under the curve below 65 is the issue when combined with all of our institutions and social contracts being designed for endless growth

50% of all new homeless people in the US are above 55 years old which should tell you how this is going to go. It's not going to be like Japan for most western nations. Japan is the best case scenario.

[–] itsjustachairmary@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Oh you're finally finding out? Oh noooooo all that fucking around for nothing. Oops.

[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 3 points 20 hours ago

I don't think over population is the issue or under. It's the dated, old systems we continue to rely on. I think we have a energy, and transport problem. We are scaling 1800s and 1900s tech. Instead of innovating modern approaches. We have a systems issues.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

oh no declining birth rates, how horrible for the ones who decided not to have kids, and hence don't have anyone to worry about

[–] Tango@piefed.ca 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's not that they're afraid of society collapsing. They clearly don't care about that, as most of what they do ignores that.

What they're worried about is the "Great Replacement", where white people become a minority. If that wasn't what they were really afraid of, then they would consider the problem of declining birth rates to be easily solvable with immigration.

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

Also can't oppress some wage slaves to to generate wealth for them if they are never born, it's all about money at the end, white supremacy is a secondary concern

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean, declining birth rates still cause problems. Even if you're sane and don't give a shit about shifting racial demographics.

Shits gonna be really rough for my generation when we're too old to take care of ourselves, while also outnumbering the young people.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I hear this all the time, and it seems to ignore the glaring elephant in the room. When talking about whether you can keep an economic system going, what matters is not the ratio of workers to retirees, but the ratio of workers to dependents. Yes, we have more old people for each worker, but we also have fewer children. We can simply shift resources from child care to elder care. You manufacture more adult diapers and fewer infant diapers. More nurses go into gerentology than neonatal care. You shift government funding from elementary schools to pensions. More women can stay in the workforce, because fewer of us are having children. And those that do are having fewer of them.

We know that economies can adapt to rapidly growing populations. We've survived baby booms just fine. After WW2, in the US, we suddenly had to care for far more children than our system was ever built to handle. Yet we managed to muddle through it. If we can adapt to a baby boom, we can adapt to a slowly aging population. Capitalism, for all its flaws, does have some benefits. And one of those is that it's pretty efficient at reallocating resources based on changing demand.

And honestly, there are some real upsides to declining population. We can ease our impact on the environment. The real cost of housing will decline. Scarcer workers will see their wages rise. This is the real reason the billionaires are so afraid of a declining population. They need millions of desperate people struggling just to scrape by. Do you think Amazon could run its hellish warehouses the way it does if the cost of housing was half what it currently is?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TotalSonic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There's been a rash of people like Elon Musk posting rants about "declining birth rates in the developing world" (and sometimes dog whistling while at it) - getting upset that contrary to the worries of Malthus and Ehrlich, it turns out humans are not the same as bacteria in a petri dish just exponentially reproducing until they exhaust all the carrying capacity of their environment. Instead, it seems that those of us that are in paradigms where we have relatively high per capita energy and materials consumption, respond to economic, cultural and environmental stimuli, and slow our roll once we feel we are at an "x" threshold of population density and environmental & economic stress.

Given that we live on a finite planet with finite resources this small bit of self control might just be what saves humanity from a truly dystopian future.

What the demographic shift of less younger workers versus more retiring seniors does mean is that our systems of depending on constant growth of consumption for our faith in our currency and financial institutions, and for providing for government guaranteed retirement funding, both end up under threat - but those issues could still be easily fixed simply by allowing more immigration from the multitude of places on this globe that still have relatively high birth rates, that have plenty of people with strong work ethics seeking greater opportunities.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

allowing more immigration from the multitude of places on this globe

But then the immigrants will take all the jobs and also not work and take all the money from citizens.

Do you even FOX bro?

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Immigration is really irrelevant to this discussion. Every country is rapidly aging, including the poorer countries that currently have above-replacement birth rates. We're all going down the same path. Some nations are just further along the path than others. Unless there's a large population of Martians eager to immigrate that I'm not aware of, immigration is not a long term solution to this.

[–] TotalSonic@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Total population across the planet is most certainly still climbing each and every year - significantly. And prior history (e.g. USA during the Ellis lsland era circa 1890-1924) shows allowing & enabling immigration most certainly can be a way of markedly improving economic outlooks for not just the immigrants but also the prior residents - for at least the next few decades, if not a good bit beyond that, perhaps even into the next century.

And as for beyond that - again, my take is we should be celebrating that it looks like humanity, is not going blindly pop out babies beyond the carrying capacity of our planet.

Of course we likely could be facing massive challenges due to climate change and idiotic policies being dictated by short sighted oligarchies. But at least it looks like the kind of overpopulation overshoot that was feared by lots of 20th century analysts might get avoided due to some arguably rational reactions by younger generations to the world they now find themselves in.

[–] stratoscaster@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

declining birth rates in the developing world

Looks like it ain't developing anymore lol

I really like how you connected the birth rates and excessive consumerism as a self-fulfilling prophecy. As capitalism reaches its apex, motivations for increasing birth rate collapse. As birth rates collapse, excessive consumerism stagnates, because people can't afford to retire.

[–] mrslt@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yup. I'm just one private citizen. The replacement ratio of my country's population is not my responsibility. 🤷‍♂️

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Republicans will simply declare that child birth is the patriotic duty of every American woman of healthy reproductive capacity. Men will be drafted to war. Women will be drafted into childbirth via forced artificial insemination. Legally speaking, if a man can be drafted to give up his life and sacrifice his body "for the greater good of the nation," there's little reason that a woman couldn't be drafted for forced birth. If your government can force you to die for your country, your government can force you to give birth for your country.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 67 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Declining birth rates and house prices dropping are both things the media love to make out are terrible things.

And they just aren't.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 10 points 1 day ago

I suppose house prices dropping are pretty terrible if you see your house only as an investment, instead of a roof over your head. I know people who would be fucked in their retirement if they house price falls, because they've gambled on their house price climbing enough to carry them through retirement.

I hope they get hurt though. Treating housing as an investment that needs to turn a profit, while people are living on the streets is fucking insane.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't care, I'm not producing wage slaves.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago

yeah basically. im actually fine with my genetic line going out if the earth goes on with a vibrant biosphere as well.

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Spoiler alert: they'll just ban contraception, abortion and sex ed instead

[–] Elting@piefed.social 14 points 1 day ago

Jokes on them, I’m not having any sex.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

Meh, can't have a baby in the mouth or the butt.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Okay I’m gonna play devil’s advocate, it’s worrying because we are not adapting our system.

I’ve always thought over population is a big issue but when I found out how our social security is intentionally a Ponzi scheme, it made me very worried.

I don’t give two shits about the replacement theory but I’m worried that I am getting paid shit throughout my adult life since labour isn’t expensive yet but ~~when~~ if I need to retire, labour could become super expensive.

Of course a sane society would just use all the excess wealth today to invest in automation but if we were sane, a lot of things would be better.

[–] mobyduck648@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Yeah I fully expect not to receive a state pension in the UK, the Ponzi-like economics of it just don’t work for an aging population with a falling birth rate.

The problem is that the government which brings in sustainability measures around this will be electorally annihilated for a generation at least, so the can keeps getting kicked down the road and the likelihood of events forcing a change rather than an orderly change in plenty of time increases.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] minty@aussie.zone 43 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They have to decline or stabalise at fucking point, since we cant have 10 trillion people or something on the planet. Truthfully we just need the brains to figure out how to run our economy without an unending supply of increasing labour.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Some people cannot fathom the concept of limited resources. They think you can increase human population exponentially forever and it'll just work out somehow

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (4 children)

We could easily support our current population and quite a bit more if we actually respected and shared our resources responsibly.

[–] rexxit@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

We could easily support our current population and quite a bit more if we actually respected and shared our resources responsibly.

I think this is a monumentally bad argument. Statistically, you are typing this from a computer or smartphone, with internet access, and are probably part of the segment of humanity that consumes the most resources (as am I). You are saying that if we want to have 15, 20, 30 billion people, we can all just live like the most impoverished people in the world and it will be fine.

It's a quality vs. quantity problem. Maximizing human numbers means we must have very low per-person consumption to minimize impact. Maximizing quality of life means we can all eat/travel/live/consume how we want and the environmental impact will still be low (but with fewer people). I think that's far more desirable.

EDIT: to distill down the argument further - you support voluntarily decreasing your standard of living, so that we can grow the population more, for the benefit of.... ? Creating lives that have not yet been born and can't care?

Whatever you want, I personally do not want a decrease in my standard of living, and especially not to feed the capitalist machine that requires growth at all costs. I presume, if faced with a real and present choice of the same kind, most people would choose to uphold their standard of living instead of sacrificing, only so that more billions of people can be born. When is it enough? Do we really NEED 8B+ people? I wouldn't mind living in a world of <1B people where everyone has luxury and plenty without destroying the planet in the process. We can't get there, but the principle still holds. Put resources into solving the problem of elder care, and just let the population decline naturally.

[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Hell, we could increase exponentially forever if we wanted. The universe is practically infinite

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No. The physics does not allow this. Physics does allow interstellar travel and colonization. However, the resources required are immense. To transport a single human being between star systems would require more energy than it would take to keep them alive in decadent luxury for centuries. We're talking hard limits of physics here. Sure, you can imagine this will be solved by some magical technology outside the known laws of physics, like a perpetual motion machine, but you could then just as easily imagine using that magical technology to keep people alive back at home.

Interstellar colonization would be a wonderful idea, but simply as a means of backing up life. And spreading life through the universe has value in and of itself. It's a wonderful thing to yearn for.

But interstellar travel has absolutely zero utility as a means of addressing population growth.

Oh, and you can only have so many humans living in any given volume of space before the raw output of their body heat cooks them all alive. Regardless of your tech, there are only so many humans you can cram into a volume the size of the solar system.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] t_berium@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (16 children)

The world is literally on fire due to climate change, numerous wars and conflicts with global repercussions, and everything is getting more expensive, while people see that politics - which is supposed to serve society - is subservient only to its masters in the business world. Overpopulation has also become an increasingly pressing issue. The outlook is bleak. Why on earth would anyone want to bring children into this real-life dystopia and deliberately subject them to this?!

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago

20 years ago my wife and decided it was not going to happen and back then it was like. thinks don't look like they are going well economically and with the environment and our personal finances just aren't adding up. fast forward to now and best decision ever. It was debatable 20 years ago but now you have to be crazy.

load more comments (15 replies)

It's interesting because it's obvious that the reason why people are having less children is because they can't afford it and they don't think it's a good idea for the children.

However, rather than actually remedying this situation, the people who want us to have as many children as humanly possible so they have more workers are doing everything in their power to make life worse.

[–] leavemealone@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We are in a shitty pay to win permadeath coop mmorpg where the game balance has been totally broken by indivualistic whales. Of course no new players want to subscribe to this shit.

load more comments
view more: next ›