• SubarcticPanic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    37 minutes ago

    Crazy that we live in a world where you can watch the damage of demographic shifts in real time, and that’s still not enough to convince you that it’s a problem.

    The modern world doesn’t scale down, and we have yet to figure out a solution.

  • EatYourOrach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 hours ago

    There are 8.3 Billion people on the planet and there were 7.5 ten years ago. We have enough people. We have enough resources for everyone to live comfortably and be well in their communities. We have more than enough money and other valuable things to trade.

    The main thing getting in our way isn’t a low birth rate.

    Anyone genuinely concerned with the depopulation of humans in 2026 is probably some flavour of breeder cult weirdo, and the only ones constantly banging on about it in politics, academia, the news, etc are imperialists, industrialists and racist patriarchs. IME.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I agree with you that there are too many people on this world, and yes, we can do with way less.

      Having said that

      A little bit lower that the 2.1 birthrate is fine, A very low birth rate is very bad for everyone. Sudden changed on demographics will fuck your country up and can make it disappear in a hundred years without you realizing it until it’s too late

      Demographics is like a slow moving cargo train, you only hear some humming and then some blaring and then when it hits you it won’t stop or even slow down for a second

      Countries like South Korea are at risk for their very existence and really should act now to avoid the day that North Korea can just walk in because they won’t have enough people left to even take care of themselves

      China has a similar problem and it’s bad. They have a huge amount of people becoming old and unable to add to the economy anymore and requiring more and more help from others… That means that more money will go out to the old, and there is less money for the young to get kids and add to the next generation. This is in part why there are so few kids these days, it’s simply too expensive to have any.

      Lowering your population slowly and carefully is fine. Having your population drop off a cliff like it’s happening in many counties world wide is a disaster

  • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    If growth doesn’t compensate for shrinking working population, you’ll be fucked. Somone has to work so you have your retirement.

    • MisterD@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Why not make billionaires an illegal thing. Poof! You have money for retirement for everyone

      • pizzamann2472@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Money isn’t the issue in the end, the issue is that you still need enough people in working age so that you can use the money to get the goods and services that you need as a retiree.

        If a large number of people retire without finding any young successor, services just become more and more inaccessible. Like e.g. if there are not enough doctors in your area because many of them retired, you won’t get treatment even with money, because the capacity just isn’t enough anymore to treat everybody. If a car shop closes down because the mechanic retires, you cannot get your car repaired there any longer, even with a lot of money, and so on…

        An old society means that the area decays, more and more places close down or cannot get maintained any longer. And money doesn’t help because numbers in a bank account don’t do the real work. There are already a few old regions around the globe where this can be seen

        • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You mean, like robots? We have these hard-codded robots that can work a long time without human intervention.

          And they have been a thing long before the LLM crap.

          • BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Thanks for pointing that out. A lot of people some seem to realize automation was doing fine before LLMs.

            The dark factories don’t need LLMs.

        • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Finally somone who gets it. It’s like economic 101 in school: Money is fundamentally worthless. It can only buy as much as the economy is able to produce

          • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            IMO this is an education system failure. You get things like that when you have different skill set in society VS what economy demands. If economy moves towards high tech and you have only unskilled labor at your disposal wages go down. (that plus immigration factor)

            If I’m correct, highly specialized workers should get an opposite trend.

  • tooks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    I can’t think of anything more irresponsible and selfish than procreation in the 21st century. Why would anyone want to end their own life and subject themselves to the stress of ensuring their craft human survives and becomes a relatively average coal miner.

  • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    I make it my personal responsibility in life to constantly bring up the necessity of immigration as the solution to age disparity and population decline. There are working people. There are as many as you could ever need, tens of millions, perhaps hundreds. It’s never going to be an issue which can’t be solved with immigration.

    • binux@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t see how this is a solution so much as delaying the problem for future generations to deal with. What happens when the countries the immigrants are coming from start to face the same issue (if it isn’t happening for them already?) It’s basically the population equivalent of the “one more lane bro” philosophy.

      • pingveno@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        It is absolutely happening already. Many of those countries are experiencing issues with being below replacement and a hollowing out of their workforce at the same time. For many, they have gotten old before they got rich, which will make further advancements difficult.

    • bridgeburner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Dude, immigration is the root cause for a whole range of problems if not done correctly. See prime example germany.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t live in the US so mostly I’m thinking of who’s gonna pay for my retirement and healthcare when I’m old.

      I’m paying for the current old people’s retirement and healthcare. That’s fine, it’s the social contract we have in our nation: everyone gets taken care of and those who can work, pay a lot of tax to make it happen. If the population decline gets bad enough, there will be no one to do the same for my generation.

      Oh and they populist conservatives did a pension reform so you can take out whatever you’ve gathered in your second pillar even at age 20 if you want (at which point it’ll probably be in the hundreds of euros lol) and can’t resume payments (which were matched by the government - you pay 2, 4 or 6 percent and government pays 4% of your gross income) for 10 years. Worst deal ever for most people taking it out if they want to retire at one point. And a third of the population took it out. They now have to fully depend on the first pillar (government) pension, which isn’t based on past investments at all, it’s taken from the working population’s social taxes when you retire. So far more directly affected by the population decline. I’m betting they’ll eventually forcibly fuck it up for the rest of us to pay for the retirements of those who took it out.

      • resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        You understand that money is a fiction, right? It’s not even numbers on a piece of paper anymore, it’s ones and zeroes.

        Fewer people means more resources per person and less damage to the earth.

        • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          The “resources” we rely on require (working) humans, less working humans means less resources. The population we have today won’t disappear all at once but when they age out of the workforce, a smaller population will not be able to support them

          In other words, if we are below replacement level, we will eventually have a situation where the old outnumber the young, which means that the young have to work harder to support the old

          • resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            The biggest concern right now is the looming massive unemployment crisis and you’re worried about too much demand for work?

            And how does fewer working people decrease resources? Fewer working peole means less land? Less water? Less energy?

            • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 minutes ago

              The biggest concern right now is the looming massive unemployment crisis and you’re worried about too much demand for work?

              It’s a two sided issue. We’re laying off a bunch of people in jobs that require thinking, but not doing stuff in the physical world. But jobs that require doing physical things are still much more difficult to automate if it requires any sort of flexibility to conditions. We’ll still need people in a bunch of roles, they’ll just be jobs people won’t want to do as much, because it’ll be dirtier and harder work. And of course in our present economic system at present time, these jobs aren’t very highly paid since we don’t have a real shortage of workers yet.

              And how does fewer working people decrease resources? Fewer working peole means less land? Less water? Less energy?

              Land on its own doesn’t produce much useful, you still need people to work it. Power plants need employees too. Etc. There are still so, so many things we can’t accomplish without humans physically present and moving objects. Automation makes things more efficient, but we still need humans.

              If the population of the world shrunk evenly in all ages, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s only an issue because the population is aging.

              And yes, in the future we’ll probably have AI doctors, AI teachers and AI engineers to provide us mediocre healthcare, education and help invent stuff. But we won’t have AI electricians or AI plumbers anytime soon. Much harder problems to automate.

    • asg101@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The oligarchs haven’t figured that out quite yet. They want to starve us out of existence, but still want to pig out at the government troughs. Where is that money going to come from when all the jobs are being done by AI and robots?

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        they think they can just have robot slaves or humans slaves in thier little enclaves. in almost all cases, fiction media goes, both groups end up rebelling anyways.

        • JATth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The correct answer to the slavery problem is that we, as homo sapiens, enslave the sun. How, that is still a bit of open question… but the seeds have been planted already.

      • LostWon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        See that’s the neat part when it comes to tech oligarchs, specifically. They believe in TESCREAL/Transhumanism so they’re aiming to become the AI robots! YAY! /s

          • LostWon@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            By the time things reach that point, it could be too late. TESCREALists are like planetary eugenicists. You know how Thiel couldn’t answer the question about whether humanity should live in that one interview? He’s not the only one. Their fantasy of what comes next will never work, but that doesn’t mean they won’t do unfathomable harm to the globe trying to make their sick dreams come true.

        • Malyca@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          So far ai seems pretty horrified by them,I don’t think they will be well received should we actually create real ai.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    But there’ll be fewer workers for the oligarchs to lay off! How are they going to signal to shareholders that operating costs will be lower next quarter?