4 ms·
> Population growth is vital for the world economy [...] Governments will have to think creatively about ways to manage population, whether through state-sponso
by lucb1e 7y ago
> Population growth is vital for the world economy [...] Governments will have to think creatively about ways to manage population, whether through state-sponsored benefits [...]
I actually have the impression that we're with quite a few too many people, and while we can't really help that (you can hardly murder, like, everyone in both Americas to get population down by ~15%), I expect that a decreased growth would be super beneficial for everything from available resources to waste management.
Sure, fewer working people on an aging population reduces growth in the short term, but I can't see anything but benefits in the long term if we would have a few generations with an average number of children just below 2. (For those who are on the fence, like me, this reason can be a part of the decision not to have kids.)
The article doesn't mention a single country below 1, so while being close to 1 is on the edge, every regional average you can make seems high enough. In fact, the global average of 2.4 is still too high (but it will come down, as per UN predictions, until it's only just above the replacement rate around the year 2100).
- journalctl 7y agoI agree. It’s vital if you’ve bought into the doctrine of infinite growth at all costs forever, but there is a limit. And if we were perhaps better at living sustainably, I’d be more supportive of having children. But either way, this Ponzi scheme has an end date, and I fear it’s a lot closer than we’d like.