6 ms·

With reproduction below replacement rates, we are headed toward a depopulation societal collapse.

by hyperpallium2 6y ago

backing 6y ago
Think of immigration.
- iridium_core 6y ago
  Immigration or population replacement?
  - backing 6y ago
    Immigration is the base of any country. Your may be talking about more strict immigration policies but the subject here is "societal collapse" and population reduction and I was pointing out a possibility.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  "Immigration as a solution for fertility" is rooted in the assumption that the developing world stays forever poor and keeps producing surplus fresh meat for you to attract and assimilate, which is some combination of offensive, racist, and also deeply incorrect.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  or be more creative. think of technological advancement so rapid that a less numerous generation can still be more productive than the one that preceded it.
  - backing 6y ago
    That is valid, but I don't know if you can still talk of "society" about a very reduced population, it depends on the reduction factor and stops at reproduction rate zero. A probable outcome would be that another society takes over the one disappearing.
idiocrat 6y ago
Maybe this is a good thing! I personally agree with the message of and support the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [0]. There is good introduction in form of a short film "Thank You For Not Breeding" [1]. [0] http://vhemt.org/ http://vhemt.org/ [1] https://vimeo.com/7652051 https://vimeo.com/7652051
- meowface 6y ago
  This takes as an ultimate goal the preservation of Earth and its ecology. I personally think of the Earth as just a means to an end (intelligent, conscious existence). I find little inherent value in an Earth that isn't collapsing but which has no (human-level or greater) intelligent, sapient entities. And no inherent value in an Earth without any sentient entities. My personal ultimate goal is to simultaneously reduce the suffering of sentient life and allow it to flourish throughout the universe. The Earth itself is just a necessary container for it for the time being. It's an inanimate hunk of molecules. Blow it up for all I care, and all the plants and archaea and bacteria and such, if beforehand every human and non-human animal can be safely transported or teleported to another celestial object or structure which supports animal life. (Obviously this is extremely unrealistic.) Is the best way to preserve sentient life the elimination of sapient life? It's one way, but I don't necessarily think it's the best way. And that's not even considering the utility one might attribute to the total number of sapient entities and how it might compare to non-sapient ones. Also, practically speaking, it's probably easier to convince enough people to address the problem of ecological destruction than to convince everyone on Earth to never reproduce. If both turn out to be impossible, then I guess that's just how the story goes.
  - lcall 6y ago
    I like this idea of reaching the stars as a higher goal, partly because it (to me at least) clearly implies that we must treat each other non-destructively. Learning to improve oneself, and service to others in their growth and goals, bring real joy. I guess maybe it comes with the expansion of self and others in that way. Selfishness tears it down, like the story of the crabs in the heated water (or something like that), who prevent each other from exiting up & out. And maybe those higher aims can serve as one's higher aspirations or guiding purpose, even in the absence of religious beliefs that one sees as actually true, and which lead one to be kind & honest, and to strive for competence in service to family and humanity. I suggested so in my own writings (at my site), but perhaps less eloquently than the parent comment. My beliefs agree that the earth has a purpose, and also is a creation worth of our respectful stewardship, for high purposes. And that we can be OK and don't have to depopulate -- that there is enough, and to spare, to fulfill the higher purposes, which is comforting to know.

With reproduction below replacement rates, we are headed toward a depopulation societal collapse.

backing 6y ago

Think of immigration.

iridium_core 6y ago
Immigration or population replacement?
- backing 6y ago
  Immigration is the base of any country. Your may be talking about more strict immigration policies but the subject here is "societal collapse" and population reduction and I was pointing out a possibility.
bpodgursky 6y ago
"Immigration as a solution for fertility" is rooted in the assumption that the developing world stays forever poor and keeps producing surplus fresh meat for you to attract and assimilate, which is some combination of offensive, racist, and also deeply incorrect.
leetcrew 6y ago
or be more creative. think of technological advancement so rapid that a less numerous generation can still be more productive than the one that preceded it.
- backing 6y ago
  That is valid, but I don't know if you can still talk of "society" about a very reduced population, it depends on the reduction factor and stops at reproduction rate zero. A probable outcome would be that another society takes over the one disappearing.

idiocrat 6y ago

Maybe this is a good thing! I personally agree with the message of and support the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [0]. There is good introduction in form of a short film "Thank You For Not Breeding" [1]. [0] http://vhemt.org/ http://vhemt.org/ [1] https://vimeo.com/7652051 https://vimeo.com/7652051

meowface 6y ago
This takes as an ultimate goal the preservation of Earth and its ecology. I personally think of the Earth as just a means to an end (intelligent, conscious existence). I find little inherent value in an Earth that isn't collapsing but which has no (human-level or greater) intelligent, sapient entities. And no inherent value in an Earth without any sentient entities. My personal ultimate goal is to simultaneously reduce the suffering of sentient life and allow it to flourish throughout the universe. The Earth itself is just a necessary container for it for the time being. It's an inanimate hunk of molecules. Blow it up for all I care, and all the plants and archaea and bacteria and such, if beforehand every human and non-human animal can be safely transported or teleported to another celestial object or structure which supports animal life. (Obviously this is extremely unrealistic.) Is the best way to preserve sentient life the elimination of sapient life? It's one way, but I don't necessarily think it's the best way. And that's not even considering the utility one might attribute to the total number of sapient entities and how it might compare to non-sapient ones. Also, practically speaking, it's probably easier to convince enough people to address the problem of ecological destruction than to convince everyone on Earth to never reproduce. If both turn out to be impossible, then I guess that's just how the story goes.
- lcall 6y ago
  I like this idea of reaching the stars as a higher goal, partly because it (to me at least) clearly implies that we must treat each other non-destructively. Learning to improve oneself, and service to others in their growth and goals, bring real joy. I guess maybe it comes with the expansion of self and others in that way. Selfishness tears it down, like the story of the crabs in the heated water (or something like that), who prevent each other from exiting up & out. And maybe those higher aims can serve as one's higher aspirations or guiding purpose, even in the absence of religious beliefs that one sees as actually true, and which lead one to be kind & honest, and to strive for competence in service to family and humanity. I suggested so in my own writings (at my site), but perhaps less eloquently than the parent comment. My beliefs agree that the earth has a purpose, and also is a creation worth of our respectful stewardship, for high purposes. And that we can be OK and don't have to depopulate -- that there is enough, and to spare, to fulfill the higher purposes, which is comforting to know.