4 ms·

> Fertility rate in Spain and Italy is below 1.3 and we have no clue how to address it. There are alredy too many people in this world... we don't live on farm

> Fertility rate in Spain and Italy is below 1.3 and we have no clue how to address it. There are alredy too many people in this world... we don't live on farms anymore, so that we'd need many kids to help work on them... the only problem currently is, that our pension systems and some of the economic systems depend on more and more people producing and that we have yearly growth (instead of sustained business).

Guthur 5y ago
This is such a moronic statement. If you really really want to limit population then limiting the number of children is a absolutely terrible and potentially catastrophic way of doing it. Who is going to replace and look after that rapidly aging population? Or is complete collapse your goal?
- xyzzy123 5y ago
  Do you have a modest proposal for limiting population - that isn't contraception? Are you thinking soylent green, or more like logan's run?
  - Tade0 5y ago
    Education of women is a strong predictor of low fertility rates. Send the girls to school and they won't have to rely on a future husband to sustain themselves later on.
    - xyzzy123 5y ago
      Fair, but how do educated women achieve those low fertility rates? It's not abstention...
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        They get pressed into careers with the rest if us and have no time for kids
dmm 5y ago
If your concern is sustainability then a fertility rate closer to 2.1 should be your goal. 1.3 is just collapse. Right now in the US we have 3 workers for every retired person. Imagine instead a world where every worker is supporting four retirees. It doesn't matter how you structure or fund your pensions, that just isn't going to work.
- extra88 5y ago
  The U.S. (and Spain and Italy) are desirable places to be so immigration can make up for fertility rates being below what's needed to maintain the population. As a bonus, you don't need to wait ~18 years for an adult immigrant to be a productive, tax-paying member of society.
  - dfygdfgsg 5y ago
    That's nonsense. People are not the same. Groups of people are not the same. population differences in genetics and culture will mean that using immigration to replace a declining birth rate makes a different country and a different people, with a different biology, different culture, etc. If the only thing wrong with the holocaust is that it was non consential, rather then being that AND the extermination of a people, then your view makes sense, but otherwise NO. Your blatant propaganda shilling for the bourgeoise capitalists isn't unnoticed. Replacing workers and exterminating their people and culture so that you can enjoy a nice retirement is EVIL.
  - dmm 5y ago
    The US has a long tradition of immigration and it will certainly make the collapse less painful as compared to places like China and Russia but I'm skeptical that immigration can make up for a FR as low as 1.3. I think 1. It's going to take a lot more immigration. 2. Significantly higher immigration is going to politically destabilizing for a variety of reasons. Are we preparing for this? I really wish we had a functional government. EDIT: 3. Pretty much everywhere except India, Afghanistan, and a few places in sub-sahara Africa have fertility rates below replacement. Immigration from anywhere but those places helps the destination country but makes the originating one worse. What effects is that going to have?
whiddershins 5y ago
There are not too many people. This is a horrible thing to say. Which ones are the extras?
- mediocregopher 5y ago
  Why would there being too many of something imply that there are specific members which should be removed? If we allow the population to stop increasing we can _maybe_ find a way to live sustainably on this earth. No one existing person is "extra".
- bostonsre 5y ago
  We're just another animal on planet earth that consumes resources and takes up space. There is some saturation point where no more people can fit and/or no more people have the resources they need to survive. Ideally, the alarm is sounded before that saturation point. It may sound bad to say there are too many people, but it would be a lot worse if we got to the saturation point and billions of people suffered.

Guthur 5y ago

This is such a moronic statement. If you really really want to limit population then limiting the number of children is a absolutely terrible and potentially catastrophic way of doing it. Who is going to replace and look after that rapidly aging population? Or is complete collapse your goal?

xyzzy123 5y ago
Do you have a modest proposal for limiting population - that isn't contraception? Are you thinking soylent green, or more like logan's run?
- Tade0 5y ago
  Education of women is a strong predictor of low fertility rates. Send the girls to school and they won't have to rely on a future husband to sustain themselves later on.
  - xyzzy123 5y ago
    Fair, but how do educated women achieve those low fertility rates? It's not abstention...
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      They get pressed into careers with the rest if us and have no time for kids

dmm 5y ago

If your concern is sustainability then a fertility rate closer to 2.1 should be your goal. 1.3 is just collapse. Right now in the US we have 3 workers for every retired person. Imagine instead a world where every worker is supporting four retirees. It doesn't matter how you structure or fund your pensions, that just isn't going to work.

extra88 5y ago
The U.S. (and Spain and Italy) are desirable places to be so immigration can make up for fertility rates being below what's needed to maintain the population. As a bonus, you don't need to wait ~18 years for an adult immigrant to be a productive, tax-paying member of society.
- dfygdfgsg 5y ago
  That's nonsense. People are not the same. Groups of people are not the same. population differences in genetics and culture will mean that using immigration to replace a declining birth rate makes a different country and a different people, with a different biology, different culture, etc. If the only thing wrong with the holocaust is that it was non consential, rather then being that AND the extermination of a people, then your view makes sense, but otherwise NO. Your blatant propaganda shilling for the bourgeoise capitalists isn't unnoticed. Replacing workers and exterminating their people and culture so that you can enjoy a nice retirement is EVIL.
- dmm 5y ago
  The US has a long tradition of immigration and it will certainly make the collapse less painful as compared to places like China and Russia but I'm skeptical that immigration can make up for a FR as low as 1.3. I think 1. It's going to take a lot more immigration. 2. Significantly higher immigration is going to politically destabilizing for a variety of reasons. Are we preparing for this? I really wish we had a functional government. EDIT: 3. Pretty much everywhere except India, Afghanistan, and a few places in sub-sahara Africa have fertility rates below replacement. Immigration from anywhere but those places helps the destination country but makes the originating one worse. What effects is that going to have?

whiddershins 5y ago

There are not too many people. This is a horrible thing to say. Which ones are the extras?

mediocregopher 5y ago
Why would there being too many of something imply that there are specific members which should be removed? If we allow the population to stop increasing we can _maybe_ find a way to live sustainably on this earth. No one existing person is "extra".
bostonsre 5y ago
We're just another animal on planet earth that consumes resources and takes up space. There is some saturation point where no more people can fit and/or no more people have the resources they need to survive. Ideally, the alarm is sounded before that saturation point. It may sound bad to say there are too many people, but it would be a lot worse if we got to the saturation point and billions of people suffered.