4 ms·

I found a revelation to me yesterday[1], which was strikingly simple yet mostly overlooked in terms of the implications it has. There are countries with a lot

I found a revelation to me yesterday[1], which was strikingly simple yet mostly overlooked in terms of the implications it has. There are countries with a lot of old people, and not enough young people to replace them as they go into retirement or old age. That's not just a problem for maintaining all that old people when they retire in terms of taxes. It's a problem because when you're a really big, old, and proud country (at least in your mind), things break down faster than you can train people to fix them and to come up with new things to improve on old things. And if on top of that you are immigration-averse, you're effectively dooming yourself into extinction. Russia is one of those countries. Going to war might hurt them more than anyone else, but at this point what alternative is there for them? Just waiting for their country to tear itself to pieces? That might work if you're a country with no imperial past, and no nuclear weapons. But the Russians will go down swinging... and that's a problem for everyone. EDIT: Added reference to the video that gave me this idea. [1] https://youtu.be/MIdUSqsz0Io?t=2059 https://youtu.be/MIdUSqsz0Io?t=2059

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
car_analogy 5y ago
> And if on top of that you are immigration-averse, you're effectively dooming yourself into extinction. The great majority of countries, even those with extremely low fertility rates (e.g. South Korea), are vastly more populous than at almost any other point in history. We're a long way from extinction - at least due to underpopulation. Meanwhile, a low population has a smaller ecological impact, and it's collapsing ecologies that are currently a bigger threat than running out of people.
- mrleinad 5y ago
  Maybe I used the term extinction too loosely. I meant the country as it is now would no longer exist. Not that there would be no people at all. For example, Russia would be split into different territories or smaller countries.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

car_analogy 5y ago

> And if on top of that you are immigration-averse, you're effectively dooming yourself into extinction. The great majority of countries, even those with extremely low fertility rates (e.g. South Korea), are vastly more populous than at almost any other point in history. We're a long way from extinction - at least due to underpopulation. Meanwhile, a low population has a smaller ecological impact, and it's collapsing ecologies that are currently a bigger threat than running out of people.

mrleinad 5y ago
Maybe I used the term extinction too loosely. I meant the country as it is now would no longer exist. Not that there would be no people at all. For example, Russia would be split into different territories or smaller countries.