4 ms·

Why do we need to maintain the population? The UK is quite crowded already. It seems to me the environment would be much better-off with fewer people. And also

Why do we need to maintain the population? The UK is quite crowded already. It seems to me the environment would be much better-off with fewer people. And also people would be better off with fewer people, with more resources to invest in each life. It seems like maintaining financial growth is the real concern behind this 'news'.

Levitz 3y ago
This argument has never held water. Population will keep increasing, the economy can't afford anything else. A lack of procreation doesn't turn a country green. It turns it brown.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  We’ll see what happens with Japan long before Western countries hit the shit storm.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Italy is in a worse situation than Japan if I recall correctly
rahimnathwani 3y ago
Working adults' taxes pay for retirees' healthcare and social safety net. Medical advances increase the number of older people. Lower fertility reduces the number of working age adults.
- bobnamob 3y ago
  Sounds like a pyramid scheme when you put it that way
  - rvnx 3y ago
    And you know what's the endgame of a pyramid scheme: there are simply mathematically not enough new players to keep the pyramid running.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Populations cannot increase forever. Social safety nets structured like pyramids aren't going to scale. A sustainable future means settling for a stable population and retiring with less than infinite growth could provide.
rvnx 3y ago
I'd rather live in a world with 100 million humans, and computers helping to run this world. Most of the problems (wars, food supply issue, pandemics, climate change, surveillance) would be easier to tackle. China and India have a genuine space (and weather!) issue to deal with, they cannot stay like that eternally, so it may eventually lead to conflicts. We may see the world self-regulate anyway. Corona was probably just a trial for the next big depopulation event (either violent, or passive like lack of fertility) :|
- gnepon 3y ago
  > I'd rather live in a world with 100 million humans, and computers helping to run this world. Easy to say when you've positioned yourself as one of the 100m that gets to live - and with 7 billion people's worth of man-made resources to be shared round. I think the journey towards it would be catastrophic under capitalism (and any transition away from capitalism could also be catastrophic, at least in the short term).
  - jjav 3y ago
    > Easy to say when you've positioned yourself as one of the 100m that gets to live "gets to live" is not the correct way to put it. If birth rates keep going lower, everyone gets to live their life just fine. But over the long haul, population goes down as people die of old age and younger generations are smaller.
ekianjo 3y ago
fewer people means no retirement plans in their current shape, lower GDP and less innovation in general. but we are going there anyway, there is very little we can do to reverse it.

Levitz 3y ago

This argument has never held water. Population will keep increasing, the economy can't afford anything else. A lack of procreation doesn't turn a country green. It turns it brown.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago
We’ll see what happens with Japan long before Western countries hit the shit storm.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Italy is in a worse situation than Japan if I recall correctly

rahimnathwani 3y ago

Working adults' taxes pay for retirees' healthcare and social safety net. Medical advances increase the number of older people. Lower fertility reduces the number of working age adults.

bobnamob 3y ago
Sounds like a pyramid scheme when you put it that way
- rvnx 3y ago
  And you know what's the endgame of a pyramid scheme: there are simply mathematically not enough new players to keep the pyramid running.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Populations cannot increase forever. Social safety nets structured like pyramids aren't going to scale. A sustainable future means settling for a stable population and retiring with less than infinite growth could provide.

rvnx 3y ago

I'd rather live in a world with 100 million humans, and computers helping to run this world. Most of the problems (wars, food supply issue, pandemics, climate change, surveillance) would be easier to tackle. China and India have a genuine space (and weather!) issue to deal with, they cannot stay like that eternally, so it may eventually lead to conflicts. We may see the world self-regulate anyway. Corona was probably just a trial for the next big depopulation event (either violent, or passive like lack of fertility) :|

gnepon 3y ago
> I'd rather live in a world with 100 million humans, and computers helping to run this world. Easy to say when you've positioned yourself as one of the 100m that gets to live - and with 7 billion people's worth of man-made resources to be shared round. I think the journey towards it would be catastrophic under capitalism (and any transition away from capitalism could also be catastrophic, at least in the short term).
- jjav 3y ago
  > Easy to say when you've positioned yourself as one of the 100m that gets to live "gets to live" is not the correct way to put it. If birth rates keep going lower, everyone gets to live their life just fine. But over the long haul, population goes down as people die of old age and younger generations are smaller.

ekianjo 3y ago

fewer people means no retirement plans in their current shape, lower GDP and less innovation in general. but we are going there anyway, there is very little we can do to reverse it.