3 ms·
I absolutely agree with you. 100%. The problem is how we can make this transition from a large population to a smaller one with as little suffering as possible
by ZaoLahma 3y ago
I absolutely agree with you. 100%.
The problem is how we can make this transition from a large population to a smaller one with as little suffering as possible.
As I said, here we are expected to work into our 70s on average already, which just will not be possible. At some point there won't be enough resources to care for those who can't produce. We need a substantial increase in productivity per individual for society to keep working while the population numbers are decreasing, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
- henearkr 3y agoYeah... the consensus is that the more we wait before reducing willingly the population, the more it will happen suddenly and violently (wars, famines) at the snap point (or at snap points, plural). Not pretty thoughts, but just mechanistically unavoidable... I'd say, let's reduce our comfort, let's do it now, yeah we'll be poorer and all. Still better than the alternative. The point is to go out of our way to remain (and become more) altruistic and united at a global scale... in order to spread evenly the diminishing resources. If everybody gets poor in a similar way, it will reduce anger and unrest. Or avoid wars, if that's a country that would have felt wronged otherwise.