3 ms·

And the genius answer of both the US and EU governments is to bring in millions of non-nationals in, yearly. Somehow thinking this shall prevent their ponzi (st

And the genius answer of both the US and EU governments is to bring in millions of non-nationals in, yearly. Somehow thinking this shall prevent their ponzi (state debt) from crashing. Fertility rates going down should be a cause for celebration, not concern. But there's the mother of all ponzis sustain so...

redder23 2y ago
[dead]
atonse 2y ago
Why is it a cause for celebration?
- coolspot 2y ago
  Less people -> less congestion, less pollution, less finite resources consumption . With automation we don’t need that many people as in the past. Infinite growth is not sustainable.
  - atonse 2y ago
    To offer a counter-point, doesn't less people = less workforce over time, less economic activity, less competition, less able-bodied men for your military, making you more vulnerable compared to other nations with better birth rates? Doesn't seem like a slam-dunk case but rather one of tradeoffs? I get that infinite growth isn't sustainable, but shrinking isn't the only alternative, correct? It can be slower rates of growth.
    - coolspot 2y ago
      Not necessarily, if you have automation and AI. > less workforce over time Manual workforce can be replaced by robots. We don’t need 4M+ uber drivers if we have 4M Waymos. > less economic activity, less competition Not if you compensate productivity with automation and AI. Work of 100 people done by one. > less able-bodied men for your military Ideally, you should have most of your army be robots and semi-autonomous systems. Military action should only cause equipment loss on your side and not personnel loss. You still can have growth, just not the population growth, but productivity and quality of life growth instead.
- tivert 2y ago
  > Why is it a cause for celebration? Anti-humanist environmentalism?
  - PlunderBunny 2y ago
    I understand you’re not necessarily taking a stand one way or another on “anti-humanist environmentalism”, but surely it’s possible to be both in favour of declining population numbers for the environmental and other benefits, _and_ not be anti-humanist at the same time?
- moffkalast 2y ago
  More planet for the rest of us. /s
fooker 2y ago
You need people to work. A consequence of decreased fertility is increasing median age. It's a compounding problem as you need resources and more young people to support older peoplevv
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
TulliusCicero 2y ago
How do you support retirees on a declining population? There's a reason there's all this pressure to raise retirement ages.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > There's a reason there's all this pressure to raise retirement ages. From this end, the pressure to work later in life feels more like our only chance to avoid homeless retirement. I only say that because that is the pure reality for many of us.

redder23 2y ago

[dead]

atonse 2y ago

Why is it a cause for celebration?

coolspot 2y ago
Less people -> less congestion, less pollution, less finite resources consumption . With automation we don’t need that many people as in the past. Infinite growth is not sustainable.
- atonse 2y ago
  To offer a counter-point, doesn't less people = less workforce over time, less economic activity, less competition, less able-bodied men for your military, making you more vulnerable compared to other nations with better birth rates? Doesn't seem like a slam-dunk case but rather one of tradeoffs? I get that infinite growth isn't sustainable, but shrinking isn't the only alternative, correct? It can be slower rates of growth.
  - coolspot 2y ago
    Not necessarily, if you have automation and AI. > less workforce over time Manual workforce can be replaced by robots. We don’t need 4M+ uber drivers if we have 4M Waymos. > less economic activity, less competition Not if you compensate productivity with automation and AI. Work of 100 people done by one. > less able-bodied men for your military Ideally, you should have most of your army be robots and semi-autonomous systems. Military action should only cause equipment loss on your side and not personnel loss. You still can have growth, just not the population growth, but productivity and quality of life growth instead.
tivert 2y ago
> Why is it a cause for celebration? Anti-humanist environmentalism?
- PlunderBunny 2y ago
  I understand you’re not necessarily taking a stand one way or another on “anti-humanist environmentalism”, but surely it’s possible to be both in favour of declining population numbers for the environmental and other benefits, _and_ not be anti-humanist at the same time?
moffkalast 2y ago
More planet for the rest of us. /s

fooker 2y ago

You need people to work. A consequence of decreased fertility is increasing median age. It's a compounding problem as you need resources and more young people to support older peoplevv

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

TulliusCicero 2y ago

How do you support retirees on a declining population? There's a reason there's all this pressure to raise retirement ages.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> There's a reason there's all this pressure to raise retirement ages. From this end, the pressure to work later in life feels more like our only chance to avoid homeless retirement. I only say that because that is the pure reality for many of us.