3 ms·

Depopulate by people's choice, or depopulate by massive war over resources at some point. Choose wisely. Can't run the Ponzi scheme forever. It sounds like no c

Depopulate by people's choice, or depopulate by massive war over resources at some point. Choose wisely. Can't run the Ponzi scheme forever. It sounds like no children are immigrating either? Maybe understand what's keeping newcomers away.

benreesman 2y ago
People who can afford as many children as they want with arbitrary safety do so at higher than the replacement rate [1]. After decades of explosive growth in the economic security and prosperity for the middle class in the post war period the trend reversed at some point. People debate when, 2008 is one plausible line to draw. Like practically every problem in the modern would, the causal chain ends up at vast, unchecked, accelerating wealth inequality facilitated by capture and nepotism and corruption and decaying institutions. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-rich-are-starting-to-have-more-babies-than-the-poor-again https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-ri...
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  And yet African countries have some of the highest birth rates while also having "vast, unchecked, accelerating wealth inequality facilitated by capture and nepotism and corruption and decaying institutions"
  - M95D 2y ago
    Birth rates are driven by the hope for a better future, not current conditions.
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      That seems an odd assertion. Birth rates are driven by sex without functioning birth control
  - jhanschoo 2y ago
    The financial calculus for starting a family in such a society and family to the QOL they expect their children to have is very different compared to developed countries.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
War over what resources? Oil usage is going down, desalinating water is a lot cheaper than war.
- tmtvl 2y ago
  I think parent meant food and living space. Though I would like to point out that water being cheaper than war seems more true on a societal level. For at individual not having water and not going to war isn't preferable to having water and going to war. If I don't have water, I will die, if I go to war, I may die (with a 99.999% chance, but it's still better than 100%).
  - candiodari 2y ago
    [dead]
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    We're not short of food or living space, either. If we replaced all of our farmland with greenhouses, we'd produce ~1000X as much food. If we replaced all of our farmland with moderately dense city, we'd have enough space for ~100X as many people. Mix and match as needed. Of course we don't need to do either, since the world population has basically stopped growing. We just need to increase food production enough to offset losses of production due to global warming. We can do that by building greenhouses, but there are other, cheaper options, all of which are cheaper than a war.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]

benreesman 2y ago

People who can afford as many children as they want with arbitrary safety do so at higher than the replacement rate [1]. After decades of explosive growth in the economic security and prosperity for the middle class in the post war period the trend reversed at some point. People debate when, 2008 is one plausible line to draw. Like practically every problem in the modern would, the causal chain ends up at vast, unchecked, accelerating wealth inequality facilitated by capture and nepotism and corruption and decaying institutions. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-rich-are-starting-to-have-more-babies-than-the-poor-again https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-ri...

readthenotes1 2y ago
And yet African countries have some of the highest birth rates while also having "vast, unchecked, accelerating wealth inequality facilitated by capture and nepotism and corruption and decaying institutions"
- M95D 2y ago
  Birth rates are driven by the hope for a better future, not current conditions.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    That seems an odd assertion. Birth rates are driven by sex without functioning birth control
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  The financial calculus for starting a family in such a society and family to the QOL they expect their children to have is very different compared to developed countries.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

War over what resources? Oil usage is going down, desalinating water is a lot cheaper than war.

tmtvl 2y ago
I think parent meant food and living space. Though I would like to point out that water being cheaper than war seems more true on a societal level. For at individual not having water and not going to war isn't preferable to having water and going to war. If I don't have water, I will die, if I go to war, I may die (with a 99.999% chance, but it's still better than 100%).
- candiodari 2y ago
  [dead]
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  We're not short of food or living space, either. If we replaced all of our farmland with greenhouses, we'd produce ~1000X as much food. If we replaced all of our farmland with moderately dense city, we'd have enough space for ~100X as many people. Mix and match as needed. Of course we don't need to do either, since the world population has basically stopped growing. We just need to increase food production enough to offset losses of production due to global warming. We can do that by building greenhouses, but there are other, cheaper options, all of which are cheaper than a war.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]