6 ms·

It's because the "natalists" are pushing the issue for political reasons. They've made it a culture war thing. A declining birthrate is actually a good thing,

by JohnFen 2mo ago

It's because the "natalists" are pushing the issue for political reasons. They've made it a culture war thing. A declining birthrate is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.

red-iron-pine 2mo ago
not if you want consumption -- and therefore, stock prices -- to go up if there is 100 million less people there is 100 million less people to sell an iPhone too
- bigbadfeline 2mo ago
  > not if you want consumption > if there is 100 million less people there is 100 million less people to sell an iPhone too You are contradicting yourself, what you call "consumption" isn't - it's profits going to a single entity. "Consumption" is number of iPhones per person, 100 million less people means less materials extracted, less pollution, less landfill garbage, more robots, less work hours, less demand, cheaper phones and more phones per person than 200 million would have.
ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
In and of itself, a smaller population ain't so bad. What's bad is the demographic shift and the bomb that goes off when there aren't enough young people working and producing to support the old people who need care and pensions. Shrinking families mean that there aren't enough children of elders to care for them directly, so those elders are leaning on welfare states, and mercenary caregivers, instead. It isn't working out.
- bigbadfeline 2mo ago
  > What's bad is the demographic shift and the bomb that goes off when there aren't enough young people working and producing to support the old people who need care and pensions. HN is full of promises of AI bonanza to come about any minute now. That's the reason we have to endure inflation, unemployment, wars of domination and what not. Musk claims we won't have to work at all, AI would do everything, stuff is going to be free, etc. In other words, everybody would be unemployed or nearly so. That's the talk when it comes to promoting sacrifice to those who have little to sacrifice. However, when other issues are considered, that wonderful AI future magically disappears and we are back to profit-motivated arguments from the economics of the 19th century. What would be the reason for these abrupt transformations?
- JohnFen 2mo ago
  True, but that's unavoidable. The population literally can't keep growing indefinitely, so that demographic shift in inevitable. It's just a question of when. The logical thing to do is to find ways to soften the impact of that shift, not to keep putting it off until it's actually a disaster.

by JohnFen 2mo ago

It's because the "natalists" are pushing the issue for political reasons. They've made it a culture war thing. A declining birthrate is actually a good thing, not a bad thing.

red-iron-pine 2mo ago

not if you want consumption -- and therefore, stock prices -- to go up if there is 100 million less people there is 100 million less people to sell an iPhone too

bigbadfeline 2mo ago
> not if you want consumption > if there is 100 million less people there is 100 million less people to sell an iPhone too You are contradicting yourself, what you call "consumption" isn't - it's profits going to a single entity. "Consumption" is number of iPhones per person, 100 million less people means less materials extracted, less pollution, less landfill garbage, more robots, less work hours, less demand, cheaper phones and more phones per person than 200 million would have.

ButlerianJihad 2mo ago

In and of itself, a smaller population ain't so bad. What's bad is the demographic shift and the bomb that goes off when there aren't enough young people working and producing to support the old people who need care and pensions. Shrinking families mean that there aren't enough children of elders to care for them directly, so those elders are leaning on welfare states, and mercenary caregivers, instead. It isn't working out.

bigbadfeline 2mo ago
> What's bad is the demographic shift and the bomb that goes off when there aren't enough young people working and producing to support the old people who need care and pensions. HN is full of promises of AI bonanza to come about any minute now. That's the reason we have to endure inflation, unemployment, wars of domination and what not. Musk claims we won't have to work at all, AI would do everything, stuff is going to be free, etc. In other words, everybody would be unemployed or nearly so. That's the talk when it comes to promoting sacrifice to those who have little to sacrifice. However, when other issues are considered, that wonderful AI future magically disappears and we are back to profit-motivated arguments from the economics of the 19th century. What would be the reason for these abrupt transformations?
JohnFen 2mo ago
True, but that's unavoidable. The population literally can't keep growing indefinitely, so that demographic shift in inevitable. It's just a question of when. The logical thing to do is to find ways to soften the impact of that shift, not to keep putting it off until it's actually a disaster.