In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
I’ve edited the post to aid in your comprehension.
And the problem very clearly is what does it say about our current social structures that when presented with the choice women choose not to have children? That is the problem.
After your correction, my interpretation is basically the same as yours.
Though I still don't think that anyone even implied that "women's empowerment is the problem". I certainly didn't. Your misandry seems to be causing to go infer things that were not meant.
Also, although I fully support women controlling their own bodies and making their own decisions, I still don't believe there is any problem to solve here. It's wonderful that women are using their empowerment to make the choice to have fewer children. You seem to not trust the women who have made that decision and want to change their minds.
You’re lowering my fertility right now, chillrob
I think I tend to agree with those who say that humans are doing fine and that we shouldn't worry too much
Japan is probably screwed but they'll import more Brazilians or something and figure it out.
But it makes sense that as people have more options in life that they'll choose to not have kids. Who really wants kids I didn't even want a dog. Now I have to figure out all the logistics of international travel with a dog and the costs involved. It's radically altering my life and it's just a dog I can't even imagine having a kid.
Also birth rates are still a two way street so it's not going to be appropriate to just say that women are having less kids. Males have to be involved as well.
It depends what you mean by choice, but low fertility rates aren’t everywhere. 112 countries (about half) have fertility rates higher than 2.0. The low global average is skewed by India and China being below that, far below in the latters case.
numbers are going down dramatically everywhere except where women don't go to high school or were religiosity is sky high.
and even there they are going down.
numbers are also lower basically everywhere than where they were at the same level of real per Capita GDP in the past so it's not only about "getting richer".
Mexico turkey Iran have a lower fertility rate than the USA had in the decade 2000-2010.
numbers are going down dramatically everywhere except where women don't go to high school or were religiosity is sky high.and even there they are going down.numbers are also lower basically everywhere than where they were at the same level of real per Capita GDP in the past so it's not only about "getting richer".Mexico turkey Iran have a lower fertility rate than the USA had i
Are you actually worried about this? If so, how do you think it could be fixed?
Less people is good
Could definitely use fewer Stannis Baratheon mfs.
how are you paying for pensions and healthcare of old people given the current system, if very few new people are born?
people who paid taxes for decades are worried they won't get their money back. People who like a cospicuous welfare state to exist to help elders are worried because it becomes impossible to have one.
people who think high public debt is a problem are worried because the short term (1 generation) solution to decreasing natality is doind even more deficit to cover the gap until the market doesn't loan you anymore.
People who own real assets and are rational, are worried because real assets would be worth far less with a lot less people around (hint: that's every single person who has savings).
People who want good economic conditions in general are worried because once the dybamic kicks in and companies know that 10 years from now their customer base will be smaller , they invest less IN THE PRESENT TIME, "bringing forward" recessions/stagnation -> see japan
People who care about rural , remote, iconic areas of a country to not be completly overcome by wilderness and still show a human presence are worried, again see japan.
Basically it's impossible not to be worried unless you truly and deeply hate humanity AND yourself
less people could be fine after a serious initial shock if the % of working age people after the reduction is >= than the current one.
Which for example is why we would have been more than fine even with 3, 5, or 10x the covid deaths we had (it's obvious how even if every single over80 on the planet died tomorrow, life would be better for everyone else).
But if you have 30% less people of which 60% less young people, it's a true horror
Instead of leaving it to the somewhat randomness of a virus I don’t know why you’re not advocating for total extermination of everyone of working age who doesn’t work.
Though of course youd be arguing for your own death.
less people could be fine after a serious initial shock if the % of working age people after the reduction is >= than the current one.Which for example is why we would have been more than fine even with 3, 5, or 10x the covid deaths we had (it's obvious how even if every single over80 on the planet died tomorrow, life would be better for everyone else).But if you have 30% less
Have you considered implementing death panels? I hear the conservatives are big fans 😀
nope i am considering trying to be consistent in estimation of the value of human life. And yes not having future lives is not different from present lives ending.
People who claim it is very important to protect current people alive (to the point that mandating hard sacrificies to others is correct) but then write that having fewer people around is good are in complete cognitive dissonance and intellectual denial.
So while chillrob is consistent , anyone who called covid deaths tragic cannot prefer a future with a lot fewer humans around *for any reason*
nope i am considering trying to be consistent in estimation of the value of human life. And yes not having future lives is not different from present lives ending.People who claim it is very important to protect current people alive (to the point that mandating hard sacrificies to others is correct) but then write that having fewer people around is good are in complete cognitiv
You can recognize or feel we're 'over-populated' particularly in and around cities without going all Logan's Run lol
You can recognize or feel we're 'over-populated' particularly in and around cities without going all Logan's Run lol
You can, but you still can't cheer if that changes UNLESS you were also hoping for as many covid deaths as possible, and against any attempt to minimize them, do you see why?
Future human lives could have a value but it might be a little bit less than current existing lives, not sure.
I just disagree that having less people is good. It could be instrumentally good in some cases, but it’s not intrinsically good.
You can, but you still can't cheer if that changes UNLESS you were also hoping for as many covid deaths as possible, and against any attempt to minimize them, do you see why?
Sure you can 😀 Because there are viable options that don't need a reduction in numbers to help address the "problem"
Future human lives could have a value but it might be a little bit less than current existing lives, not sure.
I just disagree that having less people is good. It could be instrumentally good in some cases, but it’s not intrinsically good.
It's almost impossible for less people to be good. It could be "still ok" under the working age pop. not decreasing idea, but it would still be worse.
Aside from the existence of economies of scale on the production side (which alone make it fairly impossible for life to be better in 5 billion people v 10 billion, as real unit production costs increase meaningfully), there are economies of scale in productivity of urban centers (doubling the population of a city increases productivity), because of how the postindustrial economy works and how proximity to money and ideas makes it easier to invent and so on.
Btw the idea that more people densely living close togheter increases productivity in the post industrial era is a well discussed topic in economic literature, so called "agglomeration economies".
Just implement UBI or whatever. This boogeyman of “less fertility” isn’t scary in the slightest. Society can adjust to whatever it needs to if we simply let go of the idea that the solution must be profitable. We can find the money for a million other things, surely we can find it for sustaining a lower population count.
It’s stupid to pretend that we NEED the population to stay at a magical number. This is the first decline we’ve seen in ages, **** off with the breeder scare tactics.
how are you paying for pensions and healthcare of old people given the current system, if very few new people are born?people who paid taxes for decades are worried they won't get their money back. People who like a cospicuous welfare state to exist to help elders are worried because it becomes impossible to have one.people who think high public debt is a problem are worried be
I only hate some of humanity, and definitely not myself, but even if population permanently decreases, it's going to be slow. Certainly no one is going to lose a noticeable amount on real estate during a single lifetime.
Rural remote areas being overcome by wilderness would be better for humanity. It would be great if even more people lived in the cities but instead of outer suburbs there were more forests and parks to visit without having to travel for many hours.
