• @GenderNeutralBro
    link
    English
    1242 months ago

    Does population decline worry you?

    I mean, it’s super important. The population of all of the places we love is shrinking. In 50 years, 30 years, you’ll have half as many people in places that you love. Society will collapse. We have to solve it. It’s very critical.

    Uhhh…what? There are a handful of countries with recent population decline, but most of the world is still growing even if growth rates are slowing. I’ve never seen any credible projections of catastrophic population decline.

        • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Replacement theory has a kernel of truth - more brown people are being born than white people.

          It’s just not in any way a problem. Let the brown people immigrate to white countries. Boom, population crisis solved.

    • @wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 months ago

      Yeah it’s a bit of a hyperbole, but the rate is what’s important. By the time we hit worldwide negative growth rates (which is projected to happen this century), it’s going to be way too late to have a discussion about whether or not that’s a good thing.

      • @nyan@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 months ago

        A good thing for some, a bad thing for others. Good for the environment, most likely. But we’re going to have to extensively reorganize the workforce.

        • @wahming@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 months ago

          Experts have generally agreed that any reduction in population size will come far too late to help with the current climate crisis. We’re either going to hit sustainability with our current population or die in the process.

          • @nyan@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            72 months ago

            While the climate crisis is a significant part of what ails the environment, it’s far from the only thing. Lowering the human population should mean reduced destruction of surviving animal habitats and populations, for instance. And the greater the genetic diversity in an animal population, the better its chances of adapting to external events like climate change become.

    • @Syn_Attck@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      In essence, when the growth rate slows to a certain point, people are dying faster than they’re being replaced, and the trend can only continue unless everyone starts having 10 kids.

      It’s a matter of job replacement. Maybe AI will partly help, or maybe we’ll open our borders so immigrants can come end masse and do all the jobs we don’t have enough people for, but unless extreme measures are taken once it gets to that point, civilization as we know it will collapse.

      I’m by no means pro-forced birth. But birth rate decline is a serious issue.

      The U.S. population grew at the slowest pace in history in 2021, according to census data released last week. That news sounds extreme, but it’s on trend. First came 2020, which saw one of the lowest U.S. population-growth rates ever. And now we have 2021 officially setting the all-time record.

      U.S. growth didn’t slowly fade away: It slipped, and slipped, and then fell off a cliff. The 2010s were already demographically stagnant; every year from 2011 to 2017, the U.S. grew by only 2 million people. In 2020, the U.S. grew by just 1.1 million. Last year, we added only 393,000 people.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/03/american-population-growth-rate-slow/629392/

      • @Red_October@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        242 months ago

        In essence, when the growth rate slows to a certain point, people are dying faster than they’re being replaced, and the trend can only continue unless everyone starts having 10 kids.

        Growth is growth. It’s not tracking only births, it’s tracking births against deaths. Population decline is people dying faster than they’re being replaced, but even “very slow growth” would still mean the population is increasing.

        • lad
          link
          fedilink
          English
          112 months ago

          There are countries that decline in population even though they try to offset it with immigration, Japan is ahead of everyone in that.

          But every time someone talks about the decline in population they usually aren’t afraid of people going extinct, they are afraid of working hands supply going low imo 🌚

      • @chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 months ago

        I’m by no means pro-forced birth. But birth rate decline is a serious issue.

        Yeah, it matters to capitalists who need an inexhaustible supply of exploitable workers.

        For regular folk, it’s not a problem.

        • @Syn_Attck@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -2
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          As long as you either have many tens of millions, or you don’t care about electricity, water, food, and you’re extremely physically isolated and/or hidden very well and armed to the teeth, it shouldn’t affect you much.

          For the rest of us it’s something to worry about. Infrastructure needs a lot of trained people to operate. Once the train gets going it doesn’t stop, and that means as time goes on it gets worse and worse until it reaches a point of stability some X years after collapse. And you won’t be able to freely and adaquetely hunt/pick your food if you’re anywhere near a city until point X, because everyone else will be doing the same. Also some idiots will be bathing in the only still good stream near you with whatever leftover chemicals they can find.

          Your country can open the immigration floodgates and become a country without borders (i.e. become whatever country is currently your neighbor) but that comes with similar problems listed above.

          So as you can see, it’s not an issue for a small privileged few. For the rest of us, its a big fucking deal. I would encourage you to look into it.

        • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -52 months ago

          Not really, it’s a matter of replacement. Plus we need a lot more people if we’re going to become a multi-planet species for survival. Nothing to do really with capitalism.

      • @Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 months ago

        If only there were people desperate for a better life here, alive now, perhaps in a neighboring country or even entire other continent bordering the states.

      • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 months ago

        but unless extreme measures are taken once it gets to that point, civilization as we know it will collapse.

        Population decline is a good thing. Raising a child requires more resources than caring for elderly. When the elderly die, that frees up even more land and resources for the next generation.

        The Black Plague caused the Renaissance. WW2 killed almost exclusively all the healthiest and most productive workers at the prime of their working lives. The result was the survivors experienced unprecedented wealth for a generation.

        When the population declines such that a person with a high school diploma can once again own a home and support a family of 4, the population will increase again.

        • @Syn_Attck@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I agree that a Phoenix will rise from the ashes, but make no mistake, there will be many ashes, you and I and most of us posting here likely included.

          But we are long overdue for a reset. Maybe this time we can just skip the internet infrastructure during rebuild, and develop near-peer networks instead.

          • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I don’t understand why you think there would be any ashes? Extreme population decline like the Black Plague or WW2 caused extreme wealth. Slow decline will cause a slow increase in wealth in the following generations. If we have half the people we only need half the goods manufactured which means half the people is fine. We had only 4 Billion people in 1980. It wasn’t a post apocalypse hellscape. So if we returned to 4 billion it would be fine.

            The only people who suffer from population decline whether it was the Plague or great wars are the wealthy because their livelihood comes from skimming a little from all the workers.

            • @Syn_Attck@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              ETA: The 4 billion people in the 80s was still growth. Infrastructure has been scaled up, and it will take a ton of work to scale down - work which we will be hard-pressed to find enough skilled laborers for. Also overpopulation isn’t the main driver behind climate change, overconsumption is. We are a society of consumers, we buy convenience, and evil corporations force planned obsolescence on us to make us buy more. Many of us will scoff at high-priced long-lasting items yet still buy a new iPhone every 3 years.

              If you reduce the population as fast as its decreasing now, lower than replacement rates, all modern conveniences including infrastructure and faith in the economy are going to take a hit. That includes the internet and hospitals and all internet-dependant companies. Public utilities like trash, shipping - we already saw how many products were discontinued and companies went out if business because of the inability to get parts, over a 6 month (at first) brief shortage of truck drivers, which is still recovering 4 years later. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until faith in the market completely collapses and we have a full-on crash, not just a recession. It’s been showing signs for years now, and things aren’t improving.

              Throw in experienced power plant operators, people that install and maintain pipes and lines, water treatment plants, public transit, the people that make parts for the machines that installs the infrastructure, the vehicles, etc. Everything you can think of will be affected, along with many things most people never think about.

              Immigration is a way to slow it down, but almost every country on Earth has falling birth rates at the moment. Immigrants coming from, say, Mexico and Canada to US will only delay the problem, and cause a larger problem for those allied countries we rely so much on.

              You can find pros and cons, and it’s been a while since I did heavy research into the subject, but my takeaway was that once we reach a certain point, mass deaths will start to occur, especially in population centers. Rural communities won’t be affected as much provided they have plenty of weapons and systems for defense, livestock, agriculture and close community. Knowledge will need to be retained - on disease, birth complications, fixing nuts and bolts technology, etc. Authoritarian countries who decide to force birth (whether by force or accommodations - see USSR support and metals for mothers with greater than X number of children) will become a serious threat.

              There are many variables and moving parts, but one thing is for certain: there will not be mass population decline without major hurt for everyone.

              • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                32 months ago

                It takes virtually nothing to scale down. Again see WW2. Millions of the best workers in Europe, Asia, and America were dead. No one needed to put in overtime to not grow wheat for the dead.

                If you reduce the population as fast as its decreasing now, lower than replacement rates, all modern conveniences including infrastructure

                I don’t want to keep saying it but WW2. The working population was decreased far faster than today. You don’t need extra factory workers to not produce iPhones.

                That includes the internet and hospitals and all internet-dependant companies.

                I ran a large internet company. You don’t need many people to serve millions of customers. If there were less people, there would be less equipment installed. Less customers means less employees needed. So service would not suffer. If anything it would improve. Because Internet servers/bandwidth is built with oversubscription built in. You don’t really have 100mbs service. It’s that peak usage for your local neighborhood is modeled such that as long as everyone isn’t using maximum bandwidth all the time, you have the illusion of 100mbs at any time. Reducing customers over time means that existing networks and servers could handle unusual loads without slowdowns.

                It’s the same with hospitals. You don’t need more doctors when you have less patients.

                business because of the inability to get parts,

                You don’t need parts because you have less people that want to buy your product.

                Throw in experienced power plant operators, people that install and maintain pipes and lines, water treatment plants, public transit

                When German and Japanese factories were bombed and the experienced operators were killed, someone else was trained and took their place the next day.

                As older people die, you get younger people to take their place. You don’t need population growth for that. If anything, population decline means the younger generation gets better training because there are more of experienced people giving the fewer younger people their knowledge. Instead of one teacher with 50 students it can be 1 teacher with 10 students.

                Population decline doesn’t mean tomorrow 99.9% of the entire planet suddenly disappears tomorrow. We have had far more rapid population declines in history and the results have always been overwhelming positive.

    • @GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      Replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman, and there are about 100 countries under that rate. Yes, their populations are still growing, but much of that is through extension of life expectancy and immigration (which requires a higher birth rate somewhere else, lest that other places start seeing shrinking population).

      It’s not an immediate crisis, but it is turning into a problem that should be addressed soon.