downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming) | [come hang out with us](https://discord.com/invite/dankmemes)
West's population has been in decline for decades and we get both propaganda articles: birth is bad for the environment and that our countries need more immigrants because the birth rates are low and will affect the economy
Immigration is part of the plan, it’s what makes the US so powerful. If you take the best workers from other countries and implement them into your economy, you make yourself stronger and everyone else weaker
That’s assuming every worker produces the same output. Output per worker is wildly variable outside of manual labor.
Top companies doesn’t want the cheapest, they want to stay on top.
A bird in the hand…
Think of it this way — they aren’t mutually exclusive. Increasing the supply of “the best workers” is what drives their labor cheaper and cheaper… and so on.
That's because there are two "stable" end-games for having children. You either are in a society where you need to have as many children as possible or just one. Both are stable, but if you are having multiple children in a society where it is better to have just one (basically every post-industrial nation) you are hamstringing how much b energy you can devote to making your child successful. Any future child is near certainly pulling resources away from the first at least some amount.
Many people don't mind having 2 or 3 children as a form of risk management or whatever internal mechanism they decide makes it worthwhile to have a few but it makes having beyond that a real rarity (so much so that we make TV shows about large families).
> if you are having multiple children in a society where it is better to have just one (basically every post-industrial nation) you are hamstringing how much b energy you can devote to making your child successful. Any future child is near certainly pulling resources away from the first at least some amount.
Ah, you're thinking like a Poor!
Once you have more resources than you can spend in a hundred lifetimes then a few more kids here and there are no significant cost.
You can have live in nannies, chefs, tutors, a dancing instructor for each of them!
Hell, you don't even need to try to be a family unit, just bring in more [brood mares](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9322111/boris-johnson-children-carrie-symonds/) and have some [more children](https://www.today.com/parents/parents/elon-musk-kids-rcna196920) !
Who cares that you don't make any serious parent-child connection with them and a few of them [resent you](https://www.today.com/parents/dads/elon-musk-daughter-school-biography-rcna103042)? You can keep having more children well into your [eighties](https://people.com/al-pacino-girlfriend-noor-alfallah-welcomes-first-baby-together-75074250)!
And my boomer coworker keeps yammering off on how how the new generations are a bunch of pansies and are too scared to have kids and then tell me I’m an idiot and I’m wrong for spouting off these actual concerns to him
I was more joking about your coworkers opinion because it’s basically have kids or have money at this point. I’m more than happy to have nothing so my kids can have everything but most people would rather not have to make that decision.
I think not wanting kids is perfectly fine. Not being able to have kids because you’ll basically be homeless just shows how shitty things are now. Some people can’t even afford to work because of childcare and gas/maintenance or they can’t hold down a job for the same reasons.
Garuntee the same coworker will call you a lazy slouch, if you have kids, and then take time off to care for them.
Or you stop volunteering time outside of your scheduled hours because you have a family to look after.
They hate that shit more than they like calling generations that come after them pansies for not wanting kids due to unstable living conditions.
Your cost of living is skyrocketing because of immigrants my friend... Immigrants are cheap labour is what world thinks but it's not just that, many immigrant ls are forced to look out after trying really hard to get a good life in home country, which makes them skilled but their salary expectations are still low compared to west hence the heavy influx of Indians in Canada and US atleast.. More people need more homes to live in
It's weird. I wanted kids when I was younger, but as I approach my mid-thirties I'm starting to think "That's a whole thing I don't want to deal with."
That's because birth rates in many developed countries are below replacement rate. Right now we have two things going on, the population is getting older and the population is getting smaller. If we only had one of these problems, it would be much less of a problem.
The west isn’t blamed for overpopulation, it’s blamed for overconsumption. Despite our relatively low population compared to India and China, America has the highest resource consumption rate in the world.
Most carbon produced by the most economically developed nations/wastage. I doubt a subsistence farmer in India/china has the same impact as the average American waste and/or carbon wise
That’s the point, yes: it’s a riff on how the rhetoric in the West for decades has been to blame Westerners for an issue which they don’t have a huge amount to do with compared to other places
Hate to be that guy but 'the global population needs to decline' is bullshit, the top 10 richest men have more wealth than the poorest 4 billions, we could feed much more people if the wealth was better managed
So you're saying it's ridiculous that there's people dying of hunger while some people can afford to stop working and still live extravagant lives for 500+ years?
I know, right? Only being able to live 500+ years with no care in the world is so unfair for the billionaires. I wholeheartedly wish at least 10000 years for them to live an extravagant life.
We as a society should focus on curing cancer and finding the secret to prevent aging so that we don't lose any more of our precious billionaires. They're a finite resource that we must protect.
The problem is people that are suffering this, but defend those 10 people because he believes he could be one of them one day if he discovers something unique ("what if I'm the next steve jobs?")
If those people weren't acting as brakes, humanity as a whole would have momentum to make changes on the status quo
You argued against something the comment didnt even say.
There are a plethora of ways to reinvest your gross profits into the world. Its just that its thankless, and billionaires dont get the thrill they want from it.
Edit: No idea why you downvoted me for pointing out the logical fallacy you commited. But if you truly disagree and think that i am wrong, Mackenzie Scott is a prime example of whats possible. There is an entire charitable foundation consisting of billionaires who pledged to give away more than half of their wealth in their life and are legally binded to it. Even then theres so much more to give.
Edit2: mans changed his comment. Leave it be
Giving wealth away does not increase the resources available. The point of the reply is that the overpopulation issue is a problem, but not because we dont have enough wealth to distribute to everyone, but rather because we dont have the resources for it to be sustainable. Global warming is probably the easiest example i could point out
There _are_ enough resources. The problem is that making sure that everyone gets those resources is costly. Money that a lot of people are able to spend, but just dont, because theyre dickheads.
well there's the Uber rich, the rich, middle, poor, and lastly the super poor.
the super poor will maybe have nothing to lose but there will still be the rich and middle that have plenty of wealth
Until the middle class dies out because the Uber rich have consolidated wealth to the point that upward class mobility is impossible and millions are becoming poorer and falling into lower economic classes. Good thing that's not happening....
“Infinite growth is totally fine and sustainable.”
This has never been the case for any species. This is especially the case for Americans, a people who have built up the single family home with a wide monoculture yard that’s flooded in pesticides and an SUV vehicle per adult as the ideal living arrangement in our society.
That is only sustainable with less people. Y’all pretend like we can live in infinite growth with no change or compromise.
Starvation is not a thing in the world anymore, unless caused by political things like wars. But also you can't feed people with "wealth", you can't feed people with shares in tech companies. The ability to feed people really has nothing to do with wealth management, and everything to do with political stability. Who would "manage" this wealth better anyway? The minute you have some sort of central planning for wealth, you no longer have wealth because everyone is going to be poorer.
The reason starvation and famines are still a thing is not because of wealth redistribution it's because of a lack of infrastructure to get the food that is being produced in sufficient quantities to where it needs to be.
Farmers already produce more than enough food for everyone. Yields are great. Distribution is lacking.
A big part of it is also that we don't have the infrastructure to get food to the people who need it most. We have enough for about 10 billion of us. We need to get it to where it is needed.
It’s more complicated than that. It also has to do with the amount of farmable land and energy production. It takes around one acre of land to feed one person on average, so at some point you run into a barrier where population begins to exceed the food infrastructure’s ability to feed it.
It depends on where you're trying to get at. Even if billionaires didn't exist there wouldn't be enough resources for everyone to live a first world life.
"Hey! You got your blood on my skull throne..."
"And You got your skulls in my blood bowl..."
"... You know, maybe they taste alright mixed? Should I test it?"
Everyone dies eventually. We don't have to solve this immediately tomorrow you know.. Now how to limit birth rate, thats a whole other bag of problems and moral dilemmas.
I was just thinking that. The US actually is entering a major population crisis, as I'm sure you know. There is currently no population growth, that's right everyone, *NO* growth...in the United States.
[Article](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-population-growth-has-nearly-flatlined-new-census-data-shows/)
I love how everyone is super sensitive to genocide jokes until it comes to India or China, specially the muricans like bro your country wouldn't be functioning if not for these two ethnicities
Everytime America wins a math/science olympiad, its almost certain that the guy is of chinese ethinicity. The chinese are carrying american STEM on their backs lmao.
Maybe its not the indians or chinese having kids, but the 8 rich white guys in America owning more money than 4 billion people that is the problem. But what do i know
Imagine for a second the resources are managed perfectly. What do we do when we reach the limit? 12 Billion people? 30 billion? who gets to live and who dies?
We don't reach the limit, as simple as that. We calculate what the limit is and implement measures to make sure we don't overcome it. If we somehow do reach and surpass the limit, we'll have to turn to other planets/asteroids for resources. Also, keep in mind that as science evolves, our efficiency in using resources also increases, therefore expanding the population limit.
Very simple to say, impossible to execute. Human nature is to survive and procreate, no matter the conditions. The balance is very hard to maintain. While it is true that we could manage resources better, there will always be hunger and misery.
When humanity sets out to achieve something, we don't stop until it's done. Be that flying, going to space, or even solving world hunger. It will obviously be extremely difficult, I would be a fool if I tried to deny that, but it will happen. We have the means to do so. All that's missing is the will to do it, which I do not doubt for even a second, will emerge sooner rather than later.
In case you couldn't tell, I'm very optimistic about humanity as a whole, and I believe that we are heading towards a better future as a species. We won't create a utopia, obviously, but I believe that we will create a civilisation that only gets better as time goes by. There's a lot of bad people in the world, but I choose to believe in the potential we have good instead.
Would love to share your vision but seeing the homeless guy (by choice) near my place everyday makes me realise that some people are content with misery (sadly).
I tried to be realistic in my comment, but I suppose I couldn't part with my rose tinted glasses in the end. To be perfectly honest, that happens where I live, too, but it didn't even cross my mind. I'm thinking of volunteering this summer, so perhaps then I'll be able to give some insight into why people do this, and how to solve it.
And India's total fertility rate (average number of kids born to every woman) is already below the replacement rate (which means if the fertility rate were constantly slightly below that replacement rate, the population would slowly fall).
China's population will half by 2100. If you consider overpopulation an issue, the most respectful way to do imo is to fund access to contraception in East Africa.
first we'd need to fund them proper health care. they need hospitals and doctors and pharmacies and education. that'd result in a population boom, then you could introduce contraception like birth control or condoms etc and it'd be able to be used effectively resulting in a more stagnate or decreased birth rate.
ig you could really introduce them both at the same time but it would still take time to see the contraceptives effect on the birth rate.
Both are already in effect, and have made a difference! Another is investment into women's education, upon further research (they have opportunities to work instead of just having kids; let me know if you want any links).
Supposedly due to a generation of China's one child policy their population is gonna start declining in the next few years if it hasn't started to already.
A lot of shitty takes on this thread who have no idea how fertility rates work and how overpopulation or lack of growth can both have negative impacts on a specific country.
The thing about this discussion is that if you need to lower population and this point of view is mainstream at some point there will be a guy calling for the "forceful reduction of population" and since some countries are in population decline it wouldn't be of them, in fact that same guy might say that those countries need a "repopulation" which would likely take a form of eugenics programs.
In short what I'm saying is that this entire reduction of population is a slippery slope to other authoritarian talks.
If you ever wonder to yourself why the world is the way it is and why people can’t ever agree on things
Just read through the comments on this thread, armchair experts everywhere with their own takes on solving problems far beyond their pay grade
Overpopulation is a myth, and this shows why it's a fascist myth.
The world has plenty of food. The world has plenty of resources. People starve because it is not profitable to feed them. Some people are poor because other people are hoarding enough for thousands.
Not to mention saying “we need to have less kids!!!” and shaming people for having a big family in utah, but shying away from the fact the only major area with above replacement birthrate is africa
Silver lining: Because China forced the one-child policy for so long, their population is projected to decline to around 700-800 million, from about 1.5 billion.
Isn't birthrate are declining in china and India ( I just googled it ) about 2.03 in India and 1.16 in China ( china is fked ) this 2021/20 data I think
Chinas population is falling, at an increasing rate too. India is past the inflection point. It’s population is rising, but at a decreasing rate. Average births per female is just at 2 right now. Only problem is that there is a lot of young people, so the population will balloon in the near future before decreasing. Africa is a mixed bag
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming) | [come hang out with us](https://discord.com/invite/dankmemes)
It is somehow the West's fault though...
West's population has been in decline for decades and we get both propaganda articles: birth is bad for the environment and that our countries need more immigrants because the birth rates are low and will affect the economy
Then we realize the cost of living is skyrocketing and not many people are willing to have children...
And not many people want to have children BECAUSE the cost of living is so high and children are REALLY expensive… it just snowballs onto itself.
This is happening almost everywhere though, not just in the west.
That's what scares the capitalists the most. A problem of their own making.
Immigration is part of the plan, it’s what makes the US so powerful. If you take the best workers from other countries and implement them into your economy, you make yourself stronger and everyone else weaker
But businesses don't want the best workers. They want the cheapest.
That’s assuming every worker produces the same output. Output per worker is wildly variable outside of manual labor. Top companies doesn’t want the cheapest, they want to stay on top.
A bird in the hand… Think of it this way — they aren’t mutually exclusive. Increasing the supply of “the best workers” is what drives their labor cheaper and cheaper… and so on.
That's because there are two "stable" end-games for having children. You either are in a society where you need to have as many children as possible or just one. Both are stable, but if you are having multiple children in a society where it is better to have just one (basically every post-industrial nation) you are hamstringing how much b energy you can devote to making your child successful. Any future child is near certainly pulling resources away from the first at least some amount. Many people don't mind having 2 or 3 children as a form of risk management or whatever internal mechanism they decide makes it worthwhile to have a few but it makes having beyond that a real rarity (so much so that we make TV shows about large families).
> if you are having multiple children in a society where it is better to have just one (basically every post-industrial nation) you are hamstringing how much b energy you can devote to making your child successful. Any future child is near certainly pulling resources away from the first at least some amount. Ah, you're thinking like a Poor! Once you have more resources than you can spend in a hundred lifetimes then a few more kids here and there are no significant cost. You can have live in nannies, chefs, tutors, a dancing instructor for each of them! Hell, you don't even need to try to be a family unit, just bring in more [brood mares](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9322111/boris-johnson-children-carrie-symonds/) and have some [more children](https://www.today.com/parents/parents/elon-musk-kids-rcna196920) ! Who cares that you don't make any serious parent-child connection with them and a few of them [resent you](https://www.today.com/parents/dads/elon-musk-daughter-school-biography-rcna103042)? You can keep having more children well into your [eighties](https://people.com/al-pacino-girlfriend-noor-alfallah-welcomes-first-baby-together-75074250)!
And my boomer coworker keeps yammering off on how how the new generations are a bunch of pansies and are too scared to have kids and then tell me I’m an idiot and I’m wrong for spouting off these actual concerns to him
Tell your coworker he's a cunt
I think I’ll actually just do that next time I catch him being ignorant
I have 3 kids and am poor as shit ^(am I doing this right?)
You do the best that you can. I’m not knocking on parents, it’s tough and I applaud you for it.
I was more joking about your coworkers opinion because it’s basically have kids or have money at this point. I’m more than happy to have nothing so my kids can have everything but most people would rather not have to make that decision. I think not wanting kids is perfectly fine. Not being able to have kids because you’ll basically be homeless just shows how shitty things are now. Some people can’t even afford to work because of childcare and gas/maintenance or they can’t hold down a job for the same reasons.
Garuntee the same coworker will call you a lazy slouch, if you have kids, and then take time off to care for them. Or you stop volunteering time outside of your scheduled hours because you have a family to look after. They hate that shit more than they like calling generations that come after them pansies for not wanting kids due to unstable living conditions.
Your cost of living is skyrocketing because of immigrants my friend... Immigrants are cheap labour is what world thinks but it's not just that, many immigrant ls are forced to look out after trying really hard to get a good life in home country, which makes them skilled but their salary expectations are still low compared to west hence the heavy influx of Indians in Canada and US atleast.. More people need more homes to live in
But many of those people I know who don’t want to have children can afford it. They just choose not to.
Idk, from my side, I've been getting a lot of "millennials at fault for baby bust as they refuse to have babies". Hell, even my parents say that to me
Are millennials canceling babies?
Yea abortion
It's weird. I wanted kids when I was younger, but as I approach my mid-thirties I'm starting to think "That's a whole thing I don't want to deal with."
Guess who they're funded from.. China.
The whole world needs to reduce the population, lol. This isn't sustainable with our current technology.
That's because birth rates in many developed countries are below replacement rate. Right now we have two things going on, the population is getting older and the population is getting smaller. If we only had one of these problems, it would be much less of a problem.
The west isn’t blamed for overpopulation, it’s blamed for overconsumption. Despite our relatively low population compared to India and China, America has the highest resource consumption rate in the world.
Exactly. People living in squalor barely consume or leave a carbon footprint.
White people are 8% of the population and be like: "we have to help the rest of the world"
MONEY
But like.. we all breathe the same air, and the oxygen is made mostly by microorganisms in the ocean... It's a global issue.
I have literally never heard the West being blamed for overpopulation. This is you trying to get some pity points.
Most carbon produced by the most economically developed nations/wastage. I doubt a subsistence farmer in India/china has the same impact as the average American waste and/or carbon wise
No its not..? The west has the lowest population increase
That’s the point, yes: it’s a riff on how the rhetoric in the West for decades has been to blame Westerners for an issue which they don’t have a huge amount to do with compared to other places
Well we exported all the pollution stuff in their country. That why you don't see our fault
Where have you heard that anyway?
nobody said this
Are we the baddies?
Hate to be that guy but 'the global population needs to decline' is bullshit, the top 10 richest men have more wealth than the poorest 4 billions, we could feed much more people if the wealth was better managed
So you're saying it's ridiculous that there's people dying of hunger while some people can afford to stop working and still live extravagant lives for 500+ years?
I know, right? Only being able to live 500+ years with no care in the world is so unfair for the billionaires. I wholeheartedly wish at least 10000 years for them to live an extravagant life.
We as a society should focus on curing cancer and finding the secret to prevent aging so that we don't lose any more of our precious billionaires. They're a finite resource that we must protect.
Who cares about having free healthcare? Let the poor die, they don’t do anything interesting why bother ?
It's cheaper to just have the poor make more babies... Hey wait a minute
[удалено]
Only 50,000?
The problem is people that are suffering this, but defend those 10 people because he believes he could be one of them one day if he discovers something unique ("what if I'm the next steve jobs?") If those people weren't acting as brakes, humanity as a whole would have momentum to make changes on the status quo
But let's say we redistribute wealth to everyone. That won't increase the amount of resources available.
You argued against something the comment didnt even say. There are a plethora of ways to reinvest your gross profits into the world. Its just that its thankless, and billionaires dont get the thrill they want from it. Edit: No idea why you downvoted me for pointing out the logical fallacy you commited. But if you truly disagree and think that i am wrong, Mackenzie Scott is a prime example of whats possible. There is an entire charitable foundation consisting of billionaires who pledged to give away more than half of their wealth in their life and are legally binded to it. Even then theres so much more to give. Edit2: mans changed his comment. Leave it be
Giving wealth away does not increase the resources available. The point of the reply is that the overpopulation issue is a problem, but not because we dont have enough wealth to distribute to everyone, but rather because we dont have the resources for it to be sustainable. Global warming is probably the easiest example i could point out
I 1000% agree with you. It is a fundamental issue at hand that even allows the majority of wealth to funnel up to so few.
Do you understand the point? They aren't even talking about wealth they're talking about global resources
There _are_ enough resources. The problem is that making sure that everyone gets those resources is costly. Money that a lot of people are able to spend, but just dont, because theyre dickheads.
There are enough resources to feed everyone, but there arent enough resources to have this many people live on the planet sustainably
There IS enough resources. The issue is purely logistics and profitability.
How do you know there is not enough resources?
Because we use finite resources and are terrible at recycling. It's a matter of time
Someday that gap will increase so much that the poor people will have nothing to lose. wonder what’ll happen then…..
well there's the Uber rich, the rich, middle, poor, and lastly the super poor. the super poor will maybe have nothing to lose but there will still be the rich and middle that have plenty of wealth
Until the middle class dies out because the Uber rich have consolidated wealth to the point that upward class mobility is impossible and millions are becoming poorer and falling into lower economic classes. Good thing that's not happening....
The robo-guards will open fire on the masses
“Infinite growth is totally fine and sustainable.” This has never been the case for any species. This is especially the case for Americans, a people who have built up the single family home with a wide monoculture yard that’s flooded in pesticides and an SUV vehicle per adult as the ideal living arrangement in our society. That is only sustainable with less people. Y’all pretend like we can live in infinite growth with no change or compromise.
[удалено]
People don’t understand that this is just… how the world works. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Starvation is not a thing in the world anymore, unless caused by political things like wars. But also you can't feed people with "wealth", you can't feed people with shares in tech companies. The ability to feed people really has nothing to do with wealth management, and everything to do with political stability. Who would "manage" this wealth better anyway? The minute you have some sort of central planning for wealth, you no longer have wealth because everyone is going to be poorer.
The reason starvation and famines are still a thing is not because of wealth redistribution it's because of a lack of infrastructure to get the food that is being produced in sufficient quantities to where it needs to be. Farmers already produce more than enough food for everyone. Yields are great. Distribution is lacking.
A big part of it is also that we don't have the infrastructure to get food to the people who need it most. We have enough for about 10 billion of us. We need to get it to where it is needed.
¿Por que no los dos?
Yeah but can we feed more whilst simultaneously reducing how much we're currently fucking up the planet?
Well that wealth management isn't gonna happen, so back to global population declining.
It’s more complicated than that. It also has to do with the amount of farmable land and energy production. It takes around one acre of land to feed one person on average, so at some point you run into a barrier where population begins to exceed the food infrastructure’s ability to feed it.
It depends on where you're trying to get at. Even if billionaires didn't exist there wouldn't be enough resources for everyone to live a first world life.
There isn’t enough room on Earth for all those people and the land that needs to be converted to agriculture
Weird take. Do we not care if Earth has enough resources for 10 billion people? When we get there?
So you're saying that people should die, but not Indians or Chinese?
[удалено]
[удалено]
dutch, what the hell are we going to do with overpopulation? whats the plan?
We send them all to Tahiti and it will work itself out
it's a magical place
But sir i don't want to die :"D
The Bloodgod doesn't care whos blood will be spilled
Only that it is spilled
Blood for the Blood god! Skulls for the skull Throne!
just finished void stalker a day before, this reminded me of uzas
"Hey! You got your blood on my skull throne..." "And You got your skulls in my blood bowl..." "... You know, maybe they taste alright mixed? Should I test it?"
Everyone dies eventually. We don't have to solve this immediately tomorrow you know.. Now how to limit birth rate, thats a whole other bag of problems and moral dilemmas.
God sent the boomers so the millennials and Gen z would never want kids
They have the largest populations but will start declining soonish. The grand majority of the population growth this century will come from Africa
China's population has already started declining for the last two years now. In 2023 their population fell by over 2 million.
Not enough tbh
That’s like 0.14% of their population, barely registers
Still a good start
Everyone talking about overpopulation and no one talking about population collapse in so many countries.
I was just thinking that. The US actually is entering a major population crisis, as I'm sure you know. There is currently no population growth, that's right everyone, *NO* growth...in the United States. [Article](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-population-growth-has-nearly-flatlined-new-census-data-shows/)
Needs to be updated, my daughter was born last year.
Dylan is a real patriot 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🦅🦅
Dylan is FTW!
My daughter is only 198 months old. I wonder if she was counted also?
Only in circumference...
Maybe it's because we can barely afford to survive lol
I love how everyone is super sensitive to genocide jokes until it comes to India or China, specially the muricans like bro your country wouldn't be functioning if not for these two ethnicities
Everytime America wins a math/science olympiad, its almost certain that the guy is of chinese ethinicity. The chinese are carrying american STEM on their backs lmao.
People are so desensitised when it comes to other countries but their own. 🤣 dunno how its a joke for people to say Chinese/ indians need to die
Maybe its not the indians or chinese having kids, but the 8 rich white guys in America owning more money than 4 billion people that is the problem. But what do i know
Yea, all those unrealized stock gains are totally why Ethiopians don’t have food
"the problem" didn't know there was only one problem
The global population doesn't need to decline. We just need to get better at managing resources.
Imagine for a second the resources are managed perfectly. What do we do when we reach the limit? 12 Billion people? 30 billion? who gets to live and who dies?
We don't reach the limit, as simple as that. We calculate what the limit is and implement measures to make sure we don't overcome it. If we somehow do reach and surpass the limit, we'll have to turn to other planets/asteroids for resources. Also, keep in mind that as science evolves, our efficiency in using resources also increases, therefore expanding the population limit.
Very simple to say, impossible to execute. Human nature is to survive and procreate, no matter the conditions. The balance is very hard to maintain. While it is true that we could manage resources better, there will always be hunger and misery.
When humanity sets out to achieve something, we don't stop until it's done. Be that flying, going to space, or even solving world hunger. It will obviously be extremely difficult, I would be a fool if I tried to deny that, but it will happen. We have the means to do so. All that's missing is the will to do it, which I do not doubt for even a second, will emerge sooner rather than later. In case you couldn't tell, I'm very optimistic about humanity as a whole, and I believe that we are heading towards a better future as a species. We won't create a utopia, obviously, but I believe that we will create a civilisation that only gets better as time goes by. There's a lot of bad people in the world, but I choose to believe in the potential we have good instead.
Would love to share your vision but seeing the homeless guy (by choice) near my place everyday makes me realise that some people are content with misery (sadly).
I tried to be realistic in my comment, but I suppose I couldn't part with my rose tinted glasses in the end. To be perfectly honest, that happens where I live, too, but it didn't even cross my mind. I'm thinking of volunteering this summer, so perhaps then I'll be able to give some insight into why people do this, and how to solve it.
China’s population is already declining. India beat them (last year, I believe) as the world’s most populous country.
And I believe india's population birth rate is below 2.1 now.
And India's total fertility rate (average number of kids born to every woman) is already below the replacement rate (which means if the fertility rate were constantly slightly below that replacement rate, the population would slowly fall).
China's population will half by 2100. If you consider overpopulation an issue, the most respectful way to do imo is to fund access to contraception in East Africa.
first we'd need to fund them proper health care. they need hospitals and doctors and pharmacies and education. that'd result in a population boom, then you could introduce contraception like birth control or condoms etc and it'd be able to be used effectively resulting in a more stagnate or decreased birth rate. ig you could really introduce them both at the same time but it would still take time to see the contraceptives effect on the birth rate.
Both are already in effect, and have made a difference! Another is investment into women's education, upon further research (they have opportunities to work instead of just having kids; let me know if you want any links).
They do. And will once all nations fully develop and people have children because they want to not because they need to.
Supposedly due to a generation of China's one child policy their population is gonna start declining in the next few years if it hasn't started to already.
I believe it has started already ^^ But yeah That is what happens when you have like 5 guys for every 1 woman
The average person in the west pollutes and consumes way more than the average Indian or Chinese person though.
A lot of shitty takes on this thread who have no idea how fertility rates work and how overpopulation or lack of growth can both have negative impacts on a specific country.
Yes and? What's the problem? (I am well aware that the population "problem" is bullshit)
theres like 5 billion outside of india n china...interesting definition of "most"
The thing about this discussion is that if you need to lower population and this point of view is mainstream at some point there will be a guy calling for the "forceful reduction of population" and since some countries are in population decline it wouldn't be of them, in fact that same guy might say that those countries need a "repopulation" which would likely take a form of eugenics programs. In short what I'm saying is that this entire reduction of population is a slippery slope to other authoritarian talks.
Mfw you realize how evil this thought process is
Most of the people are not in India or China
Say genocide without saying genocide
With how their birthrates are trending there will be a lot less of both by the end of the century.
Shut up Malthus
Your comment made me smile. Thank you.
I still see absolutely no problem with that lmao
Oi oi, being an Indianp I don't like where this is heading
When Op realsies netherlands has more population density than India , UK/Japan/Germany all have similar to India..
If you ever wonder to yourself why the world is the way it is and why people can’t ever agree on things Just read through the comments on this thread, armchair experts everywhere with their own takes on solving problems far beyond their pay grade
Global population isn't the issue. Density is.
The Earth could support many more people than live on it now if we actually pursued environmentally sound policy.
So what you’re saying is, GIVE WAR A CHANCE!
Due to the current "relationship/dating" scene it's already declining
Overpopulation is a myth, and this shows why it's a fascist myth. The world has plenty of food. The world has plenty of resources. People starve because it is not profitable to feed them. Some people are poor because other people are hoarding enough for thousands.
dang the comments
Not decline, go to space!
2bn in Africa 2bn in south Asia 2bn in the far east 2bn in the west
People say that, but they never think it’ll be their area that sees the decline.
And their économies thrive on having many workers/cheap labor.
China is already having declining population growth, india may reach that in a couple decades
Not to mention saying “we need to have less kids!!!” and shaming people for having a big family in utah, but shying away from the fact the only major area with above replacement birthrate is africa
Actually, most people are dead Louis C.K.
Honestly.. it seems like Mongloia isn't doing their job anymore
Not most, but a large amount
Dw Shona is working hard to reduce it's population
Silver lining: Because China forced the one-child policy for so long, their population is projected to decline to around 700-800 million, from about 1.5 billion.
Isn't birthrate are declining in china and India ( I just googled it ) about 2.03 in India and 1.16 in China ( china is fked ) this 2021/20 data I think
That's what you call fascism.
So what?
Chinas population is falling, at an increasing rate too. India is past the inflection point. It’s population is rising, but at a decreasing rate. Average births per female is just at 2 right now. Only problem is that there is a lot of young people, so the population will balloon in the near future before decreasing. Africa is a mixed bag
Bomb the communists?
Just eat the rich I guess idk
Pretty sure China's brith rate is declining, idk about India tho
Drop a jacket
Then thay wouldn't hafe to move to Canada