• Zetta@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Why are you of that opinion? Something like 30% of Japan’s population is over 65. Low birth rates are obviously not sustainable for them and will have extreme issues for their country if it continues.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Low birth rates are obviously not sustainable

      Please explain why this is obvious. Less people seems more sustainable, not less.

      • Murple_27@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        You need people who can actually do work to take care of all the old people & sustain human society. “Less People” is not by-default “more sustainable” especially not if it happens all at once; that was in fact a huge problem with cyclical famines & political turmoil in the days before mechanized agriculture.

        If some asshole went around raiding hamlets for plunder, or whatever reason, yeah that would mean fewer mouths to feed in that particular area, but it also means fewer hands to bring food to harvest. Which means other regions have to contribute larger proportions of their own food-stock to sustain the needed intake of urban centers. Which means that they have less food to eat for themselves, and less to replant for the next harvest. Which pushes people on the margins of the the agricultural economy into banditry to sustain themselves, which causes us to return to the beginning of our story.

        Eventually this cycle of regional depopulation leading to productivity shortfalls, leading to further regional depopulation becomes self-reinforcing & before you know it you have a country-wide catastrophe on your hand & the total implosion of existing society.

        Now we aren’t dependent on mass manual agriculture these days, so famine specifically is an unlikely cause of cyclical societal collapse, but the modern world still requires that a shitload of manual physical labor get done in order to maintain the basic infrastructure that gets everything from where it is, to where it needs to be in order for us to all not die. If you don’t have people to fill those positions, then that’s work that needs to get done, that isn’t being done.

      • Zetta@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        The two biggest issues off the top of my head are rural towns in Japan will continue to lose population and completely disappear, and there won’t be enough young working people paying into health care and social funds to support the old non-working population. I think there are a lot of other major negative impacts Japan will face as a country but I’m just not that knowledgable on the subject.

        I assume we just have fundamentally different views on this topic because I really wish humanity would change to a more scientific and explorative approach entirely, where we expand outward into space and become a multi-planetary species, which will need a huge sustained population growth to support. I assume you don’t support that.

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          We need to inhabit at least one other plant on a continuous basis before we encourage exponential population growth.

          We are going to be resource constrained on this planet long before we expand to others.

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Old people can’t work and need someone to pay for their retirement.

        If there are more old people than young people (population pyramid wrong way round) every young person needs to pay a crapton of taxes so that old folks don’t starve to death

          • Murple_27@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            60 minutes ago

            Why should it?

            That’s asinine, you’re treating periphery countries like they’re glorified breeding-stock for the developed world’s work-force.

            Edit: To make my point more clear, the whole reason why developing nations have higher birthrates than developed ones is because they’re developing/underdeveloped. They lack access to contraceptives, and substantive access to women’s healthcare; and they also oftentimes have economies that still rely to some extent, or a large extent on non-mechanized smallholder, or subsistence agriculture. That, or they otherwise have social institutions that allow for, or require children to enter the workforce. This means that having children in those countries is often an economic boon to a family (because they can contribute to household incomes through work), and avoiding having them can be very difficult for women.

            If you solve their problem of being underdeveloped, & hyper-exploited (which you should be doing if you’re a “queermunist”), then that means that they are likely also going to be in a position where they have declining birthrates because there will no longer be an object material incentive to have children, and women who don’t want to would be able to prevent it.

            The idea of shoring up a declining population “through immigration” only works so long as you have an underdeveloped periphery of peoples who want to come flock to the West, or to developed nations in search of higher wages & a higher standard of living (or just avoiding Imperialist political meddling), rather than staying at home.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Okay, but then we can’t just frame the discussion as “increase birth rates or society collapses” because there’s a very obvious third option that they aren’t taking.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        It’s not obvious. Low birth rates are completely sustainable, you just kill anyone who can’t afford to retire and can’t work anymore, and society functions perfectly well.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            We also consume bullshit at 100 times the rate. People will be unhappy to see that go away. But yes, we produce more than enough for everyone as is.

        • DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          While the alternative is everyone who is unable to wotk is killed anyway by the apathy of the system?

          We are doing what you are describing already, in the system we currently live in.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            What? In the current system we pay retired people money based on past employment as well as just for living long enough, in most countries. Japan can no longer do that soon because without taxing their young to poverty, they just don’t have enough income to fund it.

      • Zetta@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        “Has almost made the planet uninhabitable” The Earth is definitely worse off since we have proliferated, but this is such a clickbaity untrue statement.

        Humanity has and will continue to cause changes to the world that are negative, I agree, and that sucks. But like it or not, humanity is good at adapting and surviving, and we will be fine, even with the worldwide population overall continuing to grow for a very long time into the future.

        • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          LoL. You think we’re gonna grow gills or something? How do you think we’ll adapt to food chain collapse?

          I’m sure that life will adapt in some form, but most life in the history of this planet has not been human. And we would not be this planet’s first mass extinction event.

        • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          This isn’t just about humans. We’re in a mass extinction period caused by humans. We need to lower our population to save other species

    • Daemon Silverstein@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      So the solution is to rip off souls from the non-existence aether, bring them to this ever-bizarre world in order to condemn them, like Sisyphus, to a lifetime pushing of a social boulder which is fated to always go downhill? (In other words, why the unborn should sustain the faults of an unsustainable society that weren’t their faults to begin with?)

      • Zetta@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        “Unsustainable Society” No matter your opinion on current governments, humanity has been around for an awful long time, and it will likely continue to be around for significantly longer into the future of the universe. In my opinion, that’s pretty cool.

        In the grand scheme of things, just looking back over the past couple hundred years, the vast majority of humanity is in a better spot than we were, no matter how bad things may seem on a small time scale.

        • Daemon Silverstein@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Yeah, global climate, carbon dioxide levels and even biodiversity are in a better spot nowadays than they were before, huh? That’s pretty cool! /s

          • Zetta@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            You definitely are right some things are worse, but I more so meant quality of life in almost every single aspect for people that are alive. No shit, there are atrocities across the world still and things locally suck in many ways to varying degrees for a significant portion of the population in the world. Either way you can’t argue I’m good faith that the average humans quality of life hasn’t gotten exponentially better over the past thousand years. And I think that trend will continue into the next thousand years.

    • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Infinite growth is unsustainable. A decreasing population will accelerate the collapse of capitalism, when the capitalists run out of cogs.

      • Zetta@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I just disagree on the infinite growth being unsustainable thing. Humanity, in my opinion, is destined to expand to the stars where we will continue to grow Indefinitely on a time scale that actually matters to you and me.

        Obviously, that could not happen if we somehow all die, but despite all the doom and gloom, I really don’t think that’s likely.