I mean… Castrating 75% of the population would certainly put a damper on our rapid population growth, which would be good for everything except humans.
Human population growth is already plateaued and in the most developed nations it’s already net negative. in order to sustain break-even (human) population levels, there must be no fewer than 2.1 offspring born, on average, per {gestational reproductive caste specimen}<irrespective of masculine or feminine configuration>.
The human population of South Korea’s last reported birthrate is 0.78.
In japan, 1.26.
In the united states, 1.66.
There will be so few able bodied humans extant to perform basic upkeep in 20 years that fundamental infrastructural systems will not JUST be crumbling to dust from sheer neglect as they are now, but actively self-destructing from sustained systemic cascade failure.
Hence, good for everything except humans. And the global population is still rising, though as you said developed countries are responsible for very little of that growth.
oh yeah no i was just agreeing with you on a ‘yes-and’ basis and stuff
the only reason any developed nation is population-positive right now is due to immigration – and now that america is cracking down on that… i wonder if we’ll actually see the population decrease soon.
There’s a reason Trump wants to give medals to women who have multiple kids, dangle a one-off shiny bauble as if that’ll offset the costs of having the kids.
Australia has been giving couples $5k for their first kid for the last couple of decades, hasn’t helped and our birth rate has dropped to 1.50.
There will be so few able bodied humans extant to perform basic upkeep in 20 years that fundamental infrastructural systems will not JUST be crumbling to dust from sheer neglect as they are now, but actively self-destructing from sustained systemic cascade failure.
Pretty doomerist of you. I’m honestly not concerned about declining populations. Better for the environment, and we’ll figure out the rest through straightforward economics.
I hope so too. One of the key problems you have is taking care of the elderly and infirm with less and less of the younger generation around. It’s a hard one to solve economically without being like “I guess just let them die”.
As the size of the working population declines, labor will reallocate itself from less necessary positions to more necessary ones. So the proportion of the population that would have worked at McDonalds, for example, would work in nursing homes instead.
You’re right and that’s exactly where the problem arises. We’re seeing projections in some places where the need for care workers of various types looks like it will be larger than that countries workforce can bear. I.e., at current levels, there wouldn’t be anyone to work at McDonald’s but then also not enough to work in more necessary roles, basic government, infrastructure, etc.
I could keep talking about this for awhile, you keep touching on good points. One thing that is kinda interesting is that there seems to maybe be a correlation between countries with the lowest birth rates and having a restrictive stance on immigration. Not sure we have actual causation, but we might be relying exclusively on technological improvements and I’m not sure we’re close enough yet for that to work out in time. South Korea might already be fucked.
No, I mean people choose jobs which pay money and are widely available. When jobs to care for the elderly pay well and are widely available relative to other, less necessary work, then people will respond by seeking those jobs. This may require additional training. That’s fine. People will get this training in search if the relatively higher wage. This is basic economics.
91.5% of men and 60.2% of women herein reported having consumed pornography in the past month.
I mean… Castrating 75% of the population would certainly put a damper on our rapid population growth, which would be good for everything except humans.
Human population growth is already plateaued and in the most developed nations it’s already net negative. in order to sustain break-even (human) population levels, there must be no fewer than 2.1 offspring born, on average, per {gestational reproductive caste specimen}<irrespective of masculine or feminine configuration>.
The human population of South Korea’s last reported birthrate is 0.78.
In japan, 1.26.
In the united states, 1.66.
There will be so few able bodied humans extant to perform basic upkeep in 20 years that fundamental infrastructural systems will not JUST be crumbling to dust from sheer neglect as they are now, but actively self-destructing from sustained systemic cascade failure.
Hence, good for everything except humans. And the global population is still rising, though as you said developed countries are responsible for very little of that growth.
oh yeah no i was just agreeing with you on a ‘yes-and’ basis and stuff
the only reason any developed nation is population-positive right now is due to immigration – and now that america is cracking down on that… i wonder if we’ll actually see the population decrease soon.
There’s a reason Trump wants to give medals to women who have multiple kids, dangle a one-off shiny bauble as if that’ll offset the costs of having the kids.
Australia has been giving couples $5k for their first kid for the last couple of decades, hasn’t helped and our birth rate has dropped to 1.50.
Pretty doomerist of you. I’m honestly not concerned about declining populations. Better for the environment, and we’ll figure out the rest through straightforward economics.
I hope so too. One of the key problems you have is taking care of the elderly and infirm with less and less of the younger generation around. It’s a hard one to solve economically without being like “I guess just let them die”.
As the size of the working population declines, labor will reallocate itself from less necessary positions to more necessary ones. So the proportion of the population that would have worked at McDonalds, for example, would work in nursing homes instead.
You’re right and that’s exactly where the problem arises. We’re seeing projections in some places where the need for care workers of various types looks like it will be larger than that countries workforce can bear. I.e., at current levels, there wouldn’t be anyone to work at McDonald’s but then also not enough to work in more necessary roles, basic government, infrastructure, etc.
Increased worker productivity via technology can also help here. Also, immigration.
I could keep talking about this for awhile, you keep touching on good points. One thing that is kinda interesting is that there seems to maybe be a correlation between countries with the lowest birth rates and having a restrictive stance on immigration. Not sure we have actual causation, but we might be relying exclusively on technological improvements and I’m not sure we’re close enough yet for that to work out in time. South Korea might already be fucked.
You think putting fries in a bag is the same as providing cafe to the elderly? This is some DOGE level planning.
…
No, I mean people choose jobs which pay money and are widely available. When jobs to care for the elderly pay well and are widely available relative to other, less necessary work, then people will respond by seeking those jobs. This may require additional training. That’s fine. People will get this training in search if the relatively higher wage. This is basic economics.