-
If we really thought about it, there will be a raising amount of people who don’t have a job and will not be able to get a job ever due to the decline in human labour needs, which lead to fewer jobs being offered globally which means that with fewer humans around there will be a higher chance for people to get a good job.
-
Humans consume resources, with less humans around there will be more resources for each humans and they will collectively consume less resources in total.
Yo that’s great! Less people.means more resources for everyone! More nature, less pollution, less density (which makes crime and such more noticeable)
…but it won’t make billionaire as many billions. Unacceptable!
Humans don’t have a modern economic or social model for what is about to happen to most of the developed Western world as well as Russia and China.
Having a smaller cohort of young people means less consumption, fewer children being born. Before you get your dander up screaming about how great that is for the environment. Just remember that fewer young people means the pace of technological change is likely to slow down, there will be fewer young people to support a larger elderly population which will likely mean higher taxes and yet fewer children.
Japan has been going through this process for years. However they were a single developed country in a sea of developed countries that had rising working aged populations. They offshored production to countries with labor pools and were able to position themselves very well because of that. That is not the scenario the rest of the developed world will face.
The world will likely be a very different place in 20 years. Nations historically held together with ethnic majorities that have passed the point of no return to repopulate may no longer exist in that span of time.
Population reduction is a problem for one reason, and that it’s a problem that capitalism can’t solve before populations revolt.
All economies, and every economic model is structured to do ONE thing and that is resource distribution. Money is the tool to grease the tracks, it makes the whole thing more efficient. If we are producing greater and greater levels of resources, but capitalism can’t get that spread out to the people who need it, then it’s clear as day capitalism has failed.
Like everything you’ve ever heard from a neoliberal; that line about capitalism being the greatest tool to to spread resources? Propaganda. It doesn’t pass the smell test. 2+2≠5. Being the most efficient system? Propaganda. The private insurance market, alone, demonstrates the exact opposite.
Corporatocracy demands growth at all costs, including human cost, including livability of societies, all will be sacrificed at the alter. Culture is lost, everything becomes the same repeating off ramps for 2000miles. And we’re told this is something to be proud of.
Why do we track income inequality? Because it’s a barometric pressure gauge on the middle class; when the middle class/petit bourgeoisie reaches boiling, the upper mid/lower upper - the voting class/bourgeois overthrows the ruling. Its the calling card of every revolution to ever have happened, anywhere, everywhere. We are in the midst of a changing of the guard now - hence the rise of fascism, funded by billionaires, who are scared of the peoples justice. Turns out, young people don’t like to pay their own way, pay for every minor aspect of raising children at a premium and then pay for their parents early retirements knowing they won’t get to retire, or buy a house, go in vacation, ever. All while being told everything is THEIR fault. You know what sounds better than being sacrificed at that alter? Killing everyone who has a hand in it. If your life is already _null, might as well take out those who decided that for you.
No one could’ve seen that coming
But there’s also another way forward, it’s just not promoted on the privately owned news, and that’s to get rid of rich people, manually distribute resources instead of relying on a mystical market to find a conscious. It’s absolutely bonkers to just have faith in a market. We have all this incredible tech and then when it comes to spreading it, maintaining it, or making society a better place to live, we abandon all that intelligence.
Humans don’t need a job to survive.
Humans consume resources, with less humans around there will be more resources for each humans and they will collectively consume less resources in total.
This is where you get it wrong, because you haven’t actually thought about how much more one human can consume compared to another, and the actual lived reality that households with children tend to consume less than childless households.
We’re not living subsistence lifestyles. There are many of us who travel for leisure by airplane, waste more food than is necessary to keep a person fed, throw away or consume more physical goods or energy than we need, create way more pollution, etc.
Rich societies tend to have fewer kids and consume way more resources and emit more pollution. The billions of people in Asia contribute less to our pollution than the comparably smaller population of Western Europe and North America. The relationship between population and environmental impact is broken because one rich Westerner can consume more than literally ten thousand poor Asians.
Households with kids tend to consume less!?
Say anything you want, i stopped listening after that nugget of stupid.
That’s funny, I noticed the implied “per person” in that statement because it is kind of obvious.
When the child develops a personality, I’ll buy that it counts as a person. You might as well include dogs as people, they are about as useful.
If two adults consume 20 amount of product, and the child consumed 5, then yes, per person the amount is less per individual. But when your talking about a thing that just sits there and consumes resources, yeah that’s disingenuous math. The child will eventually grow into an adult, but if we’re talking resources vs ability to provide, households with children will always consume more than without. Look at how fast those things go through diapers, and tell me the single couple is throwing that much trash away every week.
Yes but the countries expecting or experiencing population decline are high consumption countries, largely.
That’s my point. The correlation already runs the other way. As those countries start to see shrinking populations, they’ll also continue to consume greater amounts per capita, offsetting the population decrease.
China and South Korea are starting to shrink. Do we really believe that their pollution and resource consumption are going to go down in the next 10 years?
And it doesn’t really matter whether we’re talking causation in one direction or another, or a spurious correlation with some other confounding factors. The fact is, the highest consumption populations tend to have the lowest birth rates, and vice versa, so why would we expect dwindling births to reduce consumption?
Well if the goal is the fewest number of humans, all living good lives, with ecological impact low enough to not worsen the planet over time, we should be happy that the humans who are forecasted to not exist are of the variety that are high consumers/polluters.
This is not a eugenics comment. I’m not suggesting anyone is invalid or should be removed, but we are instead discussing births that simply don’t happen.
