• morgan423@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you wanted the younger generation to continue producing workers for the capitalist machine, you should have made sure that potential parents had enough resources to actually maintain a family if they started one.

    But yeah, that would have slightly reduced quarterly profits, and we can’t have that kind of long-sightedness messing with the short-term returns of our shareholders.

  • TAG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    If only there were people in this world who would want to come to our country . Heck, we could set up a system where employers can post jobs that they have trouble filling and we could match up people outside country who can fill that need. Then, if those people turn out to be decent and moral, we can let them stay in the country permanently.

    It is too bad that everyone outside of the country is a foreigner who wants to steal jobs.

    • CIWS-30@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Immigrants help out in the short term, but then they and their children realize the same thing that people who already live here do: that wages are too low, and that rent and cost of living is too high to support children.

      Plus, corporations can use those immigrants to bust unions and keep wages down and rent prices up. Supply and demand, because we live in an oligrarchic dystopia that doesn’t have enough social safety nets to make sure that new workers coming in don’t sabotage the ones currently working.

      I’m the children of immigrants and hang around with the children of other immigrants, and we’re not having children ourselves, or ware waiting until increasingly later ages (minimum 30) because of how expensive it is to live, even without children. It only takes 1 generation to realize that new immigrants will just get stuck in the same rut that non-immigrants are already in.

      Adding more people just increases the power of corporations (the real government) to treat workers as disposable objects. It’s probably why corporate run governments don’t try to stabilize unstable regions, but rather prefer to exploit them until there’s a mass migration. More people to use for dangerous labor = more expendables that no one can afford to care about.

      • hydra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The very same reason NATO destroyed Libya’s infrastructure including water pipelines and plunged all their inhabitants back to the dark ages back in 2011, and now NATO countries are complaining they are getting full of immigrants. Maybe if they hadn’t commited war crimes there they would have stayed there. That waterway increased the country’s carrying capacity and destroying it could arguably be classified as genocide.

      • DulyNoted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, globalization is a bit of a trap. The short term gains are enticing but we’re just pushing off the inevitable.

        Plus, on a global scale, it’s just people moving around. In the short term it may benefit one country or another, but it’s just shuffling what we already have.

    • PenguinJuice@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then you’re just committing them to taking low paying jobs. Don’t you see what is going on? This is what happened after the black plague that ended feudalism. We need to stick to our guns and make them increase wages. Your argument to have immigration solve the baby crisis is EXACTLY what business owners want. They WANT to keep wages low with an infinite influx of people from poor countries because these immigrants won’t know they are getting fucked in the ass with low pay.

    • Dexies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean immigration exists in every western country, I dunno what you’re complaining about.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve started rolling my eyes at “Who decides?” prompts. Whether it’s judging people, interpreting laws, etc.

        PEOPLE. People process your grocery purchase at checkout, and verify you found everything okay. People determine whether the charge of murder is substantially proven and justified. People evaluate a person’s immigration application.

        This is not a brand new science. Fallible, sure. Imperfect, sure. Useless, absolutely not.

        • blueskiesoc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thank you for responding. My “who decides” comment was an unuseful shortand for what I wanted to express, which is that I don’t have much trust in our institutions to carry out the will of the people.

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My response to that clarification is the same as my first response. The institutions we use to represent our wills are made up of people, just like us. In the end, it comes down to distrust of other people; be it those you see as “Government people” or “Other side people”.

            If your problem with a new system is that you don’t trust the decisions made by other people, I think ultimately that is the real issue - and it can either be considered an issue with your own levels of trust, or issues with people’s trustworthiness. One way or another, society will rely on systems run by itself.

      • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        ‘Not a rapist, tax cheat, or murderer’ seems like a pretty low bar that most could manage to get over.

        • teuast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Which is itself fine, until you take into account the long and ongoing history of the way that immigrants, marginalized demographics, and particularly immigrants from marginalized groups are treated by our justice system, whether or not they’ve actually committed a serious crime or any crime at all.

  • lysistrata@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t think of any particular reason we need to replace the US population. It seems like we’ve done enough.

    • Sunrosa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      EXACTLY. The entire fucking world is overpopulated. This is like one of the only good things going on right now on a large scale.

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This isnt actually true.

        The surface area of just the land alone on Earth is more than enough to house every human alive right now. Its actually more than enough to house every human that ever lived since the dawn of human history on it with room to spare according to expert calculations. The global population didnt even hit 1 billion people until like 1800. Now, if you subtract out all the currently unlivable areas because of nuclear radiation and harsh weather and such, you’re still going to have enough land for every human alive right now to live comfortably.

        Its just that modern humans hate the idea of living so spread out, and apparently all want to be stacked into the same 10 miles of land. Also, governments charge money for land, they’re not giving that away for free.

        • neutronicturtle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Two things to consider:

          1. Humans need to eat. The land needed for agriculture already covers significant percentage of the habitable land. About half based on our world in data [1]. Yes most of this is due to livestock so this can be significantly reduced but still.

          2. Other species also need space to live. Even if you look at it in s strictly selfish fashion and disregard the right of other species to exist - we are part of the ecosystem so if it dies we die.

          [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

        • arefx@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t it take into account a lot more than just land though? Obviously the planet is huge but just because it could fit everyone doesn’t mean the Earth’s ecosystems would support it.

        • OriginalUsername@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The land’s not the problem though. Sustainable development is, and larger populations inevitably contribute to global warming, waste etc. The fact that cities only account for a small portion of land doesn’t change anything. They will continue to exist and are only manageable if the population is controlled

  • AnnaPlusPlus@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The part I don’t understand is why it’s important to hit the “replacement level”. Wouldn’t it be better for the planet if there were fewer people living on it and competing for resources?

    • seeCseas@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      but then the megacorporations can’t hit their iNfInItE gRoWtH and we can’t keep making the billionaires richer.

    • drkt@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be, but the economy was built on perpetual growth schemes.
      Don’t forget, the economy is here to be served by us, not the other way around!

      • Sahqon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The economy will crumble if we don’t get to replacement levels at least, but it will also crumble, along with everything else if we do. Only way out of this is to change the whole model before it crumbles. But that would mean the rich need to get (willingly) less rich, so I’m not holding out hope…

        • keeb420@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s plenty of poor people who’ve bought into the propaganda and refuse to sign on even if it’d help them.

    • AttackBunny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Ponzi scheme, that is American “social security” (I mean actual social security, but all the rest of the social services too), would collapse if there arent more poor people pumping money into, than are taking out of it. Instead of doing shit like taxing the fuck out of the rich, or AI/robots.

      But, yes, it would solve A LOT of the worlds problems if there were less people.

        • AttackBunny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How do you figure. If the workforce becomes by and large robotic, taxing the businesses, based on that, like you would humans, would work well enough. If not, then there needs to be some concession from businesses to pay the same or more as when humans were doing the jobs.

    • John937@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but our whole economy, and maybe even society itself is built on the requirement and assumption of growth.

      We steal tomorrow to pay for today.

      If we stop having enough people to grow, we will collapse under the requirements of our system until a new non-growth economy/society is formed from the ashes.

      I don’t think it will be possible to have a smooth transition to a non-growth or low-growth society since very few people will willingly sacrifice the amenities we pay with in debt, which is paid for by predicted growth.

      When that predicted growth goes negative, collectively, we will not be able to afford the things we want, and that will cause mass chaos and potentially even resource wars.

    • CIWS-30@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually, you’re right, and I think that lowered populations are a good thing. World needs quality people, not just quantity. A world filled with a smaller amount of environmentally conscious and responsible people is better than a world filled with a large amount of meat eating, gas guzzler driving jackasses that spend all their time being racist, while overconsuming everything and yelling and shooting at anyone who even suggests that maybe they should cut down on consumption.

  • Black AOC@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Shit, until the west falls, I’m staying rubber’d up and preferably, in the guts of other men rather than doing some shit that can accidentally saddle me with an 18-year money sink in a country that already wants my every last dollar; since that whole ‘reversible vasectomy’ thing sounds both too good to be true, and outside of my current capability for expenditure.

  • literallyacat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hoooooo boyyyy, just wait until the next few generations are up to bat for breeding more worker bees. Population’s gonna plummet :)

    • Skyrmir@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given the ability to automate production, its not really a bad thing for the population to decrease. Of course the process of decreasing and the sociatal adjustments are going to be… difficult.

  • sailsperson@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looking at the way things have been going for years (decades) now, giving someone a birth would be a huge disservice - they’ll inherit a simultaneously more globalized and divided world, a world with technology that has the potential to trivialize sharing knowledge and experience, which is instead use to drive up engagement for the sake of profits, effectively breeding hate groups and echo chambers, a world with economy consisting of bubbles and not-so-careful manipulations, leaving our offspring in a position few would probably envy. Oh, and there’s rapid climate change that is being ignored and actively accelerated by the people and other entities that are capable of doing anything about it.

    I know more than a few people who have never considered any of the above, and I’m sure many people here know such people as well, so it’s more than safe to say that whatever the humanity is facing in the near future, it’s nothing similar to extinction through lack of birth.

    The future seems really good for certain groups of people, but I doubt my kids could be a part of these groups, or even want to a part of these groups. Not that I would actively indoctrinate them, but I’d imagine that living with me through the years when they’re developing and shaping themselves is going to leave its mark regardless.

    Maybe I’ll regret that decision when it’s already too late, of course, but then again, this is not going to be a world-ending decision by no merit.

  • Domille@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That, and the planet cannot sustain our population with our current systems. Why have a kid when you know their future is doomed?

    • Navi1101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I forget where I heard this stat, but the Earth could support 12 billion people if resources were distributed equitably. But, alas, :gestures broadly:

    • DulyNoted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the funny thing to me about this. There’s a direct contradiction between the needs of capitalism and the needs of the planet. Infinite growth, overpopulation, it’s all grand for $$$

      The economy requires growth, but the actual planet requires less people. The only sustainable countries on earth right now are places like Japan, where the economy is crumbling due to the aging population.

      Really makes it clear that our artificial systems aren’t in sync with our actual needs.

  • query@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Replacement level shouldn’t be a goal when the population increases every year. At the very least house prices should be neutral or decreasing relative to wages, if you want more people than you’re already getting.