The global fertility crisis: are fewer babies a good or a bad thing? Experts are divided (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by arrakark@10291998.xyz to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's interesting how different countries are dealing and are effected by the declining worldwide birth rates. The most astounding statistic to me is that wildlife populations have dropped +70% over the past 50 years. Frankly, if humans think that we are in the right to drop wildlife populations by such a staggering amount, a slight drop in human populations only seems like a fair way to balance the scales.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 weeks ago

It's bad for the 1% and good for everyone else including wildlife, nature and the planet.

[-] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

as I see both fewer and more is bad. more is bad because of overpopulation, but fewer is also bad because of how the pension system works at most places

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

If those pension investments come crashing down, the government will just have to roll out a new pension scheme not tied to money. E.g. mandatory social duty where all young and able people work in rotas to take care of 1 to 2 elderly people per month.

[-] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

that sounds interesting, but in this idea would those people have to pay for the expenses of the eldely? in my understanding the problem is not that the elderly wouldn't be able to take care for themselves generally, but that they wouldn't be able to pay for things they need or want.