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.

top 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 37 points 2 weeks ago

Apparently endless growth is a good thing. How the planet is supposed to continue to provide and survive a continuous expansion of Homo sapiens is beyond me. The only way out is to decrease population growth and refactor the world economy away from endless growth.

[-] Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 2 weeks ago

Apparently endless growth is a good thing.

It's the smell!

[-] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Really, we should just work towards keeping the world population stable and bring everyone out of poverty

Not that we have to try particularly hard, the population is stabilizing off by itself

We're 8 billion people on the planet, we aren't running out anytime soon

[-] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 7 points 2 weeks ago

The sad part is that a technological society built ethically might be sustainable however we’ve blown it with run away climate change.

[-] BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

Agreed. Feels like grief whenever I think about it knowing the current trajectory, to be honest.

[-] 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.

[-] rcbrk@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

When i'm 90, wheel me out to the orchard and I'll watch the chickens. If you give me a stick i'll wave it to scare the parrots off the apples.

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

Grandad, for the last time - those aren't parrots, they're people, and that's not a stick you're holding it's a rifle

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

When I'm 90 give me a ton of heroin and I will put myself in a dumpster before administering an intentional overdose.

[-] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

If you raise a family they can take care of you when you get old.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

No thanks.

[-] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If it becomes universal and is irreversible, then yes it would be a bad thing. The issue with the wild life annihilation is that it is occurring in the poorest parts of the world. What do we do to stop them? Invade, order them to just stay poor? Import the world's poorest into the wealthiest countries? Mass sterilization of the poor? All of those sound fascist AF.

[-] dontgooglefinderscult 12 points 2 weeks ago

Offer education, contraception, and healthcare universally, regardless of border. This would tank the birthrate in a non fascist way, which is an objectively good thing. This weird procapitalist idea that we need or should want or really could sustain 8+ billion apex predators is ridiculous. In no ecosystem is that sustainable, even if the predators are smart enough to stop directly predating in other animals.

We should genuinely be striving for the least number of people that still allows the highest quality of life, with a further constraint being the lowest impact to the rest of the environment. Make no mistake, everyone regardless of immutable or even mutable status should be allowed to have kids if they want, but we shouldn't want or need to frame it as something essential to continue continuity of wage labor.

[-] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 weeks ago

I just wonder how much of the high quality of life in the west is built on plentiful cheap labor in the rest of the world.

[-] rcbrk@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

The plentiful cheap wild-harvested berries Finland prides itself for.

[-] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago

Jesus, even Finland is being caught using slave labor. It feels like modern moral values are built on lies.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

There is no ethical consumption while living a capitalist way of life.

[-] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

Most of it. If your electronic gizmos were made in the US, they would be luxury items instead of everyday tools.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 9 points 2 weeks ago

It's good. And the decision to have (or not have) kids is one of the few forms of power that the general population has over those in charge. If people are being squeezed out financially or have no hope for the future (e.g. environmental collapse), they may choose to opt out of reproduction.

[-] sibachian@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

It probably doesn't hold up. The idea of overpopulation is wrong because the west is suffering a birth crisis while the third world is having a child boom. It's not that more children are being born, it's that their standards are being improved so more of them survive. They in turn will level out and see less children born the better their standards become; so it's reasonable to assume if standards are collapsing in the west, then in a generation or so, more children will be born.