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

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by arrakark@10291998.xyz to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

16 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 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 38 points 1 week 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.

[-] SkyeStarfall 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 week 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 3 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 week ago

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

[-] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago

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

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 9 points 1 week 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 1 week 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.