World population to shrink in 21st century amid birthrate fall: UN
World population to shrink in 21st century amid birthrate fall: UN
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The world population is expected to start shrinking within this century after hitting a peak in the mid-2080s due to lower fertility
The world population is expected to start shrinking within this century after hitting a peak in the mid-2080s due to lower fertility levels, particularly in China, according to the latest projection by the United Nations.
You're viewing a single thread.
Fucking good.
Seriously.
The only people with reason to be concerned is the ultra wealthy
At literally every point of modern history, a reduction in the amount of humans was beneficial for the vast amount of humans in the long run.
Like, even the Black Death led to reduced wealth inequality and the beginnings of workers rights.
When labor is scarce, workers get treated better. When there's a surplus of workers, people are desperate for a job and will work for little.pay in unsafe conditions.
There were riots during the Black Death too. Lots of bills and an overtaxed population lead to the Great Rising.
it's almost as if the capitalist system doesn't have our best interests at heart... who would have thought.
However, who replaces the aging workforce? Who pays for social security? Back in the 60s, it was a ratio of 6 workers per 1 retired. Now, it's 3:1. Soon, it'll be 2:1. That's bad. Very bad.
A smaller working population and a large inactive population create huge labour shortages which must be filled by migrant labour which creates additional problems.
One solution is enabling people to work for longer but this is challenging. Do we push the retirement age to 75? What about the declining health and abilities of ther population.
People are having children much later than normal. Births under the age of 20 have dropped 90% in the last 10 years. We are aging faster than we are replacing.
I was hoping productivity or efficiency would make up for it but looks like max we have gotten is about double efficiency. 1960 TEP is 66 on the scale and today 2022 and 2021 is 164-168. Meaning we are 100% more effective. So 2 workers are more like 4 workers in the 1960s. But it isn't the same as 6 to 1 ratio sadly
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/how-many-workers-support-one-social-security-retiree
Wtf. So instead of the rich eating the poor the poor should just eat the poor to improve the labor market in their favor?
Just don't breed like rabbits and stay away from religions and political parties that like to forbid anything that goes against popping out babies.
Can't believe we have someone getting so many up votes for saying that the black plague was a good thing? Would you say that about all the deaths during COVID? This upvoted edgelord callousness is nuts.
It's perhaps a bit callous but throughout history tragedy always brings change. Sometimes that's good change, sometimes it's bad, mostly it's a mix of both.
It's nuts (kinda sounds like Nazi speech to me) and it's also not really accurate.
Let's look at a metaphor with money:
My mom and dad work. They give me a little bit of money every day. One day they die and I get a chunk of money from their life insurance, but this amount isn't as much as if they'd stayed alive and had stayed working. Because they died, in 30 years my family's total net wealth will go down compared to the potential because my parents weren't able to contribute.
Now imagine that en masse. There is ABSOLUTELY a loss of money, progress, etc, etc, when people die prematurely. Let alone the human cost itself.
What about if people don't die prematurely, but the population isn't replaced? Because that's the scenario this article is talking about. Not additional deaths, but fewer births.
I take issue specifically with the verbiage the commenter was using regarding the black death and wars. And the idea that more people = bad working conditions; less people = good working conditions when that's not the case of what was happening (which was more something like an inheritance/windfall).
In the case of babies not being born in modern times, there are a few things to consider.
- One, that speech doesn't get weird and start advocating for a Handmaid's Tale Dystopia (forced repopulation for the sake of repopulation).
- Two, that likely poorer people and probably certain groups will be affected disproportionately by this which is the equivalent of a silent genocide or several silent genocides
- Three, that we acknowledge there are many sad factors at play as to why people aren't having children and those factors will likely get worse
- Four, that we acknowledge that AI could very well bridge the worker shortage gap for some time until climate change kills everyone
The pressure we are feeling is from climate change and the rich. Hoping that there will be less humans to give everyone a break is delusional, especially because the past HAD less humans and workers had shit rights then compared to now. We aren't getting saved by anything, not even if we die or sacrifice our would-be children to the sun god.
Well, that's all well and good, but that has little to do with anything the other person, or the article were talking about. It's all well and good to disagree that a reduced population will lead to more wealth equality, or that climate change or AI will derail these predictions, but accusing the other person of eugenics or genocide is hyperbolic at best.
Also, for the last century, the less educated have been disproportionately increasing the population, typically because people with less education are living in poorer countries, which leads to more child mortality, and children are basically the only retirement plan people had prior to the last century. Why you would think this would change is beyond me, because we still have no indication even today that the more educated or wealthy are interested in having more kids, outliers like Elon Musk and Nick Cannon notwithstanding.
What? First off, they brought it up first, so it has quite a bit to do with them. Second, I quoted the part that is the core of most genocidal beliefs including the Nazis: Believing people are better off when people are killed off.
Climate change is why this will change. It will disproportionately affect the poor and already has started. I already explained this. Get with the end times.
The reason the rich are doing that is because they believe they will need to repopulate the earth. People like Elon have very odd religious beliefs due to survivor bias.
If you strike and there's no scabs for them to hire or the scabs are even more expensive (because they aren't desperate for a job) then it becomes cheaper to actually give the workers what they want.
It is the opposite of the poor eating the poor. Being educated, having fewer kids later in life makes getting out of the poverty cycle a lot easier for anyone.
Did you read the comment I responded to saying that the black death was good because a lot people died and as a result created a better labor market? That's saying death is a good thing to cull surplus labor.
I think you're reading too much into what's not there. The poster is talking about how less people resulted in the improvement of labor conditions. In the past this has only happened noticeably through large scale death. The black death is probably the most drastic but similar has happened after both WWI and WWII. The difference is that the current labor supply reduction won't be from death but from reduced births. However, increased power of laborers should at least be similar whether the cause is through death or reduced births. China, Japan, and South Korea are experiencing/are going to experience this first without drastically increased immigration and the rest of the western world isn't far behind.
At literally every point of modern history, a reduction in the amount of humans was beneficial for the vast amount of humans in the long run.
Like, even the Black Death led to reduced wealth inequality and the beginnings of workers rights.
I don't see how someone can claim that the mass death of people is simultaneously beneficial to that people.
There's a difference in reduction of humans by events that cause death at large scale vs decline in rates of reproduction. Clearly catostrophic death is being used as an example of "a reduction in the amount of humans."
Large scale death events are the only reference we have for the type of population reduction that we are/will be seeing.
Labor supply being reduced while demand remains means that labor is stronger. Whether that supply reduction is due to death, population decline, or other causes is not really relevant.
Start with the rich and then move into each other. The rich have all the resources so eating them will free up vast amounts of wealth that will solve the problems of all of us. Food, housing, work; we live in a potentially scarcity free world - it's just the rich getting in the way.
A modest proposal in tough times.
Right? Lol wtf was I even reading before
reduction in the amount of humans was beneficial for the vast amount of humans in the long run.
This is literally Nazi speech. This is literally genocide rhetoric. Shame on you.
The Black Death lead to people literally dying. It wasn't beneficial in the long run at all. It killed millions. That's a lot of human data both in DNA terms and knowledge that died. That's a lot of inventions dead.
When workers must work for a capitalist, or a king, or a pharoah, and they lose their bargaining power, their conditions are bad. Not when there's "lots" of them. That's just the nature of humans being a social species, we are made for "lots" of us. As long as we are each empowered, then having people alive and thriving is no issue.
Yes we are, but with appropriate precautions.
But muh free revenue growth
The rich will cry though.
More than cry, they'll crash the market over their fears of less profit than last year, then they'll get government aide, and then we'll pay for it for the next decade until they do it again.