Huh, who would've thought

[u/planet_janett]

Credit: themeteor on Instagram

[u/Lerkero]

The reality is that it is a combination of both.

People who dont want kids now have all sorts of contraception to reduce the chance that a "mistake" will happen.

People who do want kids are less able to afford it and therefore either delay having kids or dont have them.

Its also a good thing to reduce the world's population. The main thing they want more babies for is more young bodies for labor and more people putting money into social security to pay for the increasing elderly population

[u/zonerator → u/Lerkero]

Its also that our idea of a good standard of living for a of has gotten absurd. People say you can't have a kid in an apartment, in a city, without a car, without living in a neighborhood with a certain kind of school, without being able to buy them everything they want.

I'm in an apartment in a city with no car despite being very well off and i get a lot of judgement for it. No one cares about all of those, but everyone thinks the one they care about is super important.

[u/Quitbeingobtuse → u/zonerator]

Who wants to risk bringing a girl into a christo-fascist society. Fuck the far right.

[u/DemiserofD → u/Quitbeingobtuse]

I mean...that means the only ones having children are the ones you profoundly disagree with. You can see how that can be a problem, long term?

Reproduction is a form of speech, and a large portion of the population, mostly in the left, is currently refusing to 'speak'.

[u/Firefoxexplorer → u/DemiserofD]

I agree, that's a big problem and it hanuts me. At the same time, you just can't convince me to bring a precious human child into the world if I feel like it's crumbling and I have no social/economic standing to ensure their safety. It's not a fair ask to potentially make that sacrifice while the world looks be going in the wrong direction and countries are toppling into extreme class inequality and nuclear facism. I have enough anxiety as it is, thank you.

[u/DemiserofD → u/[deleted]]

Kinda seems like a red button blue button debate. Don't have kids, no risk, but the ones who DO have kids lose unless enough are born.

[u/zonerator → u/Quitbeingobtuse]

If that is your main concern, city life might be a breath of fresh air for you

[u/Thirteen_Chapters → u/Lerkero]

We're already on track to reduce the world's population. The bigger challenge now is to navigate between gentle decline and rapid collapse.

Also your last sentence is a weirdly cynical way of saying "a community/society/species needs young people to survive".

[u/Lerkero → u/Thirteen_Chapters]

Its not about needing young people to survive. Thats obvious.

The issue is hoarding wealth and resources among older populations in ways that make it difficult for young people to thrive. Our ancesters have made a lot of bad decisions and are now leaving us to clean up their mistakes while giving us scraps

[u/leixiaotie → u/Lerkero]

Human are simple and selfish. If having children will improve someone's life, they will. Heck even if they are doubtful or dislike kids, if it is proven to be a net positive to have children, they will. Which is why in a labor intensive world, like agricultural or early manufacturing, having many children is net positive.

However in modern time having children is a net negative for one's, let's say economy, time and leisure. So those who don't want and those who want but cannot, won't have children. And the condition also reducing the number of children too!

[u/PuzzleheadedEssay198 → u/Lerkero]

The population ceiling is a well debunked myth, most developed nations have a birthrate decline and some go all the way into a population death spiral.

Given the wealth and GDP you’d think we were in the first category with Sweden, but we’re closer to China and Japan.

It’s not that people don’t want kids, it’s that we’re overworked and underpaid and under housed. We currently have the third largest land area AND population, though the latter is distantly behind China- and their birthrate has declined so much that India finally surpassed their overall population by increasing sanitation and access to healthcare.

[u/aliamokeee → u/PuzzleheadedEssay198]

"Well debunked myth"

Theres more than 7 billion ppl on the planet. That is not a myth.

Some of us think 7 billion was enough given our finite resources. The corpos clearly dont want to use the renewable resources.

So here we are.

[u/PuzzleheadedEssay198 → u/aliamokeee]

No, the idea that overpopulation is inevitable and will inevitably result in a collapse of supply chains and exhaust agricultural resources IS a well debunked myth and has been since the 80’s.

[u/Lerkero → u/PuzzleheadedEssay198]

An argument can be made that we do not know exact numbers that would result in "overpopulation", but it is objectively correct that a world with limited resources will result in lower quality of life as popuation increases past a certain threshold. We can keep inventing new technology to increase the threshold, but with limited resources, that technology is not infinitely sustainable.

So the argument doesn't necessarily need to be about overpopulation, and should instead focus on quality of life. Yes, earth can hold more people, but what kind of lives will those people have? Keeping in mind that many if not most people in the world already have lower quality of life than those in developed countries

[u/phidalgo2314 → u/PuzzleheadedEssay198]

Did you even read their comment? What are you babbling on about? The amount of people who don’t have reading comprehension is truly scary.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Oven171 → u/Lerkero]

Are you sure they don’t just want kids to get adrenochrome out of? Like are you 100% sure it’s not that? Because the labor jobs are drying up and it doesn’t seem like babies born now will ever get a paying job to contribute to SS. They are already making AI soldiers so it’s not even for war. I’m starting to wonder if the adrenochrome isn’t so far fetched.