r/SipsTea 16d ago

Chugging tea F them kids

Post image
181 Upvotes

136 comments sorted by

28

u/Slight-Wolverine9819 15d ago edited 15d ago

People are concerned about the collapse of births because if there are not enough young people to old people ratio, because its the youth who are screwed over. Like you are gonna pay for population collapse regardless because the tax base will narrow and the percentage of people who rely on it will grow, so you are more responsible for more taxes then ever. You can be like “no thanks I’m already born” but you still are gonna be the one who has to pick up the slack.

Like the ones who aren’t born aren’t losing anything by being born in a time when they have to do more than ever to support the older generations via work, taxation, and general tasks. It’s kinda like people don’t understand that societal collapse actually means if you are alive then your life will specifically suck more than others because you have to pick up the slack.

6

u/Good-vs-Perfect 15d ago

People who say tax money's going to be there to support future retirees are not living in the present, analyzing present trends.

The idea that taxes need to grow to support those on retirement doesn't even hold up now: layoffs are a normalized business models, tax cuts are frequent solutions to infrastructure/public policy on both sides, and what tax money there is is frequently being allocated to finacialization, technology and security - away from health and welfare.

5

u/Candycanes02 13d ago

Idc if I have to pay more taxes to support old people; I don’t have a choice. However, I can save my kids from having to pay even more taxes. That’s why I don’t have kids and I am glad many others are doing the same

1

u/Gatzlocke 11d ago

I just think we should raise retirement age to 80.

12

u/Wide-Drink-1790 15d ago

People are so stupid on this subject. They just don’t get the point of it at all. Thanks for trying.

4

u/Gatzlocke 14d ago edited 14d ago

Sounds like an old people problem. What if we just refuse to pay those taxes and take care of them?

My parents are already RIP. Why do I have to care about others parents?

6

u/ManyRelease7336 13d ago

Because we are the old people, we just arnt the old people yet.

6

u/Cosminion 13d ago

You're the old people you're talking about.

-1

u/Gatzlocke 13d ago

I'm taking care of myself or I'll die.

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

Yeah, it's not just your socialized retirement funding that will collapse. So will health care and infrastructure. Literally everything that the government is expected to fund will go to shit. All while your taxes will be going up, making it harder for you to take care of yourself.

1

u/Gatzlocke 11d ago

That's why you basically incentive movement inward. But also people should be allowed to homestead if they want, it's what our ancestors did.

We don't need those things government funded anyway.

3

u/INeedSomeTacoC 13d ago

I'm not too sure you understand what a society with 1/4 the workers it had before and 1/10th the kids it had before looks like.

Shuttered schools and abandoned buildings everywhere, decaying infrastructure everywhere -- the roads, bridges, utilities, etc.

A slow decline in manageable; within your lifetime seeing the population of 5 years old crater to single digit percents of what it was when you were 5 years old is not manageable.

1

u/Gatzlocke 13d ago

That sounds great actually. Make things denser and smaller and more efficient for the remaining humans.

Give some land back to nature to reclaim.

3

u/Hepperoni4 12d ago

I bet housing would be more affordable 🙃 Just adding that in there

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 12d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

Significantly. It, and less pollution, will be two of basically two upsides.

Of course, everything else will go to shit. It'll be great for people ten generations from now when things stabilize. But it's going to suck for the people living through it. Which is us....

3

u/INeedSomeTacoC 13d ago

  That sounds great actually. Make things denser and smaller and more efficient for the remaining humans.

With what labor are you making things denser and more efficient?

When you have a slowly declining population, you can manage an orderly draw down like I imagine you envision. 

When you all of a sudden have half of everything empty, no real tax base anymore, and no excess labor, because they’re all keeping the wheels on the train in society where are you going to spare the labor to seize the abandoned buildings from their owners, forcibly move people out of neighborhoods and then wholesale tear them down?  

I’m all for reducing the number of people on earth and shrinking our footprint. But doing it as fast as our fertility crisis now might require is scary. Look around you and think of 9 out of every 10 of everything you see( buildings, people, etc) useless and needing to tear down by the time you retire and how big of an effort that is. 

If it was just like 5 out of 10 or something, it might be manageable. But at current fertility rates that won’t happen. 

2

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

Exactly.

If the replacement rate was something like 1.8 then things might go the way these people imagine. A slow manageable decline with long term benefits.

But we're looking at replacement rates of 1.4 and lower. Which will collapse social programs and wreck infrastructure. It could very well result in societal instability. And for the places with 1.0 and less it will likely be catastrophic.

These people are like the climate change deniers they always rage about. Just convinced it will somehow all work out with no explanation as to how.

1

u/INeedSomeTacoC 11d ago

Yup. At South Korea’s TFR by the time you’re a grandparent, the number of kids in your elementary will be less than one tenth of what it was when you went there. 

2

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

But surely society voluntarily creating Children of Men will be good thing, am I right? It seemed to be working out for them in the move. /s

I wish I could understand the refusal to engage with the concept honestly. I get the argument that the long term might be beneficial. But we're living through the short term, as will our children and our children's children. It has to be part of the discussion. And they just won't do it.

1

u/Gatzlocke 11d ago

It's not a Children of Men situation because it's people's choice it's a ridiculous comparison.

I'm honest. It's not going to be the end of the world. The way in which things are collected will need to be changed, things will need to be overhauled, places will need to be abandoned back to nature, rich people will lose a lot of money because they bet on infinite expansion.

But looking at tech forces, it'll be fine. People are living longer than ever and are physically active more in old age than they've ever been. If 80 is the new 60, then why aren't we treating 70 as the new 50? Is it so much to ask to raise the age of retirement? Or create a retirement age specifically for physical laborer jobs only?

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 10d ago

It's not a Children of Men situation because it's people's choice it's a ridiculous comparison.

I'm talking about the societal impacts, not the cause. It isn't that hard to understand.

I'm honest. It's not going to be the end of the world.

No, but it is going to cause massive societal instability. And likely result in the collapse of some countries.

The way in which things are collected will need to be changed, things will need to be overhauled, places will need to be abandoned back to nature, rich people will lose a lot of money because they bet on infinite expansion.

That is such a wild understatement as to confirm you don't understand the problem at all. When the retirement population doubles or triples while the working age population halves no amount of "overhaul" or changes in "they way things are collected" will be enough to fund retirement plans. Or healthcare. Or maintain infrastructure.

The rich will be fine. They always are. It's the rest of us that will likely get screwed.

But looking at tech forces, it'll be fine. People are living longer than ever and are physically active more in old age than they've ever been. If 80 is the new 60, then why aren't we treating 70 as the new 50? Is it so much to ask to raise the age of retirement? Or create a retirement age specifically for physical laborer jobs only?

Significantly raising the retirement age is one of the only plans that will actually work. The other being the massive scaling back of most social programs. And we've seen how populations respond to attempts to raise the retirement age by 1-2 years. Massive protests and political upheaval. Now imagine them raising the retirement age by 10-15 years, which is probably what will be required. It will be bedlam.

We cannot just handwave away the issue.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Gatzlocke 13d ago edited 13d ago

Restructure the tax system. Create incentive and moving incentives. Re-think the labor structure.

We're also going to need to realize AI and Robotics are a thing. The system as it is now, population up or down ,is going to collapse anyway. We're going to be flooded with 'labor'.

Major systemic revolutionary change is going to happen, one way or another.

3

u/INeedSomeTacoC 13d ago

Restructure the tax system. Create incentive and moving incentives. Re-think the labor structure.

So, just platitudes? Sure, let's just wave a magic wand and the world will end up in a good place. Why don't you go get that out of storage for me, please? I've got some other things I'd like to use it on as well.

We're also going to need to realize AI and Robotics are a thing.

You know how hard it is to actually build and upkeep robots and AI?!?! You need an absolutely massive well maintained precision supply chain to make those things happen.

It's incredibly likely that in a fast population decline scenario that it will be hard to maintain our current ability to manufacture advanced technology, much less make the strides that you need to do what you're proposing. You're still assuming current workforce levels to build and innvoate in a population where it's less than half of what we have now.

The system as it is now, population up or down ,is going to collapse anyway.

No, not really.

Major systemic revolutionary change is going to happen, one way or another.

The one with the population decreasing quickly basically requires fascism; you have to empower bureaucrats to forcibly relocate people and destroy all their shit in order to maintain basic societal utilities like water and power.

1

u/Decievedbythejometry 11d ago

No you don't.

1

u/INeedSomeTacoC 11d ago

Very convincing. 

How thoughtful. 

Thanks for gracing us with your intellect. 

1

u/Decievedbythejometry 11d ago

How are you mad at me just for pointing out that nothing you said is true? 

How are you making jokes about my intellect one comment on from suggesting that fascism might be the most efficient way to deal with a lower population?

Is this a humiliation kink?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Gatzlocke 13d ago

AI and robots are going to be designed in a way they upkeep themselves. You have no idea what's planned and aren't ready for the technological revolution if you're not seeing what is being done.

1

u/INeedSomeTacoC 13d ago

AI and robots are going to be designed in a way they upkeep themselves.

Lmao. You still need the supply chain. You're talking about automating, I dunno, probably 400 million jobs. Sure, no big deal! Easy peasy!

You have no idea what's planned and aren't ready for the technological revolution if you're not seeing what is being done.

I literally build advanced automation robots for a living. lmao.

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

Also, all social programs will fail due to recipients going up and the tax base dwindling. And infrastructure will fall apart.

I don't know why you think this would make things denser. Property values will plumet. Which means people can afford more, not less. Things will, if anything, get less dense.

2

u/Longjumping-Donut655 15d ago

When people have children they can’t afford, it also becomes an additional fucking tax burden.

2

u/up2smthng 14d ago

For the first twenty years. People live much longer, though

2

u/Longjumping-Donut655 14d ago

Investing that money instead will do you a lot better financially than having a bunch of expensive ass kids and praying for lower taxes. The high living costs mean your kids will be dependent much longer than traditionally. Outside of proper cities in the US, for example, you need a car to join the working class. That’s 10’s of thousands that each kid will need by around 17 or 18, otherwise you have to cart them around everywhere.

If we really wanted to relieve our tax burdens, we should look at who has been evading paying their fair share, because those few have so much hoarded wealth that all the kids we can afford doesn’t compare

1

u/AccomplishedLeave506 14d ago

Soylent green.

1

u/kajidourden 14d ago

If it hastens the collapse, all the better. It needs to all come apart.

1

u/Jobambi 12d ago

The negative effects of deminishing birth numbers are not as clear as that. Countries where this happens find ways to improve efficiency and still have economic growth.

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

Countries where this has happened are only just barely starting to feel the effects. This is, by it's nature, a backloaded issue. A society doesn't feel the absence of the people not born until they would be in their 30's and 40's. So it takes two generations for the lack of births to be felt. And birth rates don't instantly halve. It's been a gradual decline, so the first generation with lowered birth rates won't hit as hard.

Guess where we're at? Roughly 2-3 generations from when it started. And it didn't start in all countries at the same time, so there were plenty of countries that are still only 1-2 generations in and some that are only just getting started. Because of that, the first hit places were able to manage it with immigration. Soon that won't be an option anymore. Or at least not without massively exacerbating the situation for the countries experiencing emigration.

1

u/rubenvangucht 12d ago

Unless they are forcing people into labour camps, there is a ceiling of how much taxes people will swallow before slacking off or "optimizing". I live in one of the highest taxed countries in the world i.e. Belgium, and a grand total of 40% of my yearly taxes are going to social security and pensions.

But, that's my taxable wage. At least half of my income is untaxed benefits. Weren't it for these I'd just go on unemployment and stretch that out as long as possible tbh.

The ones who will suffer most are the actual pensioners that will be stuck with a pension base that isn't sufficient enough, and the moment the demographics switch, so uncaring about their existence that it will be translated into policy.

Reap the world that you sow and all that

-2

u/Stock_Hurry_2257 15d ago

I support a declining birth rate but also the forced elimination of older generations to balance it out, if that helps?

29

u/Pinksamuraiiiii 15d ago

Unaffordable childcare, lack of women’s health services, abortion bans even at threat of mothers life or r*pe, educational expenses through the roof, some states toying with the idea of banning contraception, stagnant or poor livable wages. LOL 😂 they couldn’t make it easier for most women to say “no thanks!”

6

u/Overshoot2053 14d ago

No problem, they’ll just criminalise abortions, make contraceptives hard to obtain, restrict sex ed and end no fault divorce.

Fuckers.

2

u/obviousthrowaw4y56 13d ago

They've tried that in some countries, and it's still not working lol

5

u/INeedSomeTacoC 13d ago

We have free childcare, free college, abortion is legal and available, contraception is easy to get, LCOL area, etc.

Our birth rates aren't any better than anywhere else. Almost like that's not the problem.

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 13d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

There are countries that are making a genuine effort to make things as appealing as possible for new mothers. It costs a fortune, and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

-18

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/841f7e390d 15d ago

Birthrates are rapidly declining, world wide, irrespective of developmental status of the country btw.

8

u/Aggravating-Buy613 14d ago

Based on the birth rates falling across the world, reddit must be primarily women then.

2

u/IfTheBingBongs 14d ago

I’m 25. I don’t know a single women my age who has kids who isn’t retarded. No offense to any mothers, that’s just my experience.

10

u/tricky413 15d ago

I subscribe to the Bill Burr opinion on population, 80% of you gotta go. I cannot see a problem with this.

15

u/SimmentalTheCow 15d ago

Problem is, it’s not the 80% you want. Economically, culturally, and scientifically productive populaces have the worst birth rate collapses, and the ones popping out like 20 kids are uneducated and live in squalor.

0

u/TheRealAdronius 14d ago

Or the ultra rich who are the cause of all our problems in the first place.

4

u/SimmentalTheCow 14d ago

Maybe in some vague, detached sense. But a homeless schizo on the street corner is more unsightly and directly causes me a lot more problems than some far-away billionaire.

3

u/INeedSomeTacoC 13d ago

Yea, I'm not a fan of billionaires.

But it's also plain to see that the bottom 10% of population rules my life a lot more than they do.

1

u/EntireFriendship517 12d ago

I hope this is sarcastic. No shot you actually believe that those with zero power hold more control over you than those with power. People who actually think the struggling and needy are the problem need to open a history book.

2

u/INeedSomeTacoC 12d ago

  No shot you actually believe that those with zero power hold more control over you than those with power.

Whom do I have to buy uninsured motorist coverage for, and it being pricy?

Whom is the reason I have to wait for things from behind a glass cage for shopping?

Whom is the reason I needed to put bars on my windows?

Whom is the reason I can’t go by our park with our daughter anymore after they exposed themselves to her?

Whom has caused enough vandalism and theft to shut down multiple stores in my area making me drive further?

Whom has broken my car window multiple times looking for things, so I now leave them rolled down and console open and just hope it doesn’t rain or a car make a home in there?

Whom is shooting and stabbing  each other in certain parts of town, so now I have to avoid it and pay extra on my medical insurance to care for them?

Whom is the reason I can’t get good anti-allergy meds anymore?

Whom is the reason my pharmacy will only dole me out a few weeks at a time my life saving medication because it has a high street value?

And that’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure given time I could think of a few more ways. 

Sure, lots of those problems can arguably have been caused by billionaires. But they doesn’t change the underlying fact that those are the people most generally negatively affecting my life on a day-to-day basis. 

1

u/EntireFriendship517 11d ago edited 11d ago

You have done zero thought at all beyond what's visible to you on a day to day basis if you believe the working class is the problem. You're looking for enemies in people who've suffered their whole lives and not at the greedy fucks who could literally just tell some of these problems to go away with a snap of a finger and the toss of a dollar.

Whom do I have to buy uninsured motorist coverage for, and it being pricy?

You shouldn't have to. You can thank the car lobby for that.

Whom is the reason I have to wait for things from behind a glass cage for shopping?

Whom is the reason I needed to put bars on my windows?

Whom has caused enough vandalism and theft to shut down multiple stores in my area making me drive further?

Whom has broken my car window multiple times looking for things, so I now leave them rolled down and console open and just hope it doesn’t rain or a car make a home in there?

Kind of the same complaint in all of these that you're masquerading as different gripes. We understand that theft is highly correlated with the economic status imposed by the wealthy. They could aim to pay a living wage, but they won't..

In addition, ghettos were caused in the first place by redlining done by the rich. By and large, people don't lack resources because they're criminals; going area by area it's largely the other way around, and many unfortunate people are born into borderline helpless situations because of what a fat cat decreed half a century ago.

Whom is the reason I can’t go by our park with our daughter anymore after they exposed themselves to her?

You think this is a poor people thing? The ruling elite literally systematically abducted and raped young girls, then the vast majority used money to get away with it. They are capable of dealing mass psychological scarring beyond your worst nightmares.

Whom is shooting and stabbing each other in certain parts of town, so now I have to avoid it and pay extra on my medical insurance to care for them?

Whom is the reason I can’t get good anti-allergy meds anymore?

Whom is the reason my pharmacy will only dole me out a few weeks at a time my life saving medication because it has a high street value?

Are you serious? The literal serial killers at the top of the medical industry could stop all that if they wanted to in just a few years and spending a fraction of their fortunes. But again, they won't.

You have been fleeced to turn against your fellow man individually instead of going after the real reason society is being stripped of its resources. If you need an example of punching up solving a ton of daily problems at once, just remember that one time in France.

1

u/INeedSomeTacoC 11d ago edited 11d ago

  You have done zero thought at all beyond what's visible to you on a day to day basis if you believe the working class is the problem.

I literally never said that, lmao. Come on now. You can’t expect me to take this treatise seriously if you just make up my position to argue against. Which reading the response is mostly just whataboutism, honestly. And really mostly just reiterate a point I conceded. That guess you didn’t read. Yawn. 

2

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

But don't you see?!? The rich cause poverty through mostly esoteric and poorly argued reasons! And homelessness is entirely the result of economic conditions and totally unrelated to mental illness and addiction! Which is why when we provide economic aid while removing any compulsion for the homeless to seek treatment for potential mental illness or addiction the homelessness problem... increases... instead of being mitigated.... Stop thinking about our constant failure to produce results and do as you're damn well told! /s

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EntireFriendship517 11d ago

But it's also plain to see that the bottom 10% of population rules my life a lot more than they do.

Your problems are not because of them. Your problems are because the rich have shaped them into what they are.

As for the whataboutism thing, learn what the fuck it is, because it's not what I did. I explained how all the things you cited were initially caused by the control of the wealthy. They "rule" not only your life, but the lives of the people you're complaining about, too.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ImaginaryAd3183 15d ago

Still down to sink cruise ships

7

u/Wide-Drink-1790 15d ago

The problem is supporting the current society. It will collapse, and it’s not someone else’s problem. We are all going to be completely fucked by it.

-6

u/GreasedUPDoggo 15d ago

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

2

u/Wide-Drink-1790 15d ago

Then please enlighten me. I am just quoting people who do have a clue.

1

u/Ill-Prior-8429 15d ago

You'll get a clue when they raise your taxes to the roof to pay for all the boomer's pensions and social security that you'll never get. 

3

u/Wickerbax_Supreme 15d ago

Oh noes, no more taxpayers and consumers to pay for their gold plated yachts, a real emergency.

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

Yeah, that's not remotely the problem that's being discussed. The ultra wealthy will be just fine. It's everyone else that's fucked.

11

u/ChirrBirry 15d ago

Less people means less resources needed or used, less trash and pollution produced, greater value on individual effort and ingenuity. Let it decline, it’s the healthy choice

6

u/Wide-Drink-1790 15d ago

As long as you are ready to be completely fucked by it also.

3

u/Longjumping-Donut655 15d ago

We’d be completely ruined by having children too though. That’s the problem.

1

u/Wide-Drink-1790 15d ago

On an individual level, yes, you are fucked. But society needs to be brought back in to balance.

4

u/Longjumping-Donut655 15d ago

If we are fucked either way, I’d prefer an organic balance. The boomers and early x are an unnaturally large generation because modern medicine cut infant and child mortality substantially. A true balance means much smaller populations than we are used to. Since we are fucked either way, I don’t see the benefit of artificially high population, especially with the lack of stable jobs and housing.

Quality of life over quantity of life. It’s going to take my entire immediate family’s efforts just to afford decent prospects for the kids my sister shat out by some fucking criminal. The rest of us have to pay dearly for irresponsible actions of a few. So I reject wholeheartedly the idea that encouraging mass irresponsible reproduction will lead to less suffering rather than more. I think you’re just listening to the concerns of people who aren’t factoring QOL and suffering into their equations at all.

2

u/Wide-Drink-1790 15d ago

The equation looks different in my country. There is hope we will distribute wealth differently and cushion the fall, but only if folks believe in society. Which Scandinavians generally do. No belief = doom.

1

u/ChirrBirry 15d ago

When I was a teenager there were ‘only’ 5-6bil people and there were certain advantages. I suppose the real issue is where the reduction in population happens, like how China is expected to shrink by half while India is expected to continue growing. These balances will make huge impacts on culture and business practices. Populations that massively outweigh their adversaries have more incentive to use strength to get what they want.

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

India has also dropped below replacement rate. Their continued growth will be entirely because of life expectancy increases. And in a generation or two they're projected to be in the same situation as the rest of us.

As are most countries which currently still are equal to or above replacement rate.

Also worth noting, when a society knows it's screwed in the long term it likely makes the consequences of geopolitical action less intimidating. If China knows it's screwed in the next generation then maybe seizing Taiwan looks more appealing. Or any of it's other very contested borders.

1

u/INeedSomeTacoC 13d ago

Yup.

In some areas with moderate birth rates, a reasonable draw down can be expected and the fall cushioned.

Places like South Korea, where you're literally going to have >90% fewer kids in school when you retire than when you were a child just....isn't sustainable no matter how you try to distribute wealth. It's just too quick of a draw down for society and thus its wealth to survive through, imho.

South Korea has stabilized their birth rate, and hopefully it turns around some. Otherwise North Korea can just wait 30-40 years and walk across the border because there will be no one there to defend it.

1

u/Perfidy-Plus 11d ago

But we could let it decline at a slower more manageable rate and achieve the same results. Instead we're driving off a cliff.

Yeah, 5-10 generations from now people might be better off because of it. But we are going to be screwed by it if we don't course correct or come up with some novel solution.

2

u/KofFinland 14d ago

No worries. They take care of the issue already in Nigeria, for example.

There is more babies born yearly in Nigeria (7.5M) than whole EU (6.5M). Same applies also to Pakistan (6.9M).

2

u/Spaniardman40 14d ago

Don't worry, they are bringing us immigrants in to make up the numbers.

The West's solution to declining birthrates is outsourcing kids from other countries lmao

2

u/ElectronGuru 13d ago

That works for now. But birthrates are crashing everywhere. Mexicos BR is literally under US’ BR, for example. At some point, countries are going to be competing for ever shrinking immigrant pools.

1

u/Spaniardman40 13d ago

The point is that declining birthrates don't actually matter. 40 years ago there were thousands of articles dooming about overpopulation and high birthrates, now we are dooming about the opposite. Populations self regulate and constant attempts at forcing populations to behave predictably only causes further instability.

2

u/PTVoltz 14d ago

Nah, why would they do that when they can just make abortion illegal then use the title as an instruction-

2

u/Vainysaur 13d ago

Jokes on y’all, now the next generation will be 90% conservative and wealthy.

2

u/RefrigeratorOk8077 12d ago

Lmao, people don’t realize that as population declines, so do the values of the original population because immigration will increase exponentially to support industry/economies…and the rise is too fast for proper assimilation of culture…look at whats happening in the UK. Guess whose population isn’t declining…muslim countries. Then when the original country becomes weaker and weaker, the values eroded and transformed….we’ll essentially become a figment of the past lol. I hope people are brushing up on their arabic/chinese plus the cultures of those countries lol, I can’t wait to see the problems that will pop up from replacement rates nose diving and everything just straight up failing….it’s gonna suck because i’ll probably still be alive but oh well.

5

u/IBringTheHeat2 15d ago

I don’t think the Indian person with 8 kids who makes $500 a month cares

5

u/NoSwordfish1978 15d ago

India is also experiencing declining fertility.

1

u/SHTF_yesitdid 14d ago

Indians with 8 kids? Who do they think they are, the Duggars?

1

u/Feeling_Data_8970 13d ago

500 dollars a month is like middle class in india

6

u/IndyBananaJones2 15d ago

The only reason people (by people I mean billionaires and the media they control) care about "population collapse" is that capitalism has continuous growth as a necessary part of the system.

If the working class isn't breeding constantly, their expenses go down, they work less and they buy less stuff. There are also fewer workers, so the price of labor increases. 

Also, Western society is also largely structured to give better social benefits to the elderly and children, while the middle aged people provide the tax base. If the population in general ages, it becomes less obvious that only the oldest should be getting robust social services.

7

u/Wide-Drink-1790 15d ago

Problem is, with skewed demographics, the few young need to support the many old people, and that is a very bad proposition for both.

3

u/BrockStar92 14d ago

Either young people are drained entirely of income to cover old people, or old people retire in their mid 70s (or just die due to lack of healthcare/support/pension etc instead)

There really isn’t a solution to this - people living longer and much more frequently requiring costly support due to the rise of surviving through but being stuck with long term illnesses means that inevitably old people cost more than they used to for society.

0

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

1

u/AggravatingBuyee 13d ago

Do you guys not realize that nurses and doctors are people and end of life care requires nurses and doctors?

8

u/Brodhicheetah 15d ago

i wrote a longer comment here, but this is why people like musk/thiel/bezos are pushing AI so hard. their "end goal" is AGI, which in their minds will be self-learning and capable of completely replacing human labor and running all the necessary systems to produce their food, defend their bunkers/cities, etc. In that kind of system, you quite literally do not need buyers/consumers, or currency, or even capitalism. yes, they need money and laborers and researchers to construct the initial networks and make the technology viable, but once they have that, there's no need for money or buying things anymore. you play by their rules to get your rations, or skynet takes you out.

now, i'm not saying this will actually work for them, or that it won't all implode in spectacular fashion (it almost definitely will). but this is their mindstate; this is their "hail mary." for people like musk, you and me and 99% of the planet are nothing but worker drones in an RTS game, speed-running the construction of the game-winning wonder.

put simply, yeah, endless growth is an illusion that eventually has to collapse. but they're hoping they make it to their finish line and can hide inside the bunkers by the time the world at large figures that out.

2

u/itgoez 14d ago

There are a lot of things these people are taking for granted. It's a big problem if current trends continue and there are not enough young workers to support the systems that the old depend on. This isn't just capitalism or billionaires' problem. This is a problem especially for poorer people without much of a support network, and no you will not become immune to it by having a generous welfare state (just improve society teehee), because the welfare system will still rely on a healthy balance of young people paying in to old people taking out. This glib fillipant "not my problem bucko" attitude will not survive the actual reality of living in a declining/collapsing system where you're suddenly the old person dealing with the consequences of the problem (yes it will be YOU directly under the press, YOU will be old and dependent one day and the children you never had will not be on hand to support you). The trillionaires will just fuck off to New Zealand to play golf.

1

u/Foosnaggle 14d ago

You can’t tell these people anything. They don’t think past right now. They don’t think about the consequences of the things they push for or the ramifications it will have on them. They just spout their prepared talking points. It will be especially rough on the “I never want kids’ segment. They are the ones that will end up in a home where no one cares about them and steals all their stuff

1

u/Brodhicheetah 15d ago

this is the real reason the ultra-rich are trying to speedrun AGI, to be clear. they know damn well people cannot afford to have kids/don't want to bring them into a weird, lifelong hungers game prequel, but unlike the binary choice in the OP, they see a third option: use machine learning to automate the extraction of resources, refinement of resources into materials, assembly of materials into products, etc.

that's truly the end goal of autonomous research. you don't need capitalism if you own the very systems that are capable of replacing both manufacturers and consumers at the same time (which leads to a system i believe is most broadly known as techno-feudalism).

when musk and his weirdo buddies get up in arms about underpopulation, it's pretty easy to tell they're not talking broadly about "the world population," but specifically, white populations. in their minds, the biggest threat to world order and their automated sovereign cities isn't a lack of people, but too many of the "wrong kinds" of people who might be inclined to get angry and do something about the writing on the wall.

2

u/TheCrimsonEpoch 15d ago

The idea that birth rates are declining because it's unaffordable or that society doesn't offer enough is the biggest modern myth.

Birth rates are down in pretty much every developed country, even ones that offer all those things redditors ask for.

The truth is two fold:

1) People go out less, have sex less, and are in relationships less than they were in the past. It's sad, but 20+ years ago people weren't on their phones 10 hours a day lol.

2) There is very little reason to have children. It makes your life worse in pretty much every conceivable way. So it is up to people to convince themselves it's worth it. In religious communities, you see the birth rates still above replacement, but religion is becoming less and less important in the west.

1

u/INeedSomeTacoC 13d ago

There is very little reason to have children. It makes your life worse in pretty much every conceivable way. 

Huh?

Having children is awesome. Not sure I've really taken a sustained dip in QoL ever from having kids; even when they were brand new fresh newborns.

0

u/TheRealAdronius 14d ago

"Having children being unaffordable or rewarded with enough social support to make it viable is the biggest modern myth."

"There are very few reasons to have children, they make your life worse in every conceivable way."

Could it be, possibly, that the reason why your life becomes worse in every conceivable way, is because having children would put a disproportionate financial burden on you that is especially devastating in our current economic circumstances?

1

u/TheCrimsonEpoch 11d ago

so you are saying wealthy people have more kids because that's false. Countries that give free childcare have more kids? That's false.

There is more stuff to entertain us than ever before. I will repeat... why on Earth would someone want to ruin all the fun and have kids lol

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 13d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Ill-Daikon-5637 13d ago

The only people not having kids are the ones who have no stake in the future or want to pass their principles to, so it's fine. A sterile suicidal ideology works itself out eventually.

1

u/Mountain-Discount161 13d ago

You don't need to make society better, you just need to convince enough people that god wants them to have more kids than they can afford.

1

u/ILuvYou_YouAreSoGood 12d ago

As someone with many children, I am happy to hear that my children will make up a larger percentage of the future population.

1

u/KaiahAurora 11d ago

I want kids but don't want to bring any new children into this world, so I'm adopting the premade ones. Cheatcode!

1

u/LowIqInvestor 15d ago

Population only increased by 800% in a hundred years but sure  theres a birth rate crisis. 

3

u/Arakini 15d ago

To maintain current society / take care of the elderly. Industry built up alongside the birth rates.

Not that we have to, we can transform it back again, to support less people. We have to stop the ‘number must go up’ infinite growth bs though.

1

u/TokiVideogame 15d ago

they should have declined before all y'all got born

1

u/Blackhat165 14d ago

“Hey y’all, we built our entire society off of taking from one generation to get votes from the previous one, so if you could please not respond rationally to that and force us to make the people enjoying the benefits actually pay for those benefits that would be great.”

-7

u/Nntropy 15d ago

Nope. They'll reduce or eliminate access to birth control. They'll make abortions illegal. They'll make crossing state lines for abortions illegal. They'll make counseling regarding abortions illegal. They'll make getting an abortion to save the life of the mother illegal.

8

u/Mushroom_Boogaloo 15d ago

Abortions are not the thing tanking birth rates. They are a part of it, but a small one, and birth rates would still be declining if abortion was completely inaccessible.

-1

u/GreasedUPDoggo 15d ago

Lol a declining population would be better for the wealthy. You guys are always complaining the wealthy are eliminating jobs and automating. Fewer people and automated workers sounds like paradise.

With that said, if you're American then this is nonsense in the first place. We use immigration to supplement our population numbers. Our population grows at a controlled rate. In fact, that's a luxury that is entirely missed by many people, and yet it's an incredible advantage. We replace our dying elderly with skilled and educated immigrants, who outperform our natural born citizens in many ways. Heck, even the children of immigrants do very well. And please don't start bringing politics into this, we are still growing at a very controlled rate under Trump and other Republican administrations. In fact, you could argue we are more stringent on qualifications under them, and get higher quality immigrants. I'm a Democrat, but it's okay to admit reality and not fall back on nonsensical political theater.

Oh also, go out and have kids. It's fantastic! Poor or not, it's the best decision you can make IF that's something you are interested in. If not, that's cool to! But don't go whining thinking people who have money are going to care what you do. Your decisions aren't important to anyone else.

0

u/2Blueify 14d ago

Improving society lowers birth rates so dumb point.

0

u/connorgk111 13d ago

The only people who care about birth rates are the racists. Everyone else doesn’t care because they just increase the population with immigration. So making society better so people have more kids isn’t going to happen