Mastodawn

My biggest concern is not that fertility rate is low/population decline is happening, it’s that it’s happening way too quickly for society to be able to handle it.

We’re talking like 4 old people per child (estimated number). Not only would it be a massive strain on the economy to have so many elderly people/retirees to take care of, older people will also have a highly disproportionate account of political power due to their relative abundance. If it’s already such a big deal that boomers were twisting the political landscape for their gain, I shudder to think what would happen at this larger and longer scale.

All of this is going to be a breeding ground for misogyny and right-wing ideology. We’ve already seen it in South Korea.

Plus, without younger people to take up the mantle, many industries that we rely on will need to downsize, and a lot of institutional knowledge will be lost. Many roles that require a “master-to-apprentice” style of learning will be lost and will be unable to recover, even if the population started growing again.

Fox News has the wrong take here, as it is wont to have. But we genuinely should be really concerned that birth rates across all developed countries are this low below replacement rate and are still dropping

Show thread

marxismtomorrow 1d ago

Well the solution would be END FUCKING CAPITALISM ALREADY, but since none of the younger generations actually care to do so we get to enjoy a rest period on the environment, maybe enough of one to slow some of the later effects of climate change.

We’re already dead as a species within 500 years. No matter what we do CO2 PPM is going to triple by that time and that will, at the very least, eliminate higher-order thinking and shrink brain development far below what is necessary to have more than a passing visage of human society.

So maybe with fewer people we can skip the worst of the water wars (which started in 2014) and maybe even skip some of the worst of the food and migration wars (already starting, will escalate over the next five years as major producers like the us fail to produce excess thanks to shifting seasons and lack of workers).

Honestly best case scenario is natural population decline.

Show thread

Hapankaali

Capitalism has been around for a couple of hundred years. During most of that time fertility rates were high in pretty much every capitalist society. This changed within a generation of contraceptives becoming widely available, even in those capitalist societies most strongly influenced by socialism, with low poverty rates and where generally everyone can easily afford to have children. I think we can make a fair guess which factor was more important, between capitalism and contraception.

Humans, and mammals in general, never developed an innate desire to reproduce. It was never necessary in an evolutionary sense, since fucking led to reproduction. There hasn’t been enough time for humans as a species to adapt to the new reality, and we can probably develop new contraceptive technology faster than any resistance to them can evolve (one would expect, for example, allergies to the contraceptive pill or condoms to start appearing and/or increasing in frequency among the population).

The more impactful evolution might be of a sociological nature. Cultures and subcultures that encourage large families should be expected to begin proliferating globally. We have seen some beginnings of this happening, such as the Haredim in Israel and ultraconservative communities elsewhere.