[Victerius]

> Don't fool yourself; we're not overpopulating ourselves to global economic and environmental meltdown;

Yes we are. Yes. We. Are.

Let it happen. I'll start panicking if the human population is still decreasing at 100 million. But for now, we are still growing.

[dmm]

Even if you believe that the earth is overpopulated and think a shrinking population is good, you still need to consider the sustainability of that population change.

Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever. This means an every increasing proportion of resources has to be transferred from the working to non-working population.

It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change.

[wildrhythms]

I don't forsee climate change being addressed under today's economic system of 'build wealth and support themselves', so I'm not sure what kind of world you envision.

[dmm]

Do you think it would addressed under destroy wealth and neglect themselves? lol What are you even saying?

I was just trying to say that as the proportion of retired people increases they will take more resources and that will mean fewer resources for /anything/ else.

[StanislavPetrov]

>Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever.

Not when life expectancy decreases, as it is here in the United States.

>It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change.

"Big problems" like climate change because much less "big" when other problems grow more pressing and threatening to immediate survival. People who don't have a roof over their heads or a meal to eat aren't concerned with climate change.

[dmm]

> Not when life expectancy decreases, as it is here in the United States.

That's scary! Do you think life expectancy to continue to decrease?

> People who don't have a roof over their heads or a meal to eat aren't concerned with climate change.

Sure that's what I was trying to communicate. Climate change won't be a priority when people are struggling but it doesn't go away...

[boppo1]

What is your response to Ezra Klein's "Your Kids Are Not Doomed"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-sh...

[pjkundert]

Humans are not “fungible”. Therefore:

- Immigration will alter the societal outcomes of a region, for “better” or “worse”, as the region chooses

- Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones will cause widespread harm.

- Failure to reproduce at replacement levels won’t show up as a disaster until many years after it is too late to correct it.

Wouldn’t it be better to aim to reduce harm and increase productivity, than to blanket reduce the overall population?

[dbspin]

Human's at scale are fungible. "Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones". I hesitate to use the word dog whistle, but this is pretty inarguably racist. Unless you'd like to clarify which 'unhealthy' cultures you're referring to. For many value judgements, the lack of social cohesion, level of violent crime, historically high rates of imprisonment etc make the US an 'unhealthy culture'.

[oneoff786]

They are clearly referring to young people that can work vs old people that need care and cannot work

[dbspin]

That's not clear at all.

[dusted]

Excel begs to differ ;)

[TylerLives]

I don't think the issue is the absolute number of humans but the ratio of young to old.