It means that the current low fertility rate associated with economic progress and education might not lead to the collapse of technological civilisation even if the population drops to a more sustainable level.
Nah we'll just have to move to better communication systems - something like web of trust. We tap our phones, and from now on I know that anything that claims to be from you is from you. My friends trust that what you claim to have written came from you because they trust me. If you start spouting nonsense, I downgrade your contact information in my list and my friends get the same hint.
The open internet itself, yes, it won't survive the next few years - but then there's no stopping this. We could ban AIs in the west, which is the only place that sort of law might work, but Russia, North Korea, Iran, China - they'll still use it to mess with us.
This article suggests, in the year 2000, that replacement migration might be a way to combat low fertility rate in the west.
I don't think you can encourage low fertility rate. I don't think we did in the west.
I also know there's nowhere to get our replacement from once the whole world is educated. Technological accelerationism might save us, or it might doom us.
> I don't think you can encourage low fertility rate. I don't think we did in the west.
Pushing young women into the workplace so they can waste their lives grinding away at meaningless soul crushing fake corporate jobs instead of raising families. Degenerate Tinder/hookup culture. The "west" certainly encouraged it.
I'm not moving anywhere. I'm just an observer and that is simply what I have observed and experienced in my lifetime. Some women have told me they prefer to be a housewife, but modern society looks down on that. Nothing that I can or will do about that.
Natural selection will sort it out. No reproduction leads to extinction.
The strongest societies and cultures will survive. We'll see how it plays out over the next few generations.
I'm not moving to India, China, or Arabia, but they are certainly moving here. My city of ~2M people is now 50% foreign born and mass immigration is still at an all time high. The native populations here are reproducing at below replacement level. I have observed extreme demographic changes happening in real-time within a generation.
It is incredible to experience and none of us voted for it. There was no referendum. Nothing. Apparently this was UN policy and we had no choice.
Was it UN policy? Was it adopted in a resolution? Or maybe was it that somebody suggested that this might happen in response to that and the other problem might not happen?