[paulryanrogers]

No one chooses to be born. Once they are, they may find that procreation is impossible for them or just not something they'll do well or even want. None of these is necessarily depressing.

We have no shortage of humans, so there's no need to try to shame the childless. Nor those who focus on themselves.

[jimbokun]

We are on course to have far more elderly people than young people.

A global retirement community without even any grandkids to visit them strikes me as a depressing dystopian future.

[littlexsparkee]

I see less burden on earth's environment as a positive.

[jurgenburgen]

More likely it will be a larger burden on the environment. If there are no future generations to care about then why bother investing in a better future?

[littlexsparkee]

the earth regenerates itself, provided we stay out of the way. if anything there's more motivation to care when the degredation slows down and makes change feel tangible.

[ionwake]

not necessarily connected to the number of people but the type - if they are all conservationists that would be a net positive, not counting OTT population numbers.

[littlexsparkee]

we're talking about aging in advanced economies - those are folks with heavy footprints. if the west could be content with africa's growth and allowing for more migration, this problem is licked.

[ionwake]

i dont think I agree at all bro

[foobarian]

The question is what happens after they are gone?

[zwaps]

Not to contradict your conclusion but many countries definitely have an extreme shortage of new humans

[komali2]

Lines on a map are just that. Globally we're doing fine. And anyway, constant growth can't continue forever, it's probably a good thing if we stabilize or even shrink a bit.