[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>The only reason it is a concern is that our economic system is built on infinite growth,

This is plainly, factually wrong. A sub-replacement fertility level isn't "the growth has stopped". It's "rapid shrinking has started, shrinking of the sort that causes even more shrinking". That's the concern.

> It's better it fail by people voluntarily having fewer kids

If they have fewer than 2.1 on average, that's not better. It's literally "you should die out and become extinct". That's what you're telling them.

>The solution is to fix the economic system

What you're pushing doesn't fix the economy, it makes it worse. When there aren't enough workers to maintain infrastructure, there will be rolling brownouts. It's food rationing because there aren't enough workers to keep agriculture going. It's "there are no more consumer goods because the factories were hollowed out"... which leads to "there is no retail and no retail jobs".

A shrinking, aging population wrecks an economy.

>Productivity is increasing all the time, and we're very likely on the verge of another huge productivity increase with LLMs and robotics.

"Robots will save us!" is juvenile fantasy. You're deluded.

>The idea that we need to constantly increase the number of humans

No one was talking about "increase the number of humans". Maybe you're just really bad at math. We're talking about "keep the number of humans steady, because shrinking locks us into a never-recovering vicious spiral of shrinking til we hit 0". Which is where we are now.

[InsideOutSanta]

> It's literally "you should die out and become extinct". That's what you're telling them.

This is both dumb and dishonest. It's dumb because you're not making an actual argument, just pointing at a potential long-term outcome, which isn't even an obviously bad outcome; if there are no more humans, there are also no humans to fret about their own lack of existence, so who exactly is being harmed here?

It's dishonest to claim that a temporarily shrinking population (which is a good thing given our current population level) will automatically lead to extinction. It will absolutely not.

You sound like somebody with some kind of religious conviction, which is fine for you, but leave the rest of us out of it.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>which isn't even an obviously bad outcome;

Ok. I suppose that I can play along and pretend (literal) human extinction isn't a "bad outcome". Is that the point of contention? You think it's ok or even preferable, while I dislike that outcome? Is that the source of our conflict? If so, this is the closest to honesty I've ever heard from someone like yourself.

But for me, this makes you my enemy. People who truly believe as you do are beyond redemption. No courtesy, kindness, or obligation is owed to you. You can be allowed no influence, no one should hear your voice.

>It's dishonest to claim that a temporarily shrinking population

It's never temporary. We've jumped out of the plane without a parachute, there's not much time left, but you're still arguing "sometimes things move upward".

Shrinking populations by their very nature cause more shrinking. There are dozens of well-understood and empirically confirmed mechanisms that make this so.

It's actually pretty deserving that the people like yourself should be wiped out. I would just rather you didn't take the rest of us with you.

[InsideOutSanta]

> You think it's ok or even preferable, while I dislike that outcome?

Explain to me how you are harmed by the eventual extinction of humanity (which will come at some point in the future, as all things end).

> It's never temporary.

Everything is temporary.

> But for me, this makes you my enemy. People who truly believe as you do are beyond redemption. No courtesy, kindness, or obligation is owed to you. You can be allowed no influence, no one should hear your voice. It's actually pretty deserving that the people like yourself should be wiped out.

If you read what you just wrote, then read what I said to you that caused this outburst, and think about how warranted your reaction was, I'm sure you can reach an objective conclusion about which of us is genuinely more likely to be beyond redemption. I've used HN for as long as it's existed, and this is the first time I've wished I could block someone, because your behavior is not acceptable.

From one human to another, I hope you are okay.