• If we really thought about it, there will be a raising amount of people who don’t have a job and will not be able to get a job ever due to the decline in human labour needs, which lead to fewer jobs being offered globally which means that with fewer humans around there will be a higher chance for people to get a good job.

  • Humans consume resources, with less humans around there will be more resources for each humans and they will collectively consume less resources in total.

  • @[email protected]English
    4•3 months ago

    Well if the goal is the fewest number of humans, all living good lives, with ecological impact low enough to not worsen the planet over time, we should be happy that the humans who are forecasted to not exist are of the variety that are high consumers/polluters.

    This is not a eugenics comment. I’m not suggesting anyone is invalid or should be removed, but we are instead discussing births that simply don’t happen.

    • @[email protected]English
      3•3 months ago

      Yes, but what I think he’s saying is that so far the deceased birth rate coincides with drastically increased consumption per capita. Therefore the decrease in birthrate may have no to negative short and medium term effect on total consumption/pollution.

      • @[email protected]English
        2•3 months ago

        Right but our goal should be some hypothetical 100000 people who all live incredible, careless, needless, yet fulfilled lives (number is a joke, pick any you like). But to get there, it’s gonna take a while. Generations.

        I’d rather focus on raising up the lowest into a tier of stability, health, basics, etc. And rely on the upper group of consumers diminishing.

        Wondering about short term gains on something like this is silly.

        • @[email protected]English
          2•3 months ago

          I’d rather focus on raising up the lowest into a tier of stability

          What you’re describing, then, has nothing to do with birth rates. That’s what I’m saying in this thread: reduced birth rates won’t fix the problem of runaway consumption and emerging scarcity.

          • @[email protected]English
            1•3 months ago

            Reduce birthrates A LOT (via non eugenic methods, I’m not playing with that), and prefer to remove (again, via absence) the most consumptive.

            Give it a few hundred years and baby, you got a stew goin.

            • @[email protected]English
              1•3 months ago

              I’m saying that you can reduce birthrates a lot and it won’t make much of a difference, because you can’t go below zero and the rich/high consumption countries are already low.

              If your goal is to reduce net consumption, then reduce consumption (or replenish consumed resources through increased production or restoration/replenishment of what is consumed). Preventing births itself won’t meaningfully move the needle.

              • @[email protected]English
                1•3 months ago

                Over a few generations reducing birthday near zero would absolutely love the needle.

                I think we generally agree, I’m just focused on a wider time span