• 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
    2•9 days 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•9 days 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•9 days 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•9 days 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