Not entirely accurate. Shit hits the fan before this changes too much and we are in much debt. Also infrastructure is somewhat of a fixed cost. I.e. being fewer people does not reduce infrastructure emissions.
Antinatalism isn’t ab answer to the problem, but might be a reasonable reaction.
That being said I do not want to advocate for having more children or put the blame for the systemic issues on the individuals suffering from them.
some infrastructure, but by no means all. But I think my stance has always been closer to “if they wanted me to bring in additional players, they should’ve made the game more fun to play”
Population decline will be the socio-economic epoch which finally puts an end to obligate growth capitalism, and the initial demographic crisis will force us to reprioritize how we use resources and technology to support aging populations. Historical materialism goes brrrrrr.
Refusing to make children for the capitalist machine is just good praxis.
For the time being, most countries can get a younger population by letting in immigrants (who are statistically younger). Would probably result in a softer landing than otherwise.
Debt and money are make-believe anyway. Just tokens in a game we play called capitalism.
I’m not sure about the infrastructure claim. Generally, if infrastructure is used less, it requires less maintenance.
50% of all habital land is already being used by humans and being degraded, which doesn’t seem sustainable, especially since so much of the world still lives in poverty. World population doubles every 61 years, so it seems like it would be nearly impossible to stay on the current trajectory for much longer.
Not entirely accurate. Shit hits the fan before this changes too much and we are in much debt. Also infrastructure is somewhat of a fixed cost. I.e. being fewer people does not reduce infrastructure emissions.
Antinatalism isn’t ab answer to the problem, but might be a reasonable reaction.
That being said I do not want to advocate for having more children or put the blame for the systemic issues on the individuals suffering from them.
some infrastructure, but by no means all. But I think my stance has always been closer to “if they wanted me to bring in additional players, they should’ve made the game more fun to play”
Population decline will be the socio-economic epoch which finally puts an end to obligate growth capitalism, and the initial demographic crisis will force us to reprioritize how we use resources and technology to support aging populations. Historical materialism goes brrrrrr.
Refusing to make children for the capitalist machine is just good praxis.
Removed by mod
For the time being, most countries can get a younger population by letting in immigrants (who are statistically younger). Would probably result in a softer landing than otherwise.
Debt and money are make-believe anyway. Just tokens in a game we play called capitalism.
I’m not sure about the infrastructure claim. Generally, if infrastructure is used less, it requires less maintenance.
50% of all habital land is already being used by humans and being degraded, which doesn’t seem sustainable, especially since so much of the world still lives in poverty. World population doubles every 61 years, so it seems like it would be nearly impossible to stay on the current trajectory for much longer.