Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JCPRuckus t1_je1zu5b wrote

Reply to comment by Tilapiatitty in [OC] Mothers in the EU are on average 29,7 years old at the birth of their first child by 23degrees_io

You must have missed the word "extinction". It doesn't matter how happy and healthy we can raise people to be if the upshot is ultimately no people.

−4

Tilapiatitty t1_je3pjv0 wrote

I think extinction is a lil bit of an exaggeration. The population growth rate is declining, but the population is still growing. There is overpopulation, and by the time we reach 2050, food and other resources such as wood will be scarcer.

I think it’s a great thing women tend to have babies less. This means a better planet, happier babies and happier parents. Win, win, win.

2

JCPRuckus t1_je4lc7v wrote

>I think extinction is a lil bit of an exaggeration.

Not by much, if at all.

>The population growth rate is declining, but the population is still growing.

It's declining everywhere, and in many countries it is already below replacement. There no reason to believe that it won't eventually drop below replacement everywhere. And no country has ever reversed, or even restabilized a below replacement birthrate.

>There is overpopulation, and by the time we reach 2050, food and other resources such as wood will be scarcer.

No, there is overconsumption. Far better to move to more sustainable lifestyles rather than risk the global population dip into an (as far as we know) unrecoverable spiral.

>I think it’s a great thing women tend to have babies less. This means a better planet, happier babies and happier parents. Win, win, win.

It won't be a win once populations start declining and economies start shrinking.

1

Tilapiatitty t1_je4tnwh wrote

Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.

So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source

A population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.

1

truth123ok t1_je4xpof wrote

I think you misunderstood how serious I was NOT being

1

JCPRuckus t1_je4wvwq wrote

>Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.

Until any country anywhere successfully manages to stabilize or reverse a below replacement birthrate we are, within the next 100 years, on our way to a declining global population. And once the pop starts declining, we obviously can't reverse that with below replacement birthrates.

That observation contains within it the possibility of a change in outcome. But personally, I'd like to see evidence that the change is actually possible before we happily tip ourselves into decline.

>So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source

Links to an article about timber that says the main reason for increased demand is increased urbanization, not increasing population.

>population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.

Links to an article that just says literally the same things they've already said, because it also doesn't acknowledge that "happier" , "better off" people doesn't count for much if the long term cost is NO people... On top of ignoring that once economies start shrinking due to population loss people won't be "happier" or "better off".

−1

truth123ok t1_je4xkii wrote

I was being hyperbolic. Absolutely. But I wonder if our social ideas of when it is best to start a family no longer correlate with our biology.

1