Young women in England and Wales projected to have just one child by 35
-
Good. We need to reduce human population at least 60%.
Don't worry, if we go on like we're doing, 60% will die off eventually.
-
Says it in the last paragraph, financial pressures & having your own home.
Let's try giving them a coupon for $20 off their next $150 day of pre-K
-
Good. We need to reduce human population at least 60%.
The problem is that you need young people to pay for social security and retirement funds, work jobs, live and work in small cities and villages. Without them the services in smaller places will decline, eventually resulting in them to become ghost towns.
Once the retirement funds are depleted the older generation will slide into poverty and won't be able to pay for any goods and services, meaning business has to fire staff, causing more poverty. -
Good. We need to reduce human population at least 60%.
The global birth rate is already at or even below the replacement rate. The only reason we're not seeing population shrinkage right now is due to inertia. It takes decades for changes in the birth rate to reflect in the actual population figures, but it will happen. It won't however happen in time to prevent environmental catastrophe, which is what most people think of when they cheer dropping birth rates. It will just be the social catastrophe of the next century.
-
Says it in the last paragraph, financial pressures & having your own home.
yeah, we need to stop basing our economies on population growth at the same time
-
Don't be ridiculous--it's obviously 1 child each. But what's not clear from the article is how those who already have more than 1 decide which to get rid of before they turn 35.
No no no, they'll clearly each have 35 children - arranged in a rectangle of one child by 35.
-
The global birth rate is already at or even below the replacement rate. The only reason we're not seeing population shrinkage right now is due to inertia. It takes decades for changes in the birth rate to reflect in the actual population figures, but it will happen. It won't however happen in time to prevent environmental catastrophe, which is what most people think of when they cheer dropping birth rates. It will just be the social catastrophe of the next century.
We can’t hog all the catastrophes. Let them have theirs, too
-
The problem is that you need young people to pay for social security and retirement funds, work jobs, live and work in small cities and villages. Without them the services in smaller places will decline, eventually resulting in them to become ghost towns.
Once the retirement funds are depleted the older generation will slide into poverty and won't be able to pay for any goods and services, meaning business has to fire staff, causing more poverty.It's not a generation conflict, it's a class conflict.
Aren't we producing enough food and goods for all people?
It's a distribution problem. The generation contract failed due to declining birthrates since the boomer era. Everyone knew the day will be coming. But still we clinge on the current economy design and feed the leeches (ultra rich people obviously).The generation now 30-40 is much poorer as the boomers were at that age. How could that be? They're less than the boomers, workers are desperately needed and the generation is working hard. But they're getting paid pennies in comparison.
-
Don't be ridiculous--it's obviously 1 child each. But what's not clear from the article is how those who already have more than 1 decide which to get rid of before they turn 35.
Trial by combat
-
We can’t hog all the catastrophes. Let them have theirs, too
But if we try really hard I am sure we can get at least a couple more in before it's their turn.
-
yeah, we need to stop basing our economies on population growth at the same time
Is not just population growth, but ageing. What will happen when only 10-20% of population are able to work?
-
System shared this topic on
