• Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s…not a thing

    Like literally absurd to even consider as a physical possibility.

    How exactly is the population supposed to contract?

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Under 1 billion is unrealistic but some contraction will happen. The main factor dictating how many children people will have is infant mortality of the previous one or two generations as well as the existence of pension systems.

      …which is the reason why developed countries have birth rates below replacement level and with increased wealth elsewhere it’s also going to happen there, which would mean contraction everywhere. I don’t expect that to keep up forever, however, states will get their shit together and set incentive structures (in particular making having kids affordable) long before we’re contracting to one billion.

    • rexxit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Education? Contraception? It’s not fucking rocket science. Every developed country in the world is at well below replacement rates. The idea needs to be promoted and not derided or conflated with eugenics (which it emphatically isn’t). Blunting the impact of an aging population is the most difficult problem.

      Edit: the most difficult problem is that capitalism demands perpetual growth, and billionaires and heads of state with a vested interest in growth would never allow the population to shrink without extreme resistance, like pervasive propaganda and outlawing abortion.