this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
786 points (97.6% liked)

Greentext

8864 readers
378 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] frog@feddit.uk 191 points 1 week ago (5 children)

The people that want higher birth rates don't care about higher wages, the environment, or people's safety.

They just need workers they can milk them until they can't work anymore. They need these workers to spend all their money so they have to keep working.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 91 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The endgame of capitalism is slavery.

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 63 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The early game of capitalism was slavery

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 27 points 1 week ago

Midgame pretty much unions, now mostly a speed bump in the rearview mirror.

Perhaps that should change.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GonzoAtBarstow@lemmy.world 101 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

8+ billion people on the planet and people complain about not enough people.

Ponzi schemes aren't sustainable.

[–] whalesnrainbows@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yeah, people worried about “population decline” are actually concerned about their preferred race/religion losing political & cultural power.

It’s a dog whistle every time

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (5 children)

It's a dog whistle every time.

Population decline isn't inherently a problem (unless you're a racist worried about "your people" losing power). Too rapid population decline is a big problem. We're already seeing the effects: When the sum of birth rates and working-age immigration fall fast enough, the ratio of working-age people to care-needing people also falls. I don't think I need to explain why it's a problem that every able-bodied working age adult will be responsible (directly or indirectly) for taking care of more people. It puts more pressure on everyone, and impacts societies ability to care for those in need of it.

A controlled, slow, population decline would probably just be a good thing at this point. However, that's not what prognoses are pointing towards, and that's why (non-racist) people are worried.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] superduperpirate@lemmy.world 79 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Ya know, I have vague memories of reading an argument somewhere that the black plague killed off so many peasants that the surviving ones had materially less shitty conditions for a little while, due to scarcity and all that.

[–] Varesti@lemmy.zip 64 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Great news, we're bringing the plague back too!

Don’t newer more dangerous plagues and viruses and diseases

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The actual disease caused by pest bacteria is easily treatable nowadays.

[–] MutantTailThing@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Facilitated by such space age concepts as washing your fucking hands and not drinking the corpse-water.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago

That's "prevention" you're talking about, not "treatment", generally considered better, but still.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Specifically, the peasants had more bargaining power for better conditions because the absolute decrease in their number made each of them more valuable to the ruling class as individuals. There was an increase in peasant revolts and concessions to the peasantry following the black death partly for this reason.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

This is true in places. There are also acounts of places where all the nobility died and the peasants threw weeks long parties.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Look what happened after the plague, 50% of the population was gone.

It broke the back of the Catholic church and feudalism. Peasants got their first pay raise... ever.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago (12 children)

When the population was predicted to explode into the 21st century, the news said this was a big problem. Now the population is expected to gradually decline. The news is saying this is a big problem.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

Houses are already kept artificially empty to retain prices. Capitalism always finds a way to screw you over.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (6 children)

We just never get to retire. workers per retiree over time

By 2030 it's projected to be 2.0 workers per retiree.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seems like it'd be a good place for the last 50 years of gains in efficiency to go.

Time to start taxing the rich instead of worrying about taxing per worker.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] limdaepl@feddit.org 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What those „retiree per worker“ graphs always fail to mention is how productivity increased over the same period.

Those two workers today produce about as much as 8 did in the 50s so supporting the retirees should in fact be easier today, not harder.

That it isn’t is because wages didn’t increase proportionately.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] khaleer@sopuli.xyz 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

you all going to say bullshit about retirement, like if fascist around the globe don't want to take it from you already, no amount of canon fodders you spawn for billionaires won't change that

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

increase wages

Hahahaha oh. That's cute.

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If theres a shortage in the labor market, you either fill it with slavery or raise wages.

Americans track record seems to indicate the former waaayyyy before the latter

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Okay, but retirement is based off there being more people working than not, so in countries with national pensions we'll have to significantly raise taxes, and in countries without such a system, retirees who are invested into index funds, need publicly traded corporations to start underpaying their employees even more (it's really eye-opening when you realize people over 55 own 73% of all the resources of the US, from money to stocks to real estate).

[–] FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

Sounds to me like we'll have to do a communism, i.e banding together to help each other out more, to allow people to retire in comfort. The horror!

(Just in case it seems like I'm dismissing anything you said, I'm not, and thank you for your analysis. My main takeaway is that it seems an unavoidable problem)

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

The population isn't declining, though. See for yourself: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Edit: Granted, it is in some countries: China, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea to name a few.

[–] inconel@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The slowing down of population growth is real though. Trend of fewer children is across the board not just developed countries. Current trajectory estimates population to peak out in 2050-2080 and then decline, for some in their youth in next 30 or 50 years may not be that too far to completely dismiss.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago

2050-2080

Depending on how climate change goes, population might decline by many billions. Hopefully I’ll be dead by then.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ashrakal@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago

Population decline is fine. It’s the population boom driven by World War II panic that was the oddity instead.

In a matter of time, we might return to population levels from the 17th century, and if we do, then so what? A single individual will become all the more valuable, similar to how European nations valued labour more after the Black Death occurred. History likes to repeat itself, even if not necessarily by events like the plague.

Even the fears about the economy and government spending are bullshit. Notice the folks obsessing over birthrates always quote the retiree to worker ratio. They don't talk about the dependent to worker ratio, and that's what really matters. Yes, our populations are aging, and yes that means relatively more old people to take care of. But we in turn also have far fewer children to take care of. If we can adapt to the Baby Boom era, we can adapt to an aging population.

Further afield, fears about human extinction are total bullshit. No country is a monolith; every nation has groups within it with higher and lower relative birth rates. If the birth rate stays low and never recovers among the mainstream society, eventually the smaller groups end up composing most of the population, and then the birth rate recovers. The Amish inherit the Earth.

Or, if even that fails, ultimately technology loss alone stabilizes your birthrates. Eventually your population falls so low that you just can't physically manufacture reliable birth control anymore. That's a product of industrial production. It requires a certain minimum population size to run a factory. Below that and we just regress to earlier technological eras. Eventually we end up back in a mostly agrarian state, and suddenly having kids is once again economically beneficial.

[–] EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeah, there will probably be some growing (er, shrinking) pains, but I'm totally fine if the world just wasn't meant to have 10 billion people on it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Chick0nPlayz@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (10 children)

who will work unskilled jobs if there aren't enough people to do them?

Immigrants usually

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] NotAnOtter@lemmus.org 12 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Lower population is generally better for almost all sectors.

But lowering the population means killing people or restricting birthing rights.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Well no. That’s a wildly incorrect take.

Birth rates are already decreasing and are below replacement rate in many places already. Fertility rates are at an all time low. They naturally decrease as income and quality of life increases.

The global fertility rate is 2.2 births per woman. Which is just barely above replacement. In most developed nations, that rate is down in the 1.6 range, well below replacement.

Total Human population is excepted to peak within 50 years and then begun naturally declining, but many countries are already there. China has seen several consecutive years of population decline. India is seeing a leveling off of population growth and will soon decline. The US is increasing solely off of immigration. Japan has a decreasing population. Same with Korea. 8 EU countries have seen population declines over the last 20 years.

If you wanted to see population decline in the US specifically, banning immigration would do it and we’d see a decline in the next census.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 13 points 1 week ago

People can also just stop breeding. Seems to be happening in a lot of developed countries. Might be slower but I bet the population will level off eventually. Or plummet dramatically from climate change/right wing political policies.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Well, I dunno about you, but I'm in no hurry to get children.

[–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 11 points 1 week ago

Or people just saying "nah"

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›