this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
56 points (96.7% liked)

Futurology

1812 readers
239 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 74 points 8 months ago (4 children)

This is bad news only for the capitalist ideology of endless growth.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Yep.

✅Good for the planet.

✅Good for societies and humans in general.

✅Good for wildlife.

✅Good for our longevity as a species.

❌Bad for people who exploit others to gain money and resources.

Good. I'm glad there will be an unstoppable reckoning coming to these unapologetically savage fuckers.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I thought the current conclusion is: we're at the tipping point now that would allow most wildlife to persevere. We need to be changing course now or yesterday to save the majority of even most if any at all. There are efforts, but most habitats are on course for nearly irreversible modifications. Humanity will survive, at the cost of other wildlife on the planet.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well that's about disastrous decimation of wildlife due to climate change, which is technically a separate thing. I was just commenting on the obvious fact that less humans means better outcome overall for the planet and wildlife.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The comment I was making was regarding wildlife. Above, you specifically made a check mark talking about wildlife. My comment was on topic to your comment.

Human population is affected by the climate of our planet. Part of the reason we don't have more people is also climate related.

We're going to drive most wildlife extinct by the currently unfolding action, population size notwithstanding. The damage is done.

This better outcome you speak of doesn't account for the fact that we're not changing our behavior now. We should have changed these things 20 years ago.

The current messaging is that we have only 15 years left to figure this out and Limit the increase to 1.5c.

We already failed hard, it's a question of how much collateral damage to the ecosystem will we cause.

Wildlife will not be ok.

Humans and societies in general will be distressed.

This event might be a large test of our longevity as a species.

The planet will be fine and has been through worse.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is that you will end up with a massive shortage of man power. Automation may fill in the gaps but at the end of the day you will end up with a labor shortage.

There also is the problem of not having enough people to take care of the elderly. We are slowly moving to a future where the majority of the population is old and grey

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Again, a duly needed change. Less people means less everything, so less need for so much bullshit to produce and consume. Less overall is a good thing.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago

The problem is with the sudden changes. Its fine to have a population change gradually

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Remember that one time shareholder value fell through the floor and it only hurt the capitalists? Yeah, that never happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Shrinking population is economically harmful regardless of your economic system

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There are other concerns, like the collapse of social security.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But they keep telling me it's gone anyway and I'll never see it. I don't see how that makes anything worse.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They've been saying that so people are less likely to riot if they're ever successful in stealing it like they've been trying to do for decades. But the fund is moderately healthy... for now.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 8 months ago

Wow that never crossed my mind. Totally see it now since they constantly talk about gutting it. Jerks are always late game planning.

Well regardless I rather have happy wanted children in the world than unwanted ones. I am curious if the reduction of unwanted children will lead to less financial waste in long run.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago
[–] cloudless@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The birth rate in many countries is less than 2 per family. The population will decline because there are less babies

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago

Just need more access to birth control globally and suddenly we won't have half the problems because we have half the population. With added bonus technology to make up the labor difference. I'm sure Thanos would be proud.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Math checks out.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

When you have 8 bajillion people on the planet, every time a baby is born, the individual value of human life across the species drops slightly, due to the increase of supply.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's an entirely capitalist way of thinking about it. Don't think like a capitalist.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

What I said still provides for full equality. Our lives' value decreases collectively! Full egalitarianism if I ever did see it

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago

explains alot of 40k and hell divers mentality.