this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
543 points (94.1% liked)
me_irl
7911 readers
2469 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Mmmmm, if humanity doesn't get babies for say 40 years in a row, we'd be extinct
If humanity wouldn't have babies for say Even 5 years, it would have enormous disastrous consequences for almost all of us
It's actually really important for all of us (even for the ultra rich, but also the ultra poor) that people have enough babies. China knows what I'm talking about, they're heading for a huge population crash
Same for south Korea, same for Germany
And now that'll be the baby's problem too.
Countries have been able absorb much lower worker participation rates than developed countries have today. It's just that in the past, those resources were devoted to a large number of children rather than a large number of retirees. But dependents are dependents.
Then lets go extinct, nothing of value would be loss.
Ok, you first.
And there's the problem. All the evil geniuses and mad scientists want everyone else to go extinct, but not themselves.
I'm not replacing myself, so when I'm gone I'm gone. Checkmate
Problems caused by declining birth rates are self-limiting.
Ideally, a modest rate of decline would allow for society to adapt.