this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
83 points (79.4% liked)

memes

21754 readers
2998 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] treesquid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

.8 birth rate is going to be a huge problem for South Korea in a few years. The rest are just "oh no, capitalism's infinite growth will be finite after all"

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Lower birthrates are less an issue that people think.

For any living being self replication can explode incredibly fast, and it's usually the case when numbers dwindle, due more resources available per person.

Big birth numbers are more worrying and limited resources lead to fast "too little resources for everyone" situation.

I remember reading that part of what took Europe our of the dark ages after the black plague was that survivors thrived in an post plague environment. Also remember reading that dutch population growth actually taller because after so many people died survivors got more meat and food in general available to them, so their children grew a lot.

So in general I'm always more worry about high birthrates than low birthrates.

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The problem is we have retirement these days. And also the plague would've killed the old and frail leaving the young and capable behind. Whilst birthrate decline means there are less young people relative to old people. This burdens young people who have to take care of the old. A problem that didn't exist when all of the old people died.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I suppose the worst case scenario is old people having to work because they cannot retire as soon.

They are already saying it that new retirement ages would be in the 70s

Not ideal, but far better than starving or being homeless because you don't have resources for so many people.

[–] BreakerSwitch@lemmy.world 1 points 23 minutes ago

But it turns into homelessness and death for the elderly when the average retirement age is 70 and the poor are retiring even later, long past their healthspan, and still lack savings or income to get relevant care.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

So I'm paying taxes all my life so old people don't have to work but I might never be the beneficiary of this system myself

[–] MrKoyun@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Yeah. Why not make the old people of today work to fix the mess they created? Oh wait, old people rule the world. They will just favor themselves and the rest isnt their problem. Like they have always done.

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

Not sure if I should be sad that I'll never be able to retire or happy because I never have to save for retirement

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 3 points 23 hours ago

It's either that or allow immigration or start forcing women to have more children than they want.

It's becoming clear which way the ruling class wants to go.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

This was true back when the economy was vague and vibes based and people kind of just died and it was ok. But now we have pensions, and it's considered unacceptable for people to starve to death and economies to collapse, so an upside down pyramid starts to get wobbly rather than "self-resolving".

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Can you elaborate? Why 0.8 in South Korea is so much worse than 1.08 in Poland?

[–] the_strange@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The growth (or in this case decline) is exponential. 1.08 is bad, 0.80 is terrifying. 1.08 is roughly half of the fertility needed for a stable population (about 2.1 children per woman). This means that per generation your population shrinks by half its size. 0.8 is another 25% lower. At an exponential rate these differences add up fast. The first one gives you (roughly) one child per 8 great grandparents. The other one needs 18. So over 3 generations the population shrinks by another factor of more than a half.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Wait, is the chart ”births per person” or ”per woman”? I was reading it as per person, so 1.08 per person would be about 2.16 per woman.

Edit: probably per woman. Lines up better with https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=JP . Grumble grumble numbers without units.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Grumble grumble numbers without units.

You and both, buddy. Grumble!

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But the birthrates are still falling everywhere. Countries that are at 1.08 today will be at 0.8 soon. I think they are just hitting the problem sooner, not that they are facing a different issue.

[–] the_strange@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Here's a visualization of the birth rates of Japan, Poland and Germany against those of South Korea:
https://georank.org/birth-rate/japan/south-korea
https://georank.org/birth-rate/poland/south-korea
https://georank.org/birth-rate/germany/south-korea

Japan and Poland have been stable, maybe slightly declining, since the early 2000s, and Germany has been stable for 50, all below replacement, whereas South Korea is still going down.

I am no demographic expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but for the moment it doesn't look like the other countries are going to hit the same problems at the same severity anytime soon whereas South Korea is going to get hit by the full force of their demographic issues within a few short decades.

[–] AEsheron@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Far from comprehensive, but a good primer.

The problem is similar to climate change. The effects of today will ripple several decades into the future, and people everywhere are more short-sighted than they would like to think, you and me included. Our brains are built for hunter gatherer lifestyles, sensing urgency in actions that will come back to us in 40-50 years just isn't how we are programmed. Germany is already entering the danger zone, the effects won't be stark for another 30 years or so perhaps, but if we delay much then there will be nothing to do to counterbalance it effectively. Demographic collapse is an issue that is way past mitigating by the time it becomes an acute problem. An ounce of prevention is not a pound or even a ton of cure, it's the only cure. And when it starts to hit noticeably, that means you are just going over the side of the waterfall and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Korea is just starting to tip over the edge of the waterfall, in 5-10 years it is going to get much worse.

The takeaway from the meme isn't that we are overreacting to their situation, it's that we are underreacting everywhere else. The real insidious issue is that in most nations having this problem, society largely panders to its politically active and (comparitively) wealthy elder base, and the best way to boost the birth rate is to shift support from them towards the young, which is politically problematic. So we are stuck in a situation where those with power have to act against their interest, in order to avoid problems that will happen far later than our brains are hardwired to care about. In short, the prognosis is very bad. Imho, the only chance most western nations have is watching things get very ugly for the elderly in Asia, and using that to scare their constituents enough to convince them that short term sacrifice is needed to avoid similar conditions for themselves. But I'd say it's a long shot.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 3 points 1 day ago

Japan and Poland have been stable, maybe slightly declining, since the early 2000s

I just checked Poland and it's not what they are reporting:

https://forsal.pl/gospodarka/demografia/artykuly/9811360,gus-potwierdza-to-rekord-dzietnosc-spadla-nizej-niz-kiedykolwiek-wcz.html

Number of births:

Birthrate:

Systematically falling for the last 10 years. Yes, it was better before that but experts say it doesn't look like stopping anytime soon. But I guess we'll see.

Those are data from GUS, the official statistics bureau of Poland.

[–] stenAanden@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago

I am truly convinced after seeing line go down.