Politics

978 readers

119 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

138

US population projections shrink because of declining birth rates, less immigration (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 11 months ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Without immigration, the U.S. population will shrink starting in 2033 in part “because fertility rates are projected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself,” the Congressional Budget Office said.

The reduced projections from last year were the results of a decline in projected fertility rates over 30 years from 1.70 births per woman to 1.60 births per woman and less immigration because of an executive order last June that temporarily suspends asylum processing at the border when U.S. officials deem they are overwhelmed, the budget office said. Replacement happens at a rate of 2.1 births per woman.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wasnt talking about what benefits the country. The country is made up, by us. The earth is not. Less humans will benefit the earth, especially capitalist humans.

If the economy needs people, then americans apparently should get to making babies or increase immigration, neither of which are well supported things.

As for climate change killing us first, you'd maybe want to remember what caused climate change in the first place, and how many people contributed to that over the last few hundred years. Almost like more people = more pollution from industry and food production.

Well, unless you can convince people they dont need the conveniences in their lives anymore and that they should stop eating meat and dairy.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Almost like more people = more pollution

Again, if you look at the per capita production of emissions this varies significantly by country. The median resident of India produces carbon consistently with normal global climate patterns. The median resident of Qatar is this endless plume of fumes.

Well, unless you can convince people they don't need the conveniences in their lives anymore

Part of the convenience of modern life is created by energy conservation. Quality insulation, electric lighting/heating, rail transit and bicycles, modern telecommunication as an alternative to travel, plumbing and water recycling, crop rotation and hydroponics and nitrogen rich fertilizers - all dramatically reduce the per-capita load an individual inflicts on the surrounding environment.

What we're seeing in countries like the US is a failure to invest in ecologically sustainable modernized infrastructure. We've foregone efficiency for profit, because single-use plastics perform better on the balance sheet of the O&G industry than biodegradable alternatives.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Per capita doesnt matter as much when as a whole pollution is increasing, as population keeps increasing. We dont need more people right now, unless you are referring to the economy. I dont care much about the economy though, as thats doing fine depending what class you are in.