Infinite growth of human population would hit a hard ceiling on earth resources real soon.
People not having babies is a good thing.
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
519 points (87.1% liked)
memes
22584 readers
2030 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No 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
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not about infinite growth.
Given that not everyone lives to old age, we would expect children to outnumber old people even in a zero (or slightly negative) percent growth scenario.
Karma for them being dicks.
Sounds like a situation that will self correct in a few decades, no?
People think we need to keep growing the population. We're stuck on a single planet together. If we could live on the moon or Mars it would be a different story, but I think it's perfectly fine to decrease the population size back to 1980s levels, at least.
And we're talking about the elderly who don't add any productivity to the planet too.
Sure, some minority of boomers have a good attitude and want to work for the planet and the future generations, but the reality is that a majority of them have piss poor values and are now a net drain on society.
Not really, unless Gen Z starts having a fuckload of babies soon. Because each generation will be progressively smaller if the fertility rates don't rise.
It's not a huge issue in the third world where your kids are your retirement plan anyway so they have a ton more children. In the developed world, we have pension systems and stuff so on an individual level, having kids is likely bad for you financially, you want other people to have kids so you don't have to spend a bunch of money raising them, but their taxes pay for your retirement..
Just funnel money from billionaires into it and problem solved. We can keep the aame money in circulation, half the population, and be fine. I see no issue with lowering birth rates, and wvery issue with a lack of policy changes surrounding it
Unless there's some horrible disaster in the coming decades that will kill billions and harm wealthy old people less.
People live longer every decade and the definition of Senior Citizen doesn't change. This would not be a bad fact on its own...but declining birth rates can cause many issues.
Those juniors are good for nothing either way! oh, wait...
would it be better if the population was growing past 9bn?
There's a stable population the ecosystem can support and I'm pretty sure 9bn is too fuckin many.
not that I'm volunteering to free up space tho... there's a whole lot of techbro chuds who think there's way too many people, but their motivations are pretty genocidal tbh.
honestly we're fucked in either direction, but I suspect there's a lot of reasons the population total will go down once the climate crisis starts shifting millions of people around.
yes growth would be better for me so there are more young people to support the old people
I don't have enough to give so much to old people
selfish prick wants the population to grow so he has more servants at the nursing home
more young people to support the old people
But human labor is incredibly efficienct in the modern day. You don't need ten young people for every one old person - nine of whom die by their mid-30s - so that everyone doesn't starve.
But the role of elderly people has changed so much in the last century. On a national scale, they're no longer master craftsmen or child caregivers or elder advisors. They're just the base of the consumer economy and the electoral pool.
As democracy fails and the economy becomes more fixated on tech capital than quality of life, they're marked out as increasingly expendable.
It isn't that we need more young people so much as we've alienated and de-skilled our old people.
Your old people don't really need any skills when they own most of the economy. People over 55 own 52% of everything in the US. And that's how retirement works, whether you have a government as a middle man via taxes or the old people have their investments, they have to live off the backs of the young. The investments, after all, are mostly ownership of companies that the young people work for. Companies that do their best not to raise wages so the shareholders (boomers) can have a better retirement.
If people want to retire in their 60s, there needs to be growth happening all the time, until we've entirely gotten rid of the need for human labor.
I don’t see a problem.
-Satan
view more: next ›