• _sideffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    No one has any money for rent, food, or living expenses.

    Everyone is overworked.

    We’re paid pennies compared to CEO’s.

    Every single company fucks us by raising prices because they can, and our governments do nothing because they haven’t worked for the people in decades…

    • markon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is in the good economies too! In most of Africa life is even shittier. I can only imagine. Well, is still mostly better than it’s ever been. History is cruel, and present but at least % of population living decent is much higher globally. Still, USA richest country in the world and we can’t Even get universal healthcare, and instead of aiding homeless domestically, or money for food abroad etc… We give a genocidal maniac hundreds of billions to play with.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      And yet you do nothing but complain on the internet.

      If you really had no options you’d be desperate enough to kill your boss or his boss or the CEO.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not only that, but with the increasingly credible threat of automation looming, I don’t think we should be looking to traditional economic wisdom for advice about labor shortages.

        • Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          8 months ago

          Cringe af. Can you please stop with the constant violent rhetoric? This does not solve any problems and instead divides humanity. You will not create a better future by killing more people.

          • Alteon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            History repeats itself. Unless laws change to reign in the 1% and the billionair class, heads will guaranteeably roll…the question is whether it’s sooner or later. It just comes down to a question of how much are people willing to put up with before someone takes matters into their own hands, and that will be the catalyst that causes change. Either others will follow suit, or the laws will get passed to control these people.

          • Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            We’d have a better present right now if we guillotined rich fucks and their bootlickers.

          • Kachilde@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Don’t kid yourself Richard, If Zuckerberg ever got the chance he’d eat you and everyone you care about!

            But seriously, you worry about a divided humanity? We’ve been divided for centuries, and the people at the top aren’t going to willingly step down from their mountain of corpses to slum it with the rest of us.

          • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            It requires killing a lot fewer people than the .01% kills every day through economic violence. They’re just a walking trolley problem at this point.

          • mke_geek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Totally agree. Instead of trying to create understanding, violence and thinking of other people as non-human only tears people apart.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Automation considered a threat is sad. What fucked up world we live in.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          It has to be deprivatised if it’s going to be a positive for humanity, otherwise it’s just another upward wealth transfer.

          • uis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yep. Basically we already have answer to question “what if we had replicator?” and it is “DMCA”. Technology is not enough for society to be better.

            • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Our modern rich think that with enough technology they can insulate themselves from our power entirely. The way I see it we either prove them wrong, or die.

    • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes, my wife and I considered not for environmental reasons. My parents thought we were nuts citing the threat of nuclear war when they were kids and everyone continuing to have kids then. They’ve come around to understand our hesitation now, mostly, but it was distressing that they couldn’t understand , if not agree, with hesitating.

      Of course, the environment is just one thing that gives us pause these days. People are crazy. Politicians and the laws they create are (or the dissolution of certain laws is) crazy. Plenty of reasons to pause.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        We did have a child, and I do not regret it, but we also have the means to support her and a way to escape the U.S. if things get much worse. Many Americans don’t have either option, and no child should be neglected or abused and every child should have a robust support system. I wish we would encourage and educate people on contraception on a grand scale.

        • wjrii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          My wife travels a lot for work, and I dabbled in genealogy years ago to track down my own birth relatives. By combining the two, my wife and our daughter now have EU passports, and I’m eligible for a long-term visa.

          Theoretically I could be eligible for Slovakian citizenship (which is not their EU country) based on my own DNA ties, but that would require some mental gymnastics and a very progressive interpretation of how closed infant adoption affects legal rights.

          I am actually very fond of Texas, and I think the idea of it is worth fighting for, and that there’s a strain of tolerance and hospitality and diversity here that could be compatible with a much more progressive worldview. I have hope that it can be better than it is. I think any place with people who love it is worth trying to make into the best version of itself, to say nothing of the people who couldn’t leave even if they wanted to…

          but we’re also not going to be the last ones out if we lose that hope.

            • wjrii@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              You need a grand-grandparent (or more recent) born in Slovakia. My biological great grandmother was born in a small town in the eastern half of what is now Slovakia, and immigrated to the US in the late 1920s. I was adopted as an infant though, so my legal family has no such connections, and while I could try to make my case, it would be both circumstantial and rather technical unless I could get help from my birth father, which is, shall we say, unlikely.

              • ripcord@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Interesting. My grandmother was.

                I’ve wondered what my options to get to the EU are if I really wanted. That…is interesting.

                Edit: do you have a source by any chance? So far I only see rules allowing if parents were Slovakian citizens.

                • wjrii@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  The Australian embassy seems to have updated their page more recently than the US or Canada, and they mention the grandparents and great grandparents thing. I’d check with the US embassy (assuming you’re in the US) to confirm, but it looks like the long-discussed law change did happen. I kinda lost interest when I realized the doors I’d have to barge in to have a plausible chance of success. YMMV. :-)

        • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, the same here. We had 2 kids (and then a vasectomy). We’re not rich, but we do have a house we could sell to aid leaving, and we have enough in savings to make it without selling the house, if we needed to leave right away. Of course, environmental issues will be a global problem, but the response to those will likely be better in some places as compared to others.

  • halfwaythere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Replacement level for whom? To sustain the current population? Population growth? Status quo? Corporations?

    Not sure any of these things are needed to be sustained at the levels we are currently at.

    Someone please explain the detrimental repercussions of not having an equal to or greater than replacement level.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Not only that, but we’re simultaneously talking about how we’re adding a force multiplier to labor with the advent and improvement of AI.

      We’re literally in the process of decoupling social progress and productivity from reliance on population, and juggling the impending social burden that’s going to create if jobs decrease accordingly, yet we should be worried we’re not popping out kids to maintain population growth?

      Why the fuck should we create larger generations of unemployable humans for the future we’re building?

      Especially when having a kid is one of the worst possible actions you could take regarding environmental impact, and the people already alive are facing quite serious environmental consequences for such impacts.

    • Triasha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ll take a crack.

      Slow population loss, while concerning for policy makers, can be managed theoretically by moving money around. Taxation, subsidies, etc.

      The US is currently at 1.6 fertility rate. 2.1 is replacement rate, so a pretty steep drop of 25% loss per generation. But we have substantial immigration to make up the shortfall. It’s an issue, and it’s trending down, but manageable for now.

      Fertility rates of 1 or less are terrifying. Each generation is half the size of the one before. Half as many workers supporting the elderly. Retirement/pension systems will be strained then collapse, allowing retirees to fall into poverty. Half as many workers to maintain infrastructure, half as many doctors, half as many nurses, half as many experts in every field, means half as many researchers making discoveries and breakthroughs.

      God forbid you go to war and have half as many soldiers to call on, from a workforce already stretched beyond any before. It’s a recipe for mass suffering in a scale never before seen.

      South Korea and Japan are currently below 1. China might be even lower. People are, generally, resilient and resourceful. Adjustments will be made. People will work into their 70’s and 80’s because there is work to be done. But there will be a great deal of suffering.

  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why would I want to have kids in this shithole. And I have it pretty darn good, always had enough to eat, roof over my head, relative luxuries. Still would never bring a kid into this world.

  • UnsavoryMollusk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why the fuck would I bring to the world someone to live in this overheating unrestrained capitalist hellscape ? Invisible hand my ass. The invisible hand doesn’t seem to stop them from poisoning us with forever chemicals… And so much more. Why would I bring someone to suffer ? They would surely have a worse life than me. Who wants to give that to their kids ? Who ?

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Phew. The population needs to be reduced significantly, this will help!

  • piskertariot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sounds like a problem for governments to figure out

    Immigration was always an outsourced bandaid for solving population decline.

  • Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Good. A lower population is truthful and beautiful, as my old philosophy professor would say.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    An important point for the people cheering lower population - this is way under replacement level. As previous generations die off and this becomes apparent, the fear is a sudden depopulation enough to disrupt some economies, societies. Picture Detroit, many times over (apologies to Michiganders, since I’ve been to Detroit recently and things are finally looking up after half a century of urban blight) but r pivcture infrastructure like Flint, MI water system many time over. Unstable economies and societies are bad for us all

    Given that the article is posted on a science site, and people are discussing this on fairly new technology, I also want to point out that science, technology, innovation are all “luxuries” of an expanding population. As we depopulate and an increasing share of resources go toward elderly care, infrastructure, etc, that’s less for science, technology, innovation.

  • sturlabragason@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The book analyzes the elements that lead different nations to succeed or fail, in the author’s opinion, focusing on demographic, geographic, and historic factors. It asserts that the period from the 1950s to the 2020s represented a peak period of rapid economic development and innovation; meanwhile, the present (2022) and future would be associated with a rather abrupt slowing of such developments. In this view, deglobalization leads to deindustrialization, deurbanization, and even depopulation.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_World_Is_Just_the_Beginning

  • suction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    Good. Right wingers naturally have lesser chances of procreating so they’ll go first.

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Anecdotally, it isn’t liberal city dwellers with enormous families.

      It’s right-wing Christian fundamentalist in the sticks.

      • suction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I was thinking more of Ben Shapiro / Alex Jones / Trump-follower types who obviously are pretty good at repelling potential sex partners.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          We’d all like to think that but Ben is married and has a kid (maybe more? Idk that much about him), don’t know about Jones, and Trump has several kids.

          There are obviously plenty of women around stupid enough to reproduce with them.

    • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The people against birth control and sex education are definitely not gonna have less kids.

      Their child mortality might be higher because of antivaxx crackpots and lack of maternity clinics in fundamentalist states though, so that’s a “plus”