• 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.