But why on earth? Rejoice, rather.

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    the only people who care about raising the birth rates are the billionaire parasites who are concerned about fewer wage slaves they can steal value and productivity from

  • M500@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You want kids? Raise wages significantly at this point. Put out some strong social safety nets.

    My wife and I are mid-thirties trying to save for a house and retirement. A kid is not even close to an option for us.

    • Mikina@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Unfortunately, what’s probably going to happen is more taxes for people without children. It has already been considered by some parties here in czech, and it infuriates me. I’m also mostly sure that’s what will happen, turning people without children to second class citizens they can leech more money from, with an excuse that they are not building our society enough. And you will get some lower-income, anti-work people spamming children even more, to abuse the benefits and support you get for them even more.

      • M500@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I read that trumps vice president candidate suggested that before too.

        Does the tax go away after a certain age?

        Like when peoples kids grow up do you start paying the tax again? What if you’re too old to have kids? Do you still need to pay the tax?

        It’s a dumb idea, but it’s probably going to happen.

        • teamevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          Trump’s VP supports it as a work around to punish those in “alternative” lifestyles that traditionally don’t have children to remove their voice in society.

          Also those of us without kids already pay more in taxes

          • M500@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            After posting, I wondered about people who are naturally infertile.

    • eleitl@lemm.eeOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Indeed. Less people means lower overshoot, less future excess deaths.

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

        And jobs will be taken over by robots anyway at some point in the future. So, why have so many future humans who will be jobless then?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because some of us like that there is a humanity and want it to continue. Some of us still have hope for the future instead of letting an array of problems depress us. Some of us know we can do better. Some of us are alive.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        8 billion of you are alive. Don’t worry. Humanity is not going anywhere.

        Oh, you mean your flavor of humanity?

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think you need overpopulation to do that. You can probably live a better life without so many people suffering and competing for scarce resources or fighting over jobs and land. I value quality over quantity.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Scaling humanity gives more opportunity to move forward in more areas, more intellect, more skills, more specialization. If there were no living constraints, the more people, the better.

          The constraints on our living space, available resources, healthy environment is the only real limit.

          We need to find a balance with a critical Mass of humanity to continue to grow and improve, yet live within available resources while maintaining a healthy diverse environment.

          • Lemminary@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Scale never stopped progress before. We’re reaching very real limits and a possibility of environmental collapse soon. We’re way, way past finding critical mass by billions of people.

    • eleitl@lemm.eeOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Pyramid scheme proponents are panicking since confronted with end of growth.

  • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Considering climate change, any new people we create will literally burn to death before they’re able to live a full life so what’s the point?

    • eleitl@lemm.eeOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      They will likely expire by mass starvation before they succumb to hyperthermia, but you’re right, of course.

      • morphballganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Mass starvation won’t kill everyone at the same time. These demographics will die while those survive, then repeat.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      And difficult. Also may have something to do with it. And employers seem to think any time. For them is wasted.

      My kids are the best thing I ever did, but I won’t pretend it was cheap and easy. I also won’t fault anyone who hesitates based on the huge effort of time and money.

      If governments want to fix this crisis, they need to make it much easier and cheaper to have kids. Like the article mentions, small measures won’t be enough. However the article glosses over the time factor - there’s a huge societal inertia to overcome and the population changes won’t be apparent to most until it’s too late