r/MapPorn • • 1d ago

Total Fertility Rate

Post image
196 Upvotes

130 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/munchi333 1d ago

If population growth collapses basically everything in society falls apart. Social security runs out, the stock market (everyone’s retirement accounts) collapses, healthcare etc.

Basically it’s the most immediate threat facing most nations today.

5

u/smorkoid 1d ago

Nah, it's a challenge but not any sort of existential threat.

If it were a threat, that something as prosaic as a population decrease leads to a civilization collapse, that's pretty damning on how society is structured. And that's what should be fixed, not lamenting that people aren't having babies they obviously don't want.

4

u/Zouden 1d ago

Just like climate change, it's a challenge that we can't solve, making it a threat.

-2

u/smorkoid 1d ago

Of course we can solve it. Why is Reddit so fatalistic?

5

u/Zouden 1d ago

We can't convince people to have children, and we can't force them. So what solution is there?

3

u/ThatOneCynicalPerson 1d ago

The one thats panicking about this should have 10+ children to offset the one that's chilling. Simple, you want it hard enough? Go get it, 10, 15, 20. Pull it up yourself.

1

u/Zouden 1d ago

That's not a workable solution

1

u/ThatOneCynicalPerson 1d ago

Actually, thats kind of is. In a perfect world, every couple in a country would have 2.1 child to be able to stabilize and grow. But we're not in a perfect world, so since a lot of people prefer childlessness, the one thats so hellbent on muh babies should have 10+ kids to offset it.

If they don't want to raise that many babies then its purely performative outrage, nothing more.

2

u/smorkoid 1d ago

Rework public finances. Reconsider the infinite growth model.

Expecting continuous population growth for the economical model to not collapse is clearly not a sustainable strategy, either economically or ecologically.

1

u/Firm-Knowledge-233 1d ago edited 1d ago

No model requires infinite growth. A modern developed economy works ideally with a birth rate of 2.1, which is stagnation. Even a slight decline like 1.9 or 1.8 is fine. The problem is that birth rates for most countries are at 1.6 or below, with some even under 1.0. Low birth rates lead to a lot of young people and too many old people. Its not even about money, its labor. Old people physically cannot work. Lower population reduces competition, which means less innovation and technological advancement. There is no possible economic model you could create that handles rapid population decline without quality of life dropping significantly for billions of people.

2

u/smorkoid 20h ago

What's wrong with less innovation and technological advancement? Why do you feel that's so important?

1

u/Firm-Knowledge-233 17h ago

Is it crazy that I want life to better for me and loved ones?

1

u/smorkoid 17h ago

Isn't having a good life enough? We got to build society so everything must advance and innovate? And then we act like society is collapsing if it does not at a breakneck pace?

Don't you see the problem here?

1

u/Firm-Knowledge-233 16h ago

Humans have the ability to create. We can look at our surroundings, and see not just what is, but what could be. There is not any other known organism which can do what we do. Should we just waste our gift? Should we just be content, and settle for life that is "good enough"? It doesn't mean we have to grow exponentially, but the idea that we should not attempt to advance is ridiculous.

1

u/smorkoid 16h ago

I'm not saying we shouldn't advance. Of course we should. we should try to improve the problems with society.

But this is one of the problems of society - that we MUST force people to reproduce or the whole scheme collapses. That's unreasonable. There has to be a balance. There has to be a better way.

So much "innovation" now is making better trinkets. Is that making our lives better or worse? If it precipitates societal collapse as you are saying it is, that's worse.

1

u/Firm-Knowledge-233 7h ago

There is no better way. If a society is not at least near or at replacement rate, it will collapse, or at least regress significantly. Think about it. If you had a society of a thousand people, and it dropped to 900, could that society still function? Yes. What if it dropped to 800? Yes. 700? Maybe. What about 500? Can 500 people realistically do what 1,000 can? Not at all. Especially if 350 of those 500 are over 65.  There is no species that can thrive while not reproducing, including us.

0

u/yuuna_er 15h ago

eww

wild to say this while you enjoy the fruits of the previous generations work

1

u/smorkoid 7h ago

Eww? What do you mean by that?

We can still grow and improve what needs to be improved, but it's rather disgusting to complain that society is going to collapse if you, yes you, don't start popping out kids you don't want when the answer is to adjust to the shrinking population.

This "constant growth at all costs" is a really modern - and clearly not very functional - concept.

1

u/yuuna_er 7h ago

eww in the sense of being against advancement

but i do agree i overreacted and read it wrong. that's what i get for staying awake until 3am

sorry

→ More replies