The world population is expected to start shrinking within this century after hitting a peak in the mid-2080s due to lower fertility levels, particularly in China, according to the latest projection by the United Nations.
Mainichi Shimbun - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Mainichi Shimbun:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Japan
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Fucking good.
Yes we are, but with appropriate precautions.
But muh free revenue growth
Seriously.
The only people with reason to be concerned is the ultra wealthy
At literally every point of modern history, a reduction in the amount of humans was beneficial for the vast amount of humans in the long run.
Like, even the Black Death led to reduced wealth inequality and the beginnings of workers rights.
When labor is scarce, workers get treated better. When there’s a surplus of workers, people are desperate for a job and will work for little.pay in unsafe conditions.
There were riots during the Black Death too. Lots of bills and an overtaxed population lead to the Great Rising.
Wtf. So instead of the rich eating the poor the poor should just eat the poor to improve the labor market in their favor?
Start with the rich and then move into each other. The rich have all the resources so eating them will free up vast amounts of wealth that will solve the problems of all of us. Food, housing, work; we live in a potentially scarcity free world - it’s just the rich getting in the way.
Right? Lol wtf was I even reading before
Just don’t breed like rabbits and stay away from religions and political parties that like to forbid anything that goes against popping out babies.
Can’t believe we have someone getting so many up votes for saying that the black plague was a good thing? Would you say that about all the deaths during COVID? This upvoted edgelord callousness is nuts.
It’s perhaps a bit callous but throughout history tragedy always brings change. Sometimes that’s good change, sometimes it’s bad, mostly it’s a mix of both.
It’s nuts (kinda sounds like Nazi speech to me) and it’s also not really accurate.
Let’s look at a metaphor with money:
My mom and dad work. They give me a little bit of money every day. One day they die and I get a chunk of money from their life insurance, but this amount isn’t as much as if they’d stayed alive and had stayed working. Because they died, in 30 years my family’s total net wealth will go down compared to the potential because my parents weren’t able to contribute.
Now imagine that en masse. There is ABSOLUTELY a loss of money, progress, etc, etc, when people die prematurely. Let alone the human cost itself.
What about if people don’t die prematurely, but the population isn’t replaced? Because that’s the scenario this article is talking about. Not additional deaths, but fewer births.
I take issue specifically with the verbiage the commenter was using regarding the black death and wars. And the idea that more people = bad working conditions; less people = good working conditions when that’s not the case of what was happening (which was more something like an inheritance/windfall).
In the case of babies not being born in modern times, there are a few things to consider.
- One, that speech doesn’t get weird and start advocating for a Handmaid’s Tale Dystopia (forced repopulation for the sake of repopulation).
- Two, that likely poorer people and probably certain groups will be affected disproportionately by this which is the equivalent of a silent genocide or several silent genocides
- Three, that we acknowledge there are many sad factors at play as to why people aren’t having children and those factors will likely get worse
- Four, that we acknowledge that AI could very well bridge the worker shortage gap for some time until climate change kills everyone
The pressure we are feeling is from climate change and the rich. Hoping that there will be less humans to give everyone a break is delusional, especially because the past HAD less humans and workers had shit rights then compared to now. We aren’t getting saved by anything, not even if we die or sacrifice our would-be children to the sun god.
A modest proposal in tough times.
If you strike and there’s no scabs for them to hire or the scabs are even more expensive (because they aren’t desperate for a job) then it becomes cheaper to actually give the workers what they want.
It is the opposite of the poor eating the poor. Being educated, having fewer kids later in life makes getting out of the poverty cycle a lot easier for anyone.
Did you read the comment I responded to saying that the black death was good because a lot people died and as a result created a better labor market? That’s saying death is a good thing to cull surplus labor.
I think you’re reading too much into what’s not there. The poster is talking about how less people resulted in the improvement of labor conditions. In the past this has only happened noticeably through large scale death. The black death is probably the most drastic but similar has happened after both WWI and WWII. The difference is that the current labor supply reduction won’t be from death but from reduced births. However, increased power of laborers should at least be similar whether the cause is through death or reduced births. China, Japan, and South Korea are experiencing/are going to experience this first without drastically increased immigration and the rest of the western world isn’t far behind.
At literally every point of modern history, a reduction in the amount of humans was beneficial for the vast amount of humans in the long run.
Like, even the Black Death led to reduced wealth inequality and the beginnings of workers rights.
I don’t see how someone can claim that the mass death of people is simultaneously beneficial to that people.
There’s a difference in reduction of humans by events that cause death at large scale vs decline in rates of reproduction. Clearly catostrophic death is being used as an example of “a reduction in the amount of humans.”
Large scale death events are the only reference we have for the type of population reduction that we are/will be seeing.
Labor supply being reduced while demand remains means that labor is stronger. Whether that supply reduction is due to death, population decline, or other causes is not really relevant.
it’s almost as if the capitalist system doesn’t have our best interests at heart… who would have thought.
reduction in the amount of humans was beneficial for the vast amount of humans in the long run.
This is literally Nazi speech. This is literally genocide rhetoric. Shame on you.
The Black Death lead to people literally dying. It wasn’t beneficial in the long run at all. It killed millions. That’s a lot of human data both in DNA terms and knowledge that died. That’s a lot of inventions dead.
When workers must work for a capitalist, or a king, or a pharoah, and they lose their bargaining power, their conditions are bad. Not when there’s “lots” of them. That’s just the nature of humans being a social species, we are made for “lots” of us. As long as we are each empowered, then having people alive and thriving is no issue.
However, who replaces the aging workforce? Who pays for social security? Back in the 60s, it was a ratio of 6 workers per 1 retired. Now, it’s 3:1. Soon, it’ll be 2:1. That’s bad. Very bad.
A smaller working population and a large inactive population create huge labour shortages which must be filled by migrant labour which creates additional problems.
One solution is enabling people to work for longer but this is challenging. Do we push the retirement age to 75? What about the declining health and abilities of ther population.
People are having children much later than normal. Births under the age of 20 have dropped 90% in the last 10 years. We are aging faster than we are replacing.
I was hoping productivity or efficiency would make up for it but looks like max we have gotten is about double efficiency. 1960 TEP is 66 on the scale and today 2022 and 2021 is 164-168. Meaning we are 100% more effective. So 2 workers are more like 4 workers in the 1960s. But it isn’t the same as 6 to 1 ratio sadly
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/how-many-workers-support-one-social-security-retiree
The rich will cry though.
More than cry, they’ll crash the market over their fears of less profit than last year, then they’ll get government aide, and then we’ll pay for it for the next decade until they do it again.
The UN estimate has always been too large. Its methodology is flawed.
More realistic estimate would be that the population will start to fall sooner. Around 2040-2060.
That’s a pretty long prediction window, no? I feel like a lot can happen in even just 20 years to mess up any assumptions, like open war between super powers (maybe China and USA over Taiwan), big water migration movements by worsening climate change, new pandemics, countries intervening in their sinking birth rate trends, things like that.
The problem is that even if everybody started fucking now, it wouldn’t change the fact that many countries including China are on pace to not be able to even maintain their current GDP in the 2030’s and other than doing something to replace human labor (bringing people in or automation) to maintain or increase their GDP, there is nothing else they can do. It is too late.
Everyone is in trouble here but some are worse off than others. Especially when they’re going to have to figure out what to do with people that will be aging out of the workforce.
Pandemics and wars do not appreciably increase birth rates.
Countries attempting to stem population decline have generally had poor results, case in point, Japan, Korea and most other developed economies.
Japan and Korean attempts at increasing birthrate completely ignore the problem that is their horrible work culture that prevents people from having actual lives
I was more thinking that they decrease populations, throwing the estimate off in the other direction.
The global population, currently at 8.2 billion, is projected to reach approximately 10.3 billion by the mid-2080s and then gradually decrease to around 10.2 billion by the end of the century, according to the U.N. report on world population prospects released last month.
2 billion more people than we have now isn’t much of a decrease… I don’t know about maintaining that trend long enough to actually decrease from what we have now, which is already overpopulated.
Too little, too late.
Climate change means we probably won’t exceed 9 billion anyway.
Once crop failures, drought, and extreme weather cause resource wars, famine, climate refugees, and double digit inflation, the population will start to fall rapidly.
We’re not really overpopulated, we just live unsustainable lifestyles and overconsume especially at the top of the wealth rungs. Why go for population degrowth as the solution before tackling the myriad other city planning, economic, and wealth-inequality-rooted problems?
Is it easier to imagine great famine and to wish for even more declining birth rates than to ask questions like: “should we be moving past capitalism?”
Yeah. 25% more people than we have now is not shrinking by any stretch of the imagination.
Seeing as this will start decreasing in 2080s, I will live through the peak years… at best Iwill be one of the decrease contributors. Yay?
