the thing is, while not having babies is good for the planet, it is really bad or even a huge crisis for the economy depending on how it is set up as most economies are set up so that you people take care of the old
Not entirely accurate. Shit hits the fan before this changes too much and we are in much debt. Also infrastructure is somewhat of a fixed cost. I.e. being fewer people does not reduce infrastructure emissions.
Antinatalism isn’t ab answer to the problem, but might be a reasonable reaction.
That being said I do not want to advocate for having more children or put the blame for the systemic issues on the individuals suffering from them.
Population decline will be the socio-economic epoch which finally puts an end to obligate growth capitalism, and the initial demographic crisis will force us to reprioritize how we use resources and technology to support aging populations. Historical materialism goes brrrrrr.
Refusing to make children for the capitalist machine is just good praxis.
some infrastructure, but by no means all. But I think my stance has always been closer to “if they wanted me to bring in additional players, they should’ve made the game more fun to play”
For the time being, most countries can get a younger population by letting in immigrants (who are statistically younger). Would probably result in a softer landing than otherwise.
Debt and money are make-believe anyway. Just tokens in a game we play called capitalism.
I’m not sure about the infrastructure claim. Generally, if infrastructure is used less, it requires less maintenance.
50% of all habital land is already being used by humans and being degraded, which doesn’t seem sustainable, especially since so much of the world still lives in poverty. World population doubles every 61 years, so it seems like it would be nearly impossible to stay on the current trajectory for much longer.
Please consider kids in foster care before adopting. Adoption is a huge problem in the USA and doesn’t always consider the child’s needs over the potential buyers. ); <3
Literally the opposite of this is true. Not having kids is one of the single best things you can do for the planet.
(Still want to raise a child? Adopt! There are so many kids out there looking for good homes and people who will love and care for them)
the thing is, while not having babies is good for the planet, it is really bad or even a huge crisis for the economy depending on how it is set up as most economies are set up so that you people take care of the old
Not entirely accurate. Shit hits the fan before this changes too much and we are in much debt. Also infrastructure is somewhat of a fixed cost. I.e. being fewer people does not reduce infrastructure emissions.
Antinatalism isn’t ab answer to the problem, but might be a reasonable reaction.
That being said I do not want to advocate for having more children or put the blame for the systemic issues on the individuals suffering from them.
Population decline will be the socio-economic epoch which finally puts an end to obligate growth capitalism, and the initial demographic crisis will force us to reprioritize how we use resources and technology to support aging populations. Historical materialism goes brrrrrr.
Refusing to make children for the capitalist machine is just good praxis.
some infrastructure, but by no means all. But I think my stance has always been closer to “if they wanted me to bring in additional players, they should’ve made the game more fun to play”
For the time being, most countries can get a younger population by letting in immigrants (who are statistically younger). Would probably result in a softer landing than otherwise.
Debt and money are make-believe anyway. Just tokens in a game we play called capitalism.
I’m not sure about the infrastructure claim. Generally, if infrastructure is used less, it requires less maintenance.
50% of all habital land is already being used by humans and being degraded, which doesn’t seem sustainable, especially since so much of the world still lives in poverty. World population doubles every 61 years, so it seems like it would be nearly impossible to stay on the current trajectory for much longer.
Please consider kids in foster care before adopting. Adoption is a huge problem in the USA and doesn’t always consider the child’s needs over the potential buyers. ); <3