this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
231 points (96.8% liked)

Degrowth

1150 readers
9 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Far-right authoritarian pundits and political actors, from Matt Walsh to Elon Musk, all seem to have gotten the same memo instructing them to fixate on “low” fertility and birth rates. Musk has claimed that “population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming” and that it will lead to “mass extinction.”

Some liberals are flirting with this narrative, too. In a February New Yorker essay, Gideon Lewis-Kraus deploys dystopian imagery to describe the “low” birth-rate in South Korea, twice comparing the country to the collapsing, childless society in the 2006 film Children of Men.

It’s not just liberals and authoritarians engaging in this birth-rate crisis panic. Self-described leftist Elizabeth Bruenig recently equated falling fertility with humanity’s inability “to persist on this Earth.” Running through her pronatalist Atlantic opinion piece is an entirely uninterrogated presumption that fertility rates collected today are able to predict the total disappearance of the species Homo sapiens at some future time.

But is this panic about low fertility driving human population collapse supported by any evidence?

https://archive.ph/rIycs

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

Low birth rate of white people, or whatever group is in control.

I’ve always assumed that it was a dog whistle to nationalism and racism at some level, along with birthrates needed to prop up the system requiring infinite growth, the profits of which are primarily diverted to those already wealthy instead of growth in the social services needed to help an aging population.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The article is pretty good, but you need to have a bunch of context to understand what it's pointing out.

I've been noticing the Social Darwinism plans for a while. The traditional pronatalist policy is indeed that of "quantity", specifically, a high quantity of human capital with high turnover - for labor and war. The human capital, you, need to understand that this means:

  • women are domestic baby factories ("traditional family")
  • men are (wage?) slaves, worked to death with only enough time to sleep and reproduce
  • huge infant mortality rates (this tends to increase fertility as people try to make spare children)
  • huge childhood mortality rates
  • large maternal mortality rate (guess why the chainsaw was invented)
  • an abundance of orphans
  • lower and lower life expectancy (retirement = death)

What I still don't understand is why these pronatalist types want so much human capital when they have so much technology to replace humans, especially now. It's a weird contradiction in the TESCREAL ideologues. If anyone knows, let me know.

Here's a good podcast to get a grip on this very broad topic: the overshoot podcast.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

They want a cheap work force to steal wealth. That can be done by having a lot of supply in other words natalism or it can be done by lowering demand using technology. They obviously go for both.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

This may answer your question. I've read that the only way to continue making a profit, aka be better off than the laboring masses, is to use human labor power to produce products/services. Why? Because if a process is automated, the process's rate of profit will eventually fall to zero. Why? Competition with other businesses that automate will drive the price down as low as it can go (unless of course there's collusion or a monopoly is allowed to exist).

Put another way, in order to make money, you need to be able to pay your labor less than the value of whatever they're producing. If the whole process is automated, there's no one to pay at all, which is amazing for a hot second, but once another business copies and undercuts you, you need to lower your price to match theirs. Then a third person copies and undercuts you both, and before you know it you're not making any money because everyone is selling a fraction of a cent above cost.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To all the people talking about old to young ratios: The old built this world, they should suffer the consequences. We have the technology to end hunger and poverty, but in order to use it we need to have less total people. I don't care, or rather I cannot care given the circumstances, if the elderly get left behind in the process.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We don't need fewer people, we need more political will and less political won't. There are more than enough resources to feed and clothe mankind and we now have an extremely effective global delivery system in place, so there is no excuse for not ending global poverty.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This world cannot sustain billions of Humans. We don't need as many people and we certainly don't need more people.

The vast majority of crises we face would completely dissappear simply by reducing the birthrates further.

The elderly are the only ones who need to suffer, and very briefly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OK, so (a) who is going to knock off your elderly relatives - you or someone else; and (b) at what age will you top yourself for the benefit of civilisation?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nobody is talking about ganking people to reduce the population here, mate.

They're just going to get suboptimal care and quality of life for a decade or two as they approach the end.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It amounts to the same thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

One is the result of our actions, the other is the result of their own.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You also avoided my other question: at what point exactly do you accept your care being reduced to "ok die already grandad"?

I'm not surprised though. People like you are all "oh lots of people need to die because this isn't sustainable" followed quickly by "what me? no I mean other people".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

You're falling back on assumptions of my stance that I already dismissed, you're clearly arguing with a person inside your head.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 3 days ago (4 children)

The ‘demographic crisis’ is one of economics and states, not the persistence of the human race. The ratio of the old to the young is increasing drastically. Our global economic systems are simply not designed to support this. Our states cannot exist —as they are—without constant growth and those that fall behind are left behind.

The solution to the ‘demographic crisis’ is to move towards economies that are not based on constant growth so that the phenomenon is no longer a problem. Ironically people will probably be more interested in having babies in this scenario as well. Global capitalism is depressing, soulless, and does not make me go “wow I hope my decedents get to experience this.”

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Some people talking to you don't seem to be getting it. There's a Kurzgesagt video about Demographic collapse in South Korea. The issue is: You have a country with a boundary, and the entire country can't take care of its elderly, and because it is getting poorer, can't attract people from other nations to take care of its elderly either. This kills the "nation", which can't defend itself and doesn't really have anything to look forward to.

[–] SpaceCowboy 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You know economics is about resources and there isn't some magical system that gets around resource distribution, right?

Economics has been termed the dismal science for a reason. A permanent solution to the demographic problems of people living longer will either involve people accepting a lower living standard than they otherwise could have or having people work longer before retiring. Or maybe Logan's Run? It doesn't matter if it's a capitalist society or a socialist society the problems are the same, large population not producing anything but still consuming resources.

But chill, as a great economist once said, in the long run we're all dead anyway. There's still a massive pool of people that want to live in our ever-growing populations. We just gotta stop letting people make us think immigration is a bad thing. It'll be a long time before the entire world is living at the same standard of living we enjoy in the developed world, and with so many people getting suckered into making their countries backwards and authoritarian (thanks, Putin!) it doesn't look like we're going to run out of immigrants that will be willing to move to an affluent democracy any time in our lifetimes.

If we get to a point where we can no longer depend on attracting immigrants because every country in the world is an affluent democracy... well that's a good problem to have, isn't it?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Economic crises drive political crises. The trend towards far-right authoritarianism is a global one. People under stress (of many different sorts) favour authoritarianism for some reason.

The pathogen-stress theory of authoritarianism is fairly well studied and has proven robust. There’s similar support for theories of economic stress and poverty driving support for authoritarianism. Population declines can be a major source of economic stress due to the way older generations need to be financially supported by younger workers.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago

Yes, sustainability has to be part of any solution.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Low birthrate is a threat to paying folks a low wage.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This person has class consciousness!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Workers need to learn about what a birth strike is.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I mean, it might not be a threat to humanity but it's certainly a threat to my ability to retire. Right now the money I put into CPP is funding the boomers' current retirement and their children's retirement. Who's gonna fund mine? But it's not like my generation could have kids anyway. The same boomers fucked the world so badly that we're only barely able to scrape by. I'm in my 20s, I shouldn't even have to worry about this bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

You're in c/degrowth. Retirement from economic growth "generating" "passive income" isn't a feature.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Degrowth supports UBI. Isn’t that a form of passive income?

People eventually retire whether they want to or not. Their body breaks down and they can no longer work. These people need some kind of support or they’re going to die in miserable circumstances.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The only way not to die in miserable circumstances is to die suddenly, and retirement homes typically take away people's ability to choose even that.

I would not wish my grandmother's "well-earned retirement" on my worst enemies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

No, there are many circumstances in between.

My grandparents both lived in a retirement home for the last few years of their lives. My grandfather died suddenly but my grandmother did not.

My grandmother had a long, gradual decline with dementia. We visited her often and took her out of the retirement home for tea. Her accommodations there were very nice and our family would visit several times per week (grandma had 6 adult children). We would have lunch there and the food was very good. Her dementia meant she could not remember people visiting her but she was not unhappy. She was always happy to see us!

I’m so sorry your grandmother faced miserable circumstances. In Canada we now have legal MAID which I am a supporter of. No one should be forced to live in constant pain without a choice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

retirement homes are not what almost anyone means when talking about retirement, most are simply talking about a form of quitting where you never work again (or never need to).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

I'm well aware of the community I'm in. My support for reorganizing our society doesn't change the facts of our current reality. And maybe I'm a cynic or a pessimist, but I don't see developed nations shifting to degrowth until all us peons have been milked for ever last drop of energy we can muster. Even though we need to shift to a model that isn't dependent on infinite growth, there is little likelihood that will happen in the remainder of my lifetime.

[–] SpaceCowboy 3 points 2 days ago

As a friend who was going through the process of getting citizenship once said "I think Canada wants me as a citizen for the tax revenue."

Yup. That's the deal... immigration = more tax revenue. It's actually way better than having more children. Society has to pay for the education and healthcare for children and doesn't see a dime of tax revenue until the very earliest 18 years, and more likely >20 years. An immigrant that's already educated immediately starts working and paying taxes.

Immigration is basically the cheat code for demographic problems.

The main problem is that boomers didn't move out of their houses into nursing homes (or at least small apartments) as early as previous generations so we have some housing problems. But the boomers won't live forever and when they die off, housing will be freed up.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You will receive less retirement money than Millennials (who will get less than Boomers), while the percentage of your income for pensions increases monthly, and the retirement age rises. This change won’t happen suddenly but in waves.

Many liberal governments in Europe are currently pushing to raise the retirement age. For example, in my country, reforms have already ensured that by the time I reach retirement age, it will be set at 74.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

And then we'll find that all the stress that we've gone through due to poor planning and policy has taken 10 years off our lives and we'll all have heart attacks at 70 before we even get to retire. Those that survive will be kept on life support to continue being worker drones for the billionaires. Changing the age of retirement isn't the solution. And if they do decide to do that, then it makes it all the more important that they enact policy to make life easier right now.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Thats not a problem that can't easily be solved. All the resources needed for you to retire exist in abundance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Sure, if you're a nice person who people want to help out of love. But what about the assholes who can't get people to interact with them without the threat of homelessness?

Please, won't someone think of the narcissists?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Does it? The Canadian fertility rate dropped below replacement in 1971, which is also the case for most other Western countries.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago

I would definitely like a less busy planet

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago (4 children)

The only problem with low birthrate is an organizational one, where you don't have enough young population to support the old population. But to me this just means that the organization isn't set up correctly.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

But nonnegative birth rates are one of them

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

There's 8 billion of us on the planet. Humanity is fine. Losing a few billion won't hurt anything except maybe capitalist exploitation.

What won't survive this ramping down is consumerism and the "middle class" lifestyle.

What will make it easier, though, is eating the rich.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›