this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
361 points (98.9% liked)

World News

46174 readers
3108 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 15 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

It makes more sense if you just concentrate on making life more manageable, comfortable and sensible for the population you already have.

And working age people are necessary to make (and keep) life manageable, comfortable and sensible. This isn't a hypothetical; they're suffering the effects already. We'd need to lean a lot more into automation before society can function as an inverse pyramid.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Or, we could transition away from people doing made up jobs that don't need to exist to doing things that actually need to get done

[–] Supernova1051@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'd be interested to hear what you think a made up job is

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Japan is notorious for unnecessarily complicated supply chains to bolster employment. And for unnecessarily ripping up perfectly fine pavement and concreting hillsides that don’t need it. Again, to bolster employment.

There are many, many, BS jobs in Japan.

And they still struggle with youth unemployment.

Fewer people would be a godsend.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

If only. US productivity is soaring but workers’ share of GDP isn’t. And we have chronic underemployment.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 6 points 2 weeks ago

Things like medical billing where the vast majority of the profession exists because we've created a labyrinth to be navigated that doesn't need to exist.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And who decides which jobs are made up?

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The market. This is why I'm really not too concerned about falling birthrates. There's a lot of bullshit jobs out there. Consider the typical office. It's damning that despite all the increases in efficiencies of computer technology we've had over the last several decades, work hours haven't changed at all. If anything, they've increased. And the number of people working in offices hasn't declined. The efficiencies of digital technologies didn't decrease work hours, the work simply expanded to fill the available space. Items that in generations past would have been resolved with a one page memo written on a typewriter have been replaced with 50 page reports full of charts and graphs. We have huge numbers of people preparing documents that no one ever reads. There is an absolutely absurd amount of fat and inefficiency in the modern workplace.

Or consider corporate vanity projects like RTO. Workers are on average more productive at home. But executives tend to be sociopathic narcissists who simply need people to constantly praise and validate them in person. They just don't get the same narcissistic supply from remote work, so they demand thousands of people waste colossal amounts of resources to come into an inefficient office just to appeal to their depraved egos. Oh, and for many executives, the ability to coerce sex from their employees is a primary job benefit, and that goes away with remote work.

Oh, and don't forget credential inflation. We demand people have bachelors and masters degrees for positions that 50 years ago would have been handled by someone with just a high school diploma. I'm all for education for those who want it, but the fact that you need a bachelors for anything other than food service and retail is a massive drain on our society's productivity.

As birth rates decline and the population ages, the market value for the labor of the workers that remain will soar. They will be able to demand higher wages. Think the equivalent of a $100k salary for someone with a high school diploma. This will force companies to either adapt or die. Those that insist on inefficient workflows, require excessive credentials, or demand employees come into the office for the sake of executive egos will simply go bankrupt. They will be replaced by companies that are run more rationally.

Anyone who has ever worked in an office can tell you just how stupidly inefficient corporate America is. And Japan's business culture is even worse.

I don't think we're going to have any problem getting by with a declining population. We can maintain our standard of living quite well just by squeezing the fat and inefficiencies out of our existing systems. There won't be some grand government bureau deciding what jobs are "made up." Companies that insist on hiring people for bullshit jobs will simply be driven into insolvency. And the world will be better for it. Working a pointless bullshit job is not good for anyone's mental health. People need a sense of purpose in their lives.

And while apoplectic doomsayers might say, "where does this end, won't the population eventually collapse to zero?" This isn't a realistic scenario. Cultures are not a monolith. Different groups have different birth rates. Over time, those groups and cultural practices that encourage higher birthrates will be selected for through natural selection.

For example, in many countries, the general misogyny of the population is a major reason young women don't want to get married and have children. They don't want to lose their careers and end up the stay at home wife to a salary man who arrives home drunk every night at midnight. They want a more equitable sharing of parental responsibilities. Some men are better at providing this equitable arrangement to their partners than others. Those that are will be more successful at finding wives. And those couples will pass their egalitarian values onto their children. Misogyny will be evolutionarily maladaptive and will be removed from the cultural gene pool. Those that insist on their wives doing all the child rearing will not find partners and will not be able to pass on their outdated beliefs to the next generation. In time, the birth rates will recover.

Or, alternatively, countries will move more back towards multi-generational households instead of the atomistic couple+kids that has become the norm today. Multi-generational housing was the historical norm, and it may be again in the future. It could be selected for through similar cultural evolution. Regardless, below replacement birth rates will not be maintained indefinitely. Eventually things will stabilize. If nothing else, eventually your population gets so disperse that you can't mass produce effective birth control anymore, and well things take care of themselves at that point.

TL:DR: how I learned to stop worrying and love the declining birth rate.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

i would upvote twice if i could, but i only have one account.

also: people have been worried about birth rate being too high in the past (around 1800) and population count going to infinity, consuming more resources than the planet can give and provoking a famine.

And the population count stabilized eventually in every country that they were worried about.

And now people are worried that the birth rate is too low and population count will go to zero.

I dare predict it's bullshit and the population size will stabilize at some point.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, people forget that there are some real hard limits on how far population can fall. What people fail to realize is that our level of technology is actually a function of our population. Mass production and industrial society requires a certain minimum population level and population density. If things fell so far that there were only 100 million humans on Earth, that would have profound implications on the level of technology we able to deploy and maintain. Past certain points, you by necessity start regressing technologically. At a population of 100 million, we would probably end up with a technology level more like the early to mid 19th century. You just can't maintain complex supply chains with so few people. Economies simplify, and you end up back in an agrarian state. At that point, most of the population is working on farms again. Suddenly children become an economic boon for a family farm, a source of labor as they were historically. Then the birth rate soars again. And of course at some point you can't maintain factories that turn out millions of birth control pills.

I don't think we will actually hit these kind of hard limits. I think cultural factors will cause the birth rate to recover long before we start seriously regressing technologically. But it shows that we're not at any risk of extinction here. Even if cultural factors never cause the birth rate to recover, eventually technological regression will serve as a hard limit.

I can't predict what exactly those numbers are where these limits kick in, but it's pretty intuitive they exist. If your population density falls so far that you're back at hunter-gatherer population levels, well you're going to be living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 2 weeks ago

Wow that actually makes a lot of sense.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hear me out for a wild idea: businesses could offer living wages, benefits, and work-love balance.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean yes, when did I say otherwise?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

Do you just post that comment randomly apropos of nothing then?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's kind of implied by the context.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 2 weeks ago

With utmost respect friend, that's what you chose to read into it. The comment was neutral and didn't imply you, specifically, nor any particular group. It's just noticing that some people do, for whatever their reasons. If a neutral, observation triggered a strong reaction in you, it could be worth your time to explore that.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago

One of the most overcrowded, expensive, energy- and arable land-poor nations on earth with an unemployment crisis and comical economic inefficiency is facing a population decline.

Oh no.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It is not an inverse pyramid though. The older humans are the more likely they die. So you always and up with a pyramide at the top, at least somewhat. With low birth rates a society has to care for fewer children. That results in an actually fairly stable ratio of working age population to dependents.

A shrinking population also means build infrastructure is already built. They just have to keep things running.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

It'a a bit pear-shaped, then.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So you always and up with a pyramide at the top

Let's assume for a second that in society X every couple has one child at the age of 30 on average, and that child mortality doesn't exist. In that case the average couple has to care for one child and four grandparents for a total of 2.5 dependents per working adult. That's an inverse pyramid; there are more old people than young people. The older humans are the more likely they are to die, but also when they die new old people come to take their place so it cancels out. Anyway for comparison let's consider society Y where every couple has two children on average. In that case two sets of grandparents will give birth to four children who will then have four children in total, producing a cuboid and a ratio of 2 dependents per working adult. More than 2 and you get a pyramid at the bottom.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

People are always born with the same age namely 0, but they do not all die at the same age. In fact getting older increases chances of death. Hence 2 babies per mother ends up in a pyramid too.

Even if you presume people all die at the same age, things will be stable. If say people all get childten at 30 and only work between 30-60 and then all die at 90. If we then assume 1 child per couple and everybody has a child at 30, we would get a stable dependency ratio of 2.5 dependents per worker. Obviously those numbers are not realistic. Btw that also is not a pyramid, but a trapezoid.