this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
55020 readers
288 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But also, a surfeit of resources and wealth. We've seen global population crashes before and (aside from the mass death that predicated them) I understand that the aftermath was actually quite pleasant.
If our system can't support even a steady state population, it needs to fail. Constant growth is a ponzi scheme.
As population numbers fall, we won’t have people that can extract those resources.
We won’t have people to defend global trade routes. We’re seeing this already. The mighty US navy can’t prevent Iran from using cheap drones to choke the world of oil. Oil is used to make everything, and already there’s barely enough to go around.
Countries will enter unrest and devolve.
The next 25 years are going to be really bad.
25 years isn't that long. If that's all it takes to transition to a static model, I take that deal any day of the week. The longer we predicate everything on growth, the worse transition gets.