this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
367 points (85.4% liked)

memes

22570 readers
2796 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website
367
I can see nothing wrong with this. (lemmy.world)
submitted 20 hours ago by WanderWisley@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.world
97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 29 minutes ago

would it be better if the population was growing past 9bn?

There's a stable population the ecosystem can support and I'm pretty sure 9bn is too fuckin many.

not that I'm volunteering to free up space tho... there's a whole lot of techbro chuds who think there's way too many people, but their motivations are pretty genocidal tbh.

honestly we're fucked in either direction, but I suspect there's a lot of reasons the population total will go down once the climate crisis starts shifting millions of people around.

[–] shiroininja@lemmy.world 12 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

It’ll be fine. The baby boom our grandparents cane from was an anomaly

[–] Nautalax@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

The US baby boom is not really meaningful on a global scale

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

Baby boomers also had more kids than the generation that preceded them. So did Gen X. Millennials are the first to fail to even replace their own population.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 12 points 10 hours ago

How to say you don't understand sustainability without saying you don't understand it. :-)

[–] heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Just waiting for Jesus?

[–] mika_mika@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

In a pretty abstract sense, yes, and it gives me peace.

[–] MasutaHarada@thelemmy.club 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think youth outnumber old are sign of good thing either, but you do you.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Even at constant population or even mildly declining, you would expect the young to outnumber the old by a bit. Given people die on the way to getting old and die whole being old more than the young die.

They may be even fewer than when the currently old folks when they were young but still be expected to outnumber the old

[–] jnod4@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 hours ago

Why would anyone make a kid is beyond me. More mear for future wars, for warehouses and factories, forcing a life into being just for suffering and misery

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 28 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

So what's your alternative? Infinite growth?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago

Oh no, who did this? (sarcasm. a few people have gone out of their way to ensure everyone else's suffering)

[–] iatenine@piefed.social 128 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

Not even close to true

https://www.populationpyramid.org/region/world

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 57 points 18 hours ago

well 1 out of 23 humans checking to see if random internet claims are true is better odds than i expected, well done sir

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Its really only Africa that bucks the trend if you Iook region by region.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

If you select North America and slide the slider between 2050 and 2080 it looks like a face opening their mouth and screaming.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 hours ago

ok let's revolt before it's too late for the planet then?

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 46 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, this IS fine. There's too many people on this fucking planet. The only reason this is considered a problem is because capitalism and the Bible says so.

No other reason. Period.

[–] terranoid@lemmy.cafe 24 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

While I half agree with you, that's definitely not the only issue.

Senior citizens become people to take care of, that won't/can't work and I don't mean that in a "dear God consider the GDP" way, but literally just people who will not be contributing but still require services, in fact likely a lot more than normal.

It ends up being a lot of neglected senior citizens dying in horrible ways.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

Senior citizens become people to take care of,

Children need more resources to raise than seniors take.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Not really. The unique expense for a kid is education compared to the old, and elder care can easily eclipse that.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world -2 points 5 hours ago

Cost per child is $300k, $400k including college. The state (which means workers' taxes) chip in an average of $17k / year for k-12 which is another $200k. That's $600k per child, not including the free labor from the parents.

The average savings for someone 65-74 is $200k. End of life costs are $155k for the last 3 years.

[–] mig@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I suppose if you are just thinking about things like cost of formula, diapers, clothes, education. In terms of time spent, children take less and less one on one time as each year passes. They have a finite timeline of required care.

The elderly become less and less independant, the care they require becomes more and more medical in nature, and there is no timeline. Someone with dementia can require around the clock medical care for decades.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Yes, the medical care is 1000x more than cost of food and things.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago

An infant requires more constant care than a dying elderly. Parents are on rotation 24/7 for the first year. That's more than elderly get in hospice.

Moneywise it's $600k for a child. $400k from parents. $200k from the state for the free k-12 education.

Elderly on average have $200k in savings age 65-74 and spend $155k in medical costs their last 3 years.

Children are more expensive in money and direct labor.

[–] shiroininja@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Not with modern lifespans, 75-95 take a ton of care and are unable to contribute

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago

Average 64-75 have $200k savings and spend $155k for last 3 years.

A child takes $600k. ($300k from parents. $100k college. $200k paid by state to cover the free k-12.)

[–] Gold_E_Lox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago

yes and theres more old poeple than children, thats like, the whole point of the post??

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 8 points 13 hours ago

Since more people in the world are in China and India you are probably wrong about it being the Bible. It is religious texts that encourage more reproduction for religious spreading to the masses and China just has more landmass so more people overall

[–] itisileclerk@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

People live longer. 100 years ago 50 year old man was old.

[–] ElChinchilla@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Yes people live a little longer. but the main average that skews average life expectancy/longevity numbers is today fewer babies and mothers die during and post birth.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 57 points 18 hours ago (17 children)

Low birth rates are a crisis for capitalism, not humanity. And if you count brown countries, it's not even happening.

Pension schemes are not a biological imperative.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Just for clarification, if we're talking about sub replacement fertility rates then it would be "brown countries" except for India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iran, Lebanon, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Costa Rica and Cuba and more. Might be an invalid generalization now.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I don't owe the future anything.

I don't give a fuck if our species survives. Why should I?

Everything ends someday.

[–] potpotato@lemmy.world 17 points 13 hours ago

The issue is we don’t just go straight from point A to B, rather there’s a long period of suffering.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 11 points 14 hours ago

Not just fine, good.

[–] mrmisses@lemmy.world 25 points 18 hours ago (10 children)

Good. There are too many people. Why do we want to expand on a 7billion+ population when so many of us are struggling? How about we only have as many people as we have resources for everyone having a good life?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] bryophile@lemmy.zip 37 points 20 hours ago (10 children)

After all this time humanity finally created a world with high life expectancy, just to start wondering now whether we should.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›