this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
775 points (97.7% liked)

Greentext

8831 readers
1109 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mHtt@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This is the true purpose of religion: to maintain the conveyor belt of cheap workers/soldiers through 'marriage', also the same reason religious folk universally agree on banning abortion.

[–] Ashrakal@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 days ago

Population decline is fine. It’s the population boom driven by World War II panic that was the oddity instead.

In a matter of time, we might return to population levels from the 17th century, and if we do, then so what? A single individual will become all the more valuable, similar to how European nations valued labour more after the Black Death occurred. History likes to repeat itself, even if not necessarily by events like the plague.

[–] frog@feddit.uk 188 points 4 days ago (5 children)

The people that want higher birth rates don't care about higher wages, the environment, or people's safety.

They just need workers they can milk them until they can't work anymore. They need these workers to spend all their money so they have to keep working.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 90 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The endgame of capitalism is slavery.

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 61 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The early game of capitalism was slavery

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

I'm not worried about population decline but regret to inform Anon that I was around when there were half as many people and it was not better. Sorry. There was terrible pollution and more crime.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Look what happened after the plague, 50% of the population was gone.

It broke the back of the Catholic church and feudalism. Peasants got their first pay raise... ever.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It broke the back of the Catholic church and feudalism. Peasants got their first pay raise... ever.

You're missing maybe the most important part of this: ...eventually. It was at least 40 years after the plague hit, and probably more like 70-100, depending how exactly you're counting. AKA it might get better after we're all dead

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GonzoAtBarstow@lemmy.world 98 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (11 children)

8+ billion people on the planet and people complain about not enough people.

Ponzi schemes aren't sustainable.

[–] whalesnrainbows@lemmy.world 45 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Yeah, people worried about “population decline” are actually concerned about their preferred race/religion losing political & cultural power.

It’s a dog whistle every time

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] PragmaticOne@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

We are humans and as such we have always adapted. We will adapt again. You can all live in fear re population decline if you like but I’m just getting on with it.

[–] SitD@lemy.lol 3 points 2 days ago

actually quite pragmatic 🤨

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Who will pay to care for the aging population? Welp, whether you live in a socialised care country or the United hellscapes of America, the answer is: you will. Or your kids will, or whatever generation we're talking about here.

Even if you do live in the US and have no elderly relatives, the insurance companies will have to hike the shit out of their premiums to remain profitable.

The fewer working age people there are compared to people past working age, the worse it will be.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah but that's just a pyramid scheme. We can't just keep growing the human population forever.

Started working at 15, figure I'll work till I'm 75. Or until I die, whatever. If I can. It's fine, not ideal but fine. I would have appreciated maternity leave more than retirement. The time then would have been a lot more valuable.

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Yep. There's a big bowl of shit, and some day it must be eaten. The choice becomes: do you eat the shit, or do you add a little squirt and pass it to your kids?

[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I would imagine that the most cost-effective (realistic) way of solving it would be through some sort of culling.

Nothing flashy like forced euthanasia. But a reduction in available healthcare here, a drop in funding for elderly services there, some "dead weight" propaganda, and life expectancy would sink like a brick; all the while these policies would be presented as unavoidable cost-cutting measures to keep up appearances.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago

Billionnaires.

[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 50 points 4 days ago (14 children)

When the population was predicted to explode into the 21st century, the news said this was a big problem. Now the population is expected to gradually decline. The news is saying this is a big problem.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago

Houses are already kept artificially empty to retain prices. Capitalism always finds a way to screw you over.

[–] superduperpirate@lemmy.world 78 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Ya know, I have vague memories of reading an argument somewhere that the black plague killed off so many peasants that the surviving ones had materially less shitty conditions for a little while, due to scarcity and all that.

[–] Varesti@lemmy.zip 62 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Great news, we're bringing the plague back too!

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)

Even the fears about the economy and government spending are bullshit. Notice the folks obsessing over birthrates always quote the retiree to worker ratio. They don't talk about the dependent to worker ratio, and that's what really matters. Yes, our populations are aging, and yes that means relatively more old people to take care of. But we in turn also have far fewer children to take care of. If we can adapt to the Baby Boom era, we can adapt to an aging population.

Further afield, fears about human extinction are total bullshit. No country is a monolith; every nation has groups within it with higher and lower relative birth rates. If the birth rate stays low and never recovers among the mainstream society, eventually the smaller groups end up composing most of the population, and then the birth rate recovers. The Amish inherit the Earth.

Or, if even that fails, ultimately technology loss alone stabilizes your birthrates. Eventually your population falls so low that you just can't physically manufacture reliable birth control anymore. That's a product of industrial production. It requires a certain minimum population size to run a factory. Below that and we just regress to earlier technological eras. Eventually we end up back in a mostly agrarian state, and suddenly having kids is once again economically beneficial.

[–] 42yeah@eviltoast.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The biggest problem is the aging population and the need to support them via social security, etc. As the population ages, the distribution becomes an inverted pyramid and we’ll need to pay for more and more people’s retirement. It’ll slowly become worse and worse as one person will eventually be responsible for the survival of 4-5 old people (and their family notwithstanding). Otherwise I think a declining population is fine.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

Immigration doesn't exist.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

increase wages

Hahahaha oh. That's cute.

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If theres a shortage in the labor market, you either fill it with slavery or raise wages.

Americans track record seems to indicate the former waaayyyy before the latter

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Considering how people struggle with the comparatively small hiccup that is the current Iran-US war, I find it hard to believe that all commenters here would be fine when global trade dwindles.

I however am built different and would simply survive economic and societal collapse.

[–] PuddleOfKittens@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If society is constantly getting richer every single year and has for decades... Why are people still struggling? Either poor people are unreasonable/irrational, we don't actually care about reducing cost of basic necessities,or the wealth increases are being siphoned out elsewhere.

Population decline would be a non-issue in a functioning economy, because a small shrinkage of the economy would be a non-issue.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I always hate it when someone says that we would need to reduce our standard of living to remain sustainable. It's 100% bullshit predicted on using a definition of "standard of living" that nobody understands (roughly speaking I think it's only used to compare two different persons or groups in an idealized snapshot in time). We waste so much food. Some of it's necessary, but, 40%??

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

yes! If there wasn’t so much overconsumption by a small set of very rich folks everyone could live a comfortable life sustainably, it’s so frustrating

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 20 points 3 days ago (22 children)

Okay, but retirement is based off there being more people working than not, so in countries with national pensions we'll have to significantly raise taxes, and in countries without such a system, retirees who are invested into index funds, need publicly traded corporations to start underpaying their employees even more (it's really eye-opening when you realize people over 55 own 73% of all the resources of the US, from money to stocks to real estate).

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago (7 children)

We just never get to retire. workers per retiree over time

By 2030 it's projected to be 2.0 workers per retiree.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 55 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Seems like it'd be a good place for the last 50 years of gains in efficiency to go.

Time to start taxing the rich instead of worrying about taxing per worker.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] khaleer@sopuli.xyz 28 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

you all going to say bullshit about retirement, like if fascist around the globe don't want to take it from you already, no amount of canon fodders you spawn for billionaires won't change that

load more comments
view more: next ›