this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
479 points (95.4% liked)

me_irl

7798 readers
3196 users here now

All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

Mmmmm, if humanity doesn't get babies for say 40 years in a row, we'd be extinct

If humanity wouldn't have babies for say Even 5 years, it would have enormous disastrous consequences for almost all of us

It's actually really important for all of us (even for the ultra rich, but also the ultra poor) that people have enough babies. China knows what I'm talking about, they're heading for a huge population crash

Same for south Korea, same for Germany

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Countries have been able absorb much lower worker participation rates than developed countries have today. It's just that in the past, those resources were devoted to a large number of children rather than a large number of retirees. But dependents are dependents.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 15 hours ago

Problems caused by declining birth rates are self-limiting.

Ideally, a modest rate of decline would allow for society to adapt.

[–] conartistpanda@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

And now that'll be the baby's problem too.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Then lets go extinct, nothing of value would be loss.

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world -1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, you first.

And there's the problem. All the evil geniuses and mad scientists want everyone else to go extinct, but not themselves.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 4 points 15 hours ago

Ok, you first.

I'm not replacing myself, so when I'm gone I'm gone. Checkmate