this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
149 points (97.5% liked)

World News

54583 readers
2875 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
[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I'm a bit conflicted on the population and birthrate issue. On one hand you have those who worry that an ever increasing population will lead to resource scarcity, economic stress and degrading climate resilience. Then you have those, especially on the right, that insist we need to have more babies. Usually, that "we" is white people. For example, that weird Collins couple who are having kids not of love but out of ~~eugenic~~ patriotic obligation.

So, my question is this: when discussing population crisis, be it overpopulation or under-population, what is legitimate concern and what's just ring-wing fear mongering?

[–] swearengen@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The legitimate concern is every economy runs on the assumption of infinite growth. In essence every nations economy is one big pyramid scheme that can go on and on as long their women have at least 2.1 births on their downline.

We need a system that can run well on degrowth, there's no good reason why one couldn't work but there are trillions of reasons why people will fight tooth and nail to prop up the current one. People's choices and the environment be damned.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 2 points 1 week ago

The optimist in me hopes that AI just makes up for the loss in human labor from population loss and everything just keeps functioning.

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

The issue happening in Japan is that there won't be enough young people to support all the old people who can't work

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There are advantages and issues with both high and low population, but the most pressing issue is that when population decreases, it puts a strain on working people because there's a higher share of the population that is retired.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The core issue is population distribution. Most governments are designed to run with a certain proportion of people in each age bracket. Japan and much of Europe is headed towards being essentially old age communities. Governments are not effective at saving money to provide for the needs of a majority elderly population elderly. They typically make use of resources coming from the productively employed segments of society. With an elderly skewed population, there would need to be major institutional overhauls to meet the needs of people.