The UK’s fertility rate is at an all-time low, and many other countries face similar declines, creating ageing populations. But can ecological benefits of fewer people outweigh social problems created?

It’s interesting how different countries are dealing and are effected by the declining worldwide birth rates. The most astounding statistic to me is that wildlife populations have dropped +70% over the past 50 years. Frankly, if humans think that we are in the right to drop wildlife populations by such a staggering amount, a slight drop in human populations only seems like a fair way to balance the scales.

  • Greyghoster@aussie.zone
    34·
    14 days ago

    Apparently endless growth is a good thing. How the planet is supposed to continue to provide and survive a continuous expansion of Homo sapiens is beyond me. The only way out is to decrease population growth and refactor the world economy away from endless growth.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      9·
      14 days ago

      Really, we should just work towards keeping the world population stable and bring everyone out of poverty

      Not that we have to try particularly hard, things are stabilizing off by themselves

      We’re 8 billion people on the planet, we aren’t running out anytime soon

      • Greyghoster@aussie.zone
        5·
        14 days ago

        The sad part is that a technological society built ethically might be sustainable however we’ve blown it with run away climate change.

        • BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          3·
          13 days ago

          Agreed. Feels like grief whenever I think about it knowing the current trajectory, to be honest.

  • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    101·
    14 days ago

    If it becomes universal and is irreversible, then yes it would be a bad thing. The issue with the wild life annihilation is that it is occurring in the poorest parts of the world. What do we do to stop them? Invade, order them to just stay poor? Import the world’s poorest into the wealthiest countries? Mass sterilization of the poor? All of those sound fascist AF.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
    8·
    13 days ago

    It’s good. And the decision to have (or not have) kids is one of the few forms of power that the general population has over those in charge. If people are being squeezed out financially or have no hope for the future (e.g. environmental collapse), they may choose to opt out of reproduction.

    • sibachian@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      13 days ago

      It probably doesn’t hold up. The idea of overpopulation is wrong because the west is suffering a birth crisis while the third world is having a child boom. It’s not that more children are being born, it’s that their standards are being improved so more of them survive. They in turn will level out and see less children born the better their standards become; so it’s reasonable to assume if standards are collapsing in the west, then in a generation or so, more children will be born.

  • Spacehooks@reddthat.comEnglish
    31·
    13 days ago

    Imagine how many lives would be improved of people who only wanted children when they are ready had children. Everyone wins.

    Eventually all the labor will go to machines and AI anyway. Nothing will be lost.