• If we really thought about it, there will be a raising amount of people who don’t have a job and will not be able to get a job ever due to the decline in human labour needs, which lead to fewer jobs being offered globally which means that with fewer humans around there will be a higher chance for people to get a good job.

  • Humans consume resources, with less humans around there will be more resources for each humans and they will collectively consume less resources in total.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.comEnglish
    16·
    2 months ago

    Yo that’s great! Less people.means more resources for everyone! More nature, less pollution, less density (which makes crime and such more noticeable)

    …but it won’t make billionaire as many billions. Unacceptable!

  • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    2 months ago

    Humans don’t have a modern economic or social model for what is about to happen to most of the developed Western world as well as Russia and China.

    Having a smaller cohort of young people means less consumption, fewer children being born. Before you get your dander up screaming about how great that is for the environment. Just remember that fewer young people means the pace of technological change is likely to slow down, there will be fewer young people to support a larger elderly population which will likely mean higher taxes and yet fewer children.

    Japan has been going through this process for years. However they were a single developed country in a sea of developed countries that had rising working aged populations. They offshored production to countries with labor pools and were able to position themselves very well because of that. That is not the scenario the rest of the developed world will face.

    The world will likely be a very different place in 20 years. Nations historically held together with ethnic majorities that have passed the point of no return to repopulate may no longer exist in that span of time.

  • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    2 months ago

    Also look at Detroit as an example. One of the reasons they’ve found it tough to rebound is so much Infrastucture for a much bigger population, they can no longer afford to maintain. Nor is it affordable to “downsize” the city. And of course the worst hazards are on the downsize list

  • Xenny@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    2 months ago

    If the infinite labor babies stop flowing the infinite capital generation stops too. Can’t have that for some reason

  • RBWells@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    I do agree. You can’t run the world economy like a pyramid scheme. Not sure there are “too many people” or just technology lag, and I don’t believe EVERYTHING is zero sum (we have increased efficiency in a lot of ways, and solar energy & nuclear don’t seem like they use as many resources as they provide) but easier on the earth if we don’t have as many.

    I am not sure it’s even an unpopular opinion, though.