Do you think underpopulation is the biggest threat?

[jasmine453luv]

[WhiteSteve]

Nah, I’m the other way with it. One of the biggest mistakes our species has made is our population explosion since the Industrial Revolution and advent of modern medicine. We’re having too many babies, and people aren’t dying enough. This simply is unsustainable for Earth. Earth isn’t here FOR humans, we’re not “the most special” species…. we’re no more or less important than any other creature you can think of, yet we live as if the whole story revolves around us, and that’s simply incorrect. If you understand anything about the principles of compounding, this is going to get much, much worse. And I can’t help but notice that most humans are absolutely useless, lmfao, so I really don’t understand why we’re trying to flood the place with losers🤦‍♂️😂

[exitseven]

No, there are too many people. People are everywhere like dogshit. Every square inch of land is being developed and everyone is screaming about the housing shortage. There is no rush hour anymore. Traffic is bad 24/7. I get up at 5AM and go to the gym. 20 years ago I would have the whole road to myself in the morning. Now there is traffic already. Drinking water will become scarce and more energy will be required to support all these people..

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[PBandJ_Nerd]

I'm not too worried about it. Babies are born every day somewhere in the world. But I find it funny how you used TMNT 2012 for the picture.

[Apple1996]

Yes I think so. That's why I'm having a lot of kids. People aren't wanting to step up and have families. And It's a bad thing 😣

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

You live in your little secure financial bubble and don't realize nor care how difficult and expensive things have become for most people.

Having kids in particular more than one is going to be a serious challenge for many to deal with.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy who said thay I'm financially secure? Cuz I'm defo not 😂

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Then you and your husband are irresponsible people or you're on warfare collecting help from the government because to bring children especially multiple into this world that sucks bad already to add to their misery is irresponsible and thoughtless.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I see no issue taking from the government considering my husband risks his life for it

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I don't think the world is misery. It is what you make it

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

See, I was right. You're in a bubble security as the government gives you major help to look out after all those kids you keep having.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy the government is suppose to help families. That's why they made those systems.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

The world isn't a miserable place? You can't possibly be this naive?

Go to Gaza and the dark corners of this world by getting out of your little home with AC and electricity and all the things you have and let's see if not a miserable place.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@Apple1996: Yes the government should help especially people like your husband but the U. S. government doesn't help families enough for them to have kids especially now with the cost of living.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy kids only cost as much as you make them cost tbh. Obviously you don't have kids so you wouldn't know

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy everyone goes through hard times. That's not a reason to think the world is a bad place

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

What? Food? Clothes? Insurance? School supplies? And the things they use and consume doesn't cost a lot of money over a period of months and what about having a nice place to live?

Or you don't mind raising your kids where gun fire can erupte while they are riding their bike at 3PM on the sidewalk?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

And I kid you not. A 2 bedroom apartment here in my city where the scums of scum live is easily $1,300 a month filled with roaches and rats.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I just don't personally look at my kids as a price tag. I get them what they need regardless of if I have money or not

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy sounds like you live in a bad area. I would just move

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

LOL.. like I said you will a sheltered bubbled life so your perspective is different.

You don't even work and just stay home 24/7 being on GAG and living off the government package your husband receives.

And I lived in that horrible area a few years back, you will need to be crazy to try to raise children in that building I once lived. LOL

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

* live sheltered

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I sacrifice a lot to stay home. It's not exactly luxurious 😂
And yeah honestly I've never lived in a nice town like ever in my life but I keep my kids safe so that's all that matters

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Not having to work at all for hours and live under a roof and have all your needs met, deciding when you can take a break or go to sleep and wake up and having internet like you have is a very luxurious.

Again you have a perspective that's solely orbits around your existence and don't see nor care to see the harsh reality of many.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I work 24/7, unfortunately not much sleep and basic need are not met lol. That's why I'm saying it's a sacrifice. My husband gets time off, get to sleep and take care of himself.
It's easier to be the provider and my husband is well aware of this and tries to give me breaks but sometimes that doesn't always work out since some of my kids can't be away from me for long enough so I can even shower or eat without them

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@Apple1996: You can discipline kids how to behave and when to leave you alone.

Working for someone else for several hours a day is the real hell, not being in the confort of your home being with family.

I don't have nothing against what you're doing but I do have a problem with you not recognizing the great privilege that's provided to you that many in this world don't even close too.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I'm not gonna discipline a baby to leave me alone 😂

And no it's most definitely not a privilege. I have a few friends that work a few days a month to catch a break from their kids because it's to stressful to be at home with them 24/7. For them they don't even bring home any money cuz it goes to childcare for those few days. They simply do it to get away from their kids and the stress at home

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Try working for 40 plus hours for damn company
you don't care for, not counting communte in bs traffic and let's sew if you don't have a great privilege to be at home.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy I drive in traffic everyday taking my kids to school. Really bad traffic tbh 😒
And 40hrs isn't that much. I work 24/7. Not sure how you aren't understanding that. Very few stay at home parents get time off from working

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

40 hours of work a week isn't a lot? You clearly don't understand time nor vaule it. 😅

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy seems low to me cuz my husband works 60-80 a week

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yeah, basically he's a slave with no life. Life isn't meant to be lived like that.

[Apple1996]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy he still has a life. And he gets to retire at 39 so it's worth it in the long run.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

More specifically I think it's having too few members of the population contributing to the economy, like a population of only elderly retirees. This is the main problem we are facing here in Japan given the declining birth rates:

The result will be an economic crisis unless it corrects itself or we correct it with mass immigration.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

There has to be a good ratio of producers to consumers. If we have only consumers and few producers, there will be nothing for the consumers to consume. There will be no one to run hospitals, provide electricity, clean drinking water, not to mention social security and so forth. So it's not related to the size of the population, per se, but the ratio of the productive vs. unproductive population.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

AI might be one possible future solution. If it could automate the vast majority of jobs, then it ceases to be such a problem if the population mostly consists of people who don't produce anything like elderly people, disabled, etc.

[Kelley1]

If that is a problem, it is a short-term problem that is self curing in less than 100 years. Compared to the 3 million years of human existence, it is like a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@GuyAnswersGirls123: Japan has a population of over 120 million people.

20 million people in Japan can die over the next week and Japan will be just fine population wise.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy It's not the size of the population but the growing ratio of elderly. Japan has a social security system, for example, which only works if there's a sufficient ratio of producers to elderly retirees. The system is currently working towards insolvency.

An animated graph of the projection to illustrate the problem:


The problem if the majority of the population are 65+ years old and retired is that no one can work or contribute to the economy. There will then be a shortage of food, water, electricity, medical care, etc.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy A drastic solution would be to kill 20 million elderly or disabled or unemployed people, e. g. That would actually improve the situation. Again it's not the size of the population but the increasing lack of a working one.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@Kelley1 For sure! I doubt humans will cease to reproduce to the point of extinction. Main thing I'm worried about are loved ones including the relatively few children who are going to become the next generation. Unless the problem is quickly solved by importing a lot of young immigrants or Japanese start to have more children, there are going to be some seriously hard times for the next generation.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@Guyanswersgirls: People have to eat and they will get to work because they aren't going to strave themselves.

Japan will be just fine, people tend to blow things out of proportion.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy One thing I'm thinking is that AI might be able to solve the problem. I can't imagine like a 70 year old man doing the really hard physical labor jobs required, but that might be replaceable by machines soon enough. White-collar jobs might be ones even elderly can still do if we push the age of retirement.

[Kelley1]

It may not be as bad as you think. Most of the elderly own their homes. Based on their expected live time they can exchange part or all of their homes for a monthly payment until they die. Those that die quickly lose, those that live longer gain, but to the investors it balances out.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@Kelley1 I hope you're right. Also Japanese do love to save money a lot as well as accumulating assets like homes. I might also have some silly selfish reasons for it, like in my small town in Kyushu, I just see old people all the time. 😂 I'm starting to miss seeing more younger faces and kids with their youthful energy.

[Kelley1]

At some point, you may look and ask what are those strange things people call children? I read that somewhere, so I can't take credit.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@Kelley1 Feels like that way sometimes! 😂 It's much better downtown and in more populated areas but I am starting to notice a huge difference everywhere already between the time I was a kid with so many more elderly people everywhere (nothing against them, just want to see more of a variety).

[OtterMan68]

No. Thanks to increases in automation, AI, worker efficiency and productivity, it's not. The only problem is many countries have structured their social welfare state to have younger workers take care of retirees; it's basically a pyramid scheme that is predicated on the notion there will always be a growing pool of younger workers.

[Staximus]

The last thing the world needs is more eating shitting polluting resource vacuums. Population growth is unsustainable, the planet can't handle it forever. Only idiots who can't see past their nose are worried about sustaining economic growth. The survival of our species doesn't depend on corporate bank accounts.

[Staximus]

Our species survived for hundreds of thousands of years without worrying about "sustaining the economy". All of a sudden all these morons forgot how we did that? Fuck their financial legacy.

[RebelinSteel]

Over population is the biggest threat, in particular over populations in areas that cannot support a small population never mind their rapidly growing population.

[jasmine453luv]

Overpopulation is a term politicians use to distract people, but the real concern is underpopulation. The gender imbalance, with more men than women, could lead to an economic collapse. After World War 2, 50% of males died, resulting in an abundance of resources, more women, and a cleaner environment.

[RebelinSteel]

Have you seen how many people are displaced globally, have you seen how many people are starving globally. Under population is not a factor. Also a cleaner environment, you heard of micro plastics of the pollutants in rivers and the sea.

hir.harvard.edu/.../

Quote:
The global population is currently rising at a steady rate. The number of humans existing on Earth has never been as high as it is now. In 1800, Earth had approximately 1 billion inhabitants, which rose to 2.3 billion in 1940, then 3.7 billion in 1970, and approximately 7.5 billion today. In the last five decades, Earth has experienced an extreme population boom. This phenomenon is known as overpopulation, where the condition in which the amount of humans currently existing on Earth outstrips future resource availability and earth’s carrying capacity. Throughout human history, birth and death rates have always counterbalanced each other, which ensured that Earth had a maintainable population growth level. However, in the 1960s, the global population increased at an unparalleled rate. This brought about a variety of apocalyptic predictions, most prominently, a revival of the Malthusian trap panic.

[jasmine453luv]

Did you even read what I just said I literally explained to you why underpopulation is worse then overpopulation imagine wiping out 50% of male population it would prevent overpopulation

[RebelinSteel]

Show me stats on where 50% of the world’s male population died?
I know that was not the case in the US, UK and majority of European countries, not sure about Germany and Russia but both have increased in population. So where did this 50% of the male population die after WW2?

[BoopBoopBeep]

We did just fine with 4B before, we'd be just fine going back after the initial awkwardness.

#ThanosWasRight

[jasmine453luv]

Nah thanos was half right but if you think about it let’s say you got rid of 50% of men in the world I think it would get a lot better

[BoopBoopBeep]

As long as those remaining women were willing to start doing real jobs like bricklayers, electricians, welding and engineering, since that'd still be 75% of the original population (all the women, half the men). It'd be a great ratio for the remaining guys of course.

[jasmine453luv]

Yes and you’re forgetting about WW 2 and the 50s after the war they’re were a lot of women and food were abundant

[strateguy632]

good logic! boop.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@jasmine453luv
Yep... of course during WW2 those women were doing something, not expressing their views in echo chamber academic publications on the nuances of gender politics and calling it a "professional research" job...

[BoopBoopBeep]

@strateguy632 thanks strateguy632... every so often I get a little nugget...

[jasmine453luv]

Nowadays people just keeps forgetting history it’s because those little politicians is brainwashing people and going around in schools making kids bias

[BoopBoopBeep]

Yep... it's sadly quite a different world now

[jasmine453luv]

In my opinion underpopulation is the biggest problem I would wipe out 50% males to prevent overpopulation but of course people won’t listen

[BoopBoopBeep]

If you wiped out 50% of the males only society would have a massive shortage of people running the power plants, repairing the bridges and fixing the infrastructure the rest need, then women would have to step up and take jobs that actually matter instead of just teaching liberal arts at some third tier university somewhere. You'd also lose your police and fire service coverage, so, you know... good luck protecting yourself from the 5 bad guys you didn't kill who now get to run the show like Negan in Walking Dead.

There is no problem of underpopulation once we regain pareto optimum at the new rate... just like when we did just fine with only 4 billion people before. Contrary to that, no society has ever been just fine with half the men gone.

[Soteris]

No. While it will do nasty things to the economy and national power it is not an existential crisis or anything. It is a problem for politicians and economists, not ordinary people.

[Anonymous]

I certainly wouldn't call it "the biggest" threat. After all, human kind was perfectly capable of surviving with a smaller population, so we could do it again. I'd say that "overpopulation" isn't particularly a threat either--particularly as population growth is slowing.

[strateguy632]

not even a minir threat.

china can lose at current rate for 200 years and still have 900 million!

and if other country shrink still not extinct because chinese humans

[MackAMills]

No we need to have dips throughout history in population otherwise we get over populated.

[jasmine453luv]

The overpopulation is just a term of distraction what politicians use to scare people in my opinion I think politics should be banned in all elementary and high schools except not college because it could lead to corruption and to divide I think underpopulation is a threat now because there’s less women and more men

[normalice]

There are more people alive to day than the total sum of people who have ever lived.

No.

[Kelley1]

That would be true if every generation doubles and obviously that is impossible. Researchers estimate that 109 billion people have lived and died over the course of 192,000 years.
And that 7% of all humans who have ever lived are alive today.
www.weforum.org/.../

[normalice]

Hm. That isn't what I heard but then I don't recall where I heard it from so it may have been false.

In any case, we have no shortage of people. The push to produce more is driven entirely by rich people who are experts only at seeing any supply/demand situation and sneaking their way into the supply side. Labor is something to supply and the rich are the ones have to demand it. They can't have that so they are pushing this underpopulation nonsense to create more poor people for cheap laborers.

[slatyb]

No, I don't. It's climate change, which is happening far faster than the population declines in a few countries..

[Dargil]

No, but it is one. The biggest threats are totalitarianism. Communist and Islamic.

[FunkyMonkee]

Right now, Joe Biden and those wacky democrats that love him so much are our biggest threat.

[Anonymous]

No, we are chronically overpopulated so need to lose half the population at least, the elites are on the case and aiming for 2 billion

I'm not going to add to the issue by breeding

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No. The population is fine just the way it is.

it's projected in 2050 we will be 10 billion on earth.

[dolemite58]

No the population has been lower in the past and the world was fine

[jasmine453luv]

I’m not trying to say you should have kids but if there’s less relationships and stuff it can damage the economy if there’s less women and more men

[AngryCarl]

It's not a problem if you're okay with being replaced by immigrants.

[QuietRunner]

I think the coming Ice Age is the biggest threat

[stratford]

No. Environmental disaster ranks higher.

[MaterialisticMember]

no i support it

[ab2shifty]

Uhhhhhh I guess I’ll say no 🤷‍♀️

[Astarlessnightsky]

lol no

[boggboss]

Nope I don't