• rexxit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Education? Contraception? It’s not fucking rocket science. Every developed country in the world is at well below replacement rates. The idea needs to be promoted and not derided or conflated with eugenics (which it emphatically isn’t). Blunting the impact of an aging population is the most difficult problem.

    Edit: the most difficult problem is that capitalism demands perpetual growth, and billionaires and heads of state with a vested interest in growth would never allow the population to shrink without extreme resistance, like pervasive propaganda and outlawing abortion.

      • rexxit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, and so will slowing, stopping, and reversing anthropogenic climate change. Should we give up?

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          My point is, it’s on a timescale that it isn’t useful to discuss as a solution to housing issues.

          • rexxit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How about this: housing in places with a shrinking population is relatively cheap and plentiful (math, right?). Developed countries could dial back immigration so that immigration + birth rate is below replacement. That solves overpopulation at the regional level.