• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    That’s already happened. US birthrates have been below replacement rates for over a decade, and most of Europe before that.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      My european country population keeps growing each years and birth/death rate while was good over some time (more death than births) is turning around once again and births are again skyrocketing.

      We only had a few sensible years of decreasing population, since 2018 aprox population is again on the rise here.

      Pretty sure US population has also being growing lately instead of decreasing as it should.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Then maybe it’s not only US and Europe the countries which should control birthrate.

          The thing is that there is too many people. Land cannot house so many. We are destroying nature just because some people insist to bring more and more and more humans to this world.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            There’s plenty of land. Consider that in 1930, Germany had 139 people per km^2, France had something around 65 people per km^2. The US today has only 38 per km^2. But the German or French citizen in 1930 didn’t use quite so many single use plastics.

            • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Each human needs a LOT of land to live to their fullest.

              Do you want to live like in the 30s only to house more people?

              Also it’s an unsustainable point of view. If you defend letting people forever grow there’s going to be a hard natural stop to that. Because at some point nature will make you stop.

              I support a stable point of view. One billion of human beings on earth. Plenty space for us and for nature, les pollution, less emissions. Lots of chances for massive natural reserves…

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                1 billion people living unsustainably is still unsustainable. Birth rates in the most unsustainable countries are dropping, and this is ultimately a good thing, but it’s insufficient on its own.

                • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  By simple math each of those 1 billion people should be able to live with 10 times more resources at hand that if we had 10 billion people.

                  I don’t think there’s a way to live better without resource consumption and environmental damage. So the question keeps being the same. More people living worse or less people living better.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s pretty idiotic. We don’t have a shortage of land. We have a shortage of land within a reasonable commuting distance of job centers.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Which is then wasted on urban sprawl and parking lots. We don’t have a land problem or an overpopulation problem. We have a sustainability problem.