/lit/ - Literature

>>22078050
Global fertility rates have consistently declined each decade. You cannot forever "offset" decline when it's happening globally by moving people from X to Y locations.

>>19628785
Global fertility/birthrates have been declining for decades and will continue to decline. Only the consumerist thinks perpetual population growth is a noble ethos.

>>19553279
Global birthrates have been declining, as well as fertility.

Consumerist deathcope ideology can only last for so long.

>>19393802
Thankfully, fertility continues to decline.

>>18877848
Low birthrates are a signal of countries entering into higher technology where the issue of survival becomes less and less and less.

The only people for whom low birthrates/fertility is an issue are either the consumerist or the religious, both needing more persons to sublimate and expand. Fewer people, to both systems, is a deathknell and the immediate fear of mortality creeps in.

Humans existed with 5 billion people. Humans existed with 500 million people. Humans existed with 5 million people.

A shrink in the global population will not end the species and is only a threat to consumer and religious cultures.

The decline in the global population will bring about a change.

>>18589728
>All their posturing doesnt change the fact that theyre not having enough babies

Most of the world isn't. At least, "enough" in context with either increasing the hegemony of a country or keeping the consumerist system running full-gear.

>>18404397
>As I said, the west is in zero danger of being depopulated.

Fertility rates, globally, have been declining with each passing decade. You cannot forever continue to move people from point A to point B just to boost population numbers -- which tends to be a manifestation of consumerist ideology.

>>18279613
>all we'll see is that the people who win shall be the ones going in with the best fertility rates.

Global fertility has been declining and will continue to decline. That being said: why "fix" it? This presumes something is wrong. We can't even look far enough back at global fertility to see fluctuations through the centuries and how "naturally" it occurs.

Furthermore, I've always been hesitant by people -- I'm not suggesting you -- thinking perpetual population growth is something worth striving for; and I mainly see it pushed by either the hyper-consumerist or the religious.

Who's to say the world might not function better with a smaller population -- well, of course, the corporatist would lament it.

>>18234866
>wsj had a good article yesterday about the birth rate collapsing the us and china

They'll be in a for a rude awakening when global birth rates continue to decline and you can't just continuously move people and industry.

Why would it be a myth? The population has, and will, continue to increase until it reaches its upper-limit. We are, however, seeing the decline in global fertility, which could be interpreted as a natural response to vast population increase.

Also, look into The Limits of Growth, which was updated not that long ago.

The only "argument" I ever see as a reply to the "myth" are people who misunderstand what's being argued about with overpopulation, i.e. "The Earth could fit the entire population in X amount of space," which completely sidesteps the issue: consumption of resources and the human impact on nature.

>>17921546
Eventually, that will not be the case. When a major fertility "crisis" really hits, it'll be interesting to see how govts. react because they'll not be able to merely transport people at whim and potentially have to realize infinite growth is not possible.

>>17852789
>It’s nearly impossible to naturally increase birth rate above the replacement level

Why should it be increased? The main arguments for it are either pro-consumerist or religious; the former, by and large, haven't realized they are proponents of consumer culture and just want sublimation into that system; pseudo-religious in nature.

Also, it's been seen that as countries improve technologically, their fertility decreases. At some point, people will have to realize that you cannot simply continuously move people from nation to nation forever to make up for a population deficit. We'll then see how consumer society adjusts to this realization.

>>16745136
The planet will be having a demographic crisis soon and people will realize you can't simply keep moving people to fill the gaps eternally.

>>16715084
The world is going to face a population problem eventually. Then we'll really see how systems shake out when the amount of people begin contracting.

>>16278520
"fertility crisis" is a corporate talking point. Global fertility has been declining each passing decade. It's only an issue for the technological system and passed off as a problem by the same system that, of course, wants eternal expansion.

>>15540597
Global fertility has been declining with each passing decade.

>>14949527
Spic reproduction has been going down. So...

Reminder that global fertility rates have been declining with each decade.

Global.

>>14750725
Global fertility rates have been in decline, though.

It's better to criticize the people within systems that think perpetual population growth is noble.

>>14736666
Global fertility has been declining and will continue to.

>>14007818
The world is actually declining in fertility rate and has been through each passing decade.

It will eventually get to a non-replacement level globally and potentially shrink.

>>9394335
>>9394339
Kill yourself, retards.