• MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    A lower population isn’t that bad. It’s just that the transition when you have a very large old population and a small young one is very difficult.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Watch this video, ignore the clickbait sounding title:

      https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk

      It completely changed my view on that.

      Basically, without high birth rates, countries are totally screwed. Immigration (which skews young, from high birth rate countries), has softened that issue for the US, hence you don’t hear about it as much here. One can wave their hands and say “elder care and the economy will be automated in the future,” but that’s wishful thinking if you ask me.

      Figuring out how to more efficiently house/care for a glut of humans farther in the future is way more practical. Honestly we’re ridiculously inefficient now; there’s a lot of low hanging fruit to pick. And we can use much higher technology to address that.

      • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Figuring out how to more efficiently house/care for a glut of humans farther in the future is way more practical.

        Our government’s started means testing care services due to the projected costs and loss of tax income as the population ages and costs increase.

        It doesn’t help that the only form of economic management they do is offer tax cuts, they’re getting less and less tax out of an already declining share of the population.