this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
1300 points (99.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

5778 readers
2596 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 67 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children)

I think this is where a lot of modern civilization is falling apart at. If you want population replacement and growth, you actually have to make it advantageous to have children, and at appropriate age for your society and culture. The GOP thinks they can do it by destroying reproductive rights, civil rights, and marriage laws, if they harm women enough they'll HAVE to be baby makers! Dehumanized baby factories! And even conservative voters are fighting against it, because it's insane and it's against our current culture. It has to work for everyone. It would be more intelligent to create free childcare, better pregnancy and birth leave for both parents, and child tax credits. They could use WIC to absorb the cost of having a child and public education sooner with preschool. If people are hopeful their children will have high education access and a stable life they will be a lot more likely to have kids. Being horrified that your children will live in a fascist theocracy and intentionally kept uneducated and poverty stricken, they might actually voluntarily avoid sex to not have kids.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

What if we don't want infinite growth? What about stability? Or (gasp) a population reduction so we don't destroy the planet. Have less babies. Feed the ones we have. Educate them.

[–] blackbirdbiryani@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Sure, easing into a deflating population over several hundred years is fine but tanking it and ending up with a society having to support a vastly older population ain't easy either. Better for governments to provide positive reasons to have children but there's zero chance of that.

[–] leftytighty 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

We won't starve our old people, there's plenty of wealth to go around, it's just that a tiny portion of the population has stolen it all. Maybe even the average person will have to make some sacrifices if birth rates don't stay at a certain level but our lifestyles are hugely inflated compared to even 50 years ago.

We can live sustainable lives with a reducing population, our productivity per capita is higher than it's ever been, we're all just seeing so little of it.

Instead of Musks and Bezos, instead of all of our creative minds working in advertising and finance, instead of 10 different streaming services, we can have a good quality of life for everyone.

Our economy being efficient is the biggest lie. The economy is only profitable, and it only has good outcomes when those outcomes are aligned with profit. It's time for a new economy that serves the people

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)