Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
If you want more people to have kids, make being a parent easier.
And we don't even have to reinvent the wheel here. Most other Western countries have very efficient systems in place to provide these benefits and many other basic benefits. I'm sure much of that would be plug-n-play for the US with a few tweaks.
Amen neighbor!
Why does our population have to always be sharply growing forever? Isn't there enough humans? We are a plague that's starting to kill it's host already.
I haven't looked it up but these websites and programs are always funded by huge shitty companies as the rich loose money and power with population decline. We are not running out of people on this earth. We have taken over nearly all of it for us and our food. Would it really be so bad if there was 1 billion less people? Would climate change be better? Yep. Would there be more resources for everyone? Yep. Our over usage of water would be fixed. Simply having less of us would make so many things better.
Population decline needs to happen, it's foolish to think we can keep increasing forever.
It's an interesting article, but I have the same concerns about this strange "Stop Population Decline" organization. Who is funding this?
I could not find any fault with the site. Data presented appears to be well sourced.
I don’t know, but what I do know is the writer really really dislikes Musk and other “pronatalists”
Slow your roll, there, Thanos.
Dude,
I really don’t think so, considering this group has gone after Silicon Valley Billionaires
https://www.stoppopulationdecline.org/silicon-valley-pronatalists-against-wfh/
And constantly beat the drum that we need social spending
Also to get back to the article, are pro or against paid leave, considering the article is about the push for a Minnesota style paid leave system in Michigan
Why does our population have to always be sharply growing forever?
Have you looked at population stats? Most developed countries, including US, have birth rates well below replacement value. In a few decades as the previous generation passes and population plateaus, we appear to be headed for a steep decline in population. And it won’t even help the human condition if developed countries with resources and space decline in population, while undeveloped countries with lesser economies, food, resources continge to get more crowded.
No one is looking for a”sharply growing” population, merely one that’s not “sharply decreasing”.
I draw paralleled to climate change of the last several decades where the data is there, the trends are there, the predictions of doom are there, but it’s not manifest yet. Just because we’re not yet suffering from ~~climate change~~ population drop, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Just like with climate change in the 1970’s, a few small corrections could make a huge difference in the long term trend. Do we really repeat the mistake of ignoring a clear long term trend until it becomes a crisis?
Many populations are in decrease but is that a bad thing? At our current population and consumption rate we would need over two earth's to sustain us. We're destroying rainforests for their land, our rivers are going dry because of agricultural usage, we have fished many parts of the ocean to a point of collapse. Imagine if we had to feed, cloth and house one billion less people. Yay. Would it be hard economically, yep, but we should still do it.
At our current population and consumption rate we would need over two earth’s to sustain us
The point is this is not true. Sure, we’re too big a population and are continuing to increase beyond sustainability: I agree. The problem is people live 80+ years so it takes a long time for a change in birth rate to affect population numbers. The trend is already for a steep drop after plateauing in a decade or two . What do you think happens when there are x babies born in a year but 2x people die? When each generation is replaced by one half its size?
Imagine if we had to feed, cloth and house one billion less people
That might indeed be a good idea, but the worry is it happening too fast, disrupting some economies, too inconsistently, leaving some areas over crowded and suffering, and not stabilizing, leaving civilization in chaos. Imagine instead a world where a few tweaks now helps slow down population drop so economies are not disrupted, helps even things out between developed and developing countries, cushions the decrease to a sustainable plateau
Correct, my bad, just googled it. we need 1.75 earth's to sustain us, not 2... 😂 But that doesn't change that we only have one. If everyone lived like the people in the US (which is the global direction of things) we would need 4 earth's. Four earth's!
And you and I can give our opinions about population growth or decline but what is the professional concensus on the topic? Are we projecting a decline or growth in the next 50 years? Or 100 years?
Got any solutions for when too many people are in one place and not enough in another? I know immigration is scary for some people, but they can get over it. I can think of a few counties that have already.
Here’s a graph of UN projections showing a peak, then decline. Obviously the possible range is still too much, but
-- people fear the red line of unconstrained growth but that no longer seems likely
-- I fear the green line of destabilizing shrinkage
-- we should tweak family support programs to try to land on yellow, where population starts to decline but slowly enough for society to adjust
Edit: sorry bad url or an image search, so let’s go with Wikipedia, showing a range of predictions with population peak sometime in the second half of this century