Just saving gold has been a realistic option for all of living memory. Nobody needs gold. One is not depriving others of the resources they need to live by raising its price.

The same can't be said for housing.

Yeah, I meant "they" as the past gens (aka Baby Boomers), and no, we DO NOT have the same control over our material conditions as they had. Think that while house prices, rents for services and prices for a lot more things are growing up endlessly, at the same time salaries are not only totally unchanged, but they're going down. Take into account that real estate is mostly dominated by older people, and most CEOs and other high-ranking figures are older people too.

Whom did you ask?

You think it's gonna be forced artificial insemination in that scenario? It's absolutely going to go back to the times where women have to marry bc they're not allowed to own anything (land, bank account, their own bodies) and marital rape won't be considered real bc husband's own their wives. Of course, this is if the fascists get their way. Given how the left has been rising up and voting in actual leftists/socialists in the primaries these last few months, the fascists are going to have actual opposition rather than just controlled opposition corpo dems

I hear this all the time, and it seems to ignore the glaring elephant in the room. When talking about whether you can keep an economic system going, what matters is not the ratio of workers to retirees, but the ratio of workers to dependents. Yes, we have more old people for each worker, but we also have fewer children. We can simply shift resources from child care to elder care. You manufacture more adult diapers and fewer infant diapers. More nurses go into gerentology than neonatal care. You shift government funding from elementary schools to pensions. More women can stay in the workforce, because fewer of us are having children. And those that do are having fewer of them.

We know that economies can adapt to rapidly growing populations. We've survived baby booms just fine. After WW2, in the US, we suddenly had to care for far more children than our system was ever built to handle. Yet we managed to muddle through it. If we can adapt to a baby boom, we can adapt to a slowly aging population. Capitalism, for all its flaws, does have some benefits. And one of those is that it's pretty efficient at reallocating resources based on changing demand.

And honestly, there are some real upsides to declining population. We can ease our impact on the environment. The real cost of housing will decline. Scarcer workers will see their wages rise. This is the real reason the billionaires are so afraid of a declining population. They need millions of desperate people struggling just to scrape by. Do you think Amazon could run its hellish warehouses the way it does if the cost of housing was half what it currently is?

But your (our?) generation won't outnumber young people if young people keep immigrating. Not that "keep foisting the burden of perpetual growth on the young" is ACTUALLY a good plan, but it's exactly the kind of selfish arch-capitalist thinking that they'd be all in favor of if it was white young people.

What? I don't follow. "Abomination"?

Psh, life? Fuck you myself, got mine.

In 40 years, correcting course will be even harder than it is today. Climate change is a compounding problem. Once the ice sheets are gone, they're not coming back in any time scale we can imagine.

raise kids resilient enough to face those challenges and brave enough to tackle them.

Just kicking the can down the road, like the generations before us. I'm imagining the Lion King scene, except instead of showing Simba a bountiful wilderness to inherent, it's a scene full of trash under a burning sky.

"Everything the light touches will be yours to fix. Good luck."

Yes, just let the gene line die who cares we're not that special, humanity won't mourn our loss. That's all part of the brainwashing, like you have to have kids because your parents and grandparents did? Of course not, live life as you see fit doesn't matter that your ancestors chose what was best for them.

We don't have 40 years.

Reality check. We are in ZERO danger of extinction. Our population could decline by 95%, and there would still be more humans alive than when Julius Caesar walked the Earth. Extinction would take millennia. But even then, there are built in safe guards that make declining below a certain population level impossible.

For a start, consider natural selection. societies are not homogeneous. Some groups reproduce at above replacement, some below. In the US for example, if we just assume birth rates remain the same for all groups indefinitely, never returning to an average replacement rate? In that unlikely scenario, extinction still will not happen. The Amish and the Mormons shall inherit the Earth.

And this can happen for cultural practices, not just religious groups. Maybe multi-generational households will become more common through natural selection. Maybe it will become the norm for people to have children right after high school, while still living with their parents. You only go to college and start your career after having some kids. Each generation pays to raise their own grandchildren, rather than their own children.

And even without cultural selection, eventually technological decline will prevent extinction. What technology your society can wield is a function of its population. As your population shrinks, your society's technological complexity decreases. Eventually you can no longer manufacture mechanized farming equipment, so more people have to work the land again. And on traditional family farms, children are an economic resource that pay for themselves. So the birth rate recovers. And of course, reliable birth control is the product of industrial production. Eventually your population shrinks enough that you are no longer capable of running a birth control factory.

I don't want to see the country become entirely Amish or to see us collapse back to 18th century levels of technology. But these are just the worst case scenarios. The absolute worse case scenario is that population declines by 90-95% and we regress technologically to some 18th century equivalent. Not a future I want to see, but it would hardly be the end of the world. Our present industrial civilization would be remembered as an unsustainable historical aberration, a temporary population boom brought on by the era of cheap hydrocarbons.

This is a good point. A lot of it to me is one experiencing an advanced level of human progression and relative peace and two seeing the awefulness that some people put up with and three seeing the massive widening of wealth disparity. If it was a situation where we just had the environmental challenges but society had progressed to a more equitable situation I could see it but then our environmental challenges would not be as great as they are. In addition if we were in a state where we had stabilized our population and was working to degrow to a level that was sustainable long term. Then it would make sense.

Found Elon's account

An absolutely disgusting thought.

Total population across the planet is most certainly still climbing each and every year - significantly. And prior history (e.g. USA during the Ellis lsland era circa 1890-1924) shows allowing & enabling immigration most certainly can be a way of markedly improving economic outlooks for not just the immigrants but also the prior residents - for at least the next few decades, if not a good bit beyond that, perhaps even into the next century.

And as for beyond that - again, my take is we should be celebrating that it looks like humanity, is not going blindly pop out babies beyond the carrying capacity of our planet.

Of course we likely could be facing massive challenges due to climate change and idiotic policies being dictated by short sighted oligarchies. But at least it looks like the kind of overpopulation overshoot that was feared by lots of 20th century analysts might get avoided due to some arguably rational reactions by younger generations to the world they now find themselves in.

we use close to two earths a year unsustainably right now. Sustainably we will have to use much less especially given the head room that will be necessary for biosphere healing. We are totally overpopulated for our current situation. The idea that we will destroy it more to figure out how to do it better is not a rational way of thinking.