Technically there should be a ratio of young to old to take care of all of the elderly, but IMO fuck’em it wasn’t the young’s choice to be born and suffer for the sake of the old.
Lower population will make resource allocation easier and improve quality of life, and obviously is necessary to prevent further environmental damage. There will be momentary suffering for a brighter future.
I don’t think it is shrinking globally, yet. But, some countries (e.g. South Korea) are in dire situations due to shrinking and aging population already.
Wait, since when population is shrinking? And since when it’s a bad thing too?
It’s not shrinking yet, the birth rate is declining, and the world population is projected to start declining 2050.
Technically there should be a ratio of young to old to take care of all of the elderly, but IMO fuck’em it wasn’t the young’s choice to be born and suffer for the sake of the old.
Lower population will make resource allocation easier and improve quality of life, and obviously is necessary to prevent further environmental damage. There will be momentary suffering for a brighter future.
I don’t think it is shrinking globally, yet. But, some countries (e.g. South Korea) are in dire situations due to shrinking and aging population already.
Might be bad now but it leads to a better future. Infinite growth was always impossible, this is just the result of decades of mismanagement.
But it’s mostly caused by social issues, imo it is nowhere near being a real problem
I agree with your premise, but I don’t think it implies your conclusion, which I disagree with.