The UK’s fertility rate is at an all-time low, and many other countries face similar declines, creating ageing populations. But can ecological benefits of fewer people outweigh social problems created?

It’s interesting how different countries are dealing and are effected by the declining worldwide birth rates. The most astounding statistic to me is that wildlife populations have dropped +70% over the past 50 years. Frankly, if humans think that we are in the right to drop wildlife populations by such a staggering amount, a slight drop in human populations only seems like a fair way to balance the scales.

  • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    111·
    12 days ago

    If it becomes universal and is irreversible, then yes it would be a bad thing. The issue with the wild life annihilation is that it is occurring in the poorest parts of the world. What do we do to stop them? Invade, order them to just stay poor? Import the world’s poorest into the wealthiest countries? Mass sterilization of the poor? All of those sound fascist AF.

    • dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world
      12·
      12 days ago

      Offer education, contraception, and healthcare universally, regardless of border. This would tank the birthrate in a non fascist way, which is an objectively good thing. This weird procapitalist idea that we need or should want or really could sustain 8+ billion apex predators is ridiculous. In no ecosystem is that sustainable, even if the predators are smart enough to stop directly predating in other animals.

      We should genuinely be striving for the least number of people that still allows the highest quality of life, with a further constraint being the lowest impact to the rest of the environment. Make no mistake, everyone regardless of immutable or even mutable status should be allowed to have kids if they want, but we shouldn’t want or need to frame it as something essential to continue continuity of wage labor.