I’m trying to get pregnant, but it’s kinda hard when you’re a guy. I won’t stop trying, tho. 🫡
Arnold Schwarzenegger did it, so can you 👍
Never give up 💪
Slay,
queenking!queing?
Auto-insemination?
Full auto.
Hey, no full auto in the womb bro.
Nothing is impossible.
On a more positive note the newest IPCC report on climate has population decline being the biggest positive impact on climate change, so keep at it!
why would I want to bring somebody into this world. they’d only have to fight for basic things like “let’s be nice to each other” and “maybe we should pool our money to spend it on big things that benefit us all”
fuck that. I’ll live my little servile life as a cog in the machine as best I can, and then I’ll die. and the dumb fucks who won’t stop breeding while they try to make things worse for their children will repopulate the earth
This is how i feel as well. I understand im a cog in the machine, but i just want a relatively comfortable life until the sweet embrace of nothingness takes me in
No you don’t understand. We’re the most prosperous we’ve ever been at any point in time. There was literally no other time better than this. Life is wonderful in every way
/s
I’m generally a happy person but I hate people who say this.
I’m right there with you. They’re basically saying “things could be worse, so there’s no point in wanting them better.” It’s a nonsensical thought-terminating cliché.
No but you dont understand, the population is declining! It’s so apocalyptic!
Dumb question: do we really need more people? It feels very much like technology/productivity will allow us to support a good lifestyle with fewer people.
We need some more people. Much as I agree as the future is bleak, if we all simply stopped procreating then there wouldn’t really be any point to anything and truly no reason to want to make the world better. Can’t get to Star Trek future without a future.
I don’t think I mean a complete stop. I mean like a managed approach of tax incentives that over time encourage smaller families. Predicting and paying for degrees or training so we have a workforce that can fit into the economy easily. And a targeted immigration policy scaled to supplement gaps in the workforce or population.
Most places are actually experiencing a birth rate decline. South Korea is having statistically less than one child per woman. Other places like Europe are also projected to shrink.
So, it’s already happening, that’s why countries are freaking out and trying to force births now. The policy shift in the US on abortion isn’t based on religion, it’s economics.
US birth rate hit 1.6, a “stable” birth rate is just over 2.1… mind you that’s the estimate for a population not growing or declining.
But we’ve usually made up for it with relatively high immigration, so we’re ok for now as long as we don’t screw with that ……
We? No. Capitalism? Yes.
It’s only a dumb question if you’re looking at all the people now. Birth rates across the board are declining and most developed countries are well below replacement. We’re just not noticing yet because people live like 80 years.
Most population projections have us peaking in 25-50 years, then population declines. That’s not all bad but how steeply does population decline and when does it stop? How does it impact economies, politics, who had influence and power. It looks like it could be steep and disruptive, with no prediction on when it will level off.
However if we start mitigating that, start encouraging people to have children, provide more support for raising children, give more hope to potential parents, working together for a brighter future consistently for the next 50 years perhaps we can manage the decline for least disruption. Perhaps we can find a sustainable population to level off at which is still big enough for today’s rapid advancements
The problem developed nations are currently facing is that we need enough young people working to continue to support the current population as it ages and retires. The absolute population probably doesn’t need to be as big as it is (unless you plan on starting a war like Russia for example) but it’s not clear how to manage a reducing population gracefully.
By taxing corporations and reversing this insane wealth concentration.
Mhmm the uber wealthy have all the toys that the rest of the population could ever dream of. Taking away their extra ones allows you to pay for everyone else to get the level of care they deserve. Even then you will have an absurd amount of surplus that can be used to pay for decades of services that the general population needs while still letting the rich have some of their toys.
To me, that’s the most disgusting part: they could live the most lavish lifestyle possible and not put a dent in their savings.
Nobody deserves that kind of wealth, nor should any one person control that much wealth. All those billions they’re sitting on are funds that should have been allocated for better education, healthcare, transportation improvements and upgrades, affordable housing, etc.
What if we, instead if taking their toys, just voted for them?
They are a menace. They have ruined our earth and stolen our futures. They should lose everything. Fuck compromise; you’d have to fight just as hard for it; just take all of it. Vote for them all. Vote for their vile spawn too. Put them all in elected office.
No fuck that shit. Vote for the rich. Vote for their families. Vote for the fuckers who brutalize us on their behalf.
Certainly not by letting these dirty foreigners in the country. Those wild people with their 50 kids… wait.
I think it is worth figuring out how to manage it - the alternative isn’t super sustainable. The other thing is that it is like a 50 year challenge, which isn’t insurmountable.
But that’s the thing - it will take 50 years …. After we start.
Continuing to make it more of a challenge to raise kids is not an auspicious start
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation…
Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilised society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.
The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for their children, and consequently to bring up a greater number, naturally tends to widen and extend those limits. It deserves to be remarked, too, that it necessarily does this as nearly as possible in the proportion which the demand for labour requires. If this demand is continually increasing, the reward of labour must necessarily encourage in such a manner the marriage and multiplication of labourers, as may enable them to supply that continually increasing demand by a continually increasing population.
- Adam Smith, the father of capitalism
They hate Smith almost as much as Marx
Also, maybe 8 billion is “enough”. Not breeding is only a problem for the economy. Capitalism needs perpetual growth, there is no end game, just more, of everything, forever.
Proud owner of a tubal litigation here
I’m genuinely afraid to get vasectomy, thinking “this is just a phase and l might change my mind later”
I suffer post vasectomy pain syndrome that comes and goes randomly over the pass of months, and still, it worth.
The birth rate moral panic is 100% manufactured by neoliberal capitalists who simultaneously want high consumption and low wages, which is a logical impossibilty. You cannot have a consumerist society where the average consumer lives paycheck to paycheck
If it’s neoliberalism, why is the right always clamouring about it? I think you are misguided on your aim my friend. You are also right, the time of us having things and enjoying our leisure are in the process of being erased for the good old days of company towns and food lines.
The “right” shy of outright fascists are neoliberals. The term was coined in the eighties and describes a system that like Liberalism classic works primarily off of an idea of a protected class of citizen (as opposed to lesser protected classes of non-citizen) with a series of fundemental “rights” to basic protected freedoms from government interference and choice of “style of life” based around a personal property centric system.
Where Neo-liberalism differs is it detests the welfare state, seeks widespread government deregulation as they see it as an economic deficit, practice widespread government austerity in public programs and seeks to privatize swaths of government services to create new market sectors.
Neo doesn’t mean new in a “of the minute” kind of way. The people who came up with the distinction between liberal branches were describing the likes of Ronald Regan and Margret Thatcher.
I beg to differ; you can definitely have that society; proof is: we are currently living in it!
This raises birth rates
!lemmysilver
I was born with a penis but Luigi Mangione activated my ovaries
Allegedly.
Free estrogen!
I don’t want to bring kids in this world that will inevitably grow up with a father when I take out all my frustration and grievances on members of the ruling class.
They’re gonna wish I used a guillotine.
I love this person’s glasses.
Ok. But what is the mouth
A finger
Frames like that are excellent birth control.
Nah, those frames are awesome.
idk im kinda into it
im not spending a fortune to raise a child when i can barely afford eggs
The math has changed.
100 years ago, you’d get kids so you can afford eggs.
Yeah, then child labor laws came and ruined that for everyone.
But don’t worry, soon those too will be a thing of the past!
This, but also retirement being a thing.
100 years ago, kids were much less of an investment than today (they’d start pulling their own financial weight at like age 6-12, not at age 20-30 like today) and they’d be the only thing making the difference between being able to retire to one of your kids’ home or the poor house.
Nowadays kids take much more money and time to get ready, and if you have no kids you can still retire and have your retirement financed by other peoples’ kids. And then you even get to keep all the money you would have spent on getting your kids ready for the world, and you can spend it on yourself.
Financially speaking, having kids used to be a necessity and now it’s a pretty bad choice.
if you have no kids you can still retire and have your retirement financed by other peoples’ kids.
Don’t worry. They are working on getting rid of this.
Don’t worry when they get desperate enough they’ll make condoms illegal
Nice humblebrag I guess, I’m beginning to forget what eggs even taste like
I would kill for a family. I’ll die alone, I’ve accepted that. I understand that im unconventional and weird, I just wish I could meet someone that reflected that. But it’s just not in the cards for a man like myself. So ill die surrounded by my animals and hopefully they’ll consume my flesh so I can become Jesus 2.0 but with animals
You and me both sis
I’m sure your half orange (or was it apple) is out there somewhere, and hope eventually you’ll find them.
Except if you’re follower of one of those toxic masculinity thing. In that case you’re likely looking in the wrong place, because if you hate women your soul mate is someone else from your cult - you love guys like you but didn’t realise it yet. Also go f yourself.
Wtf was this comment lmao
EDIT: Just noticed his username
Born in 84, I’ve noticed something of a trend in my area. Late gen X and late millennials are having children, most are having two or three, but a lot of people like me born in the mid 80’s aren’t. While this is by no means universal, there does seem to be more people within five years of my age going without kids.
