You must log in or # to comment.
Pokémon Universal Basic Income?!
Pokémon Healthcare for All
The declining birthrate is a feature, not a problem to be solved. We do not need more people. Capitalism needs more people. We don’t.
I mean, it absolutely can become a problem if an entire population turns elderly and Theres no young people to take over businesses, care for the elderly, maintain critical infrastructure.
Say what you want about the capitalist ideals that hold this time important,if the birthrate hit 0% we would be facing societal collapse
if the birthrate hit 0% we would be facing societal collapse
Bit strawmanny that. Nobody considers 0% a reasonable target.
Just an extreme example, but there are actual statistics out there I cant remember where a bunch of people much smarter than me figured out the “this is an emergency” percentage,
(in our current socioeconomic system)
I mean… That societal collapse may be necessary at some point sooner rather than later- we need to downsize, we can chose to do it on our own terms or just run out the clock and smash into a brick wall. Maybe it’s not a bad thing.
I’m semi serious. This isn’t working out. I don’t think so, and many with me don’t think so. We can’t keep doing things just because the system demands it, we should be doing what we decide is good and necessary first and then work towards those goals, instead of just doing more of everything and hope that it will magically turn out for the best.
I am aware of the problem space here and the high cost and risk of dramatically changing course and our way of governing societies, but if we don’t, those problems will not be solved or diminish and we’ll have to deal with it anyway. Capitalism will not save us.
So what? If people decide we don’t need any more people then we surely don’t need society.
I just hope we remember to shut the lights off when we leave.
immegration
Low birthrate means not enough to pay your retirement - it is not just a problem for companies - also for governments and taxes in the most socialist country.
…due to our socioeconomic system.
Please explain how any society can work with an overweight of elderly? Watch Kurzgesagt’s video about South Korea. They are looking into a society where every other person is above 65.
An ethical dilemma game
- elders get to be alone, demented and taken care of by young people that earn little money to maintain themselves called nurses, and by a ponzi scheme for the rest of society. 1.5) in case the elder is mentally and physically fit, their needs are above a child’s
- we normalize end of life; reducing the number of elders vy their choice
- we normalize battery babies; grown and born outside of a human; orphanage++
Reality of demographics don’t allow for another solution.
Would socialism/communism solve that problem?
Declining birthrates will save the planet. There’s already more people than we can sustainability support.
We CAN sustain everybody we have now. It’s just billionaires have decided it’s more profitable to let a huge section of society suffer. The more suffering for us, the more profit for them. But you have to balance it, so it doesn’t lead to revolt.
Thats what ends suffering. Not decreased birthrates, but instead death and revolt of those holding back food and shelter from those that need it, so they can raise prices on unsold units.
Not so sure, we are pulling resources out of the earth at a ridiculous rate. Even with green energy we are still reliant on mining for everything. Goods, fertilizer, the stuff for solar panels. We’re going to run out of easy to access stuff sooner or later.
Degrowth is only an option after the dismantling lf capitalism. We are pulling unreasonable and unsustainable amounts of resources from the earth. This should be ended but that cannot be done while those resources are owned by capitalists who must by the nature of capitalism expand that extraction infinitely. If we want sustainability through the reduction of wasteful and unnecessary use of resources we need a system that is not predicated on infinite growth in a finite system. We can sustain ourselves and the environment, just not like this.
We CAN sustain everybody we have now.
Even if we could (which I doubt) is it even worth it living on a planet that’s this crowded?
That depends where you live. I wouldn’t want to live in India, which is crowded as hell. But Half of Canada is basically empty. Half of Australia is basically empty. Some of the states in the USA are basically empty. The majority of russia is empty.
Space isn’t the issue.
Australia and Canada are most uninhabited because there’s a lot of uninhabitable land. I do agree that a lot of land use isn’t efficient, but there is also generally a reason people don’t live in central Australia.
Those places are empty because it is not easy to live there. And we should leave those places alone anyway.
The world really is not all that crowded, it only feels that way because our land use is inefficient
More scientists and inventors, more philosophers and artists, more people that share your niche hobby…
The only people who have a problem with that, are hipsters or just like dieing a preventable death.Yes? Have you ever been to Tokyo, Shanghai, any of the like 100 cities >10m in China?
They’re quite nice.
We could feed everyone now, but not sustainably. To produce the amount of food we do now, we need fertilizers made from limited resources like oil and pesticides/fungicides that destroy the ecosystem. If the current agriculture section of the world completely moved to sustainable practices next year there wouldn’t be enough food to support half of the human population.
There’s actually more than enough resources to go around, but enormous amounts are lost to waste, corruption, inequality and greed. The world isn’t actually overpopulated, but over-urbanized. If it was made more feasible for people to live in the districts, more decentralised and with less waste of resources, human society would look very different.
Why that direction? Intuitively I’d imagine stuffing the humans into cities would allow more mass transit, fewer cars, more economies of scale, and more area left over for nature. So more like Singapore, less like Texas.
Has anyone ever done scientific research on this question?
“In my perfect ideal world, that we have no path to achieving, we could sustain our large population indefinitely.”
We produce enough food now, but not sustainably. Fertilizers and pesticides are destroying ecosystems.
What is the reason we’re able to produce enough food right now?
Fertilizers that need fossil resources to produce and pesticides that (for now) increase crop gain by killing off insects but in the long term are damaging the ecosystem.
It looks like the world can support the current population. Barely.
But yeah, low birth rate is not something that must be solved right now. And it will solve itself eventually. We should be working into making people comfortable, but if people think their current situation isn’t good enough to have children, just shut the fuck up and let them be.
Hard to prove, but even the idea that the world can barely support the current population is likely just propaganda trying to reinforce a scarcity mindset.
We could probably pack nearly everyone in the entire world in to an area the size of the United Kingdom, and most could be living better lives than they do now. Population Density comparable to New York City would get you around 7 billion people. Obviously, we can do better than that, but just trying to put it into perspective.
Even for agriculture, you could support the current population with what we’ve got and a lot more if that was your priority. There are dramatic gains to be made by reducing or eliminating meat and unless we made some new unfortunate discoveries that would 100% get you there, but you might not even have to. We’re strong into theory territory and might have to focus on prioritizing fertile land for agriculture but having everyone in the world eat like an average american would likely be doable at current levels if we actually wanted to prioritize that.
“But line must go up.”
Not actually true, unless your means of supporting people includes provisions for the extravagances of carbon-based energy and huge amounts of inefficiency everywhere in the supply chain.
If we want to carry on with capitalism as we know it now, yes. And you know it’s going to be the elderly, sick, disabled, among the working class population that need to go first. You know, those who can’t be forced to work. It’s not the poor working class populations who wealthy right-wing policy makers are asking to have more babies.
The world is already on track for around 10 billion people anyway, because there are already enough young people in developing nations who we expect to have families of their own in the next few decades.
So good thing we could carry that many people sustainably if we get our shit together.
Not that I’m against Pokemon inspired sexy times between consenting adults.
Pokemon Smash
PokemonFamilyFriendlyWorkingConditionsAndFreeDaycare?
PokemonAffordableHousing
Please gamefreak I am begging you
Who knew people don’t like making babies when the only thing separating them and their parents is two sheets of drywall.
“We’re releasing a Vaporion that can get pregnant”
You cat the outer shell, and find a Chinese sweatshop worker inside
I hope they release Pokemon guillotine next
It’s only a problem for our species. And, only for future potential members of our species. The declining birth rate isn’t going to hurt anyone alive today. Not even billionaires, not in any way that matters.
Overall, the Earth would be much happier and peaceful without us. We’re not special, we’re just selfish.
Finally, probably, even in the worst human-caused catastrophe, at least some pockets of humanity would survive. Again, though, not that it really matters.
TLDR; Don’t worry about it. It’s no one’s problem to solve. We didn’t ask to be born, and none of us owe our species anything.
The declining birth rate isn’t going to hurt anyone alive today.
Having a top heavy age demographic means less tax revenue will be split between more required services. There will also be fewer labourers with more labour requirements. The only ones it won’t hurt are the billionaires.
It’s probably a good thing in the long run that human population is stabilising, but it’s going to be problematic until we get to that stable state.
This is only a problem under capitalism. We are immensely more productive than we used to be and can provide for everyone. A great majority of our labor is just wasted on increasing shareholder value and producing frivilous shit we don’t need.
Agreed. It will require careful redistribution of labor and resources to ensure stability with a declining population.
But nations typically want to hoard their resources, and the value of labor is measured only in overall utility to the billionaire class, so I don’t believe it will be a graceful decline for the majority of the world in practice.
Fuck Pokémon.
Interpret that how you wish, lol
Pikachu, I fuck you!
TIL there’s a game called Pokemon Sleep. My life will never be the same.
And here I paid for sleep as android like a rube… Better not start using Pokémon sleep, it’ll classify me somewhere between snorlax, psyduck, and goldeen.
I only know Squirtle because he has Squirtle Squad and they look fucking boss.
Hey guys, did you know that in terms of male human and female Pokémon breeding, Vaporeon is the most compatible Pokémon for humans? Not only are they in the field egg group, which is mostly comprised of mammals, Vaporeon are an average of 3”03’ tall and 63.9 pounds, this means they’re large enough to be able handle human dicks, and with their impressive Base Stats for HP and access to Acid Armor, you can be rough with one. Due to their mostly water based biology, there’s no doubt in my mind that an aroused Vaporeon would be incredibly wet, so wet that you could easily have sex with one for hours without getting sore. They can also learn the moves Attract, Baby-Doll Eyes, Captivate, Charm, and Tail Whip, along with not having fur to hide nipples, so it’d be incredibly easy for one to get you in the mood. With their abilities Water Absorb and Hydration, they can easily recover from fatigue with enough water. No other Pokémon comes close to this level of compatibility. Also, fun fact, if you pull out enough, you can make your Vaporeon turn white. Vaporeon is literally built for human dick. Ungodly defense stat+high HP pool+Acid Armor means it can take cock all day, all shapes and sizes and still come for more
I didn’t fuck my Vaporeon. I didn’t cum on my Vaporeon. I didn’t put my dick anywhere near my Vaporeon. I’ve never done anything weird with my Eveelutions. I promised myself I wasn’t going to make apology videos after last years thing so I’m just trying to be as short and honest with this as possible.
My “I didn’t fuck my Vaporeon” T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by the T-shirt.
That’s silly. Can’t they read?
I mean. If you stop and think about it. Why would someone that fucked their vaporeon wear a shirt that said they didn’t fuck their vaporeon? It makes no sense!
There’s a pokemon sleep?
Honestly I was just as surprised as you are
The funny thing is that they teased it like 3 years before it actually came out, so people following Pokemon news were like “Where the hell is Pokemon Sleep?” for years
I can’t remember how we ever slept before they came up with that
Gotta poke 'em all!
