577
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
577 points (97.1% liked)
politics
31213 readers
2204 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Capitalism contributes, yes. But, if humanity stays below replacement rate, humanity goes extinct.
Also, no matter how you distribute resources, there are periods of life when your productivity is less that what you need to survive. Everyone has this for many years at the beginning of their life, and those lucky enough to live long enough will have this toward the end of their lives, as aging is the disability that comes for us all. The proven method to sustain persons during those periods is to have enough people in their productive years; it generally requires more than the replacement rate. And, if that doesn't happen, the less productive suffer and die more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk
All that said, I'm against encouraging teenage pregnancy, and for full bodily autonomy -- no one should be forced to let anyone else use their uterus.
The Earth's population has nearly doubled in my lifetime. I'm pretty sure we're not quite endangered yet. I'll also point out that poor countries that tend to spawn brown players are well above replacement levels if you count those as people.
Yeah, I'm not worried about running out of humans globally, and I do think immigration is a fine way for a country to choose to maintain their population.
There's probably something to be said around cultural preservation, and maybe that's a bit easier for "native born" persons. But, I don't know the steelman version of that argument, if there is one.
... the population decreases. The parts of the population reproducing less becomes smaller than the part reproducing more... and reproduction naturally goes above replacement rate again... Because replacement rate decreases with the population size
I don't think this is a real risk. And if it were, it certainly won't be anytime soon. Fewer people means fewer mouths to feed, fewer homes to build/maintain and less consumption in general, which given how the planet is struggling to continue balance with current human resource consumption, a gradual decline in human population would probably be beneficial in the long run.
To actually threaten humanity's continued existence the number of humans would need to dwindle so low that the societial and the medical infrastructure that permits/causes the declining birth rates would completely collapse and people would naturally start having more kids again in order to keep up with the work on the farms that most people would need to work on at that scale of society
Edit: Put more susinctly, the current declining birth rates are a because of societal changes, not biological ones
Agreed. I think globally we are still above replacement rate.
Yes, but no. As the video I linked points out, because of the time delay you get fewer people with maximum productivity while still needed to support people that have sub-self-sustaining productivity. Eventually, you might get to a smaller population that choose to return to above replacement rate, but the demographic squeeze don't got away for another 20-30 years. Once it starts you are stuck in a demographic squeeze, it makes it even harder on everyone, making that choice "harder".
That is a simplification. Sub-self-sustaining productivity doesn't exactly track with age, and how much it takes to sustain a joyful life varies based on a lot of factors; it sort of tracks downward but can also go up if economies of scale shirk or when a new essential utility is introduced by technology.
Encouraging teenage pregnancy isn't the problem. The problem is the encouragement in general. As said, full bodily autonomy - it should remain a right for all.
I don't see why that's a problem. I think it could come in the form of actual benefits, not a just verbal haranguing / extolling based on (not) having children, but that it's good for the birth rate to be slightly above replacement and correcting any divergence should be encouraged.
You're sabotaging your own argument here. You stated full body autonomy to be a right to then dismiss that within this statement.
Also,
Tell me, how does this relate to your current argument?
"full body autonomy" includes but is not limited to "no one [is] forced to let anyone else use their uterus". I don't believe I am sabotaging my own argument, but I'm an idiot, so maybe you just need to be more meticulous in explaining how I am (doing that).
I bring it up because authoritarians often try to restrict bodily autonomy, particularly around uteruses, when trying to do population control (up or down). In fact, while it may not be a acceptable, mainstream view, you don't have to look to hard to find a USian on the right claiming that abortion must (become/stay) illegal because of the "birth rate crisis".