579
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fallibilist@feddit.uk 8 points 14 hours ago

Worry about population decline isn't about wanting more people. It's about wanting there to be enough working-age people to cover the retirement and medical payments of the ones no longer working. We know exactly how many 30-year-olds we'll have in 20 years and it's simply not enough. Something has to give and usually the first to go is the benefits for the people who most need them.

[-] GonzoAtBarstow@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

That falls back to "ponzi schemes aren't sustainable"

It's broken.

[-] ageedizzle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

The problem with calling it a ponzi scheme is that this would apply in all contexts, even in very basic economies without money. If you have a tribe of hunter gathers and suddenly they have a sharp decrease in their birth rate, they too would have a hard time taking care of their elderly/children.

[-] 666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world 20 points 12 hours ago

Or maybe the something that has to give is a minority class of people (the .1%) getting a few percent higher tax "burden"

[-] Fallibilist@feddit.uk 1 points 11 hours ago

I highly doubt that would be anywhere near enough even if the issue was only limited to the country with the highest number of ultra wealthy people which it isn't.

[-] Seleni@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Elon Musk could end world hunger. Full stop. He wouldn’t even notice the dip in his finances. (He offered once, claiming if someone gave him a concrete number, he would pay it, and a nonprofit took him up on it. Surprise, surprise, the whiny little snit backed out.)

They totally could fix the problem. But to those rich shitheads, it’s not a problem. It’s a feature.

[-] BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk 3 points 9 hours ago

Sort of depend on perspective, hunger only exists because there's no political will to remove it.

We produce more food globally than we consume, and we can multiply it several times with the same cost of space by swapping more meat for vegan crops.

We have plenty of space for everyone to have shelter, the problem is largely due to the issue that most people want to live in a metropolitan area. So the price for living in a highly sought out location increases to unmanageable levels.

A key factor is the big difference between the kinds of jobs you can get in a more rural location compared to the bigger urban centers. Everyone are forced to move to urban locations to study, causing most people to form their first adult social and professional circles around whichever urban location they studied at.

There's a lot of minor things that needs to be done, what exactly differs by country. But making the rural regions more accessible to live in should be considered across most countries. One simple first step, would be to make remote capable jobs offer their workers to do it all remotely. Government office workers, could quite easily spearhead such an initiative; I bet some people would move closer to nature, if they could hold onto their bread

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago

usually the first to go is the benefits for the people who most need them.

Then this way of life is not worth saving.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
579 points (97.2% liked)

Greentext

8813 readers
993 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS