• @Syn_Attck
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    ETA: The 4 billion people in the 80s was still growth. Infrastructure has been scaled up, and it will take a ton of work to scale down - work which we will be hard-pressed to find enough skilled laborers for. Also overpopulation isn’t the main driver behind climate change, overconsumption is. We are a society of consumers, we buy convenience, and evil corporations force planned obsolescence on us to make us buy more. Many of us will scoff at high-priced long-lasting items yet still buy a new iPhone every 3 years.

    If you reduce the population as fast as its decreasing now, lower than replacement rates, all modern conveniences including infrastructure and faith in the economy are going to take a hit. That includes the internet and hospitals and all internet-dependant companies. Public utilities like trash, shipping - we already saw how many products were discontinued and companies went out if business because of the inability to get parts, over a 6 month (at first) brief shortage of truck drivers, which is still recovering 4 years later. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until faith in the market completely collapses and we have a full-on crash, not just a recession. It’s been showing signs for years now, and things aren’t improving.

    Throw in experienced power plant operators, people that install and maintain pipes and lines, water treatment plants, public transit, the people that make parts for the machines that installs the infrastructure, the vehicles, etc. Everything you can think of will be affected, along with many things most people never think about.

    Immigration is a way to slow it down, but almost every country on Earth has falling birth rates at the moment. Immigrants coming from, say, Mexico and Canada to US will only delay the problem, and cause a larger problem for those allied countries we rely so much on.

    You can find pros and cons, and it’s been a while since I did heavy research into the subject, but my takeaway was that once we reach a certain point, mass deaths will start to occur, especially in population centers. Rural communities won’t be affected as much provided they have plenty of weapons and systems for defense, livestock, agriculture and close community. Knowledge will need to be retained - on disease, birth complications, fixing nuts and bolts technology, etc. Authoritarian countries who decide to force birth (whether by force or accommodations - see USSR support and metals for mothers with greater than X number of children) will become a serious threat.

    There are many variables and moving parts, but one thing is for certain: there will not be mass population decline without major hurt for everyone.

    • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      It takes virtually nothing to scale down. Again see WW2. Millions of the best workers in Europe, Asia, and America were dead. No one needed to put in overtime to not grow wheat for the dead.

      If you reduce the population as fast as its decreasing now, lower than replacement rates, all modern conveniences including infrastructure

      I don’t want to keep saying it but WW2. The working population was decreased far faster than today. You don’t need extra factory workers to not produce iPhones.

      That includes the internet and hospitals and all internet-dependant companies.

      I ran a large internet company. You don’t need many people to serve millions of customers. If there were less people, there would be less equipment installed. Less customers means less employees needed. So service would not suffer. If anything it would improve. Because Internet servers/bandwidth is built with oversubscription built in. You don’t really have 100mbs service. It’s that peak usage for your local neighborhood is modeled such that as long as everyone isn’t using maximum bandwidth all the time, you have the illusion of 100mbs at any time. Reducing customers over time means that existing networks and servers could handle unusual loads without slowdowns.

      It’s the same with hospitals. You don’t need more doctors when you have less patients.

      business because of the inability to get parts,

      You don’t need parts because you have less people that want to buy your product.

      Throw in experienced power plant operators, people that install and maintain pipes and lines, water treatment plants, public transit

      When German and Japanese factories were bombed and the experienced operators were killed, someone else was trained and took their place the next day.

      As older people die, you get younger people to take their place. You don’t need population growth for that. If anything, population decline means the younger generation gets better training because there are more of experienced people giving the fewer younger people their knowledge. Instead of one teacher with 50 students it can be 1 teacher with 10 students.

      Population decline doesn’t mean tomorrow 99.9% of the entire planet suddenly disappears tomorrow. We have had far more rapid population declines in history and the results have always been overwhelming positive.