Italy needs babies.

[Darth Wedgius]

So if Italy's safety nets work like the U.S.'s, they depend on a young, healthy population to support a smaller, older, sicker population.

Obviously, Social Security isn't the same as the whole US Social Safety net (such as it is), but given enough political will Social Security could be made solvent into the next century, as opposed to 2034. https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

It can be done, it's just harder for X people to support X+N people than for X+N people to support X people where N is a non-negative integer.

[McAvoy]

You might want to reread Riedquat's post again.

Of course because he was talking about white people.

Yep he basically said its a blessing because more whiteys are dying.

Did I mention race? No. Don't be a bloody idiot trying to drag race into it. My position is simply that most places would be better off with fewer people, and the world in general certainly would. A falling birthrate nicely achieves that, no morally and ethically unacceptable means involved. It's only a problem if the rate is too rapid to adjust to. If Italy is facing a reducing population then I'm envious. Less resources needed for Italy, less pressure on housing, public services, infrastructure. More to go round, overall improved quality of life.

You're screwed up if you interpreted that as having anything to do with race.

Are you directing this at me?

Yes, although looking at it perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick from your post - I thought you were interpreting mine as saying "it's a blessing because more whiteys are dying."

I was being sarcastic about the other person on how he was viewing your post.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I agree completely with what Riedquat said, though I'm pretty sure this is to be read as a concern that the social infrastructure is potentially going to be disrupted. Which is probably what he is cognizant of, though he might have understated it.

[AlucardNoir]

You think that passes for logic? Are you seriously saying that because a continual decrease would eventually lead to zero a decrease now is bad? That you have to pick one and keep going forever? Just to illustrate how ridiculous your reasoning is, if you were to apply it all three possible cases (decrease, steady, increase) then the only options are head to zero, don't change at all, not even a tiny bit, or head to infinity.

No, I'm saying humans have never had it better, never had as many resources at our disposal and yet we're acting against the biological imperative of reproduction. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any bearded man in the sky or an afterlife. Humans are living being and life only exists to produce more life. There is no greater purpose in life. And I don't mean that as in reproduction is the philosophical be all, end all but as in there is no greater metaphysical purpose. Life has no grand, yet undiscovered meaning. We're just a fluke that exists solely produce more copies of ourselves. And since the copies aren't perfect we also have natural selection and evolution thrown in the mix.

No, humans won't be able to reproduce for ever, and ever, and ever. At one point reproduction rates would outpace the speed of light. But that doesn't mean I'm for stagnation as you are. Your average Italian, like your average Japanese lives a life of luxury that would put the lives lived by the vast majority of kings throughout history to shame. Yet, despite that, the birth rate isn't just lower then it's ever been, it's bellow the 2.1 needed to replace the already existing population. And you're seeing that as a blessing? why? because fewer human means more resources? we already live better then kings and emperors used to live. At what point will we have enough resources for you? when there is just one person and he own the entire world?

You yourself admitted the earth could probably support more humans then it already does, yet you cheer sub replacement birth rates.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, as living beings we should expand for as long as expansion is possible. Hell, I'd go as far as to say that's the only purpose life really has is to consume all nonorganic matter and convert it into organic matter. If we define fire as a chemical reaction then life is a slow, steady, self perpetuating fire. As much as I love Equilibrium there was this quote from that movie that I never agreed with. We, as a species, do exist only to continue existing. There is no greater meaning, no greater purpose, just existence.

Also, for someone on this forum, you sure seem against human expansion into space. The whole point of a great deal of science fiction is to showcase us as a species expanding to other worlds and doing all that "be fruitful and multiply" we humans put in the mouth of our imagined gods.

[ProfessorDetective]

If folks don't want kids, they should have to have kids. If that means the world going to be a bit emptier by 2050-2100, so be it. Maybe urban real estate will come down a bit, too.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Human beings' metaphysical purpose isn't to reproduce. On an individual level collective implications are completely detached and you have to have a framework of fundamental underlying that doesn't undercut that.

Metaphysical implications have more to do with interconnecting frameworks such as: moments tying time, physical, and subjective processes together; classification of systems in a complete exhausted framework; a fundamental "lever" that serves with a figurative fulcrum and extension unto the universe, ie energy spinning an electron around or someone exerting their libertarian will into the world; and another one I forget.

[Riedquat]

Are you directing this at me?

Yes, although looking at it perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick from your post - I thought you were interpreting mine as saying "it's a blessing because more whiteys are dying."

I was being sarcastic about the other person on how he was viewing your post.

Ah, OK, apologies then!

[Riedquat]

I agree completely with what Riedquat said, though I'm pretty sure this is to be read as a concern that the social infrastructure is potentially going to be disrupted. Which is probably what he is cognizant of, though he might have understated it.

It will be, but conversely I think that social systems are surprisingly good at dealing with what look like very significant changes (be they good or bad) just as long as the shock isn't too sudden. It's rapid change that causes the real problems (the extreme example being revolutions that rarely turn out to be any good at all in the short to medium term).

[AlucardNoir]

Human beings' metaphysical purpose isn't to reproduce. On an individual level collective implications are completely detached and you have to have a framework of fundamental underlying that doesn't undercut that.

Metaphysical implications have more to do with interconnecting frameworks such as: moments tying time, physical, and subjective processes together; classification of systems in a complete exhausted framework; a fundamental "lever" that serves with a figurative fulcrum and extension unto the universe, ie energy spinning an electron around or someone exerting their libertarian will into the world; and another one I forget.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/metaphysics

I do so love coincidence.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Precisely, it's missing the forest for the trees a bit.