2w ago

I have an idea ☝️

You're viewing a single thread.

159 comments

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.
  
  That is why we need automation.
  Just not the infinite growth one from capitalism.
  
  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.
  
  Would socialism/communism solve that problem?
  
  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.
- We do not need more people. Capitalism needs more people. We don’t.
  Weird issue to pin on capitalism: seems more of an economic growth issue regardless of type. From Bars, Pride and dating apps: How China is closing down its LGBT+ spaces
  At the same time, China’s population growth and economy are slowing. “The current population growth couldn't support economic growth,” explains Hongwei, meaning there has been a push to encourage heterosexual couples to have larger families to ensure an abundant future workforce.
  
  older discussion
  
  Implies Capitalism is not at fault, proceeds to outline precisely why State Capitalism is melting down over declining birthrate. This comment is so ironic it cured my anemia.
  
  If every economy is capitalist no matter degree of government planning, regulation, & control, then by your standard non-capitalist economies are a myth.
  Demand for population growth is a general problem of economic growth rather than type of economic system. Even before capitalism, subsistence farmers would bear more children for the additional labor.
  Central planning economies can be as or more destructive than the more capitalist ones: type of economy seems to have little bearing there, too. The USSR aggressively industrialized & would consistently pursue economic growth (to raise standards of living). It comes up in the Soviet constitution of 1977:
  labor, free from exploitation, as the source of growth
  continuous improvement of their living standards (art. 39)
  steady growth of the productive forces (art. 40).
  Despite their command economy, their pollution was proportionately worse than the US's
  Total emissions in the USSR in 1988 were about 79% of the US total. Considering that the Soviet GNP was only some 54% of that of the USA, this means that the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times more pollution than the USA per unit of GNP.
  Their planners considered pollution control
  unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization
  and
  By the 1990s, 40% of Russia's territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.
  And this generously glosses over the extent of water contamination, hazardous dumping of toxic & nuclear waste into oceans, etc.
  The dependence on labor, capacity for environmental destruction, and demand for economic growth are not particular to any type of economy: they're general.
  
  China isn't a communist country really. A state capitalist country would be better way to describe it, maybe. They participate in the markets and allow private ownership of companies. For instance BYD the fast coming EV manufacturer isn't majority owned by their federal government, but is subsidized by it.
  People can argue if it is or isn't capitalism, but in the end that doesn't say communism. I'm no expert but I'd say maybe a social programs injected into a authoritarian capitalistic state.
  
  Ehh, the capitalist class doesn't call the shots in China though, the party does. And their private corporations don't simply have shareholders, it has party representation embedded in the control structure making "ownership" moot because ultimately the party can veto or seize production at moments notice.
  That being said, when Xi starts claiming socialism is inevitable, he does so to delay it's implementation.
  
  Yeah companies like BYD have investors like Berkshire and Blackrock but the key is Wang Chuanfu who is in the party, and is the CEO and largest owner apparently. So he gets a lot of say in making himself richer apparently. Sounds like what Musk would have wanted for Tesla if he could have got MAGA off the EV hate
  
  That just sounds like a reframing of "the party are the capitalist class" though.
  If the party either controls the corporations or has the ability to seize control if their priorities aren't met, where does one group begin and the other end?
  
  Wouldn't that have made the USSR capitalist as well? I think a key distinction is how authority within a party is established. If authority is derived from ownership then that is clearly capitalist. If authority is derived from the party itself, then that is something else.
  
  China is a capitalist society lmfao

159 comments