• sexy_peach@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wtf is this website and what is their goal? I couldn’t find anything on there, who are they??

    • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would you even want to stop population decline? It’s, like, actually very beneficial for the ones who then live in a less crowded world : |

    • tintory@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know, I found this on Reddit when the guy came after Michael Deacon for blaming for millennials and pleasantly surprised it was for increasing social spending and building homes rather than some right wing nonsense.

    • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every article is by “David Demos” which is clearly a pseudonym. I’m not disagreeing with the conclusions, but it’s definitely a red flag for me when info about the author is so obscured. Like it’s fine to be anonymous of course, but there is no establishment of who this person is other than an About page that uses weirdly upbeat language to advocate for anti-austerity measures to support population growth which is itself a strange take and I would want to know more about who is making it and why.

    • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re about page is a bit of a trip and seems like it’s all about being anti-austerity? At which point why not have an anti-austerity website instead of one about stopping population decline?

    • tintory@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why not, as long it means being against austerity?

      Hell, the article is critical for the CCP not spending more on social services.

    • tintory@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jokes on the CCP, who is going to spend the cash to raise them?

      Not to mention we saw this play out in Soviet Romania, and it was a shit show for that government in terms of political stability

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    7 million new humans in a single country per year is A LOT of goddamn people.

    Imagine a major city’s worth of people suddenly appearing every single year. It’s completely unsustainable.

    • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not so weird when that country has about 1 out of every 6 humans on earth, and when 10.56 million people died in China in 2022. They’re experiencing decline not growth.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say it was weird. The numbers are still incredible.

        And with nearly 1.5 BILLION people, it’s not like they’ll run out of people.

        This isn’t a Children of Men situation.

        • wahming@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The number of people is irrelevant in the context, only the birth vs death rate. For context, there were about 10.5 million deaths in China last year. For social stability, you’d want the population to at most have a slight decline. A 50% higher death rate than birth rate is NOT slight.

          • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, adding over 7 million people is what’s important, and it’s a huge number.

            We’re talking about a loss of 3 million once you factor in deaths. If it was a country like Canada, with a population of less than 50 million people, that would be problematic.

            But with a population pool of 1.5 billion, what’s the actual concern? What social instability does this cause that a population of 1.5 billion already doesn’t?

            There will never be too few people in China, and a slow population decline from 1.5 billion allows for a more sustainable future.

            • wahming@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              adding over 7 million people is what’s important

              It is not. When dealing with statistics, percentages are the only thing that matter.

              If it was a country like Canada, with a population of less than 50 million people, that would be problematic.

              Losing 15% of your population on a yearly basis isn’t problematic, it’s species-ending catastrophic.

              But with a population pool of 1.5 billion, what’s the actual concern? What social instability does this cause that a population of 1.5 billion already doesn’t?

              To put it in perspective, that’s the same population loss ratio that japan is currently experiencing. Japan, the country that’s teetering on the brink of cultural and societal collapse from an aging population.

              There will never be too few people in China

              Yeah this sums up the problem fairly well. You’re so stuck in your personal opinion of china’s population that you can’t imagine for a moment the situation changing, regardless of what the data might be saying. You’re no better than the people who refused to believe climate change was occurring. Fuck your gut instinct, pay attention to the actual numbers.

              • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bro, the actual numbers (3 mil loss a year) is insignificant when your population has 1.5 billion people in it. What demographic will catastrophically collapse?

                You’re getting 7 million babies (i.e. young people) to replace 10 million old people… this is actually quite good and the way it’s supposed to be.

                And is this coming from a country that had a one child policy for decades, then increased it to two and then three kids. *They literally don’t want more people! *

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, they also could be having 90% of a major city’s worth of people dying every year, but I haven’t looked up the exact number.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Someone said around 10 million die per year. But old people die. Everywhere.

        But they are “replaced” by 7 million+ babies.

        Let’s not forget that China STILL limits the number of children you can have, and limited families to one child for decades before the limit was raised to two, then three. They don’t really want more people.