this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
714 points (95.8% liked)

Political Memes

8896 readers
2771 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Resources aren't evenly distributed naturally, some area may not have enough resources.

It takes more resources to get more resources, we may be measuring 30% of total resources, but not 30% of resource capacity.

I'm fine with population control, but it should be implemented willingly at an individual level, and pushed via education and community acceptance. I catch a small amount of flak for not having kids, but wife catches a lot more.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -5 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

A replacement birthrate leads to a more stable society. The elderly who are unable to work and ill need to be cared for. If ever fewer young and able people have to take care of ever more elderly, it won’t have a good outcome. Not having children of your own is being a burden on society.

[–] i_ben_fine@midwest.social 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Not having children of your own is being a burden on society.

damn, don't replace anti-natalism with forced natalism. Thanks.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

No force involved. Lots of people are drags on society in different ways without that being illegal.

[–] i_ben_fine@midwest.social 1 points 2 hours ago

Friend, social pressure is a form of coercion.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

A replacement birthrate leads to a more stable society

Only if you assume that the amount of production for a hour of labor stays the same. Workers today accomplish much more in a given time period than workers 65 years ago. The problem is that value is horded instead of being made available to the people that created it.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works -4 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Feeding an elderly person, washing them, changing their diapers takes the same amount of time as it did 150 years ago. Due to better health care and longer lives, the total cost of elderly health care and pensions eat up a lot of that productivity gain.

[–] tad_lispy@europe.pub 9 points 19 hours ago

That's certainly not true. We now have washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, kitchen machines, gas or electric stoves, food delivery services etc. All this makes carrying for others easier. Plus being more efficient at paid work could be translated into less working hours, thus more time to care for others instead of more money captured by capitalists.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Nope. Absolutely wrong. You can cook food faster than you could 150 years ago using microwaves, induction cook tops, non-stick pan and other advancements in kitchen tech. Modern care aids reduce the time it takes to wash a person, and allows them to wash themselves much later in life before they need partial or full assistance. Modern adult diapers come off easier, seal better, and absorb more, so they have fewer blow-outs and it takes fewer wipes to clean up a person.

Edit: let's also add that better productivity in other areas enables fewer people do more work, which (should) free up a larger portion of the population for elder-care.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 15 hours ago

You realize 150 years ago was the year before the telephone was invented, right? Most houses didn't even have electricity back then.

I was an in-home caregiver before COVID, and we certainly didn't have to warm water on a wood fired stove to bathe the clients with. I didn't have to scrub the laundry with a washboard, we had a laundry machine. I could call 911 without interrupting CPR, which wouldn't have been possible even 50 years ago.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

If ever fewer young and able people have to take care of ever more elderly, it won’t have a good outcome.

It takes fewer resources to care for elderly than raise children. Not raising a child means there's a surplus to care for the elderly. Then the elderly die leaving more surplus behind. It's not only a theoretical based on money but we have all of history that shows this truth. For example WW2 killed the most productive members of society leaving only the elderly to be cared for. The result was a global economic boom.