this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

15952 readers
121 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Why can’t we just have fewer people too? Instead of finding ways to support 50 billion people, how about we have good birth control facilities, education, and economies not based on constant never ending growth? The reality is unending growth WILL end whether people like it or not- wouldn’t it be better to do it on our own terms rather than in a global catastrophe?

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 0 points 1 day ago

Most of the world is far from replacement levels of population and the global trend is a decrease in fertility. Overall, we are at 2.4 kids per woman, the replacement level being estimated between 2.1 and 2.3 (depending how likely you think it is to die from wars). This data has been (mostly) decreasing since the 60s.

[–] yogurtwrong@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Why can’t we just have fewer people too?

Won't somebody think of the ECONOMY?

A lot of countries around the world are living a so called "underpopulation crisis" even though the population is still growing frighteningly fast. Population going down is only a problem for capitalism, and it's going to doom us all

[–] Shareni@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

wouldn’t it be better to do it on our own terms rather than in a global catastrophe?

The catastrophy is inevitable, it's just a question of whether any humans will survive.

For example CO2 has a delayed effect of ~40years (if I remember correctly). The effects of global warming are very much obvious now, but the yearly output hasn't at any point dropped to those levels since.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

The best way to control population growth is to actually give them a high standard of living and education. One of the most consistent trends in a developing nation is it's birth rate slowing down as people become more prosperous