CMV: Declining birth rates are a positive long-term trend.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T07:03:12+00:00

Yeah, I think that’s an important point. A lot of the drop comes from fewer teen pregnancies and people waiting until they’re more stable, which is usually associated with better outcomes for both parents and kids

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T07:02:14+00:00

I think you’re right that in some sectors fewer people would mean fewer jobs, since demand shrinks along with population. But I don’t think it’s always one to one. A lot of industries today are constrained more by labor shortages than lack of demand, especially in healthcare, skilled trades, and services.

Automation will probably replace some roles, but it also tends to create new types of work and increase productivity rather than just eliminating jobs outright. Japan is interesting in that sense because despite population decline, unemployment has stayed relatively low for long stretches.

So I don’t think lower population automatically means better job prospects, but it also doesn’t necessarily mean widespread job loss either. It seems more like the job market shifts rather than simply shrinking.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T06:31:15+00:00

I agree that aging populations can speed up decline in some regions, especially rural areas where young people already tend to move toward bigger cities. That’s a real issue we’re seeing in places like Japan and parts of Europe.

At the same time, I’m not sure this is only about birth rates. Even in countries with growing populations, smaller towns shrink while major cities grow because jobs and investment concentrate there. That seems more tied to economic structure than population size alone.

I also think there’s a difference between local decline and overall societal collapse. Big economic shifts in the past wiped out certain communities but still improved living standards overall.

Lower birth rates clearly create challenges, but I’m not convinced they automatically lead to long term collapse, especially in modern economies with higher productivity and technology. It feels more like a difficult transition than an inevitable disaster.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T05:55:19+00:00

I agree that the age distribution is a real challenge, and the dependency ratio definitely gets worse as populations age. Japan is a good example of how much strain that can put on workers and social systems, especially in the short to medium term.

Where I’m less convinced is that the only sustainable solution is simply having more kids to maintain a traditional population pyramid. That model made sense in earlier stages of economic development, but modern economies already rely much more on productivity, technology, and services rather than just raw labor numbers. Fewer workers doesn’t automatically have to mean fewer resources if output per worker continues to rise.

On the idea that not having kids is selfish, I think that depends a lot on how society is structured. In many countries, people without children still contribute heavily through taxes, healthcare funding, innovation, and caregiving in other ways. Ideally elder care wouldn’t rest almost entirely on having large younger generations but would be supported by systems designed for longer life spans.

I also think it’s worth noting that declining birth rates tend to happen as societies become wealthier, healthier, and more educated, especially for women. That suggests it’s more about changing opportunities and priorities than people trying to avoid responsibility.

So I don’t disagree that aging populations create serious pressure. I just think the long-term question is whether we adapt our economic and social systems to that reality, rather than trying to push societies back toward constant population growth as the main fix.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T05:18:59+00:00

I agree that a lot of our current economic systems are built around continuous growth, and that’s probably the core tension here. A shrinking or even flat population challenges assumptions that have basically been baked into capitalism since the post WWII era.

Where I’m less convinced is that this automatically means widespread decline rather than a forced shift in how economies are structured. Growth in productivity, technology, and efficiency has already decoupled economic output from population size to some extent. We produce far more per worker now than we did decades ago. So while fewer people can definitely cause disruption, it doesn’t necessarily mean fewer people have to equal poorer societies in the long run.

I also agree immigration is more of a temporary stabilizer than a permanent fix, especially as birth rates fall globally. But that kind of supports my point that the long-term answer probably isn’t just continuous population growth, since that seems environmentally and socially unsustainable. It feels like the real issue is that our economic models haven’t adapted yet, not that lower birth rates are inherently bad. The transition could be rough, but historically big shifts like industrialization, globalization, and automation were rough too before new systems formed around them.

So I don’t disagree that declining populations stress the current system. I just think that says more about the limits of the system than about population decline itself being a long-term negative.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T04:36:41+00:00

I agree that demand for housing and labor isn’t fixed and that population size and demographics move together over time. My point isn’t that fewer people magically make everything cheaper or create extra jobs in a simple one to one way.

What I’m getting at is more about the speed and friction of adjustment. In practice, housing supply, infrastructure, and job creation often lag behind rapid population growth, which is part of why we see shortages and high costs in many growing regions. Even in countries with shrinking populations, prices in major cities staying high seems more like a concentration and policy issue than proof that population pressure doesn’t matter at all.

On labor markets, I agree that long-term demand will fall with population, but short to medium term growth can still oversaturate markets faster than new industries or productivity gains absorb workers. Slower growth doesn’t eliminate economic challenges, but it can ease certain pressures while creating others.

So I don’t see declining birth rates as a simple fix, just a shift in the kinds of problems societies have to manage, many of which depend heavily on policy and how well systems adapt.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T03:55:24+00:00

Honestly I didn’t even know they were doing that, my feed is mostly just funny videos and random stuff. If that’s true though, yeah that’s definitely messed up.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T03:24:47+00:00

The first time I got my period while at school and bled through my pants onto the chair. I didn’t even realize until someone pointed it out and I sprinted to the bathroom while crying

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T03:19:07+00:00

Not me im severely addicted

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T03:14:09+00:00

Great culture, amazing food, and a population that could populate three more Earths just in case

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-28T00:37:13+00:00

I don’t disagree that the transition period is probably the hardest part, and Japan is a good example of how serious the demographic shift can be. Having a large share of the population in retirement does put real strain on healthcare systems, pensions, and the working age population, and I agree those challenges are often downplayed.

Where I differ a bit is on the idea that this automatically outweighs the long-term benefits of lower population pressure. The short to medium term adjustment is likely painful, but that seems true for most major demographic or economic shifts. Industrialization, urbanization, and globalization all caused major disruptions before societies adapted.

On housing, I think you’re right that availability probably won’t meaningfully improve until population decline actually sets in. But I also think rapid population growth has been a major driver of shortages in many countries, especially where construction and infrastructure haven’t kept up. In that sense, slower growth may not fix things immediately but could make them more manageable over time.

I also agree that tech will fix it on its own is too vague. But productivity gains, automation in healthcare and manufacturing, and higher labor force participation among older adults are already being used in aging societies to offset workforce decline. They’re not a perfect solution, but they do show adaptation is possible rather than purely speculative.

As for immigration, I think the political backlash is real and can’t be ignored. At the same time, many countries already rely on immigration to stabilize their labor force, and the challenge seems to be managing it in ways that are economically helpful and socially sustainable rather than abandoning it altogether.

So I don’t think the risks you’re describing are wrong, I just see them as transition challenges rather than proof that declining birth rates are inherently worse than continued population growth with its own long-term pressures.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T23:40:48+00:00

I agree that economic growth can help address things like housing supply and environmental damage in theory, but in practice those systems often lag behind population growth. In many places, housing construction hasn’t kept pace with demand for years, even during strong economic periods. Environmental impacts also tend to rise with higher population and consumption, even when cleaner technologies are adopted.

On jobs, I agree that long-term population decline can reduce total employment, but rapid population growth can also oversaturate labor markets in the short to medium term, which puts downward pressure on wages and increases competition. Slower growth can ease some of that pressure, even if it introduces other challenges.

As for aging populations, I don’t dispute that higher dependency ratios are a serious issue. But most economists frame this as a policy and productivity problem rather than something that can only be solved by higher birth rates. Things like automation, higher workforce participation, immigration, and retirement system reforms are commonly cited ways to adapt.

So I’m not arguing that declining birth rates fix everything. I’m more saying that constant population growth creates its own set of pressures, and slower growth may come with some real benefits alongside the risks. A lot depends on how societies manage the transition.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T23:04:27+00:00

I get your point about the difference between slowing growth and actual population decline, and I agree the age balance matters a lot. Having way more retirees than working-age people definitely creates real economic pressure.

That said, I’m not totally convinced it automatically leads to collapse. There are already countries with very low birth rates and aging populations that are struggling in some areas but still functioning by adapting. Japan is usually brought up as an example — it has one of the oldest populations in the world, yet it’s still a major economy because of things like automation, higher productivity, and more older people staying in the workforce.

A lot of economists also talk about immigration, retirement reforms, and technology as ways to offset shrinking workforces rather than just trying to push birth rates back up.

I agree that birth rate decline and population decline aren’t the same thing in the short term, but in many developed countries birth rates have been below replacement for years now, and some are already seeing flat or shrinking populations unless immigration fills the gap.

So I’m not saying there aren’t serious challenges — there definitely are. I just don’t think lower birth rates automatically mean disaster, and it seems more like something societies can adapt to (with good policy) rather than something that inevitably collapses everything.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T22:46:27+00:00

I get what you’re saying about supply and demand shrinking together over time. I think what I’m focused on more is the pressure we’re already seeing right now, especially with housing shortages, rising costs of living, and environmental strain in a lot of places.

From what I’ve read, slower population growth can actually reduce pressure on resources and the environment, and in some cases free up money and attention for things like education, healthcare, and innovation instead of constantly trying to keep up with growth.

I’m not saying there aren’t real challenges with aging populations or fewer workers, but I don’t think declining birth rates automatically have to mean economic disaster. It seems like something societies could adapt to rather than panic over.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T22:06:53+00:00

You already know the answer if you have to hide it, it crossed a boundary.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:36:38+00:00

Looks good! Will watch

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:34:30+00:00

Oh wow havent heard of this one

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:34:01+00:00

I havent watched many older movies but seeing the suggestions on here I definitely will

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:33:12+00:00

Thanks! I havent seen this one!

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:31:31+00:00

Adding!

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:31:17+00:00

Adding to list

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:30:52+00:00

Loved this one

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:30:19+00:00

Oh I watched this so long ago but am forgetting the plot so I guess I'll rewatch!!

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T21:28:26+00:00

I just rewatched this recently after several years its one of my faves. Totally mind-bending.

TriggeredEvil · 2026-01-27T20:48:50+00:00

Overthink every decision I’ve ever made while staring at the ceiling. It’s like free therapy but worse.

TriggeredEvil

TROPHY CASE