if the methodology used to reach this article’s conclusions are reliable, then the implications are very concerning.

  • Is it necessarily a problem if the population would shrink over generations? Isn’t it normal for people to have fewer children as their material conditions improve? I might be naive, but at that point, I’d imagine China would be by far the most technologically advanced nation, and they wouldn’t need a huge military (in terms of people) or a huge number of general workers

    • Sankavara Gardens
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      Is the less children with improved material conditions thing true? I’d like to read more up on that.

      • I’ve read about it before, but I don’t know of any specific reliable studies. I’ve heard numerous explanations – improved access to contraception, better chance of children surviving into adulthood (so there’s no need to have many children to increase the chance of at least one surviving), state-sponsored elderly care (in some countries), etc. For capitalist countries specifically, many people have less time to spend on raising children because they need to work

    • @quality_fun@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      a smaller population is not necessarily a bad thing - after all, as seen with literally any country other than china and india, a country does not require over a billion people to exist - but it can lead to stagnation, especially from too many elderly people.