Eine Datenauswertung von CORRECTIV.Europe zeigt erstmals: Während Europas Bevölkerung wächst, leben in der Hälfte der Orte weniger Menschen als vor 60 Jahren.
Nah but jokes aside, I understand the problem is more complex than “capitalism = bad”, but I find it to be the case that whenever population decline and nativity numbers pop up as a big societal issue it’s motivated by the prospect of failing to meet GDP numbers or whatever.
If we look at it pragmatically, perhaps philosophically, and I think we should, then what is a “good” number of humans in a society? Is there even stated such an equilibrium where it’s just right, the nativity and mortality are equal and the age statistics follow a nominal age distribution? Because I sure never hear about it.
I find this question „what is a good number of humans in a society?“ unethical and dangerous.
Who are you to say this is the right number and you guys aren’t allowed to have kids. Because the number is full?
And do you think one has to distribute the number across regions globally? If so, Europe get it’s human budget and Africa as well? As Africa is growing in population last decades, does it mean that Africans can’t get kids anymore. Because their number is full? But Europeans are allowed?
What’s about age? If people get older by the better lifestandards, we can have less kids. Because the number gets full by very old people. Who cares the old people and who rund the economy. Who is changing and disrupting society if not teenagers. Will the society fixed in stone and resistant for change?
That‘s just a few philosphical thoughts about a „righr number of people“.
If you want to get a sense of practical consequences, get a glimpse to China. There was a big plan of the right number that led to the One-Child-Policy. Look thorougly into it and see the unethical outcomes it made.
The population in europe is growing, this is about a change in distribution.
Well I’m not too happy about distribution either!
Nah but jokes aside, I understand the problem is more complex than “capitalism = bad”, but I find it to be the case that whenever population decline and nativity numbers pop up as a big societal issue it’s motivated by the prospect of failing to meet GDP numbers or whatever.
If we look at it pragmatically, perhaps philosophically, and I think we should, then what is a “good” number of humans in a society? Is there even stated such an equilibrium where it’s just right, the nativity and mortality are equal and the age statistics follow a nominal age distribution? Because I sure never hear about it.
I find this question „what is a good number of humans in a society?“ unethical and dangerous.
Who are you to say this is the right number and you guys aren’t allowed to have kids. Because the number is full?
And do you think one has to distribute the number across regions globally? If so, Europe get it’s human budget and Africa as well? As Africa is growing in population last decades, does it mean that Africans can’t get kids anymore. Because their number is full? But Europeans are allowed?
What’s about age? If people get older by the better lifestandards, we can have less kids. Because the number gets full by very old people. Who cares the old people and who rund the economy. Who is changing and disrupting society if not teenagers. Will the society fixed in stone and resistant for change?
That‘s just a few philosphical thoughts about a „righr number of people“.
If you want to get a sense of practical consequences, get a glimpse to China. There was a big plan of the right number that led to the One-Child-Policy. Look thorougly into it and see the unethical outcomes it made.