Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
We're too many humans for what the planet is able to sustain, we need to reduce our use of resources but we also need to be fewer than 8 billions
Overpopulation is something that'll take care of itself over the next 50 years or so. The more immediate issue is to figure out who will pay the pensions of the aging population.
No, it's not. Social security is not a failing program.
Yes it is when there's more people receiving those payments than working. The money has to come from somewhere.
That's a simplistic reduction. They've been saying it's going to run out for 30 years.
It's not exactly speculation. The birth rate in much of developed countries is well below the replacement rate. Population decline is already happening in some countries. Looking at current demographic charts shows that the number of elderly people is growing fast, while younger generations are shrinking. With fewer children being born, there will soon be much less workers to support a lot more retirees. Pension systems, mostly designed for growing populations, will be in real trouble as fewer people pay into them and more people are taking money out.
And, if Congress had not given themselves interest-free loans out of social security to bolster the economy then we wouldn't be having any worry about whether or not we can afford to pay social security.
The real danger is that the money for social security that would have been growing and earning interest as it was properly invested was not properly invested.
They have phrased it as they didn't expect people to live so long, but it's not that. It's because they don't know where they're going to get the money to repay social security, when the reason why there's any danger of social security running out is that the money was mismanaged.
That's what they've been saying about climate change as well. Think and you'll see why: people are trying to solve it, and then the beneficiaries suddenly think it's not a problem anymore. The year of exhaustion had recently moved from 2036 to 2035.
Actually, this is not true (yet). There is enough space and food for all people if we stay humble. The distribution is what is wrong. We just need a socialist world government and get rid of this capitalism shit.