Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

US Deaths Expected To Outpace Births Within the Decade (thehill.com) 130

Posted by BeauHD from the earlier-than-expected dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: The number of deaths in the U.S. is expected to exceed the number of births by 2033, according to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) annual 30-year projection of the U.S. population released on Monday. That estimation comes seven years earlier than what the CBO estimated in its 30-year population outlook released last year. At that time, in January 2024, the CBO projected deaths to outpace births by 2040. The CBO's 2025 report projected lower population growth over the next three decades than it did in its 2024 demographic outlook.

The CBO's population estimate for 2025 is 350 million, a slight increase from the 346 million it predicted for 2025 last year. But its projection for 2054 -- 372 million people -- has decreased since last year, when the CBO projected the population would be 383 million in 2054. The rate of growth projected over the next three decades -- 0.2 percent -- is significantly slower than the rate seen in the prior five decades, from 1975 to 2024, when the population grew at 0.9 percent. The growth rate over the next three decades is also expected to slow. From 2025 to 2035, the population is expected to grow an average of 0.4 percent a year. From 2036 to 2055, however, the growth rate is projected to be 0.1 percent. The CBO attributes this projected slow rate of growth to a variety of factors, including lower fertility, an aging population and lower immigration.

US Deaths Expected To Outpace Births Within the Decade More | Reply

US Deaths Expected To Outpace Births Within the Decade

Comments Filter:

  • In the long term, this is good for the Earth, reducing the resources needed.

    In the slightly shorter term, there will be some disruption to the economy as the population of working age becomes a lower fraction of the total population.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

      To your first point, not just good for the Earth, good for the individual. The Earth is finite, and with fewer of us each has a chance at a larger share of it.

      To your second point... you are vastly underestimating what's coming.

      • Equalizing births & deaths isn't so bad.

        Imagine having over double the number of deaths vs births each year [visualcapitalist.com]. Their goose is cooked.

        • Could possibly stagnate the economy which needs you to keep buying stuff to keep growing
          • Agreed, an increasing ratio of retirees to workers will definitely make people less wealthy, all else equal.

            The apex of worker to nonworker ratio is a few years after the transition from high fertility to low fertility - at that point, you have a lot of young workers, but they are not in turn spending money on raising children - just consuming it. China has been moving through that apex the last couple decades and is now leaving it behind.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cusco ( 717999 )

            Can't remember where I read it, but "Infinite expansion in a world if finite resources is an impossibility, and attempting it is a recipe for disaster."

            If you want to "keep buying stuff to keep growing" forever you need to expand into outer space, where resources are effectively infinite.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by outsider007 ( 115534 )

        Or the next person to be born could have been the one to solve climate change. If the assumption is that more people is always bad, then no wonder it's declining.

        • Straight out of the anti-aborition playbook (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Epeeist ( 2682 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @03:02AM (#65089953) Homepage

          Or the next person to be born could have been the one to solve climate change. If the assumption is that more people is always bad, then no wonder it's declining.

          Ah, yes - by aborting this foetus, you would have aborted Beethoven (the Great Beethoven fallacy [rationalwiki.org]).

          Equally, the next person to be born could be the one to stop climate change research and sack all atmospheric physicists and environmentalists.

          • > Equally, the next person to be born could be the one to stop climate change research

            Excellent point, not that it would matter in that example. ALso the next person to be born could be the next Hitler, or the idiot who releases a deadly genetically enginered virus by not following the correct procedures when they got distracted.

            Or even intentionally releasing it.

          • Jesus that "rational" wiki seems to have been written by someone who is off their ADHD meds. The entire point could have been made so much more elegantly and succinctly - as you did than whoever wrote that wiki entry.

        • Most people I've talked to assume more people is always good, certainly the people in power think so and loudly say it. Why they think 8 billion isn't enough already I don't know.

        • > Or the next person to be born could have been the one to solve climate change

          Thats a BS statement:

          1. You cant stop climate change. Or solve it. You need to adapt.
          2. That sort of thing rarely happens as humans tend to think like each other. Very few things can be attributed to an individual, such as Alan Turning with the fundementals on how computers can work, Einstein with the fundementals of space time. As long as you have the fundementals most humans can continue the work. The wheel and axle bei

          • Everything can be solved. The right renewable energy or carbon capture breakthrough will effectively solve climate change.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Sique ( 173459 )
              Yes and no. The Carbondioxide from today's emissions will still be in the atmosphere and cause it to move to a new thermal equilibrium. And while plants do sequester atmospheric Carbondioxide, it's a very slow process. All harvests of a single year will take about 500 million metric tons of Carbondioxide out of the atmosphere, but we have put in about 200 billion metric tons in the last 125 years. If we don't eat any of our harvests for the next 400 years, and bury all of it, so it is sealed from re-enterin
              • It buys time and reduces the ultimate amplitude of the shift.

                1.5C is now in the rear view mirror. That's extremely concerning because 1.5C is established as the lower limit where a whole lot of extremely bad things (AMOC collapse, Thwaites collapse, clathrate blowouts) start entering the realm of possibility, with the odds an increasing function of further increase. At this point it is getting clearer and clearer that the Perpetual Growth Delusion is suicidal insanity that must be halted. Instead every y

              • Yes and no. The Carbondioxide from today's emissions will still be in the atmosphere and cause it to move to a new thermal equilibrium. ...
                Turning to 100% Renewables will slow down the process of Global Warming, but it won't stop it for the next centuries.

                I think you are using different definitions of the phrase "stop global warming."

                Turning to 100% renewables, thus stopping our putting anthropogenic greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, will stop the increase of temperature due to the greenhouse effect.

                It won't reverse the warming we already have. The question of removing the greenhouse gasses that we have already put into the atmosphere is a different thing.

                It buys time nonetheless, and thus it's a goal worthwile to pursuit.

                I agree with you on the "worthwhile goal" part.

          • Thats a BS statement:
            1. You cant stop climate change. Or solve it. You need to adapt.

            You can adapt. For a while. But ultimately, we will have to solve the problem.

            Yes, we can adapt to 1.5 C. And to the following rise of another 1.5 C. And plausibly to the next 1.5 C rise after that. But the problem with climate change is that if we keep putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the temperature will continue to rise.

            We need to adapt and also solve the problem.

        • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
          "The Ultimate Resource is a 1981 book written by Julian Lincoln Simon challenging the notion that humanity was running out of natural resources. It was updated in 1996 as The Ultimate Resource 2. The overarching thesis on why there is no resource crisis is that as a particular resource becomes more scarce, its price rises. This price rise creates an incentive for people to discover more of the resource, ration and recycle it, and eventually, develop substitutes. The "ultimat

    • In the long term, all is good.

      "But in the long term, we're all dead".

      • In the long term, all is good.

        "But in the long term, we're all dead".

        Can't avoid death and taxes -- though some try ...

      • No, when society collapses and most humans are gone, the humans left will toss away the ideas of career before childbirth and having one mate etc and they'll resume breeding like rabbits.

        70,000 years ago there were only a few thousand humans on the entire planet, we survived that, even if they all were close relations making babies.

        • "Breeding like rabbits" is the social security of yesteryear, when a large family meant that maybe someone of your grandkids will bring you bread and a glass of water on your deathbed. In other words, "breeding like rabbits" means no civilization.

          "Breeding like rabbits" in an environment without a modern civilization, in which the "easy" resources that supported the industrial revolutions of the past 300 years are unavailable because our forefathers ate them up, will only mean Malthusian starvation, and not

    • Nah, go watch some of the videos on the poor of India producing kids. 1/4th of their population is under 14, thatâ(TM)s about the size of the entire population of US. That is why they are talking about mass imports of Indians. India has a culture that lets the poor live, at a ramshackle level, while US will label them homeless and convict them if they lived in the same huts. When Indians take over the US this will be reversed, as will population decline, but the whole thing is pretty pointless.

      • Re: In the long term, good (Score:4, Informative)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @11:47PM (#65089739)
        India's fertility rate has been dropping like a rock and is now 2.01 births per woman [google.com]. If they stayed at that level, which they won't, their population would level off in a couple generations and stay there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        "That is why they are talking about mass imports of Indians."

        Who is "they"? No one in the US is talking about that, except to incite fear. And they are suggesting "mass imports of Indians" because ¼ of the Indian population is under 14? Do you hear yourself?

        "India has a culture that lets the poor live..."
        LOL how terrible! We should fix that, right?

        "When Indians take over the US this will be reversed, as will population decline, but the whole thing is pretty pointless."
        Pointless because it doesn't e

        • Yes, this came up in the H1B MAGA wars over Musk comments. My sources are highly placed. India has had good population growth and lots of kids, so in coming decades shrinking populations necessitate imports of Indian workers, mostly H1Bs. And do I hear myself? Yes, do you hear me? The Indian culture, with all its issues, allows people simple lives living in what would be considered a shed in America, married with kids. People living in the same communities would actually be arrested in police sweeps in the

          • Did you stop for even 2 seconds to think about the difference in climate between India and the United States?
            Indians can "live in a shed" because the Thar Desert and Himalayas protect a large portion of the country from katabatic winds from the Tibetan Plateau.
            In the US there is none of that. It's mostly freezing cold from November to April, which would kill all those people.

            Or are you suggesting the US is going to build mass cheap housing??? Omg yeah I've heard ALL the talk about doing THAT.

            Come back when

      • The UN predicts that the world population will peak in 2086 at 10.3 billion (has been lowered in 2024 from 10.4) and slowly decline thereafter. A large part of that growth will come from Africa.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      The problem is all our economic models are built on unlimited growth to fund pensions.

      If "AI" disrupts that, then birth rates are going to go down, substantially.

      So while it is good for there to be globally less people, those less people need to be in places like China and India that keep having children until they have a male heir, but then lock themselves in loveless marriages for economic reasons.

      What needs to happen is that:
      1. Everyone is entitled to a home. Not a 350sq foot closet. A 1200sq foot home.
      2

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I agree, this is good. Though it comes too late.

      In the slightly shorter term, there will be some disruption to the economy as the population of working age becomes a lower fraction of the total population.

      Well, some already far too rich assholes will probably have to be dealt with and greed will need to be curbed. Some countries will manage and to well. Others, not so much. This is not a problem of productivity, but one of wealth distribution.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's already becoming a major problem. It's also one of the reasons why some people want to take away your ability to control your fertility.

    • The population of USA is still expected to grow (345 to 421 millions) until 2100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] If you want to see numbers going down, check China halving its population in the same period. The world still increases 8 to 10 billion with a large contribution from Africa.

    • If we concentrated on improving efficiency everywhere instead of wasting resources in the name of personal vanity and "keeping up with the Jones's" , we should be fine.

    • Nah. Holding to a birthrate of 2.1 ad infinitum would be the best possible outcome, especially considering how much effort and technology could be committed in the future towards making more-efficient use of land and resources. Earth could sustain much more biomass than what it sustains now, and we could render larger swathes of Earth habitable.

      The last thing you want are your young to dwindle and fade away. Young people could (and should) be the drivers of innovation and expansion. Having less of them

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Close but I think it would be better to have below 2 until the total population was significantly smaller, then go for around 2.0 to keep it stable. With a smaller population it would not matter if there was modest gains or losses. You are dead right they you don't want it going too low or population age spread would get skewed. The real question is what is a healthy population range, too low and you risk not being able to handle extinction events and too high you risk creating extinction events, like we
    • No, it isn't. People solve problems and need the help of others to do it.

      This planet isn't the only place in the neighborhood with resources. Without extra people, we won't be able to get them.

  • Practical economic experiment time! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:37PM (#65089651)

    Watch what happens when you have all your support systems dependent on each new generation being larger than the previous one, and you demonize immigrants, evict the current ones and then close the doors to new ones.

    Oh, and at the same time you gut your youthful labor force, you raise prices on all goods by slapping tariffs on all that foreign manufacturing that's been keeping costs down and making your billionaires richer.

    Don't worry, the billionaires will be just fine.

    • Don't worry, the robots and the AI will take care of us all. I don't know how, but with Elona, Zuck and Sam giving the instructions, I'm sure it will be a beautiful new world.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      They solve this problem by banning abortion and birth control. You do understand that one of the pillars of white nationalism is winning the offspring battle, right? That is explicitly stated, that whites need to out reproduce the browns. Gotta brush up on the racism, particularly on the christian racism which was founded on out birthing the competition.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Every year the movie Idiocracy feels less like a comedy and more like a documentary.
      • While every white nationalist may want to out-reproduce other races, not everyone who wants a stable population is a white nationalist. Much of the population growth of this country has been coming from births of minorities, so by your own logic the white nationalists wouldn't be too upset at a decline in birth rate. As a liberal who lurks in center-right circles, it's clear that you're painting opponents of your political ideology with a very broad brush.

    • Watch what happens when you have all your support systems dependent on each new generation being larger than the previous one, and you demonize immigrants, evict the current ones and then close the doors to new ones. Oh, and at the same time you gut your youthful labor force, you raise prices on all goods by slapping tariffs on all that foreign manufacturing that's been keeping costs down and making your billionaires richer. Don't worry, the billionaires will be just fine.

      Adding to the things the billionaire class and broligarchs don't care about, but effect the rest of us...

      (a) Undocumented workers often pay taxes that help fund programs like Social Security — even if they (usually*) can't collect from them in the future and (b) lower wages means lower taxes paid -- income and into the social security fund.

      * Under what circumstances may a non-citizen be eligible for SSI? [ssa.gov]

      Side note: Eliminating taxes on tips would reduce money individual workers pay into SSI and c

      • Heh, broligarch is nice, I'm stealing it shamelessly.

      • Re:Practical economic experiment time! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @05:56AM (#65090153) Homepage
        "Eliminating taxes on tips" Meanwhile the rest of world points out paying people a decent minimum wage would do away with the need for tipping (and increase tax collection). When you first learn that tipping is the norm in the USA because without it many people would not take home enough money to survive you kind of wonder if the USA is actually a 3rd world country.

        • "Eliminating taxes on tips" Meanwhile the rest of world points out paying people a decent minimum wage would do away with the need for tipping (and increase tax collection). When you first learn that tipping is the norm in the USA because without it many people would not take home enough money to survive you kind of wonder if the USA is actually a 3rd world country.

          When I was (much) younger....I worked in tipped positions in the restaurant industry.

          I started as a bus boy....later as a waiter and bartender

        • Tipping provides Americans with more opportunities than foreign countries that pay living wages. In the U.S., people have the opportunity to gain the dignity of being employed while simultaneously fulfilling everyone's fantasy of being a street beggar.

    • and you demonize immigrants, evict the current ones and then close the doors to new ones.

      Only the illegal ones....the ones that broke the law crossing in illegally.

      You might want to quit conflating the two....

      With legal migrants, we can pick and choose the best ones that fit in the US and fill our needs.

      We welcome those...especially the ones that come here specifically to become citizens, learn English, etc....

  • You reap what you sow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2025 @10:39PM (#65089653)

    When your economy has become so expensive that most folks are barely getting by,
    then it should come as no surprise that adding kiddos into this equation is a recipie for
    misery.

    Folks like Musk are shocked that people aren't having more kids but they're completely
    out of touch with the reality that the average persion simply doesn't have millions or
    billions of dollars at their disposal.

    Won't even go into the dismal American Education system, the insane costs of a college
    degree and even the dismal prospects of future employment in the age of importing offshore
    labor and, potentially, Artificial Intelligence.

    Why would anyone want to raise a kiddo in American Society in this day and age ?

    • When my wife and I were starting out we could hardly afford food and rent. The idea of a child would have crippled our ability to build our careers and provide stability to the family. We would have been destitute forever. Then in our 30's we started having financial success. Our careers are building and having a child means backtracking on that success as one of us would need to give up a promising career. Now in our 40's we have enough money do accomplish anything we want. Our retirements are fully funded

      • Yep, exactly the same scenario here.

        I am finally in a place where I would be able, financially, to have a child. But I am now in my upper 40's and set in my ways. Not to mention the unfairness to the child of having geriatric parents who will probably expire well before they are financially independent.

        I do *sort of* regret not having children. But, I don't have to look very hard to see what a burden and a gamble they are.

        My wife and I have made peace with it and will enjoy our retirement with all the resou

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by havana9 ( 101033 )
      The "modern" suburban, car dependent, expensive housing that is the norm in the USA doesn't help making a kid friendly urbanization. Kid can't play outside and even going to school by feet or by bike it's impossible, not no mention that this is now considered neglect. No public transportation means that to have kid makes the parents the kid taxi driver until the can drive a car.
      Also on workplace pregnant women an women that take maternity leave are in a growing number of cases subject to mobbing, and this

  • People have kids when they're optimistic about the future.

    People not having kids is a vote of no confidence in society and its structures and institutions.

    Want people to have kids? Refrain from giving them ample reason to doubt the sanity and good judgment of the self-proclaimed adults in the room.

    Like, you know...claiming that sending kids to school is anti-intellectual, or openly cheerleading for the people literally welding people into their houses. The people on the direct receiving end of being welded

    • Well, you being a "rightwing nutjob" have no reasons to complain. You won, you'll fix it. Right?

      • They have an answer, and it's just as horrible as you'd expect... keep women like property, rape them at will, and ban abortion.

        They don't state it like that, but if you look at their policies and past behavior, that's the obvious outcome.

        • If we're looking at past policies and behavior, one party was literally fighting a war for the right to buy and sell people. They "moderated" at the point of a gun to merely demanding the right to keep those people as legally codified second-class citizens.

          Three guesses which party that was. And the first two don't count.

          Or we could refrain from ascribing the worst excesses of their ancestors to the actual people living today and try to have a serious conversation about today irl, not last season on handmai

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by dfghjk ( 711126 )

            "Three guesses which party that was. And the first two don't count."
            It was the modern Republican Party that fought for slavery, and they still do. The name was different then, but that only fools idiots like you.

            "Or we could refrain from ascribing the worst excesses of their ancestors to the actual people living today and try to have a serious conversation about today irl, not last season on handmaid's tale."
            But why would we when they so loudly brag about their own bigotry? This is literally who you are,

        • Yeah, they are currently officially a step away from the mineshaft shelter theory of Dr. Merkwurdickliebe, unofficially and IRL it is of course "grab them by the pussy, they'll let you do anything".

        • Re:Not good. Sign of pessimism (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @12:04AM (#65089757) Homepage Journal

          I have a few fixes to suggest, though they don't involve any "going back" to the bad old days. Rather, moving forward by applying our more culturally enlightened values more fully.

          For starters, the laws and norms around marriage need to be updated. A lot remains that was cooked up back when "women were property" as you mentioned. Now that marriage is truly a union of equals, it needs to legally fit such equality. And, in particular, it needs to be a much safer thing to do than it is now, financially.

          As it stands, getting married introduces serious financial risks including being financially responsible for children produced by infidelity, having most of your retirement savings and your house taken from you when your spouse leaves you (even if you did nothing wrong), and possibly spending the rest of your life as an indentured servant to your ex. Such risks are unconscionable, especially given the very high divorce rate and the fact that prenups can simply be discarded by a judge. If we want marriage (and consequently birth) rates to go up, we have to fix this.

          My "move forward" proposal is to have a "modern marriage" that does not include the joint property ownership at all. Both members of the marriage are "on the hook" for their own financial well-being. Neither member should "give up their career" for the marriage, as that would be terribly irresponsible. And both parties should fully understand this before going in. They maintain separate accounts, separate investments, separate property, etc. They do not file joint in their taxes. But they do live together so they can share expenses however they see fit, make medical decisions for each other if emergencies come up, and of course raise children together with equal guardianship rights. Should they split up, each just walks away with whatever they have earned, and they default at 50/50 custody of the children.
          I don't know that we should eliminate the option for a traditional marriage, we just need to have this kind of marriage as a viable option with no legal tricks whereby it can be legally treated as a traditional marriage when it hits divorce courts. More people would be willing to get married if it was safe like this.

          I have typed a lot. Maybe I will just throw out some other ideas without much explanation or justification. Like, our education system needs to be repaired (no more student loans for un-employable degrees, and elimination of this practice of teachers grading their own students (aptitude assessments should be done by a separate body with no financial incentives to grade inflate). The medical industry needs repair (insurers require discounted rates from hospitals, and hospitals cannot charge insurance more than patients, so hospitals jack the prices way up for everybody, forcing uninsured (and some insured) people into medical bankruptcy. This is obviously stupid though I don't have a specific fix ready to suggest). MUCH better enforcement of our anti-trust laws (we really need to break up more cartels, especially the grocery cartel) and government-assisted removal of barriers-to-entry in mature markets (like, we need more telco providers, more internet providers, etc.).

          I am done for now. But there is a lot we could improve. We just choose not to, for bad reasons.

          • We need to remove the contribution cap on social security as well as the 5 year limit on AFDC (Thanks Clinton you rapey DINO fuck) before we eliminate spousal support and child support.

            There are a lot of frankly sexist items written into the law which favor women in ways which are outdated, though. AFAICT they exist for the benefit of the state. Men have higher earning potential so keep them out working instead of caring for children, because they produce more tax revenue.

            My big problem with marriage is ali

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dfghjk ( 711126 )

          "They don't state it like that..."

          Oh yes they do. And don't forget child labor.

          It's a bit old at this point, but that famous "liberal" Jordan Peterson openly advocated "forced monogamy", where women would be forced to marry men not of their own choosing. JP's claim is that modern society's problem is that women choose their own mates, thus victimizing men. The solution obviously must be that men force women into relationships they don't want in order to bear children for incels. A literal Jordan Peterso

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      "People have kids when they're optimistic about the future."
      True.

      "People not having kids is a vote of no confidence in society and its structures and institutions."
      False.

      "Want people to have kids? Refrain from giving them ample reason to doubt the sanity and good judgment of the self-proclaimed adults in the room."
      False. Make them poor. Poor people have higher birthrates, developing nations have higher birthrates. Wealthy nations have lower birth rates. Enslave the population and make them poor, then de

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        "or openly cheerleading for the people literally welding people into their houses" I couldn't work out what that is a reference too either. Maybe you need to watch Fox news more to find out? Also how do weld to a person? Sounds like a form of torture. Maybe he means welding doors and windows shut? I guess in some countries they have metal doors and windows, here they are normally wooden. I don't know, such a rant, maybe he just forgot to take his meds?
      • Maybe this [gizmodo.com]? Still doesn't make much sense unless he thinks Democrats were in favor of welding people in homes during Covid which no one in their right minds would think. But he's a self-described nutjob, so *shrugs*.
  • Will this make living in America any cheaper? More housing available maybe?
    • In Japan, what's happening is prices in Tokyo are zooming upwards [japanpropertycentral.com], while rural areas are dying [oyakata.com.pl] and the land and homes are worthless. (I love this quote: "abandoned schools, hotels, amusement parks or even islands or towns are becoming increasingly popular.")

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Torodung ( 31985 )

      No. That is due to price gouging and computer algorithms maximizing market value without thought for the people it leaves with zero options. Just ask how people who work on Cape Cod are trying to find housing that allows them to get there in the first place. They don't. It's a serious problem for all the well off people who live there and depend on them.

      When the private sector fails like this, government has to step up. We'd need to invest in state-subsidized, low-cost housing projects, and then legislate r

  • They can do better (Score:5, Funny)

    by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @02:30AM (#65089931) Homepage
    Ok, I guess I will get flagged as troll for this but...

    A decade? If Robert F Kennedy Jr is the next US health secretary I think you can achieve that milestone within 4 years.

    • You're assuming a brain parasite can't keep our bodies moving long after we would be declared medically braindead. I don't know why you make that assumption, RFK Jr already showed it is possible.

    • I was going to make a joke(?) about shortening that timeframe with another war, but I like yours better, haha!

  • Nice to see.

    This will especially be important for those that come after most of the aged have died off as in a world of A.I taking work most humans will have no work or income.

    Fewer numbers equals more chance of a UBI scheme actually working.

  • Maybe stop shooting everyone then.

  • Total population does not matter as much as per capita productivity. The bigger problem is that the population is being replenished by low-skill low-productivity immigrants, legal and illegal, and the narrative pushed by this article is that we need even more of them.

  • I hate to go all Thanos on you, but the planet has a population/resource usage problem, and US residents are massive, wasteful contributors to that. The primary contributors to our demise, in fact. Fewer people in the US means fewer privileged and thoughtless people producing carbon willy nilly, squandering resources, exporting out-of-control garbage to the less fortunate, and buying enormous trucks (which create all of the above) for no reason other than status.

    As long as it's not firing squads, the world

Slashdot Top Deals

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.

Close