this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
1578 points (95.6% liked)

Political Memes

8172 readers
1468 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Well yes but no. Supporting this many old people is a genuine problem, no matter the economic system.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

With the introduction of automation every decade (currently AI is the big one), unemployment rates will go up so we don't even need as many working. Our capitalist brains just can't fathom "handing out" extra resources.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Every automation brought more work, rather than less. Why? Because profit. If the boss owner can get more out of less people, they will fire the unneeded workers, bring prices down and force the competition to either follow or close down

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What do we do about the coming unemployment crisis?

If AI replaces a lot of workers, we'll have too many people in the country. There is no healthy way to rapidly decrease the number of people in the country. A good leader thinks ahead and people stop having kids before the unemployment crisis fully hits.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It's a problem that there will be fewer people in the generation below ours to support our generation in our dotage. This problem is the same regardless of your economic model. Fewer people in the working pool and more people sick and elderly is a bad time.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

And what causes fewer younger people?

Couples not having children.

What causes couples not to have children?

Well, beyond simply not wanting them: economic insecurity. A more equitable economic system would remove that barrier.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

That's the great part the current youth won't get to be sick and elderly. We'll just be sick and dead.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's currently 5 million care workers in the US, at a total population of 332 million. Source

That means that even if the birth rates drop really low and we only have 50 million workers in the next generation, it will still be enough to care for the elderly.

However, it might not be enough to fill the last bullshit workplace some company makes up to make yet another dollar into the pockets of the rich.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

This is deeply myopic. The problem is not low birth rates, but uneven demographics.

How does, let's say, marxism leninism deal with the problem of uneven demographic distribution? I've never heard of any even theoretical fixes from them for that.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CHN/china/birth-rate -- do you think China doesn't view this as a problem?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is deeply myopic. The problem is not low birth rates, but uneven demographics.

At this point i just need to point out that earlier centuries had a very uneven demographic as well. In 1850, people typically had 6 kids on average, which means you had a lot of people too young to work and therefore not part of the workforce. Yet society thrived.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

They did handle that by ... Forcing kids to work. (Harshest example would be chimney sweepers)

Not like we don't do that now, forcing some kid to make our clothes so we cam buy it cheaper then f****** food.

Point is, "too young" population is not the issue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If I understand what you said, then it is still a problem caused by capitalism. Because we have the knowledge and technology to live comfortably with a lot less manpower then 300 years ago. And yea we can go into details, but the difference between an ox and a tractor is huuuuge.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

I've never heard of theoretical fixes either but proper Maxism-Leninism has a focus on central planning, doesn't it? They would certainly see it as a problem and surely consider potential solutions. At least one that acts in good faith of their main premise.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago

Define "even"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I’ll believe it when I see it. Someone has to maintain the buildings and people as they age. Without people you don’t have a society. Norms break down, culture breaks down and then some other group will come in to fill the void.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Looks around, fuck your society and your shitty fast food, gas station, Amazon Warehouse buildings.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you look at the world through gray shaded glasses, you might think the world to be dull.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you look upon reality and then deny the truth you will only decive a fool who dooms everyone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We've seen it over and over throughout history and it's always been positive. The Black plague. Most recently WW2 depopulated the West of the most able bodied workers. The result wasn't a collapse but a boom. Those remaining had cheap housing and were paid more for their labor because there were fewer workers.

When population declines enough that everyone has resources, population will go back up again.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m not sure that we should celebrate the deaths of millions as a boon to society. I Imagine all the beautiful contributions to the arts, innovations and society that we missed out on.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Nobody said to celebrate, just that we should learn from history.

If we could recreate the effects (higher wages, lower living costs) without the cause (millions dead), maybe we could reap the same benefits.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

capitalism: fuck the world up and then panic when people give up on life

[–] [email protected] 137 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

People understand the concept of, "no infinite growth on a finite planet," but then refuse to accept that that holds true for us as well. The world population has more than doubled in my lifetime. Obviously we can't do that forever. Especially in the context of a climate crisis that is making less land livable over time. For completely practical reasons we are going to have to set up some kind of system that can function in equilibrium rather than requiring growth.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This is true but people focus so hard on the population they miss the wider issue. Its not the number of people thats the issue right now, its the massively uneccesary amount of resources each person uses.

The world can accomodate a lot of people IF we shift the way we do things. If we all live like the world is an endless piggy bank, it wont work.

Without considering the way we live and the system we've built, people begin sliding into borderline eco-fascist ideas of population control because its an easy thing to understand and latch onto. But the situation is much more complicated than that.

So yes, there is a finite human population limit but that doesnt mean we've hit it or are even going to hit it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›