It seems like you didn’t finish your response… Why is depopulation terrifying? And why shouldn’t we be concerned about resource constraints? Malthus being wrong implies nothing about the future.
Or it's a cute term for oppressing people to a degree that they don't want to follow natural instincts to procreate. For instance, developed nations economically penalize parenthood to such an extent that native birth rate is now below replacement in all of them with only a few exceptions.
This seems to me only partially true. Sure if everyone had one-percenter level resources they'd be more inclined to procreate, though the cultural change and the shifted focus to individualism and one's own experience in life (YOLO thinking, if I may) probably has as much or even more effect on it.
As an anecdata, most people I know are somewhere on the low-class to upper-mid class, and the ones who want kids seem to always have at least one, consequences be damned, and the ones who don't, often don't put a price tag on it and merely use it as an excuse if they feel pressured.
Also the `natural instinct` may not be a given here, since up until recently the instinct to have sex and procreate meant the same results for humans just like other animals, which no longer holds true either.
>Sure if everyone had one-percenter level resources they'd be more inclined to procreate
When we look at actual billionaires, we don't see huge fertility levels. Maybe on average a bit higher than the average couple today, but nothing really significant. It's not like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have been trying to compete with the Duggars.
The only thing more resources do is allow people to have the number of kids they truly would like to have. Most women really don't want to squeeze 15 kids out of their vaginas, and are generally happy with 2 or maybe 3.
That birth rates go down withe conomic prosperity has nothing to do with government oppression... That talking point is utter BS, and close to the conspiracy theory of the great "replacement" ...
Wouldn't most of the so-called "West" already be in the process of depopulation, based on current birthrates, if not for immigration from other regions?
Long term? Yes. Long term as in "by 2100". Until then, the more immediate issue is the aging population, making everything from health care to retirement financing (the public, European-style models), in the current form difficult. This was a topic already discussed in the late 80s to a degree to be part of classes when I was in my very early teens.
Migration helped to mitigate that. Regarding fertility rates so, the developed West is just ahead of the curve. With economic growth and stability, the rest of the world is following the same curve Europe and the US do for quite a while.
I think, that ultimately, global population will stabilize, including individual countries. There will be dips and spikes, as usual, overall so we should be fine as a species.
How to support the elderly in a world where the same GDP is produced by less and less working age people is a question so: using salaries as a basis for social securoty and public health care won't really work as well anymore. Taxing corporations and wealth (as in really wealthy, being a paper millionaire just because you happen to own a house does not qualify) is one option.
