I don't get why they would want to do this, when runaway depopulation is the biggest issue facing the world. We're at a point where (I think, controversially) we need to sanction (or more) nations that aren't increasing their population annually. This is an existential threat facing the human race.

▲

vladms 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

30 years ago there were many with the idea "runaway population increase is the biggest issues".

It would be wise to have some pro-natality policies here and there, but look at China what happens if you go all "existential threat" on this issue. Biology is not engineering, things evolve differently than what one wants (there are other examples of strong natality policies fails).

▲

Cassell 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most people have a local view of their world through their immediate surroundings, not a panoptic or holistic perspective on the earth or their nation.

The power of collective action via votes isn’t a bayesian system, its just like the sum of many binary vectors.

▲

Lanolderen 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's aimed at immigration. Babies are OK. Not all that incentivized but OK.

▲

Thraway198 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What???? Why would we have to do that? Runaway depopulation is the biggest issue facing the world? We have billions of people on the planet. GPD not going up is NOT an existential threat.

	▲	brainwad an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The complexity of society has got to be somewhat proportional to its population. If we halve the population, we won't just half the GWP. It will be lower still due to less specialisation. Also, unless you throw the elderly to the wolves, having very low birth rates leads to a huge drag from having too many retirees to support with your shrinking working age population.