>

If everyone had most of their tax bills cut they would have more money so would spend more which means more people hired which means less homeless.
The world population is only rising because India/China/Africa.
Here in the US, my two kiddos are in public elementary school classrooms with 10 kids. When I went to school, it was ~30 to a class. Millennials born 81-95 were the children of the boomers. But on average, we're not having nearly as many kids as our parents did.
A "big family" today means 2 kiddos. Moms are frequently having only one due to explosive costs, or none at all. >

Yep pretty much. Wife and I only have 2 kids and now we're done. Jobs and careers have become so fucking stressful these days that there is no way in a thousand hells we are having a third. Had we have been planning our first child today, we would have decided to just call it quits and not have kids at all. 
Most of my higschool classmates don't even have kids. It's too expensive none of us are getting paid enough and the majority of us don't have the time due to extreme pressure from our jobs anyway. Hell, one of my classmates just killed himself earlier this month, which seems to become more common every year. >

Come live in any city in Japan other than Tokyo to experience a bleak and sad daily life. It's really bad here as villages empty out, elderly die in their homes only to be discovered weeks or months later and rust, rot and mold take over. >

That's more an issue of people moving to the mega cities from the rural ones. >

Yet another r/unpopularopinion poster who uses the sub's title as a shield from criticism. >

It obviously is an unpopular opinion though, considering how much pushback they're getting. >

Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean people can't point out the flaws in his thought process.
People do this all the time on this sub. 
They'll post the most inflammatory stuff imaginable and claim "it's my opinion" if they can't think of a rebuttal. >

I remember my old shop teacher would every now then randomly go on tirade about overpopulation.  That was 30 years ago. >

Not really...
Tge population of earth is still increasing 
The problem is that western countries population declines while everywhere else increases >

Low birth rates is a common trait of a developed country >

Abortion >

Smarter people have less kids. >

Smarter people have fewer kids. heh heh >

I have a lot of kids >

Have you never heard of the graying of Japan? >

There's precisely zero serious scientific evidence that we need fewer people. We need fewer emissions. We're not running out of resources, we're just distributing them badly. >

Lol it's not just emissions being unsustainable, it's also fishing, food, deforestation, traffic, etc >

Granted you have a point but it's worth pointing out but we can fix those problems with sustainable aquaculture, companion planting and other changes to farming techniques, reforestation programs and low emission transit and high speed rail. I agree that unchecked growth will be the end of everything but there are solutions to the sustainability issue that doesn't necessarily mean less people. We just need to be clever in how we organize it >

I study environmental science at my uni, and I agree with you that less people isnt harmful, but the desired result of a lower birthrate can get dangerous if the government starts trying to control how many kids ppl have. Dictators will most certainly use it as means of control for already under-represented people and pin it on “helping the environment.” Tbh, earth can handle more people its not the population thats a problem so much as how certain people in our population are destroying the earth. >

Every ideology or direction has a consequence. I am child free because of my stand against humanities growth. We are not effective at controlling or managing growth, we suck, as you are aware. Naturally the economy will control the growth, as we're seeing in higher affluent countries, but it will stabilize. We shouldn't be pushing for families to have more children though, or scaring the populace into having children. >

Well, idiocracy has that right.  With a better educated populace, you have a lower birth rate. >

Less young people means we can't pay for the older people.
In the past, a family would support the elders (and it wasn't even that long ago), but now people get money from the governments to live out old age. The kids don't help out anymore.
Now, with more and more elders and fewer young people paying taxes to support the elders, the old people die off, which technically fixes the problem but not in a moral way.
Different places have different family values, so it will vary between places, but what I said is true if we live in the 1st world/ western world. >


Less young people means we can't pay for the older people.

... if we assume that productivity remains the same and the availability of most necessary products and services remain at the same relative cost (which they don't: especially productivity increases, and food is more affordable than say, 100 years ago). Also, less people in the same country means more resources per person, on average. >

Tax pays for the pension old people use to survive, an overpopulation of old people and a declining young population will cause the pension to disappear... my rent is like 1.5k a month btw, so given my family tree, I'd have 4 houses to pay rent or mortgage on, so 6k, then bills, food, Internet, cars/travel, and so on.
Now, do I have to mention I don't earn 20k a month?
Need I mention people right now in 1st world countries are struggling to pay for themselves, let alone their family.
The situation OP has given is gonna be bad without a solution. >

We don’t have resource economy. People create jobs. There is no such an insane person who will build a factory producing highly tech planes f.e. if there are no tones of people to fly and produce those planes. We have enough resources. Decreasing the population will make our economy simpler - getting food and basic things that’s it. And “basic” is not what’s basic for your American life with AirPods, air flights, cars. These “basics” require big amount of consumers to be profitable. no market to sell -> no high tech. That’s rough. >

I would like to argue that resources that I'm referring to are natural, like food and water. With climate change, there will be wars over these. >

I just thought about this earlier after seeing an article about Elon Musk saying we won't be populated enough. Really, it's a problem for the rich if we aren't overpopulated more than anything. It's fun watching the rich get scared over this. Lower population is the best thing that can happen to society >

Yeah your taxes getting way higher is gonna be great >

Perhaps we could carve 5% off of the military industrial complex’s money laundering budget to fund SS and Medicare? >

Or defund all 3 and cut 90% of all taxes >

Man, I’m not happy about my tax bill, but I also don’t want all the old people to die homeless without healthcare. I’d feel a lot better paying what I pay now to fund schools and social programs benefiting families than the companies grifting off of the trillion dollars we pay to military contractors. Can’t they hire some fucking accountants to track that money?
Plus, I think at best we’ll only need the capability to bomb every square inch of half the planet, probably not the whole thing. We’re already saving money. We can probably even afford Medicare for all.