Nostr Web Client

I posit that the world's population has been artificially maintained through creating artificially inflated economies using artificially-backed money.

It seems only logical, to me, that if we move to hard money, it will facilitate a reduction in population due to the unsustainability of supporting millions of people who do not participate in the workforce, but are instead propped-up by the fiat-backed welfare and social systems which are in-turn propped up by money printing.

In a 'survival of the fittest' scenario, we have created unnatural support systems only possible through fiat, where those who contribute to the system are responsible for keeping millions of people alive via forced contributions 'for the good of society'.

I don't think we should be 'depopulating' anyone nor do I believe the world is anywhere near overpopulated, but I do think this would be an inevitable consequence.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Electro ⚡️ 2y ago

I think it would be opposite. If we have sound money, it will make everyone prosperous, things will get cheaper and people afford to have more kids.

Sovereign Being 2y ago

I'm not sure sound money would accommodate the type of welfare and socialist-style programs that are widely employed in the West. The ones that require over taxation and money printing in order to be sustained.

For the working classes, I agree that it would improve prosperity. I'm kind of approaching this from the perspective of the welfare class who aren't interested in working. Those who rely on aid from governments, whether their own or foreign. I feel like a lot of the current systems would not be sustainable under sound money systems, and the result of this would be a lot of people being affected by poverty and ultimately death, since they only exist today because of an artificial system that props them up.