Switzerland will hold a referendum on Sunday on whether to cap its population at 10 million people.

If the measure is passed, Swiss officials will have to roll out measures to curb population growth until 2050.

Businesses have warned that limiting immigration will weigh on Switzerland’s growth and competitiveness.

        • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 minutes ago

          Not quite. Don’t ask me why but it’s a statistical term that also includes people with a class B permit, which is limited in term, but can be extended. It’s defined like this:

          The permanent resident population is the reference population for population statistics. As of 2010, the permanent resident population includes all Swiss nationals having their main place of residence in Switzerland and foreign nationals who have held a residence or permanent residence permit for a minimum of 12 months (permits B,C, L, F, S, N or FDFA permit-holding international civil servants, diplomats and their family members).

          Source: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/effectif-change.html

  • Summzashi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I guess at some point a high population does become unsustainable. 10 million sounds arbitrary though.

    • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The people suggesting that dont do that to be sustainable, but because they don’t want to share with others. To be sustainable they could limit meat consumption, travel less, buy less Bs from temu but this would be inconvenient for them, so it doesn’t happen. It’s only the others who must give up something, but not them.

      Now where have I seen that before…

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        That’s such a dumb take. Having fewer people is a valid way to be sustainable.

        Of course that’s not the goal of whoever is pushing this. But the idea that we should all go shit in the woods so the earth could sustain 15 billion humans is so ridiculous it sounds like a psyop to make ecology appears more like a sect than a matter of survival

        • idealism_nearby@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Population control is “valid” in that it works I guess? But then so does mass genocide. Fewer people = less pollution. Doesn’t mean we should do it.

          We can reduce the vast majority of our footprint by doing exactly what he said: less animal products, less driving, less low quality consumerist bullshit purchased. You summarising it as “shitting in the woods” is just disingenuous bollocks. People can and should lead more sustainable lives.

          • Summzashi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            At the smallest notion of someone challenging your beliefs you just jump straight towards genocide. Hilarious.

            • idealism_nearby@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Have you heard of “comparisons”?

              Like, apples and oranges are both round, and fruits. Yet people say that comparing the 2 is “like comparing apples and oranges”.

              Are you upset at the idea of comparisons? Or do you just want to avoid the other points I’m making?

              • Summzashi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                It’s a terrible comparison that poisons a fruitful debate for no reason at all. You’re comparing a fair point to genocide, making it an indefensible position and grinds any discussion to a halt.

                • idealism_nearby@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  Does comparing an apple to an orange change the way that apples taste?

                  Can you reply to my actual point at some stage?

  • MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Sunday’s referendum comes after the country’s population increased 10% in the 10 years up to the end of 2025, when it stood at just over 9.1 million.

    10%… sounds scary…

    Switzerland’s population has grown rapidly since 2002, when it stood at 7.3 million. Now it is 9.1 million…

    (From the BBC’s article)

    “Grown rapidly”… damn, that sounds scary too!

    Except…

    That’s less than 1% growth per year since 2002. Oh.

    This is a vote for an anti-human anti-immigration Malthusian agenda.

    • jenesaisquoi@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Cancellation of EU contracts allowing for free migration.

      The EU will then cancel all other contracts, effectively crippling the Swiss economy.

      The proposal is, without disrespect to the differently abled, completely fucking retarded.

        • jenesaisquoi@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          11 hours ago

          This is likely. They are sponsoring all kinds of extremism and separatism. Their biggest success to date was Brexit, but the rise of the neonazis in Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, USA is not to be underestimated as well.

          They understand very well that they don’t have the faintest chance or even leverage against a united Europe/CA/NZ/AUS/USA. None at all. But divide us, and attack us one by one? Now that they can do. A single European country will have difficulties defending itself, be it economically or militarily.

          This is why we must remain united against these dictators. We obviously have many differences and quarrel amongst ourselvee, that is completely fine, as long as we stand together when it comes to saying “fuck off and then fuck off some more and then fuck of all the way and stay fucked off” to the dictators.

          • Scrollone@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Exactly. The ancient Romans already knew that, they use to say “divide et impera”, divide and conquer

  • swicano@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    Obviously it’s just gonna be anti immigration measures, from non white countries first, but it would be so much better if, once the cap is reached, you had to challenge an existing citizen to take their citizenship. Could be a challenge of who scores better on a citizenship test, or something else. But the winner takes the Swiss citizenship and the lower takes the other citizenship.

    • ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      When you said “challenge an existing citizen”, I thought you meant like a deathmatch.

      • swicano@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        What? I think we’re saying the same thing. I’m saying it’s anti immigrant bullshit, with a focus on asylum seekers first (specifically called out to end asylum and family reunification first), that certainly come from non-white (non-european?) countries primarily, even though cutting asylum approvals to 0 10 years ago wouldnt stop them hitting 10 million by 2050. Its just a happy goal they get to accomplish on the way to trying to stop free movement.

        But it would be more fun if it was a relegation system where anyone can lose. I want someone to be able to challenge me and we trade citizenship if I lose

  • nialv7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    How are they going to achieve that? Are they going to have birth quotas like China? Mass deportations? That’s inhumane…

    • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      41 minutes ago

      The plan would have been: Breaking human rights on asylum and the unity of the family, starting at 9.5 million, then if 10 million was reached anyway, cancelling free movement with the EU, and thereby breaking the bilateral contracts.

    • CybranM@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      “sorry Timmy, I know you were just born but you’re citizen nr 1000001 so we will have to deport you”

  • Mosfar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    It may make sense if the infrastructure isn’t following the populations growth, we have that issue on some southern countries in Europe.

    I just don’t know how they would controlled the population growth without jeopardizing the next generations’ future like is happening nowadays to Japan and South Korea

    • EuroNutellaMan@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I just don’t know how they would controlled the population growth without jeopardizing the next generations’ future

      That’s the neat part: they don’t care about the next generation.