The Myth Of Underpopulation

[anon1903]

THE MYTH OF UNDERPOPULATION

Is that even a thing?

Countries are reporting for not producing enough of you know what.

They can just get immigrants but no... We rac_ist here. I mean, there's always at least one nation that tops in that category. They're running out of job opportunities, housing etc. You can just support those people, you know, as pro life it wouldn't to do something selfless for a change. Just saying. No pressure.

Now the "economy collapse".

That'd never happen.

Say, you have a city of 500 people. There's no way in hell they all refuse to procreate. It's either religion or accident or partner changing mind or whatever that's gonna fall in way. Some of them are gonna do your thing. Absolutely no need to worry. We're never EVER gonna run out of humans.

I've said this once and I'll quote me "there's 8 friggin billion of us".

No way everyone's gonna become a selfless antinatalist overnight.

Humans have different core values, and I'm sure some can even defy brainwas_hing power when it comes to creating a lovely biological family. Nothing wrong with that. The less people think that way, the better.

Because, if we continue this charade of multiplication — a time would come when can_nab_ilism will be the norm. We won't need dinosaurs, we'd have eachother.

Resources are fast running out. As are trees, thanks to our growing needs. We'd literally not have one godda_mn thing to survive if we don't stop this madness.

Now now, I know y'alls counter argument.

We can make it if we use our devices and stuff smartly.

And your said smartness doesn't include childfree people and abortion rights.

It includes free stuff for all. Which is great actually, except the free healthcare and discounted food do not work. Humans are vile. The top 5 percent have little shame in exploiting the System for The Needy too. If government gives most of the things for free, again, lo and behold! A collapse!

What about my culture? Said the vulture to the dove.

You, as a culture can survive. You can practice it religiously. You can become a teacher of some kind, or adopt kids, or the easiest route — throw Celebratory parties, free stuff is the way to go, in terms of gathering people. Just pass on your beliefs.

Your culture is gonna live and thrive. Just never put it above the green planet, okay?

Oh, then the gender ratio issue. Who'd marry my extremely amazing son? As a man, will I be forever alone?

The answer to the latter is yes. Women aren't baby making machines or anything. They're just human. And oh! You can have relationships other than romantic or sexual... You can just bond with people, weird right? You can have friends, make them your family, be happy with them and grow old together... Doesn't sound horrendous does it now?

You don't need to copulate or marry anybody. Romantic love is just media brainwa_shing ya. Sorry.

Then there's the old people debate. What if there's too many of them?

Based on the assumption that all young people wanna work and have high performances. I mean, forget experience lmao. We want them young and spiky. So what if ageism exists and older people have problems in finding jobs?

That's fine. We're basing this off on 90s superhero comics. Youngsters will save the world. The world is Scooby Doo, most probably.

If we bash our heads, I'm sure we can come up with something to fit all these puppies in one beaten cardboard box!

Mental peace is so overrated. Just stuff twelve persons in one room. I'm sure they'll interact. Positively or otherwise. We'll just get more trees cut, and get half of the animal kingdom extinct.

We're gonna be fine.

By anon1903

PS. Let's strike a deal. If you're pro life of any form, mention something that was truly benevolent and didn't benefit you in any way. My next take will have you in it, as a person who showed me righteousness.

[Kaneki05]

Underpopulation? That's a new one. Is there also a theory of too little pollution? Tbf I can 100% bet someone on this earth will truly think that. Hence why people are idiots.

[anon1903]

Yeah, I saw it on YouTube community posts.

[anon1903]

I won't mention the country, but they think their culture is gonna get extinct or something.

[Kaneki05]

I mean culture sucks anyway sounds like a self solving problem lol.

[anon1903]

Lmfao

[Curmudgeon]

Sigh, you are not paying attention to the underlying reality. Enjoy paying impossible taxes to support the retirements of geriatric "Boomers".

[Kaneki05]

@Curmudgeon Did you respond to the wrong opinion, cause I am lost what that has to do with anything in fact that would just be supporting there is too many people.

[anon1903]

He's probably gonna call you "naive" for looking after the planet. Ignore him.

[joeND]

Elon
musk predicted population decreases comiing, many done want kids.

[monorprise]

The data shows we are heading for demographic collapse not just in the west but around the world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFa7EU0SP_4

Overpopulation was a myth that was never going to happen even when it was sold by our cultural leaders back in the 1970s the birth rates were crashing even then and continue to crash ever faster today.

Many countries around the world are going to look like Japan a lot sooner than even they know.
That is a very bad situation to be in, because it means not even immigration will be able to deal with the disastrous short term consequences.

To say nothing of the major long term consequences.

This hasn't happened in human history on such a scale, and the reality is based upon small scale examples we won't recover from it.

[anon1903]

@monorprise you've a lot of time in your hands. Go plant a tree and we'll consider you won this argument.

[LiamJHayden]

I think you are correct. Barring a nearly 100% lethal, incurable pandemic, populations will eventually reach a point close to equilibrium.

[anon1903]

Pandemic perks

[zeitgeist057]

I've said before, and I'll quote myself: "pretty much every problem we have would be solved by fewer humans on the planet."

Pollution? Check

Violence? Check

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9x7FGbW3IVc

Fighting over resources, overcrowding, greed? Check

Destroying the environment (pollution aside, things like overfishing, deforestation, endangered species and extinction)? Check

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WfGMYdalClU

Not to say on a planet with only a billion humans on it, some of those humans wouldn't figure out a way to be selfish, violent, nature-abusing asshats. Just that it wouldn't be a matter of survival, and there would be a lot more of everything else in nature to water them down.

There's a reason why whenever people think of paradise, or you see a picture depicting "paradise" or "utopia", you see very few if any humans in it.

[anon1903]

Couldn't have said it better!

[Lionman95]

I disagree less population won´t lead to less problems it just makes problems more obvious. There will always be nature-abusing asshats since they´ve always been around. Their impact would be even bigger if there are less people around. I would say that many Europeans already live in terms of food and ressources in paradise.

[anon1903]

@Lionman95 that's true.

[anon1903]

@Lionman95 but the lesser crowds we have, the easier it is to educate them and control them.

[zeitgeist057]

@Lionman95 I'm having trouble following how fewer people would create larger piles of garbage. Take it to an extreme, there's no way a population of 100 people on the planet could generate the insane amount of rubbish and pollution that 8 billion people create every day. Unless they built robots to drive fossil fuel vehicles around and generated other machinery to run automatically to open bags of crisps and toss hundreds of thousands of plastic water bottles into the ocean.

[Lionman95]

That´s true I wasn´t thinking of such extremes. I was more thinking of a decline by a third or something like that. Since even today there are some countries that produce way more waste than others. So if those over-producing countries go down less in numbers than others the amount of waste wouldn´t go down significantly.

[monorprise]

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. fewer people means fewer ideas, fewer children also means far higher demands for Goods and Services without anyone to provide them, leading to ever more unaffordable prices. Causing the problem to get even worse, as there is less for everyone not just the non-working elderly, but Children too.

If you think your going to retire comfortably without kids your dreaming, what little you have saved won't even come close to helping and the goverment will likely collapse before it could make up the difference simply because there are not enough people to provide the required Good's and services.

So your standard of living WILL decline.

[zeitgeist057]

@monorprise the logic of "fewer people means higher demands for goods and services" doesn't check out. Here's a simple example: 5 people means 5 people want breakfast, lunch and dinner for the day (goods and service). That's a total of 15 meals. If those 5 people become 25 people, then the 15 meals becomes 80 meals. 80 is more than 15. The demand is greater the more people there are.

If you think having children is a good way to save money for retirement, you're the one living in a fantasy. Children cost a lot in terms of not only money, but time and resources. What you describe is a pyramid scheme, where each generation creates a bigger problem by creating more people who are depending on those below them to support them. If we are having issues with finite goods and services, adding more people to the problem makes it worse, not better.

I'm also not too worried about not having enough slave labor for goods and services. Artificial intelligence and robotics are automating more and more of the mindless tasks that have traditionally been performed by wage slaves (and regular slaves before them).

[monorprise]

@zeitgeist057
The key factor your missing here in why fewer people means higher demands for good & services is the fact that people can't work forever, they get old and must retire. So fewer people means fewer working people while you have the same number of retired. That means the same 5 people who previously had to make 15 lunches for themselfs in fact have to make 80.

AS for Children being a good way to provide for retirement. You are aware that the dollar represent a relative claim on existing work and resources right?
That children today represent the ONLY work force to provide that labor and they will ONLY work in exchange for compensation enough to buy what THEY need?

So every penny you save for retirement is only to allow you to have enough to trade with them for a share of the resources you require.

In truth Children are the ONLY retirement plan. What we have done with Retirement savings accounts be it Goverment like Social Securty or Private is simply collectivize the claim upon everyone's kids.

Unfortunately this led to a tragedy of the commons IE the failure of collectivism as more and more people stopped having kids, meaning there will be fewer and fewer children to buy from when/if you do retire.

So if you really want to retire, you need to calculate the size of the future labor force (number of kids now alive and likely to remain so), thus their surplus capability as that is how much you CAN buy to support yourself.

Then calculate how much everyone else who retires have saved at that point to insure that you have enough more than most of them to provide for your needs. As you can see its not simply a question of you having x million dollars. Its a question of you having X dollars more than everyone else.

[zeitgeist057]

@monorprise Interesting perspective; you're operating on a lot of "givens" I've never heard from any economist, or anywhere else in fact.

I'm not too worried about it. The picture you paint does not represent accurately my situation at all, nor the world I live in. Time will tell, I suppose, but so far my future and retirement look very bright and easy without relying on the next generation (s). Still making my own lunches with no issues and with no intention or need of increasing that to 80 lunches as I get older. XD

[zeitgeist057]

Additionally, you are pointing out that old people are more or less useless at "making their own sandwiches", and dependent on children. But children are likewise as useless as geriatrics, and must also have sandwiches made for them until they become productive adults. So humans in general are dependent the first 15 years or so, and the last 15 years or so. But more of them doesn't resolve this dependency. It just means more diapers to be changed, both at the beginning and end for all these additional lives.

[monorprise]

@zeitgeist057 Most economies tend to get things wrong as a rule because they overlook major variables.
In the case of demographic decline almost all of them assume a relatively stable population growth. The popular native about overpopulation and resource depletion is politically valuable and still believed by most of our elites.
When they see the dramatically dropping birth rate resulting from the modern selfish freeloading on life attitude towards kids. Many of them actually think its a good thing and don't look beyond that. Remember theses are the same people who still try to target the "youth" demographic in advertising ignoring how small and poor they are. Their ideas like their politics are stuck in the 1950's, when ther really was a high birth rate.

This is also why they tend to favor policies that help manta in the cost of living out of reach for the young by raising the culturally and legally required standards for everything. Among the few that are actually thinking about it, this is quite a deliberate effort to lower the birth rate as well as create a depended controllable class of people.

As it happens just about all of theses people are boomers who will die before it really hits the fan.

Human civilization has never seen so dramatic and disastrous a decline in birth rates on a global level as this. Populations loss previous were caused by diases and war, not people simply becoming too lazy and self-centered to carry on life's most required function.

[zeitgeist057]

@monorprise overpopulation and resource depletion is believed by anyone who is able to make simple observations of statistical data. 100K+ species extinct every year due to human encroachment is a low estimate. A "dramatic and disastrous decline in birth rate"? Awesome, I hope it goes into a more significant decline where the population of humans actually starts going down, because even with this "decline", it's still going up. But it's not going up in the USA or other developed countries, it's going up in the poorest and least educated places. So much for your theory of creating productive members of society that will support others; looks like more incompetent freeloaders with hands out and mouths open. upload.wikimedia.org/.../...h_Rate_in_2017.svg.png

There's no need for billions of people. More people create more rubbish, more pollution, kill more animals and destroy more habitat and nature. Check out https://xkcd.com/1338/ (note specifically "wild animals") to see how disgustingly imbalanced this planet is with human influence.

ypte.org.uk/.../why-is-over-population-a-problem#

[monorprise]

@zeitgeist057 I am aware of this map, if you look closer you might notice the few countries still making babies are the poorest most least industrious and most harmful to other animals on earth?

While the countries actually coming up with solutions and able to build tecnoligy are the ones not making babies.
You know what happens when the smartest and most industrialist people all go for a Darwin award? The human race becomes dumber and dumber, and dumb populations don't innovate they just use every resource until exhaustion.

So all that other life your talking about is doomed, and im not talking in billions of years when humans are not around to save it, but in less than 1 million years when ever more dumb humans kill it all off.

[zeitgeist057]

@monorprise I and the map absolutely agree with you, only the dumbest and poorest people still think it's a good idea to have lots of babies.

Welcome to Idiocracy (2006 scifi comedy).

[monorprise]

@zeitgeist057
I don't wish to be mean, but cheering for a low birth rate among those wealthy enough to read your nonsense is making an idiot of anyone who is truly dumb enough to buy. Which unfortunately is most all of the so called "smart" humans.

[monorprise]

The problem is de-population, which is the loss of people for a given country/culture
If its due to declining birth rate historically they don't tend to recover.

Under-population is a side effect of living in a country/economy built for more people than you have. Localized examples of this include Detroit which now has 1/3rd of its original population which is far too few to afford to maintain the expensive infistuture.

When this happens on a national scale like its starting to in places like Japan who is 2 generations ahead of us you got real problems.

Regardless your suggested solution of 'immigration' is in fact just genocide of the dying culture effectively removing any chance of recovery via the loss of habitat.

This tends to happen regardless in a competitive world if not by such foolish policy to alleviate the short term Under-population economic issue or by invasion. (Too few kids means you can't defend yourself either).

Hence why cultures that allow their birth rates to collapse don't tend to recover, and end up in the ash-bin of history.

On a isolated scale, however recovery is possible, say for an island population.

Rome went the other route by conquering and assimilating nearly all of the known world they were able to draw upon newly asimulated populations not yet in urban decline.

However even this was not enough as ultimately the non-roman German populations took over.

[anon1903]

Tell me you're racist without telling me you're racist.

[monorprise]

@anon1903
Its almost impossible to be more racist than to watch with desire entire races and cultures collapse.

I would very much like to see successful cultures like the west and Japan continue, The truth is every industrialized culture on earth has this problem to the degree they become urbanized and industrialized.

This is a huge problem because as a species humans will not survive if we cannot survive while industrialized. So far no no culture or 'race' on earth has been able to do that.

[anon1903]

What's more important to you — culture or environment?

[monorprise]

@anon1903 Culture, the environment hardly matters if there are no people. Even still there there is no conflict. In general things are actually improving environmentally as we head father out of the ice age.

With any luck and good planning the earth will be rid of it's permanent ice and restored to its natural tropical environment, with the northern and southern 30% of land inhabitable and usable again. But again that hardly matters if there are no people to inhabit it.

[anon1903]

I think I'm done.

[anon1903]

Thank you for your time.

[RealMarek]

“Resources are fast running out. As are trees“ Not really. There are more than three times as many trees now than there were 100 years ago. Hydrocarbon supply has not reached peak, and even if it does nuclear is practically limitless.

“You, as a culture can survive.” Not necessarily. All high cultures are organic, emanate from a specific place (the Elbe River Valley in the case of the West), and are not easily transmitted across different groups of people. Furthermore, it is common for birth rate to fall during a culture’s decline phase. Some cultures become static after their decline and persist relatively unaltered for centuries, as is the case with Chinese and Indian culture. Others collapse catastrophically as did the Greco-Romans, and as the West is on track to do given its excessively low birth rate and high rate of immigration.

“Humans have different core values, and I'm sure some can even defy brainwas_hing power when it comes to creating a lovely biological family.” Actually, the only time creating a biological family as a product of a union between a man and a woman is ever questioned is during the intellectual, cosmopolitan latter stage of a high culture. In otherwords, it takes brainwashing to override the innate impulse to reproduce, not the other way around.

”mention something that was truly benevolent and didn't benefit you in any way” Given that doing something truly benevolent provides spiritual or emotional benefits, this is impossible. But if you just mean material benefits, I could rattle off many examples.

[anon1903]

Ever heard of deforestation

[RealMarek]

Yes. But the rate of reforestation has been greater than the rate of deforestation during the past 100 years.

[anon1903]

Yes, and next thing you know, you can make your own petrol

[anon1903]

This has been informative

[RealMarek]

You can make synthetic petrol (the Germans did during WW2), but it’s very expensive.

[anon1903]

We want real stuff. And it's not gonna be possible for y'all popping kids like zit.

[RealMarek]

Is this just what you’ve been taught or do you have data? There is plenty more capacity for energy, food, etc. if properly managed.

[monorprise]

@RealMarek Its hard to beleive people actually beleive this nonsense. How is it @anon1903 that someone can tell you it is "brainwashing power" that drives people to have kids and you not look at them like they are crazy?

Where do you think life come from, what would happen to life if even a sizable fraction of it just decided to stop having kids as you have? Children are not brainwashing they are the point of life, anyone who doesn't accept that doesn't deserve to be call life.
They are instead freeloading parasites like a virus hijacking the hard earned fruits of others to live for themselfs alone.

[Curmudgeon]

Sorry, but no. Populations are still *nominally* growing, but they are much more rapidly *graying*. And no, that's not "racism", but it is "ageism", justifiable Ageism because a shrinking proportion of young cannot support the retirements of a growing proportion of old. And importing immigrants in their prime working ages, to pay the taxes for the retirees, just kicks the proverbial can down the road a bit, as they soon get old too.

Moreover, it is not "racism" to be concerned if a wave of immigrants does not share or adapt to the values and culture of their new home country. What do you think is happening in Europe right now? Thank heavens the USA is getting massive immigration from largely Catholic Latin America rather than the Muslim regions of the Middle East and north Africa as Europe is getting. You probably call yourself "feminist" or as a "Gay Ally" and you probably fancy yourself non-religious. How will a world increasingly full of angry young Islamics and aging old Secular people fare for you? Not good at all.

[anon1903]

I don't care about my culture but I certainly do about the green planet and the humanity

[Curmudgeon]

Do you think that people in most of the areas of the world where populations are still youthful *care one bit* about the green planet? They don't!

And they will *negate* anything you think you are accomplishing by not reproducing yourself:

Here's a great speech. Speaker is British, so even if you think America with its larger economy might matter more in the Climate issue, even mighty America's efforts here will pale in comparison to what the developing world will ultimately do:
www.facebook.com/.../

[monorprise]

@Curmudgeon A "Graying" population may be temporarily growing in numbers but is already in irreversible decline in practice.

People think that is far off but we are less than a decade from Japan's situation, as much if not most of the world is in as bad a situation.

That means not even the short term fix of high immigration will be able to fix the issue for too much longer. That "fix" of course still comes with more medium and long term problems of its own to add to our own disastrous long term decline and aging problems.

You may be able to afford to retire if you don't live too long, but people my age and younger will find that very difficult. Simply because the prices will be soo high to get the required goods and services from an ever smaller working population who themselfs must somehow afford to live, retire, and have children less the situation continue until they collapses completely and the elderly are largely left to die.

[Curmudgeon]

@monorprise Bingo! You are spot on, sadly.

[Adam1978]

Population decline is a problem for old people. Because they will be the one losing their pensions and have to work. Because the young is to few to support themselves and all the old people. So they support themselves and perhaps some well behaved parents who raised them right for that. Immigrants is not a solution when all countries in the world is showing the same pattern. This will end capitalism not civilization, the world needs another structure who looks out for the people and make it possible to have families without having society drain them dry in exploitation.

And the world rulers are getting older and older and is losing grip of the younger generation, they just don't line up and replace themselves with new subjects. They rather let the system collapse.

[anon1903]

The youngsters are kinda overrated hahaha

[Adam1978]

That is what all old generation has said since the beginning of time.

[anon1903]

Which makes that counter argument invalid.

[anon1903]

Everyone should work. Period.

[Adam1978]

If the older generation has killed the younger generations future, I wouldn't say so. They should discard those parasites and just do what they need to live. Not until the old is gone, can you build new and better.

[anon1903]

We should all live in harmony. Cutting back on reproducing will actually be beneficial, at least for many people if not everyone.

[anon1903]

I want less young people because there'd be more job opportunities.

[Adam1978]

No it won't, less people, less need for work to maintain them. Only a lot of work during the decline. Since each young person needs to support a handful of old none productive ones. Beyond that the work market decrease with the population.

[anon1903]

Less capitalism

[Adam1978]

Yeah I don't think money will disappear any time soon.

[anon1903]

But people can.

[anon1903]

We're only fighting because of the insufficiency.

[Adam1978]

Which is artificially created by exploiting people. If people actually got the value of their work, instead of it going to the leadership. The economy would be more equal.

[anon1903]

A smaller population economy is easier to manage.

[Adam1978]

Not really, the larger it is the easier it is to make it cheaper per person. A big population is however harder to make environment friendly.

[anon1903]

And what's more important, currency or environment?

[Adam1978]

Environment anyone saying anything else is a fool. Currency is just an artificial number to try to make trades fair.

[monorprise]

... @Adam1978
Tell me Adam do you plan on dying in the near future?

Population decline is only NOT a problem for old people because they will die before there are too few working people to support their retirement. And only for those old self-centered people who care not for the propagation of their families, culture, and friends.

It is a HUGE problem for young people, the younger the worse the problem when you get old. Children ARE not only your families future they are your personal retirement.

Don't beleive me? Whats happening to young people today or in Japan? The cost of everything is soo high most of us can't afford to support support yourself or our families anymore.

The temporary fix of high immigration and trade is also really just for old people, because those immigrates drive down the otherwise higher wages we might be able to demand.

It is the young who are screwed by population decline not the old in practice.

This of course is very ironic as it point to Social Securty and advanced retirement schemes as the real instigate of demographic collapsible, in persuading young people they need not have children now to provide for their future tomorrow. as they will have money to "buy a share of everyone eases kid's services and goods."

Idiot younger were not around long enough to realize how the tragedy of the commons would make that share astronomically expensive.

[Adam1978]

Who plans their death except suicides? The only thing I can do is live as secure life I can that doesn't collapse as much if society falls around me. I don't have kids because of how dating works and I am not willing to take some leftover single mother. Especially with the latest laws added. It's not because I think it's a good choice for society. But because society made sure it is a bad choice.

[monorprise]

@anon1903
@Adam1978
If that was true neither of you would exist. Young people are the ONLY thing of value being themselfs the future of life.

[anon1903]

@monorprise that's not something I'd object to.

[anon1903]

@monorprise lack of existence sounds like a sweet deal

[monorprise]

@anon1903 Your a very depressed woman, non-existence is far worse than having a chance to do something. To carry forth life and matter in that way.

You only think non-existence is something because your far too focused upon your current problems to recognize all you have and the operatives still before you all of which would be a blessing to anyone who didn't exist.

Get your head on straight and focus upon what you CAN DO not what you can't or what you don't like.

[anon1903]

@monorprise anything else, dr Freud? Lmao

[exitseven]

who says there is under population? They are building on every square inch and there are people everywhere, like dog shit. Traffic is a nightmare and everyone is whining about affordable housing. When I was growing up there was 200 million people in the US now it is over 350 million. Probably closer to 400 million if you count all the illegals Biden let in.

[DarkWinterNights]

It’s falling birth and fertility rates. According to some financial calculations, unless something significant changes, South Korea’s population could fall by up to 94% within the next hundred years. Basically for every 100 citizens, there are only 5-6 babies being born.

[exitseven]

@DarkWinterNights Maybe South Korea has radiation in the environment or something but in the US there are plenty of kids being born and plenty of people sneaking across the border. .

[anon1903]

Or maybe they're racist.

[DarkWinterNights]

It’s all countries around the world. Asian countries are just maybe 15-20 years ahead of Europe. Remember when China was building all those cities that ended up ghost towns? America is catching up to Europe quickly with only our immigration keeping our overall population numbers up. But those immigrants are coming from countries with low fertility rates as well… It’s not going to be the end of the world, it’s just instead of hitting 10, 12, 15 billion total world population, we’ll probably drop to 1-3 billion over the next century. It’s a slow process, with just more people dying than being born. The biggest impact will be to capitalism which relies on a constant growth model to be successful.

There was an experiment decades ago that tried to determine how overpopulation occurs and plays out. It was done using rodents and is called the Rat Utopia experiment. Basically they started with a set number of rodents and put them in a large cage, providing them with all the food, bedding and shelter they could ever need. Their population exploded and they were fat and happy. But problems arose over time. In fact, things deteriorated so quickly that the experiment ended early because they all died.

We aren’t rats obviously, but I think nature or God has stopgaps built in place to prevent overpopulation.

[monorprise]

@exitseven
Maybe you should leave the city some time. Just because your urban neighbors have the dishonesty and pocket books to import the world to do your jobs and live among you doesn't mean the world isn't in decline.

The numbers don't lie, we are dying and this is creating HUGE problems for us, which will only get far worse as we continue to die at an ever faster rate.

Ironically one of the reasons kids today can't afford to start families of tier own is precisely because their parents didn't have enough of them, while simultaneously preventing us from demanding sufficiently higher wages via importing low wage competition both via migration and trade.

This of course just means that when we get their age, we will not only have even worse problems but the social and cultural consequences of the immigration as well (who will also be just as old contributing to our problems).

[RagnarRedbeard]

Over-population is a bigger concern than under-population for sure when you’re talking about the destruction of the world. Western people however already have low birth rates, below replacement level. Without immigration our population would decrease. Over-population is really coming from Africa and the Middle-East.

You say that we can just take in more immigrants rather than have children, to people who are already having very few. If you want to save the planet you shouldn’t support immigration either.

One of the main reasons for wanting to increase the population is to increase the number of consumers. More consumers means more resources used.

[monorprise]

@ragnarredbeard
Immigration just makes the long term problem worse, by not only driving down wages for the young further making starting a family unaffordable but by introducing even more cultural conflict and instability undermining the system.

Population decline, like the immigration bandaid really is to the sole benefit of the freeloading old population, who have the benefit of retiring and dying while there are still enough people working to make their money last.

[DarkWinterNights]

Are you referring to Chris Williamson’s interview with Malcom Collins? I literally just saw that today.


He’s got some compelling arguments, but like climate change, a lot can happen when you start mapping out the future 10, 20, 100 years into the future. The changes in technologies, mindsets, social changes, etc.


It is an interesting thought though. We’ve only ever known rapid growth, one of the first times in history it may reverse course and not because of a catastrophe or pandemic. I want to say Israel and maybe a few places in Africa are the only countries with a positive growth rate.

[anon1903]

I wasn't actually.

[monorprise]

I hate to say it @DarkWinterNights but based upon historic trends of past populations that went into decline, it is rather unlikely we will bounce back. Certainly not without very deliberate effort to have more kids.

The trouble with population decline is while its great for the generation that starts it ever more freeloading via shortchanging the next generation of life. Every generation that follows is ever more hard pressed to keep going and forced into the same freeloading situation.

On a small scale with neighbors, your country just declines to the point where you are easily conquered or colonized by them.

On a large scale or where there are no neighbors to colonize or conquer you (such as is happening on earth due to global culture and Social security driving this). the population declines until its systems of support effectively collapse and the old without children are abandoned.

This is almost certantly what will happen globally, although Europe will be conquered by the Muslims first.

[Snakeyes7]

Who ever said we are underpopulated? If anything we have people like Bill Gates saying we need to slow down the population growth.

We are noting that the number of deaths are exceeding the number of births which is not normal to say the least. The reason this is the case could be many many reasons and I am sure some of us are not going to pass on to the next generation who would have if we weren't experiencing this unprecedented phenomenon and we would have to learn to be ok with that.

How about we spread out instead of making room in our overcrowded cities. Why not build and establish more cities and towns? Maybe even homestead.

[anon1903]

Or slow down with reproduction. Shrugs.

[Snakeyes7]

Well, we are already doing that in more ways than one.

[anon1903]

Name them

[Snakeyes7]

Third wave feminism brainwashing women to see men as competitors as best and enemies at worst, abortions in killing the child after engaging in consensual sex in 98.5% of cases, and transgenderism sterilizing people children and adults for the sake of enabling a mental illness.

[anon1903]

As opposed to the ancient times when women weren't considered humans and killed after the death of their overaged husband. Gotcha!

[Snakeyes7]

How could that be true? If women were really treated like property, even to the point where there is no punishment for straight up murdering them, then we would have never made it this far as a species. We wouldn't even last a couple generations after that.

Let's say you have a tribe of 100 men and 100 women, the maximum number of children you can have in one year would be 100. If all 99 men went to hunt with one staying behind to guard the settlement and none of them returned the maximum number of children born remains the same unless the guard died too, then it would be zero. If some freak event like a deadly disease or if the settlement got attacked and 99 women die, the maximum number of children to be had that year would drop to one.

Treating women like property would be the dumbest thing you could ever do becuase their health can greatly impact a society's ability to prosper and have a future.

This is why I never bought into the idea that women were historically opressed. When you take the fact that the amount of women who live in a society is a greater determination of how prosperous it will be than the amount of men, it makes absolutely no sense.

The only evidence I have seen feminists provide are advertisements from the 50s or something that depicts women giving a man breakfast in bed which plays on his desire to be in a happy marriage with a wife who is happy to be with him enough to make him breakfast. How horrible right? If I had a wife I don't mind making food for her any day, it's not that hard.

[anon1903]

You're mansplaining

[MysticDevice]

They say underpopulation but what I think they mean is population decline. A number of places don't have enough young people coming of age to replace the people who are old and leaving the workforce. Especially in Russia and Ukraine where their populations never fully recovered from World War 2.

I'm sure it could lead to small issues but certainly not the society ending catastrophe they make it out to be.

[acidburnone]

Hey listen, we are 16 kids in my class named Alex or some derivation of it and a total of 25 kids in the class and we have 4 siblings from the same family and a lot of kids in my neighborhood, trustme population is fine i maybe 17 but it seams i have a lot more sense than most people on here

[ProbablyClueless]

This was a very early-twenties take! Overall, I agree with you. I would argue that we should want higher educated people to be reproducing more than the poor and uneducated, but in terms of global population, there are far too many of us.

[Dargil]

The world is my no means OVER populated except parts of China, India and all of New Jersey. Under-population in the USA and Europe is causing their economies to falter.

[anon1903]

That's why I said immigrants. If you lose that racist attitude, the economy will progress.

[Dargil]

What racist attitude is that?

[anon1903]

Read the take again

[Dargil]

Are saying I have a racist attitude?

[anon1903]

It's possible

[strateguy632]

usually they mean relative to size area like australia. but population grows faster than deaths.

[anon1903]

Australia is my dream destination! The place is spacious asf, I heard.

[Staximus]

Underpopulation kills small towns but as a whole the world will be fine

[Jamie05rhs]

"Romantic love is just media brainwa_shing ya."
No; no, my friend. It is much more than that! 💗

[Jamie05rhs]

But I know this particular point isn't directly relevant to your population question.

[anon1903]

Okay. :)

[monghjay2]

there is only like 4 to 5 billion people on the earth lol

we are not even close to that number

[anon1903]

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[monghjay2]

yeah thats a lie
you know that right

HOW ABOUT YOU DO YOUR OWN NUMBERS
and stop trusting the government

[anon1903]

Okay forget numbers

[anon1903]

I just hate six people in a room. In my college lectures, there were 120 pupils. It was fucking hell.

[Lionman95]

That´s a naive myTake.

[anon1903]

Thanks