EclipseAg said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Only Boomers want pop to increase to have slaves working for them in the 15 years they got left on this earth.,

---

Dangit! You have uncovered one of The Boomers' (TM) most dastardly secret objectives -- building a global army of young slaves. We'd have pulled it off, too, if it weren't for you meddling Millennnials!

---

Sorry Gramps, I am Gen X.

---

I figured ... but "meddling Millennials" just sounds better.

---

Yes, we can agree on that!

Jeeper79 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well

On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.

Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

Even ignoring Ai....who cares?

I understand the concern, if you're China, and you'll lose population in comparison to other countries.

But Globally? What does it matter if population declines? Let it decline. We'll adjust.

Musk's obsession with this seems a little odd to me.

---

Population decline = economic decline

---

Wrong.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Japan and South Korea as well.

For some reason, East Asians have decided to stop making children and only focus on succeeding at work.

---

Porn and video game addiction is a big problem with young males in those countries.

---

Same as here in the US. Most have sold out to China anyway and have resigned themselves to doing plumber and electrician type of jobs.

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Population decline = economic decline

---

ok.

But lots of things cause economic decline.

Again, if comparing one country to another, I get the concern.

But economic decline globally? It's kind of like that old saying, 'if everyone has $100, no one has $100'

---

You assume you'll have the same standard of living within the decline. Thats not how it works. History tells us that time and again.

Edit: there's no reason to think China or other countries can continue to mass produce and export goods within a population collapse. Supply chains break down in this process.

---

That wasn't an assumption I made.

The supply chain wouldnt break down. This decline is happening gradually over an immense amount of time. Much much longer than it took China to become the world's manufacturing hub.

Things change. We adapt. We always do.

Ugly said:

---

AGC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well

On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.

Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

Even ignoring Ai....who cares?

I understand the concern, if you're China, and you'll lose population in comparison to other countries.

But Globally? What does it matter if population declines? Let it decline. We'll adjust.

Musk's obsession with this seems a little odd to me.

---

On each of these threads it has been asked but never answered why population decline is an overal bad thing.

Musk's comments need to be colored with his desire to be the leader of populating our solar system and beyond - to expand the human race throughout the universe. Its an ambitious goal, but it is not necessary for human survival over the next few billion years.

And with technological advances in cloning and artificial wombs and AI being able to "raise" children and teach them en masse, any particular decline should be able to be managed within a generation or two.

Seems more and more like another climate change-esque distraction.

---

It's probably been answered on every thread but you overlooked it. You've forgotten that infrastructure is financed by taxes, so as population declines, so does the quality of your grid and water systems, along with roads and everything else. Imagine fewer police farther out from the city, how safe do you feel on acreage off the grid then as compared to now? The standard of living declines for everyone and it consistently happens throughout time with population collapses.

---

But as population declines, there are fewer indivudals served by the grid and water systems, and therefore less upkeep. Same with "roads and everything else". There will definitely be growing (shrinking?) pains similar to the ghost towns in old manufacturing and mining towns, but utilities will even out just fine. Fewer police also works along the same lines, but I feel like you haven't been more than a few minutes away from a city in a while based on that comment. As for me, I tend to feel safer the farther I get away from cities (that's what the guns are for). The standard of living may decline in the sense that there are fewer overall consumables being produced, but there are already too many TV shows and video games for me to ever finish, and other consumables tend to scale with population. This just isn't as big of a deal to anyone that is not sitting on a pile of investments hoping their stock portfolios don't crash (which would be the main impact, that will absolutely happen).

---

I believe you're making some assumptions that don't bear out. The infrastructure we have in place is massive and population decline isn't managed in an efficient manner where you can simply de-scale. There's a minimum service level to operate what you have efficiently; downsizing your electric plants and water treatment plants isn't simply producing less.

Maintenance is also a big effort because it covers more ground for fewer people. Poor roads impacts supply chain. You think outlying areas are safer but piracy and bandits come back with less projected force. It'll more resemble Mexico than what you're used to. You need to shift your paradigm.

Quote:

---

The infrastructure we have in place is massive and population decline isn't managed in an efficient manner where you can simply de-scale. There's a minimum service level to operate what you have efficiently; downsizing your electric plants and water treatment plants isn't simply producing less.

Maintenance is also a big effort because it covers more ground for fewer people. Poor roads impacts supply chain. You think outlying areas are safer but piracy and bandits come back with less projected force. It'll more resemble Mexico than what you're used to. You need to shift your paradigm.

---

That all makes sense if a sizeable chunk of population disappeared overnight. But that's not what this is. We're looking at ebbs and flows of population over an extended period of time...many decades.

Cities and population centers aren't going to remain static. We aren't going to have the same infrastructure in 80 years that we have now. We'll build new, more efficient facilities. They'll build to an appropriate scale. Why wouldnt they?

We'll adapt to our needs at the time, not our needs of today.

As a small case-study, look at Detroit. At one point in the 50s they had 1.8 million people. They have 1/3 of that now. They haven't collapsed into chaos. The population centers have simply changed and adapted over time.

AgGrad99 said:

---

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Population decline = economic decline

---

ok.

But lots of things cause economic decline.

Again, if comparing one country to another, I get the concern.

But economic decline globally? It's kind of like that old saying, 'if everyone has $100, no one has $100'

---

You assume you'll have the same standard of living within the decline. Thats not how it works. History tells us that time and again.

Edit: there's no reason to think China or other countries can continue to mass produce and export goods within a population collapse. Supply chains break down in this process.

---

That wasn't an assumption I made.

The supply chain wouldnt break down. This decline is happening gradually over an immense amount of time. Much much longer than it took China to become the world's manufacturing hub.

Things change. We adapt. We always do.

---

Yes, it would and will, just like the collapse of Rome. Our navy is already changing to larger ships meant to project power, not protect shipping lanes, which means more opportunities for pirates.

You've never lived through those transitions and you're skipping right past them because they're in history books. The people who lived through population collapse would not sit here and tell you, 'welp, humanity survived so it's all good.' They'd say it sucked and times were turbulent.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

The infrastructure we have in place is massive and population decline isn't managed in an efficient manner where you can simply de-scale. There's a minimum service level to operate what you have efficiently; downsizing your electric plants and water treatment plants isn't simply producing less.

Maintenance is also a big effort because it covers more ground for fewer people. Poor roads impacts supply chain. You think outlying areas are safer but piracy and bandits come back with less projected force. It'll more resemble Mexico than what you're used to. You need to shift your paradigm.

---

That all makes sense if a sizeable chunk of population disappeared overnight. But that's not what this is. We're looking at ebbs and flows of population over an extended period of time...many decades.

Cities and population centers aren't going to remain static. We aren't going to have the same infrastructure in 80 years that we have now. We'll build new, more efficient facilities. They'll build to an appropriate scale. Why wouldnt they?

We'll adapt to our needs at the time, not our needs of today.

As a small case-study, look at Detroit. At one point in the 50s they had 1.8 million people. They have 1/3 of that now. They haven't collapsed into chaos. The population centers have simply changed and adapted over time.

---

Detroit is a complete ****hole. Depopulation will be a painful transition with much loss and adjustment. No one is saying humans won't survive.

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well


On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.


Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

You need the tax payers and consumers to keep billionaires as billionaires, and govts to keep supporting the older generations that are in power.

That's why it's a concern.

But times are turbulent when population rises, and times are turbulent when population declines. That's not unique to population...that's a natural occurrence throughout history. That doesnt really bear out, with regards to predicting consequences of this particular issue. No one is saying there wouldnt be changes, or consequences. But how severe/minor those are, is up for debate.


I'd ask this...if you're convinced a declining global population would cause issues, what is the magic number?

What number would you consider over-populated and what number would you consider is under-populated? What is the number we should strive for, and why?

Detroit's problems cannot be blamed on depopulation alone. It's multi-faceted.

Bad example.

AgGrad99 said:

---

That all makes sense if a sizeable chunk of population disappeared overnight. But that's not what this is. We're looking at ebbs and flows of population over an extended period of time...many decades.

Cities and population centers aren't going to remain static. We aren't going to have the same infrastructure in 80 years that we have now. We'll build new, more efficient facilities. They'll build to an appropriate scale. Why wouldnt they?

We'll adapt to our needs at the time, not our needs of today.

---

You're not thinking rationally; it's not linear. Places with fewer children become more hostile to them and things get repurposed, making it harder to bring them back and accelerating decline. For instance, as inner city schools empty out, the buildings are demolished and redeveloped to cater to people without dual incomes and no children. Women in these countries and Western Europe don't think marriage or children are worth it and create a feedback loop, amplifying the problem. Things move slowly until it's sudden; there's always a tipping point. At some point you're insolvent before you hit the cliff: you can't pay for the old people anymore.

It's not a simple hand wave that we'll live through, though for all I know you're a boomer who will be long gone and doesn't care. Those of us that are younger have to take this seriously.

AGC said:

---

Ugly said:

---

AGC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well

On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.

Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

Even ignoring Ai....who cares?

I understand the concern, if you're China, and you'll lose population in comparison to other countries.

But Globally? What does it matter if population declines? Let it decline. We'll adjust.

Musk's obsession with this seems a little odd to me.

---

On each of these threads it has been asked but never answered why population decline is an overal bad thing.

Musk's comments need to be colored with his desire to be the leader of populating our solar system and beyond - to expand the human race throughout the universe. Its an ambitious goal, but it is not necessary for human survival over the next few billion years.

And with technological advances in cloning and artificial wombs and AI being able to "raise" children and teach them en masse, any particular decline should be able to be managed within a generation or two.

Seems more and more like another climate change-esque distraction.

---

It's probably been answered on every thread but you overlooked it. You've forgotten that infrastructure is financed by taxes, so as population declines, so does the quality of your grid and water systems, along with roads and everything else. Imagine fewer police farther out from the city, how safe do you feel on acreage off the grid then as compared to now? The standard of living declines for everyone and it consistently happens throughout time with population collapses.

---

But as population declines, there are fewer indivudals served by the grid and water systems, and therefore less upkeep. Same with "roads and everything else". There will definitely be growing (shrinking?) pains similar to the ghost towns in old manufacturing and mining towns, but utilities will even out just fine. Fewer police also works along the same lines, but I feel like you haven't been more than a few minutes away from a city in a while based on that comment. As for me, I tend to feel safer the farther I get away from cities (that's what the guns are for). The standard of living may decline in the sense that there are fewer overall consumables being produced, but there are already too many TV shows and video games for me to ever finish, and other consumables tend to scale with population. This just isn't as big of a deal to anyone that is not sitting on a pile of investments hoping their stock portfolios don't crash (which would be the main impact, that will absolutely happen).

---

I believe you're making some assumptions that don't bear out. The infrastructure we have in place is massive and population decline isn't managed in an efficient manner where you can simply de-scale. There's a minimum service level to operate what you have efficiently; downsizing your electric plants and water treatment plants isn't simply producing less.

Maintenance is also a big effort because it covers more ground for fewer people. Poor roads impacts supply chain. You think outlying areas are safer but piracy and bandits come back with less projected force. It'll more resemble Mexico than what you're used to. You need to shift your paradigm.

---

Exactly. Depopulation is not limited to certain geographic areas. You still have the same infrastructure to maintain because of that, but fewer people to maintain it. Think about a major storm that takes down electrical infrastructure. It takes way more time to get back online because you have fewer workers forced to service the same geographic areas.

Quote:

---

Detroit is a complete ****hole. Depopulation will be a painful transition with much loss and adjustment. No one is saying humans won't survive

---

Lots of placed are crapholes in this country. That's not a depopulation issue.

Point being, their infrastructure didn't collapse, city-services didn't cease to exist, healthcare didnt evaporate, etc etc etc. All the things we're fearful of, with less population, didnt come true there. And they had a severe decline.

CDUB98 said:

---

Detroit's problems cannot be blamed on depopulation alone. It's multi-faceted.

Bad example.

---

But its still a ****hole which makes the example poor anyway regardless of cause.

Quote:

---

Point being, their infrastructure didn't collapse, city-services didn't cease to exist,

---

Might want to look into that more.

Quote:

---

Exactly. Depopulation is not limited to certain geographic areas. You still have the same infrastructure to maintain because of that, but fewer people to maintain it. Think about a major storm that takes down electrical infrastructure. It takes way more time to get back online because you have fewer workers forced to service the same geographic areas.

---

Why would you have the same infrastructure 80 years from now? our population centers won't stop building/developing/changing/improving, etc.

And something naturally occurring over 80 years is very different than something that happens overnight like a natural disaster.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Detroit is a complete ****hole. Depopulation will be a painful transition with much loss and adjustment. No one is saying humans won't survive

---

Lots of placed are crapholes in this country. That's not a depopulation issue.

Point being, their infrastructure didn't collapse, city-services didn't cease to exist, healthcare didnt evaporate, etc etc etc. All the things we're fearful of, with less population, didnt come true there. And they had a severe decline.

---

Then why did you use it as an example of population decline and the result thereof?!?!

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Point being, their infrastructure didn't collapse, city-services didn't cease to exist,

---

Might want to look into that more.

---

I'm well aware of their history. They've had hiccups. All cities have...similar to growing pains of expanding populations. But like those growing pains, the retractions didnt collapse the city. They adapted.

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

That all makes sense if a sizeable chunk of population disappeared overnight. But that's not what this is. We're looking at ebbs and flows of population over an extended period of time...many decades.

Cities and population centers aren't going to remain static. We aren't going to have the same infrastructure in 80 years that we have now. We'll build new, more efficient facilities. They'll build to an appropriate scale. Why wouldnt they?

We'll adapt to our needs at the time, not our needs of today.

---

You're not thinking rationally; it's not linear. Places with fewer children become more hostile to them and things get repurposed, making it harder to bring them back and accelerating decline. For instance, as inner city schools empty out, the buildings are demolished and redeveloped to cater to people without dual incomes and no children. Women in these countries and Western Europe don't think marriage or children are worth it and create a feedback loop, amplifying the problem. Things move slowly until it's sudden; there's always a tipping point. At some point you're insolvent before you hit the cliff: you can't pay for the old people anymore.

It's not a simple hand wave that we'll live through, though for all I know you're a boomer who will be long gone and doesn't care. Those of us that are younger have to take this seriously.

---

I can't imagine the look of regret on the faces of many of these Gen Z chicks that shun the idea of having children, when they are pushing 90, lonely and depressed and have ZERO family to visit or help look after them. Being forced to occupy a nasty state run nursing home because they weren't responsible with their money and have no family to help out.

Hope that corporate desk job was worth it and somehow magically brought you fulfillment...because for most of us it is just a necessary evil...a way to get by and provide for family. But certainly not something that brings any lasting joy, happiness or fulfillment. It is extraordinarily rare, almost non-existent, that someone gets to do what they actually love or enjoy for a living.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly. Depopulation is not limited to certain geographic areas. You still have the same infrastructure to maintain because of that, but fewer people to maintain it. Think about a major storm that takes down electrical infrastructure. It takes way more time to get back online because you have fewer workers forced to service the same geographic areas.

---

Why would you have the same infrastructure 80 years from now? our population centers won't stop building/developing/changing/improving, etc.

And something naturally occurring over 80 years is very different than something that happens overnight like a natural disaster.

---

If 10% of the population disappears, and its spread evenly, you still have the same electrical generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure. If 1 house out of 10 on my block is no longer occupied, there is no reduction in infrastrcture.

The real reason for widespread, unsustainable population decline is a straying from belief in God and His ways. The first two commands given to mankind that are listed in the Bible are "be fruitful and multiply." China was never a Christian nation, but the culture of devotion to the government (China), society (Japan), and/or self-indulgence and promotion (Korea, US, European nations, etc.) is damaging at individual and national level. The proof is right in front of us.

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well


On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.


Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

They don't. When the retirement and eldercare plans of most of the planet involve having the younger generation pay for their needs and take care of them, having too few people in the younger generations means the math starts to not work out.

Logos Stick said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Detroit is a complete ****hole. Depopulation will be a painful transition with much loss and adjustment. No one is saying humans won't survive

---

Lots of places are crapholes in this country. That's not a depopulation issue.

Point being, their infrastructure didn't collapse, city-services didn't cease to exist, healthcare didnt evaporate, etc etc etc. All the things we're fearful of, with less population, didnt come true there. And they had a severe decline.

---

Then why did you use it as an example of population decline and the result thereof?!?!

---

I'm not sure what you're asking.

My example relates. I simply pointed out that your comment wasn't related to depopulation...not my example.

there was a show about this

LONG LIVE GILEAD!

txags92 said:

---

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well


On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.


Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

They don't. When the retirement and eldercare plans of most of the planet involve having the younger generation pay for their needs and take care of them, having too few people in the younger generations means the math starts to not work out.

---

Well, Canada already solved this problem. They just encourage old people to die.

Logos Stick said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly. Depopulation is not limited to certain geographic areas. You still have the same infrastructure to maintain because of that, but fewer people to maintain it. Think about a major storm that takes down electrical infrastructure. It takes way more time to get back online because you have fewer workers forced to service the same geographic areas.

---

Why would you have the same infrastructure 80 years from now? our population centers won't stop building/developing/changing/improving, etc.

And something naturally occurring over 80 years is very different than something that happens overnight like a natural disaster.

---

If 10% of the population disappears, and its spread evenly, you still have the same electrical generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure. If 1 house out of 10 on my block is no longer occupied, there is no reduction in infrastrcture.

---

Again...

Why would you have the same infrastructure 80 years from now?

Cities change and improve continually. Why would that stop? They'll build to the appropriate scale., technology will continue to improve, etc etc.

The assumption that nothing will change would go against all of history as we know it.

CDUB98 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well


On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.


Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

They don't. When the retirement and eldercare plans of most of the planet involve having the younger generation pay for their needs and take care of them, having too few people in the younger generations means the math starts to not work out.

---

Well, Canada already solved this problem. They just encourage old people to die.

---

I think China tried too. Do you think it was an accident that Covid killed the elderly and was basically a cold to people under 50?

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

That all makes sense if a sizeable chunk of population disappeared overnight. But that's not what this is. We're looking at ebbs and flows of population over an extended period of time...many decades.

Cities and population centers aren't going to remain static. We aren't going to have the same infrastructure in 80 years that we have now. We'll build new, more efficient facilities. They'll build to an appropriate scale. Why wouldnt they?

We'll adapt to our needs at the time, not our needs of today.

---

You're not thinking rationally; it's not linear.

---

I'd say the same in reply. Whether increasing or decreasing, it's not linear. Never has been. The development of our societies would scale accordingly.

But again...if you're convinced a declining global population would cause issues, what is the magic number?

What number would you consider over-populated and what number would you consider is under-populated? What is the number we should strive for, and why?

Populations ebb and flow. Its life.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly. Depopulation is not limited to certain geographic areas. You still have the same infrastructure to maintain because of that, but fewer people to maintain it. Think about a major storm that takes down electrical infrastructure. It takes way more time to get back online because you have fewer workers forced to service the same geographic areas.

---

Why would you have the same infrastructure 80 years from now? our population centers won't stop building/developing/changing/improving, etc.

And something naturally occurring over 80 years is very different than something that happens overnight like a natural disaster.

---

If 10% of the population disappears, and its spread evenly, you still have the same electrical generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure. If 1 house out of 10 on my block is no longer occupied, there is no reduction in infrastrcture.

---

Again...

Why would you have the same infrastructure 80 years from now?

Cities change and improve continually. Why would that stop? They'll build to the appropriate scale., technology will continue to improve, etc etc.

The assumption that nothing will change would go against all of history as we know it.

---

Just go ahead and tell us how that works, please. Which neighborhoods in Dallas or Houston will you start pulling the plug on now to be appropriately positioned in 80 years? The poor ones? Certainly not the rich ones…

You misread history as something that happened that you're generally aware of, rather than as an individual inside it as it progresses that has to make and live with the choices. Managing this process isn't stepped. It has to be active. You can't talk in general terms to hand-wave away what happens to reach these points where it's all 'ok' when you have to live it.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly. Depopulation is not limited to certain geographic areas. You still have the same infrastructure to maintain because of that, but fewer people to maintain it. Think about a major storm that takes down electrical infrastructure. It takes way more time to get back online because you have fewer workers forced to service the same geographic areas.

---

Why would you have the same infrastructure 80 years from now? our population centers won't stop building/developing/changing/improving, etc.

And something naturally occurring over 80 years is very different than something that happens overnight like a natural disaster.

---

If 10% of the population disappears, and its spread evenly, you still have the same electrical generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure. If 1 house out of 10 on my block is no longer occupied, there is no reduction in infrastrcture.

---

Again...

Why would you have the same infrastructure 80 years from now?

Cities change and improve continually. Why would that stop? They'll build to the appropriate scale., technology will continue to improve, etc etc.

The assumption that nothing will change would go against all of history as we know it.

---

With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.

Quote:

---

You can't talk in general terms to hand-wave away what happens to reach these points where it's all 'ok' when you have to live it.

---

Agreed.

So for the third time...if you're convinced a declining global population would cause issues, what is the magic number?

What number would you consider over-populated and what number would you consider is under-populated? What is the number we should strive for, and why?

AGC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well

On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.

Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

Even ignoring Ai....who cares?

I understand the concern, if you're China, and you'll lose population in comparison to other countries.

But Globally? What does it matter if population declines? Let it decline. We'll adjust.

Musk's obsession with this seems a little odd to me.

---

On each of these threads it has been asked but never answered why population decline is an overal bad thing.

Musk's comments need to be colored with his desire to be the leader of populating our solar system and beyond - to expand the human race throughout the universe. Its an ambitious goal, but it is not necessary for human survival over the next few billion years.

And with technological advances in cloning and artificial wombs and AI being able to "raise" children and teach them en masse, any particular decline should be able to be managed within a generation or two.

Seems more and more like another climate change-esque distraction.

---

It's probably been answered on every thread but you overlooked it. You've forgotten that infrastructure is financed by taxes, so as population declines, so does the quality of your grid and water systems, along with roads and everything else. Imagine fewer police farther out from the city, how safe do you feel on acreage off the grid then as compared to now? The standard of living declines for everyone and it consistently happens throughout time with population collapses.

---

Yea, I fail to see how any of that is actually happening or even stands a greater than remote chance of happening.

You can police further out with drones and other advancements. Healthcare has moved hybrid for many folks and can be moved even further to a virtual environment.

The infrastructure resolves itself. If there is a need, there will be a tax base for that need.

Fear of imminent population collapse is vastly overstated.

And the only true concerns seems to be about funding bureaucratic governments without end.

AgGrad99 said:

---

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

That all makes sense if a sizeable chunk of population disappeared overnight. But that's not what this is. We're looking at ebbs and flows of population over an extended period of time...many decades.

Cities and population centers aren't going to remain static. We aren't going to have the same infrastructure in 80 years that we have now. We'll build new, more efficient facilities. They'll build to an appropriate scale. Why wouldnt they?

We'll adapt to our needs at the time, not our needs of today.

---

You're not thinking rationally; it's not linear.

---

I'd say the same in reply. Whether increasing or decreasing, it's not linear. Never has been. The development of our societies would scale accordingly.

But again...if you're convinced a declining global population would cause issues, what is the magic number?

What number would you consider over-populated and what number would you consider is under-populated? What is the number we should strive for, and why?

---

What does this even mean? How does society 'scale'? War, famine, disease. That's how. Only growth is managed and even then it's not population and infrastructure always lags.

Decline isn't and you can check the Soviet Union to see how it all works out with this, 'over time you scale' argument. Central planning doesn't work, 'scale' as you call it is imaginary. There's no invisible hand guiding the process to smooth out the edges.

I don't care about optimal population numbers. Population and economic growth and decline go hand in hand, which is what makes the tweet correct. Only people rooting for, or indifferent to, suffering smooth it over with, 'humanity will be ok.'