I said 'development of'. You were worried about infrastructure not being able to be maintained with less people. It won't be the same in 80 years. It would scale appropriately, like it always has. We continually see examples of this.Quote:
What does this even mean? How does society 'scale'?
Ok, but you said to not speak in general terms, so I was asking for specifics.Quote:
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.
flown-the-coop said:AGC said:flown-the-coop said:On each of these threads it has been asked but never answered why population decline is an overal bad thing.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.
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.
Yes. I have an elderly Chinese friend who was forced to have an abortion. I cannot imagine. She talks about how evil the government is, but also how morally bankrupt the people are. They will take advantage at every opportunity.El Gallo Blanco said:This is what is crazy to me...it's not like you live in an agrarian society where you need to have males to help with hard labor and tending to your lands.Martin Q. Blank said:Due to the 1 child policies, most parents aborted girls. So their population is lopsided male.MouthBQ98 said:
Children are expensive if you are trying to raise them at anything like first world standards, let alone competitively, and they spent 2 generations all but forcing most of their population to have 1 child.
I get that many care about passinig down their name, but every girl dad knows that girls are freaking amazing. Truth be told, I wanted one more than I wanted a boy.
I used to just despise their government, but is China mostly comprised of a bunch of soulless robots?
I used to work in energy controls for the construction industry.Quote:
With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.
AgGrad99 said:I said 'development of'. You were worried about infrastructure not being able to be maintained with less people. It won't be the same in 80 years. It would scale appropriately, like it always has. We continually see examples of this.Quote:
What does this even mean? How does society 'scale'?Ok, but you said to not speak in general terms, so I was asking for specifics.Quote:
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.
Quote:
"Hello sheriff? There's someone at my door with a shotgun. Would you please fly a drone out here to save me? Be sure not to level my house when you take them out, please, I'll be holed up in the closet for a few minutes while I wait."
"Yes I need an appointment with my doctor. You'll leave a message for the nurse station and they'll call back? Ok, thanks." One day later: "Yes I missed the callback from the nurse because it was working. Can you leave another message for them to call me." Etc.
Infrastructure does not "[resolve] itself"!
AgGrad99 said:I used to work in energy controls for the construction industry.Quote:
With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.
I worked intimately in planning for new infrastructure/builds, and retrofit of old infrastructure/builds.
One thing was true...we never used the same equipment that was put in originally. It would have been silly to use 1950 technology for something being fixed/improved. We improved the equipment, and scaled up or down appropriately. They still do that today, and will do it tomorrow and 80 years from now.
Exactly. The rate of change down is so slow it will still be outpaced by production gains because of automation and new technology. They are still heavily dependent on manual labor and that will only get lower over time as their standard of living increases and more stuff gets automated.AgGrad99 said:AGC said: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.AgGrad99 said:ok.Quote:
Population decline = economic decline
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'
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.
In some cases, it does mean less infrastructure needs...and there will continue to be technological advances which make things more efficient.Logos Stick said:
When that infrastructure has to be replaced because it wears out, there will be fewer people to build it and replace it.
Fewer people doesn't mean less infrastructure, unless those people completely abandon geographical areas, which they wont! Less electricity consumption does not equal less infrastructure!
Which of course further exacerbates the population issue with more single guys in China than there should be...Martin Q. Blank said:Due to the 1 child policies, most parents aborted girls. So their population is lopsided male.MouthBQ98 said:
Children are expensive if you are trying to raise them at anything like first world standards, let alone competitively, and they spent 2 generations all but forcing most of their population to have 1 child.
AgGrad99 said:Quote:
"Hello sheriff? There's someone at my door with a shotgun. Would you please fly a drone out here to save me? Be sure not to level my house when you take them out, please, I'll be holed up in the closet for a few minutes while I wait."
"Yes I need an appointment with my doctor. You'll leave a message for the nurse station and they'll call back? Ok, thanks." One day later: "Yes I missed the callback from the nurse because it was working. Can you leave another message for them to call me." Etc.
Infrastructure does not "[resolve] itself"!
Why would that happen?
In your scenario, there are less nurses/police....but there is less population that requires their services, no?
Dallas has more police than Waco, who has more police than Dime Box. As population increases, so will the services. As population decreases, so will the services.
Why is there an assumption we cannot scale down?...especially over a long long period of time.
Christians and Muslims in China, particularly outside the big Urban areas, are the only ones with a positive birth rate. Muslims mostly in the far West.Logos Stick said:
Yeah, we post on this all the time, but I find it fascinating to watch it play out. Based on what I read from those who are experts on the subject, the low projection is the most likely. So China loses 1 billion people over the next 75 years!
Most politicians in the US could not care less about the issue. The whole climate change nonsense they are worried about will take care of itself because humans won't be here.🇨🇳 CHINA MARKS THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR OF POPULATION DECLINE
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 29, 2025
China’s population continues to contract, with a reported drop of 1.39 million according to official data.
The trend reflects deeper structural challenges despite government efforts to promote a “child-friendly society.”… https://t.co/mUO9DCb0VY pic.twitter.com/d3x8gFVGPJ
Logos Stick said:
The whole climate change nonsense they are worried about will take care of itself because humans won't be here.
That's the future, homes. Robots and AI will be doing all the production for the remaining elite.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
TheEternalOptimist said:Christians and Muslims in China, particularly outside the big Urban areas, are the only ones with a positive birth rate. Muslims mostly in the far West.Logos Stick said:
Yeah, we post on this all the time, but I find it fascinating to watch it play out. Based on what I read from those who are experts on the subject, the low projection is the most likely. So China loses 1 billion people over the next 75 years!
Most politicians in the US could not care less about the issue. The whole climate change nonsense they are worried about will take care of itself because humans won't be here.🇨🇳 CHINA MARKS THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR OF POPULATION DECLINE
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 29, 2025
China’s population continues to contract, with a reported drop of 1.39 million according to official data.
The trend reflects deeper structural challenges despite government efforts to promote a “child-friendly society.”… https://t.co/mUO9DCb0VY pic.twitter.com/d3x8gFVGPJ
But Christians will inherit the keys to government in China once the population drop off the cliff moves into hyperdrive.
Bank on it! China's future is under the Cross of Jesus Christ! All Glory to God!
Deus Vult!
AGC said:AgGrad99 said:Again...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.
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.
docb said:
I honestly do not agree with Musk on this at all. I think the entire planet would benefit in a reduction of people to some extent. I am not worried about this from an economic standpoint at all. That will all just reset itself. I'm just tired of seeing farmland and ranches torn up for more subdivisions. It just gets worse and worse.
hindsight said:AGC said:AgGrad99 said:Again...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.
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.
This is exactly correct. I live in a midwest city that has had significant population decline over the last several decades.
Managing the decline is extremely difficult. The infrastructure - both the things you can see (i.e. roads) and the things you can't (sewers) are not maintained adequately. Trying to deliver basic city services with a much smaller tax base -- even offset by delivering those services to a smaller population is nearly impossible.
It doesn't happen all at once. It happens slowly, over time. The police force shrinks, the trash isn't picked up as often, water main breaks occur more frequently. The problems become so large and intractable - they essentially are unfixable. It isn't sunshine one day and dark grey the next. There's no preplanning, there's no positioning for it -- it just happens.
Can you show us on the doll where Elon touched you?infinity ag said:docb said:
I honestly do not agree with Musk on this at all. I think the entire planet would benefit in a reduction of people to some extent. I am not worried about this from an economic standpoint at all. That will all just reset itself. I'm just tired of seeing farmland and ranches torn up for more subdivisions. It just gets worse and worse.
Musk just wants Chinese to have sex and make more Chinese because he wants to make his cheap junk in China so he needs more slaves.
CEOs want more slaves to work for them for low wages. Musk wants to be the world's first trillionaire.
infinity ag said:hindsight said:AGC said:AgGrad99 said:Again...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.
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.
This is exactly correct. I live in a midwest city that has had significant population decline over the last several decades.
Managing the decline is extremely difficult. The infrastructure - both the things you can see (i.e. roads) and the things you can't (sewers) are not maintained adequately. Trying to deliver basic city services with a much smaller tax base -- even offset by delivering those services to a smaller population is nearly impossible.
It doesn't happen all at once. It happens slowly, over time. The police force shrinks, the trash isn't picked up as often, water main breaks occur more frequently. The problems become so large and intractable - they essentially are unfixable. It isn't sunshine one day and dark grey the next. There's no preplanning, there's no positioning for it -- it just happens.
Then it is time to shut shop, close down and move elsewhere. Not make more babies to do your dirty work.
Chinese civilization been around for better or worse for about 4,000 years. It was not until the last 150 years and the "modern" era that saw the exponential growth.TheEternalOptimist said:Logos Stick said:
Yeah, we post on this all the time, but I find it fascinating to watch it play out. Based on what I read from those who are experts on the subject, the low projection is the most likely. So China loses 1 billion people over the next 75 years!
Most politicians in the US could not care less about the issue. The whole climate change nonsense they are worried about will take care of itself because humans won't be here.
Christians and Muslims in China, particularly outside the big Urban areas, are the only ones with a positive birth rate. Muslims mostly in the far West.
But Christians will inherit the keys to government in China once the population drop off the cliff moves into hyperdrive.
Bank on it! China's future is under the Cross of Jesus Christ! All Glory to God!
Deus Vult!
flown-the-coop said:
Chinese civilization been around for better or worse for about 4,000 years. It was not until the last 150 years and the "modern" era that saw the exponential growth.
They could very EASILY trim 75% of the population and return to an isolationist, agrarian existence and "survive".
And maybe they do become Christian or Muslim. They have tried essentially every form of law, government, and religion over those four millenia.
Logos Stick said:AgGrad99 said:I used to work in energy controls for the construction industry.Quote:
With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.
I worked intimately in planning for new infrastructure/builds, and retrofit of old infrastructure/builds.
One thing was true...we never used the same equipment that was put in originally. It would have been silly to use 1950 technology for something being fixed/improved. We improved the equipment, and scaled up or down appropriately. They still do that today, and will do it tomorrow and 80 years from now.
Let me make this as simple as I can.
The turbines spin regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. Th generators simply don't consume as much feedstock. The main high power distribution lines are static and don't change regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. The main step down transformers are static and don't change regardless of number of homes that consumer the electricity. The final distribution lines, poles, step down transformers, etc... are static and don't change regardless of number of homes consuming electricity. That means the same amount of infrastructure has to be serviced and repaired, for example, when a storm comes through. But you have fewer people to do that. That means longer outages.
When that infrastructure has to be replaced because it wears out, there will be fewer people to build it and replace it.
Fewer people doesn't mean less infrastructure, unless those people completely abandon geographical areas, which they wont! Less electricity consumption does not equal less infrastructure!
Currently?TexasAggie_97 said:Logos Stick said:AgGrad99 said:I used to work in energy controls for the construction industry.Quote:
With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.
I worked intimately in planning for new infrastructure/builds, and retrofit of old infrastructure/builds.
One thing was true...we never used the same equipment that was put in originally. It would have been silly to use 1950 technology for something being fixed/improved. We improved the equipment, and scaled up or down appropriately. They still do that today, and will do it tomorrow and 80 years from now.
Let me make this as simple as I can.
The turbines spin regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. Th generators simply don't consume as much feedstock. The main high power distribution lines are static and don't change regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. The main step down transformers are static and don't change regardless of number of homes that consumer the electricity. The final distribution lines, poles, step down transformers, etc... are static and don't change regardless of number of homes consuming electricity. That means the same amount of infrastructure has to be serviced and repaired, for example, when a storm comes through. But you have fewer people to do that. That means longer outages.
When that infrastructure has to be replaced because it wears out, there will be fewer people to build it and replace it.
Fewer people doesn't mean less infrastructure, unless those people completely abandon geographical areas, which they wont! Less electricity consumption does not equal less infrastructure!
Of course it does. People will either move to where there is infrastructure or they'll learn to live without it. Don't forget throughout most of human history and just fine without electricity as a matter of fact, there are millions of people around the world today, living without electricity.
TexasAggie_97 said:Logos Stick said:AgGrad99 said:I used to work in energy controls for the construction industry.Quote:
With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.
I worked intimately in planning for new infrastructure/builds, and retrofit of old infrastructure/builds.
One thing was true...we never used the same equipment that was put in originally. It would have been silly to use 1950 technology for something being fixed/improved. We improved the equipment, and scaled up or down appropriately. They still do that today, and will do it tomorrow and 80 years from now.
Let me make this as simple as I can.
The turbines spin regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. Th generators simply don't consume as much feedstock. The main high power distribution lines are static and don't change regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. The main step down transformers are static and don't change regardless of number of homes that consumer the electricity. The final distribution lines, poles, step down transformers, etc... are static and don't change regardless of number of homes consuming electricity. That means the same amount of infrastructure has to be serviced and repaired, for example, when a storm comes through. But you have fewer people to do that. That means longer outages.
When that infrastructure has to be replaced because it wears out, there will be fewer people to build it and replace it.
Fewer people doesn't mean less infrastructure, unless those people completely abandon geographical areas, which they wont! Less electricity consumption does not equal less infrastructure!
Of course it does. People will either move to where there is infrastructure or they'll learn to live without it. Don't forget throughout most of human history and just fine without electricity as a matter of fact, there are millions of people around the world today, living without electricity.
Logos Stick said:TexasAggie_97 said:Logos Stick said:AgGrad99 said:I used to work in energy controls for the construction industry.Quote:
With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.
I worked intimately in planning for new infrastructure/builds, and retrofit of old infrastructure/builds.
One thing was true...we never used the same equipment that was put in originally. It would have been silly to use 1950 technology for something being fixed/improved. We improved the equipment, and scaled up or down appropriately. They still do that today, and will do it tomorrow and 80 years from now.
Let me make this as simple as I can.
The turbines spin regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. Th generators simply don't consume as much feedstock. The main high power distribution lines are static and don't change regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. The main step down transformers are static and don't change regardless of number of homes that consumer the electricity. The final distribution lines, poles, step down transformers, etc... are static and don't change regardless of number of homes consuming electricity. That means the same amount of infrastructure has to be serviced and repaired, for example, when a storm comes through. But you have fewer people to do that. That means longer outages.
When that infrastructure has to be replaced because it wears out, there will be fewer people to build it and replace it.
Fewer people doesn't mean less infrastructure, unless those people completely abandon geographical areas, which they wont! Less electricity consumption does not equal less infrastructure!
Of course it does. People will either move to where there is infrastructure or they'll learn to live without it. Don't forget throughout most of human history and just fine without electricity as a matter of fact, there are millions of people around the world today, living without electricity.
Of course it does what?
Yes, people **** in outhouses and used candles for light 100s of years ago. Of course we can do that. That's a very hard and difficult existence. Thats the point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, but is adapting back to outhouses and candles really the life you want for your kids and grandkids? Most of the American dream was centered on making sure your kids and grandkids lived a better life than you did. Not sure continuous growth is the way to get there, but rapid population decline with our current economic system is for sure not going to make life easy on them.TexasAggie_97 said:Logos Stick said:TexasAggie_97 said:Logos Stick said:AgGrad99 said:I used to work in energy controls for the construction industry.Quote:
With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.
I worked intimately in planning for new infrastructure/builds, and retrofit of old infrastructure/builds.
One thing was true...we never used the same equipment that was put in originally. It would have been silly to use 1950 technology for something being fixed/improved. We improved the equipment, and scaled up or down appropriately. They still do that today, and will do it tomorrow and 80 years from now.
Let me make this as simple as I can.
The turbines spin regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. Th generators simply don't consume as much feedstock. The main high power distribution lines are static and don't change regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. The main step down transformers are static and don't change regardless of number of homes that consumer the electricity. The final distribution lines, poles, step down transformers, etc... are static and don't change regardless of number of homes consuming electricity. That means the same amount of infrastructure has to be serviced and repaired, for example, when a storm comes through. But you have fewer people to do that. That means longer outages.
When that infrastructure has to be replaced because it wears out, there will be fewer people to build it and replace it.
Fewer people doesn't mean less infrastructure, unless those people completely abandon geographical areas, which they wont! Less electricity consumption does not equal less infrastructure!
Of course it does. People will either move to where there is infrastructure or they'll learn to live without it. Don't forget throughout most of human history and just fine without electricity as a matter of fact, there are millions of people around the world today, living without electricity.
Of course it does what?
Yes, people **** in outhouses and used candles for light 100s of years ago. Of course we can do that. That's a very hard and difficult existence. Thats the point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps, but people will adapt. We are arguably the most adaptive and versatile species this planet has ever known.
