Gilligan said:

---

I'm ok with less people.

---

Sure... until the smaller younger generations cannot afford to provide for the older generations, causing economic collapse and needing to work until you die.

flown-the-coop said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

I've known some chicks over the years that this will both get you laid AND with a lady your non-gaming friends would envy.

Guys just need to nut up and touch grass (or similar…).

---

Touch grass, huh. Is there any grass on the infield these days?

Vintage was making a come back for a while but now most prefer to keep it close.

Most of the big societal changes in the western world since about 1960 have been ill advised. Its nice that they aren't fire bombing black churches in Mississippi anymore, but we've gotten most everything else wrong. We destroyed the nuclear family, had persistent, corrosive inflation, went on this insane tangent promoting gays and trannies, stopped having enough kids, opened our borders to hostile invaders and most institutions from schools to churches to private sector businesses have failed under the relentless wave of toxic feminine leadership that has been forced upon them.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Simply wrong on the first paragraph.

The second paragraph just says that things change over time, just using more words.

---

Have to disagree with you. You are utterly wrong here. InfectionAg is absolutely right on that first paragraph simply because of commons sense and man's lack of ability to plan ahead.

This world is in no way planning ahead for population collapse. We power on just assuming everything is going to keep working as it does now. You see that attitude in this very thread.

Rawdoggin'

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Simply wrong on the first paragraph.

The second paragraph just says that things change over time, just using more words.

---

Have to disagree with you. You are utterly wrong here. InfectionAg is absolutely right on that first paragraph simply because of commons sense and man's lack of ability to plan ahead.

This world is in no way planning ahead for population collapse. We power on just assuming everything is going to keep working as it does now. You see that attitude in this very thread.

---

So as the population slowly rescinds over… generations… you are just putting in zero action to account for the dwindling of people?

That would be like saying "the Earth will have 85 billion people by 2584. Folks, if we don't get those birth rates down and build some houses, power plants and some septic systems, society will have issues, i promise!"

The only people actually putting their heads in the sand are the ones accusing everyone else putting their heads in the sand.

Should i be asking CoServ to power down any excess capacity and stop installing new transmission in anticipation of the impeding collapse?

I know i am being flippant, but holy heck at some point folks have to step back and logically play out the rhetoric they are writing.

All he is saying and what I agree with is that no one is planning ahead for scaling down. Genpop, business, and government only think about growth. You really think business and government are going to start scaling back?

The only people acknowledging the reality of depopulation are demographers, futurists, and IMB randos like us. This is simply a math equation at this point the math is against us.

The math in my opinion is quite hopeful.

We need less people not more.

Mother Nature likely hits us with some intense global cooling from all this climate change nonsense and another Little Ice Age probably cuts us down to under 5 or 6 billion.

So you want to plan on population decline, a super volcano, a meteor, or just good ole temperature cycles.

And it's been talked about, so it's not catching anyone by surprise. No one is doing anything about it because nothing needs to be done about it.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

https://substack.com/home/post/p-197850696

Derek Thompson is a lib at The Atlantic, but did an absolute phenomenal interview with University of Pennsylvania economist Jess Fernndez-Villaverde on the sources and implications of the global fertility crisis.

Big highlights first:

• Black birthrates have collapsed in the US and have been passed by whites for the first time in the history of the US.
• Latin America and the Middle East are in an absolute nose dive.
• The US has a higher birth rate (1.7) than Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, and Thailand

Causes:

• Big shocker…female employment in a service based economy
• Actual shocker…likely the global spread of western norms through social media and the mass popularity of cell phones since 2012.

Big Question remaining:

• Will birthrates recover as people are having fewer people later (ie. delayed parenthood)? Or is this a sustained demographic bobsled like China, South Korea, and Japan?
• How does this impact the rise of AI?

I just hope somewhere, this interview is being read to Paul Ehrlich on repeat for eternity.

---

Wonder how many Black abortions we have annually in the US? Margaret Sanger's dream.

flown-the-coop said:

---

The math in my opinion is quite hopeful.

We need less people not more.

Mother Nature likely hits us with some intense global cooling from all this climate change nonsense and another Little Ice Age probably cuts us down to under 5 or 6 billion.

So you want to plan on population decline, a super volcano, a meteor, or just good ole temperature cycles.

And it's been talked about, so it's not catching anyone by surprise. No one is doing anything about it because nothing needs to be done about it.

---

Christ, I'm not arguing pros and cons of people count.

This quote is true. It's simply a function of people planning for what they know and not what is coming which is most of humanity.

Quote:

---

The simplest answer is that we've constructed a world based upon the idea that the population will continue to increase or, at a minimum, not decrease.

---

So stop building a world that requires more people.

There, I've done my part.

Seriously though, I do get what you are saying. And I understand the math and all the other ins and outs.

But in the grand scheme, this is way way down the list. Like climate change.

flown-the-coop said:

---

So stop building a world that requires more people.

There, I've done my part.

Seriously though, I do get what you are saying. And I understand the math and all the other ins and outs.

But in the grand scheme, this is way way down the list. Like climate change.

---

I'm not and don't care to!!!

If this data is correct, great news. There is hope American values can survive

Feminism is a death culture.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Spergin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

https://substack.com/home/post/p-197850696

Derek Thompson is a lib at The Atlantic, but did an absolute phenomenal interview with University of Pennsylvania economist Jess Fernndez-Villaverde on the sources and implications of the global fertility crisis.

Big highlights first:

• Black birthrates have collapsed in the US and have been passed by whites for the first time in the history of the US.
• Latin America and the Middle East are in an absolute nose dive.
• The US has a higher birth rate (1.7) than Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, and Thailand

Causes:

• Big shocker…female employment in a service based economy
• Actual shocker…likely the global spread of western norms through social media and the mass popularity of cell phones since 2012.

Big Question remaining:

• Will birthrates recover as people are having fewer people later (ie. delayed parenthood)? Or is this a sustained demographic bobsled like China, South Korea, and Japan?
• How does this impact the rise of AI?

I just hope somewhere, this interview is being read to Paul Ehrlich on repeat for eternity.

---

The only solution that works is reducing female employment and income and increasing male employment and income. You can see this in all types of stats: one of the most interesting being lottery winners. Male winners get married and have kids. Female winners either get divorced or become promiscuous or even more single.

---

Bruh…I hate to break it to you…but that genie ain't going back in the bottle.

---

Yep, our culture has denigrated stay-at-home moms. They even created the term to make it appear less appealing than a career. The result is typically a miserable woman and the resulting death of a culture.

Understanding people like to ***** and moan and make crises out of everything, but how are folks reconciling its society that is dinegrating the concept of stay-at home mom and then also a set of folks fully committed to a highfalutin lifestyle requiring both parents to work?

Also, why disregard stay at home fathers?

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Simply wrong on the first paragraph.

The second paragraph just says that things change over time, just using more words.

---

Have to disagree with you. You are utterly wrong here. InfectionAg is absolutely right on that first paragraph simply because of commons sense and man's lack of ability to plan ahead.

This world is in no way planning ahead for population collapse. We power on just assuming everything is going to keep working as it does now. You see that attitude in this very thread.

---

So as the population slowly rescinds over… generations… you are just putting in zero action to account for the dwindling of people?

That would be like saying "the Earth will have 85 billion people by 2584. Folks, if we don't get those birth rates down and build some houses, power plants and some septic systems, society will have issues, i promise!"

The only people actually putting their heads in the sand are the ones accusing everyone else putting their heads in the sand.

Should i be asking CoServ to power down any excess capacity and stop installing new transmission in anticipation of the impeding collapse?

I know i am being flippant, but holy heck at some point folks have to step back and logically play out the rhetoric they are writing.

---

I mean, what's notable about the data in the OP is that it raises the possibility that the population isn't going to "slowly rescind"; that it may be a whole lot faster than that given current trends. I don't think anyone itt is saying we need to close schools, or ban contraception and women in the workplace tomorrow (at least I hope they aren't), but just to throw a wild number out, if we knew for a fact that the world's population was going to drop from 8 billion to 4 billion between now and 2200, that would merit some discussion, no? There's no soft landing scenario for that.

njohn87 said:

---

I mean, what's notable about the data in the OP is that it raises the possibility that the population isn't going to "slowly rescind"; that it may be a whole lot faster than that given current trends. I don't think anyone itt is saying we need to close schools, or ban contraception and women in the workplace tomorrow (at least I hope they aren't), but just to throw a wild number out, if we knew for a fact that the world's population was going to drop from 8 billion to 4 billion between now and 2200, that would merit some discussion, no? There's no soft landing scenario for that.

---

200 years ago we had 1 billion people. So we have, for better or worse, managed a 8-fold increase in population over that time but cannot manage a 50% decline?

Makes no sense to me. Why is this going to be such a challenge?

You seem to be willfully disregarding the greater impact of childless adults, in particular women, as it pertains to mental and emotional health.

Misplaced motherhood and toxic empathy are real. The absence of children is major driver of the lunacy of the left. It's only getting worse.

I'm not worried about less people. In fact, I can't wait for the day I get my Tesla Optimus. I'm worried about the lack of children.

Well, the Amish are still having kids in large numbers. As are the orthodox Jews as well as many Muslims and some Christians. It isn't going to be an empty world in 50-100 years, just one with fewer modern people.

Urban Ag said:

---

You seem to be willfully disregarding the greater impact of childless adults, in particular women, as it pertains to mental and emotional health.

Misplaced motherhood and toxic empathy are real. The absence of children is major driver of the lunacy of the left. It's only getting worse.

I'm not worried about less people. In fact, I can't wait for the day I get my Tesla Optimus. I'm worried about the lack of children.

---

I think the simplest solution is to eradicate Earth of radical lunatic childless progressives.

Solves a whole host of issues. Gnomsayin?

flown-the-coop said:

---

njohn87 said:

---

I mean, what's notable about the data in the OP is that it raises the possibility that the population isn't going to "slowly rescind"; that it may be a whole lot faster than that given current trends. I don't think anyone itt is saying we need to close schools, or ban contraception and women in the workplace tomorrow (at least I hope they aren't), but just to throw a wild number out, if we knew for a fact that the world's population was going to drop from 8 billion to 4 billion between now and 2200, that would merit some discussion, no? There's no soft landing scenario for that.

---

200 years ago we had 1 billion people. So we have, for better or worse, managed a 8-fold increase in population over that time but cannot manage a 50% decline?

Makes no sense to me. Why is this going to be such a challenge?

---

Sustained population decline puts you in a situation where the size of the work force shrinks as a proportion of the total population, and especially shrinks relative to the elderly population. So you end up with a case where the per-person cost of elder/end-of-life care increases because the labor pool is shrinking. At the same time, the government programs that subsidize end-of-life care are strained financially, because the total number of working taxpayers is shrinking.

Even if society just eventually throws its hands up and says "you know what, forget it" and just puts you and me out on an ice flow when we reach 75, everyone still has to deal with an economy that basically settles into a permanent shrinking/recession.

None of this results in the extinction of humanity, of course, but having to give up models of economy and government based on eternal growth is going to represent a fundamental reordering of the modern world, one way or another.

Casual Cynic said:

---

Well, the Amish are still having kids in large numbers. As are the orthodox Jews as well as many Muslims and some Christians. It isn't going to be an empty world in 50-100 years, just one with fewer modern people.

---

Cheaper cabinets will drive lower home prices and improve housing affordability.

The Amish are fixing it!

I'm convinced. Where can I sign up to support common sense population decline?

Cause all I keep hearing on this is that Elon says more babies, the world needs more babies.

I am against that.

Would be massively deflationary and that is something most modern economic models do not have a solution for

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Spergin said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

https://substack.com/home/post/p-197850696

Derek Thompson is a lib at The Atlantic, but did an absolute phenomenal interview with University of Pennsylvania economist Jess Fernndez-Villaverde on the sources and implications of the global fertility crisis.

Big highlights first:

• Black birthrates have collapsed in the US and have been passed by whites for the first time in the history of the US.
• Latin America and the Middle East are in an absolute nose dive.
• The US has a higher birth rate (1.7) than Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, and Thailand

Causes:

• Big shocker…female employment in a service based economy
• Actual shocker…likely the global spread of western norms through social media and the mass popularity of cell phones since 2012.

Big Question remaining:

• Will birthrates recover as people are having fewer people later (ie. delayed parenthood)? Or is this a sustained demographic bobsled like China, South Korea, and Japan?
• How does this impact the rise of AI?

I just hope somewhere, this interview is being read to Paul Ehrlich on repeat for eternity.

---

The only solution that works is reducing female employment and income and increasing male employment and income. You can see this in all types of stats: one of the most interesting being lottery winners. Male winners get married and have kids. Female winners either get divorced or become promiscuous or even more single.

---

Bruh…I hate to break it to you…but that genie ain't going back in the bottle.

---

I know, but this is the only solution that will ever work. Nothing else matters.

Seven Costanza said:

---

With South Korea's current birth rate, the generation of the grandkids of the current fertile-age generation will only be 4% of the current generation. A 96% drop in population for that generation. So as the current generation ages into their 70s and 80s, there will be essentially no one of working age available not to just support the welfare state, but to maintain services. Need garbage men or any other number of jobs needed to keep a society moving? Workers in hospitals and clinics? Tough, those people no longer exist in numbers sufficient to keep up services.

---

AI robots?

Also, some of these extremely homogeneous countries that were previously considered "xenophobic" (even against other fellow Asian nations) and currently view foreigners as inferior second class citizens, will be begging and incentivizing us to come help keep their countries and economies alive. Many countries will be doing this, but what a significant reversal of policy it will be for places like Korea, Japan and China.

However screwed we think we are getting, Gen Z and Gen Alpha are really getting the shaft. Us older millennials and Gen X'ers might at least get SOMETHING from Social Security. They ain't getting sh**. Government ponzi schemes like that rquire an ever-increasing population.

1) A slow decline in population is manageable, as long as we can offset it with steady increases in productivity. This is where AI enters the chat.

2) leveling out the lowered birth rates between low IQ folks and high IQ folks, correlated with low productivity nations and high productivity nations, is the best development society has seen in 50-100 years

Hardcore Greg said:

---

However screwed we think we are getting, Gen Z and Gen Alpha are really geting the shaft. Us older millennials and Gen X'ers might at least get SOMETHING from Social Security. They ain't getting sh**. Government ponzi schemes like that rquire an ever-increasing population.

---

Evidently they are not giving or getting much shaft per the studies.

My main takeaway from this thread is that if you read the OP and your main takeaway is "phew, less brown people", then you should maybe check your heart and your head.

njohn87 said:

---

My main takeaway from this thread is that if you read the OP and your main takeaway is "phew, less brown people", then you should maybe check your heart and your head.

---

Why would the color of someone matter to anyone on this thread?

Absolutely bizarre comment is... well, bizarre.

flown-the-coop said:

---

njohn87 said:

---

My main takeaway from this thread is that if you read the OP and your main takeaway is "phew, less brown people", then you should maybe check your heart and your head.

---

Why would the color of someone matter to anyone on this thread?

Absolutely bizarre comment is... well, bizarre.

---

Admitted McCain and Hillary voter makes weird post…seems par for the course.