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.

---

There's a post on this page (6) (not yours) where that certainly seems like the implication. Hopefully I'm wrong, though, so I won't single it out.

I think you read the post wrong. If correct post, I think all folks were referring to is different causes of lower birth rates and it can vary across demographics, but not calling for any less this or that.

Now, we do want less childless affluent white liberal cat ladies and the ******* husbands who demand they are the only ones who are allowed, ironically, to speak for people of color. A la Margaret Sanger.

Bob Lee said:

---

tysker said:

---

The only reason countries "need" more people is to continue the entitlement and welfare state.
Government redistribution and entitlement projects don't work nearly as well when growth is declining, as clearly evidenced by failures of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even the VA. Eventually, the government starts to run out of other people's money

---

If you're not having kids, you're counting on other people's children to take care of you when you're old whether or not there are any welfare programs.

Eventually, you'll start to run out of other people's children.

---

This is why I've always thought it would be a good incentive to cutoff women who've had an abortion from any government assistance. If you actively prevent society from benefitting from your children then you should not be entitled to help from the rest of society.

I would suggest you pursue such lofty societal ideals outside of... America.

Nothing says America like removing someone from society for making a life decision you find morally disagreeable.

I contributed to the cause. Four daughters all Aggies.

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.

---

Do you feel better about the world after posting that?

LMAO. Dork.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

I contributed to the cause. Four daughters all Aggies.

---

3 myself. 2 girls and a boy.

somehow this is framed as a "crisis"

This is @#$#@$ fantastic news.

I am sure it is fake news- but would be terrific for world peace if true.

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

World population is growing, over 8 billion souls and more births than deaths, will reach 9 billion within in 10 years.



Population and such

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?

---

It's not a challenge, it's just that it will make us all worse off in the long run.

Could the Egyptians have built the pyramids with 300 slaves?

Our technological progress would slow down if we had half the number of people. To think otherwise is just being bad at math. Slower technological progress is bad for the species. Somewhere, 20 to 100 years down the road, there is going to be a kid that has his arm replaced by a biological arm grown from his own DNA in a periti dish, and he will wake up with 2 arms instead of 1. I want to be part of that process, even if it is just a drop in the bucket.

Fewer drops in the bucket make it take longer to fill up the bucket.

Tyler Cowen said it better when he said that economic growth is an intrinsic good. Fewer people will reduce economic growth. Jesus said that the man who sees good and doesn't do it does evil. The earth can easily sustain 10 billion people. Solve for equilibrium.

5Amp said:

---

World population is growing, over 8 billion souls and more births than deaths, will reach 9 billion within in 10 years.



Population and such

---

Most people think that 10 billion or so will be the peak unless something dramatically changes in world culture.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

I contributed to the cause. Four daughters all Aggies.

---

God bless you brother. Four Aggie daughters is a giant gift to the world.

I had two girls, but God stopped me there.

And we all pale in comparison to Decadad, the real hero on this thread.

5Amp said:

---

World population is growing, over 8 billion souls and more births than deaths, will reach 9 billion within in 10 years.



Population and such

---

And that's lag / momentum. It will start going downhill not long after. Discussed in the OP article. Many already suspect China is already on the down slope because of their historically, extreme one child policy.

flown-the-coop said:

---

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.

---

He's saying that in context of replacement rate; not growing it even more. Regardless, he's also the about the only one planning for it on behalf of the rest of us.

YouBet said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

I'm ok with less people.

---

Fewer.

---

There is always one schoolmarm around!

LOL!

Gig 'Em!

Viper16 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

I'm ok with less people.

---

Fewer.

---

There is always one schoolmarm around!

LOL!

Gig 'Em!

---

This thread has been a travesty for use of this word. I've had to let it go a dozen times.

Bunch of dumbasses on this thread.

YouBet said:

---

Bunch of dumbasses on this thread.

---

No argument from me on that point!

LOL

YouBet said:

---

Viper16 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

I'm ok with less people.

---

Fewer.

---

There is always one schoolmarm around!

LOL!

Gig 'Em!

---

This thread has been a travesty for use of this word. I've had to let it go a dozen times.

Bunch of dumbasses on this thread.

---

Bunch of loosers

Linguistics rant… if folks think "fewer" is more crroecter than "less", they is failed to understandeth how language changes over time.

It the meaning is conveyed through the language, the language is acceptable and correct.

Before there was written word, which occurred long after spoken word, there was simply no such thing as grammar. And in many ways the written word and grammar police are actually STIFLING the evolution of language by requiring its adherence to nonsensical rules.

Tl;dr If someone understands what you mean, the appropriateness of the grammar and spelling are irrelevant.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Linguistics rant… if folks think "fewer" is more crroecter than "less", they is failed to understandeth how language changes over time.

It the meaning is conveyed through the language, the language is acceptable and correct.

Before there was written word, which occurred long after spoken word, there was simply no such thing as grammar. And in many ways the written word and grammar police are actually STIFLING the evolution of language by requiring its adherence to nonsensical rules.

Tl;dr If someone understands what you mean, the appropriateness of the grammar and spelling are irrelevant.

---

I guess some men just want to watch the world burn.

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Linguistics rant… if folks think "fewer" is more crroecter than "less", they is failed to understandeth how language changes over time.

It the meaning is conveyed through the language, the language is acceptable and correct.

Before there was written word, which occurred long after spoken word, there was simply no such thing as grammar. And in many ways the written word and grammar police are actually STIFLING the evolution of language by requiring its adherence to nonsensical rules.

Tl;dr If someone understands what you mean, the appropriateness of the grammar and spelling are irrelevant.

---

I guess some men just want to watch the world burn.

---

As long as me blunt gets burnt let it be burned.

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Linguistics rant… if folks think "fewer" is more crroecter than "less", they is failed to understandeth how language changes over time.

It the meaning is conveyed through the language, the language is acceptable and correct.

Before there was written word, which occurred long after spoken word, there was simply no such thing as grammar. And in many ways the written word and grammar police are actually STIFLING the evolution of language by requiring its adherence to nonsensical rules.

Tl;dr If someone understands what you mean, the appropriateness of the grammar and spelling are irrelevant.

---

I guess some men just want to watch the world burn.

---

As long as me blunt gets burnt let it be burned.

---

I have no idea what you are saying here so I guess you are leaning hard into your Philosophy of Gibberish.

Point was grammar is a modern construct and stifles the evolution of language. Less is fewer, fewer is more, more or less. Make cents?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Point was grammar is a modern construct and stifles the evolution of language. Less is fewer, fewer is more, more or less. Make cents?

---

Language is going to evolve regardless of what I think, but we can still call out improper use of language.

If y'all aren't going to speak American correctly, then I'm going to call you commie mofos out.

How does it evolve if you prohibit it with grammar policing?

flown-the-coop said:

---

How does it evolve if you prohibit it with grammar policing?

---

It won't evolve with me. I'm holding the line against your kind.

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

How does it evolve if you prohibit it with grammar policing?

---

It won't evolve with me. I'm holding the line against your kind.

---

I already have an English major wife. There is plenty holding the line against me on this. But… this was one of the most awsomest series I have observed on the television on linguistics. Though I get some humor that the lecturer, whilst engaging, has a smidge of a lisp.

Enjoy!

https://shop.thegreatcourses.com/understanding-linguistics-the-science-of-language

YouBet said:

---

Viper16 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

I'm ok with less people.

---

Fewer.

---

There is always one schoolmarm around!

LOL!

Gig 'Em!

---

This thread has been a travesty for use of this word. I've had to let it go a dozen times.

Bunch of dumbasses on this thread.

---

"Less" was previously used only with unaccountable nouns, but is accepted for both accountable and unaccountable nouns in modern English.

eg.
Less attitude vs fewer people

But 'less' people is also acceptable, which is why they added 'consisting of smaller number' as part of the definition. Though I realize some people still think it's proper to use fewer for unaccountable nouns.

I always argued this point with Tanya when she brought it up.

I didnt read this entire thread, but when the discussion of population and birth rates come up, I always ask the same question....why does it matter?

The world has adapted to a smaller population in the past. And it continues to adapt to a larger population.

It will continue to adapt.

And imo- based on resources, too many people is a problem. A smaller population means plentiful resources, and less issues globally.

Now, if we're talking micro vs macro, I understand why one country would want more population than their competitors. But Globally, I still dont understand the concern.

Well reasoned take. Micro vs macro is something that oft gets lost in the weeds on this stuff.

I cannot imagine that the correct equilibrium is 10 billion folks as someone mentioned above.

We have far too many idle and unproductive people, and I am talking essentially whole "countries" in the 3rd world who are neither agrarian nor industrial. They just… are.

I think 4 billion is a realistic goal but would settle for 6.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I didnt read this entire thread, but when the discussion of population and birth rates come up, I always ask the same question....why does it matter?

The world has adapted to a smaller population in the past. And it continues to adapt to a larger population.

It will continue to adapt.

And imo- based on resources, too many people is a problem. A smaller population means plentiful resources, and less issues globally.

Now, if we're talking micro vs macro, I understand why one country would want more population than their competitors. But Globally, I still dont understand the concern.

---

I think most everyone agrees with that. The problem at hand is the math of winding down very rapidly over a relatively short time frame and how you do that and soften the landing.

That is the real issue that just keeps getting ignored here. We aren't changing the math on the world depopulating. It's already baked in and going to happen. It's just a matter of +- a few years on when it starts.

I am just not seeing why it's viewed as so complex to wind down things to a smaller scale.

Over 200 years the sustainable power issue can and should be solved.

Infrastructure will exist where needed, food and water in utter abundance.

Also, a volcano or just an unexplained cooling period of 20 years would decimate the global population on a much faster scale. Are we planning for that?

Quote:

---

I think most everyone agrees with that. The problem at hand is the math of winding down very rapidly over a relatively short time frame and how you do that and soften the landing.

That is the real issue that just keeps getting ignored here. We aren't changing the math on the world depopulating. It's already baked in and going to happen. It's just a matter of +- a few years on when it starts.

---

Thanks for the reply. I do understand that part of it.

I just fail to see why it matters; what the empirical consequences will be. We'll adapt. We always have as population ebbed and flowed.

I also look at this from a technology standpoint. People are panicking that we're going to lose our jobs/purpose due to new technology, automation, Ai, etc. Yet, on the other hand, we're concerned about shrinking populations. Seems like that is a good thing, with the way automation is advancing rapidly. We won't need as many people.

I don't mean to be obtuse. I just struggle to understand the consequences. History seems to suggest we'll be alright.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think most everyone agrees with that. The problem at hand is the math of winding down very rapidly over a relatively short time frame and how you do that and soften the landing.

That is the real issue that just keeps getting ignored here. We aren't changing the math on the world depopulating. It's already baked in and going to happen. It's just a matter of +- a few years on when it starts.

---

Thanks for the reply. I do understand that part of it.

I just fail to see why it matters; what the empirical consequences will be. We'll adapt. We always have as population ebbed and flowed.

I also look at this from a technology standpoint. People are panicking that we're going to lose our jobs/purpose due to new technology, automation, Ai, etc. Yet, on the other hand, we're concerned about shrinking populations. Seems like that is a good thing, with the way automation is advancing rapidly. We won't need as many people.

I don't mean to be obtuse. I just struggle to understand the consequences. History seems to suggest we'll be alright.

---

We've never faced a depopulation event at this scale with this much interconnectedness though. Any depopulation event in the historical past would have been much more limited to a local or regional impact.

I'm sure we will adapt but there is going to be a lot of broken **** along the way and financial crisis. It's likely going to be chaotic and not fun.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think most everyone agrees with that. The problem at hand is the math of winding down very rapidly over a relatively short time frame and how you do that and soften the landing.

That is the real issue that just keeps getting ignored here. We aren't changing the math on the world depopulating. It's already baked in and going to happen. It's just a matter of +- a few years on when it starts.

---

Thanks for the reply. I do understand that part of it.

I just fail to see why it matters; what the empirical consequences will be. We'll adapt. We always have as population ebbed and flowed.

I also look at this from a technology standpoint. People are panicking that we're going to lose our jobs/purpose due to new technology, automation, Ai, etc. Yet, on the other hand, we're concerned about shrinking populations. Seems like that is a good thing, with the way automation is advancing rapidly. We won't need as many people.

I don't mean to be obtuse. I just struggle to understand the consequences. History seems to suggest we'll be alright.

---

You've forgotten that you're not 'humanity' and the people suffering aren't 'humanity' in general. There will be real world consequences for you, personally, and your friends and family, specifically. Y'all may be forced out of your house to preserve infrastructure and lose your equity with no money from city taxes to offset the loss. You may not have reliable power if you've bought 50 acres to escape urban sprawl. Who will be maintaining everything as people die? What children are coming to be your nurse in old age, or to do your yard work?

Everyone's fine with less/fewer human beings because they assume life won't change for them, personally. Gotta move past that because it's coming.