AGC said:

---

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.

---

Is it in the room with us now?

You want people who typically don't think 2 years down the road, rarely 20, to come collectively together and plan 200 years into the future?

If you think depop will lead to calamity, your plan should be food, water and ammo.

flown-the-coop said:

---

AGC said:

---

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.

---

Is it in the room with us now?

You want people who typically don't think 2 years down the road, rarely 20, to come collectively together and plan 200 years into the future?

If you think depop will lead to calamity, your plan should be food, water and ammo.

---

Maybe the end stage is hundreds of years from now, but it'll be felt progressively over time. We've got entitlement programs that, right or wrong, we can't get rid of. If we're not making more future tax payers, who will cover the cost of things like SS?

flown-the-coop said:

---

AGC said:

---

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.

---

Is it in the room with us now?

You want people who typically don't think 2 years down the road, rarely 20, to come collectively together and plan 200 years into the future?

If you think depop will lead to calamity, your plan should be food, water and ammo.

---

JFC…I'm agreeing with you FTC. I feel like I need to shower.

It shouldn't be about predicting the future, and then trying to get to that spot, it should be about acknowledging trend lines/challenges…then accounting for large structural changes in policy.

Too many people in Abhramic religions turn into Jeremiads…the fertility issue is a data point (a big one for sure) but we can't just run into a bunker and hide.

flown-the-coop said:

---

AGC said:

---

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.

---

Is it in the room with us now?

You want people who typically don't think 2 years down the road, rarely 20, to come collectively together and plan 200 years into the future?

If you think depop will lead to calamity, your plan should be food, water and ammo.

---

Yes, actually. Entitlements for starters. Keep an eye on public school closures in cities, too, because they're starting to feel the pinch (battles between which ones to close and how much overhead to cut). Colleges in the Midwest and northeast will be heading online or packing it in due to lower enrollment (GFC baby bust starts this year). What happens to those towns? Rust belt 2.0 most likely, and hope no banks were lending to them.

Wasn't this already posted?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/article/the-hole-dfw-population-donut-growing-22253749.php

Closing schools and universities is less than zero threat to humanity. Most consider it a net gain.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AGC said:

---

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.

---

Is it in the room with us now?

You want people who typically don't think 2 years down the road, rarely 20, to come collectively together and plan 200 years into the future?

If you think depop will lead to calamity, your plan should be food, water and ammo.

---

JFC…I'm agreeing with you FTC. I feel like I need to shower.

It shouldn't be about predicting the future, and then trying to get to that spot, it should be about acknowledging trend lines/challenges…then accounting for large structural changes in policy.

Too many people in Abhramic religions turn into Jeremiads…the fertility issue is a data point (a big one for sure) but we can't just run into a bunker and hide.

---

somebody has a sock

AGC said:

---

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.

---

I haven't forgotten that. In fact, I'm trying to distinguish the difference between a mirco/macro perspective.

Will the infrastructure will simply disappear? The technological advancements that are exponentially/rapidly developing all the sudden cease? On one hand we say technology is replacing people. On the other, we're saying we don't have enough people reproducing. It doesnt add up.

I think a lot of the 'what ifs' mentioned, assumes everything else stays the same, other than the population.

Even if it did, I dont think it'll be as drastic of a situation as presented. People have gravitated to rural settings, and then back to Urban settings throughout time, for various reasons. Populations centers have increased, and decreased. We have many modern micro-examples of this. Sometimes it's financially beneficial for people, sometimes not. But society has always adjusted.

I just never seem to find empirical evidence that less population will be an issue this time.

Logos Stick said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AGC said:

---

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.

---

Is it in the room with us now?

You want people who typically don't think 2 years down the road, rarely 20, to come collectively together and plan 200 years into the future?

If you think depop will lead to calamity, your plan should be food, water and ammo.

---

JFC…I'm agreeing with you FTC. I feel like I need to shower.

It shouldn't be about predicting the future, and then trying to get to that spot, it should be about acknowledging trend lines/challenges…then accounting for large structural changes in policy.

Too many people in Abhramic religions turn into Jeremiads…the fertility issue is a data point (a big one for sure) but we can't just run into a bunker and hide.

---

somebody has a sock

---

Wild. Dunno why he quoted ftc quoting me.

Less population helps with housing affordability big time. So people need to choose, social security or cheap housing.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Closing schools and universities is less than zero threat to humanity. Most consider it a net gain.

---

You forgot that I linked it to the rust belt. No jobs, no tax income, no infrastructure support, and no escape for people who live there (either due to family ties or unable to sell homes and get equity to start over).

Also how expensive is it for a city to maintain empty buildings for decades before kids come back? And what government dollars flow in for students who aren't there to spread around for employment and infrastructure? Sell the land and you have to figure out how to get it back when you have kids again.

It's not a simple question.

Quote:

---

Yes, actually. Entitlements for starters. Keep an eye on public school closures in cities, too, because they're starting to feel the pinch (battles between which ones to close and how much overhead to cut). Colleges in the Midwest and northeast will be heading online or packing it in due to lower enrollment (GFC baby bust starts this year). What happens to those towns? Rust belt 2.0 most likely, and hope no banks were lending to them.

---

But this has always happened.

Austin has been in the news lately, for closing schools. The population has simply shifted elsewhere, and those areas are increasing the number of schools/sizes. If the population creeps back into Austin proper, AISD will adjust.

Take Detroit for example...nearly 2 million at it's peak and now 600k. I'm sure it was a financial hit for many (including lenders)...but people adjusted, the city adjusted, and continues to.

People left small towns for Urban areas. Now we're seeing a shift out of Urban areas, as the internet and WFH has made people more mobile. We're seeing small downtowns revitalized, etc.

Populations ebb and flow. Society has always adjusted.

AgGrad99 said:

---

AGC said:

---

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.

---

I haven't forgotten that. In fact, I'm trying to distinguish the difference between a mirco/macro perspective.

Will the infrastructure will simply disappear? The technological advancements that are exponentially/rapidly developing all the sudden cease? On one hand we say technology is replacing people. On the other, we're saying we don't have enough people reproducing. It doesnt add up.

I think a lot of the 'what ifs' mentioned, assumes everything else stays the same, other than the population.

Even if it did, I dont think it'll be as drastic of a situation as presented. People have gravitated to rural settings, and then back to Urban settings throughout time, for various reasons. Populations centers have increased, and decreased. We have many modern micro-examples of this. Sometimes it's financially beneficial for people, sometimes not. But society has always adjusted.

I just never seem to find empirical evidence that less population will be an issue this time.

---

Infrastructure degrades and requires constant maintenance. The cost for a system that's spread throughout the city doesn't drop as much as you'd think when the population does. Unless an entire section of town is destroyed or dies off, it's hard to maintain the whole system. The management part is what's coming and it will likely suck for someone you know, unless you think poor people will feel the pinch first. Even if they do, they'll move to your part of town and create more density.

No one lives at the macro level, and no one's arguing the end of humanity is nigh.

Detroit has actually seen some positive things happening.

Life finds a way and such.

Quote:

---

Infrastructure degrades and requires constant maintenance. The cost for a system that's spread throughout the city doesn't drop as much as you'd think when the population does. Unless an entire section of town is destroyed or dies off, it's hard to maintain the whole system. The management part is what's coming and it will likely suck for someone you know, unless you think poor people will feel the pinch first. Even if they do, they'll move to your part of town and create more density.

No one lives at the macro level, and no one's arguing the end of humanity is nigh.

---

But again, this has always been the case.

Efficiencies are created, and populations move when the cost is too high. Cities sell off buildings, and areas become unincorporated/incorporated as need dictates. Populations of urban centers have never been consistent.

I agree, as populations increase and decrease there are growing pains and hurdles. But I dont see any evidence that a declining population, demanding less resources is going to crater society.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Detroit has actually seen some positive things happening.

Life finds a way and such.

---

Yep. It took them a bit after 2008. They razed some areas, and adjusted how they serviced the city. But they're doing better, and there's been quite a bit of investment there lately. Ebbs and flows...

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, actually. Entitlements for starters. Keep an eye on public school closures in cities, too, because they're starting to feel the pinch (battles between which ones to close and how much overhead to cut). Colleges in the Midwest and northeast will be heading online or packing it in due to lower enrollment (GFC baby bust starts this year). What happens to those towns? Rust belt 2.0 most likely, and hope no banks were lending to them.

---

But this has always happened.

Austin has been in the news lately, for closing schools. The population has simply shifted elsewhere, and those areas are increasing the number of schools/sizes. If the population creeps back into Austin proper, AISD will adjust.

Take Detroit for example...nearly 2 million at it's peak and now 600k. I'm sure it was a financial hit for many (including lenders)...but people adjusted, the city adjusted, and continues to.

People left small towns for Urban areas. Now we're seeing a shift out of Urban areas, as the internet and WFH has made people more mobile. We're seeing small downtowns revitalized, etc.

Populations ebb and flow. Society has always adjusted.

---

Yes and no. You've forgotten Detroit. And you've not really seen a modern society that reached the limits of expansion and population growth like ours. You're still assuming growth - who buys those properties as people move back to the city with fewer people? Who staffs a factory? Where do laid of teachers and nurses get absorbed as demand drops? Who pays for SS?

We're moving towards 1980s fantasy / sci-fi.

A pivot from a socioeconomic structure that's existed for less than 100 years out of the entirety of human existence is far from catastrophic. Not losing any sleep over the prospect of depopulation. Not. One. Wink.

Quote:

---

You're still assuming growth - who buys those properties as people move back to the city with fewer people? Who staffs a factory? Where do laid of teachers and nurses get absorbed as demand drops? Who pays for SS?

---

The systems will adjust the same way all those things have always adjusted.

I'm in no way assuming growth. I've given examples of decline, and cities adjusting.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Infrastructure degrades and requires constant maintenance. The cost for a system that's spread throughout the city doesn't drop as much as you'd think when the population does. Unless an entire section of town is destroyed or dies off, it's hard to maintain the whole system. The management part is what's coming and it will likely suck for someone you know, unless you think poor people will feel the pinch first. Even if they do, they'll move to your part of town and create more density.

No one lives at the macro level, and no one's arguing the end of humanity is nigh.

---

But again, this has always been the case.

Efficiencies are created, and populations move when the cost is too high. Cities sell off buildings, and areas become unincorporated/incorporated as need dictates. Populations of urban centers have never been consistent.

I agree, as populations increase and decrease there are growing pains and hurdles. But I dont see any evidence that a declining population, demanding less resources is going to crater society.

---

Again, you're arguing macro and I'm arguing micro. No one really cares whether humanity as a whole can cope and survive. It's assumed.

No I'm not. How is discussing city services, and school districts Macro/Global?

Fwiw- These are the type of threads I like on this forum. Civil discussion about something we all look at differently. Good discussion all around.

AgGrad99 said:

---

No I'm not. How is discussing city services, and school districts Macro/Global?

---

You're hand waving. There's no explanation of how, just 'it will, this happens all the time.' My dad's hometown is drying up and disappearing. No one's moving to west Texas to save it. Why would people move back to Dallas county? Read the link I posted: there's really nothing there of consequence.

We really have to get beyond 'it happens' to think about why it would, and away from general economic principles of supply and demand.

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

No I'm not. How is discussing city services, and school districts Macro/Global?

---

You're hand waving. There's no explanation of how, just 'it will, this happens all the time.' My dad's hometown is drying up and disappearing. No one's moving to west Texas to save it. Why would people move back to Dallas county? Read the link I posted: there's really nothing there of consequence.

---

I guess from my perspective, we have history which shows how population ebbs and flows, and how population centers adjust. I've given a few examples.

But what evidence do we have, to suggest this 'ebb', will be any different?

West Texas and Dallas might decline. They'll adjust, like every other town, which has declined, have adjusted.

Other areas might increase. They'll adjust, like every other town that has increased has adjusted. We're watching this in real time.

In my life, I've seen small rural towns decline to nothing. But I'm also watching those same towns revitalized, because of new technology which allows people to move there. San Saba is a good example. Taylor is soon to be unrecognizable, after being a ghost town for decades. At the same time, there are other towns which decline. Your dad's town might be one...Rockdale is another good example...after Alcoa left. There are so many more examples.

There might be hardships associated with those movements. There are also opportunities.

I'd also say...suggesting that a decline is harmful means there is a better option. So we'd have to answer, what is the perfect population for every area?

Are we suggesting that every population center on a micro level has to always increase? I don't think that's sustainable, simply based on natural resources (which are already stressed to the brink in some areas).

Otherwise, what's the other option? To maintain a 'perfect' population, determined by current levels? That's not realistic.

Growth can be harmful and good. Receding population can be harmful and good. Areas adjust.

The socialist types want ever expanding growth to feed the globallst machine. It does NOT have to be that way.

But they are not potbanging this because they see growth numbers are slipping.

Meanwhile, you have solar lunatics nostradumbarses like Elon that trolls with his we need 100 billion people if we are going to ever colonize Pluto and the asteroid belt. That's his dream and why he rants on population growth. But that's not my dream. Watching The Expanse tells me that future sucks hairy sweaty cheesy balls. No thanks, hard pass.

Infrastructure and support economies ebb and flow with the times, since the dawn of humanity. Pretending we are somehow unique is a fools game many a dead idiot has played.

AGC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AGC said:

---

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.

---

Is it in the room with us now?

You want people who typically don't think 2 years down the road, rarely 20, to come collectively together and plan 200 years into the future?

If you think depop will lead to calamity, your plan should be food, water and ammo.

---

Yes, actually. Entitlements for starters. Keep an eye on public school closures in cities, too, because they're starting to feel the pinch (battles between which ones to close and how much overhead to cut). Colleges in the Midwest and northeast will be heading online or packing it in due to lower enrollment (GFC baby bust starts this year). What happens to those towns? Rust belt 2.0 most likely, and hope no banks were lending to them.

Wasn't this already posted?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/article/the-hole-dfw-population-donut-growing-22253749.php

---

Matt Welch from Reason has been talking about 'peak public schools' for a while.
Fewer kids and more options for parents are a negative long-term trend. There will be school closures and 'cutbacks,' but they will likely be within the realm of lower growth and lower budgets in the near term.
https://reason.com/2024/09/06/we-have-already-passed-peak-public-school/

I think the issue will revolve more around the teachers, admin, and staff. Public schools have become a public works project for college-educated adults (especially females with multiple degrees and likely some education-related debt).

AgGrad99 said:

---

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

No I'm not. How is discussing city services, and school districts Macro/Global?

---

You're hand waving. There's no explanation of how, just 'it will, this happens all the time.' My dad's hometown is drying up and disappearing. No one's moving to west Texas to save it. Why would people move back to Dallas county? Read the link I posted: there's really nothing there of consequence.

---

I guess from my perspective, we have history which shows how population ebbs and flows, and how population centers adjust. I've given a few examples.

But what evidence do we have, to suggest this 'ebb', will be any different?

West Texas and Dallas might decline. They'll adjust, like every other town, which has declined, have adjusted.

Other areas might increase. They'll adjust, like every other town that has increased has adjusted. We're watching this in real time.

In my life, I've seen small rural towns decline to nothing. But I'm also watching those same towns revitalized, because of new technology which allows people to move there. San Saba is a good example. Taylor is soon to be unrecognizable, after being a ghost town for decades. At the same time, there are other towns which decline. Your dad's town might be one...Rockdale is another good example...after Alcoa left. There are so many more examples.

There might be hardships associated with those movements. There are also opportunities.

---

The rust belt has not recovered. The cost to repurpose real estate in somewhere like downtown Dallas is massive (if I gave you the office building for free, it wouldn't be profitable to make it multi family - that massive). Theres an empty school down the street from me that costs too much to demolish or sell due to asbestos abatement, so it's going to deteriorate as the population changes. Real dollars have to be spent but no one wants to live in large cities to pay the cost. DFW again allows companies to move to frisco or Richardson - downtown isn't a priority. Comerica and AT&T are vacating and no one's backfilling that. So infrastructure cost for water and electric distribution are the same but the population drops so who pays it? And when children are fewer (less?), what entices families to move to a city with old/no schools and bad infrastructure, no parks, etc.?

The unspoken thing behind your ebbs and flows was a growing population and children slotting in behind it, which stopped in the great financial crisis of 2006-2008 (hence the enrollment cliff for colleges starting this year).
There's a reason remedial classes are ginning up for so many colleges, and that's fewer kids attending means decreasing standards to keep the money flowing (or folding). That doesn't start to engage with the growth in childless cat ladies from the Gen Z population.

If you're in Texas or the south you don't perceive this because that's where productive people are moving (while homeless vagrants go the other way, thank God). But we still have a problem of paying for things with future growth that isn't there.

I'd suggest that's all to be expected...population decline or not. We've seen that throughout history (like with the rust belt).

It's change. Change will inevitably benefit some areas, and hurt others. That's also the nature of investment...whether that infrastructure, stocks or buildings in a downtown area. Some people will win, some will lose.

I guess I'm just struggling to see why declining birth rates are going to have an differing/worse affect.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I'd suggest that's all to be expected...population decline or not. We've seen that throughout history (like with the rust belt).

It's change. Change will inevitably benefit some areas, and hurt others. That's also the nature of investment...whether that infrastructure, stocks or buildings in a downtown area. Some people will win, some will lose.

I guess I'm just struggling to see why declining birth rates are going to have an differing/worse affect.

---

Hand waving again with 'throughout history.' All borrowing is based on future growth. Who pays it back? Who takes the loss? If you have children this concerns you…it's very real in your lifetime. Would you really suffer and say, 'ah well, all for the greater good, who cares if my kids starve and die?' Cause that's weird…

it's not hand waving simply because I used the phrase 'throughout history'...when I literally referenced your example directly after (not to mention the examples I've already given).

No one is saying it's ok if kids starve a die. I'm just waiting for an explanation of how that's exactly going to happen, when we have fewer mouths to feed, and more resources to go around.

If you're trying to convince me that people might lose on investments because of this. I'd agree. That's the nature of investing/lending. Declining birth rates are unique in that regard.

AgGrad99 said:

---

it's not hand waving because I said 'throughout history'...when I literally referenced your example directly after (not to mention the examples I've already given).

No one is saying it's ok if kids starve a die. I'm just waiting for an explanation of how that's exactly going to happen, when we have fewer mouths to feed, and more resources to go around.

If you're trying to convince me that people might lose on investments because of this. I'd agree. That's the nature of investing/lending. Declining birth rates are unique in that regard.

---

All these things require work and maintenance, which will have fewer people to do that with higher taxes to pay for an aging population. O&G pipelines don't get shorter; electrical distribution and water supplies don't become easier to manage with decline because the system doesn't scale down the way it scales up. Who's driving the trucks to transport food to grocery stores? People make the world go round, not machines.

So who are you going to screw? What neighborhood are you choosing to level and move? Letting old people die on the streets in their hometown since they can't afford to move and there's no one to support them?

'More' resources is irrelevant. Theres a human cost.

How were those things handled in Detroit? San Saba? Taylor? Rockdale? Your Dad's West Texas town? AISD, Dallas, etc etc etc.

These things happen. They're not unique to declining birth rates. And just like they've been dealt with, and are continuing to be dealt with...they'll be something populations centers continue to deal with for as long as populations rise and fall.

AgGrad99 said:

---

How were those things handled in Detroit? San Saba? Taylor? Rockdale? Your Dad's West Texas town? AISD, Dallas, etc etc etc.

These things happen. They're not unique to declining birth rates. And just like they've been dealt with, and are continuing to be dealt with...they'll be something populations centers continue to deal with for as long as populations rise and fall.

---

As previously mentioned, the ones most concerned about this are true socialist. Not reasonable people with reasonable takes and reasonable outlooks.

They must produce bodies to feed the machine. Who what where and the why of those bodies makes no matter. Just feed the machine so government can grow.

Makes zero since, but neither do the teaching or Karl Marx and the like.

flown-the-coop said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

How were those things handled in Detroit? San Saba? Taylor? Rockdale? Your Dad's West Texas town? AISD, Dallas, etc etc etc.

These things happen. They're not unique to declining birth rates. And just like they've been dealt with, and are continuing to be dealt with...they'll be something populations centers continue to deal with for as long as populations rise and fall.

---

As previously mentioned, the ones most concerned about this are true socialist. Not reasonable people with reasonable takes and reasonable outlooks.

They must produce bodies to feed the machine. Who what where and the why of those bodies makes no matter. Just feed the machine so government can grow.

Makes zero since, but neither do the teaching or Karl Marx and the like.

---

Musk is a socialist?

Jeeper79 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

How were those things handled in Detroit? San Saba? Taylor? Rockdale? Your Dad's West Texas town? AISD, Dallas, etc etc etc.

These things happen. They're not unique to declining birth rates. And just like they've been dealt with, and are continuing to be dealt with...they'll be something populations centers continue to deal with for as long as populations rise and fall.

---

As previously mentioned, the ones most concerned about this are true socialist. Not reasonable people with reasonable takes and reasonable outlooks.

They must produce bodies to feed the machine. Who what where and the why of those bodies makes no matter. Just feed the machine so government can grow.

Makes zero since, but neither do the teaching or Karl Marx and the like.

---

Musk is a socialist?

---

No, Musk is a lunatic on this. See prior posts. If you are not going to read the prior posts, be careful when commenting.