infinity ag said:

---

Back to topic.

I am not worried about reducing population. It will be fine. Some inconveniences. We need to have a stable population as resources are limited.

---

If you believe that last statement, you should reverse your first.

A stable population does indeed seem like the ideal moving forward. We absolutely do not have that.

Considering the difficulties in having children after about 35-40, we can consider the population older than that to be unable to help the birth rate. So what does that say about the large number of countries whose demographic curves drop off a cliff below 30 and continue to get worse year after year?

When does the trend reverse and the population stabilize? Even assuming it does, how much does the population shrink by then, and how much does that contract the GDP? What does that mean for debt to GDP ratios? Or the stock market and retirement portfolios? And what kind of military vulnerabilities does that create when there aren't enough fighting age men to maintain much of a military in some parts of the world? Which countries are going to start invading where they see a weak old country unable to mount a defense?

You're just thinking of where you'd like us to end up, but not what is going to happen between here and there. And the path between the two is incredibly dangerous.

OPAG said:

---

Well it is touchy subject, But I also look at it honestly and objectively.

Personally speaking, both my dad and my mom had well over 1 million spent on when they were in their late seventies early 80's.

My dad survived a cerebral hemorrhage at 81. He would of surely died fairly quickly after this with out extreme medical intervention that basically bought him 6 more years of 'life' confined to a chair and not able have a coherent conversation. Those cost were 10 times more then he had paid in to the system and that does not include the SS he collected for those 21 years that was also well over any interest rate that he would of had from a private investment fund if the money he put into SS had been invested into that. He paid the max.

It was a great investment for him and my mom.

Now i have seen this type scenario play out more often then not in others.

Then add the aspect if my dad had needed assisted living or nursing care facilities then any inheritance that they had worked hard to pass down to their kids would of been absorbed as well.

So though it is a touchy subject, it is a critical one. My generation is eating my children and grandchildren's bread! I my self will not do that. Why should I? Quality of life vs quantity of life all day long for me>

As long as I am not a burden to my family and an can contribute something to others and serve the Lord, I am more willing to hang around.

Yet, I am follower of Jesus, I am not afraid of death at all. For me, "to live is Christ, to die is gain".This is not my permanent home. and why some people fight and scrap for every breath of life even when living in pain or being a big burden on your kids or society, is not just something I understand.

---

Good post. Agree in principle. But religious taboos seem to be part of the obstacle (though less sure this was true in classical ancient times--don't really see it) But part of the problem with the whole idea is it is a quality-life thing, not a calendar year thing. You must not allow government into the process because it would just do a Logan's Run type thing of some arbitrary year. But there are some 96 years old who are still actively sharp and contributing and 56 years old that are basically `over'. So each situation is individual. It was more a thought question of how much the generational burdening you are talking about is *imposed* even on the recipients? (whether boomers or not) For like you would never want to at my grandkid's bread as it were.

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

---

Land isn't the only consideration. If you have a certain amount of land and enough people to have a healthy economy to support that land (farmers, mechanics, doctors/vets, etc) then you have prosperity. Now what happens when half of those people disappear? You have abundant land, but scarce labor.

Micah97 said:

---

This is the single most important crisis facing humanity and people rarely talk about it. Wasn't even discussed in the presidential debate. Humanity's head is on the chopping block, the axe is coming down, and we are arguing about global warming when china's population will drop by 50% in the 75 years.

---

We have about 8 billion humans which is about 4-5 billion more than we need. Less humans is less of a drain on the planet.

Japan is over-crowded as is. Population decline can be a good thing for them though the rate may be a little steep given the size of the elderly population which could be magnified if the size of any governmental retirement programs the country adopted over the years.

Its Doubtful Japan will disappear due to the current growth rate. It's impossible to state with accuracy the population level of a country 300 years from now. Any small catalyst can reverse their birth rate therefore they should not knee-jerk react and start importing a non-assimilating culture.

Stmichael said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

---

Land isn't the only consideration. If you have a certain amount of land and enough people to have a healthy economy to support that land (farmers, mechanics, doctors/vets, etc) then you have prosperity. Now what happens when half of those people disappear? You have abundant land, but scarce labor.

---

I think you start with current conditions are over competition for resources in mineral poor countries like Japan and SK. If the populations decrease the minerals per person increase.

If you have land that can be farmed by 100 farmers but have 200 farmers, then there is a supply of laborer problem. As you decrease farmers closer to 100 conditions improve. Once you drop below 100 sure you get a problem of not being able to utilize resources but that is a distant problem.

We've just never really navigated population decline before as a modern civilization. The last time the human population was shrinking was the Dark Ages.

We can speculate but don't really know what that means in terms of economic growth, innovation, etc.

It might not be a bad thing or it could be really bad. We just don't know.

infinity ag said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Assuming my daughter lives to a nice old age, I don't care about anything beyond her great-grandchildren. I just want her to be happy, be fruitful and multiply. Don't want her to have to see any of her offspring directly suffering. Don't care about anything that happens after my girl eventually passes. Comet for all I care.

Crazy that some people care about humans 1,000 years from now.

---

Why is it crazy that some people have survival instincts going long beyond next week just because you don't have them?

---

Survival instincts? You don't give a sh** about people a thousand years from now lol. No need to pretend. Yeah, the thought of human race not existing is pretty weird, but that's about it.

EDIT: just realized i forgot smile emoji, as my post was mostly tongue in cheek. Comes across harsher than intended

94chem said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Assuming my daughter lives to a nice old age, I don't care about anything beyond her great-grandchildren. I just want her to be happy, be fruitful and multiply. Don't want her to have to see any of her offspring directly suffering. Don't care about anything that happens after my girl eventually passes. Comet for all I care.

Crazy that some people care about humans 1,000 years from now.

---

I care about eternity, so I figure that includes everything between now and then. Nothing complex; just a Christian world view.

---

That was the hidden essence of my post. That's all Jesus and the apostles were focused on as well. Not whether mankind survives on earth for infinity.

texagbeliever said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

---

Land isn't the only consideration. If you have a certain amount of land and enough people to have a healthy economy to support that land (farmers, mechanics, doctors/vets, etc) then you have prosperity. Now what happens when half of those people disappear? You have abundant land, but scarce labor.

---

I think you start with current conditions are over competition for resources in mineral poor countries like Japan and SK. If the populations decrease the minerals per person increase.

If you have land that can be farmed by 100 farmers but have 200 farmers, then there is a supply of laborer problem. As you decrease farmers closer to 100 conditions improve. Once you drop below 100 sure you get a problem of not being able to utilize resources but that is a distant problem.

---

Distant in years, but not in generations. At SK's current birth rate, the population will shrink to 4% of its current size in 4 generations. And if they think raising kids is tough now, how is going to look when their parents retire and move in with them?

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Assuming my daughter lives to a nice old age, I don't care about anything beyond her great-grandchildren. I just want her to be happy, be fruitful and multiply. Don't want her to have to see any of her offspring directly suffering. Don't care about anything that happens after my girl eventually passes. Comet for all I care.

Crazy that some people care about humans 1,000 years from now.

---

Why is it crazy that some people have survival instincts going long beyond next week just because you don't have them?

---

Survival instincts? You don't give a sh** about people a thousand years from now lol. No need to pretend. Yeah, the thought of human race not existing is pretty weird, but that's about it.

---

At some point it will cease to exist anyways. Nothing last forever.

Just some personal observations (not necessarily the fall of Japan related but more overcrowding in general):
- We have more people on this planet with less untapped resources than at any time in history
- If we go the biblical route (even if we don't humans only start out with a nominal amount of people): we start with 2 in the beginning and have how many billion now? It can be replicated.
- There seems to be concerns about keeping the infrastructure going: how about we utilize people that are able bodied on welfare or other such programs, re-task the gender studies, philosophy and European Poetry of 1515 majors, DOGE pink slip recipients and maybe even prisoners.
- We are steadily running out of land and no more is being made. We need a certain amount to be able to sustain ourselves and our system.
- People might not be the Duggers or Octomom today but we are still experiencing overcrowding and lack of resources and our answer is to have more people to make the resources?
- In the past humans did procreate more, I am sure, but they also had a much higher mortality rate too. And yet, here we are with billions on the planet.

I think we have become weak and too reliant on government (I'm guilty). I think there are too many people on the planet (not suggesting getting rid of them) and don't see a valid reason to keep pumping those numbers up. I do see an advantage in space colonization in regards to the survival of the species much like I diversify in my investments. Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

"Men are insecure of strong independent women"

---

This always makes me chuckle too. I have mentioned on here that I find super "independent/strong/highly career driven/alpha" women to be a major turn off and have gotten blasted. Apparently that makes me "scared" of women or "intimidated". No, its a borderline repulsive trait/character flaw that i find to genuinely be a major turnoff...and I can't help it. I feel like the vast majority of human history backs you and me up on this.

My wife has a job, but it is not something that defines her...and we are both hoping she doesn't always have to work. I feel like too many modern women have their identity wrapped up in it.

I am assuming you are a proponent of the Mathusian "theory". It has been debunked many times.

Ultimately, population if left to itself will find it's own equilibrium. However, we have a lot of elite, rich and powerful people who believe like you. And they seek to take matters into their own hands and play God. That never works well.

And Jesus himself said this:

Matt 24:21-22

For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.
NKJV

That word 'flesh' is the Greek word Sarx, which means anything that draws breath.


And this will be a man made thing. We are very close to being able to wipe ourselves through a number of different ways. And it will be led by the deluded Malthusian scientist, seeking to play God! l. e, the Bill Gates of the world.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Many. The current culture and economy there just are not conducive to child rearing. They've actually been in a slow economic decline for decades.

South Korea is not all that far behind in terms of demographics.

China right after that. Then you get to Western Europe.

---

per Zeihan China is worse, with the number of people over 60 representing more of the population than all the other demos combined.

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

---

We have a huge abundance of land right now, so that is a very poor example. Also, you can't live in land. There must be a dwelling built to live there. Humans build those dwellings.

Also, you incorrectly used a single specific example of land to try to prove my general assertion about fewer goods false: If population decreases, there will be fewer goods and services.

infinity ag said:

---

13B said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

---

Home life is better than Corp life where someone else has your balls in his hand and your paycheck depends on kissing his/her ass.
Homelife is busy and stressful but you are the boss. You are not a corporate slave.

---

I somewhat agree that home life is better than Corp life but if you think that the stay at home spouse is the boss and isn't dependent on someone else for a paycheck (ie the other spouse) then I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture. I will concede that the stay at home spouse can generally run the house how they see fit (thus making them their own "boss") but they are still dependent on someone else for a paycheck and have to kiss a little @$$ or at least get along and compromise with them (granted they should want to do this because they chose each other as partners but many choose unwisely). There is more dynamics involved with a host of different possibilities but I think you can see what I am saying.

---

OK, I will agree with what you say.
But men are simple creatures. Feed them, F them, don't give them too much lip, and they are good and are very likely to go above and beyond.

But bottomline - home life better than corporate life for 99% people. Unless you are at the top like Musk. But then his life is also hell since he ultimately is responsible if the company goes down.

---

100% agree (especially in my case and I don't think I am that much different than most men). I'm not going to put it all on the woman for harmony in the home because there can be jack wagon husbands sometimes but in general, I have to agree. Also, I do agree that home life is better if there is no jack@$$ery going on. I've done both. I miss some of the purpose of my job but find new purpose in things at home (Grandkid, kids, etc).

Micah97 said:

---

This is the single most important crisis facing humanity and people rarely talk about it. Wasn't even discussed in the presidential debate. Humanity's head is on the chopping block, the axe is coming down, and we are arguing about global warming when china's population will drop by 50% in the 75 years.

---

Before I get too fatalistic about population collapse I need to know how much AI and automation is going to answer potential productivity shortages. It seems like the answer is going to be at least "somewhat" and maybe even "good thing we don't have as many people anymore since the machines are doing so much of our work."

Within individual cities, regions, and nations, the bigger impact of population collapses seems to be the impact on culture, as new immigrant populations provide more of the growth and a much bigger percentage of the whole.

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

---

We have a huge abundance of land right now, so that is a very poor example. Also, you can't live in land. There must be a dwelling built to live there. Humans build those dwellings.

Also, you incorrectly used a single specific example of land to try to prove my general assertion about fewer goods false: If population decreases, there will be fewer goods.

---

Incorrect, we might have enough to sustain us now but it is a finite resource that provides us food. I can't eat a house. Beef doesn't originate in my refrigerator or at the Kroger store.

akm91 said:

---

Their civilization will disappear in 700 years if changes not made?

---

Who writes this stuff? Who has time to sit around thinking about that?

If Japanese people really cared, You could easily solve it in a generation or two.

13B said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

---

We have a huge abundance of land right now, so that is a very poor example. Also, you can't live in land. There must be a dwelling built to live there. Humans build those dwellings.

Also, you incorrectly used a single specific example of land to try to prove my general assertion about fewer goods false: If population decreases, there will be fewer goods.

---

Incorrect, we might have enough to sustain us now but it is a finite resource that provides us food. I can't eat a house. Beef doesn't originate in my refrigerator or at the Kroger store.

---

I'm correct. He's talking about land for the purpose of occupation by humans! And the topic is depopulation, not increasing the population and food production. Your post is a non sequitur.

Logos Stick said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Basically every country outside of Sub-Saharan Africa has a very big problem on their hands with regards to birth rates. And if the current trend continues, Africa will be right behind the rest of us.

There's a data analyst named Stephen Shaw who is researching this very topic and has done a number of podcast appearances to talk about his findings. The two key insights he has are:

1) Although there are many contributing factors around the world, it is far more likely that a single factor is the underlying cause.

2) While the total birth rate is still in decline, for most areas the number of children per mother has remained fairly steady since the 60s. Which is to say that the decline is largely driven by more people not having children at all.

These two points together suggest that the problem is with women needing to choose between their early career and having children, and entirely too many choosing the former. Considering the cost of living and how difficult it's been to have single income families, it's no wonder we're in this mess.

---

I still have not seen anyone explain why this is "a very big problem".

Are we planning to begin eating humans to feed an ever growing population and so we need more humans as a food supply?

Is there a global labor shortage where we have jobs unfilled and every single person is fully employed or otherwise unavailable?

Are we determining which batches of humans should procreate faster and which should slow down?

Even Elon has not come up with a good, practical reason for more humans outside of "more is better".

---

I don't necessarily agree that more is better. But population decline is bad and that's what we are talking about here. For example, assuming the decline is evenly geographically distributed (which is logical), you still have all the infrastructure to service that you had before but now you have a lot fewer people to do so. Roads, bridges, water utilities, gas utilities, electrical infrastructure, etc... That's just one of many issues that will degrade standard of living.

---

Yes, his starting premise is incorrect. He's thinking that Elon wants more people everywhere when Elon is really just talking about replacement rate.

More people <> replacement rate.

And then factor in if we aren't replacing population with a balanced distribution of optimal talent and know how while the population is declining then failure of infrastructure gets amplified for those that are left.

https://fortune.com/article/tokyo-4-day-workweek-desperate-attempt-japan-shed-title-worlds-oldest-population/

OPAG said:

---

I am assuming you are a proponent of the Mathusian "theory". It has been debunked many times.

Ultimately, population if left to itself will find it's own equilibrium. However, we have a lot of elite, rich and powerful people who believe like you. And they seek to take matters into their own hands and play God. That never works well.

And Jesus himself said this:

Matt 24:21-22

For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.
NKJV

That word 'flesh' is the Greek word Sarx, which means anything that draws breath.


And this will be a man made thing. We are very close to being able to wipe ourselves through a number of different ways. And it will be led by the deluded Malthusian scientist, seeking to play God! l. e, the Bill Gates of the world.

---

If I am being honest with you, I have never even heard of that theory. I am a Catholic and I have done my part to be fruitful and multiply, but I also see the amount of disease, famine, suffering, etc. in this world and I cannot help but think a great amount of it is because too many people are competing for too few resources. Maybe I am wrong but I don't think a population decrease would be the worst thing. Hell up until 1900 there were only about 1.65 billion and we were just fine as a species.

Little Boy and Fat Man hindered population growth too.

Japan will figure it out

or make the necessary adjustments

The actual birth rate of Japan (2024) was 1.374 births per woman.

Korea (South) says hold my beer. ~.75 births per woman. (about half of Japan's)

Most countries (outside of Muslim/African) have a problem with this.

Japan, is, by far, not in the most immediate trouble.

Well then let me educate you a bit here:


https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/malthusian-theory/

And as Roman Catholic then you would be entirely against any man seeking to control or depopulate the world wouldn't yes?, Isn't that God's domain?

Yet we have people like Bill Gates and who is professed Malthusian and group of elites that created the entire Climate Change scam that was birthed out the Club or Rome. And they have an agenda. A New World Order where they dominate and have a sufficient number of plebes to do the needful for them.

As I said population will find it's equilibrium based on a number of factors, But one of those factors should not be evil men trying to depopulate or control it through rather nefarious means.

Pizza said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Too many people on this rock as is.

---

You probably haven't spent much time on the CO/Utah Border, in Wyoming, or many areas of the Midwest. There's a ton of open, undeveloped land. It feels like it stretches on forever.

---

Counterpoint. Ever been to India or SouthEast Asia? It can only be described as a swarm of humanity.

Micah97 said:

---

This is the single most important crisis facing humanity and people rarely talk about it. Wasn't even discussed in the presidential debate. Humanity's head is on the chopping block, the axe is coming down, and we are arguing about global warming when china's population will drop by 50% in the 75 years.

---

Worrying about population decrease to the point of extinction is just as silly as worrying about climate change.

The human race will cease to exist when God is good and ready.

You really think he created all of this and all of us and we are going to surprise him with something?

"Oh man, I didn't think about that..." - God

akm91 said:

---

Their civilization will disappear in 700 years if changes not made?

---

It sounds like we need to spend trillions of tax dollars right now to tackle this issue. It's a shame USAID is just about shut down and we can't just funnel all the money through them.

Pizza said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Too many people on this rock as is.

---

You probably haven't spent much time on the CO/Utah Border, in Wyoming, or many areas of the Midwest. There's a ton of open, undeveloped land. It feels like it stretches on forever.

---

But how much of said land can support a large human population with sustenance given the climate and soil composition? If it could and did the people would already be there.

Need to see if they'll take our immigrants. The battle between Japanese organized crime and Venezuelan street gangs will be a site to behold.

Logos Stick said:

---

13B said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

---

We have a huge abundance of land right now, so that is a very poor example. Also, you can't live in land. There must be a dwelling built to live there. Humans build those dwellings.

Also, you incorrectly used a single specific example of land to try to prove my general assertion about fewer goods false: If population decreases, there will be fewer goods.

---

Incorrect, we might have enough to sustain us now but it is a finite resource that provides us food. I can't eat a house. Beef doesn't originate in my refrigerator or at the Kroger store.

---

I'm correct. He's talking about land for the purpose of occupation by humans! And the topic is depopulation, not increasing the population and food production. Your post is a non sequitur.

---

They go hand in hand, fill all of the land eventually, where are you going to get food for those people. Soylent Green?

Stmichael said:

---

You're thinking about as far as the front of your nose.

When social security was introduced, there was roughly a 15:1 worker to retiree ratio. Many hands make light work, so the program made sense and worked for a while.

Fast forward to today, and the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Plus we now also have Medicare and a much larger debt to pay off as well. And that's with a taxpaying generation (Gen X and Millennials) that is roughly proportionate to the retiree generation (Boomers.)

If we're stretched this thin now, how bad will it be when the curve inverts and there are more retirees than taxpayers? How much of the labor force will be eaten up by elder care? Who is going to be buying houses, cars, and consumer goods to keep the economy going when no one has kids?

And to make matters worse, with an economy in the ****ter and everyone working just to keep the retirees from losing their healthcare and social security payments, who is going to have time to raise children? Thus, the cycle continues.

---

So we have to demand more babies or import people so we can fund social security and build roads?

I am the one actually thinking past the end of their nose. Exponential population growth has multitude more problems and steady population decline.

Some of you guys drink way too much kool-aid from the decline of population fear mongers.

As someone pointed out earlier, its the new climate change but based on even less science and an extremely poor understanding of history of civilizations.

Combining WW1, WW2 and Spanish Flu deaths about 5% of the population was killed off prematurely by a pandemic and global conflict. Yet somehow the world kept going on.

Hell, most of the countries and "civilizations" from that era still exist and in fact still prosper. Japan's decline from 2011 to 2022 was just over 3%.

We abandon infrastructure all the time all across America. And regarding an aging population, yes your elementary school teachers may need to learn to wipe the noses and arses of grandma and grandpa. Same applies for consumer goods. Do old people not consume anything?

And we have a pretty severe housing shortage currently and can quit building if we reach an equilibrium.

These doomsday population declines hold constant a ton of variables that must be adjusted to have any sort of accurate prediction. Just like with climate change, the math is not just fuzzy but is mostly dead wrong.

There, I think I got past the front of my nose just a bit.