TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

With all due respect, you don't understand how utilities infrastructure works. So there is really nothing to discuss.

---

I used to work in energy controls for the construction industry.

I worked intimately in planning for new infrastructure/builds, and retrofit of old infrastructure/builds.

One thing was true...we never used the same equipment that was put in originally. It would have been silly to use 1950 technology for something being fixed/improved. We improved the equipment, and scaled up or down appropriately. They still do that today, and will do it tomorrow and 80 years from now.

---

Let me make this as simple as I can.

The turbines spin regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. Th generators simply don't consume as much feedstock. The main high power distribution lines are static and don't change regardless of how many homes consume the electricity. The main step down transformers are static and don't change regardless of number of homes that consumer the electricity. The final distribution lines, poles, step down transformers, etc... are static and don't change regardless of number of homes consuming electricity. That means the same amount of infrastructure has to be serviced and repaired, for example, when a storm comes through. But you have fewer people to do that. That means longer outages.

When that infrastructure has to be replaced because it wears out, there will be fewer people to build it and replace it.

Fewer people doesn't mean less infrastructure, unless those people completely abandon geographical areas, which they wont! Less electricity consumption does not equal less infrastructure!

---

Of course it does. People will either move to where there is infrastructure or they'll learn to live without it. Don't forget throughout most of human history and just fine without electricity as a matter of fact, there are millions of people around the world today, living without electricity.

---

Of course it does what?

Yes, people **** in outhouses and used candles for light 100s of years ago. Of course we can do that. That's a very hard and difficult existence. Thats the point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Perhaps, but people will adapt. We are arguably the most adaptive and versatile species this planet has ever known.

---

Of course they will adapt. I can live like a peasant 200 years ago, but I damn sure won't like it!

HunterAggie said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Chinese civilization been around for better or worse for about 4,000 years. It was not until the last 150 years and the "modern" era that saw the exponential growth.

They could very EASILY trim 75% of the population and return to an isolationist, agrarian existence and "survive".

And maybe they do become Christian or Muslim. They have tried essentially every form of law, government, and religion over those four millenia.

---

These are similar to my thoughts on this subject: population may be declining but it will take 100-150 years for China's to get anywhere near a "problem".

And that's assuming they do absolutely nothing about it from now until 150 years from now.

Even then, their country would still have 300 million + people - worst case scenario.

---

Its not like there's a threshold where this becomes a problem. The decline itself is a problem. When there are more old people than caregivers, more takers than givers, you're screwed.

Ag97 said:

---

The less people to service infrastructure argument doesn't concern me. With advances in technology, ultimately some jobs will be replaced. Those people in manufacturing, delivery, retail and other careers can be retrained to work in the infrastructure industry. Labor will shift to where it's needed and where it will pay more.

Less population will come with problems just like more population comes with problems. My family and I are capable of surviving on less. My preference is less people is better. I don't like congestion and crowds. Population boom means more people sharing fewer resources. It's harder to find places to hunt and drawing out on hunting license because you have a limited amount of land and animals. I much prefer the way it was 30 or 40 years ago. When I'm visiting parks, lakes and other attractions, I'd much rather there be less people there. People that want to own larger properties in more desirable locals can no longer do so economically as there are too many people bidding for the same properties.

I'm on board with shrinking populations. The benefits outweigh negatives in my opinion.

---

There will be fewer people in every profession. Do we magically make human beings to transfer to the infrastructure group?! During a storm where trees fall on power lines and cut them, a lineman has to go out and flip breakers and physically repair the infrastructure. That's not going to be automated.

If you don't like congestion and crowds, you can always move. We have 100s of thousands of acres of inhabitable land to move way away from people!

We've had a population boom - we added 7 billion people to the planet in just 200 years, 7x increase - and we haven't run out of anything. Food is more plentiful and cheaper today than it ever has been! We do not have a limited amount of land! Or animals! Complete myth.

People who cry about Population Collapse have an ULTERIOR MOTIVE.

Expose them.

Example are those white politicians of UK, Europe and Canada who cried about the same thing and imported boatloads of military age angry Muslim men into the country 30-40 years ago and now have a big problem on their hands.

A huge long term problem but I'm confident we see the return of Christ before we see these numbers come to fruition.

Jeeper79 said:

---

HunterAggie said:

---

These are similar to my thoughts on this subject: population may be declining but it will take 100-150 years for China's to get anywhere near a "problem".

And that's assuming they do absolutely nothing about it from now until 150 years from now.

Even then, their country would still have 300 million + people - worst case scenario.

---

Its not like there's a threshold where this becomes a problem. The decline itself is a problem. When there are more old people than caregivers, more takers than givers, you're screwed.

---

This is the global cooling, global warming, climate change chicken little ideology all over again, and that statement sums it up.

Not long ago the world was going to reach its maximum potential population by 2050 at 8 billion. Now its 10.5 billion by end of 22nd century. But people kept saying advances in technology and crops will continue to increase this... until the point Guam tips over.

And here we go with population DECLINE being the problem with just a couple of generations and no humans left to man the power stations, build roads and maintain the sewage treatment plants.

Finally the argument that there is no right answer or threshold its simply the change that represents the problem.

As such, I declare this to be just another hoax for scientist to fellate each other over.

Regarding Elon's prediction, its already stated he has a very bizarre fascination with populating the universe with humans. Though I believe his earlier focus regarding Mars was because Earth was getting too crowded.

Gaw617 said:

---

A huge long term problem but I'm confident we see the return of Christ before we see these numbers come to fruition.

---

The rapture, in theory, would cause an immediate and historic population decline, then add in the wars, plagues, etc and its going to really intensify for the left behind.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Gaw617 said:

---

A huge long term problem but I'm confident we see the return of Christ before we see these numbers come to fruition.

---

The rapture, in theory, would cause an immediate and historic population decline, then add in the wars, plagues, etc and its going to really intensify for the left behind.

---

Don't get left behind then.

The Bible also predicts a great tribulation, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.

This assumes China sits there and does nothing. So they will change policies and they could go reverse draconian, e.g. minimum 3 children per household. They are authoritarian after all.

You do need to deal with Climate change to the extent its real because our kids/grandkids and future generations deserve a good life.

soggybottomboy said:

---

This assumes China sits there and does nothing. So they will change policies and they could go reverse draconian, e.g. minimum 3 children per household. They are authoritarian after all.

---

Prima nocta?

Too much ladyboy risk.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ag97 said:

---

The less people to service infrastructure argument doesn't concern me. With advances in technology, ultimately some jobs will be replaced. Those people in manufacturing, delivery, retail and other careers can be retrained to work in the infrastructure industry. Labor will shift to where it's needed and where it will pay more.

Less population will come with problems just like more population comes with problems. My family and I are capable of surviving on less. My preference is less people is better. I don't like congestion and crowds. Population boom means more people sharing fewer resources. It's harder to find places to hunt and drawing out on hunting license because you have a limited amount of land and animals. I much prefer the way it was 30 or 40 years ago. When I'm visiting parks, lakes and other attractions, I'd much rather there be less people there. People that want to own larger properties in more desirable locals can no longer do so economically as there are too many people bidding for the same properties.

I'm on board with shrinking populations. The benefits outweigh negatives in my opinion.

---

There will be fewer people in every profession. Do we magically make human beings to transfer to the infrastructure group?! During a storm where trees fall on power lines and cut them, a lineman has to go out and flip breakers and physically repair the infrastructure. That's not going to be automated.

If you don't like congestion and crowds, you can always move. We have 100s of thousands of acres of inhabitable land to move way away from people!

We've had a population boom - we added 7 billion people to the planet in just 200 years, 7x increase - and we haven't run out of anything. Food is more plentiful and cheaper today than it ever has been! We do not have a limited amount of land! Or animals! Complete myth.

---

Labor migrates to need. Technologies develop and become outdated and replaced by newer technologies. Nothing says population growth has to be always increasing for our world to work. The only reason I can see an advantage to never ending population growth is to prop up our social programs that will become insolvent without it and the desire of some to have never ending economic growth.

If populations decrease in areas, those living in outlying areas may need to move back to where the remaining population is if they want the same infrastructure support. Otherwise, you now live in a rural area and get the good and bad that go with it. A tree falls on a power line and it takes longer to repair, well that sucks but we survived it in the past and we can again.

Sure we can move to less desirable locals, but why? If there were less people, the remaining people could live happier in less crowded but more desirable areas.

Resources are finite. Just look at our water supply issues here in Texas. Central Texas has way more people than they have available water supply. They are now raiding surrounding areas and depleting their water supplies. Unless technology takes a giant leap forward in the next few years, water rationing is going to be a necessity, not an option. Does that sound like a happy, worry free existence?

Land and animals are limited. That's why states have had to go to a draw system for hunting licenses as many species were being overhunted. Without spending sometimes insane amounts of money, the best land, animals, experiences, and opportunity are not the same as they were when there was less competition. Traveling to places like our national parks, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon etc, you now deal with overcrowding, liter, traffic jams etc that wasn't nearly as bad 30+ years ago. Too many people with not enough available access for a great experience.

My property has a carrying capacity for cows. If I put too many on my property, they run out resources and their condition suffers. Our world isn't so much different with humans. It has a carrying capacity. It's my opinion we are at that carrying capacity or already over it. A slow decrease of population density over the coarse of 50+ years isn't a bad thing.

Urban Ag said:

---

The last estimate I saw was published by the UN around 2010 and showed that China had about 50M more men then women because of the 1 child policy. That is a recipe for societal chaos, not unlike allowing 20M third world illegals in to the US at 9:1 male/female ratio.

---

You just described Texas A&M in the 1970s ...

Jeeper79 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

jamey said:

---

What i don't get is we keep.hearing about global, not just Chinas population decline being a huge problem. Musk talks about it often, and its problem for the US as well

On the flipside you got AI and robotics taking over or reducing the need for humans in the work place.

Ive never heard anyone address to what degree these two cancel out

---

Even ignoring Ai....who cares?

I understand the concern, if you're China, and you'll lose population in comparison to other countries.

But Globally? What does it matter if population declines? Let it decline. We'll adjust.

Musk's obsession with this seems a little odd to me.

---

Population decline = economic decline

---

I guess I'm asking, isn't a larger unemployed population an even bigger economic decline


Assuming robots and AI take jobs

Has to be a combination of both, right? Fewer babies equals not only fewer workers in the future but fewer consumers. Less demand for new housing, new products, services. No one really knows what happens in a market economy when the population declines. It hasn't happened yet in the history of modern market economics.

Then you add in AI which will likely decrease the demand for workers. So now we have even fewer people working, which means we would likely have even less demand for products and services.

Something's going to have to give. Something Musk has talked about and many others when it comes to AI is some sort of base guaranteed income. We may see a point in the future when work is going to be very difficult to attain. But maybe not.

Future will be interesting.

This is not a collapse. A population decline is a good thing because it means fewer people to feed and lower costs on various social services.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Has to be a combination of both, right? Fewer babies equals not only fewer workers in the future but fewer consumers. Less demand for new housing, new products, services. No one really knows what happens in a market economy when the population declines. It hasn't happened yet in the history of modern market economics.

Then you add in AI which will likely decrease the demand for workers. So now we have even fewer people working, which means we would likely have even less demand for products and services.

Something's going to have to give. Something Musk has talked about and many others when it comes to AI is some sort of base guaranteed income. We may see a point in the future when work is going to be very difficult to attain. But maybe not.

Future will be interesting.

---

Perhaps in the future wealth is measured old school, but instead of how many goats you have, its robots.

Humanoid robots at scale will feel like Alien technology:

→ Self-replicating factories of robots
→ Factories, job sites, hospitals, warehouses - automated
→ A personalized robot for every person

Physical work will be optional pic.twitter.com/vTYd1A5P54

— Brett Adcock (@adcock_brett) April 26, 2025

If China wants babies, they'll force women to have them

If China wants population decline, they'll kill a few million people

Imputing our values of life, liberty, and freedom to China and its people is foolish

As foolish as those of y'all who keep banging the "China is collapsing" drum

They're not

The Chines people were told for a generation they could only have one child per couple. Guess that's biting them in the ass now.

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Population decline = economic decline

---

ok.

But lots of things cause economic decline.

Again, if comparing one country to another, I get the concern.

But economic decline globally? It's kind of like that old saying, 'if everyone has $100, no one has $100'

---

You assume you'll have the same standard of living within the decline. Thats not how it works. History tells us that time and again.

Edit: there's no reason to think China or other countries can continue to mass produce and export goods within a population collapse. Supply chains break down in this process.

---

So we go back to 1850? That sounds great.

But how does AI and other technologies play into this. We will need less and less people to do things as well, right?

jpb1999 said:

---

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Population decline = economic decline

---

ok.

But lots of things cause economic decline.

Again, if comparing one country to another, I get the concern.

But economic decline globally? It's kind of like that old saying, 'if everyone has $100, no one has $100'

---

You assume you'll have the same standard of living within the decline. Thats not how it works. History tells us that time and again.

Edit: there's no reason to think China or other countries can continue to mass produce and export goods within a population collapse. Supply chains break down in this process.

---

So we go back to 1850? That sounds great.

But how does AI and other technologies play into this. We will need less and less people to do things as well, right?

---

You mean things that require a robust grid and infrastructure? These things aren't exempt from the same rules as the rest of us. I'm sure they'll mine minerals and refine them themselves, taking them fully through the industrial process, right?

infinity ag said:

---

There is no "collapse".

Reducing pop is a good thing. Fewer mouths to feed. Always increasing pop is a ponzi scheme.

Only Boomers want pop to increase to have slaves working for them in the 15 years they got left on this earth.,

---

It's so wild how little some people know about the reality they exist in.

There is a famous a silent film released in the early 1900s called Metropolis. Most of the humans were underground slaves mining minerals and working the power plants while the few rich elite lived above ground with their robot servants. Let's hope it's not a prophecy.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

This is not a collapse. A population decline is a good thing because it means fewer people to feed and lower costs on various social services.

---

There will also be fewer people to feed them. It's not like it's only consumers who are disappearing. It's producers too.

It'll be a wash at best.

I would call a potential reduction of 2/3rds of your population in 75 years a collapse.

South Korea is even worse!

Population collapse fear mongering is just as dumb as the overpopulation fear mongering a 100 years ago.

I personally liked the world better 30 years ago, when the population was half of what it is now. The freedom and quality of life was great. The younger generation will never know the experience.

Farmer_J said:

---

Population collapse fear mongering is just as dumb as the overpopulation fear mongering a 20 100 years ago.

I personally liked the world better 30 years ago, when the population was half of what it is now. The freedom and quality of life was great. The younger generation will never know the experience.

---

Plenty of books and news stories from 20 years ago discussing overpopulation including nearly all of the so-called experts.

Now its imminent population collapse.

Logos Stick said:

---

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

This is not a collapse. A population decline is a good thing because it means fewer people to feed and lower costs on various social services.

---

There will also be fewer people to feed them. It's not like it's only consumers who are disappearing. It's producers too.

It'll be a wash at best.

I would call a potential reduction of 2/3rds of your population in 75 years a collapse.

South Korea is even worse!

---

Yes it is a wash. Not sure why some are bemoaning this. Maybe the plan is to link it to the US to justify bringing in more Muslims from sheethole countries?

No. Block immigration.

Farmer_J said:

---

Population collapse fear mongering is just as dumb as the overpopulation fear mongering a 100 years ago.

I personally liked the world better 30 years ago, when the population was half of what it is now. The freedom and quality of life was great. The younger generation will never know the experience.

---

Me too.
Even 25 years ago. Too many people in the US now. Time to send back some.

ts5641 said:

---

The Chines people were told for a generation they could only have one child per couple. Guess that's biting them in the ass now.

---

How?