I'm a bit of a demographics nerd and have dug into the coming population collapse.

First World countries have dipped far below population replacement and are now on a downward trajectory.

GDP aligns well with population growth, and you have to do serious population replacement either in situ (immigration, bringing baby makers out of high infant mortality countries into lower infant mortality countries) or externally (invest in other countries with a strong monetary tie-back to your own country (see Japan, which seems to work only in economic hot beds, as having success in the US and not too many other places.)

[Two strong (non-US) countries with a strong population growth demographic as well as strong business capacity are Mexico and Turkey. There aren't many more. ]

Our global system works off of consumption, and the consumption equation is affected by both population growth (more people) and economic power (more buying power per person). Think about our public investment system. Public companies have to show increased shareholder value to maintain investment. If consumption collapses, given the coming global population collapse, that spells the end to the global monetary investment machine.

What replaces it?

I believe the US/Canada/EU politicians and pencil pushers are pushing mass immigration to feed more bodies into this consumption machine (replacement workers/spenders). They are desperately trying to keep the public stock investment system afloat and the only way to do that is population replacement (cultural damage be damned).

What are the other options?

Actually, I don't think Mexico's replacement growth rate is much better than ours last time I looked. We basically just take people from them so unless they are backfilling on their own they are in as much trouble as we are.

Unless white people start having babies, we are approaching the end game. Frankly already are. It will be official when population counts start heading downwards.

Our saving grace (comparatively speaking) will be our geography and resources which are unprecedented on planet earth. Many other countries are already dead and don't realize it yet.

Just wait until Bretton Woods starts faltering....several countries will outright fail in short order.

I'm not saying that it isn't or even that it is a bad thing if it is but if the population is declining then why is every city getting bigger and bigger? B/CS for example on a micro level.

13B said:

---

I'm not saying that it isn't or even that it is a bad thing if it is but if the population is declining then why is every city getting bigger and bigger? B/CS for example on a micro level.

---

Who knows. But the data is clear

13B said:

---

I'm not saying that it isn't or even that it is a bad thing if it is but if the population is declining then why is every city getting bigger and bigger? B/CS for example on a micro level.

---

It's not the total population, it's the growth rate.

13B said:

---

I'm not saying that it isn't or even that it is a bad thing if it is but if the population is declining then why is every city getting bigger and bigger? B/CS for example on a micro level.

---

people are moving to the south and southeast

Much of the current global consumption growth of the past 50 years results from the modernization of two very large populations, followed by a whole host of other large populations (China, India then Mexico and S America though you could argue that is slower than the biggest two.

As societies modernize birth rates decline further fueling the consumption as folks have more disposable funds.

But modernizing society does not mean societal collapse. That belies logic and facts. You can be smaller, more efficient and overall wealthier. One of the challenges is not becoming overly benevolent so as to not start taking on too many poor jewish ladies in Ukraine nor malnourished puppies. People still need to pull their own weight.

Globalist / New World Order / similar preach population collapse as a basis to push immigration and open borders. They also push this to fear monger on climate change, food supply, disease prevention, on and on.

Tl;Dr the entirety of the system must be considered, changing societies over time need to be considered, and even AI is not going to be able to pull together the information in a discernible way that is not biased by previous biases.

And a virus or looney maniac can introduce chaos at any moment making all the hand wringing worthless.

Only thing I pull out of is the driveway.

Y'all should do the same

Unfortunately a major war can be massively destructive and will require repair. In order to get things back where they were prior to all the resources either being used for war or destroyed in the war growth is required. Ukraine has lost a lot of people but way more damage has been done to major public works and the economy in general. When that war finally stops you will it grow off the backs of demand from the locals and foreign investors seeking a better return from that growth. Don't forget the massive gvt handouts as well.

Europe was decimated after WW2 but had a massive and prolonged recovery and "growth" that was really just rebuilding.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I have heard this argument made many times. Elon is one who pushes it pretty often.

This is what I don't understand....

Populations have increased, and populations have decreased. Corresponding consumption has increased, and decreased. Life has gone on, and societies have persisted.

Why the alarm? Why won't everything that is tied to the population ebb and flow along with it, like it's done since Adam and Eve?

Especially since consumption is now global, and not local. Why the need to force immigration to specific areas?

---

It's about control. Some really bad people are pushing this stuff from the shadows.

I don't believe the premise. I've been to a public boat ramp on a weekend and can confirm there's no shortage of people.

13B said:

---

I'm not saying that it isn't or even that it is a bad thing if it is but if the population is declining then why is every city getting bigger and bigger? B/CS for example on a micro level.

---

It's not declining...yet. Population growth is expected to continue here for several years before it peaks and then starts declining. It's also country specific.

China is already on the decline and is expected to have roughly half the population they have now within 50-75 years which is nuts. However, if you look at their demographics they hit a major inflection point back around 2019 where the population of people over 65 is now greater than under 65.

China ended its 1 child policy around that time period when someone finally ran some math. They upped it to 2 children allowed and then almost immediately increased again to 3.

However, the damage is done. China is f'ed. Remember all of their famous ghost cities? About to get a lot worse.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I have heard this argument made many times. Elon is one who pushes it pretty often.

This is what I don't understand....

Populations have increased, and populations have decreased. Corresponding consumption has increased, and decreased. Life has gone on, and societies have persisted.

Why the alarm? Why won't everything that is tied to the population ebb and flow along with it, like it's done since Adam and Eve?

Especially since consumption is now global, and not local. Why the need to force immigration to specific areas?

---

My primary concern over this is that there won't be an orderly wind down and reallocation of necessary infrastructure coupled with the requisite talent that knows how to do it. And then factor our incessant drive for automation and digitalization with few or no analog backups as we go.

We are already risking the latter even now because we've moved so far into the digital world that a major problem causes massive, daily upheaval. See anytime one of the three Cloud services that house all of corporate Earth's data fail. Even with backup data centers and failover processes it's still a **** show because those hours long or all day failures means their failover processes didn't run smoothly, or they aren't effective.

Meanwhile, the mantra is AI will solve all of this. Ok, sure.

Valid concerns, but mass immigration (or population growth) seems like it would compound the issue, not alleviate it.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Valid concerns, but mass immigration (or population growth) seems like it would compound the issue, not alleviate it.

---

To be clear, I'm not for mass immigration...AT ALL. If I was king, I would stop ALL immigration for at least 5 years.

I'm just putting my concern out there about the reality of de-population which could be quite rapid for some countries. That's the other risk is how fast will it happen and will it be gradual enough that a country can adjust to it as they go.

I would rather follow Japan's recent acknowledgement that they would rather preserve their Japanese culture than open their borders. IOW, die and go out as Japanese rather than dilute what makes them Japanese. But they are a very unique culture and that is about as on brand as you can get with a country. Most countries won't willingly do that.

There are some stats showing that Mexico's birth rate is now actually lower than the US.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I have heard this argument made many times. Elon is one who pushes it pretty often.

This is what I don't understand....

Populations have increased, and populations have decreased. Corresponding consumption has increased, and decreased. Life has gone on, and societies have persisted.

Why the alarm? Why won't everything that is tied to the population ebb and flow along with it, like it's done since Adam and Eve?

Especially since consumption is now global, and not local. Why the need to force immigration to specific areas?

---

Because up until 150 years ago, we **** in holes and rode horses since time began and Adam and Eve first set foot on the planet. The total world population never rose above 1 billion. There was no modern medicine, paved roads, air conditioning, cars, planes, trains, water treatment, telephones, computers, container shipping, electricity, refrigeration, industrial fertilizer, etc etc

Think about infrastructure. Population decline is not geographically isolated. That means the total infrastructure - e.g. roads and bridges - will still be required but there will be fewer and fewer people to maintain it. And you know the demographic of the people who have the fewest kids? The smart and educated. The ones that create and maintain modern civilization. It's a recipe for disaster.

I do not believe the OP said that the entire population of earth dies.

He said that many countries and their economies won't survive bc their citizens are not being replaced fast enough.

Does that mean the entire population is wiped out? No, but does that mean that their country, culture and economy could be drastically impacted or obliterated? Yes.

Look at history - since Adam and Even 100s and 1000s of empires, countries and/or cultures are gone. For many reasons but in some cases de-population. In the United States the Anasazi culture disappeared - some theorize it was bc they could not compete economically or militarily with those groups around them. Maybe because of depopulation. The Comanche were known to have some of the lowest birth defects of all NA tribes… they started kidnapping and accepting others in their tribe to try to maintain power. Ultimately the loss of population coupled with a stronger advisary brought them down to virtually nothing. If not for the reservation ayatem, there would be none left.

Not exact comparisons to the OPs hypothesis but they do show how depopulation can destroy.

Does something rise up in its place? Usually, but not what was there before.

Logos Stick said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I have heard this argument made many times. Elon is one who pushes it pretty often.

This is what I don't understand....

Populations have increased, and populations have decreased. Corresponding consumption has increased, and decreased. Life has gone on, and societies have persisted.

Why the alarm? Why won't everything that is tied to the population ebb and flow along with it, like it's done since Adam and Eve?

Especially since consumption is now global, and not local. Why the need to force immigration to specific areas?

---

Because up until 150 years ago, we **** in holes and rode horses since time began and Adam and Eve first set foot on the planet. The total world population never rose above 1 billion. There was no modern medicine, paved roads, air conditioning, cars, planes, trains, water treatment, telephones, computers, container shipping, electricity, refrigeration, industrial fertilizer, etc etc

Think about infrastructure. Population decline is not geographically isolated. That means the total infrastructure - e.g. roads and bridges - will still be required but there will be fewer and fewer people to maintain it. And you know the demographic of the people who have the fewest kids? The smart and educated. The ones that create and maintain modern civilization. It's a recipe for disaster.

---

So our population centers and infrastructure recede. Old cities decline, new cities grow.

We simply wouldn't upkeep parts of cities we don't need. Take Detroit as a micro-example, who razed parts of their city as the population declined.

Just because we have something today, doesn't mean we're required to have it 100 years from now.

OverSeas AG said:

---

I do not believe the OP said that the entire population of earth dies. .

---

Right. I didn't think he did...

And to your point, the change is inevitable. It's always happened.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

I have heard this argument made many times. Elon is one who pushes it pretty often.

This is what I don't understand....

Populations have increased, and populations have decreased. Corresponding consumption has increased, and decreased. Life has gone on, and societies have persisted.

Why the alarm? Why won't everything that is tied to the population ebb and flow along with it, like it's done since Adam and Eve?

Especially since consumption is now global, and not local. Why the need to force immigration to specific areas?

---

Because up until 150 years ago, we **** in holes and rode horses since time began and Adam and Eve first set foot on the planet. The total world population never rose above 1 billion. There was no modern medicine, paved roads, air conditioning, cars, planes, trains, water treatment, telephones, computers, container shipping, electricity, refrigeration, industrial fertilizer, etc etc

Think about infrastructure. Population decline is not geographically isolated. That means the total infrastructure - e.g. roads and bridges - will still be required but there will be fewer and fewer people to maintain it. And you know the demographic of the people who have the fewest kids? The smart and educated. The ones that create and maintain modern civilization. It's a recipe for disaster.

---

So our population centers and infrastructure recede. Old cities decline, new cities grow.

We simply wouldn't upkeep parts of cities we don't need. Take Detroit as a micro-example, who razed parts of their city as the population declined.

Just because we have something today, doesn't mean we're required to have it 100 years from now.

---

So I have a house that becomes worthless because there is not enough people to survice the infrastructure in my area of the city, and that city or part of the city dies. I'm forced to move. How do I afford my new home in this new city you describe?!

You are using the absolute disaster that is Detroit to make the case that population decline is nothing to worry about.

SMH

You misunderstood a simple example of contraction as a model for progress.

And while I appreciate home values in areas will be affected over time...they always are. I don't think that's justification for mass immigration.

Bring it on!

I'm not making an argument for immigration. I'm opposed to immigration. I'd rather **** in a hole than have another immigrant come here. The 3rd world idiots we are importing won't fix anything.

Not interested.

Sounds like a giant Ponzi scheme. /s

How do millions of humanoid robots taking labor jobs fit into this?

Go check the crime reports/ data during the Biden admin; "WHITES" committed almost half the crimes in America, even though the infamous '13' still held strong!

However, the problem lies with who & why were so many non-whites classified as "White"?!?!

Allegedly, there were only a few categories available to choose from, so Hispanics, Indians, Arabs, et al were put in the "White" category.

Remember this bull**** nonsense the next time a Liberal references data points & statistics of a manufactured study or research project from a NGO who was paid handsomely to spin a narrative using pseudoscientific methodology that ignored &/or manipulated inconvenient 'truths' in order to create or prove indisputable 'facts.'

AgGrad99 said:

---

Valid concerns, but mass immigration (or population growth) seems like it would compound the issue, not alleviate it.

---

The "diversity is our strength" mantra is an outgrowth of an ideology of cultural relativism which is an outgrowth of atheistic modernity.

Those who see human beings as mere numbers on spreadsheets also necessarily see them as interchangeable. And when the inevitable clash occurs (whether it's rape gangs in England or sweeping fraud in Minnesota) the ideology protects itself by attacking the COMPLAINERS.

But to come back to your point: normal people can see that poor 83 IQ migrants will never backfill the roles that Americans are vacating, but the people making these decisions aren't like you or me. And they don't have the same goals. A large portion of them are tied closely to Wall Street where their cardinal sin is letting the churn of $ slow down.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

13B said:

---

I'm not saying that it isn't or even that it is a bad thing if it is but if the population is declining then why is every city getting bigger and bigger? B/CS for example on a micro level.

---

It's not the total population, it's the growth rate.

---

Growth rates have indeed been declining since 2000. However, you want to know what other period(s) growth rates declined? The 70s and 80s. To be exact, every year from 1972 to 1989, and if you take out 1970 and 71, expand that range to start in 1967.

Cue the Marty McFly we've "seen this" meme. The impacts from the 25-odd years from the same thing happening in the mid-60s until the late '80s didn't cause what you're fearful of. Why should this period be any different?

When you look at information like this, the rate they look at for a growing population vs a shrinking one is the fertility rate, which is children born per woman. It needs to 2.1, this accounts for early death for whatever reason, and is viewed as the replacement rate, meaning a society with this birthrate will maintain its current population level over time.

Fertility rates per country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate

If a country is less than this, it is not sustaining its own population over time. Countries supplement this with immigration, so one could argue that first world countries produce and export goods, 3rd world countries produce and export people. This is the globalist model., whether they admit it or even realize it.

The problems we'll run into are that the people producers come to a new country and are no longer assimilating, so the culture that produces goods efficiently is dying in favor of cultures that do not. This is where the economic impact is problematic. People are not identical cogs in the wheel, no matter how much the globalist models want them to be. The culture a person grows up in defines what kind of adult they are likely to become.

Maybe we should just stop murdering our own babies. 25% of gen Z was murdered. I think we are approaching 65 million babies murdered.

I have also been studying this topic for a few months. So people can understand the economic impact of the population decline, here is a stat I heard in a couple debates. Didn't run the data myself, so just passing along.

When Japan was growing in population and crossed 100,000,000 people going up, their population had 8 workers for every 1 retired person. Now, when they trend down and cross 100,000,000 people the other direction, they will have 1 worker for every 1 retired person. There are just not enough producers to sustain that retired class, themselves, and have a family.

The concern is that this crash is unprecedented and no one predicts that birth rates will eventually rebound. If they do, they will come from the religious / conservative belief structures as they are the only ideologies still having kids.

The system does NOT work off of consumption. That assumption and the government persistent attempts to keep consumption artificially high makes GDP appear good, but is really reason why our economy sucks so much now.

PRODUCTION is what makes the system thrive. If we doubled production, and kept consumption static, then we would be vastly more prosperous.