YouBet said:

---

Ok, I've read the article. Interesting for me because it validates what we've said on here many times. Most of the reasons for TFR declining are covered in the article which have been covered here ad nauseam. There isn't just one reason for this - there are many converging into one big push that is causing the decline.

The most interesting topic in all of this for me which many just write off is how we manage the decline. He used this Thailand example which also goes back to shocking comments Elon has made in the past on this that people just cant get their heads around:

Quote:

---

Finally, if fertility really stays at 1 or 1.1 for a long time, I don't think we appreciate how big a change this is. Now I'm going to make a crazy forecast, and I want everyone to understand this is a crazy forecast. Let's suppose Thailand keeps its current fertility rate of 0.8 for 200 years. Thailand right now has 63 million people. At the end of 200 years, it will be around two million people.

---

That means you have to shut almost everything down in your country over the next 200 years and/or wholly abandon infrastructure. If you do nothing with it, countries are going to look like dystopian hellscapes after a zombie apocalypse.

The other issue I foresee that will have to be managed is the loss in know how. As population declines, if you do not have a proportional decline across all talent and skill sets then you could end up in a much less population society, but without the know how to do certain things anymore. It would be the Dark Ages 2.0.

They also made the obvious hopium argument that AI and robotics may/will offset some of the chaotic decline because it will take over functions that humans now do. But that doesn't fix the massive loss to human society and healthy interaction (his English pub example).

It's a fascinating conversation and the outcomes of this are going to get worse before they get better...if ever.

---

Consider how short-sided government-sponsored infrastructure will seem in 100-200 years. It's really easy to "build something," but really hard,and expensive, to maintain it. And we know that sometimes it's easier and cheaper to tear down a building, road, factory, or whatever completely and start over. Sometimes it's reasonable just to abandon these structures and let nature take them back.

In 200 years, how many bridges to nowhere will there be?

YouBet said:

---

Instead, they are going to accept and manage the inevitable decline but remain Japanese. Massive respect to them for that.

---

I too respect them for making an intelligent, logical and absolutely obvious decision.

Decline is bad if you don't manage it and allow yourself to be conquered. But you have to be completely obtustically ******ed not to manage it.

japantiger said:

---

The entire Federal and State tax and regulatory system should incent families of 3+; with the incentives getting larger as kids increase.

---

How about the government stays out of our bedrooms and doesn't dictate how families should look?

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

Right, and thus the current rise in populism which they covered.

Back to my Japan point - do you retain your culture and try to manage the decline in an orderly process, or do you import trash third world cultures to try and boost your country GDP for a few years but then sacrifice what made you who you are in the first place on the backside of that failed attempt at immigration?

This is where Europe is and has destroyed itself already depending on which country you are talking about.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

Legal immigration reform has been a popular option amongst economists for decades. But politicians keep ****ing it up.

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Instead, they are going to accept and manage the inevitable decline but remain Japanese. Massive respect to them for that.

---

I too respect them for making an intelligent, logical and absolutely obvious decision.

Decline is bad if you don't manage it and allow yourself to be conquered. But you have to be completely obtustically ******ed not to manage it.

---

Have you met half this country? Look at Europe. There are going to be a lot of obtustically ******ed people who will refuse to accept reality here and those countries who ignore this will pay a heavy price. Many already are.

tysker said:

---

japantiger said:

---

The entire Federal and State tax and regulatory system should incent families of 3+; with the incentives getting larger as kids increase.

---

How about the government stays out of our bedrooms and doesn't dictate how families should look?

---

Former won't really work anyway. Some countries have already tried it and they saw an initial boost but then it leveled off.

If government stays out of it, then we just stay on the path we are on right now. Decline.

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Instead, they are going to accept and manage the inevitable decline but remain Japanese. Massive respect to them for that.

---

I too respect them for making an intelligent, logical and absolutely obvious decision.

Decline is bad if you don't manage it and allow yourself to be conquered. But you have to be completely obtustically ******ed not to manage it.

---

Have you met half this country? Look at Europe. There are going to be a lot of obtustically ******ed people who will refuse to accept reality here and those countries who ignore this will pay a heavy price. Many already are.

---

Who's ignoring it? The whole point of my post is that it's obvious you don't ignore it.

What is absolutely NOT obvious is that the only way to resolve it is to have more babies. Thats a very, very socialist answer.

YouBet said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

Right, and thus the current rise in populism which they covered.

Back to my Japan point - do you retain your culture and try to manage the decline in an orderly process, or do you import trash third world cultures to try and boost your country GDP for a few years but then sacrifice what made you who you are in the first place on the backside of that failed attempt at immigration?

This is where Europe is and has destroyed itself already depending on which country you are talking about.

---

If a minority group of immigrants manifestly augments the country's culture, I would argue that the country's culture was **** anyway.

As an example, I would say, at its core, being a Texan and even being an Aggie is not much different today than it was 20, 30, or even 50 years ago. Has it ebbed and flowed and changed around the edges? Sure. But at it's core it's still basically the same.

Ya gotta intellectually be honest and ask, do you really want to bring someone into this world, and people are saying, NAH.

Quote:

---

Will birthrates recover as people are having fewer people later (ie. delayed parenthood)? Or is this a sustained demographic bobsled like China, South Korea, and Japan?

---

From a science point of view: as a species, there are approximately 1.5x to 2x too many humans on the planet.

And from a quality of life and happy medium point of view, look at our own country. The USA was a much better place to live in at 235M (the 1984 population) than it is now at a 340M population (2024).

220M would be even better, imo.

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

The folks who write these articles do so because they no longer have jobs in the Socialist Parties Central Planning Committees.

---

FTC...you want to debate the argument on it's merits, or do you want to throw meaningless aspersions?

fixer said:

---

Two income families have done wonders for the world.

---

You're welcome, Earth.

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Ok, I've read the article. Interesting for me because it validates what we've said on here many times. Most of the reasons for TFR declining are covered in the article which have been covered here ad nauseam. There isn't just one reason for this - there are many converging into one big push that is causing the decline.

The most interesting topic in all of this for me which many just write off is how we manage the decline. He used this Thailand example which also goes back to shocking comments Elon has made in the past on this that people just cant get their heads around:

Quote:

---

Finally, if fertility really stays at 1 or 1.1 for a long time, I don't think we appreciate how big a change this is. Now I'm going to make a crazy forecast, and I want everyone to understand this is a crazy forecast. Let's suppose Thailand keeps its current fertility rate of 0.8 for 200 years. Thailand right now has 63 million people. At the end of 200 years, it will be around two million people.

---

That means you have to shut almost everything down in your country over the next 200 years and/or wholly abandon infrastructure. If you do nothing with it, countries are going to look like dystopian hellscapes after a zombie apocalypse.

The other issue I foresee that will have to be managed is the loss in know how. As population declines, if you do not have a proportional decline across all talent and skill sets then you could end up in a much less population society, but without the know how to do certain things anymore. It would be the Dark Ages 2.0.

They also made the obvious hopium argument that AI and robotics may/will offset some of the chaotic decline because it will take over functions that humans now do. But that doesn't fix the massive loss to human society and healthy interaction (his English pub example).

It's a fascinating conversation and the outcomes of this are going to get worse before they get better...if ever.

---

Consider how short-sided government-sponsored infrastructure will seem in 100-200 years. It's really easy to "build something," but really hard,and expensive, to maintain it. And we know that sometimes it's easier and cheaper to tear down a building, road, factory, or whatever completely and start over. Sometimes it's reasonable just to abandon these structures and let nature take them back.

In 200 years, how many bridges to nowhere will there be?

---

We have one right now....Gavin's HSR will be the most glaring example of hubris and unnecessary spend with the headwinds of population decline that we will see in this space.

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

japantiger said:

---

The entire Federal and State tax and regulatory system should incent families of 3+; with the incentives getting larger as kids increase.

---

How about the government stays out of our bedrooms and doesn't dictate how families should look?

---

Former won't really work anyway. Some countries have already tried it and they saw an initial boost but then it leveled off.

If government stays out of it, then we just stay on the path we are on right now. Decline.

---

Is that 'decline' good or bad?
Maybe its the GenXer in me but I'm reminded of Mr. Durden

Quote:

---

**** off with your sofa units and strinne green stripe patterns. I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let's evolve. Let the chips fall where they may.

---

I read this article yesterday and there was a statement in it either in the article itself or the comments that said 'you really have to bring a lot of pain and misery to a mammal for it to lose its desire to breed.'

That comment stuck with me all day yesterday.

Really good article. I encourage everyone to read the entire thing.

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Instead, they are going to accept and manage the inevitable decline but remain Japanese. Massive respect to them for that.

---

I too respect them for making an intelligent, logical and absolutely obvious decision.

Decline is bad if you don't manage it and allow yourself to be conquered. But you have to be completely obtustically ******ed not to manage it.

---

Have you met half this country? Look at Europe. There are going to be a lot of obtustically ******ed people who will refuse to accept reality here and those countries who ignore this will pay a heavy price. Many already are.

---

Who's ignoring it? The whole point of my post is that it's obvious you don't ignore it.

What is absolutely NOT obvious is that the only way to resolve it is to have more babies. Thats a very, very socialist answer.

---

I'm not arguing that nor is the author. Just laying out the pros and cons of the reality of population decline. I don't see any way to reverse it. It would take a global effort to get people back in the bedroom and knocking boots. That ain't gonna happen unless we "regress" the planet back to agrarian societies.

What we are seeing here is the natural evolution of a species that advances over time. Your ire should be directed at federal governments that refuse to give up power and money and want to prolong that by importing third and fourth world ****birds.

Quote:

---

We have one right now....Gavin's HSR will be the most glaring example of hubris and unnecessary spend with the headwinds of population decline that we will see in this space.

---

Exactly. It's easier to build the HSR or road or border wall or subway or even water filtration system than to maintain it, Current politicians and their cronies win and future generations are stuck with a due bill

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

The folks who write these articles do so because they no longer have jobs in the Socialist Parties Central Planning Committees.

---

FTC...you want to debate the argument on it's merits, or do you want to throw meaningless aspersions?

---

I discussed the merits.

There is absolutely zero reason to populate the earth or a particularly country with as many people as possible.

Once you decide on that, then we can have an endless debates on what the right number is.

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

japantiger said:

---

The entire Federal and State tax and regulatory system should incent families of 3+; with the incentives getting larger as kids increase.

---

How about the government stays out of our bedrooms and doesn't dictate how families should look?

---

Former won't really work anyway. Some countries have already tried it and they saw an initial boost but then it leveled off.

If government stays out of it, then we just stay on the path we are on right now. Decline.

---

Is that 'decline' good or bad?
Maybe its the GenXer in me but I'm reminded of Mr. Durden

Quote:

---

**** off with your sofa units and strinne green stripe patterns. I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let's evolve. Let the chips fall where they may.

---

---

I would argue it's likely a good thing as long as the decline is managed smartly and thoughtfully.. That's going to be the trick here because it means people accept some level of inevitable ruin (shout out to Carl!) and that scares the hell out of people.

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

The folks who write these articles do so because they no longer have jobs in the Socialist Parties Central Planning Committees.

---

FTC...you want to debate the argument on it's merits, or do you want to throw meaningless aspersions?

---

I discussed the merits.

There is absolutely zero reason to populate the earth or a particularly country with as many people as possible.

Once you decide on that, then we can have an endless debates on what the right number is.

---

FTR, you are setting up an argument that no one made and then knocking it down.

If you argue for more babies, more population you are making the argument for open borders and immigration.

You may not think you are, but you are.

Once you say "parks at capacity, Moose at the front should have told you" then you can manage the population down to more sustainable levels.

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

The folks who write these articles do so because they no longer have jobs in the Socialist Parties Central Planning Committees.

---

FTC...you want to debate the argument on it's merits, or do you want to throw meaningless aspersions?

---

I discussed the merits.

There is absolutely zero reason to populate the earth or a particularly country with as many people as possible.

Once you decide on that, then we can have an endless debates on what the right number is.

---

FTR, you are setting up an argument that no one made and then knocking it down.

---

See bolded part. But if you are growing population then you are heading to a theoretical max. Else, you are deciding the right number.

Per your own comments you recognize Japan had the stones to manage decline. We should be proactive and manage our decline starting now.

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

japantiger said:

---

The entire Federal and State tax and regulatory system should incent families of 3+; with the incentives getting larger as kids increase.

---

How about the government stays out of our bedrooms and doesn't dictate how families should look?

---

Former won't really work anyway. Some countries have already tried it and they saw an initial boost but then it leveled off.

If government stays out of it, then we just stay on the path we are on right now. Decline.

---

Is that 'decline' good or bad?
Maybe its the GenXer in me but I'm reminded of Mr. Durden

Quote:

---

**** off with your sofa units and strinne green stripe patterns. I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let's evolve. Let the chips fall where they may.

---

---

I would argue it's likely a good thing as long as the decline is managed smartly and thoughtfully.. That's going to be the trick here because it means people accept some level of inevitable ruin (shout out to Carl!) and that scares the hell out of people.

---

The funny thing about democratic capitalism is that it is still the most competent system for 'smartly and thoroughly' managing such a decline.

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you argue for more babies, more population you are making the argument for open borders and immigration.

You may not think you are, but you are.

Once you say "parks at capacity, Moose at the front should have told you" then you can manage the population down to more sustainable levels.

---

I am not making the argument for open borders bro…and neither are they.

If you listened to the interview they used the example if Japan decided to use immigration to replace diminished native Japanese birth rates the entire population of the country would be replaced in 200 years…that's not a great solution.

Their point was is that is a problem with no real good solutions.

And for clarity, the demographic having the most babies in the US? White suburbanites.

Muslims are breeding like rats though.

And we fund them with our taxes esp in blue states.

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you argue for more babies, more population you are making the argument for open borders and immigration.

You may not think you are, but you are.

Once you say "parks at capacity, Moose at the front should have told you" then you can manage the population down to more sustainable levels.

---

Are you referring to someone else in this thread then? The article was a discussion on the pros and cons of population decline which is inevitable. The demographer in the article's own opinion is that it is inevitable. I share the same opinion.

I have zero issue with more babies in this country if we stop all immigration and those babies are coming from native Americans. We are one of the least dense countries on the planet. We have plenty of room here. But that point is meaningless because it's not happening.

tysker said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

Legal immigration reform has been a popular option amongst economists for decades. But politicians keep ****ing it up.

---

Legal immigration WITHIN LIMITS is okay. But large numbers causes demographic changes which are bad.

But why is it popular? Because economists are funded by corporations. We all know that corporations are evil, so an evil entity is funding people with a bad goal in mind. Hence uncontrolled immigration.

Most business-fans are scared to admit this.
But we are Aggies - we speak the truth.

I can assure you it will not be done smartly or thoughtfully. If it continues as is and slowly gets worse, what does it look like over time.

You say we have plenty of room here. Another poster above says we have 50% too many. Hence my point on these convos are always pushing for more births, more people.

And I have yet to see any logical argument about why the Earth needs more people.

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

The folks who write these articles do so because they no longer have jobs in the Socialist Parties Central Planning Committees.

---

FTC...you want to debate the argument on it's merits, or do you want to throw meaningless aspersions?

---

I discussed the merits.

There is absolutely zero reason to populate the earth or a particularly country with as many people as possible.

Once you decide on that, then we can have an endless debates on what the right number is.

---

FTR, you are setting up an argument that no one made and then knocking it down.

---

See bolded part. But if you are growing population then you are heading to a theoretical max. Else, you are deciding the right number.

Per your own comments you recognize Japan had the stones to manage decline. We should be proactive and manage our decline starting now.

---

I agree with you, but we are not a mono-racial country like Japan. It will take us years of failure and screw ups before we accept this reality.

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you argue for more babies, more population you are making the argument for open borders and immigration.

You may not think you are, but you are.

Once you say "parks at capacity, Moose at the front should have told you" then you can manage the population down to more sustainable levels.

---

Are you referring to someone else in this thread then? The article was a discussion on the pros and cons of population decline which is inevitable. The demographer in the article's own opinion is that it is inevitable. I share the same opinion.

I have zero issue with more babies in this country if we stop all immigration and those babies are coming from native Americans. We are one of the least dense countries on the planet. We have plenty of room here. But that point is meaningless because it's not happening.

---

Be careful of this. Having space does not mean good standard of life. If we bring in 10000000000 people, they can still live here, but we will become Sudan or Somalia. Do you want that?

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I smoke weed, play video games and made lots of money.

Only had one kid though.

From my observation, the fertility rate explodes when you add in pine trees, trailer parks, crystal meth with a healthy dose of government handouts.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

And we need less people, not more. You cannot continue to increase both population and standard of living with finite resources.

Why we abandoned that basic understanding is beyond me.

---

You also can't maintain government spending and intrusion with fewer people. But we all know we will face a battle on that front because they absolute will not voluntarily give up any power or funding. They will pick up the slack on the latter with AI, tech, and robotics. We face the potential of becoming a massive techno police state, if we don't push back.

Funding all of that will be the trick.

---

The interview dug into that...

For rich countries, in order to increase taxable income you'll have to import more people or cut social services.

Neither of those are very popular options.

---

The folks who write these articles do so because they no longer have jobs in the Socialist Parties Central Planning Committees.

---

FTC...you want to debate the argument on it's merits, or do you want to throw meaningless aspersions?

---

I discussed the merits.

There is absolutely zero reason to populate the earth or a particularly country with as many people as possible.

Once you decide on that, then we can have an endless debates on what the right number is.

---

FTR, you are setting up an argument that no one made and then knocking it down.

---

See bolded part. But if you are growing population then you are heading to a theoretical max. Else, you are deciding the right number.

Per your own comments you recognize Japan had the stones to manage decline. We should be proactive and manage our decline starting now.

---

Japan is managing the decline like hospice manages a dying person's pain. Its economy is a polished turd with a low ceiling. The Japanese are just too polite to speak truth to the bull*****

flown-the-coop said:

---

You say we have plenty of room here. Another poster above says we have 50% too many. Hence my point on these convos are always pushing for more births, more people.

And I have yet to see any logical argument about why the Earth needs more people.

---

The other poster's comment is opinion. Mine is fact based on density statistics when looking at land mass and total population and then comparing that to other western nations.

Also, I do not think the earth needs more people. That is not even really an argument I see in the article or in this thread. The argument is really around maintaining population replacement and not growing it.

infinity ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you argue for more babies, more population you are making the argument for open borders and immigration.

You may not think you are, but you are.

Once you say "parks at capacity, Moose at the front should have told you" then you can manage the population down to more sustainable levels.

---

Are you referring to someone else in this thread then? The article was a discussion on the pros and cons of population decline which is inevitable. The demographer in the article's own opinion is that it is inevitable. I share the same opinion.

I have zero issue with more babies in this country if we stop all immigration and those babies are coming from native Americans. We are one of the least dense countries on the planet. We have plenty of room here. But that point is meaningless because it's not happening.

---

Be careful of this. Having space does not mean good standard of life. If we bring in 10000000000 people, they can still live here, but we will become Sudan or Somalia. Do you want that?

---

No, I do not want that. I said exactly the opposite of wanting that. You even quoted it.