flown-the-coop said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Musk is a socialist?

---

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

---

Its 8 pages and growing fast. I'm fine, thanks.

But I don't know where you get this take that only leftists care about population decline. It's a pretty universal concern. It's good for capitalism, too. And like it or not, we're hitched to permanent government spending - especially for older people. As long as there are more older people than younger people, there's an imbalance that any rational person should be concerned about.

flown-the-coop said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

I'm a Christian and very far from a socialist. Only an idiot would recognize the critique of an infinite growth model as socialist. We've seen societies collapse (the Roman Empire, the black plague, post wwi Germany) and it's never goood.

AgGrad99 said:

---

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

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

---

They really haven't been handled. You're mixing examples. Taylor is blowing up thanks to investment for Austin's sake that was built up prior to the financial crisis (skilled labor, tech industry). Taylor without Austin doesn't exist. We're just now seeing what's going to happen to suburbs when kids dry up: they'll look like west Texas and the rust belt if no more come. Cities with fewer adults to fill them don't recover the way you're talking.

So I'm an idiot for not believing in infinite growth and questioning the motives behind it?

When your rationale for more people to support ever larger government in perpetuity, thats socialism.

When you want us to reproduce like rabbits so we can populate the asteroid belt and Pluto, thats lunacy.

When you understand we would be just fine if we woke up tomorrow with only half the people we have today left on rve planet, you are reasonable and understand within a generation maybe two we would be just fine. Like those other examples that had nothing to do with this topic.

flown-the-coop said:

---

So I'm an idiot for not believing in infinite growth and questioning the motives behind it?

When your rationale for more people to support ever larger government in perpetuity, thats socialism.

When you want us to reproduce like rabbits so we can populate the asteroid belt and Pluto, thats lunacy.

When you understand we would be just fine if we woke up tomorrow with only half the people we have today left on rve planet, you are reasonable and understand within a generation maybe two we would be just fine. Like those other examples that had nothing to do with this topic.

---

I don't think it's your opinion that people disagree with. Right or wrong, it's your opinion. But when you try to use a broad brush to draw a line and assume that all conservatives think like you and anyone that disagrees is a leftist… That's where you're going to get some push back.

Jeeper79 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So I'm an idiot for not believing in infinite growth and questioning the motives behind it?

When your rationale for more people to support ever larger government in perpetuity, thats socialism.

When you want us to reproduce like rabbits so we can populate the asteroid belt and Pluto, thats lunacy.

When you understand we would be just fine if we woke up tomorrow with only half the people we have today left on rve planet, you are reasonable and understand within a generation maybe two we would be just fine. Like those other examples that had nothing to do with this topic.

---

I don't think it's your opinion that people disagree with. Right or wrong, it's your opinion. But when you try to use a broad brush to draw a line and assume that all conservatives think like you and anyone that disagrees is a leftist… That's where you're going to get some push back.

---

Wanting infinite population growth to sustain growing government is not a conservative ideal in ANYONES book. HTH. And socialism is a disease of the left.

flown-the-coop said:

---

So I'm an idiot for not believing in infinite growth and questioning the motives behind it?

When your rationale for more people to support ever larger government in perpetuity, thats socialism.

When you want us to reproduce like rabbits so we can populate the asteroid belt and Pluto, thats lunacy.

When you understand we would be just fine if we woke up tomorrow with only half the people we have today left on rve planet, you are reasonable and understand within a generation maybe two we would be just fine. Like those other examples that had nothing to do with this topic.

---

You're way out over your skis again. Pointing out that there isn't anyone coming to bail out future obligations and that it's a problem isn't socialist.

Children are a gift from God (repeatedly given to those who are faithful), and multiplying is one of the first two commandments given. End of story. Have children. They bring flourishing and economic growth, and you don't need a socialist system for that.

Can we put the strawman to bed now?

Quote:

---

They really haven't been handled. You're mixing examples. Taylor is blowing up thanks to investment for Austin's sake that was built up prior to the financial crisis (skilled labor, tech industry). Taylor without Austin doesn't exist. We're just now seeing what's going to happen to suburbs when kids dry up: they'll look like west Texas and the rust belt if no more come. Cities with fewer adults to fill them don't recover the way you're talking.

---

Again, this assumes everything else stays the same as population declines. It won't. It never has.

If there is a reason to move to a city....a city with fewer people will start to grow. If there is a reason to move away, it will decline. Just like they always have.

Taylor was a thriving little town, until it wasnt. Now it is again, because of new opportunities.

Rockdale was a thriving little town, then it wasnt (when Alcoa left). But some of the old abandoned properties are now being bought and repurposed (ie. a bitcoin mining operation). Where some people lost their investment, others are seeing an opportunity for newer investment.

We already know what happens in cities with fewer Kids. We've seen it countless times.

These problems are not unique to birth rates.

You can put you bible thump strawman to bed, but encouraging population growth via children or otherwise for the purpose of growing government is socialist.

It's primarily libs behind these "studies" and fear mongering, Elon lunacy aside.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So I'm an idiot for not believing in infinite growth and questioning the motives behind it?

When your rationale for more people to support ever larger government in perpetuity, thats socialism.

When you want us to reproduce like rabbits so we can populate the asteroid belt and Pluto, thats lunacy.

When you understand we would be just fine if we woke up tomorrow with only half the people we have today left on rve planet, you are reasonable and understand within a generation maybe two we would be just fine. Like those other examples that had nothing to do with this topic.

---

I don't think it's your opinion that people disagree with. Right or wrong, it's your opinion. But when you try to use a broad brush to draw a line and assume that all conservatives think like you and anyone that disagrees is a leftist… That's where you're going to get some push back.

---

Wanting infinite population growth to sustain growing government is not a conservative ideal in ANYONES book. HTH. And socialism is a disease of the left.

---

You're inferring too much, and then placing that incorrect inference on others.

1. Capitalism loves consumers. The more the better.
2. We have a national debt problem, and population decline will absolutely make it worse.
3. When the number of givers shrinks faster than the number of takers, taxes go up.

What part of those three sounds socialist? Absent a reversion of this trend, we'll need extreme productivity gains to make up the shortfall. I'm doubtful we'll see them.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

They really haven't been handled. You're mixing examples. Taylor is blowing up thanks to investment for Austin's sake that was built up prior to the financial crisis (skilled labor, tech industry). Taylor without Austin doesn't exist. We're just now seeing what's going to happen to suburbs when kids dry up: they'll look like west Texas and the rust belt if no more come. Cities with fewer adults to fill them don't recover the way you're talking.

---

Again, this assumes everything else stays the same.

If there is a reason to move to a city....a city with fewer people will start to grow. If there is a reason to move away, it will decline. Just like they always have.

Taylor was a thriving little town, until it wasnt. Now it is again.

Rockdale was a thriving little town, then it wasnt (when Alcoa left). But some of the old abandoned properties are now being bought and repurposed (ie. a bitcoin mining operation). Where some people lost their investment, others are seeing an opportunity for newer investment.

We already know what happens in cities with fewer Kids. We've seen it countless times.

These problems are not unique to birth rates.

---

There's an 18-22 year lag for tax payers, so yeah it assumes things progress like they are. Childless cat ladies aren't bailing us out.

There needs to be a reason for economic activity. Why do people need Bitcoin? And if you don't need as much because there are fewer people, it would seem these results aren't replicable long term. Rockdale doesn't have an exit strategy without people.

It's like the Japanese town where they set up silhouettes to make bus stops and schools seem populated. No one lives there.

Frikkin Flower Mound has issues on which schools to keep open, expand, close etc. Two of the earlier grocery stores and plenty of other places by them sit empty or have been repurposed for less economic contribution in just the last 20 years.

But by god let's have more people so social security and entitlement programs and free education and college for everyone.

Lawt.

Jeeper79 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So I'm an idiot for not believing in infinite growth and questioning the motives behind it?

When your rationale for more people to support ever larger government in perpetuity, thats socialism.

When you want us to reproduce like rabbits so we can populate the asteroid belt and Pluto, thats lunacy.

When you understand we would be just fine if we woke up tomorrow with only half the people we have today left on rve planet, you are reasonable and understand within a generation maybe two we would be just fine. Like those other examples that had nothing to do with this topic.

---

I don't think it's your opinion that people disagree with. Right or wrong, it's your opinion. But when you try to use a broad brush to draw a line and assume that all conservatives think like you and anyone that disagrees is a leftist… That's where you're going to get some push back.

---

Wanting infinite population growth to sustain growing government is not a conservative ideal in ANYONES book. HTH. And socialism is a disease of the left.

---

You're inferring too much, and then placing that incorrect inference on others.

1. Capitalism loves consumers. The more the better.
2. We have a national debt problem, and population decline will absolutely make it worse.
3. When the number of givers shrinks faster than the number of takers, taxes go up.

What part of those three sounds socialist? Absent a reversion of this trend, we'll need extreme productivity gains to make up the shortfall. I'm doubtful we'll see them.

---

1 is just not correct.

2 is also incorrect.

3 is again incorrect.

Enjoy your doomsday but take comfort in being wrong.

Quote:

---

There's an 18-22 year lag for tax payers, so yeah it assumes things progress like they are. Childless cat ladies aren't bailing us out.

There needs to be a reason for economic activity. Why do people need Bitcoin? And if you don't need as much because there are fewer people, it would seem these results aren't replicable long term. Rockdale doesn't have an exit strategy without people.

It's like the Japanese town where they set up silhouettes to make bus stops and schools seem populated. No one lives there.

---

Again....that's still NOT unique to lower birth rates.

I'm not arguing fewer people has no effect on a town. I'm arguing the effects of a lower birth rate is not unique or different.

There have been population declines over and over and over again, not related to birth rates. We know the effects.

Society adapts...every time.

Quote:

---

Society adapts...every time.

---

Sometimes well, sometimes painfully.

European society adapted to the Black Death, but it was traumatic.

Just because a society will "adapt" (meaning "survive") doesn't mean that a) the problem shouldn't be acknowledged and 2) shouldn't be addressed.

"We need to be ready for this" doesn't equate to "OMG the sky is falling!"

Population decline dwarfs climate change in the effects it will have on the world. That doesn't mean that eventually things won't work out fine - but it's good to know what's coming.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So I'm an idiot for not believing in infinite growth and questioning the motives behind it?

When your rationale for more people to support ever larger government in perpetuity, thats socialism.

When you want us to reproduce like rabbits so we can populate the asteroid belt and Pluto, thats lunacy.

When you understand we would be just fine if we woke up tomorrow with only half the people we have today left on rve planet, you are reasonable and understand within a generation maybe two we would be just fine. Like those other examples that had nothing to do with this topic.

---

I don't think it's your opinion that people disagree with. Right or wrong, it's your opinion. But when you try to use a broad brush to draw a line and assume that all conservatives think like you and anyone that disagrees is a leftist… That's where you're going to get some push back.

---

Wanting infinite population growth to sustain growing government is not a conservative ideal in ANYONES book. HTH. And socialism is a disease of the left.

---

You're inferring too much, and then placing that incorrect inference on others.

1. Capitalism loves consumers. The more the better.
2. We have a national debt problem, and population decline will absolutely make it worse.
3. When the number of givers shrinks faster than the number of takers, taxes go up.

What part of those three sounds socialist? Absent a reversion of this trend, we'll need extreme productivity gains to make up the shortfall. I'm doubtful we'll see them.

---

1 is just not correct.

2 is also incorrect.

3 is again incorrect.

Enjoy your doomsday but take comfort in being wrong.

---

Even trump is trying to stimulate the birth rate. Is he a socialist, too?

Also… What!?!

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Society adapts...every time.

---

Sometimes well, sometimes painfully.

European society adapted to the Black Death, but it was traumatic.

Just because a society will "adapt" (meaning "survive") doesn't mean that a) the problem should be acknowledged and 2) addressed.

"We need to be ready for this" doesn't equate to "OMG the sky is falling!"

Population decline dwarfs climate change in the effects it will have on the world. That doesn't mean that eventually things won't work out fine - but it's good to know what's coming.

---

Yes. Agreed.

Like I said, there will likely be some negative effects. There will also likely be some positive effects.

But the effects of a smaller population isn't unique to birth rates declining. We've faced these issues before, and continue to.

And the 'sky is falling' attitude is definitely pervasive regarding birth rates...which is what I'm pushing against.

Quote:

---

We've faced these issues before

---

Dang, how old ARE you ? It's been quite awhile since there was global population decline.

Gilligan said:

---

I'm ok with less people.

---

I'm ok with less liberals.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

We've faced these issues before

---

Dang, how old ARE you ? It's been quite awhile since there was global population decline.

---

Cecil- Maybe read the past couple of pages.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I'm pretty sure the rising cost of living as a least a little bit to do with it, especially housing.

---

Or maybe marriage rates and dating rates have plummeted in the US.

Housing may have been cheaper in the past but the average income is about half what it is now. Majority of woman i knew when i lived in austin didn't want kids, wife and i moved to west texas and I feel everyone is pregnant. I blame the influx of beta males and boss *****es.

YouBet said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

I'm ok with less people.

---

Fewer.

---

Uh. Can we vote on who we can get rid of?

jeremy said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

I'm ok with less people.

---

Fewer.

---

Uh. Can we vote on who we can get rid of?

---

No, we will form a committee. Some will be selected, the rest will be random.

Deportations will reduce housing and rent costs. There have already been rent reductions in cities in Texas.

TAMU1990 said:

---

Deportations will reduce housing and rent costs. There have already been rent reductions in cities in Texas.

---

yes, but now there will be a rise in asylum claims because there is a looming housing shortage in this home countries. Disaster in the making.

Deny them. It's not our problem

AgGrad99 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

We've faced these issues before

---

Dang, how old ARE you ? It's been quite awhile since there was global population decline.

---

Cecil- Maybe read the past couple of pages.

---

Been on Texags too long to do that.

Seriously, it's global population decline this time. I'm not sure that's ever happened. The Black Death killed half of Europe, and as a result global population declined some. But when has there every been global population decline as is being forecasted now?

I phoned Noah and he said sometimes this happens, is needed, and that 2x2 life goes on. Then went on about rainbows and doves so he may have been drunk or high.

But seriously, it is indeed more likely for us to experience a true, worrisome decline by a disaster / pandemic than by low birth rates.

And we have the technology now to procreate without human beings doing anything other than providing DnA, mixing and oversight. Don't even need a surrogate.

TAMU1990 said:

---

Deportations will reduce housing and rent costs. There have already been rent reductions in cities in Texas.

---

This is a result of building new housing, and pushing back successfully against idiot anti-growth NIMBYs that infest this state like ticks.

Don't forget Noah was naked, too.

No "we" won't experience it, and 100 years is a long time. But, unlike climate, birth rate trends can be measure and monitored and once they slip are really hard to recover. So this is different.

For sudden population collapse sure, a large meteor strike will do the trick. But over the next 20 years or so, if these trends don't reverse the world will have many fewer humans in 100 years.

Increasing the population has its pros and cons. Judging by the fact that we're already staring Idiocracy right in the eyes, I'm for cutting back on the rutting until we value education and civility again.

Some appointed? More like a quorum?

AGC said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

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

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

---

They really haven't been handled. You're mixing examples. Taylor is blowing up thanks to investment for Austin's sake that was built up prior to the financial crisis (skilled labor, tech industry). Taylor without Austin doesn't exist. We're just now seeing what's going to happen to suburbs when kids dry up: they'll look like west Texas and the rust belt if no more come. Cities with fewer adults to fill them don't recover the way you're talking.

---

This is silly. I grew up in that area and went to Taylor quite frequently. The boundaries of town really haven't changed that much. The only thing out by the new HS (not really new but not the one I walked through) is 2 new subdivisions. It was a 3A HS in 1986 and is a 4A HS in 2026.

What will change Taylor is the new toll road. There was no easy way to get to Taylor except 35 to 79. Samsung has 1500 employees. More people are going to move out there for housing and to escape Travis county high taxes.

jeremy said:

---

Some appointed? More like a quorum?

---

It's sort of funny. But when people say that we need to plan for population decline, that will inevitably lead to pickings of winners and losers.

Some even openly admit it in this thread by saying who must toil and reproduce for whose benefits else their kind will die off.

I just happen to be brutally honest about it.

Just get multiply women's pregnant. Problem solved