Population Decline and the Fall of the Developed World

[Vic]

The greatest threat to the developed world in the 21st century isn't climate change. It's not fascism or communism. It's not peak oil or any other kind of resource depletion. It is population decline.
And while it seems this coming crisis is rarely if ever discussed by politicians, academia, the media, or even social media, it is the issue that most of the issues we are talking about are dancing around. It's the real reason why right-wingers are anti-abortion and anti-LGBT, and it's also why left-wingers are pro-immigration and multiculturalism.
I'd like to open up a discussion on this issue, starting with a very dry and non-political economic analysis of the crisis, and why it's so important. Hopefully from there we can discuss the pros and cons of the various possible solutions.
Please watch the video first.

 

[dullard]

Yeah, no. The biggest threat to the world is overpopulation.

 

[pete6032]

It's the real reason why right-wingers are anti-abortion and anti-LGBT, and it's also why left-wingers are pro-immigration and multiculturalism.

How do stances on abortion, LGBT issues, or multiculturalism time back to demographic trends?

 

[K1052]

How do stances on abortion, LGBT issues, or multiculturalism time back to demographic trends?

Anything that reduces the supply of native (very preferably white) infants is bad and should be illegal is basically it.

 

[Vic]

Yeah, no. The biggest threat to the world is overpopulation.

Did you watch the video?

Also, overpopulation is a global threat. Population decline threatens the developed world.

 

[Vic]

Anything that reduces the supply of native (very preferably white) infants is bad and should be illegal is basically it.

This. But not just white. Non-white countries in the developed world, Japan, China, South Korea, are already much worse off due to the combination of their low birthrates and nativist sentiments.

 

[Vic]

To add more context, I'm sure most everyone would agree that resource depletion is bad. Peak oil, peak phosphorus, water scarcity, etc are all common subjects. But what is the most important resource of them all?

Labor.

I would like to hope that a left-leaning forum such as this one would agree with that. Labor is the resource that makes all other resources possible. And with population decline, labor is what's becoming more scarce. And the consequences are dire.

 

[Lezunto]

I am not sure that most people think about this. But I am certain I know who does:

The Super Rich. And those who control the financial levers. People such as Elon Musk and his father, Errol. They want to ensure that their progeny and individuals they view as superior maintain their dominance. No wonder Errol Musk has children with his stepdaughter.

If hundreds of millions or even a billion of two of lesser human beings perish because of famine brought on by crop failures due to global warming - so be it. They rich, powerful and uncaring may not care.

When Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves mused about not being in Jackson, Miss., where obtaining clean drinking water is an ordeal, he was not just joking out loud. He was revealing his full contempt for an ethnic group he and his administration despise.

I can only imagine what people such as Tate Reeves say in private.

And that's the thing with many in the Republican Party - the Cruelty is their main thing.

Vic is correct about workers. For the upper crust, solving the Labor shortage is easy. Force the poor and downtrodden to toil for them at wages they must accept. Increase the competition for scarce housing, available food and other necessities.

 

[pete6032]

I'm still not following. Conservatives are anti abortion, which in a country without abortion there would likely be more babies born and thus a greater population. Conservatives are also anti immigration, which has a negative impact on population growth. Liberals are pro choice, which means fewer babies. Liberals are also pro immigration, which means more population growth.

 

[Lezunto]

On the surface, Conservatives are anti-Abortion. But behind the scenes, they will hide and do anything and swear up and down that is is okay because ...

( follow with a litany of excuses )

 

[Vic]

I'm still not following. Conservatives are anti abortion, which in a country without abortion there would likely be more babies born and thus a greater population. Conservatives are also anti immigration, which has a negative impact on population growth. Liberals are pro choice, which means fewer babies. Liberals are also pro immigration, which means more population growth.

Conservatives want to increase the native population without 'polluting' (their sentiment) with non-native blood and cultures. America, to them, is a 'white Christian nation' and they want to keep it that way.
Liberals want people to be able to choose their own lifestyles, even if that means not having babies, and are open to immigration in order to shore up any decline in the labor population.
These attitudes are at absolute loggerheads with each other.

Now, we could call conservatives racists and bigots all day long, but that IMO misses the point and is counterproductive. I'm not saying they aren't racists or bigots (they usually are), just that nations and cultures naturally seek their own survival just as people do. Understanding that (while not necessarily giving into it) is important to resolving the conflict.

 

[Zorba]

To add more context, I'm sure most everyone would agree that resource depletion is bad. Peak oil, peak phosphorus, water scarcity, etc are all common subjects. But what is the most important resource of them all?

Labor.

I would like to hope that a left-leaning forum such as this one would agree with that. Labor is the resource that makes all other resources possible. And with population decline, labor is what's becoming more scarce. And the consequences are dire.

So basically who cares if the planet can sustain, we must look out for capitalism!

I thought automation was supposed to take care of that. I know I've read here far more jobs have been lost to automation than off shoring. Or maybe we should give up on the idea of infinite growth on finite resources.

 

[Vic]

So basically who cares if the planet can sustain, we must look out for capitalism!

I thought automation was supposed to take care of that. I know I've read here far more jobs have been lost to automation than off shoring. Or maybe we should give up on the idea of infinite growth on finite resources.

Ok whoa there..

First, population decline would be a negative effect on any economic system, not just capitalism.

Second, this issue of population decline affects the developing world specifically. Personally, I'm on the liberal side of this and support increased immigration from the developing world in order to balance this out.

And finally, I have always argued against the myth that automation will result in overall job loss. Yes, automation does cause individual jobs to be lost. But overall, automation creates more jobs than are lost by increasing the productivity of labor.

 

[Zorba]

Ok whoa there..

First, population decline would be a negative effect on any economic system, not just capitalism.

Second, this issue of population decline affects the developing world specifically. Personally, I'm on the liberal side of this and support increased immigration from the developing world in order to balance this out.

And finally, I have always argued against the myth that automation will result in overall job loss. Yes, automation does cause individual jobs to be lost. But overall, automation creates more jobs than are lost by increasing the productivity of labor.

Well, I agree that immigration should be used to balance out population decline. I think we need to learn how to balance capitalism with neutral population growth and resource use reduction.

 

[Leeea]

Well, I agree that immigration should be used to balance out population decline.

I disagree.

Immigration should be used to grow our population. Used to fuel another economic expansion, and another golden century for the USA and the values of freedom, multiculturalism, equality, and opportunity for all.

We will need economic growth to deal with the problems of climate change, diminishing resources, the putins of the world, and to go to the stars.

 

[Zorba]

I disagree.

Immigration should be used to grow our population. Used to fuel another economic expansion, and another golden century for the USA and the values of freedom, multiculturalism, equality, and opportunity for all.

While china is fading, other asian giants with more grit will take its place. We need immigration to just retain what we have.

And resource useage goes through the roof. It sucks, but we live in a world with finite resources. The sooner people accept that, the sooner we can work solutions. Partying like it's 1946 will have massive negative impacts.

 

[Leeea]

And resource useage goes through the roof. It sucks, but we live in a world with finite resources. The sooner people accept that, the sooner we can work solutions. Partying like it's 1946 will have massive negative impacts.

People in areas that will tend to immigrate to the USA will obtain a 1st world lifestyle one way or another.

It is more environmentally friendly to give them ours then to have them create one from scratch. Burning down the rain forest to build a new ivory tower while our own ivory tower is perfectly fine helps nobody.

Besides, we will need to grow our economy to deal with a world of climate change and limited resources. The technologies are here. Solar, wind, battery, we can do this. We can out grow all of our problems and have our cake to.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ok whoa there..

First, population decline would be a negative effect on any economic system, not just capitalism.

Second, this issue of population decline affects the developing world specifically. Personally, I'm on the liberal side of this and support increased immigration from the developing world in order to balance this out.

And finally, I have always argued against the myth that automation will result in overall job loss. Yes, automation does cause individual jobs to be lost. But overall, automation creates more jobs than are lost by increasing the productivity of labor.

What is the purpose of an economy? Why do we need one?

 

[Moonbeam]

And resource useage goes through the roof. It sucks, but we live in a world with finite resources. The sooner people accept that, the sooner we can work solutions. Partying like it's 1946 will have massive negative impacts.

The universe is headed toward entropy. What it the purpose of solutions when there are none?

 

[njdevilsfan87]

The video seems to ignore efficiency. Meaning, it's still possible to produce more with a static or even declining population.

But it's too bad efficiency hasn't been rewarded at all, except to those at the top. And yet they still want even more. Hard pass from me. I refuse to have another child just so they can have another 2-3 week PTO wagie lining their pockets even further. One child pretty much all but guarantees my son won't have to deal with the live to work bullshit our economy is.

 

[Vic]

What is the purpose of an economy? Why do we need one?

At its most basic level, the purpose of economies is to feed and house the people.

 

[kt]

The universe is headed toward entropy. What it the purpose of solutions when there are none?

If the universe is headed toward entropy, then how can you be so certain there are no solutions?

 

[Jaskalas]

and it's also why left-wingers are pro-immigration and multiculturalism.

The US population has soared by 100 million in my life time already.
You are vastly over the mark on those metrics and are full throttle into the brick wall of resource scarcity and environmental destruction due to overpopulation.
And it all stems from immigration policy.

I want sustainability, which means far less growth than we have today. Which requires a huge reduction in immigration.

 

[Zorba]

People in areas that will tend to immigrate to the USA will obtain a 1st world lifestyle one way or another.

It is more environmentally friendly to give them ours then to have them create one from scratch. Burning down the rain forest to build a new ivory tower while our own ivory tower is perfectly fine helps nobody.

Besides, we will need to grow our economy to deal with a world of climate change and limited resources. The technologies are here. Solar, wind, battery, we can do this. We can out grow all of our problems and have our cake to.

There are a lot more resources than energy and a lot more waste than carbon dioxide. Solar isn't going to create more copper, or nickel, or cobalt.

 

[Moonbeam]

At its most basic level, the purpose of economies is to feed and house the people.

Would that not imply that a person can't feed and house themselves. I remember reading somewhere that people not so long ago in Egypt could settle land and build there all of their own volition, no cost to own no taxes to pay, but that didn't sit well, apparently, in the new world order of things. Don't two people together automatically create an economy? So much of the economy today looks to be really about making a profit from or milking the economy while not contributing anything.