Is this artifitial or natural??? most of the things that changed to make it possible like abolishing traditional family structurs and adoption of the nuclear family first and then ultrafeminis and divorce later are political decitions and man made.

its not a natural thing to happen, usually animals reproduce and fill the habitat until resources limits are reached, it dosnt make sense

>>509507636 (OP)
asked gpt and deepseek (x shitted the bed) because i cant have independent thought

>gpt
Final Thought
Depopulation isn't an accident — it's a byproduct of how modern societies are structured. Whether you call that “natural” or “artificial” depends on how much weight you give to culture, politics, and economic systems versus evolutionary biology.

Would you like to explore historical examples or policy proposals for reversing it (like pro-natalism in Hungary, South Korea, etc.)?

>chinkseek
Conclusion: Mostly Artificial
While some natural factors (like demographic transition) play a role, the accelerated depopulation crisis is primarily man-made, driven by ideological, economic, and political forces that discourage family formation. Without cultural and policy reversals (such as pro-family incentives, restoration of marriage norms, and economic reforms), this trend will continue, leading to societal collapse via aging populations and labor shortages.

Would you like specific examples of countries reversing this trend (e.g., Hungary, Poland)?

>>509507636 (OP)
>Natural
Everything is natural you dipshit, everything that happens is fair and the way ou6t should be. Only weak whiny retards think otherwise.
Now go work harder, Miles needs money for Israel.

>>509507636 (OP)
not happening, but a lot of people wish it would. The problem is Europe and white people are losing ground compared to africa, china, and india. They could become a footnote to china without firing a shot, which likely wouldn't happen, I mean they'd be forced to go to war to prevent it. Nobody wants to see a new Great War on these huge populations.

>>509508679
it actually will happen
when fertility rates crater population follows
imagine living in a nearly empty world

>>509507636 (OP)
the blackest blackpill is that earth would be a paradise if there were <10mil people. they would control an entire planet's worth of resources. they would all live like royalty with an army of robot slaves doing all the manual labour

the elites know this. but they can't kill 8bil people, so instead they're gonna slowly strangle the middle class and make 99% of people peasant slaves again

>>509508902
we only just hit 8 billion. 7 in 2010. I'll listen to this argument when less than 1 billion are added per 15 years

>>509507636 (OP)
>Get to live in the most over crowded sucky time instead of post apocalypse
its not fair

>>509507636 (OP)
it's a meme

you people always talk about "the traditional family structure being abolished", what do you mean by that? Almost everyone still at least gets married and lives with a spouse these days, and if they do have kids they'll still raise the kid themselves until it's 18. Are you referring to women working? Cause that's just because economically they have to, most people can't afford a house on a single income.

>>509509944
Statistically, you were most likely to be living in the overcrowded sucky time.

>>509509105
the sad part is that 1 billion are all nigs and poos

>>509507636 (OP)
It's satanic

>>509507636 (OP)
>USA, China, and Europe feed 3rd worlders
>global population explodes
>USA, China, and Europe can no longer feed 3rd worlders
>global population collapses

>>509510829
statistically I should've been a bacterium

>>509507636 (OP)
>it doesn't make sense
Yes it does, when you realize that biology was merely meant as a stepping stone for technology (AI).

>>509507636 (OP)
We need TKD first, and then TND and TPD (Including shitty Pakis, Bengalis and Afghans) to ensure that even in a future world with a smaller population, the demographics favour actual humans

>>509507636 (OP)
only bad for the gdp jews but good for the life quality of us

>>509507636 (OP)
Only for whites. The BIPOC population is rising and blue eyes will be extinct by 2100.

>>509507636 (OP)
>graph shows thing in future
>no source
Yea, lemme respond to this.

>>509510929
You can't count.

>>509507636 (OP)
Anyone else feel like this parallels models of stellar evolution? Feels like a big blue loop.

>>509511383
People make and do all the stuff you need and want. As there's less people, you'll get less of the stuff you need and want, because it's going to either go away entirely or become too expensive for you.
>I'll just need and want less, "consumerism is fake and gay"
That's called poverty, which is a lower quality of life. And you're going to get poorer and poorer, not stay the same level of poor.

>>509511163
Dont forget TCBD

>>509511163
Imagine the progress a small but strong, wealthy, and healthy population of whites of all breeds could accomplish...

>>509507978
sex with 14yo is natural, yet there is a trend against dating anyone under your "age group" like what

>>509511847
Canada and Britain? Yeah, they're included

China and Brazil? Brazil is already below-replacement TFR, thankfully. Chinamen are already beginning to decline which is a genuine shame. I'd much rather have 2 billion Chinamen in the place of Jeets

>>509507978
Based and taopilled

>>509511946
Maybe we can get rid of Iberians and Slavshits (like you) too. They're pretty useless and detrimental to progress.

Nah. Only people from this region have any intrinsic genetic value, and ideally they'd be the only Whites to survive

>>509508959
Maybe, but you need 8bil+ people to develop the infrastructure, manufacturing, and technology necessary for all those robot slaves.

You think you only need a few scientists and engineers? Well, those guys need people to make their food, build their houses, their cars to get to work... none of this progress can happen in a vacuum.

But yes once mass produced work robots are viable, I don't see why they won't Holocaust most of us.

>>509511020
It’s exactly this. The insane population density is centered around India & the surrounding nations. These nations cannot support these populations without modern fertilizer, potash, and in many cases pure food importation. The fall of globalization will see a fall in global population. Most nations are not able to feed their population natively.

>>509507636 (OP)
Yes. Depopulation is inevitable (in fact, it's already here). Limited resources cannot sustain an unlimited number of people. There has to be an upper cap. Even with the advancements of science (or despite the advancements, depending on who you ask), you can only squeeze a lemon so much until all the juice is gone.
There's a second layer to it, in that all of the economic systems we currently rely on demand both an ever-growing GDP and a highly efficient but technology-intense power source that cannot be regenerated faster than it is used. All of the stupid, desperate moves you see from politicians and economists are essentially attempting to bail out a boat that is doomed to sink, hoping to get to shore before it does.

>>509507636 (OP)
Currently
>gender roles erasure
>feminism
>onlyfans
>trannies
>abortion
>lgbt promotion
>delayed adulthood in zoomers
>shitty economy
>porn addiction epidemic
>online dating excluding average people who'd probably be able to find relationships in a now inexistent third space
And soon
>vr sex
>ai dating
>robowaifus
>suicide promotion

Yeah it's over

>>509507636 (OP)
population growth is declining rapidly, we'll reach 16 billions and stabilize there

>>509512964
>Just increase production!
Return on investment, especially for energy, is really difficult to improve once the power source is properly understood. Our BEST approach is probably to give up on unlimited energy and focus on making energy and technology capable of holding up over the long haul (thousands of years). Unfortunately, humans are greedy, and greedy approaches to problems are usually inefficient and socially un-optimal. Suppose everyone were to agree to not use a harmful energy source, because someone who did would gain a huge advantage if they did but harm everyone else. The ink wouldn't even have time to dry before national and personal interests violated that charter.
>Just reduce the population!
Ignoring morality, dangerous both because it sets a precedent for political culling (never a good idea for long-term stability) and it also generates massive market instability including tremendous experience-to-demand losses in worker-practice time for now suddenly-needed roles and former roles becoming unnecessary.
System shock from the mass losses has unpredictable effects on other subsystems the current system relies on. Let's, say, get rid of "bourgoise indulgences" like cake-making, coffee shops, and wedding planning. Now huge portions of major cities have been hollowed out and there is no way to use that infrastructure (because it wasn't designed for 'useful' aims). Now what do you do? Do you tear up the city? That's expensive, and whoops, all of your 'willing' labor pool just vanished because you culled them. All of your essential workers can't be used because they're doing, well, ESSENTIAL jobs elsewhere. Other issues of this kind like recycling tech run into the same problem.
Moreover, people doing essential work efficiently don't have time to do indulgent things like create art for patrons. Additional superfice like that is a byproduct of having a lot of experts and an EXCESS of food/energy- and remember, we're trying to tighten our belts.

>>509511827
no problem automation is already doing most jobs and with less people there will naturally be less demand too so nothing really changes

>Just let the old people die out!
Cool. Similar, but less severe market instability, especially because the very old tend to be very wealthy. This is probably the "best case scenario", where things SLOWLY get worse and worse until they stabilize with a significantly lower population. We will lose out on a lot of useful specializations and comfort items, but probably will be able to get along.
However, there's still what happens when energy isn't easy to produce any more- an energy all of our services rely on, especially manufacturing vital technology.
>Nuclear will fix it!
Nuclear doesn't allow for the level of flexibility oil does. Not to mention battery use. For a centralized government, it works fine. For remote areas, you're probably out of luck.
>What about wind turbines?
Horribly inefficient for space, and additionally dependent on the weather.
>Solar?
Dependent on batteries and the weather. Also fragile.
>Wood burning?
Surprisingly a better idea than it sounds, if the population falls far enough. We were able to get by on wood burning for quite a while as a species.

The problem is ultimately that if human beings see a resource and nobody else is using it, they'll use it. If someone else is using it, they might fight over it anyway. It's ultimately a matter of human greed only being restrained by the limitations put on it by hard physical facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCjb-HQY9pM

>>509507921
>asked gpt and deepseek
KILL YOURSELF FAGGOT

>>509514122
That's a very unrealistic view of things. Wishful thinking. If you want to maintain your quality of life, or let's say not become dirt poor in the future, you need to amass as much wealth as you can, as soon as you can.

>>509514153
‘Energy’ isn’t the driving factor of population growth. It’s food and water. We’re no different than the rest of the animal kingdom. Problem with that is we have more or less maximized the planet’s food production capacity. That’s why some predict we’ll be eating insects in the future. There’s no other exponential growth potential available.

And we are surrounded by cliffs.
Geopolitics can upend the international fertilizer trade overnight. Climate change is increasing natural disasters & upending weather patterns. More droughts. More floods. Less rain reliably delivered to the fields where it’s needed.

Egypt is about to blow up Ethiopia over water rights & dams. Egypt itself can only support about 32 million people, its population is currently 115 million. This is the most extreme example but we are headed into a water-war century in the 2100s. Energy & robot servants are a higher level concern than the problems we’re already facing.

>>509513348
the population reduction programs are already running at full speed especially in the west. its called womens education and them getting careers. the cattle just isn't smart enough to make this connection despite it being openly marketed as a way to do this in africa

>>509507636 (OP)
sinful people always destroy themselves.

>>509514864
>‘Energy’ isn’t the driving factor of population growth. It’s food and water.
What makes you think you and I aren't talking about the same problem? What would happen if every refrigerator in, say, Egypt suddenly turned off? Food access is an energy concern because we're only able to provide food and water to so many people due to industrialized systems.

>>509508826
>>509508902
Radfem terrorists blew up infrastructure that could have remedied the issue
You know that

>>509514920
I was talking about /pol/'s masturbatory fantasy of nuking India. Population reduction a la letting people die out is just forced population reduction, but less extreme and slower. Still bad, but not as bad as it could be.

>>509510725
They mean manifesting Norman Rockwell paintings IRL. They act like WWII created all of reality and no forms of culture or social bonds existed before that

>>509512983
You forgot about normalizing groomers and child surrogacy

>>509514153
Oil doesnt need to be replaced completely, its not all or nothing. Half of it is used to make gas and diesel. We can replace all motorcycles, cars and trucks with electric ones powered by nuclear power plants and rooftop solar on suburban homes to reduce the electric bill of the owner. Just switching to EVs would extend oil supply by at least a century, fortunately gas car sales peaked in 2017 and the chinese are pumping out cheap evs by the millions. Worst case scenario you are correct, biofuels can run modern 1st world civilization, just not with 8 billion people to feed.

>>509515103
Oil isnt expensive or scarce yet. priced in silver a barrel of oil costs the same as it did in the 1950s

>>509507636 (OP)
billions must die

>>509515274
yep and its more likely to succeed when you pull tricks like this so people don't notice. same goes with all the sexual degeneracy, governments and corporations getting involved in the pride parade and pro lgbt shit is there to distract you from what you really should be doing

>>509508826
Today is the day. It's too late to back out now.

>>509507636 (OP)
do YOU have 12 kids like your great grandfather?

my great great grandparents had 17 kids but i don't plan on having one because of cost.

>>509507636 (OP)
Like humans Arent natural LMAO

>>509515934
Hello, saar

>>509515575
I'm not convinced that the switch will happen in time, nor am I convinced that moving to a different method that will itself need to be replaced in a century will solve the issue. Biofuels might keep the train on the tracks, but having it those continue indefinitely seems dubious to me. Could work, definitely, but it'll be expensive for sure, and I think it's possible governments will attempt to seize cars instead (as dystopian as that sounds, I honestly think it sounds possible) for "environmental justice", control over limited materials, and managing a smaller population.
>>509515700
>priced in silver
In June 1950, Gold to Silver was 47.30. In June 2025, Gold to Silver is 91.39.
Do you feel like you're in a crisis yet?

>>509509105
It's been at 9-10+ billion for years. Census data is next to worthless in places like Africa/India and their various offshoots. The estimate on poos alone is +500M up towards 1B+.

>>509512983
>Suicide promotion.
We already have that.

>>509507636 (OP)
Now there are about 2 billion people on Earth.
Before the "vaxx" it was 2.5 billion.
The plan is to bring it down to 500 million.

>>509515103
99% of a food’s supply chain isn’t refrigerated. Beans, legumes, grains, & all the other staples just need to be dried out.

You’re highlighting a quality of living factor but nothing that directly caused the explosive population growth. (Which was kick started by cheap industrialized fertilizer processes)

>>509511827
Most people would go back to the 1950s and 60s in a heartbeat, when GDP was a fraction of what it is now.

>>509507636 (OP)
Depopulation is good and will only be a problem for a couple of decades
Corporations and billionaires are the only entities that benefit from having a high number of slave class imbeciles

>>509516808
1750s or bust.

>>509515857
You do realize that March 27th 2025 was over three months ago, right...?

>>509516949
You do realize it takes time to implement plans devoid of media coverage on a global scale, right?

>>509511653
>Yea, lemme respond to this.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/09/18/opinion/human-population-global-growth.html

>>509516769
That quality of life factor becomes a food supply factor when it comes to things like vegetables, transporting water, purifying water, physically moving food from one location to another, and performing climate control on perishables. Logistics is way more important than refrigeration, certainly, but suddenly shattering a supply chain and then forcing people to move to staples that they haven't prepare to eat has secondary effects.

>>509517376
Refrigeration only made a difference with fruit, dairy/cheese, and fresh vegetables. None of which are a necessity for survival. India has 100x America’s population and uses 1/1000th the energy per capita.

Population rates are purely a function of food, water, and social stability. Energy availability is a first-world concern, exponential population growth is a 3rd world concern.

>>509516511
Demand for gasoline and diesel is already declining in china due to EVs displacing gas cars. We arent going to slam into a brick wall where oil suddenly isnt available anymore. Production costs will just creep up causing more people to find a cheaper alternative. Theres plenty of oil left, possibly hundreds of years worth but its production costs are so high youd be better off driving an electric car eventually. America will probably be one of the last to switch along with Russia and the gulf states due to the fact that we have tons of oil and the reserve currency which allows us to import stuff cheaply. Ultimately I think the population decline is a good thing though and well figure out how to manage it just like we figured out how to provide for a rapidly expanding one.

>>509517680
I've been under the impression that our global economy (that is, feeding the third world) is precariously dependent on fossil fuel transport and has been for quite some time. As far as I'm aware, we can upkeep calorie distribution and even water movement, but energy systems are what's "in danger" of collapsing due to limited resources.
Still, I'm going to assume you know more about what you're talking about than I do, because my concern is way more in the power side of power.

>>509507636 (OP)
>depopulation
Dw anon there will be plenty of people, they'll just be arabs, niggers, spics, and jeets. And humanity will never reach the stars

>>509518275
We’re not running out of fossil fuels. The fossil fuels may be fucking up the water cycle & global heat cycle.

Pacific Island nations are becoming a modern Atlantis.
Egypt will see 2 out of every 3 people starve to death (or, more likely die in a war with their upstream neighbors).
Americans will see a resurgence in tv repairmen and be too poor to afford throwaway technology & fast fashion.

And i know which one is going to bitch the loudest online & pretend like their world is ending. You are right. But comfort is nothing in the face of sheer survival.

>>509518628
Its got more to do with jeets and chinks dumping trash, chemicals and feces in their water supply. When that was a problem in the west in the late 19th century we invented modern plumbing and water treatment plants to keep toxic waste out of the waterways.

>>509507636 (OP)
The best thing that could happen, was mankind going extinct.

people don’t realize most city populations have far exceeded the capacity of their local water resources. If the supply chain breaks it’s not just food that city dwellers will have to worry about.

>>509520760
God I love being American

>>509507636 (OP)
Where are you getting that this is something that's going to happen?

>>509511034
you wouldn't know, would you ?

>>509518628
>We’re not running out of fossil fuels.
The "general opinion" that I hear from the scientific community in my field (I'm more of a technician than an economist or natural scientist, so I may hearing telephone results) is that we are in fact running out of extractable fossil fuels, at least if we want to not bake the planet.
>The fossil fuels may be fucking up the water cycle & global heat cycle.
This I agree with, and I would go so far as to say they are DEFINITELY fucking up the water and heat cycles. Storms are going to become a major issue when it comes to maintaining infrastructure long-term.
>>509520760
There's a really unsettling but compelling argument from some neo-pagan somewhere that the whole of civilization can be explained as large cities expanding imperialistically to control more and more of the territory and resources around them until they suffer from linear-square survival issues and collapse.

>>509521827
Oh, and just to be clear, the reason why I mentioned infrastructure with regards to storms is that infrastructure and rescue operations are the difference between 500 residents and 200 looters dying in a storm and 100k residents dying in a storm. Populations in naturally useful living spaces, like coastal areas, are turbofucked by storms.

>>509516808
GDP is only higher today because it is measured in devalued dollars.

>>509507636 (OP)
>societies and religions across the world treat women like breeding chattel for thousands of years
>after millennia of progress, finally overthrow those old rules and embrace individual freedom
>most women choose to delay having children, have just 1-2 children, or outright never have them
>for every woman that has no children, there needs to be an equal number of women having 4+ each just to SUSTAIN a population, nevermind grow it
Economic development, declining religious belief, lack of government assistance for parents, EVERYTHING has been suggested to explain the lowering fertility rates. It's become the biggest political rorschach test in history, where everyone who looks at it just sees the causes and solutions they want to. They all fail when you see the same trend happening in rich countries like Japan, and poor countries like India. Secular countries like Germany, religious countries like Egypt. Countries with great parental assistance like Norway, and ones without like the United States. Conservatives will advocate a return to traditional values (that not enough of them live by once they've tasted individual freedom) and liberals will advocate filling the gap with immigration (as the number of countries above replacement dwindles, there will be nowhere to get immigrants from).
I don't know which societies will inherit the future, but I know their shape.

>>509507636 (OP)
Its the Great Filter
Planets that don't overcome late capitalism will die out
Fuck (((them))) and support local businesses

>>509522827
>Don't like the religious right? Wait until you meet the post-religious right!