why is depopulation bad? people act like it's ecological disaster that there will be 4 billion people on earth instead of 40 in the future. if anything it's good news as everything is better when you have less people competing for resources.

>>16722204 (OP)
>be me
>average guy
>see mexicans getting deported
>job openings everywhere and companies are competing with each other with higher wages and amenities
>its finally an employee market and not an employers market after 20 years

>be business owner
>cant find cucks willing to work a slaves wage that wouldn't even cover their rent in the city they live in
>aieee my profits aren't perpetually growing how could this be?

>be politician
>gdp sees growth slowing because people arent having kids anymore which means people arent buying pointless shit or competing for housing prices which makes prices go up and by extension gdp go up
>(i dont know how any of this shit works as a politician i just know we need more bodies asap because the business owners are bitching about not having enough workers(slaves))
>rather than making a 10-20 year plan to increases birth rates I decide to go the easy route and just import a shit ton of migrants
>GDP number going up for the 4 years im serving
>smug_pepe.jpg

baza

>>16722204 (OP)
Most of the worries surrounding depopulation are economic and geopolitical, and not environmental.

>>16722204 (OP)
It's bad when people get actively depopulated.

Keeping the birthrates low is the maybe the best possible and most human and most elegant way to control and reduce population over large periods of time.
It's non violent, no one gets actually harmed, it's a passive effect, it's intelligent.
it actually means more resources and a better life with more opportunities for everyone.

The world just needs awareness of this, or their will be the risk that nationalistic and economic fearmongering about "low birthrates" could provoke political action to increase the birthrates, which worsens the ecological situation long term.

>>16722204 (OP)
because jews say it is

>>16722204 (OP)
>why is depopulation bad?
because it is not general. It emplementent only to the western world, meanwhile africans and the rest of the thirdies are going it on like rabbits

>>16722228
Yeah, which is why we need to keep huwhitoids from having kids and import infinity jeets to keep the local population growing. To defeat those evil hecking nationalismus!

>>16722260
I said the world needs awareness of this. I meant the world, like in the whole world.
Yes nationalism is accelerating trends of overpopulation, because one nation state feels threatened by another, so it wants it's population to multiply a lot to have more fighting age men and people for the workforce, which decreases the price of labor. which means harder labor for longer hours and for less resource for the people working.
If the world would be aware of these dynamics nationalism would decrease and by this the ability of rulers to mobilize large armies, military would be considered less necessary, threat levels would decrease, regions would not need to focus on managing threats and survival and would not need a larger population to out-force other regions.
Instead they could focus on improving quality of life for the people in their region.
humanity would have the resources and time to focus on their intellectual, ethical and spiritual evolution.

>>16722325
>Yes nationalism is accelerating trends of overpopulation,
where? there are hardly any nationalist nations left anymore. the only places growing right now by natural births are in africa. more people doesn't equal military or economic success and history is full of examples, in fact it's usually more difficult to maintain a large empire. globalist western countries are mass importing foreigners specifically to break labor and national interests, and the reaction will be isolationist nationalism and population decline through remigration.

>>16722348
>western countries are mass importing foreigners specifically to break labor and national interests, and the reaction will be isolationist nationalism and population decline through remigration.
It's a logical conclusion of profit dynamic, corporations want to maximize profits, cutting labor cost by importing immigrant labor just does that.
real estate benefits from this too, importing people raises housing scarcity by market logic they can raise rent and their real estate become more valuable.
importing immigration does not break national interest, because national interest is almost completely made up of the interest of a nations economic interest/ruling class(which are the large corporations/super rich/"capitalists".
Also this owning class will use media influence to obfuscate its roll in it and make you believe their scapegoating :to you they say "it's all the immigrants fault" to the immigrant they say :"those backwards natives are racist and hate you" or similar scapegoating
People need to wake up to the material realities of societies and learn to think in material interest.

>>16722259
>emplementent

Google turned up 0 hits for this word. ESL?

>>16722574
he probably was meaning to say
"it is implemented only in the western world"
or "It's implementation (occurs) only (in the) western world"

>causes econcels to shit their pants so hard that a newly graduated econ major from State U will look at you and proclaim that Homo sapiens sapiens is just as Productive (???) when surrounded by his immediate family as when surround by 5,000 farangs

Bc capitalism kind of relies on constant growth. Ditto for pensions and schools and housing and many other things. Constant growth feeds the fire of capitalism. Without growth, bankers numbers don't keep going up. Makes them sad, then mad. Oh well.

>>16722204 (OP)
Ecologically speaking, depopulation is concerning in any population you care about. It reduces a good thing, suggests underlying problems that could be damaging elsewhere, and forms a worrying pattern that might cause or signal issues in the long run even if it's not of immediate concern.

If you hate the population in question this is all less relevant, but you still have >>16722227

The other major issues are that it's looking like a major crash, it's weirdly global (you wouldn't expect China and USA to have much in common, but they both seem to be suffering an impending population collapse), and the exceptions are feral shitholes as pointed out by >>16722259

So all in all looking like a major series of calamities that are really only fine if you hate humans and want them to go away anyway. Even then, you will probably suffer weird side effects from productive civilizations withering.

>>16722228
>it actually means more resources and a better life with more opportunities for everyone.
This assumes there's a limited amount of stuff on the ground and everyone needs to share it. This has been provably false for most of human history, and is probably one reason technological advancement is exponential. More (productive) people is better for everyone.

>>16722557
>People need to wake up to the material realities of societies and learn to think in material interest.
Stop spouting Marxist gibberish. Conservaties want healthy families. Progressives want to destroy Western civilization and rule over imported serfs. Landlords are not conspiring with newspapers to blame everything on immigrants. News stations are conspiring with universities to insist the great replacement is good, actually.

you just want the economy to collapse don't you, unfortunately the line do needs to go up, forever.

>>16722644
>This assumes there's a limited amount of stuff on the ground and everyone needs to share it.
Yes and this assumption is correct. You can use land for food production only that extensively, there are limits.

> This has been provably false for most of human history, and is probably one reason technological advancement is exponential.
If it would be false then people would have not been fighting since the beginning of time over resource or control of resource.
Or what is your proof exactly that it is false?

>More (productive) people is better for everyone.
This is an unreasonable oversimplification.
More production also means more trash, pollution and environmental waste.
Densely populated areas are hellholes for the souls of a lot of people who wish there was more nature, less noise, more actual meaning.
Instead they got jobs jobs jobs, and live a sensless life from paycheck to paycheck, for what? to have a nice thanksgiving dinner once a year? This is the misery of slaves.

>gibberish.
Where has my analysis been unreasonable or not grounded in observable evidence?

>Progressives want to destroy Western civilization and rule over imported serfs.
This is a very dishonest misrepresentation and generalization of a very diverse group of people, who often have nothing but good intentions for society.
A very dishonest generalization you have no evidence for, proof me wrong if you can, and no one or two quotes from one or two people doesn't proof that "all progressives" in general want to "destroy" western civilization and rule over imported serfs.

Importing "serfs", as in cheapest possible immigrant labor, does solely benefit corporations, normal people do not view human beings as economic units to extract labor from.

>>16722644

>Landlords are not conspiring with newspapers to blame everything on immigrants
Landlords? I was more thinking of gigantic real estate corporations and their shareholders
They do have an economic interest to import more immigrants to increase profit and value of their companies.
Their profits of them and their shareholders and their existence as corporations would be threaten if you unite with immigrants to effect political change, for example demanding social housing or taxing the rich.
They play conquer and divide, telling immigrants you are racist and hate them, and telling you with another media that you are getting replaced.
You start being angry at immigrants, thinking they are the problem instead of realizing the designs and dynamics of your exploitation.

>News stations are conspiring with universities to insist the great replacement is good, actually.
There are different news stations with different agendas. One mocks you and scares you only for you to be more susceptible to the lies of another. Orchestrated debates and positions, Fake alternatives. A big con game.

Material analysis cut's right through all of the bullshit and theater. This is why I recommend it to all honest people. It has helped me to make sense of the world honestly.

>>16722671
you accuse me of bad intentions with no evidence. to discredit reasonable analysis.
cheap trick no intelligent and honest person will fall for

>>16722204 (OP)
Congrats, OP, you've been selected for deportation. What's that? You don't want to die? Well, that's to bad. Neither did most others.

Congrats, OP, you've been selected for depopulation. What's that? You don't want to die? Well, that's to bad.

>>16722708
had to check whether this thread was on /v/ because of how low IQ this post is.

>>16722228
>no one gets harmed
Yes, because the process and methods used to reach and maintain a low birth rate are completely harmless and totally benign.

>>16722204 (OP)
Ask who is being depopulated

Natural selection needs to be the only motivating factor for depopulation. If you can't stand on your own, you ain't ever gonna make it. Just don't help out anyone who isn't willing to stand on their own two feet.

>>16722204 (OP)
It's not but there's nothing particularly good about it either. Good thing would be stable population around the level we can maintain optimally but any estimations for that "optimal population size" we're pulling straight out of our assholes.

>>16722644
Lol corpocuck

>>16722698
>who often have nothing but good intentions for society.
LMAO who is dishonestly generalising now? First it's 'think about the material incentives' which may lead someone to (correctly) conclude that so-called progressives most likely espouse their beliefs for predominantly social/material benefits, but now this we'll just conveniently generalise this diverse collection of peoples as selfless idealists.

>Importing "serfs", as in cheapest possible immigrant labor, does solely benefit corporations, normal people do not view human beings as economic units to extract labor from.
Correct, and ultimately irrelevant. "Progressive" EU politicians and so-called 'human rights' lawyers' will constantly appeal to the humanity of the antisocial migrants they impose upon the population. Meanwhile, the statistics show that such foreigners *never* become economically productive, and are wildly overrepresented in criminality.
Clearly, there is no financial benefit to their presence beyond mere consumption. Despite all the clamour regarding an 'aging population needing skilled workers', it turns out such people only serve to add upon the demographic strain --arguably far worse than the docile elderly.

>>16722698
Beyond parody how 'progressives' as a political bloc consistently double down on hiking immigration, regardless of the fact that it observably harms the citizen working class through unemployment, erodes historical culture, and literally contributes to physical harms done by way of violence and establishment of ethnic ghettos.

>Importing "serfs", as in cheapest possible immigrant labor, does solely benefit corporations, normal people do not view human beings as economic units to extract labor from.
'Progressives' are not remotely politically impotent. Not today, and most certainly not over the last 3 decades --so why haven't their policies reflected these supposedly good intentions? In spite of all the myriad data available to them, why is it they continue to double down on policies that at times explicitly target the natives with the outright intention of disposessing them? The UK being a perfect example and inarguable example of this.

>Where has my analysis been unreasonable or not grounded in observable evidence?
It would be a far shorter list to tally when your "analysis" (carrying water for openly hostile political blocs) has been reasonable and grounded in observable reality. To describe you as utterly delusional would be quite generous, at least schizophrenics have no control over their illness.

>>16722204 (OP)
Malthusian trap doesn't account for induced demand effects. If you cut the population by 90% the remaining 10% would consume more until your back at square one.

historically only technological advancement has increased the resource footprint, and a larger population means a higher probability of creasing the tech level

>>16724314
I didn't say they always have good intentions. I said they often do. Which is true.
This doesn't mean that they can't be misguided or used against their self best interest.
Also this doesn't mean they are always misguided or used by third parties. The left is not one homogeneous "movement" in their goals. Far from that.

>think about the material incentives' which may lead someone to (correctly) conclude that so-called progressives most likely espouse their beliefs for predominantly social/material benefits,
this is correct thinking,
this is a good way to find out about a persons integrity or lack there of (some leftists would call lack of integrity: opportunists)
I am not arguing for "leftism". I was not even opening that barrel of right vs left, because I think it's misleading.
I didn't say they are all selfless idealist. I just said you claiming that:
"Progressives want to destroy Western civilization and rule over imported serfs"
Is a very dishonest generalization, not at all in touch with reality.
I know some leftist, there are normal people not perfect selfless messiah, but still good people who wish for a better and more just world for everyone.
I don't like generalization and scapegoating no matter if it comes from the "right" or the "left".
I think "right" vs "left" is a false dichotomy used to divide and conquer the people.

> the statistics show that such foreigners *never* become economically productive, and are wildly overrepresented in criminality.
post the statistics
also I am not denying that antisocial immigrants can and do exist, but that doesn't mean honest immigrants can't exist or that we should be wary of any immigrants and see them as a threat.
that would be improper generalization and scapegoating, which only serves those who benefit from turning the poor/middle class people against each other

>>16724314
>Despite all the clamour regarding an 'aging population needing skilled workers', it turns out such people only serve to add upon the demographic strain --arguably far worse than the docile elderly.
Okay but that was not a point I made. I never said we need immigration for this or that.
It would be far better for other countries to have a better quality of life, and for our country to work hand in hand with other countries to make them better.
But in reality our countries are using other countries, suppressing them in the global fight for market share.
Plundering a country in colonial manner with corporations, poisoning it with chemicals is bad enough, but then denying all responsibility and getting angry at those who want to flee these places for a better life is peak hypocrisy and very very antisocial.
But of course this is not always the case we have to differentiate on this matter also.

>>16724317

>Beyond parody how 'progressives' as a political bloc consistently double down on hiking immigration, regardless of the fact that it observably harms the citizen working class through unemployment
I am not arguing for that.
I am arguing for understanding the economic dynamics at play. maximizing profit demands minimizing labor cost which demands importing cheap immigrant labor to have a surplus of workforce so the workers have nothing to bargain with.
The on this part unchecked profit dynamic is the problem. The artifical scarcity in housing, cuts on social programs etc, all this adds pressure to the workers to take any job they can get just to survive, no matter how lousy the pay and how bad the working conditions are.

>erodes historical culture
I think this is another topic entirely. also culture is a dynamic thing and we could argue for hours how bad or good it is.

>>16724317

>why haven't their policies reflected these supposedly good intentions?
Because they get easily used and misguided, their empathy hijacked.
They need more proper materialist analysis and contextual awareness.
Large portions of the population no matter if "right" or "left" get easily fooled by slogans and appeals to emotion, or by peer pressure, thus instrumentalized to sabotage their own self best interest.

I think stopping this "us against them", scapegoating, generalizing, divide and conquer affirming social dynamics is the first step towards a better future for the majority of the population

>The UK being a perfect example and inarguable example of this.
i am not terribly well informed about what is going in the UK.
Also a lot of variations of leftist thought see racism as a problem, because it can lead to nationalism and inhuman treatment of ethnic minorities.
It can lead to affirmative action, that may goes over the board, I don't know.
I can't comment on vague hypothethical scenarios with precision.
A concrete example would be easier to judge and comment on.

>To describe you as utterly delusional would be quite generous, at least schizophrenics have no control over their illness.
I hear your frustration. But I don't think I have been dishonest in anything I said.
My intention is to be intellectual rigorous and spread understanding for the better of all humanity.
And I belong to no group, I just share my views and understanding, which may be not complete or perfect. after all I am just an imperfect human too

>>16722644
>China and USA
>both seem to be suffering an impending population collapse
nope, only China
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2025/

>>16722218
trvthnvke

>>16724317
>'Progressives' are not remotely politically impotent. Not today, and most certainly not over the last 3 decades --so why haven't their policies reflected these supposedly good intentions?
Also I want to add that the kind of "progressive" thought that dominated the last 3 decades was not "leftist" and got nothing to do with what i said or the interest of the people. It was simply neoliberalism.
"Neoliberalism is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, and reduced government intervention in the economy. It promotes privatization, free trade, and austerity measures, often leading to decreased social spending and a greater emphasis on individual responsibility"

Decreased social spending is certainly not was I was arguing for.
I am more arguing for social housing and taxing the rich to finance that and other social programs

I just felt I need to add that, so we are on the same page about the terms we use.
"progress" is a sot of catch all phrase which could be used for almost anything

>>16722204 (OP)
you're for depopulation? great, I was hoping you'd kys

>>16722204 (OP)
probaly a loud minority, but also quite possibly just the fact that average joe is retarded and we are still suffering from boomer dogma inherited from a certain desert tradition that tells people to procreate

>>16722259
Le tech will improve our live also institutions

>>16722204 (OP)
>why is depopulation bad?
Its bad for the old people because they need young people to support them. When the population shrinks its still possible to support the old people, they just have to lower their living standards

>>16722259
>meanwhile africans and the rest of the thirdies are
Just the africans, birth rates are collapsing everywhere else. India has 1.9 births per woman

>>16722204 (OP)
more people = more experiences for same life form in parallel. plus since we interact means a more diverse experience for each individual.
imagine being 40 strong only and already having fucked the 20 females, had dramas with each and now you avoid them because somehow they all psycho. what do?
it's tricky. so far the more the better for various reasons, work, development, resource gathering, defense. that incentive will very soon change. hard to figure out a number. I mean resource wise you can come up with a number, sure. what about something else wise? there's more shits not just resources.
this number depends on other factors, like lifespan. general human behavior, we get on rails get fixed not flexible anymore in old age. new blood comes with new shit, takes out old ones that settled on bad rails, or bad rails for those new times. (new blood) having a blank state was helpful for the group. could also be more easily exploited which had its uses for the group.
there's a lot of functions that you need to take into account when deciding on how many. means you need to understand how everything will go with just a few, add the AI/AGI influence in the whole mix, it's too many unknowns.
left to it naturally sorting out might mean total wipe of the human race, starting some bad game mechanics once AGI hits the scene and changes nash equilibriums.
you could probably ask AGI, but depends what you ask it for. how many so you do so and so, or how is it better to change shit so as many as possible can exist? who's asking the questions? those in power/who control the tech/AGI? should they be the ones who ask the question?
shit's crazy complicated with a lot of fine details. clearly not for the warmongering psycho brainlet. needs a council of the highest IQ anons on the planet, debating for a lot of time.

>>16725726
>needs a council of the highest IQ anons on the planet
and not only, needs representation for various walks of life. there's all kinds of people who might have an important perspective on the matter.
leave it to a handful of techbros and poorfag philosoturds with a promise in the "new world" and you'll get absolute shit.