>>510062617
The criticism should really start with the decline in global birthrates. This really should not be happening. It surprised everyone. There is no economic method being practiced today that can manage current affairs with a declining global population, because as population begin to decrease there is no way to manage the complexity of technological infrastructure we have invested in. About the same time this begins to occur oil reserves will have past the threshold capable of supporting a consumer lifestyle. This is no coincidence. It is no coincidence that the modern urban lifestyle everywhere in the world is incapable of reproducing itself.

This is really all much more about just immigration. It is about the very basic things living systems need to survive

only in an Afghan village

>>508856098
so basically Ted was right and all people who live more than 2 generations in industrial society stop reproducing and cease to function normally. There are no exceptions. The industrial society you live in is inherently anti-ecological and hostile to all life in general. Populations in industrial nations are collapsing including all participants. There are ghost towns in Europe. Take a look around the city you are in and realize nothing is living. He was just like not a very good polititcian.
>What must I do with this information?
According to picture there are 4 main identifiable groups unaffected by this trend:
a) rural Africans
b) tribal Afghans
c) central nomadic steppe herders
d) Amish
With this information we can properly adjust how to value a good life. So a rural person living among a closed community of some sort not dependent upon technology. To truly understand how to thread this needle, or possibly steer society hypothetically in the right direction we need to understand the actual cause of the problem, which is not just urbanization. I will explain it for you...