User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:25:09 AM EST
Depopulation is spoken of with horror by governments and people around the world.
Basically the bulk of the population is getting older and there will not be enough births to replace the deaths. There are a wide range of figures, one I read was that the world population will decline 0.3% or so each year by 2050, maybe more. In 1900 the world population was 1.7 billion, today it is around 8 billion people. In 120 years it increased more that 4x, far faster and higher then any other time in history. For population numbers sake: There were 5 billion people in 1987. There were 4 billion people in 1974. There were 3 billion people in 1960. There can not be infinite growth in a finite area. There are benefits to depopulation: more resources available per person, economic shuffling will show more employment available, less spending on welfare programs by the government, and others. Why is depopulation viewed as "bad"? Would you rather live with 8-12 billion people on the planet or 4 billion?  Population decline 1950~2100, The fastest shrinking countries; Population problem |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:27:17 AM EST
[#1]
Quoted: Why is depopulation viewed as "bad"? Because the left and "elites" are trying to do it by force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:30:12 AM EST
[#2]
I would rather live with fewer people, of course. The keyword being LIVE.
I'm not willing to contribute to the depopulation with myself or my progeny. Now if you want to encourage most of the third world to die off a little faster by ending foreign aid, by all means, go ahead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:33:53 AM EST
[#3]
Because fractional reserve banking systems fail without an increasing population and economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:44:12 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the left and "elites" are trying to do it by force. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why is depopulation viewed as "bad"? Because the left and "elites" are trying to do it by force. Which is funny since everything points to it happening "naturally " already. Of course the consequences will never be the same, and we'll probably turnout like a global China and/or Russia. All the overachievers will get culled and left with a bunch of drunk domesticated dumbasses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:51:05 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the left and "elites" are trying to do it by force. Exactly. The narcissist rulers of the world are trying to play God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:53:01 AM EST
[#6]
Because the entire modern world is setup predicated on an continual growth assumption.
Depopulation would be like removing the foundation out from under the house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 3:54:30 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the entire modern world is setup predicated on an continual growth assumption. Depopulation would be like removing the foundation out from under the house. Also, you need to take into consideration which populations are experiencing growth, and which ones are going to be experience shrinking. That's a big one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:14:04 AM EST
[#8]
“Every mammal on this planet instictively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area."
Agent Smith was right about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:14:15 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because fractional reserve banking systems fail without an increasing population and economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking Ding Ding Ding ??. The exact reason immigration will never be stopped in the USA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:20:19 AM EST
[#10]
Those promoting de-population are providing the world with Covid-19 shots that appear to be designed to force depopulation on people that believed their governments and have died in droves, so far. I just wish those promoting the idea would lead by example and end themselves first and let those that are fully into their martyrdom status follow their lead!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:43:56 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because fractional reserve banking systems fail without an increasing population and economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking Hence the push for a great reset. Better to crash everything and start again than have many years of lesser pain where we are constantly reminded of how badly certain people and organizations fucked this up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:45:18 AM EST
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:49:01 AM EST
[#13]
Models show that around 11 billion is the max, after that we won't be able to breed fast enough to replace people, so it should hover right around there.
But....that's a shit load of people. Everyone complains about the population, but then pops out like 4 kids anyway. Want to do your part. Have enough children to replace you and your spouse and then call it a day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:49:07 AM EST
[#14]
Some of the big population “gains” are from the advancement of medical knowledge. How many heart transplants happened in 1900, how many mothers have lived from childbirth that would have probably died 100 years ago.
I wish we had the morals to self regulate ourselves as I am sure 87 billion people are not sustainable on this rock. First stop giving tax breaks for having more than two kids. If you can’t afford them….well you need to figure that one out. My opinion for starters anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:50:31 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some of the big population “gains” are from the advancement of medical knowledge. How many heart transplants happened in 1900, how many mothers have lived from childbirth that would have probably died 100 years ago. I wish we had the morals to self regulate ourselves as I am sure 87 billion people are not sustainable on this rock. First stop giving tax breaks for having more than two kids. If you can’t afford them….well you need to figure that one out. My opinion for starters anyway. I'm a big fan of free birth control and sterilization programs on the county and state levels. For the few bucks it costs in taxes, it likely saves thousands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:52:54 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Models show that around 11 billion is the max, after that we won't be able to breed fast enough to replace people, so it should hover right around there. But....that's a shit load of people. Everyone complains about the population, but then pops out like 4 kids anyway. Want to do your part. Have enough children to replace you and your spouse and then call it a day. Uh…unless you limit the number of females somehow, I don’t see how this theory is true. Now if you said we would not have enough food then I get it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:57:18 AM EST
[#17]
We're doomed!
The "population bomb" was talked about in the early 1970s from what I remember. Late 60s and early 70s. My 25-years ago there wasn't enough food, medicine, and consumer goods so millions of Americans died according to the predictions. Some of the older members can help me here but it was "DDT", then "the population bomb", "industrial pollution", and then "global climate cooling"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:58:27 AM EST
[#18]
I guess it depends on how you view humanity's future. I hope for us to expand off this planet and into the solar system and beyond. That would require more people than we have. Thus depopulation is bad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 4:59:53 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh…unless you limit the number of females somehow, I don’t see how this theory is true. Now if you said we would not have enough food then I get it. The Chinese communist do a good job of limiting population growth.  We ought adopt more of their policies so other people don't go hungry. The abortionist will love that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:01:25 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh…unless you limit the number of females somehow, I don’t see how this theory is true. Now if you said we would not have enough food then I get it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Models show that around 11 billion is the max, after that we won't be able to breed fast enough to replace people, so it should hover right around there. But....that's a shit load of people. Everyone complains about the population, but then pops out like 4 kids anyway. Want to do your part. Have enough children to replace you and your spouse and then call it a day. Uh…unless you limit the number of females somehow, I don’t see how this theory is true. Now if you said we would not have enough food then I get it. Maybe that included carrying capacity as well. I'm trying to find the video that explained it, but basically at a certain point humans just can't stay alive long enough to be replaced quickly. It did also account for shrinking fertility rates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:04:16 AM EST
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:08:42 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: “Every mammal on this planet instictively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area." Agent Smith was right about that. Looks to me its more about natural selection that controls animals. Humans have found ways to increase food supply and high density living. A fox would just eat all the rabbits till they were gone. Then all the foxes die. If population rates can equalize they form a balance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:12:59 AM EST
[#23]
Op, come pick up you guide stones in GA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:15:28 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks to me its more about natural selection that controls animals. Humans have found ways to increase food supply and high density living. A fox would just eat all the rabbits till they were gone. Then all the foxes die. If population rates can equalize they form a balance. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: “Every mammal on this planet instictively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area." Agent Smith was right about that. Looks to me its more about natural selection that controls animals. Humans have found ways to increase food supply and high density living. A fox would just eat all the rabbits till they were gone. Then all the foxes die. If population rates can equalize they form a balance. Pretty much. In the grand scheme it is neither good nor bad, it just is. For us on an individual level it can be downright disastrous,, but nature doesn't give a fuck, we will run through the period of time we are given as a species, either wipe ourselves out or get wiped out by something, evolution will march on and in a few million years things are going to look very different than they do now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:17:12 AM EST
[#25]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:17:55 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks to me its more about natural selection that controls animals. Humans have found ways to increase food supply and high density living. A fox would just eat all the rabbits till they were gone. Then all the foxes die. If population rates can equalize they form a balance. In a balanced ecosystem predator/prey populations vary in natural inverse cycles. More prey >> More predators >> Less prey>> Less predators, and so on. Humans do not have natural predators, so there's nothing to stop unfettered population growth. So far (besides man himself) only viruses are capable of significantly reducing human populations. Viruses have so far been smart enough not to completely wipe out their host species, but who knows what the future holds? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:18:17 AM EST
[#27]
I think about that when I see people with 5 or 6 kids. Doesn't matter here so much as India and China are going to wreck us all
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:20:31 AM EST
[#28]
You know, it wouldn’t be too bad for us if China decided to go genocidal and nix a huge percent of their “overpopulation” as we develop the ability to reverse aging. That could seriously dampen their population leverage (economic leverage) they have over us.
We should never of slowed our birth rates in the US, we have so much space, and competitors willing to abuse their population size economically against us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:22:22 AM EST
[#29]
Quoted: Basically the bulk of the population is getting older and there will not be enough births to replace the deaths. This sounds like depopulation, whether anybody likes it or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:22:54 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the left and "elites" are trying to do it by force. Also, too big of a middle class challenges the elites. A smaller population of slaves is much easier to control. As with most narratives, population control isn't about numbers of people, or limited resources, or over-crowding, or whatever other fucking stupid ass reason to support it. It's simply about control and power. The elites won't have to compete with serfs when they travel, vacation, and enjoy their lifestyles. We already have enough communist regimes who are more than capable of keeping population numbers down, and it has nothing to do with resources, space, crowding, health...blah, blah, blah. It's all about control and power. The only benefit of "depopulating" would be the absolute elimination by extreme prejudice of all socialists, Marxists, and communists. A thriving, free market world based on individual liberty and life without the constraints of tyrannical governments, world-leaders, or oligarchs could easily solve the population problem, energy challenges, or resource constraints. The growing population isn't the problem, it's the genocidal tyrants who's only solutions are war, crime, pandemics, political/opposition-elimination, euthanasian, starvation, and sterilization of the masses. ROCK6 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:23:03 AM EST
[#31]
The problem is the developed world is losing population while the third world shits out crotch fruit at an alarming rate.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:23:23 AM EST
[#32]
Good for who?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:23:29 AM EST
[#33]
Problem is, it's only civilized people who are "depopulating".
There are plenty third-worlders to go around. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:31:20 AM EST
[#34]
This is exactly what Globalism is about.
The world can't be housed or fed. 90% of resources are being used by 10% of the world's population. The answer that essentially is being proposed and to some extent, executed is the redistribution of wealth (resources) and coherent depopulation. Critical to this plan is demonization of nationalism, which is viewed as tribal. I sat in a meeting in the mid 2000's in Nairobi where an African doc pushed back against treating Malaria. His concern was "who is going to feed these people" meaning that Malaria kills 3000 kids a day in Africa. If they live they make babies and those babies will make more babies…and they all have to eat. So depopulation isn't anything new OP. It's been on the books for a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:33:24 AM EST
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:35:04 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wish we had the morals to self regulate ourselves as I am sure 87 billion people are not sustainable on this rock. First stop giving tax breaks for having more than two kids. If you can’t afford them….well you need to figure that one out. My opinion for starters anyway. Stop paying poor people to have more kids. More kids=mo’ .gov money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:37:55 AM EST
[#37]
Population drives scientific, technological, and economic growth. A reduced population will necessarily improve in those areas at a slower rate.
As already noted only some nations are depopulating while others, usually third world ones, are increasing. You can also expect social and political friction in the near term since the incoming young adults will be outnumbered by the elderly (thanks to Social Security.) Quote HistoryQuoted: We're doomed! The "population bomb" was talked about in the early 1970s from what I remember. Late 60s and early 70s. My 25-years ago there wasn't enough food, medicine, and consumer goods so millions of Americans died according to the predictions. Some of the older members can help me here but it was "DDT", then "the population bomb", "industrial pollution", and then "global climate cooling"? Peak oil! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:40:19 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Chinese communist do a good job of limiting population growth. We ought adopt more of their policies so other people don't go hungry. The abortionist will love that. Not sure if the was for my comment or the fact that China had that policy in place for awhile.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:42:37 AM EST
[#39]
 The problem is survival of the fittest by natural selection has been removed from the human equation and we are left with the least intelligent least productive humans having all of the children.  . |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:46:26 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stop paying poor people to have more kids. More kids=mo’ .gov money. Well….when votes can't be bought with welfare maybe that'll work. Until then politicians will continue to buy votes from poor people with welfare and demonize successful people with taxes….see how that works? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 5:49:06 AM EST
[#41]
Supporting mass murder of the "non-elite" makes you a bad person
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:06:48 AM EST
[#42]
 Haitian exodus brings more migrants to US southern border  Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:15:01 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In a balanced ecosystem predator/prey populations vary in natural inverse cycles. More prey >> More predators >> Less prey>> Less predators, and so on. Humans do not have natural predators, so there's nothing to stop unfettered population growth. So far (besides man himself) only viruses are capable of significantly reducing human populations. Viruses have so far been smart enough not to completely wipe out their host species, but who knows what the future holds? Humans have the ability to increase the carrying capacity of their environment. What other species does that? Animals dont self regulate. Humans aren't locusts. Agent smith was just being edgy. Well I should say not all of them. There are definitely some R selected humans out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:15:41 AM EST
[#44]
Quoted: Depopulation is spoken of with horror by governments and people around the world. Basically the bulk of the population is getting older and there will not be enough births to replace the deaths. There are a wide range of figures, one I read was that the world population will decline 0.3% or so each year by 2050, maybe more. In 1900 the world population was 1.7 billion, today it is around 8 billion people. In 120 years it increased more that 4x, far faster and higher then any other time in history. For population numbers sake: There were 5 billion people in 1987. There were 4 billion people in 1974. There were 3 billion people in 1960. There can not be infinite growth in a finite area. There are benefits to depopulation: more resources available per person, economic shuffling will show more employment available, less spending on welfare programs by the government, and others. Why is depopulation viewed as "bad"? Would you rather live with 8-12 billion people on the planet or 4 billion?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gVxrQENQUMight want to re-think the assumption of more jobs available. Fewer people means less labor supply, but also less demand. In other words, a contraction of the economy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:17:14 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/522423/13934851-2586032.jpgThe problem is survival of the fittest by natural selection has been removed from the human equation and we are left with the least intelligent least productive humans having all of the children. . Very true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:37:03 AM EST
[#46]
In the St.Louis area a lot of people moved away. Still cities annexing farmland. There are vast areas here that are pretty much abandoned the police barely bother with. Government services just forgotten. Virtually no one lives there. Lot of buildings downtown haveba lot of empty floors are entirely vacant. Many claim the answer is mass demolitions. It's already happenned. More and more building went vacant anyway
Cities can pretend for a long time after the population leaves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:39:12 AM EST
[#47]
It's good for those that don't get depopulated!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:44:14 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's good for those that don't get depopulated! As long as it's not me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:44:29 AM EST
[#49]
The key is, is the depopulation being done freely, of the nations’ own volition, or is it being done forcibly, by war, famine - a government’s doing?
When governments talk depopulation your ears really should perk up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2022 6:45:40 AM EST
[#50]
It isn't bad, but it may be painful to make the adjustments in countries like Japan and those in much of the EU, where the expenses of caring for the aged will exceed the ability of the younger, less numerous working generations to afford the taxes necessary. Overpopulation is very much like running up a debt to the point where your yearly revenues no longer even service the interest payments. While we can find the room for more people, we can't safely find the resources, especially at a first-world existence level.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File