I recently borrowed this film from my uncle. It is far from the most refined thing I've ever seen, but the subject matter is interesting.

I can't say that I comprehend it well enough to provide a competent synopsis, but the short version is people in developed countries aren't having enough kids. This combined with advancements in medicine/healthcare that promote longer lives has produced a world population that is disproportionately elderly. The overpopulation perceived by some is a result of old folks not dying, as opposed to younger people having too many children. The biased demographic creates an unsustainable condition. There's much more to it; it's all quite interesting. I am likely omitting at least a few very important factors, in my synopsis, so don't judge it too harshly; I just wanted to give folks a rough idea of the content.

Apparently Elon Musk and Pope Francis are both advocates of demographic winter awareness. Likely one of very few views those two men would share.

There is an author, Peter Zeihan, who is a demographer and economist who has written a series of books on how this change in population demographics is affecting and will affect world politics in the first half of the 21st Century. Not everybody agrees with his conclusions, but he makes a pretty strong case for his theories, and they are certainly worth some consideration.

Perhaps his most comprehensive publication is "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization" isbn: 9780063230484.

Bottom line: as indicated in the OP, most prosperous and technically advanced countries/societies are experiencing low birth rates and increasingly aged populations that will strain the ability of young workers to support the no-longer-working in their retirement. Meanwhile, poorer countries are experiencing a population boom which is putting strains on them to find meaningful life choices for their teeming youth. This will result in massive self-displacement of young people from the latter moving to the former in search of economic opportunity, basically, a place that will let them find work. This, of course, will result in significant changes to economics, politics, and population makeup in the target countries.

Some might see this as already happening here, but per Zeihan, it is only going to get worse, and the pressures are so great that there is little we will be able to do to control it. It may be more helpful to look at this immigration as a source of young cheap labor that we are not producing in our own society. This is where he gets significant push back from those who don't like his predictions. OTOH, maybe having a large body of immigrants working and paying taxes might not be the worst thing for those relying on Social Security income.

As I said, one may not agree with him, but he is worth the read.

quote:

the short version is people in developed countries aren't having enough kids. This combined with advancements in medicine/healthcare that promote longer lives has produced a world population that is disproportionately elderly. The overpopulation perceived by some is a result of old folks not dying, as opposed to younger people having too many children.

During the last 100 years or so the world population has exploded. I'm not upset that it would slow down, or even reverse.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that it's primarily western civilization that is imploding while 3rd world countries continue to breed. The world is becoming poorer and less educated. Civil society is slipping away.

In general, people are an asset. The governments of the West sold their populations to the criminals, and the degenerates, and they responded how most formerly free people do, once enslaved, and refused to reproduce.

We boomed, when we told the bright and industrious - and the educated, in large part, that there was a place where the Inbred Brigands couldn’t steal their money.

Now, the Cronies are stealing on a global scale, and the first decent nation which freedom and earnings will really boom. (It worked in HK for awhile, it’s working on a limited basis in Singapore and Dubai.)

quote:

During the last 100 years or so the world population has exploded. I'm not upset that it would slow down, or even reverse.

They imply that it will do exactly that. To the detriment of developed nations.

quote:

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that it's primarily western civilization that is imploding while 3rd world countries continue to breed. The world is becoming poorer and less educated. Civil society is slipping away.

Indeed. This is a prominent topic in the film. The film predates the proliferation of the "replacement theory", which is relevant to this particular part of the conversation. The best thing anyone with replacement theory mania can do is to have more children. Sealing borders would be great, and should be prioritized, but combatting procreation that one deems undesirable with procreation of their own is immediately within their grasp.

The academics in the film cite two motivators for reproduction: economic viability and beliefs. Economics (partly due to culture-influenced lifestyle creep and gender roles) is currently considered unfavorable by most American Jo Blos. Therefore, if their beliefs don't motivate them beyond the threshold imposed by the economic burden, they won't have children. If they do, they won't have enough of them.

It's a very interesting film. I'd encourage anyone who cares enough to reply in this thread to watch it, if you haven't already.

quote:

It may be more helpful to look at this immigration as a source of young cheap labor that we are not producing in our own society.

This is addressed as well. Immigration culture in America is likely a boon to the nation, when it comes to demographic sustainability, and therefore economic survival. It can be an even bigger boon to economic sustainability too, if we quit giving them all sorts of shit.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
There is an author, Peter Zeihan, who is a demographer and economist who has written a series of books on how this change in population demographics is affecting and will affect world politics in the first half of the 21st Century. Not everybody agrees with his conclusions, but he makes a pretty strong case for his theories, and they are certainly worth some consideration.

Perhaps his most comprehensive publication is "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization" isbn: 9780063230484.

Bottom line: as indicated in the OP, most prosperous and technically advanced countries/societies are experiencing low birth rates and increasingly aged populations that will strain the ability of young workers to support the no-longer-working in their retirement. Meanwhile, poorer countries are experiencing a population boom which is putting strains on them to find meaningful life choices for their teeming youth. This will result in massive self-displacement of young people from the latter moving to the former in search of economic opportunity, basically, a place that will let them find work. This, of course, will result in significant changes to economics, politics, and population makeup in the target countries.

Some might see this as already happening here, but per Zeihan, it is only going to get worse, and the pressures are so great that there is little we will be able to do to control it. It may be more helpful to look at this immigration as a source of young cheap labor that we are not producing in our own society. This is where he gets significant push back from those who don't like his predictions. OTOH, maybe having a large body of immigrants working and paying taxes might not be the worst thing for those relying on Social Security income.

As I said, one may not agree with him, but he is worth the read.

Except they're not working and paying taxes.

Yep, ‘Idiocracy’ explains most of it.

That movie is fun, and certainly touches on the concept. The current immigration crisis and replacement theory angle offer a bit more depth.

Look up “Behavioral Sink” to see where we’re headed. It isn’t pretty. When the young males loose any desire to procreate, that is the tipping point. I see it now in Gen Z, where modern feminism has made dating so insufferable that young males have simply checked out. Can’t blame them.

quote:

Behavioral Sink

Interesting... and the world has gotten a lot more crowded since 1962!

Calhoun’s experiments were interpreted at the time as evidence of what could happen in an overpopulated world. The unusual behaviors he observed—such as open violence, a lack of interest in sex and poor pup-rearing—he dubbed “behavioral sinks.”

After Calhoun wrote about his findings in a 1962 issue of Scientific American, that term caught on in popular culture, according to a paper published in the Journal of Social History. The work tapped into the era’s feeling of dread that crowded urban areas heralded the risk of moral decay.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...ys-future-180954423/

The proliferation of pornography and persistent drift away from Christianity no doubt contribute to the GenZ phenomenon.

From the beginning of human life until shortly after WWII, there was minimal "birth control" and plenty of diseases so people had to have lots of kids just to ensure some made it to adulthood. 200 years ago 50% of children did not reach adulthood, 100 years ago it was still 25%. Children were also an asset in farming because they could produce more than they consumed at a relatively young age.

Cue the advent antibiotics, modern medicine, vaccines, and everything else by the mid 20th century and you had a baby boom and rapid population growth because they were able to survive. The 20th century populaiton increase was incredible. But then the leftist statists said it's "unsustainable" and talked about restricting births (or worse) and China implemented it's famous 1 child policy from 1978 until 2018 or so.

But then we developed easy birth control (the pill), legalized abortion, and invented modern technology that made it a lot easier to "live", resulting in women demanding "liberation" and taking jobs outside the home.

Doubling the workforce effectively halved the average wage over a period of time (simple supply and demand), and now both parents work, making it harder to have large families, not to mention the high costs of raising and educating children.

Problem is the modern welfare state - which includes Social Security and Medicare in the U.S. - was devised decades ago when there were a lot more tax payers than benefit recipients.

Longer lifespans and less kids means the welfare states will not be unable to sustain their payments. The only alternative is to immigrate working age people to work and pay the taxes to support the welfare state. So that's what Europe is doing, given their birth rate is around 1.0-1.3 children per female. Mostly they are immigrating Muslims and Africans because that's who's relatively close by. The native population does not like this, but the politicians know they will not be able to pay the benefits, and if they can't they will be voted out, or worse.

The U.S. has a higher birth rate of around 2.0, some say because the U.S. is more religious than Europe. But a lot of that is because Latino immigrants still have big families, as well as Muslim and African immigrants, whereas caucasian families are getting smaller but not as small as Europe. So again, our government is immigrating people for the same reasons.

The greatest risk to Europe is a majority Muslim population that enacts Sharia law by popular bote. That will be the beginning of the new Dark Ages. If the U.S. largely "allows" immigration of Christian Latinos we will not have to worry about a Muslim takeover.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Behavioral Sink

Interesting... and the world has gotten a lot more crowded since 1962!

Calhoun’s experiments were interpreted at the time as evidence of what could happen in an overpopulated world. The unusual behaviors he observed—such as open violence, a lack of interest in sex and poor pup-rearing—he dubbed “behavioral sinks.”

After Calhoun wrote about his findings in a 1962 issue of Scientific American, that term caught on in popular culture, according to a paper published in the Journal of Social History. The work tapped into the era’s feeling of dread that crowded urban areas heralded the risk of moral decay.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...ys-future-180954423/

Don't forget that Mouse Utopia provided for all the mice' needs with no effort from the mice - food and water were abundant. The experiment is as much a condemnation of marxist ideas of utopia where everyone is provided for, as it is about overcrowding. Having no "skin" in your survival causes lots of dysfunctions and we can see that both in welfare poor and rich trust fund kids.

quote:

The experiment is as much a condemnation of marxist ideas of utopia where everyone is provided for, as it is about overcrowding. Having no "skin" in your survival causes lots of dysfunctions and we can see that both in welfare poor and rich trust fund kids.

Good points, Lefty Sig.
People were not meant to be "provided for."

The Bible verse that says "if a man will not work, he shall not eat" is 2 Thessalonians 3:10. The full verse is 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which reads, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies".

Demographic warfare is a type of Cultural Marxism.
When you understand this, you realize it isn't stupid at all, it's very clever...at least from a strategic perspective.
70 years of social engineering has taken it's toll. Now the average age of White people is 58 and in 15 years, the few Whites who still remain will be in a weak position to defend themselves from all those who hate them.