Well that aged like milk
You need to read the updated book that dropped this year. We are currently living in the collapse.>In The End of Population Growth, Ugo Bardi brings the systems-dynamics approach pioneered by The Limits to Growth into the 21st century, with new data, new models, and a frank assessment of what comes next. Aging societies, crumbling pensions, mass migration, abandoned infrastructure — the turbulence ahead is real. So is the opportunity: fewer people means less pressure on a planet already strained to its limits.
>>25178733Malthuscucks have been saying "two more weeks" for centuries at this point
Natural selection mathematically guarantees that fertility rates will go back up again long term.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0https://akarlin.com/breeders-revenge/>As I pointed out in the previous post in this series, there were huge economic incentives to have large families before the Malthusian transition. Since the economically rational thing to do was to have lots and lots of children, there much have been little, if any, selection for fertility per se. If anything, sooner the converse. Families that had more children than they could support suffered higher death rates for their lack of discipline. Meanwhile, the genetic competitiveness that committed and affluent “breeders” gained was limited by the fact that overall cultural norms were highly pro-natal, which limited their ability to eke out a relative advantage. Moreover, since higher IQ tends to be correlated with both greater economic success and lower desired fertility, these rich genotypic breeders must have been quite rare anyway. Hence, in the pre-industrial Malthusian world, there would have been an equilibrium in which breeders only ever constituted a small share of the population.>When these Malthusian constraints fell away at around the time of the Industrial Revolution, along with the loosening of traditionalist pro-natality mores (have as many children as you can support and no more), the evolutionary underpinnings of the old equilibrium likewise crumbled away. However, since in most populations breeders are not yet a high percentage of the population, at first – i.e. the first century or so – this only had very modest effects, because there were very few breeders at t=0.>Hence, cultural and social influences played much greater roles in determining fertility in First World nations during the 20th century, and at least in Africa, will probably continue to do so for the next century.>But this will not be true after another one or two centuries.>Fertility preferences, like all aspects of personality, are heritable – and thus ultracompetitive in a world where the old Malthusian constraints have been relaxed.
>>25178581Within years of its publication it spoiled.BUT he was well funded his whole life (not unlike other shills of the elites, like Peterson)This man's life was a front to sell the depopulation plans of the Davos/Epstein class.Can we just admit we need to kill them now? They're still making more COVID, they're shutting farms down, they're trying to starve us, make more of autistic docile little animals.
>>25178581Truman show tier suggestive programming. Don’t have kids, goy, it’s bad for the planet!
>>25178733I'm not reading no book written by a dude named "Ugo"
>>25180465Isn't that similar name to Hugo
