60 to 50 years ago they were talking about a Malthusian collapse and overpopulation such that many would die, especially after the baby boom. It ended up being the case that all the basedentists saying that were using linear thinking, believing that the population will just keep increasing because that's all they knew from that point. Now they are saying we will be underpopulated due to TFR collapse. But if TFR collapse is all you've seen from this point, why should we expect it to continue going down, like how they expected population to only increase in the 60's and 70's? Wouldn't it be the same linear fake and gay thinking?
It is fake and gay. Population is self stabilizing. You can even find informed people saying this. The birthrate thing is actually about the economy.
>>16946574the redpill is that scientists and experts in ALL FIELDS are really really REALLY bad at predicting the future. They're great at coming up with rationalizations for stuff that already happened but as soon as they start talking about shit farther in the future than tomorrow they're pretty much just monkeys throwing darts
There are plenty of resources to go around for everyone. You just have to work it the other way with smaller numbers with more brains. Judging by the real number of local souls coupled with a refracting wall, the Earth shouldn't need to exceed 1.5 billion long-term.
>>16946574No one can truly predict the future but something can be reasonably true at the time and then due to changing conditions end up being false in the future. Overpopulation was a real danger in the 50's and arguably still is in Africa. At the time it was reasonable to assume that rising population would become a problem and people in the west are currently suffering the consequences of overpopulation in the form of low wages and high housing costs and increase in prices of certain basic goods. The problem is still getting worse too since despite the current below replacement birth rates there's enough immigration to increase the population anyways. The world simply does not have enough resources for the amount of humans so stuff like meat is just going to get more expensive.Crashing birth rates have their own problems which will become apparent in 30-50 years too, a generation half or quarter the size of the previous simply can't support things like pensions and bringing in unproductive immigrants simply makes the problem worse. Again like the 50's there's no real light at the end of the tunnel. The systemic things that cause collapsing birth rates aren't being fixed anywhere so it's not realistic to assume that birth rates would rebound and even if they did rebound the fact that the current children are half the size of the current adult generations will still lead to the exact same problems in the future.It's entirely possible that in the future things change but currently it doesn't look like things are changing for the better and even if they did change the damage is already set in stone. Things will continue to change obviously and humans tend to find their way around problems eventually but expecting that there will simply be no problems because things changed before they have to change again is not only pointless non observation but actively maximizing harm you will experience.Also these things aren't extrapolations.
>>16946574Bro we have a model that perfectly predicts overall human population growth under stable conditions: the logistic fucking curve. We are a K-selected species, not an r-selected species. All this "over"/"under" population crap is a spook. The Haber-Bosh process basically raised the carrying capacity for humans. You can approximate the logistic curve far from the inflection point (t=0) like so: [math]P(t) = \frac{L}{1+\exp(-kt)} \approx L\exp(kt)~(t\ll 0)[/math]. The problem is that if you are very far from the inflection point it is numerically impossible to predict the inflection point, that is because it factors in exponentially into the equation. Once you are past the inflection point it gets easier and easier.
>>16946607>The Haber-Bosh process basically raised the carrying capacity for humans.I don't think it did. It increased the population of humans in the given time frame, but not the actual amount that can be sustained. I believe this is why we are going through some depopulation in Japan or Europe. I mean, I don't know why people don't talk about this in the TFR discussion, but Japan is packed. It's a small archipelago with not a lot of useful land and above 100 million people. Its population probably shouldn't even be above 60 million. Using this model, you'd see the TFR drop, depopulation, then a small rebound to the actual carrying capacity in picrel.
>>16946750Your picrel would factually correspond to a sudden drop in carrying capacity, but would beg the question what caused it to drop.
Wealthy nation = population growth goes down.Poor nation = population growth goes up.Always has been.
>>16946776Not him but it could be anything from, the political views of the author changed to less agricultural land due to residencial buildings
>>16946784I highly doubt that anything of that sort would cause a correction by a factor of over 2. I think the reality is just that people can't cope with the fact that human population dynamics are fucking boring. Nothing this sensational is going to happen.
>>16946798I'm not saying something exciting is going to happen, I'm saying the population will plummet and then stabilise.
>>16946798I dunno anon, some white authors had a severe change of heart once genetics figured white europeans were only like 8% of the real population and their views of carrying capacity changed radicallyAlso some places saw an inmense reduction of their crop lands due to monocrops for exporting, real state scams, or forest fires
>Is the fertility rate collapse and depopulation crisis basically another fake and gay phenomeon?No, it's an example of a behavioral sink.
>>16946574Look at birthrate and you get population shift. You can dismiss birthrate if its just 1 year issue, but if its a sustained birthrate decline, thats a collapse happening
>>16946574Natural selection guarantees that fertility rates will rise again in the future.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0https://akarlin.com/breeders-revenge/
>>16947329When was the last time you looked at Mormon birthrates in the US, especially with non-immigrant Mormons?
1.5 TFR is already catastrophic economy wrecking total fuckfest but basedentist retards don't know how economy or society work
>>16946574Of course it is; it would only be a problem if the fertility rate dropped "too" low and mostly because there would be too many elderly people dragging down the economy and not enough younger people to balance it out.Negative birthrate isn't really a problem because sooner or later it'll raise back up as the elders kick the bucket, national economy stabilises itself and quality of life improves.
>>16946574It doesn't matter really, society will adapt either way. It always does.
>>16947422The consumerist financial debt economy society? We all know how it works, it's a ponzi scheme. If you advocate for more births you just want to keep the ponzi going.
