birth rates continue stunning decline worldwide (2025 estimates)

ya, agree, with some of your various points, I wrote in a helicopter view style, which is to cover the main idea.

Statistics from major organizations, have to be vetted expertly, you have to be on the inside to get usable numbers.

there are sniff tests that work well. For example, I have Chinese family, worked in an all Chinese company, visited various parts of China, live in a predominantly Chinese community. and Chinese couples of the last two generations with more than two kids is pretty rare, and one to two is the average, and an increasing amount of women, none at all.

So as they say, you don't need the weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

The same goes for Thailand, this latest generation commonly has zero children, down from seven only 60 years ago.

Make no mistake that population decline, it is a global phenomena, multi causational, and socially engineered, by a international shadow government, which is coming out of the shadows.

I see the down votes are zero on these commentaries, while a small population, it reflects a drastic change in public opinion.

20 years ago I had the same thing to say, and best not speak much on it in most quarters, as the public simply could not fathom the difference in their Trueman show "reality", which is created by propaganda and their life's travels and exposure, in comparison to the actual world, beyond their minute world exposure.

Humanity has been one long string of productivity gains for 8000 years that has led to our current material standard of living.

My argument is that the coming demographic shift is extremely off-trend.

Never before have we been faced with ballooning older generations supported by smaller and smaller working generations.

This is going to require a productivity gain that is similarly off-trend to compensate for. You can’t point backwards and be like “things have gotten more productive” because the current trend will not be enough.

I'd rather be young and free, old and forgotten than young and tied down, old and remembered.

Who would you rather be, an Olympic gold medalist who quits competitive running at age 35, or a masters record holder who didn't run until age 65?

Unless you're a historical figure like George Washington, who really cares whether or not you're remembered?

I agree that there is a bigger opportunity cost to having kids - much more entertainment and attainable life experiences. Also, women can earn real incomes now so many make the reasonable choice to pursue a career which narrows their fertility windows.

The poor generally have higher birthrates than the middle class in developed countries - and they are living more prosperous lives than ever (even accounting for inflation of housing) so I’m skeptical of the economic argument. I think the poor are just as susceptible to all the new forms of entertainment as the middle class - even if they can’t afford quite as much.

It’s not really about being remembered by the history books.

It’s very hard to communicate the powerful positive emotions around having children to people who don’t have them. I honestly think there’s a bit of innate biological wiring going on that that you don’t realize until you’re raising one of your own.

I think you’re missing some absolutely catastrophic second order effects.

If you need to spend a majority of a countries income on caring for retirees, then it’s hard to even maintain those low traffic roads.

Roads can be mantained by AI and robots (not a reality now, but definitely plausible by 2065 or so).

In 100 years (the realistic timeframe for this being a problem) almost zero people will be doing any jobs that are done today. If they work at all. Let alone anything that remotely resemble jobs that are done today. This is like worrying there won’t be enough kids to deliver newspapers in the future.

Over the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled that ‘corporations’ are people, meanwhile all the largest companies have pretty much turned ‘people’ into the product.

Facebook, google, Amazon… everything is about turning us into a product that can be sold. Every is a subscription now. Don’t you think the second we became a product it would be cheaper to produce elsewhere? We don’t make basic products in the US. If we are going to outsource t-shirt production to save a few buck, why not just get people from other places.

Basic business sense. It’s foolish to waste trillions on healthcare, education, daycare, food, shelter when it can be done for pennies on the dollar in India or Malaysia. (The fundamental problem corporations have with immigrants isn’t them coming to the country, it’s them having kids here. Last thing Facebook or Google want is to have to pay high US prices to produce their products… hence the attacks on birthright citizenship).

produce those kids at third world prices and then import them for exploitation! the American way!

These are good points, but there's another aspect that many people ignore (not sure if this was brought up earlier in this thread, but I'm not reading all the old posts): decline in religious observance.

Obviously, many of the historical reasons why people had many children in the past are gone, for instance children being needed to help with basic household work. But even after the industrial revolution, birthrates in Europe and America were still above replacement. I'd argue in large part this is because many people used to think there was a religiousrequirement to have children. Even dirt poor people in the West would have 5+ kids, and I'd wager that a big reason why is because they thought that birth control and abortion were immoral. Now, of course, the West is largely secular and the cultural taboos surrounding family planning are gone. So when there aren't non-religious reasons to have children, nobody has kids.

This is also backed up by the research about which women do choose to have larger families. Nearly all of them are religious (see this book, for instance).

Many secular women want children. Your conclusion that nobody has kids when there are no religious reasons for doing so is wrong. All you would have to do to disprove your hypothesis is literally find a handful of secular women who have children. People all over the world want children for all kinds of reasons. A lot of it has to do with wanting to pass down their lineage. This is especially true in East Asian countries. Some people just like the idea of being a parent and successfully raising a productive member of society.

Maternal love especially is something that many women have ingrained in their DNA. They can’t help wanting to give birth to and raise children. And there is nothing sexist about that. Look at every mammal in the animal kingdom. All of them have children, most of them raise them. Other primates besides humans show their children just as much care and affection. It doesn’t matter if it’s because of a mindless evolutionary by-product, maternal love and care for children are completely natural. Religion has little to nothing to with it. Raising and teaching kids is a joy for many people in and of itself, however the reason for it scientifically originated. We only eat food because we have evolved to, but does that make eating not enjoyable ? Of course not.

I think this is a catastrophic effect of having 8 billion people

abcnews.go.com

Wildlife populations drop 73% in 50 years: Study

ABC News

The World Wildlife Fund warns that the next five years are "crucial for the future of life on Earth."

Open link

At some point, our population needs to start going down.

Forgive me for thinking vague “ai and robots do everything” is not a valid plan for the demographic crisis

🎱 Send the Jonas Brothers to the year 3000 for the answers that the Eight Ball can not.

I mean, do we want the world IQ to plummet? demographic changes favoring any group other than whites or SE asians will result in a less intelligent society on average. this is probably the greatest threat to humanity

See Expanded public access to VAERS dataOn May 8, 2025, CDC and FDA expanded public access to VAERS data in the WONDER database (wonder.cdc.gov) and in VAERS downloadable files (vaers.hhs.gov) to provide a more complete picture of all reported adverse events following vaccination received. This enhancement is part of a broader CDC and FDA effort to improve transparency and access to vaccine safety data, while continuing to protect patient privacy.

As of July 25, 2025, the VAERS database has received approximately 2.68 million reports of vaccine adverse events. This includes:

🧬 1.66 million reports specifically related to COVID-19 vaccines
⚰️ 49,760 total reported deaths, with 38,742 linked to COVID-19 vaccines
🏥 315,928 total hospitalizations, including 221,113 from COVID-19 vaccine reports

this is from the official data base of physicians reporting vaccine injury, with more that 1 million patient results.

the interpretation of the data is that there are distinct categories listed above.

i asked to be vaccinated by a batch that had more than 2000 patients, that had no reports of serious injury, or less than 2, i forget.

i was told that you are not allowed to request a certain batch number.

and thus refused vaccination, and was stranded in the far north of Canada, barred from corporate meetings, etc.

THIS IS THE START OF THE ANALYSIS, a snipet.

note in the Gov database, that there were 315k serous injuries on 1.66m reports,

where 2/3 of the vaccinated GOT Covid ....

of course, in pay for play medical system, and the most powerful lobby group in the world, one may be justified in saying that this is the tip of the iceberg.

running the covid test, amplifying the so called RNA associated with the THEORETICAL virus (never isolated), yields more positives the longer you run the test.... where you can get everybody positive with enough cycles.

hospitals god $35k per "covid" patient, so in some situations, most every patient tested positive and put on respirators...

the is the end of the contribution.

My god. Only a snipet

What would you say the average IQ of a Trump voter is?

Also note that those who smoke or vape have, on average, an IQ FIFTEEN points below those who don't.