World population: where are the missing trillions of people?

maxresde

Active member
Messages
33
Reactions
138
Just wanted to put this comment in. Sorry, this thread has gotten a lot longer since I looked at it before, so someone might have made a similar observation already.

I live in the supposedly most densely populated part of the USA. I have often jokingly said, 'If this is the most densely populated area, is there even anyone in the rest of the country?' It doesn't seem super-crowded is what I am saying.

So recently I realized something strange that I have known for a long time. Back in the old days there were tons of hospitals around here. I have the impession virtually every decent sized city and town had at least one hospital, if not more. It seems like it was not uncommon for there to be a hospital in a city of maybe 30K people, and then another one right down the street, maybe less than 10 miles away in the next town just the same. Now there is a much smaller number of community hospitals, and a few big super hospitals in centralized locations, like Boston and NYC.

But I have noticed in every community hospital I have been in, that there are closed off wards all over the place. Even the big city hospitals have disused areas. I was thinking the other day, I don't think I have heard of the construction of a totally new hospital at any time in my entire life.

Just these last few years I can think of four small hospitals that have closed down. If you ask anyone older, they can rattle off the names of all kinds of hospitals I have never even heard of that were right around this same area.

In the old days supposedly we had a smaller population that made much less use of the healthcare system. Now we have many more people, many more medical interventions that people can take advantage of.

I really can't understand how more people equals less infrastructure. As I said, even some of the big hospitals are not maximizing their real estate. The smaller hospitals almost uniformly have moth-balled areas. Usually when you hear about long waits and things like that at hospitals, it is a staffing issue.

I kind of wonder if the so-called labor shortages and this desperate need to rake in every illegal immigrant on the planet Earth to the West aren't symptoms of a big population decline that is happening right now, at this very moment.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,463
I kind of wonder if the so-called labor shortages and this desperate need to rake in every illegal immigrant on the planet Earth to the West aren't symptoms of a big population decline that is happening right now, at this very moment.
Good point.

The question is how do they cook up the number so consistently, or are there other factors at play. For example everyone going into the cities, with the countryside becoming empty. Also until the 50s or 60s the service in hospitals was probably a bit different.

19100

This is a hospital in my city, supposedely built around 1900. It consisted of more than 20 of those large houses you see above, with beautiful gardens in between, the tower in the background belonged to the hospital, they had their own pig stall, etc.

Nowadays the hospital is situated in a modern building and is only maybe 10% of the original area.

I suspect that back then people spent weeks or months at the hospital, and they kept them there until they were healthy. All the houses you see above had large halls for people to lie in next to each other, while today people are bound to their own little rooms.

I think hospitals are becoming smaller because the pharmaceutical system has perfected the "art" of getting as many people as possible through as fast as possible. If they can, they throw you out or make sure you don't stay in the first place but simply get better on medication at home. In the 20s or 30s it was common for patients at hospitals to be thourogly checked by a physician, until the cause was found. Today no one really looks at you, they just have their standard procedures (basically blood tests) which they pull off within 1-2 days and then you get surgery or go home.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,238
Reactions
3,791
You're exactly right, dreamtime. I'm one of the old-timers that remembers what maxresde is talking about. Those were the days before Donna Shelalah (?) and Hillary Clinton said it was "none of the American public's business what they were doing with America's health care". The days before DRG's (diagnosis related groups). People smoked in their hospital rooms.....with their oxygen on! In fact, you could go down the hall to the vending machines and buy a pack of cigs. People went to their doctor and were told, "we need to do a few tests" so you'd go to the hospital and stay until your tests were completed. You could get up and walk around, go outside and smoke, order in a pizza, etc. Now, with DRG's and the insurance companies dictating health care instead of your doctor you don't get admitted unless you're at death's door and, depending on your diagnosis related group, you get kicked out after a certain amount of time whether you're feeling better or not.

Doctors protested the DRG's because often their patients would get discharged from the hospital puking their guts up, go home and die. A DRG is when you get a diagnosis and the insurance company says "you have x amount of time to get well from that problem". Doctors started fudging legal records in order to save their patients from the insurance companies. It was a hard time for all of us. Nurses, seeing how sick the patients were and knowing they were going to get kicked out of the hospital, would invent more serious symptoms to tell the doctor about so that they could make another, more serious diagnosis and buy the patient more time. It was the only way to save them. Hospitals today are only for gravely ill people and, considering that the pharmaceutical industry has butted in and now claims to cure everything under the sun, most people just stay home with their illness and pop pills or go to work/school and spread their illness to everyone.

New hospital construction isn't a good indicator of missing population. Good observation, though. I think the ghost cities that are being built that no one is moving into might be a better indicator of a falsified population number (or preparation for a reset).
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,463
You're exactly right, dreamtime. I'm one of the old-timers that remembers what maxresde is talking about. Those were the days before Donna Shelalah (?) and Hillary Clinton said it was "none of the American public's business what they were doing with America's health care". The days before DRG's (diagnosis related groups). People smoked in their hospital rooms.....with their oxygen on! In fact, you could go down the hall to the vending machines and buy a pack of cigs. People went to their doctor and were told, "we need to do a few tests" so you'd go to the hospital and stay until your tests were completed. You could get up and walk around, go outside and smoke, order in a pizza, etc. Now, with DRG's and the insurance companies dictating health care instead of your doctor you don't get admitted unless you're at death's door and, depending on your diagnosis related group, you get kicked out after a certain amount of time whether you're feeling better or not.

Doctors protested the DRG's because often their patients would get discharged from the hospital puking their guts up, go home and die. A DRG is when you get a diagnosis and the insurance company says "you have x amount of time to get well from that problem". Doctors started fudging legal records in order to save their patients from the insurance companies. It was a hard time for all of us. Nurses, seeing how sick the patients were and knowing they were going to get kicked out of the hospital, would invent more serious symptoms to tell the doctor about so that they could make another, more serious diagnosis and buy the patient more time. It was the only way to save them. Hospitals today are only for gravely ill people and, considering that the pharmaceutical industry has butted in and now claims to cure everything under the sun, most people just stay home with their illness and pop pills or go to work/school and spread their illness to everyone.

New hospital construction isn't a good indicator of missing population. Good observation, though. I think the ghost cities that are being built that no one is moving into might be a better indicator of a falsified population number (or preparation for a reset).
They are really building a satanic empire with their money incentives. No one is forced to do anything, but everyone does the same because everyone needs money.
 

UnusualBean

Well-known member
Messages
210
Reactions
749
I just think people throw certain words around too much these days without really thinking about them. Words have a lot of power, both on the speaker and the world around the speaker. Or, typer in this case :unsure:
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,489
Reactions
12,525
Where are the remains of all of those people? Take all of the burial centers of the world and add them together, and you still will not come up with the real estate needed to contain those bones. Even our archaeologists are astounded when they locate only a small percentage, even in areas where supposedly they were all contained and kept intact due to ice or mud or lava that might preserve them and keep them from deteriorating. The bones dammit! Show me the bones!
Took me a while. Reset: Catacombs of Paris, Mud Flood Victims and Unidentified Dead
 

alyxy

Member
Messages
15
Reactions
46
I've read that hunter-gatherers had more stable populations because it wasn't possible to pop out the babies, nor desirable. You had to have enough people walking and mobile...plus it was a lot of work to raise a kid, as always, more so when being on the move (ask anyone if they want to travel the world while caring for a newborn), and women nursed as long as they could (another way of decreasing the birth rate as it has an effect on fertility), so babies were spaced at least 4 years apart for most mothers. (I've also read that women synchronized their birthing with the seasons to make best use of cold weather rest periods to devote to newborn care. I only read that one place but if true, it's pretty neat. The story implied was of a family or small tribal group inhabiting a cave in the winter months, devoting their time to dreams, art, music and stories, and everyone helping to take care of the very young kids that women had in sync. Everybody was around to help as much as possible, and did so, aside from any needed trips for hunting, etc.)

As far as I know, menopause hasn't changed rapidly through the ages, but it used to be quite normal for women not to reach sexual maturity (getting first menses) until at least 16 or 17. That's from sources about a hundred years ago; that was considered normal (as opposed to 8-12 these days, probably related to enviro-toxins, but I'm not positive about that). It seems likely that women didn't have children before their late teens for most of the hunter-gathering days, and they may have waited longer. Even today, the known risks of having children before the body's fully developed, is pretty heartbreaking and doesn't happen as much when women have more of a say over their own bodies (i.e. no child marriages). I doubt that a society that was even partly matriarchal, (strong grandmothers who held cultural memories about birthing practices), or that celebrated womanhood, would encourage girls to hurry up and have babies as soon as possible. Menses weren't considered disgusting or shameful without patriarchy; even today, plenty of traditional societies consider period blood sacred rather than filthy or unclean.

So were women getting pregnant as soon as possible and as often as possible, in these traditional societies? No.

Hunter gatherer populations tend to grow more slowly, and live more in tune with the land and what it can provide, from what we know. Things I've read (and wondered about) make me question whether grain-heavy agriculture isn't some sort of infestation. The only things that grow and grow and grow without being checked by their environment, and indeed changing / destroying their environment, are infections and cancers. Other things find balance with the environment. Our bodies have many microbes in them, but only the infections try to keep growing and growing and fill everywhere! (That's pretty simplistic, I know, but what can I say? That's how I see it...)

Apparently native peoples in North America often practiced agriculture, but in combination with hunting and gathering. They modified their environment extensively, such as deciding which trees to grow (lots of nut trees!) and keeping a certain amount of ground open (through burning mostly) to increase the ability of deer herds to grow, and then hunting them as needed for meat. They also planted fields of (non-monocrop) corn, but they didn't settle down and live next to the corn and eat that only; they traveled and hunted and gathered in different places at different times of the year, and then returned and harvested corn, squash, and beans when they were ready. After a certain amount of time using that field, they'd abandon it (to recover naturally) and slash and burn a new field, grow there for a bit, and move on. But the point is that they did things in a way that let fields grow back to forest before re-using the land, and that didn't require all of the land for one main crop. Tree crops are also much more sustainable and in many cases more nutritious. (Plenty of people have trouble digesting grain and I suspect they always have. We weren't really meant to eat one main sort of food, from what I can tell. But most people don't seem to have tree nut allergies, meat allergies, or fruits-and-veggie allergies very often, even today, with so much poison in the world and the exponential increase of allergies. A lot of people seem to have issues with grain or dairy, though. Not saying I don't love grain and dairy. I do! Just that these agriculture-only product do seem to cause people more problems than most, although some of that I blame on modern alterations.)

In short, balanced diet, balanced lifestyle, balanced population growth, and a natural, varied life seem to have kept the North American native peoples healthier and taller and stronger, before European diseases showed up (at least if we can believe what we've read about all of that). Because they didn't have the land divided into neat, individual squares and live there permanently, Europeans thought they weren't managing the land, and thus had no ownership to it. (The super convenient idea that the savages don't deserve the land started pretty early.)

Whereas people who live by agriculture, in one place, deplete the land and multiply rapidly. Grain storage leads to the ability of unscrupulous leaders to hoard and control, and grain seems to have some effect on fertility levels, whether there's something biological about it (more carbs = more babies???) or the need for more laborers and the sedentary lifestyle making popping out more kids both desirable and possible. Then the "infection" of agriculture spreads, as people make armies, chop down forests, and displace hunter gatherers and their less land-intensive management practices. Once land is converted to grain and grain into bread, the process repeats itself. Rarely is it allowed to go the other way it seems, with fields turning back into forests, without something changing about population growth or epidemics (or politics or wars).

So agriculture takes up more and more room. Requires more people for armies and field work. Requires more babies from women who should probably start having them as soon as possible...

Agriculture isn't a huge advance; by many standards, hunter gatherers probably had better, happier, and healthier lives and didn't have to work from dawn till dusk just to eat. They had more egalitarian social structures; they had strongly independent spiritual lives; they raised children in ways that seem to have involved lots of independence, learning by doing, and very little corporal punishment (or need for it). They had arts and culture. Education was passed down orally for the most part, and people had amazing memories. (Orally-educated tribes still do today.)

Famines were also less common, because if one food source failed, you'd move on to the next one, or substitute something else, or even go without food for a while and probably do just fine. (Apparently, Europeans in America died quickly without food during hungry times, but Native people were used to sometimes having fasting periods without any undue health problems arising from them. Many people find that controlled fasting is actually healthy for their bodies, and it may be something we were once naturally adapted to.)

People still had children, but they spaced them out. They still had armed conflicts, and people died during childbirth, hunting, accidents, etc. But there weren't mass starvation, massive diseases wiping out populations living in close proximity and with contaminated water supplies, before the grain agriculturalists arrived. So populations didn't boom and they didn't bust in the same ways as big cities with people packed in and relying on grain and governments did.

But, when the agriculturalists really take off, they really take off, exponential growth leading to lots of people who need new land. Who get controlled by corrupt leaders (spiritual or secular or both) and can be cannon fodder for more wars for control of land, resources, and people...

OTOH, agriculture that combines forest management seems to be at least somewhat sustainable, through history and in fact to the present day. If you grow food calories that are stable in the ground (rather than having to be harvested all at once and stored and protected thru the rest of the year), that's more sustainable and less risky. If you manage forested land for tree crops and medicine crops and firewood, that makes it more sustainable, too. Add in hunting for protein, and travel for better nutrition (things not available in your area, like sea foods), and you've got a better overall life.

Basically the most risky and least fun way to live is intensive grain farming: so much work to be done, so much risk, and the possibility of a lot of hunger if even one thing goes wrong. Add in the fact that, as a women, life was probably going to be nothing but hard work (skeletal deformations from spending all day grinding grain was apparently very common in early grain agriculture societies), and popping out children, with a strong possibility of dying during the process at some point, and you have a backbreaking, very hierarchical, often very sexist and sedentary society. (Sedentary as in not getting to travel, or having a very varied diet--no long trips following herd animals, or trips to the seashore for healthy fish and clams--no taking several years off from having children so your body could recover naturally, etc.)

Of course, a lot of this comes from very mainstream sources, as well as inferences on my part, put together over the last few years. I think it makes sense, if the sources are true, if we can count on what we read. I'm not as such of that as I used to be, tbh. But from understanding these variables to a certain degree, trusting that what we do know about early native practices is at least somewhat true, then it makes sense to me that the world population didn't rise nearly as fast when hunter gathering was a more common lifestyle. There was plenty to eat and a good life for a lot of people, and no need or desire to breed super fast, to "multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." They were enjoying the ride, not trying to fill all the seats as quickly as possible. They considered the rest of the world (animals, plants, ancestors) all part of the family. No need to fill up the world with people, just be part of that world.

It also makes sense that most of the world is now sedentary and grain dependent. Because that infection sure took hold--and allowed power structures that could be and still are pretty abusive. People at the top seem motivated to keep growing "theirs" as much as possible--whether land, knowledge, profit, grain, etc, no matter the cost to the "peons" below who aren't considered fully human most of the time anyway. It makes perfect sense to me that this genie is hard to put back in the bottle, with powerful people so motivated to stay in power.

But I also think it makes perfect sense to me that population didn't always grow in such a "biblical" way. When they more or less reached a comfortable capacity, they probably more or less stayed there--until grain agriculture infected the area.

Of course, I don't know how many cycles of hunting and gathering, then empire and agriculture, war and pestilence and disaster have happened through history. But I do think strong evidence can be shown that people living more traditional lifestyles (e.g. not completely grain dependent and sedentary lives), are happier, healthier, more equal, healthier mentally, gentler to their children, more respectful of nature and animals, and more balanced with their environments and in themselves and with each other. In hard times, they adapt. In abundant times, they adapt. But they always keep going, unless forcibly stopped. They don't lose touch with nature, family, themselves, or spiritual practices and ancestral histories.

That's probably why they've been so demonized and destroyed through the years.

Anyway, my long, long post is basically to say: massive population growth isn't necessarily natural or the norm, when humans are allowed to live a more natural and happier lifestyle. So when did grain agriculture first really start to infest and gain control, and thus population booms?

Do the numbers add up better if we assume a more natural lifestyle for most of our history? And is the reason population growth is slowing because more and more people (through technology and other choices) are choosing to live less grain-and-growth related lives? I'm not saying we're going back to hunting and gathering, or even all of the principles they held dear, but women are having fewer babies at a later age, and more spaced out these days, too. People also seem to LOVE travel any chance they get, and everyone's trying some new diet or other, a way to vary and change what they eat, some new gentler child rearing method, etc. My point is, maybe when we get the choice, this is what we revert to: more travel, more varied diets, and fewer kids. And it's not unnatural, it's completely natural.

Anyway. Those are some thoughts. Interested to hear more thoughts. I might be able to find sources for some of this info, if needed. But right now, I'm probably better off not spending more time on this! I think this might have gotten a little bit long!! :D Suffice it to say, I've had quite a few thoughts on the subject!
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,489
Reactions
12,525
What is the basis of our knowledge as far as the former existence of these "hunter-gatherers" goes? In other words how do we know that they actually did exist?
 

alyxy

Member
Messages
15
Reactions
46
Remnants (surviving tribes). Oral histories from surviving tribes of how they used to live. Letters and books from colonizers (that retroactively paint them in a very bad light). Doesn't mean it's all true, and I know this place is all about questioning everything, which is cool. But I don't really question the existence of tribes that lived off the land and in better harmony with the land, because some of them still exist--where agriculture hasn't wiped 'em out. I think the narrative that they' were just old fashioned savages, or that people have always been super hierarchical and having as many babies as possible, just doesn't work for me at all. Doesn't mean you have to accept the sources and things that I do, of course. :)
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,489
Reactions
12,525
Hunter-gatherers allegedly existed from 200,000 to 10,000 years ago, after which they moved to permanent agriculture. That is according to our traditional speculative historical timeline, which is not supported by anything other than frivolous statements. I do not know what oral histories or anything else could survive this long.

On a separate note, any destroyed civilization which was greatly reduced in numbers and deprived of all of their techno would end up as sporadic hunter-gatherers. Especially for those living in the cities... where would we get food today were our grocery stores to suddenly seize to exist?

It's just my opinion, but this linear development has no proof.
 

alyxy

Member
Messages
15
Reactions
46
Oh, I don't believe it's linear! I thought that was clear from my post, maybe not. I think when people have a choice, they often live closer to nature and under less control (if culture and choice and knowledge isn't stripped away...). The narrative that agriculture is "better" and people just decided it was cooler to settle down at some point, and that people who weren't didn't were backward...yeah, no...that doesn't work for me.

What I call "traditional lifestyles" and "hunter gathering" is basically "the way the Native Americans used to live." Or the way the Sami people live. Or native Alaskans. Or aboriginal people of Australia / New Zealand / anywhere else. Or "undiscovered" people who live in the forest even today.

I don't think that's backward, just traditional--truly, humanly traditional--and I don't think there's any truth to a linear progression however many years ago that was somehow "better" (except for people who love power, of course).
 

PairAlleles

New member
Messages
10
Reactions
14
Wonder what it means that we're down a sign?
Great question. We are not down a sign. The zodiac is a different number of houses for different world ages. The 13 sign is an attempt to overtake the native - or human - (true or real) with an overlay. The 13th sign is this planet/realm, and is also the humans that are here now. Because we create this plane.

12? How many twelves do we have ... a couple of metrics in time are in hours and months? 13 is an allegedly negative number in upside-down world.

Because thirteen was/is the one in the middle of the current zodiac. Prior world ages had 9 or 11 zodiac houses. Right now each of us are the ones in the middle. Reminded of 'greater things' and all :) from the biblical reference. 12 disciples with 1 in the middle. Of course it is scary!! You are the thirteen, the 13 sign is a hijack attempt.

A lojack is a service that can recover a vehicle in the physical realm today ... the vehicle that one has here is physical - but also the mind. Can the mind be stolen? And why would any attempt be made to steal something if it wasn't valuable? Need to recover the memory so we can move, travel ;)
 
Last edited:

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
178
Reactions
581
I was recently researching population and demographics for my day job as a university lecturer (seeking new avenues for recruiting students) and discovered this info...

Basically it is recorded there has been a sharp decline in birth rates for almost all OECD Countries, resulting in a smaller pool of students to recruit from. Prediction is for 1950 - 2050.

So it appears a massively predicted growth in population, but a decline in University aged people up to 2050......:unsure:

1 billion people increase each 12 years?

20190413_124024.jpg


Info pdf
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,463
I was recently researching population and demographics for my day job as a university lecturer (seeking new avenues for recruiting students) and discovered this info...

Basically it is recorded there has been a sharp decline in birth rates for almost all OECD Countries, resulting in a smaller pool of students to recruit from. Prediction is for 1950 - 2050.

So it appears a massively predicted growth in population, but a decline in University aged people up to 2050......:unsure:

1 billion people increase each 12 years?

Info pdf
I have recently looked into this. The scientists researching this know that the population is declining in such an alarming rate in western nations that within 2 or 3 generations entire societies will basically disappear. It will start with Japan for example.

The problem is that those global projections do not show this, because they include Africa and India, which is basically the only places in the world were the population is not declining rapidly.

But even at those places, modern technology leads to rapid downfall of fertility rate, within one generation even in Africa we will see sub-replacement levels of fertility.

When this topic will come into the public atttention it will probably be already too late. Many people still think we will see population explosions, but the most dramatic data from Africa is ALL extrapolation. No one knows how many people live in Africa, they do not hold reliable census.

Within 20 years we will see some societies becoming entirely children-free! It's an exponential process, fewer children lead to even fewer children in the generation that follows, so I think we will see dramatic scenes within 20-30 years.

The countrisides are already drying out. You see old people there, when they die within 30 years these places will be empty!

Recently they had protests in Spain, where this process is already very far ahead. The countryside in spain is a desert. Since the young people all leave for the cities, within 40-60 years or so the very concept of a "village" will no longer really exist. With people moving into cities, the fertility rate declines further, as people are focused on working.

It is remarkable to me how almost no one sees that we are dying out.

Birth rates in Japan fall to lowest level on record

Ghost towns struggle to survive in Spain | DW | 29.12.2017

The collapse of the South Korean population: the countdown has begun

South Korea's fertility rate set to hit record low of 0.96

Let's look at the data for South Korea:

A 2014 study commissioned by South Korea's National Assembly and cited by the Brookings Institution found that South Koreans could "face natural extinction" by 2750 if the country's fertility rate were to remain at 1.19.
South Korea's fertility-rate crisis is so dire that the country is offering cash to entice rich people to have kids

But this study implied that the fertility rate remained constant at 1.19 - 5 years later we are already at 0.95. It was 1.05 in 2017.

It also does not take into account that a society already becomes extinct long before the last birth, due to the society simply collapsing. The data clearly shows that we are approaching zero.

Only 326,900 babies were born last year in a country of 51 million, down 8.6% from the previous year. How long until Koreans simply stop having children tue do lack of support? Maybe 5-10 years?

20228

So I think what we are seeing here is a radical restrucring process how society works, and the media is ignoring this issue, probably because it plays into the depopulation plans, which are ongoing.

I think this lack of children explains some of my feelings what is happening to society. The so called "baby boomers" of the 60s were able to initiate a couple of changes in society due to their enormous size. They had the power to overthrow old concepts. The current generations are basically invisible, and are so few, that we can not work together productively. The internet is an additional factor in keeping everyone lonely and focused on themselves.

Basically since our environment is not limited (as we don't live on a spinning globe), exponential growth of the human population is not only possible, but probably ideal to expanding the human experience, exploring other realms beyond our small "earth".
 
Last edited:

tupperaware

Well-known member
Messages
194
Reactions
503
I have recently looked into this. The scientists researching this know that the population is declining in such an alarming rate in western nations that within 2 or 3 generations entire societies will basically disappear. It will start with Japan for example.

The problem is that those global projections do not show this, because they include Africa and India, which is basically the only places in the world were the population is not declining rapidly.

But even at those places, modern technology leads to rapid downfall of fertility rate, within one generation even in Africa we will see sub-replacement levels of fertility.

When this topic will come into the public atttention it will probably be already too late. Many people still think we will see population explosions, but the most dramatic data from Africa is ALL extrapolation. No one knows how many people live in Africa, they do not hold reliable census.

Within 20 years we will see some societies becoming entirely children-free! It's an exponential process, fewer children lead to even fewer children in the generation that follows, so I think we will see dramatic scenes within 20-30 years.

The countrisides are already drying out. You see old people there, when they die within 30 years these places will be empty!

Recently they had protests in Spain, where this process is already very far ahead. The countryside in spain is a desert. Since the young people all leave for the cities, within 40-60 years or so the very concept of a "village" will no longer really exist. With people moving into cities, the fertility rate declines further, as people are focused on working.

It is remarkable to me how almost no one sees that we are dying out.

Birth rates in Japan fall to lowest level on record

Ghost towns struggle to survive in Spain | DW | 29.12.2017

The collapse of the South Korean population: the countdown has begun

South Korea's fertility rate set to hit record low of 0.96

Let's look at the data for South Korea:



South Korea's fertility-rate crisis is so dire that the country is offering cash to entice rich people to have kids

But this study implied that the fertility rate remained constant at 1.19 - 5 years later we are already at 0.95. It was 1.05 in 2017.

It also does not take into account that a society already becomes extinct long before the last birth, due to the society simply collapsing. The data clearly shows that we are approaching zero.

Only 326,900 babies were born last year in a country of 51 million, down 8.6% from the previous year. How long until Koreans simply stop having children tue do lack of support? Maybe 5-10 years?

View attachment 20228

So I think what we are seeing here is a radical restructuring process how society works, and the media is ignoring this issue, probably because it plays into the depopulation plans, which are ongoing.

I think this lack of children explains some of my feelings what is happening to society. The so called "baby boomers" of the 60s were able to initiate a couple of changes in society due to their enormous size. They had the power to overthrow old concepts. The current generations are basically invisible, and are so few, that we can not work together productively. The internet is an additional factor in keeping everyone lonely and focused on themselves.

Basically since our environment is not limited (as we don't live on a spinning globe), exponential growth of the human population is not only possible, but probably ideal to expanding the human experience, exploring other realms beyond our small "earth".
Cities might become black holes on Earth driven by AI monstrosities at their core. These cities would compete for the best in simulated new worlds. The cities, simulations and their Olympiads might be powered by smart fission then fusion all augmented with auxilliary power obtained from.....

20229

I just read the movie "The Matrix" originally was going to show the Matrix powered by disembodied human brains - as if the movie isn't creepy enough. A trillion brains minus all the unneeded bits does take up a lot less space than 10 billion people.

The engine of commerce keeping the whole thing running would just be simulations similar to Second City.
Second Life - Wikipedia
"Another problem is inventory loss,[102][103][104] in which items in a user's inventory, including those which have been paid for, can disappear without warning or permanently enter a state where they will fail to appear in-world when requested (giving an "object missing from database" error). Linden Lab offers no compensation for items that are lost in this way, although a policy change instituted in 2008 allows accounts to file support tickets when inventory loss occurs. Many in-world businesses will attempt to compensate for this or restore items, although they are under no obligation to do so and not all are able to do so. A recent change in how the company handles items which have "lost their parent directory" means that inventory loss is much less of a problem and resolves faster than in recent years. "Loss to recovery times" have gone from months (or never) to hours or a day or two for the majority of users, but inventory loss does still exist. "

This is exactly why I don't want to open a 401K.

| Linden Lab
 
Last edited:

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,238
Reactions
3,791
I have recently looked into this. The scientists researching this know that the population is declining in such an alarming rate in western nations that within 2 or 3 generations entire societies will basically disappear. It will start with Japan for example.
It is remarkable to me how almost no one sees that we are dying out.
The Hispanic and Muslim populations are booming. It's only the Western and Westernized populations that are dying out.
 

Top