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.

>>16946574
the 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.

>>16946574
No 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.

File: Logistic-curve.svg.png (22.6 KB)

22.6 KB PNG

>>16946574
Bro 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.

File: Population Graph.png (56.8 KB)

56.8 KB PNG

>>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.

>>16946750
Your 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.

>>16946776
Not him but it could be anything from, the political views of the author changed to less agricultural land due to residencial buildings

>>16946784
I 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.

>>16946798
I'm not saying something exciting is going to happen, I'm saying the population will plummet and then stabilise.

>>16946798
I 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 radically

Also 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.

>>16946574
Look 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

File: amish mormons population.gif (470.8 KB)

470.8 KB GIF

>>16946574
Natural selection guarantees that fertility rates will rise again in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0
https://akarlin.com/breeders-revenge/

>>16947329
When 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

>>16946574
Of 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.

>>16946574
It doesn't matter really, society will adapt either way. It always does.

>>16947422
The 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.

>>16947329
Mormon here. We just had our 6th but I think we're done. I'm tired

File: Joseph Smith loves being white.jpg (5.1 KB)

5.1 KB JPG

>>16950990
Mormons, Amish and Mennonites are blessings to the white race.

>>16946574
Yes humanity has gone through tons of depopulation events in our history.

>>16951032
>Mennonites
one of the lowest IQ cohorts amongst christian denominations. it was a mennonite community in texas where a measles oubtreak happened last year and killed an unvaccinated child

File: Static-map.png (44.8 KB)

44.8 KB PNG

>>16951108
I just realized I don't really care about 1 dead child because of Measels and that is a worthless piece of info, I'm more concerned that there was a Measels outbreak at all.

>As of April 2, 2026, 1,671 confirmed measles cases were reported in the United States in 2026. Among these, 1,661 measles cases were reported by 33 jurisdictions: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York City, New York State, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. A total of 10 measles cases were reported among international visitors to the United States.

>Yes, it is possible to get measles even if you are fully vaccinated, but it is very rare. Two doses of the MMR vaccine are roughly 97% effective at preventing measles, meaning about 3 out of 100 people may still be susceptible if exposed. When vaccinated individuals do catch it, they usually experience milder symptoms and are much less likely to spread it. Mayo Clinic

Huh turns out nothing you said actually mattered.

File: 1769190208397085.png (594.4 KB)

594.4 KB PNG

>>16951145
>that is a worthless piece of info
that's because you're a mental midget that can't comprehend the bigger picture. most of the measles outbreaks in the past couple years have mostly been in red (read: uneducated christian) states where they think vaccines like le satan.

>I just realized I don't really care about 1 dead child
i don't care either. in fact i revel when retards die due to their own stupidity. it's an opportunity for them to learn but they rarely do. rather they explain it away as "le god willed it so it le must be so!"

btw it's spelled "measles". you must be a christian i'm guessing

It actually blows my mind that I see people everywhere on the Internet care about fertility rates now. 10 years ago the same spaces were full of proud anti-natalists who hate nasty crotch goblins while embracing a lifestyle of drugs, booze and fucking till they die

>>16951284
I don't care about fertility rates. If anything it'd be nice to have less people around. The problem is that jews and corporate demons use low birth rates as an excuse to flood my country with the third world

>>16951190
Measels literally isn't a big deal at all and nobody gave a flying fuck about it until a few decades ago. You're a redditor cultist zoomer.

>>16951284
Yeah hey maybe 10 years of being a hedonistic piece of shit changes your mind

>>16951406
go ahead, keep dying from it. i cheer on you 80 IQ christcucks dying from easily preventable diseases. natural selection at its finest.

>>16946583
This. THey need an ever growing population to give THem endless money

>>16946574
Yeah basically you should expect at worst TFR to recover in 200-300 years due to internal replacement whereby high TFR people outbreed low TFR people. So the temporary dip (for a few centuries) is what happens when new strong selection pressures are introduced.

The old pressure was that you had to be horny to breed, the new pressure is that you have to actively want kids. Horny people who don't want kids now terminate their lineage with unprecedented efficiency.

>>16951396
>If anything it'd be nice to have less people around.
It really really isn't. Yeah the much more reduced tax base and population is a problem but living in areas where there's pretty much no young people and everyone is either middle aged at best or retired/about to retire sucks ass.

>>16947443
>it'll raise back up as the elders kick the bucket, national economy stabilises itself and quality of life improves.
Lmao based on what assumptions? We can't fill the gap retirees create when they retire anymore because they gatekept.

>>16957070
>you should expect at worst TFR to recover in 200-300 years due to internal replacement whereby high TFR people outbreed low TFR people.
I keep hearing this nonsense and I have no idea what you could possibly base it on. Everyone alive is descended from populations that already had historically high TFRs (for humans), that rate has been cut down to 20% or 10% of the previous norm. There's no indication that the subgroups who currently still have high TFRs (mostly religious nutjobs and some thirdies still doing subsistence agriculture) are in some way hereditarily predisposed to having such TFRs, except insofar as religions are vertically transmitted.
You might expect from basic Darwinian theory that organisms genetically predisposed to high TFRs would outbreed their siblings but that's not really what we see at the macro level, and the base, genetic human fertility has been rather stable despite all the revolutions in our environments and cultures (even as actual fertility rates have been yo-yoing due to such environmental changes)

People keep talking about muh economy and shit but the spiritual, cultural and aesthetic damage of going from a country where children and youths are plentiful and elders are a rarity, to one where children and youths are barely seen and elders are everywhere, is unmeasured and probably unfathomable. Just look at poor Japan.

File: 1501208773960.png (44.2 KB)

44.2 KB PNG

>>16957197
>I keep hearing this nonsense and I have no idea what you could possibly base it on

>>16951190
>where they think vaccines like le satan.
I guess as the millions of immigrants come into country they get vaxed at border and get better health care because they are highly advanced peoples not coming from shit holes. Im not great at math but I think someone is lying. Most immigrants believe in a sky daddy. So i guess you also think they are retarded and gay. Your entire point rests on vax and there is little correlation for it if any.

>>16957203
I don't know how you think this graph might support your case, especially since it ends with Gen Xers.
All we can say is that birth rates are now higher among the "extremely conservative" of the Gen X generation even though they were about equal generations ago, but that doesn't tell us anything about their ancestors or descendants.
Also, 2.31 (or even 1.98 for boomers) is still laughable.

>>16957211
It means that different types of people have different TFRs, so you can deduce what that means down the line.

>>16957236
It appears that I have overestimated your intelligence.

>>16957186
Well it's either that or importing a bunch of foreigners. Pick your poison.