We are already in a massive population decrease.

It started in the 1970s slowly at first, but the mantra was overpopulation will destroy the planet's resources, but the stats. don't reflect that at all in fact the complete opposite is the case. A population control measure apparently was not required, and if one has been applied then, putting it mildly is counterproductive. All industrialized countries are below replacement rate, strangely enough, it seems to be for different reasons, the pill was originally blamed but the pill was not introduced in Japan until the nineties whose gathering population problem was well underway by then. Elon Musk usually ahead of the trends points out that in twenty years we will be hit hard by the problem of not enough people.
It is a strange one as everybody assumed that overpopulation would have to be tackled but the reality is that the opposite seems to be true when the figures are looked at. So how on earth did this happen? putting a tin foil hat, it could be a very logical and accepted way to get the masses prepared for a severe population drop. The masses at the borders of the developed countries are not being turned away for a very good reason. www.bitchute.com...

originally posted by: anonentity
It started in the 1970s slowly at first, but the mantra was overpopulation will destroy the planet's resources, but the stats. don't reflect that at all in fact the complete opposite is the case. A population control measure apparently was not required, and if one has been applied then, putting it mildly is counterproductive. All industrialized countries are below replacement rate, strangely enough, it seems to be for different reasons, the pill was originally blamed but the pill was not introduced in Japan until the nineties whose gathering population problem was well underway by then. Elon Musk usually ahead of the trends points out that in twenty years we will be hit hard by the problem of not enough people.
It is a strange one as everybody assumed that overpopulation would have to be tackled but the reality is that the opposite seems to be true when the figures are looked at. So how on earth did this happen? putting a tin foil hat, it could be a very logical and accepted way to get the masses prepared for a severe population drop. The masses at the borders of the developed countries are not being turned away for a very good reason. www.bitchute.com...

The US birth rate per year is a fairly misleading statistic. Most of the change from 1970 to 2010 is only due to the fact that there were significantly fewer gen xers than boomers and gen xers may actually have a higher birth rate adjusted for generation size or roughly the same (I’d have to do the math just eyeballing the chart).

Once millennials entered the equation, they definitely had way fewer children per family than the prior two generations (because they are roughly the same size generation as boomers).

So this, in the US, is an almost exclusively millennial phenomenon and I don’t have a good hypothesis for why this occurred with this age group.

Zoomers aren’t old enough yet to be prominent in the US statistics, it’s entirely possible that millennials were an aberration in US birth rates and they will go back to gen x / boomer levels. TBD.

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

I Think the Birth Rate will go back up in the U.S. when Young Women Today Finally Realize Beauty and Attractiveness is in their DNA Along with Child Bearing .

Birth rate, smirthrate.

You have any idea how many people are ending up in homeless camps due to the increase in rent?

How long do you think they're going to survive when the cops keep trashing their camps and the drug dealers are making a literal killing providing an easy and cheap escape from the misery?

Barely a blip on the public radar.

It's not just depopulation, it's economic ghettos and survival of the fittest.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

I Think the Birth Rate will go back up in the U.S. when Young Women Today Finally Realize Beauty and Attractiveness is in their DNA Along with Child Bearing .

Most human trends are cyclical — just pointing out that the birth rate decline for the first 30+ years was mostly boomers aging out and gen X population being about half or 2/3rds the size of boomers when both generations were maximally alive (so the per capita birth rate decline is misleading until the late 90s or the aughts) — but at that point there is a pretty clear birth rate decline even accounting for a much longer life expectancy (millennials not having kids at the same rate as prior gens adjusted for “a lot more old people” because the boomer generation is so large).

So, until there’s at least a decade of data on zoomers, it’s pretty hard to tell if this is some cyclical pattern and nothing really caused it — or if it is a one-off event — or if it is a consistent feature in the data.

IE — when boomers are living longer and the next generation is substantially smaller, the per capital birth rate will look like it went down a lot — but it actually didn’t. Then, millennials are roughly the size of the boomer generation, so per capita birth rate should have gone up some even accounting for longer lives — but it didn’t — but it’s one section of 20 years of data from one generation so far in reality, so more data needed to identify if it’s an ongoing thing or just a one-off event in the last two decades with one age cohort.

Good, like a swarm of flies, there's too many of us!

a reply to: anonentity

Man's on the Verge of Obsolescence ....

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: anonentity

Man's on the Verge of Obsolescence ....

I’ve been working in complex software development since Turing capable chatbots were first truly attempted.

Ai isn’t going to make anything obsolete, it’s a fairly useless technology right now.

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

It won't be by 2050 . Watch this Video , it is Interesting in it's Conclusion concerning the Evolution of A.I. and a Post Human World .

Who cares about birth rate when you can track birth utility?


If you stop paying the bottom feeders to make more bottom feeders, they'll stop breeding.

So many people say help the poor and give them free money, but all that does is encourage the behavior that made them poor.

Compare the birth rate to poverty rate and overlay it to a welfare map.

Tell me you can't see a pattern...

Try fixing the problems instead of the symptoms.

There isn't a shortage of people, there's a shortage of people carrying their weight.


A century ago this was solved by famine or war.
The people running the world are all old enough to remember growing up in the greatest time in history to be alive, thanks to the federal reserve act.
They fully belive culling half the world's population will solve their problems, while most of them won't live to see the long term repercussions of their actions

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

It won't be by 2050 . Watch this Video , it is Interesting in it's Conclusion concerning the Evolution of A.I. and a Post Human World .

Rumors of Ai being useful and/or self aware are greatly exaggerated even on a quarter century timeline.

LLM Ai can’t pass an IQ test.

Ai will be useful for highly repetitive actions that fail safely.

Ai is particularly ineffective at certain functions especially functions that fail dangerously.

Ai itself has not significantly changed for 18 years — it has gotten faster and larger with on-demand processing, but it has not changed in form & function (ie it’s range of theoretical capabilities has remained relative static).

There’s no evidence this is likely to change in the future — the strongest evidence suggests Ai will continue to get faster just like processors get faster over time, but it will maintain the same contextual cognitive capacity into the indefinite future.

AGI itself is likely impossible, and is almost certainly impossible within the lifetime of any human currently alive. The LLM Ai machines are about as far from self-aware general intelligence as a goldfish.

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

You have no idea what you are on about.

AI has changed and changed greatly.

Here is link showing exactly the tests it has passed. It can be a lawyer.

business insider

The Uniform Bar Exam
90th percentile with a score of 298 out of 400,

GPT-4 aced the SAT Reading & Writing section with a score of 710 out of 800, which puts it in the 93rd percentile of test-takers.

For the math section, GPT-4 earned a 700 out of 800, ranking among the 89th percentile of test-takers.
In total, GPT-4 scored 1410 out of 1600 points. The average score on the SAT in 2021 was 1060

The USA Biology Olympiad
GPT-4 scored in the 99th to 100th percentile on the 2020 Semifinal Exam.

GPT-4 received a 5 on AP Art History, AP Biology, AP Environmental Science, AP Macroeconomics, AP Microeconomics, AP Psychology, AP Statistics, AP US Government and AP US History, according to OpenAI.

On AP Physics 2, AP Calculus BC, AP Chemistry, and AP World History, GPT-4 received a 4.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

You have no idea what you are on about.

AI has changed and changed greatly.

Here is link showing exactly the tests it has passed. It can be a lawyer.

business insider

The Uniform Bar Exam
90th percentile with a score of 298 out of 400,

GPT-4 aced the SAT Reading & Writing section with a score of 710 out of 800, which puts it in the 93rd percentile of test-takers.

For the math section, GPT-4 earned a 700 out of 800, ranking among the 89th percentile of test-takers.
In total, GPT-4 scored 1410 out of 1600 points. The average score on the SAT in 2021 was 1060

The USA Biology Olympiad
GPT-4 scored in the 99th to 100th percentile on the 2020 Semifinal Exam.

GPT-4 received a 5 on AP Art History, AP Biology, AP Environmental Science, AP Macroeconomics, AP Microeconomics, AP Psychology, AP Statistics, AP US Government and AP US History, according to OpenAI.

On AP Physics 2, AP Calculus BC, AP Chemistry, and AP World History, GPT-4 received a 4.

I worked in Ai.

I’ve taught Ai at a college.

Before both of those things I taught & tutored standardized tests to thousands of people.

The tests you listed are all “subject matter tests” that rely on information memorization or cataloging and retrieval / recall, including the Bar Exam (I also went to law school).

I can score in the top 00.0001% of every test you listed.

Does that make me smart?

It does not.

I aced the MCAT without ever taking a science class in college. Again this is not proof of being smart or of self-awareness, it is proof that I have strong formal logic skills and can memorize information easily — neither of which is intelligence.

Ai is well-equipped to score highly on a subject matter test — just like a search engine is well equipped to return search results, and Chess machines are extremely hard to defeat because they can store 100% of the massive number of chess move permutations in memory.

None of which is impressive in 2023.

Before saying someone doesn’t know what they are talking about, ask about their background and professional experiences — it might help you to be more constructive.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Yep. The population is decreasing due to economic instability. The constant increase of living and inflation are going to make it even worse. How many times have we heard that there is a huge increase in the number of kids who live at home until their early 30's? They can't even afford to live on their own, much less bring someone else into the world to take care of them. The number of young people with college education debt isn't going to help these numbers either.

Still doesn't change my mind about your opinion at all.

AI went from 178 billion parameters to 100 trillion parameters in about a 6 month time span.


The ability of AI wen't up enormously. It's intelligence went up enormously. If you think differently then you are completely wrong. This isn't some chess AI that has prefigured all possible moves and stored them into memory.

This is trained much more like a human brain. Stops and starts. Go and stop. That's why it can "hallucinate".

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety

originally posted by: anonentity
It started in the 1970s slowly at first, but the mantra was overpopulation will destroy the planet's resources, but the stats. don't reflect that at all in fact the complete opposite is the case. A population control measure apparently was not required, and if one has been applied then, putting it mildly is counterproductive. All industrialized countries are below replacement rate, strangely enough, it seems to be for different reasons, the pill was originally blamed but the pill was not introduced in Japan until the nineties whose gathering population problem was well underway by then. Elon Musk usually ahead of the trends points out that in twenty years we will be hit hard by the problem of not enough people.
It is a strange one as everybody assumed that overpopulation would have to be tackled but the reality is that the opposite seems to be true when the figures are looked at. So how on earth did this happen? putting a tin foil hat, it could be a very logical and accepted way to get the masses prepared for a severe population drop. The masses at the borders of the developed countries are not being turned away for a very good reason. www.bitchute.com...

The US birth rate per year is a fairly misleading statistic. Most of the change from 1970 to 2010 is only due to the fact that there were significantly fewer gen xers than boomers and gen xers may actually have a higher birth rate adjusted for generation size or roughly the same (I’d have to do the math just eyeballing the chart).

Once millennials entered the equation, they definitely had way fewer children per family than the prior two generations (because they are roughly the same size generation as boomers).

So this, in the US, is an almost exclusively millennial phenomenon and I don’t have a good hypothesis for why this occurred with this age group.

Zoomers aren’t old enough yet to be prominent in the US statistics, it’s entirely possible that millennials were an aberration in US birth rates and they will go back to gen x / boomer levels. TBD.

if the us follows the uk model and given the impact of uk until the 70s then you're seeing the liberal eugenics Beveridge and the inverted birth rate theory. the idea is to create a welfare state that helps the poor just survive but never give the poor enough to thrive and have to any more children.

the principle since the mid 1940s is to reduce the numbers of poor whites as poverty in a privileged race is seen as a genetic flaw needing erasing.

the liberal arc goes from Galton to Stalin on one side and Galton to Hitler on the other, neither ends are the start points. in terms of numbers feathering in abortions and vasectomies where seen as key tools to promote sterility as a lifestyle.

and agian we find ourselves at near the far arc of liberalism as all rush to institute similar eugenic policies, Canada appears to lead the idea of pushing the poor/sick aka those with bad genes down the euthanasia path.

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

Do you want your excuse as to why it occured with this age group? You won't like it, and the only person who actually disputed me on this fact finally came out and said they were STILL taking these medications. So they were rather defensive that I implied a good 80-90% of the population of children in the late 80s'-90s were on these drugs. But in the end admitted they were still taking the medication. Which only proved my point.

Simple: Because a majority of the population aka millenials were put on drugs like ritalin, depakote, clonopin, adderall, lithium and various other cocktail of drugs because parents didn't want to be parents - they wanted zombies.. A lot of people in these age groups were experimented on with vast amounts of medication and drugs. I do believe the ratio of children in the 80-2k on drugs was 80-90% of ALL children.(It was so bad, even south park made an episode about the doped up children.)

A lot of these drugs spiked infertility in women as they developed especially if they were put on these drugs PRIOR to that stage (think about what they are trying to do with the kids today through surgery - yes they targeted millennials as young as 5+ same age group). After all they didn't even stop experimenting on prisoners until 1984 "Officially" but those experiments continued at certain locations until 1994 - about 4 months before we first sending Ukraine money to experiment on their own population and banned it here.

In 2000 infertility was 1 in 8(*2010 was 1 in 4: they use to advertise this on the radio + My teacher's wife was infertile - super sweet lady, and would spend time with us kids baking us goodies and all sorts of stuff aka - we were her children, but that's why i remember those ad's so well. Because EVERYONE wished she was our MOM), but now infertility in the millennial group was 3 in 4 women unable to have children, or need medical 'assistance' to conceive. Throw in fad's like Mountain DEW which was very very popular growing up and you also can account to low sperm count in men for this age group. (Yes, there was studies on it back then. But the boys didn't really care.)

So there's a lot of factors like the above forced on by big pharma once they realized that the baby making business could make MORE money then the cancer industry. The REAL reason for these transgender surgeries at such a young age is to bring more profits to big pharma under the ruse that your a pleb, bigot, etc if you disagree for FUTURE money.

This isn't the first time they targeted children, and sadly to say the next wave of children will be those being exposed and forced into these unreversable surgeries - in which will cause a crisis to ensure that 'big pharma' can make more money in the future as they become irrelevant as people gain knowledge of the world to treat and cure other illnesses on their own. (With the internet being born it's hurt their profits hugely.. so most times they resort to scare tactics or damaging you themselves i.e scraping the enamel(which softens/hardens on its own as it absorbs minerals and vitamins) to shatter the crystal layer that repair your teeth naturally. This is often why if you actually monitor the damages done over time you will see that those holes they put in your teeth with the tools is usually what turns into 'cavities'. I'm sure plenty people have heard the stories about dentist pulling every tooth they could out of a 5-6year old just to meet a 'quota' if not do your own research.

But it's not just THAT industry, it's the entire line. It's all about quota's and income, think about the homeless guy who was dying and got dumped on the curb because he didn't have insurance a few months back - after being repeatedly brought to the hospital.

I forget the exact year but another incident occurred where a certain branch of hospital (won't go into full details). Had an EXTREMELY high death rate for children. The parents of those who died found out that the hospital harvested their organs without permission.. and then petitioned the supreme court to get the organs returned to the parents. But no one put two and two together because there was no proof that the absurdly high death rate among children there was done on purpose and they were merely harvesting organs. After an investigation they had acquired more then 14,000 organs(Yes, including hearts) without permission, but only had to return the organs of the parents who petitioned the supreme court to begin with. But that was because there was so many that they couldn't begin to figure out who said 'okay' and who didn't, and at that point those parents who lost their kid and buried their children didn't have a reason to put themselves through more grief.

I've been very critical of big pharma and it's no secret that they have pulled similar crap with me. A lot of which I recognized super early on with "I.T.P" occurring in the vaccines. These vaccines I claimed at the start would destroy fertility, and it's been proven in both men and women. My claims weren't baseless as i've been an EARLY victim of these types of public experiments, but alas trolls will be trolls and try and dispute something they know nothing about mainly because a large portion of them are in denial - even when in the end they finally admit they are on one of the 5 medications i listed to this day. (I still find that funny, 'nuh uhh majority of the people back then didn't take it. Just me cause i'm diagnosed with the same thing they diagnosed every child on the planet with. To the point teacher's wouldn't even accept you into a classroom unless you saw a psychiatrist for medications' - and YES that DID happen)

But you can believe me or not on this, that's your call. I'm not here to argue, but feel free to poll your friends. Some might deny they were on medication those years because of shame. But i'm sure you'll find a bunch of people who will actually admit the truth. The changes that occurred in those classrooms.. were ghastly.. Even in public schools, you'd of thought the teachers were nuns beating the crap out of the kids behind closed doors.. but nope, it was all drugs, these drugs made you comply by literally turning you into a zombie.

Another story I remember very well is when one of these drugs were a literal lobotomy pill, and it was making a girl very aggressive. The parent took her off the medication because of all the anger rage and other issues that it was causing (paralysis). The school reported it to the psychiatrist who reported it as 'child abuse'. (This right here is why I remember this story - first time ever seeing one). It was so bad that the military got involved in the parental upbringing of this girl and drove a tank down a busy main street. (It could of been LA - almost 100% certain it was California though the video of it was insane and it was plastered all over the news that a parent was holding her kid hostage denying her 'life saving medication'.) So well obviously when the tank showed up at her house, she eventually gave in. I believe it was like 2-3 hours she kept her door closed based on reports. They took her kid forcibly from her house placed the kid in public care(the system). The mom petitioned the court for 2-3 YEARS, and finally got her child back and the courts ordered the state couldn't make medical decisions. But it was to late, the child was 100% paralyzed. Never made a recovery.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

I Think the Birth Rate will go back up in the U.S. when Young Women Today Finally Realize Beauty and Attractiveness is in their DNA Along with Child Bearing .

Of coarse the birth rate will go up in the US. Wait till all those single young male illegal immigrants get among those young fertile American girls. Don't believe me heh? Go and look at the rape statistics by illegal males in Sweden.

a reply to: crayzeed

Actually from 2020-2022 years, 2/3rds of the population growth in the US has been ILLEGALS. They aren't hiding that fact either. It's been made a joke that Americans are now a minority in their own country. Which is 100% true if you look back the past 10years(you know the years millennials are suppose to be popping out children but can't. People seem to forget that if a child is born on American soil they are officially an American automatically per our laws. So most of the 'births' are indeed Americans, but like I said most of the are from Illegals and immigrants).

People think the birth rate in the US is fine and dandy because of it. But sadly it's a fact that they will cross the border give birth and the mom will literally be sent home and the child will be put into the system raised to be a pleb for w/e is in charge. 'Not uniting families' stems from the mother's giving birth on American soil to Americanize their children under our own laws. Once they are a citizen and born here they aren't sent to another country. Only those who are NOT LEGAL are returned home.

This has been a law for a long ass time, however of course instead of admitting it's been a problem since the 70's.. They blamed it on Trump or Obama for not returning kids home and putting them in cages.. News flash, its our law that states any person born on American soil is an American. We don't give our people to other countries.. If they are born on American soil, by law they are Americans. Thus be the problem with immigration and illegals.


So just like everything else that comes out of Politician mouths, they are only "HALF TRUTHS" only being used to support whatever Agenda they currently have. Elections, control the population, you name it they will use these 'half truths' for it. Because you can't manipulate a person who knows the whole truth, so they will never tell you the truth in it's entirety. Just remember that.. and you'll be a-okay.

p.s I would share why and how I know all this. But realistically i'd just be questioned about personal details and that's an entire different topic all together which would derail the entire thread.. since it also involves a lot of personal details which I refuse to share simply because it would become very easy for the wrong people to identify me which is something i've worked VERY hard over the past 10-15 years to have zero trail and internet presence. But since I am sure everyone's heard that line or similar before from blow hards who really don't have anything to hide with an internet paper trail a mile long.. I won't say that and i'll stick with this "I wish I could, I just don't want to."

a reply to: anonentity

I have, for some time now, sensed that the population numbers are in steep decline overall. That seems to be the case in the UK, Europe and to an extent, in the US.

However, I've researched the issue and it's extremely complicated and defies generalization. So, for example, if you look ONLY at the birth rate of the born-in-the-USA population, you see that the birthrate is below the replacement rate. If you look at the overall trend of "population growth" it's INCREASING in the US because of immigration and the open borders policies. If you look at world population trends you get a strange result. World population "growth" is coming to an end.
ourworldindata.org...

Future population growth – This article focuses on the future of population growth. We explain how we know that population growth is coming to an end, and present projections of the drivers of population growth.

So when you look at any country in the world, the prognosticators state that the population of any given country in the world will peak at some point in the future and then begin to decline.

The real problem in the developed world seems to be a problem of excess deaths and chronic under employment, i.e., too many people passing on in their prime working years and too many people who, for a variety of reasons, have permanently dropped out of the labor market. Thus the real problem is that the productive members of society are declining across the board creating a crisis of labor shortage.

I suspect there really is no coming back from this barring some great grand good fortune.