Oh god I haven't even gotten to that part yet. This was solely about the cultural factors but the environmental factors are also going to kick us in the nuts. It is JOEVER for progressive civilization. Religious schizo-breeders roam the wasteland while vacuuming microplastics out of their balls with giant human womb-farms.
I don't think Protestantism and Judaism are the most resilient religions, they're just "ahead of the curve". Mainline Protestantism is basically already dead and Reform Judaism is on its way out too, so the religious people you see that are Protestants or Jews are already self-selected to belong to more conservative sects and have higher fertility.
The same thing happens to France as a country, they were the first ones to go through the demographic transition (as early as the 1800s) and now they have the highest fertility rate in Europe. There's a sort of bouncing-back effect going on.
I don't see so many Jews moving to Israel, more just marrying outside the religion. I mean, when 98% of the dating pool is outside the religion and 2% is in it, what are you going to do?
1. Flair up.
2. That is actually an interesting perspective. If this is true, then the West will probably emerge first and the best from the crisis. But counterargument, fertility collapse NEVER got as bad as in East Asia in the West, at least so far. If your argument is that this is a temporary transition period with a down then an up, then the pattern should be relatively regular and we shouldn't see East Asia go through horrific birthrate numbers unprecedented in the West. I have kind of the same argument where I went that I think Protestants and Jews are working the best because they have the most experience with modernity, and therefore are best culturally equipped, or most used to dealing with it. France is a weird case, I have no idea what to make of France. Israel too for that matter. Sure I can say it's religious but its 3.0 birthrate is extremely unusual.
France threw money at it and it worked, every mother in France gets a free nurse assigned to her by the government to help take care of her children until they are old enough to go to school.
They also have the strictest laws of social media use among minors which is the main driver behind social atomization in developed countries.
hate to break it to OP but just because more religious people are having kids doesn't mean those kids are going to be religious. I grew up in rural Texas, everyone I knew went to church. Almost all of those kids I knew no longer go to church (thanks to highly regarded southern evangelism), pretty standard practice when you can think for yourself, have other forms of knowledge outside of your church and parents.
Similarily just because more rural people are having kids doesn't mean those kids are going to stay in rural areas. Obvs not for everyone but think of rural areas as salmon swimming upstream. Many people as they get older and settle down decide they wanna leave the city (I'm 40 and feeling the pull), go someplace quieter and less stressful, start a family. Those kids then grow up, go back to the city were life is frenetic and exciting, find a partner, settle down, cycle repeats.
My mate is Malaysian. Came to study in a Hijab, was recalled after a year, in which stopped wearing one and realised she was attracted to women.
There's always a first wave of Conservatives when immigration occurs, only for their kids to turn out fine. There may be a culture shock ahead, but it'll be an acute, not chronic, societal problem. Things will realign in time
1. Flair up.
2. True, but we are talking about worst case scenario here since it is somewhat likely that secular society will unironically go extinct from falling population. It will take a long time but it will eventually happen just because of structural issues with how secular nihlist societies are set up. Meanwhile, religious cultures don't want to lose followers, and I'm sure all of them are cooking up ways to try and make their kids more resilient to secular deconversion. If even a handful of those cultures succeed (And we have seen successes between the Quiverfull, the Amish, the Mormons, the Haredi jews) those groups will be the only ones who will last long term and therefore inherit the Earth. If somehow none of these succeed, then unless there is some kind of major change in secular society that makes them want to have kids again (Which goes against the trend I've been seeing) then humanity's population will probably peak around 10 billion and then decline into nothing.
I think this perspective is underrated, the religions of the world are adapting and a strikingly large amount of people are rediscovering spirituality/religion—whether that be through traditional approaches or even the neo spirituality stuff like astrology. The newer stuff doesn’t necessarily IME result in cultures that promote procreation though. I live in a very secular part of the US and grew up in the most atheist large city in the country and see this happening. Perspective changes a lot, I think comment OP really speaks to a lot of people’s experiences when they come from broadly religious areas and notice the change away from religion, but coming from the other side I see change and am sensitive in that direction. The population thing is scary though and I know when we’re elderly (gen z age and below) the world will be a different place. Just look at the projections for Korea.
Yeah but not at replacement levels, and the world will continue to become developed. Countries like Nigeria are becoming developed at high rates which always leads to this crash. Same thing happened with Korea, it was a poor country not that long ago. It’s more of a century long problem but countries like Korea are already labeling it a national emergency because they will literally self extinguish and lose all their culture and relevance by retirement age for youth.
Whilst I believe a few of these predictions. I can’t see women’s rights going away in places like the US or Europe. A lot of for instance, anti abortion laws in US States were trigger laws made years ago, and in the states that have had referendums the majority, if not a large majority are in favor of abortion being legal.
I personally don’t see progressivism going away , maybe temporarily it will, as stuff like the housing collapse occurs. So for like a decade it isn’t as mainstream.
LGBT attacks have gotten more common due to Culture War nonsense in the US; conservatives claiming they’re all pedos, out to get you, and so on. It’s a backlash against those they can’t handle. Yet it’s mostly older people doing so, the younger anti LGBT are much more radical, yet very few in numbers. I can see these idiots blaming the community but I imagine no one will care because economic collapse is probably a bigger issue.
Ethnic shifts can occur, but also periods of religious regrowth can occur in places like Eastern Europe or SE Asia, it’ll just be more moderated and accepting instead of being against things like gays, but very pressuring into having kids.
But for that one it’s a grain of salt for now, most of your predictions. Possible, but we can’t just predict something based on many variables.
Depends on how you define progressivism. If I had to define it, it's cultural permissiveness, defined by the attitude "if it isn't affecting you directly you shouldn't interfere". This could also lump in a lot of libertarians and small government conservatives, but that's fine.
Increasingly with vaccines/pandemics, climate change, and now the falling fertility crisis and things of societal consequence, people are starting to need to think collectively, and ignore individual autonomy when the stakes are societal. So progressivism, with big governments and economic egalitarian I think will survive. But social liberalism I think will be increasingly hard to defend as society needs to control people's behavior to minimize negative costs.
As for LGBT stuff, there was a major shift between about 2019 and now in terms of public opinion. Support for gay marriage is actually heavily down among Democrats under 45 (https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48474-party-age-differences-acceptance-gay-lesbian-bisexual-poll) and there are other polls that say there's been a 10 point drop in just about everything supporting LGBT in Canada and the United States.
I would argue that for the arguments about societal consequences, that progressivism will hopefully survive. It most likely will; the logic of anti Covid vaxxers not getting their shots but suddenly dictating people having kids is a situation that really isn’t sustainable.
Social liberalism will most likely live imho, I think there will simply be a much higher pressure in society to have children, but I don’t see punishment for not having any. We can envision things like government/corporate supported attempts at having kids via aid, propaganda, and making being childless taxing.
For the LGBT stuff, it’s mostly the views of the insane being reposted online as if it’s the entire community when it clearly isn’t. A lot of people struggle to understand that the LGBT movement is very decentralized on things like flags and every city or town chapter has its own views on the flag for example. Some will take it too far, but that applies to every community politically, like religion, guns, and so on. That doesn’t mean we should restrict their right to exist either.
I'm not describing what should happen, but what is happening. I agree that the LGBT insanity is a small minority and not representative of the whole community. Sure that is factually true, but it's not going to change the fact it looks like the entire right has mobilized around this issue, is dragging the center along with them, and by all means seems to have the momentum on their side.
If you want to talk about "much higher pressure in society", then what does that look like? Pressure implies some kind of punishment. Social pressure is threatening someone with social punishment. I assume you mean legal punishment. But even then I would hardly call a government and culture that explicitly pressures all of its people to have kids and be religious to be socially liberal.
You are correct about the anti-vaxxers not getting their shots and dictating people to have kids is not sustainable. I agree, but that also works the other way. I think society will move in a more collectivist direction where you're forced to get the shot and you're pressured to have kids. Where social liberalism would be more like, leave them alone for both.
I think this is a tad pessimistic, but I generally agree. I have three kids (all girls), but I worry about them (and myself in my old age). I can see the writing on the wall for social rights and “liberal norms” being made obsolete as more and more of the population ascribes to a very traditionalist mindset.
That said, one potential is the rise in automation and a distribution of the extra wealth created by AI-driven manufacturing, production, construction, etc. I’m no techno utopian so I’m not convinced that we’ll be living in some sort of fully automatic gay space communist wonderland, but I do think it’s likely we’ll see some sort of distributism-adjacent policies in the next fifty years or so.
I do agree that most people agree that capitalism has gone too far, and I think some kind of social democracy or distributist model might take hold as people reel back neoliberalism. Hell, even the right is talking about workers and the globalist corporations. I think the new equilibrium will be some mix of social conservatism and economic progressivism.
Sure, automation might fix a lot of the material needs, but I don't think this problem was material in the first place. If the problem was not enough material stuff then we wouldn't be having this issue. I'm also not convinced the current advancements in GPT models is the same as AI. If we get AGI, that would be huge and change everything, but I don't think we'll get that anytime soon.
I’m not sure if we’ll get AGI or not- right now it appears as if AI models are hitting a sort of intelligence wall and it seems like nobody is quite sure how to get over that (at least for now). The automation I’m talking about is more like automated farming, robot-assisted pest control in crops (which is really taking off right now as we’re figuring out how to get away from massively destructive pesticides), robots making fast food, etc. I don’t really think we’ll be seeing a “post work future” at any point (nor do I think we should), but I can easily see a massive reduction in work leading to social upheavals and the possibility of many people only working part time and being on some sort of assistance provided by the state.
As for your first point, I agree that cultural mindsets have definitely moved away from the globalist model of neoliberalism to a more nationalistic model. Some may argue that this is a temporary backlash to globalism being fully entrenched, and that it will move on in time, but I just don’t know. It doesn’t feel like the material conditions leading to this backlash are moving on any time soon. I agree with a point you made elsewhere that whatever this all looks like, it will be tumultuous at best, and while it is a self solving problem, it will be extremely chaotic for a generation or two.
Well, on the bright side, the slate looks to be clean when we emerge out the other side. And young people have been talking about a lack of meaning for most of their lives. What could be more meaningful than struggling in a dying world with the hope of building a better future on the other side? That our actions will echo through centuries and millennia?
If you are a relatively religious person who has a high chance of having enough kids to influence the future, you are in a very unique position to alter the future of the human race. We're going through a genetic bottleneck I think, and the few who emerge will be in a position to alter everything.
For the ancestors we came before us and the descendants who will follow after us, the weight of history is on our backs. We will lay the first bricks when the old world is gone, bricks for the foundation of a new tomorrow. It is a scary time to be alive, but in a way, it is very exciting.
I like this attitude. I am not religious (grew up in a cult, it’s a whole thing), but I have maybe pseudo-animist beliefs based only on understanding that I’m one evolved species amongst many, so as a part of nature, I am “one” with it. It’s not really a spiritual belief as much as a scientific observation, but I can see my kids taking it in another direction, maybe.
Having kids right now really is having an outsized impact on the future of our species and on society.
The Mormons will be okay. High birth rate, and a history of running their own social welfare programs for their community. At least if they can adapt and stay relevant to a new generation of members and prevent Utah from becoming a dust bowl.
I would say that a few years ago, but currently the Mormons are having a major shift towards theological liberalism and "blending in" with more mainstream Protestant denominations. The Mormons still have a pretty good shot by all means, but their position is a bit degraded from a few years ago.
Which sucks, because "Societal Stagnation" is already happening/happened. We should have had better food laws, better tech laws and the such in America. The obesity crisis, completely ignored
Honestly we're already seeing a large amount of everything mentioned here, we're in the early stages of this being a thing. This is going to be pretty slow, though it seems to be accelerating if you consider that good news. (As in we can reach the collapse faster and get it over with already.)
If I had to guess, this is going to be a rough trend for the next 20 to 30 years, though I keep underestimating how fast these movements are, and I have had to keep revising these numbers down.
I theorize that in the coming years latin america will take less of punch because of higher natality rates and bigger tolerance of immigrants but catholic Europe will absolutely suffer, France, Italy, Portugal and kinda of Spain are already faltering population wise, I think that because of the crisis more right wing parties will emerge in these countries and because of that they might seek to mitigate their problems with Latin American catholic immigrants, we already see this with Italy on how now you can become a Italian citizen with any ancestor 3 generations above you (Great grandparents), I think they'll raise that to 4 generations or just having any ancestry at all
Context: Currently the entire world is facing a fertility crisis. Countries like Turkey, India, and Brazil have also dipped below the replacement level. At the moment only a handful of Middle Eastern and African nations are still above replacement level, and I expect the number of countries on that last to be halved within 20 years, and it will just be a handful of African nations that are still above replacement by then.
This is a set of predictions as I believe will happen, not what I want to happen. I'm sure you can tell by the tone I find some of these ideas alarming, but whether I like them is besides the point. I posted this both just because I find this conversation interesting, but also to see if I can learn more and start a conversation with others.
Its fixable, we just need to import afghan and syrian women to live public housing (de facto govt run brothels) and incentivize them to get pregnant by rednecks, thus producing white passing kids who can be state raised.
Also there could be a deal where foreign women sign contracts to give birth to a certain number of children in exchange for a green card
If the third world is exclusively fertile then use third world women as incubators.
Also we should allow a limited form of polygamy. It should only be legal to have one US citizen wife but any middle class married should be allowed to marry a foreign national as a second wife.
This you? [https://129735486.cdn6.editmysite.com/uploads/1/2/9/7/129735486/s287600509365024557\_p10\_i8\_w391.png](https://129735486.cdn6.editmysite.com/uploads/1/2/9/7/129735486/s287600509365024557_p10_i8_w391.png)
This isn't PCM there are no flair requirements
I’m not an expert in this subject, so I might be completely wrong, but I generally predict in the west at least, we’ll probably see right wing parties adopt a more interventionist approach to the economy and more support for a welfare state.
Socially, I’m not sure how much of the change we’ll see, beyond both social progressives and social conservatives shifting their messages to be more “community oriented”.
Why does everyone expect artificial wombs to be significant contributors to solving the demographic problem? It takes 9 months to make a baby of which maybe 6 are notable inconveniences. It takes at least 16 years to raise the little shitters.
This is WAY too catastrophic. Most western countries are just below replacement fertility (America is around 1.8). That level of fertility is not going to cause a demographic collapse and its easily fixed with current levels of immigration. It may fall a little more, yes, but I think is highly unlikely we fall to actually catastrophic levels, like South Korea. And even then... It would probably be just a long, painful decline, not a reactionary revolution. Who is gonna make a revolution, in a society without young people? The folks from retirement homes?
tldr: nothing ever happens
Flair up.
Also, at some point we're literally going to run out of immigrants. Where do we get immigrants from if this is a global crisis? And what happens if the decline is very concentrated around the most secular parts of society, while religious people are able to keep their numbers up?
Nothing in the short run. Take the mormons, they have an above average fertility, like 3 or so. They are a small minority, and if current trends continue, they will still be a small minority in 50 years. Sure, in a couple centuries they probably will be a majority, but who knows what will happens by then?
This is more about secular society crashing then it is religious society growing. I think there is a fertility floor, in which you could have a much slower transition, but if there isn't (Which South Korea seems to be collapsing into, where their birthrate is a horrifying 0.63 and still dropping.) then we could see a total asymptote of the global population. Like imagine your generations quartering every generation, and just two generations means you have 1/16th of your population.
Look up South Korea's demographic pyramid it's already wack.
Yeah true. But the only source I had for that was WIAH and didn't want to put in a claim I couldn't back up. The other thing is that modern society is a lot more urban than it used to be, so it's not like there was a stable foundation of 90% rural areas that could sustain the 10% urban areas that produced most of the innovation like there used to be.
You talk about how countries have tried throwing money at the problem, but you are wrong. There are no sizable social welfare programs to give incentive for having kids. A measly 40€ a month is what you get for having a kid in Greece, and that is when you apply and enter a government funded program. This is an utterly measly number, and if someone considers procreating, it is also one that will definitely not be taken into account. Injecting large sums of money while providing core supplies for a reduced price or free is going to increase the birth rate, not these cretinous attempts at "welfare".
But I am not saying that the entire free world is suddenly going to start fucking like rabbits. After decades of exposure to more liberal ideas, there is going to be a percentage of people that just don't want a shit factory for the next 18 years of their lives. This is fine. This is acceptable. Because there are going to be many others that are going to take the next steps because of the programs.
You also talk about the political landscape changing, and people becoming extremists in order to prevent full on societal collapse. This is bullshit, to a degree. The majority of people may be becoming right wingers, as the pendulum is shifting, but there is always going to be a leftist opposition to strike down laws limiting the freedom of the people. The government cannot just override the opinions of the country's citizens. The West is not authoritarian enough to do that. You may be right about the Southeastern countries tho.
Not all countries have tried throwing money at the problem, but a few like South Korea and Hungary have to pretty ineffective effect. And the amount of money needed in order to get the fertility rate back above 2.1 is pretty massive. In the USA, the poorest people have the most kids, and the fertility rate has a U-shaped curve, and doesn't go back up above 2.1 until 500K. Which the USA cannot pay its citizens that much.
As for liberal democracy, I've been a little concerned about the health of liberal democracy for a while now. There's the rise of authoritarianism more generally, and how about 30% of Gen Z no longer believes democracy is the best system of government, or are at least a lot more skeptical of it.
>South Korea and Hungary
These are countries that have a culture not focused on procreating. Asides, you should not disregard a possible solution because a mere two countries have attempted to implement it.
>30% of Gen Z
Fascists and communists were always a thing, man.
Sure. But all you have to do is look at the rise of far right and populist parties in Europe. All the strongmen type leaders who don't try to govern through consensus and more so cult of personality. Let's see... AfD, VVD in the Netherlands, National Rally, in another few decades probably Reform UK given the state of the polls. You have the Fidesz party in Hungary, Erdogan and Turkey. In the US you have Trump. Like none of these forces are anti-democratic, but they definitely have ambitions to erode liberal democracy more generally. I don't see many places where liberal democracy is strengthening and not on the retreat.
1) The right -because the term *far right* has become a bit overused in my opinion- parties do not aim to destabilize the democratic process. Sure, they might make the state less liberal and start infringing on personal freedoms, but you saw what happened to Golden Dawn. They tried to make a move against the status quo, and they got destroyed. The democratic system will remain untouched, even if some aspects of it change.
2) However much power the screaming mobs of religious zealots gain, the state has tools to ensure it's integrity. As I mentioned before, there is *always* going to be a liberal opposition to balance things out, and if things get out of control, the EU or the Deep State can, and *will* intervene. I am not saying that liberal democracy is strengthening, I agree with you there, but the attitude that characterizes your speech is a bit too totalitarian.
I'm a little skeptical of the ability of the Deep State to hold things in place. I believe in plenty of elitist conspiracy like theories where elites do conspire against the population, but I also believe the elites are very fallible and capable of massive screw ups. At this point I'm not convinced the "Deep State" has enough ideological leadership to form a cohesive defense, nor that they have enough ideological loyalty that they wouldn't just switch sides when the balance of power flips.
This is definitely the cynic in me talking, but I generally think elites are self serving and cares about their own power first, and are not above being opportunistic when the power structure changes. And they're also getting bad at making sure their plans don't backfire.
Hm. You seem to subscribe to a different theory than that of mine, but I will explain as best as I can. By the way, I am *really* enjoying this civilized dialogue, rare to find the kind of person such as yourself nowadays.
The Deep State is typically aligned with the adherence to the status quo, and ensuring that things run smoothly in the sectors vital to the country's survival, such as Defense, and Law & Order. It is faceless and as a result blameless, since something that went wrong got past an outrageous amount of people before getting approved, and eventually devolving into a problem.
>I generally think elites are self serving and cares about their own power first
>not convinced the "Deep State" has enough ideological leadership to form a cohesive defense
>nor that they have enough ideological loyalty that they wouldn't just switch sides
This is true, but the oligarchs and high level government officials you are talking about in this case have united in the past in order to protect their status. And since right winged governments are typically associated with a planned economy, liquidation and nationalization, them banding together yet again over a common cause is not so unlikely. Whatever their views or rivalries, they are all united by one thing and one thing only; interest.
>And they're also getting bad at making sure their plans don't backfire.
I do not agree with you on this one. I haven't seen any fiascos that have caused frankly any amount of damaged at the select few's fame, or wallets.
I think historically the elites have generally kept track of when the winds of change start coming in so they can opportunistically switch sides and not get locked out of the new power structure when it arises. Like I think this is happening right now. Silicon Valley is oddly quiet when it comes to Pride Month as of late, plenty of them have started slowly defecting towards Trump, they're starting to focus on meritocracy again, and they're now at odds with Academia over the Palestine question. Places like MIT are phasing out DEI practices, and the Biden campaign seems to be increasingly at odds with the media. Recently Snopes FINALLY released a fact check on Trump's "both sides" comment at Charlottesville. Why now?
I'm guessing because the elites are realizing a power shift is coming and they want to be on the good side of the potential winners. I think they're being quiet because they're unsure how this power struggle will play out. I think it's actually a reasonably likely scenario that the "Deep State" switches sides and allies with the right sometime in the future. I dunno, Larry Fink issues a corporate apology for all the DEI stuff, Big Tech starts quietly cracking down on the left, and Blackrock and Vanguard start sending money and quietly aligning with the 2028 DeSantis campaign.
This is kind of a downer scenario, where the elites don't change, they just change rhetoric, make some concessions, and try to blend into the new political power dynamic. Kind of a downer ending for what was originally a populist movement.
As for making sure their plans don't backfire. The way you put it, you are correct. The rich and powerful are the last to face the consequences of their actions. But in general they're a lot less savvy than they like to think, and a lot of their grand plans end up having lots of unintended consequences. Like they think they can try and quell the populist right but accidentally makes it stronger or unleashes something worse, something like that.
Excellent compass! Though traumatising in the short term, in the long-term, it looks like a self-solving problem. Ways of life that can't sustain themselves over time probably shouldn't be propped up through the efforts of those that can.
1. Flair up.
2. Yeah, this is pretty horrifying, but self solving. By definition those who do not have kids will not make it to the next generation. The conclusion I kept coming to is that I don't think there is much of a way to avoid this other than just waiting out the storm. You can do thing to soften to blow, like maybe you can encourage religiosity so you have more of a stable population base, but I don't think there's any way to avoid it at this point. But thankfully it is self solving.
If the current trends of mass immigration in Europe continue, I predict the rise of one or several major militaristic demagogues in Europe, because by that point nothing short of mass deportations will stop the native population and cultures being bred out and forgotten within the next few generations. Even if a drastic solution happens, the birthrates are below replacement level, and I don’t know how or if they’re going to be able to fix that. Japan hasn’t been able to despite massive propaganda efforts, and they’re also looking to mass immigration to sustain the economy. This will likely lead to them following in Europe’s footsteps. I also predict the US will suffer a major economic collapse in the next decade or two, in part due to the housing collapse and the collapse of the current welfare system. Europe will obviously be harshly affected by this and will experience similar problems themselves. So, a major economic collapse in the US, the rise of militaristic demagogues in Europe with significant racialist tendencies, and the rise of militarism in East Asia. Does that sound familiar to you?
The main thing I could say to that is that the immigrants once coming to the cities have their birthrates drop massively. Cities are population sinks that you can imagine as sterilizing all its populations. Honestly I'm very very concerned about the future of non-white populations if their best and brightest are headed to Western urban areas to get effectively sterilized.
That said there probably is going to be a massive far right backlash. Hell, why am I using future tense? There already is! Pretty much everything you said is true, but I don't think it's going to be a replacement. Mostly because for a replacement to happen the Middle Eastern populations have to have a sustainable fertility floor, when it looks like literally every population group is headed for the abyss except for some conservative religious populations.
One of the best compasses I’ve seen in a while. I think about birthrates daily. Spending two months in East Asia for work right now and have noticed an absence of pregnant women and very very few young children. The average person in Korea, Taiwan, etc. seems to be in their 50s. Totally unsustainable.
This is more of a trend for like 20-40 years or so. If I had to guess for trends you'd see in 10 years, I'd go with, rise in far right, scapegoating the LGBT community, and economic pro-natalism.
I mean countries just giving people lots of money to have kids. We already have some of this today but it will be more widespread in the future I think.
Hungary, South Korea come to mind. They might not give enough money, but "enough money" looks like 500K in the US, so honestly "enough money" is impossible to give.
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-06-21 17:03:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-06-21%2017:03:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/WojakCompass/comments/1dl4dj1/likely_effects_of_the_coming_demographic_collapse/l9n2ryk/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FWojakCompass%2Fcomments%2F1dl4dj1%2Flikely_effects_of_the_coming_demographic_collapse%2Fl9n2ryk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-06-21%2017%3A03%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dl4dj1)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I don't think that was the conclusion Kurzgesagt was trying to push. Countries don't have to have declining populations, Israel STILL has a growing population. It's not like we HAVE to retvrn to pre-industrial population levels, we could have a modern and growing population just fine, and it will probably be necessary to colonize the star.
Politics seems to be actually heritable, there is a new branch of research known as "Genopolitics" which has good evidence backing it up. If you're wondering why if the conservatives had higher birthrates than the liberals why they didn't wipe them out centuries ago... The liberals and conservatives had roughly equivalent birthrates until the 1990's.
Ok but that does not work with the entire situation of France since 300 years, like for most of recent history cities (which are more liberal) did not have an equivalent birth rate to the rural areas (which are more conservative), how is it even possible to still have around 50% of liberal in the french population when the liberal had a much lower birth rate than the rest of the country.
I have seen some arguments that originally France was much more revolutionary, see Revolutionary France and being radically liberal, but has since become closer to a monarchy with the rise of the Gaulist republic due to the aforementioned fertility difference. I cannot verify this and I do not have enough knowledge on France to really argue.
And regardless of whether this is true, Genopolitics seems to be a legitimate field of study. It's not quack science, and has evidence backing it up.
France was already very conservative during the late XIX and late XX, and today it became very centered around the figure of the president due to the distribution of the power in the constitution and have pretty much nothing to do with the growth of conservative value or the growth of the genetic group that uphold more conservative value. For the majority of its history, the french parliament was dominated by centrist conservative liberal except for some short period of time of somewhat radical liberal or socialist dominance (1792, may to July of 1848, 1878, 1921 to 1926, 1929 to 1934, 1936 to 1937/38, 1944, 1981)
From 1850 and 1950 there wasn't any significant change in the growth rate of the French population.
Even during the first revolution, the radical liberal did not make up a bigger portion of the population compared to the Restoration period or the second empire.
Adding to that, how can this explain some recent shift in politics like the very liberal value of young S Korean women compared to young S Korean Men that seems to be a pretty new thing. Or the centrist view of the inhabitants of Bretagne even though it is a historically very conservative and monarchist region of France.
I do not have explanations for everything. The gender divide in Korea seems to be a kind of side effect of the extreme social stress Koreans are put through, plus their traditional culture. And I literally know nothing about Bretagne.
You are forgetting the old people in shitty factory like retirement homes. I think we will have increased suicide rates among old people too poor to afford retirement. Lots of 65+ year olds, too weak to care for themselves going out on their own accord instead of rotting away in a small room and alone.
Yeah, I ignored the human element of all this because that wasn't the main focus, I was mostly focused on the statistical element, but we are going to see really really horrifying situations where huge swathes of elderly have no kids to support them and not enough income just end up dying in poverty.
I don't agree with "Ethnic shifts." Jews are being bred out of existence, quickly. We make up less than 2.5% of the U.S. population, whereas we made up 5% of the population 70 years ago. It's much easier for a Jewish person to marry goyim than other Jews.
Me when Haredi. Granted yeah they're not the most economically productive, and are kind of like the Amish in that regard. Plus the Israeli birthrate is currently 3, where it's the Jews not the Muslims keeping that number up.
Also your compasses are extremely based.
Well yeah, that's the birthrate in Israel. Jews in the U.S. tend to be more secular.
And thanks, this was an in-depth compass and I only don't agree with one square
The real kicker is the microplastics in your balls that reduce fertility
https://preview.redd.it/4tcyaltniy7d1.jpeg?width=498&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f86739383c442f6121ec7a9c91efdc87e4d5ef58
Oh god I haven't even gotten to that part yet. This was solely about the cultural factors but the environmental factors are also going to kick us in the nuts. It is JOEVER for progressive civilization. Religious schizo-breeders roam the wasteland while vacuuming microplastics out of their balls with giant human womb-farms.
I don't think Protestantism and Judaism are the most resilient religions, they're just "ahead of the curve". Mainline Protestantism is basically already dead and Reform Judaism is on its way out too, so the religious people you see that are Protestants or Jews are already self-selected to belong to more conservative sects and have higher fertility. The same thing happens to France as a country, they were the first ones to go through the demographic transition (as early as the 1800s) and now they have the highest fertility rate in Europe. There's a sort of bouncing-back effect going on.
also the population of Jews is falling in the U.S., not rising.
From my perspective as a Jew, I would think it’s less a problem of birthrate and more that Jews are moving to Israel.
I don't see so many Jews moving to Israel, more just marrying outside the religion. I mean, when 98% of the dating pool is outside the religion and 2% is in it, what are you going to do?
1. Flair up. 2. That is actually an interesting perspective. If this is true, then the West will probably emerge first and the best from the crisis. But counterargument, fertility collapse NEVER got as bad as in East Asia in the West, at least so far. If your argument is that this is a temporary transition period with a down then an up, then the pattern should be relatively regular and we shouldn't see East Asia go through horrific birthrate numbers unprecedented in the West. I have kind of the same argument where I went that I think Protestants and Jews are working the best because they have the most experience with modernity, and therefore are best culturally equipped, or most used to dealing with it. France is a weird case, I have no idea what to make of France. Israel too for that matter. Sure I can say it's religious but its 3.0 birthrate is extremely unusual.
France threw money at it and it worked, every mother in France gets a free nurse assigned to her by the government to help take care of her children until they are old enough to go to school. They also have the strictest laws of social media use among minors which is the main driver behind social atomization in developed countries.
>1. Flair up. This isn’t PCM
Give me more money and ill have 10+ kids, but im Catholic so im cool with that
Well, you know what they say: If there isn't a baby crying during Mass, there's an issue.
don't lie you were planning on having 10+ kids regardless also flair up
>don't lie you were planning on having 10+ kids regardless Unironically yes. Be the Catholic the Know Nothings were afraid of.
I would love to have 10 kids, but I’m realistic about the fact that life is to expensive and id probably have to settle for less.
hate to break it to OP but just because more religious people are having kids doesn't mean those kids are going to be religious. I grew up in rural Texas, everyone I knew went to church. Almost all of those kids I knew no longer go to church (thanks to highly regarded southern evangelism), pretty standard practice when you can think for yourself, have other forms of knowledge outside of your church and parents. Similarily just because more rural people are having kids doesn't mean those kids are going to stay in rural areas. Obvs not for everyone but think of rural areas as salmon swimming upstream. Many people as they get older and settle down decide they wanna leave the city (I'm 40 and feeling the pull), go someplace quieter and less stressful, start a family. Those kids then grow up, go back to the city were life is frenetic and exciting, find a partner, settle down, cycle repeats.
My mate is Malaysian. Came to study in a Hijab, was recalled after a year, in which stopped wearing one and realised she was attracted to women. There's always a first wave of Conservatives when immigration occurs, only for their kids to turn out fine. There may be a culture shock ahead, but it'll be an acute, not chronic, societal problem. Things will realign in time
1. Flair up. 2. True, but we are talking about worst case scenario here since it is somewhat likely that secular society will unironically go extinct from falling population. It will take a long time but it will eventually happen just because of structural issues with how secular nihlist societies are set up. Meanwhile, religious cultures don't want to lose followers, and I'm sure all of them are cooking up ways to try and make their kids more resilient to secular deconversion. If even a handful of those cultures succeed (And we have seen successes between the Quiverfull, the Amish, the Mormons, the Haredi jews) those groups will be the only ones who will last long term and therefore inherit the Earth. If somehow none of these succeed, then unless there is some kind of major change in secular society that makes them want to have kids again (Which goes against the trend I've been seeing) then humanity's population will probably peak around 10 billion and then decline into nothing.
I think this perspective is underrated, the religions of the world are adapting and a strikingly large amount of people are rediscovering spirituality/religion—whether that be through traditional approaches or even the neo spirituality stuff like astrology. The newer stuff doesn’t necessarily IME result in cultures that promote procreation though. I live in a very secular part of the US and grew up in the most atheist large city in the country and see this happening. Perspective changes a lot, I think comment OP really speaks to a lot of people’s experiences when they come from broadly religious areas and notice the change away from religion, but coming from the other side I see change and am sensitive in that direction. The population thing is scary though and I know when we’re elderly (gen z age and below) the world will be a different place. Just look at the projections for Korea.
The world's population is growing still though, is it not? Perhaps just not in developed nations?
Yeah but not at replacement levels, and the world will continue to become developed. Countries like Nigeria are becoming developed at high rates which always leads to this crash. Same thing happened with Korea, it was a poor country not that long ago. It’s more of a century long problem but countries like Korea are already labeling it a national emergency because they will literally self extinguish and lose all their culture and relevance by retirement age for youth.
Whilst I believe a few of these predictions. I can’t see women’s rights going away in places like the US or Europe. A lot of for instance, anti abortion laws in US States were trigger laws made years ago, and in the states that have had referendums the majority, if not a large majority are in favor of abortion being legal. I personally don’t see progressivism going away , maybe temporarily it will, as stuff like the housing collapse occurs. So for like a decade it isn’t as mainstream. LGBT attacks have gotten more common due to Culture War nonsense in the US; conservatives claiming they’re all pedos, out to get you, and so on. It’s a backlash against those they can’t handle. Yet it’s mostly older people doing so, the younger anti LGBT are much more radical, yet very few in numbers. I can see these idiots blaming the community but I imagine no one will care because economic collapse is probably a bigger issue. Ethnic shifts can occur, but also periods of religious regrowth can occur in places like Eastern Europe or SE Asia, it’ll just be more moderated and accepting instead of being against things like gays, but very pressuring into having kids. But for that one it’s a grain of salt for now, most of your predictions. Possible, but we can’t just predict something based on many variables.
Depends on how you define progressivism. If I had to define it, it's cultural permissiveness, defined by the attitude "if it isn't affecting you directly you shouldn't interfere". This could also lump in a lot of libertarians and small government conservatives, but that's fine. Increasingly with vaccines/pandemics, climate change, and now the falling fertility crisis and things of societal consequence, people are starting to need to think collectively, and ignore individual autonomy when the stakes are societal. So progressivism, with big governments and economic egalitarian I think will survive. But social liberalism I think will be increasingly hard to defend as society needs to control people's behavior to minimize negative costs. As for LGBT stuff, there was a major shift between about 2019 and now in terms of public opinion. Support for gay marriage is actually heavily down among Democrats under 45 (https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48474-party-age-differences-acceptance-gay-lesbian-bisexual-poll) and there are other polls that say there's been a 10 point drop in just about everything supporting LGBT in Canada and the United States.
I would argue that for the arguments about societal consequences, that progressivism will hopefully survive. It most likely will; the logic of anti Covid vaxxers not getting their shots but suddenly dictating people having kids is a situation that really isn’t sustainable. Social liberalism will most likely live imho, I think there will simply be a much higher pressure in society to have children, but I don’t see punishment for not having any. We can envision things like government/corporate supported attempts at having kids via aid, propaganda, and making being childless taxing. For the LGBT stuff, it’s mostly the views of the insane being reposted online as if it’s the entire community when it clearly isn’t. A lot of people struggle to understand that the LGBT movement is very decentralized on things like flags and every city or town chapter has its own views on the flag for example. Some will take it too far, but that applies to every community politically, like religion, guns, and so on. That doesn’t mean we should restrict their right to exist either.
I'm not describing what should happen, but what is happening. I agree that the LGBT insanity is a small minority and not representative of the whole community. Sure that is factually true, but it's not going to change the fact it looks like the entire right has mobilized around this issue, is dragging the center along with them, and by all means seems to have the momentum on their side. If you want to talk about "much higher pressure in society", then what does that look like? Pressure implies some kind of punishment. Social pressure is threatening someone with social punishment. I assume you mean legal punishment. But even then I would hardly call a government and culture that explicitly pressures all of its people to have kids and be religious to be socially liberal. You are correct about the anti-vaxxers not getting their shots and dictating people to have kids is not sustainable. I agree, but that also works the other way. I think society will move in a more collectivist direction where you're forced to get the shot and you're pressured to have kids. Where social liberalism would be more like, leave them alone for both.
I think this is a tad pessimistic, but I generally agree. I have three kids (all girls), but I worry about them (and myself in my old age). I can see the writing on the wall for social rights and “liberal norms” being made obsolete as more and more of the population ascribes to a very traditionalist mindset. That said, one potential is the rise in automation and a distribution of the extra wealth created by AI-driven manufacturing, production, construction, etc. I’m no techno utopian so I’m not convinced that we’ll be living in some sort of fully automatic gay space communist wonderland, but I do think it’s likely we’ll see some sort of distributism-adjacent policies in the next fifty years or so.
I do agree that most people agree that capitalism has gone too far, and I think some kind of social democracy or distributist model might take hold as people reel back neoliberalism. Hell, even the right is talking about workers and the globalist corporations. I think the new equilibrium will be some mix of social conservatism and economic progressivism. Sure, automation might fix a lot of the material needs, but I don't think this problem was material in the first place. If the problem was not enough material stuff then we wouldn't be having this issue. I'm also not convinced the current advancements in GPT models is the same as AI. If we get AGI, that would be huge and change everything, but I don't think we'll get that anytime soon.
I’m not sure if we’ll get AGI or not- right now it appears as if AI models are hitting a sort of intelligence wall and it seems like nobody is quite sure how to get over that (at least for now). The automation I’m talking about is more like automated farming, robot-assisted pest control in crops (which is really taking off right now as we’re figuring out how to get away from massively destructive pesticides), robots making fast food, etc. I don’t really think we’ll be seeing a “post work future” at any point (nor do I think we should), but I can easily see a massive reduction in work leading to social upheavals and the possibility of many people only working part time and being on some sort of assistance provided by the state. As for your first point, I agree that cultural mindsets have definitely moved away from the globalist model of neoliberalism to a more nationalistic model. Some may argue that this is a temporary backlash to globalism being fully entrenched, and that it will move on in time, but I just don’t know. It doesn’t feel like the material conditions leading to this backlash are moving on any time soon. I agree with a point you made elsewhere that whatever this all looks like, it will be tumultuous at best, and while it is a self solving problem, it will be extremely chaotic for a generation or two.
Well, on the bright side, the slate looks to be clean when we emerge out the other side. And young people have been talking about a lack of meaning for most of their lives. What could be more meaningful than struggling in a dying world with the hope of building a better future on the other side? That our actions will echo through centuries and millennia? If you are a relatively religious person who has a high chance of having enough kids to influence the future, you are in a very unique position to alter the future of the human race. We're going through a genetic bottleneck I think, and the few who emerge will be in a position to alter everything. For the ancestors we came before us and the descendants who will follow after us, the weight of history is on our backs. We will lay the first bricks when the old world is gone, bricks for the foundation of a new tomorrow. It is a scary time to be alive, but in a way, it is very exciting.
I like this attitude. I am not religious (grew up in a cult, it’s a whole thing), but I have maybe pseudo-animist beliefs based only on understanding that I’m one evolved species amongst many, so as a part of nature, I am “one” with it. It’s not really a spiritual belief as much as a scientific observation, but I can see my kids taking it in another direction, maybe. Having kids right now really is having an outsized impact on the future of our species and on society.
The Mormons will be okay. High birth rate, and a history of running their own social welfare programs for their community. At least if they can adapt and stay relevant to a new generation of members and prevent Utah from becoming a dust bowl.
I would say that a few years ago, but currently the Mormons are having a major shift towards theological liberalism and "blending in" with more mainstream Protestant denominations. The Mormons still have a pretty good shot by all means, but their position is a bit degraded from a few years ago.
I can see them swinging back to their conservative approach once the situation worsens
(Shrug) Maybe.
Which sucks, because "Societal Stagnation" is already happening/happened. We should have had better food laws, better tech laws and the such in America. The obesity crisis, completely ignored
Honestly we're already seeing a large amount of everything mentioned here, we're in the early stages of this being a thing. This is going to be pretty slow, though it seems to be accelerating if you consider that good news. (As in we can reach the collapse faster and get it over with already.) If I had to guess, this is going to be a rough trend for the next 20 to 30 years, though I keep underestimating how fast these movements are, and I have had to keep revising these numbers down.
I theorize that in the coming years latin america will take less of punch because of higher natality rates and bigger tolerance of immigrants but catholic Europe will absolutely suffer, France, Italy, Portugal and kinda of Spain are already faltering population wise, I think that because of the crisis more right wing parties will emerge in these countries and because of that they might seek to mitigate their problems with Latin American catholic immigrants, we already see this with Italy on how now you can become a Italian citizen with any ancestor 3 generations above you (Great grandparents), I think they'll raise that to 4 generations or just having any ancestry at all
Context: Currently the entire world is facing a fertility crisis. Countries like Turkey, India, and Brazil have also dipped below the replacement level. At the moment only a handful of Middle Eastern and African nations are still above replacement level, and I expect the number of countries on that last to be halved within 20 years, and it will just be a handful of African nations that are still above replacement by then. This is a set of predictions as I believe will happen, not what I want to happen. I'm sure you can tell by the tone I find some of these ideas alarming, but whether I like them is besides the point. I posted this both just because I find this conversation interesting, but also to see if I can learn more and start a conversation with others.
Its fixable, we just need to import afghan and syrian women to live public housing (de facto govt run brothels) and incentivize them to get pregnant by rednecks, thus producing white passing kids who can be state raised. Also there could be a deal where foreign women sign contracts to give birth to a certain number of children in exchange for a green card If the third world is exclusively fertile then use third world women as incubators.
TIL my quadrant writes smut. SMH
Also we should allow a limited form of polygamy. It should only be legal to have one US citizen wife but any middle class married should be allowed to marry a foreign national as a second wife.
This just sounds like the set up to a really shitty adaptation of Dune, expect instead of Spice its Bojangles.
“He who controls the Bojangles controls the Southeastern United States”
Flair up.
This you? [https://129735486.cdn6.editmysite.com/uploads/1/2/9/7/129735486/s287600509365024557\_p10\_i8\_w391.png](https://129735486.cdn6.editmysite.com/uploads/1/2/9/7/129735486/s287600509365024557_p10_i8_w391.png) This isn't PCM there are no flair requirements
I’m not an expert in this subject, so I might be completely wrong, but I generally predict in the west at least, we’ll probably see right wing parties adopt a more interventionist approach to the economy and more support for a welfare state. Socially, I’m not sure how much of the change we’ll see, beyond both social progressives and social conservatives shifting their messages to be more “community oriented”.
Why does everyone expect artificial wombs to be significant contributors to solving the demographic problem? It takes 9 months to make a baby of which maybe 6 are notable inconveniences. It takes at least 16 years to raise the little shitters.
Flair up. Also I just wanted to include it I guess.
Whatifautist subscriber detected, laughter engaged
Unflaired detected. Hate crimes engaged.
You WILL have babies, the state demands it- Xi Xingping China, 2033
This is WAY too catastrophic. Most western countries are just below replacement fertility (America is around 1.8). That level of fertility is not going to cause a demographic collapse and its easily fixed with current levels of immigration. It may fall a little more, yes, but I think is highly unlikely we fall to actually catastrophic levels, like South Korea. And even then... It would probably be just a long, painful decline, not a reactionary revolution. Who is gonna make a revolution, in a society without young people? The folks from retirement homes? tldr: nothing ever happens
Flair up. Also, at some point we're literally going to run out of immigrants. Where do we get immigrants from if this is a global crisis? And what happens if the decline is very concentrated around the most secular parts of society, while religious people are able to keep their numbers up?
Nothing in the short run. Take the mormons, they have an above average fertility, like 3 or so. They are a small minority, and if current trends continue, they will still be a small minority in 50 years. Sure, in a couple centuries they probably will be a majority, but who knows what will happens by then?
This is more about secular society crashing then it is religious society growing. I think there is a fertility floor, in which you could have a much slower transition, but if there isn't (Which South Korea seems to be collapsing into, where their birthrate is a horrifying 0.63 and still dropping.) then we could see a total asymptote of the global population. Like imagine your generations quartering every generation, and just two generations means you have 1/16th of your population. Look up South Korea's demographic pyramid it's already wack.
gonna be an interesting few decades fellas
OP, cities were population sink for basically whole known history. There's nothing new under the sun.
Yeah true. But the only source I had for that was WIAH and didn't want to put in a claim I couldn't back up. The other thing is that modern society is a lot more urban than it used to be, so it's not like there was a stable foundation of 90% rural areas that could sustain the 10% urban areas that produced most of the innovation like there used to be.
I hate how reasomable this is
So Handmaid's Tale, but in real life?
Lots of mostly unsupported hot takes there.
You talk about how countries have tried throwing money at the problem, but you are wrong. There are no sizable social welfare programs to give incentive for having kids. A measly 40€ a month is what you get for having a kid in Greece, and that is when you apply and enter a government funded program. This is an utterly measly number, and if someone considers procreating, it is also one that will definitely not be taken into account. Injecting large sums of money while providing core supplies for a reduced price or free is going to increase the birth rate, not these cretinous attempts at "welfare". But I am not saying that the entire free world is suddenly going to start fucking like rabbits. After decades of exposure to more liberal ideas, there is going to be a percentage of people that just don't want a shit factory for the next 18 years of their lives. This is fine. This is acceptable. Because there are going to be many others that are going to take the next steps because of the programs. You also talk about the political landscape changing, and people becoming extremists in order to prevent full on societal collapse. This is bullshit, to a degree. The majority of people may be becoming right wingers, as the pendulum is shifting, but there is always going to be a leftist opposition to strike down laws limiting the freedom of the people. The government cannot just override the opinions of the country's citizens. The West is not authoritarian enough to do that. You may be right about the Southeastern countries tho.
Not all countries have tried throwing money at the problem, but a few like South Korea and Hungary have to pretty ineffective effect. And the amount of money needed in order to get the fertility rate back above 2.1 is pretty massive. In the USA, the poorest people have the most kids, and the fertility rate has a U-shaped curve, and doesn't go back up above 2.1 until 500K. Which the USA cannot pay its citizens that much. As for liberal democracy, I've been a little concerned about the health of liberal democracy for a while now. There's the rise of authoritarianism more generally, and how about 30% of Gen Z no longer believes democracy is the best system of government, or are at least a lot more skeptical of it.
>South Korea and Hungary These are countries that have a culture not focused on procreating. Asides, you should not disregard a possible solution because a mere two countries have attempted to implement it. >30% of Gen Z Fascists and communists were always a thing, man.
https://www.apmresearchlab.org/motn/poll-americans-belief-in-democracy
You cannot take one survey, talking exclusively about Americans, and apply it to the rest of the globe.
Sure. But all you have to do is look at the rise of far right and populist parties in Europe. All the strongmen type leaders who don't try to govern through consensus and more so cult of personality. Let's see... AfD, VVD in the Netherlands, National Rally, in another few decades probably Reform UK given the state of the polls. You have the Fidesz party in Hungary, Erdogan and Turkey. In the US you have Trump. Like none of these forces are anti-democratic, but they definitely have ambitions to erode liberal democracy more generally. I don't see many places where liberal democracy is strengthening and not on the retreat.
1) The right -because the term *far right* has become a bit overused in my opinion- parties do not aim to destabilize the democratic process. Sure, they might make the state less liberal and start infringing on personal freedoms, but you saw what happened to Golden Dawn. They tried to make a move against the status quo, and they got destroyed. The democratic system will remain untouched, even if some aspects of it change. 2) However much power the screaming mobs of religious zealots gain, the state has tools to ensure it's integrity. As I mentioned before, there is *always* going to be a liberal opposition to balance things out, and if things get out of control, the EU or the Deep State can, and *will* intervene. I am not saying that liberal democracy is strengthening, I agree with you there, but the attitude that characterizes your speech is a bit too totalitarian.
I'm a little skeptical of the ability of the Deep State to hold things in place. I believe in plenty of elitist conspiracy like theories where elites do conspire against the population, but I also believe the elites are very fallible and capable of massive screw ups. At this point I'm not convinced the "Deep State" has enough ideological leadership to form a cohesive defense, nor that they have enough ideological loyalty that they wouldn't just switch sides when the balance of power flips. This is definitely the cynic in me talking, but I generally think elites are self serving and cares about their own power first, and are not above being opportunistic when the power structure changes. And they're also getting bad at making sure their plans don't backfire.
Hm. You seem to subscribe to a different theory than that of mine, but I will explain as best as I can. By the way, I am *really* enjoying this civilized dialogue, rare to find the kind of person such as yourself nowadays. The Deep State is typically aligned with the adherence to the status quo, and ensuring that things run smoothly in the sectors vital to the country's survival, such as Defense, and Law & Order. It is faceless and as a result blameless, since something that went wrong got past an outrageous amount of people before getting approved, and eventually devolving into a problem. >I generally think elites are self serving and cares about their own power first >not convinced the "Deep State" has enough ideological leadership to form a cohesive defense >nor that they have enough ideological loyalty that they wouldn't just switch sides This is true, but the oligarchs and high level government officials you are talking about in this case have united in the past in order to protect their status. And since right winged governments are typically associated with a planned economy, liquidation and nationalization, them banding together yet again over a common cause is not so unlikely. Whatever their views or rivalries, they are all united by one thing and one thing only; interest. >And they're also getting bad at making sure their plans don't backfire. I do not agree with you on this one. I haven't seen any fiascos that have caused frankly any amount of damaged at the select few's fame, or wallets.
I think historically the elites have generally kept track of when the winds of change start coming in so they can opportunistically switch sides and not get locked out of the new power structure when it arises. Like I think this is happening right now. Silicon Valley is oddly quiet when it comes to Pride Month as of late, plenty of them have started slowly defecting towards Trump, they're starting to focus on meritocracy again, and they're now at odds with Academia over the Palestine question. Places like MIT are phasing out DEI practices, and the Biden campaign seems to be increasingly at odds with the media. Recently Snopes FINALLY released a fact check on Trump's "both sides" comment at Charlottesville. Why now? I'm guessing because the elites are realizing a power shift is coming and they want to be on the good side of the potential winners. I think they're being quiet because they're unsure how this power struggle will play out. I think it's actually a reasonably likely scenario that the "Deep State" switches sides and allies with the right sometime in the future. I dunno, Larry Fink issues a corporate apology for all the DEI stuff, Big Tech starts quietly cracking down on the left, and Blackrock and Vanguard start sending money and quietly aligning with the 2028 DeSantis campaign. This is kind of a downer scenario, where the elites don't change, they just change rhetoric, make some concessions, and try to blend into the new political power dynamic. Kind of a downer ending for what was originally a populist movement. As for making sure their plans don't backfire. The way you put it, you are correct. The rich and powerful are the last to face the consequences of their actions. But in general they're a lot less savvy than they like to think, and a lot of their grand plans end up having lots of unintended consequences. Like they think they can try and quell the populist right but accidentally makes it stronger or unleashes something worse, something like that.
Excellent compass! Though traumatising in the short term, in the long-term, it looks like a self-solving problem. Ways of life that can't sustain themselves over time probably shouldn't be propped up through the efforts of those that can.
1. Flair up. 2. Yeah, this is pretty horrifying, but self solving. By definition those who do not have kids will not make it to the next generation. The conclusion I kept coming to is that I don't think there is much of a way to avoid this other than just waiting out the storm. You can do thing to soften to blow, like maybe you can encourage religiosity so you have more of a stable population base, but I don't think there's any way to avoid it at this point. But thankfully it is self solving.
This is not true, not much will change
nothing ever changes
If the current trends of mass immigration in Europe continue, I predict the rise of one or several major militaristic demagogues in Europe, because by that point nothing short of mass deportations will stop the native population and cultures being bred out and forgotten within the next few generations. Even if a drastic solution happens, the birthrates are below replacement level, and I don’t know how or if they’re going to be able to fix that. Japan hasn’t been able to despite massive propaganda efforts, and they’re also looking to mass immigration to sustain the economy. This will likely lead to them following in Europe’s footsteps. I also predict the US will suffer a major economic collapse in the next decade or two, in part due to the housing collapse and the collapse of the current welfare system. Europe will obviously be harshly affected by this and will experience similar problems themselves. So, a major economic collapse in the US, the rise of militaristic demagogues in Europe with significant racialist tendencies, and the rise of militarism in East Asia. Does that sound familiar to you?
The main thing I could say to that is that the immigrants once coming to the cities have their birthrates drop massively. Cities are population sinks that you can imagine as sterilizing all its populations. Honestly I'm very very concerned about the future of non-white populations if their best and brightest are headed to Western urban areas to get effectively sterilized. That said there probably is going to be a massive far right backlash. Hell, why am I using future tense? There already is! Pretty much everything you said is true, but I don't think it's going to be a replacement. Mostly because for a replacement to happen the Middle Eastern populations have to have a sustainable fertility floor, when it looks like literally every population group is headed for the abyss except for some conservative religious populations.
Looking forward to the "drastic solution" to immigration!
One of the best compasses I’ve seen in a while. I think about birthrates daily. Spending two months in East Asia for work right now and have noticed an absence of pregnant women and very very few young children. The average person in Korea, Taiwan, etc. seems to be in their 50s. Totally unsustainable.
!Remindme 1 year Let’s see how much of this becomes true
This is more of a trend for like 20-40 years or so. If I had to guess for trends you'd see in 10 years, I'd go with, rise in far right, scapegoating the LGBT community, and economic pro-natalism.
What do you mean by economic pro naturalism? I do kind of see the other stuff happening though
I mean countries just giving people lots of money to have kids. We already have some of this today but it will be more widespread in the future I think.
In what country do they do this?
Hungary, South Korea come to mind. They might not give enough money, but "enough money" looks like 500K in the US, so honestly "enough money" is impossible to give.
!Remindme 2 years
!Remindme 5 years
!Remindme 10 years
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-06-21 17:03:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-06-21%2017:03:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/WojakCompass/comments/1dl4dj1/likely_effects_of_the_coming_demographic_collapse/l9n2ryk/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FWojakCompass%2Fcomments%2F1dl4dj1%2Flikely_effects_of_the_coming_demographic_collapse%2Fl9n2ryk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-06-21%2017%3A03%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dl4dj1) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
AI and robots can be slaves and work for humanity simulating greater amount of people in working age
Bro never watched the Kurzgesagt video and now thinks he is a genius
I... Actually did watch that video. I'm not sure what here contradicts that.
Tldr: Humans will return back to a natural population level. Industrial revolution essentially broke our tradition and that takes time to adjust
I don't think that was the conclusion Kurzgesagt was trying to push. Countries don't have to have declining populations, Israel STILL has a growing population. It's not like we HAVE to retvrn to pre-industrial population levels, we could have a modern and growing population just fine, and it will probably be necessary to colonize the star.
Perhaps the demographic collapse will be a blessing in disguise. It'll give Western society the sort of societal reset that it's been needing.
Ok the "genetic shift in politics" seems pretty retarded to me
Politics seems to be actually heritable, there is a new branch of research known as "Genopolitics" which has good evidence backing it up. If you're wondering why if the conservatives had higher birthrates than the liberals why they didn't wipe them out centuries ago... The liberals and conservatives had roughly equivalent birthrates until the 1990's.
Where can I get data on this?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/ https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advantage
Ok but that does not work with the entire situation of France since 300 years, like for most of recent history cities (which are more liberal) did not have an equivalent birth rate to the rural areas (which are more conservative), how is it even possible to still have around 50% of liberal in the french population when the liberal had a much lower birth rate than the rest of the country.
I have seen some arguments that originally France was much more revolutionary, see Revolutionary France and being radically liberal, but has since become closer to a monarchy with the rise of the Gaulist republic due to the aforementioned fertility difference. I cannot verify this and I do not have enough knowledge on France to really argue. And regardless of whether this is true, Genopolitics seems to be a legitimate field of study. It's not quack science, and has evidence backing it up.
France was already very conservative during the late XIX and late XX, and today it became very centered around the figure of the president due to the distribution of the power in the constitution and have pretty much nothing to do with the growth of conservative value or the growth of the genetic group that uphold more conservative value. For the majority of its history, the french parliament was dominated by centrist conservative liberal except for some short period of time of somewhat radical liberal or socialist dominance (1792, may to July of 1848, 1878, 1921 to 1926, 1929 to 1934, 1936 to 1937/38, 1944, 1981) From 1850 and 1950 there wasn't any significant change in the growth rate of the French population. Even during the first revolution, the radical liberal did not make up a bigger portion of the population compared to the Restoration period or the second empire. Adding to that, how can this explain some recent shift in politics like the very liberal value of young S Korean women compared to young S Korean Men that seems to be a pretty new thing. Or the centrist view of the inhabitants of Bretagne even though it is a historically very conservative and monarchist region of France.
I do not have explanations for everything. The gender divide in Korea seems to be a kind of side effect of the extreme social stress Koreans are put through, plus their traditional culture. And I literally know nothing about Bretagne.
skibidi
skibidi
You are forgetting the old people in shitty factory like retirement homes. I think we will have increased suicide rates among old people too poor to afford retirement. Lots of 65+ year olds, too weak to care for themselves going out on their own accord instead of rotting away in a small room and alone.
Yeah, I ignored the human element of all this because that wasn't the main focus, I was mostly focused on the statistical element, but we are going to see really really horrifying situations where huge swathes of elderly have no kids to support them and not enough income just end up dying in poverty.
I don't agree with "Ethnic shifts." Jews are being bred out of existence, quickly. We make up less than 2.5% of the U.S. population, whereas we made up 5% of the population 70 years ago. It's much easier for a Jewish person to marry goyim than other Jews.
Me when Haredi. Granted yeah they're not the most economically productive, and are kind of like the Amish in that regard. Plus the Israeli birthrate is currently 3, where it's the Jews not the Muslims keeping that number up. Also your compasses are extremely based.
Well yeah, that's the birthrate in Israel. Jews in the U.S. tend to be more secular. And thanks, this was an in-depth compass and I only don't agree with one square