I just saw a link to this somewhere and clicked.

Looks like the world's most populous nation is now at a below replacement rate of population. That is below 2.1. Most countries have too many people and most of them are welfare people who need a handout. If population reduces, I see it only as a good thing until a certain point.

Or... my suspicious mind says...

Corporations just want more and more slaves to work for them and so are pushing this fake news that population has to grow? USA is at below replacement rate so they are pushing for more immigration.

India is at 1.45 billion. What is the problem if the population goes to 1 billion over the next 30-50 years? Fewer mouths to feed. Yes, there are some downsides, but I think overall it is a good thing. Else it is just a ponzi scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate#Country_ranking_by_most_recent_year
Total Fertility rate (no of babies per woman)
1: Chad: 5.94
93: World: 2.24
115: India 1.94
147 United States 1.62
228 China: 1.02
234 South Korea 0.75

India's surprise baby bust is a warning to the world
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/06/04/indias-surprise-baby-bust-is-a-warning-to-the-world

Quote:

---

YOU ARE having too many babies. For decades that crude message was drilled into the minds of Indians by their rulers, abetted by inept foreign donors. In the 1960s slogans on school buildings chided parents, telling them: "Two or three children, enough".

---

Quote:

---

That's because the world's most populous country is experiencing a baby bust. India has a total fertility rate (TFR), a measure of children per woman, of 1.9 and falling. This is below the replacement rate, of 2.1 or so, needed for a stable long-term population. In several Indian states the TFR now matches the sputtering rates you find in rich European countries. Tamil Nadu, an industrialised state in the south, and West Bengal, a populous one in the east, each have the same fertility rate (1.3) as Finland. Maharashtra, a big western state encompassing Mumbai, is on a par with Norway (1.4). If you think of Indian demography, Scandinavia is not the natural reference point. Increasingly, it will be.

---

Quote:

---

India's population will still continue to grow from its current tally of 1.45bn: it takes time for fewer births to translate into fewer people overall. But the number of births is already down by a fifth from its peak in 2001. In Tamil Nadu 1,200 schools were closed last year for a lack of pupils to fill their classrooms. Those who do attend increasingly show up without any siblings. The government frets that India will get old before it gets richthat the country is on a similar path to China, where the population has already peaked and is starting to fall. Some politicians are offering cash to encourage Indians to procreate.

---

Generally speaking... The problem isn't the reduction. It's the rate at which the reduction occurs. Especially when it's biased on the older side due to life spans shifting to the right.

In a subsistence society it's probably not as bad. In a welfare state civilization with social safety nets it can be catastrophic, especially if it's too rapid.

I'm the long run I think it's probably a good thing, but there is going to be 1-2 generations who it really sucks for. They are doing to have to do the heavy lifting supporting the old people.

The other thing to consider is the likely innovation plummet from a decreasing population.

Why does the UIL break up Texas high schools into divisions? Why do the smaller school play each other and compete for a separate trophy from the larger schools? It's because the larger schools are always a much superior team. Why is that? They have a larger population size with a greater chance to include better, bigger, and faster athletes. The smaller schools have a much reduced chance of fielding similar teams due to a smaller pool of students.

The same concept applies to innovators. As our population reduces, you have a lesser chance that we will produce the next Einstein, Tesla, Curie, Newton.

Innovation will drop. Technological progress will likely stagnate and possibly regress.

Perhaps the advancements of AI will balance this out. Maybe. But that is another negative outcome to population decline I have only heard brought up once on a topic I've been following for over a year now.

Say it with your chest. I believe more more young people are going to turn to entrepreneurism. I see it in my profession.


Hard to have rising wages and increasing global economy with a falling population.

Wasn't the whole plot of Angles and Demons that resources couldn't keep up with the exponential population growth therefore they needed some sort of extinction event - similar to the plague in the 1500's.

Question: AI is the pathway for non human production of goods and services. Humans only want comfort and if we don't have to work we do not strive to move forward. Given that are we preparing a future of total control once we are totally compliant. We are programmed to be happy and ignorant.

Big Al 1992 said:

---

Wasn't the whole plot of Angles and Demons that resources couldn't keep up with the exponential population growth therefore they needed some sort of extinction event - similar to the plague in the 1500's.

---

Sounds like the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The world needs worker bees to support boomer entitlements

It's only bad when they do it to people under the pretense they are giving you something that will help you .. hint hint

TellMeMore said:

---

Question: AI is the pathway for non human production of goods and services. Humans only want comfort and if we don't have to work we do not strive to move forward. Given that are we preparing a future of total control once we are totally compliant. We are programmed to be happy and ignorant.

---

I'm not trying to compare the Matrix, but that of Dostoevsky, well both maybe. Humans bathed in comfort become miserable fast.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The world needs worker bees to support boomer entitlements

---

That seems to be your boy, pookie.

U.S. population 1984: 235M
U.S. population 2024: 340M

Quality of life then vs now:

Vehicles are much better now than in 1984, except for the stupid DEF liquid stuff required on diesel engines.

The same medical advances and technological advances would have occurred. Maybe at a slightly slower rate of discovery.

Overall, quality of life was better with 235M.

Logos Stick said:

---

No one is forced to work for a corporation.

---

And corporations (nor partnerships nor LLCs) don't to anything. They cannot act. The people within them do.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The world needs worker bees to support boomer entitlements

---

You seem to have a real problem (either w/Boomers or math.). Youngest boomers will in their 90's before these kids graduate from school.

It is not Boomers these kids will be supporting, I know it is hard to hear. :-)

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Generally speaking... The problem isn't the reduction. It's the rate at which the reduction occurs. Especially when it's biased on the older side due to life spans shifting to the right.

In a subsistence society it's probably not as bad. In a welfare state civilization with social safety nets it can be catastrophic, especially if it's too rapid.

---

we need to learn to let me people die naturally. My in-laws are in their mid to late 80's and their quality of life is nearly non existent for my MIL and my FIL has had full blown Alzheimer's for the past 4 years and is breathing but not living. He no longer takes any medications and his medical care is still roughly $10k a month, My MIL is still independent, but wishes she would just die as she is in constant pain and most of her friends have passed. This has opened mine and my wife's eyes and realize the number of years are not as important as the number of quality years. The elderly care "retirement" community they live in is nice, but most of the residents are just biding their time. It is really sad to see. The reason we need a high replacement rate is a result of an enormous economic burden by the long term non-productive elderly who are in essence either fully or partially funded by a welfare program (Medicare, etc…) that needs multiples of payees to fund the cost of a si gel recipient.

The plague caused massive population reduction and collapsed long standing political and economic systems. What came out the back-end of this process was an improvement for mankind. Not so great for those who went through it and likely the next generation or so but in terms of mankind it worked out

AI and robotic automation should (may?l blunt the impact of population reduction. Timing may be excellent.

I agree and have never understood why population decrease is always projected to be a catastrophe. If GDP per person can be maintained or increased there would seem to be many positives from this. The main losers are the ponzi scheme welfare systems and politicians who depend on them.

Martels Hammer said:

---

TellMeMore said:

---

Question: AI is the pathway for non human production of goods and services. Humans only want comfort and if we don't have to work we do not strive to move forward. Given that are we preparing a future of total control once we are totally compliant. We are programmed to be happy and ignorant.

---

I'm not trying to compare the Matrix, but that of Dostoevsky, well both maybe. Humans bathed in comfort become miserable fast.

---

No you're entirely correct. Utopia's fail and they fail very quickly.
I'm always drawn back to the 7 deadly sins. Even though they aren't laid out specifically in biblical translations they are key tenants. On one end you have Pride and Greed. Those are followed by Lust and Envy. But on the other end you have Sloth.

Yes corporations and people can become prideful and greedy. The saying that pride always comes before the fall, does hold real truth. Becoming greedy as well can lead to ones downfall.
Envy and Lust are equally bad, and I see these at the core of the "We are the 99%" and "Occupy Wall Street" types. They look at the producers for what they have, not what they have done and what they continue to do.

But give everybody everything, and sloth will rule the day. We see it already with the Welfare class. They're by and large very lazy, ungrateful, and unhappy to downright angry.

You can probably sprinkle a bit of gluttony, across all of the above as it exists at every level. Wrath is simply the result of someone lashing out over their commission of any of the above mentioned 5 as well.

Who decides which people in the population need to be reduced?

No people, no economy long term...

lower birth rate and accelerating productivity gains might just save humanity.

Martels Hammer said:

---

BboroAg said:

---

Who decides which people in the population need to be reduced?

---

I believe Bill and Melinda decided they were in charge

---

Hitler had some ideas. As if establishing any sort of permanence on this planet is achievable for the spared chosen few.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The world needs worker bees to support boomer entitlements

---

Someone is sounding very entitled.

When the population declines that generation is going to have great job prospects and housing will be cheap. Dying boomers are going to flood the market with residential, vacation, and commercial properties. Anyone with large real estate portfolio might want to pay attention to how this unwinds.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Look who Op is. Everything is about corporations

---

OP blames CEOs for the lack of cheese on his taco.

We've had this discussion multiple times and very recently at that. OPs question was answered there ad nauseam from all angles. We should just pin one of those prior threads at this point.