FaceDeer

And you think this will happen simultaneously, to everyone on the planet everywhere at the same time? Including all the remote uncontacted tribes, isolated island nations, the herders and farmers in various hinterlands, and so forth? And once everyone gets "deathlusted" they'll all just act like crazed zombies, murdering and murdering until there's just two left and then they strangle each other in the wreckage?

You're demonstrating another example of interpreting "the end of my personally familiar comfortable lifestyle" as "the end of the whole entire world, full stop, it's all over and gone."

I'm sure there were people during the Bronze Age Collapse who thought it was the end of the world. And for their definition of "the world", I guess it was. But humanity is so much larger than your little personally-familiar corner of the world.

Sorry to be blunt, but the less we know objectivity, the greater the % of the population who'll be destroyed by our ignoring/denying ( including mine: this is global viability, not ideological )

Bear in mind: extinction requires that the % needs to be exactly 100%. Exactly. 99% won't do it.

Surely there are only so many demands he can make before he's fully satisfied, right?

I linked you to a page specifically about that 14 hours ago elsewhere in this thread.

The problem is that the "decline" is going to be accompanied by a mountain of people living in miserable squalor or simply dying. That's the crisis that needs a solution. If a change in economic systems can solve it then sure, do that, but coming up with the details of how that'll work is the hard part.

Not to mention that with a declining population the value of real estate is likely going to decline as well since there's less demand for it. Especially in those rural areas, people are moving to the cities.

There is a limit to how much work you can get out of a fixed group of people no matter how much money you throw at them. If you ask me to build a thousand houses in an hour I'll say "I can't do that" and it won't matter if you offer me a billion dollars to do it, I can't do it.

The reason the population crisis in Japan is called a population crisis is because it is threatening to go past that threshold. It wouldn't be a crisis otherwise.

The same amount of work needs to be done to keep the economy running as it is, so you're stretching those people out over a lot of additional jobs. How many jobs do you expect a young person to take simultaneously before they decide "this sucks, I'm emigrating to Canada where you only have to work one lifetime before getting to retire"?

Letting old people suffer in poverty or die of treatable illnesses even though they were promised a decent retirement seems like a bad solution to me, and if it's happening it's exactly the sort of thing I'd call a symptom of a "crisis." And unlikely to go over well with the population at large.

You're still missing the basic point by talking about the "population decline." The crisis is not the decline. The crisis is the age distribution.

Here's a page discussing some of the specific problems of an inverted population pyramid, and it uses Japan as a specific example of a population facing this.

The crisis isn't simply from a declining total population number. It's from the demographic shape of that population. Here's Japan's population pyramid. As you can see, it's not really a pyramid - it's heavily weighted at the older end. As people continue to age that big bulge reaches retirement, and then you have more people retired than you have people still of working age. This causes a number of problems.

And which is likely also why it wasn't detected until it came so close.

At best I was expecting a few "huh, yeah, that's a common pattern" responses.

This heap of "you're racist! Get out!" Rage I got instead illustrated my point better than I could have hoped for. Unfortunately. What a complete lack of self-awareness.

I wonder if anyone would change their mind if I "recanted" and started gushing about how I loved everything about how things were being handled on the left with no reservations or caveats? Or if, once branded an enemy, always an enemy?

In any event not a promising sign for future efforts to take Trump down. Probably for the best I'm not American, I'll just focus on staying out of the splash zone.