It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The need for "large" populations with current & future levels of technology & industry

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 07:21 AM
When we look at the historic trends of nations, those under the replacement level of birth for their citizens are often considered to be "dying" nations and they often resort to immigration to replenish their numbers. I think this was one of the major arguments for the need to allow record numbers of immigrants into certain countries over the last 100 years.

From what I have observed, the need for people to work in the manufacturing industry or to farm has grown in an inverse proportion to the population growth, probably even faster than the rate at which the population has increased - meaning a single farmer may be able to grow enough food for 5,000 to 30,000 people where 300 years ago a single farmer may have been able to support 1-20 people depending upon many factors. So, using the lowest numbers of 5,000 people at current technology and 20 people in the past, that is an increase of 250x in production growth which population growth has not grown anywhere near that rate.

So, with the expected increase of productivity with things like self driving cars, trucks, tractors, etc as well as robotic manufacturing production, the levels of production could reach something like 100,000 (or more - or less) people per support person for the farm.

What we have seen is a growth in the service industry but that has also been affected by the growth of technology and people have become more efficient. There are many service industries or at least sectors of industries specialized to niche's, that many people feel are totally unnecessary, counter productive or detrimental to society and they are only possible due to a population level greater than what is necessary, or even healthy, for a society - where unhealthy activities and services have been allowed to flourish where in times before they would have been stamped out by the citizens or close due to lack of demand (other than the outrageously rich that have always had odd and even unhealthy tastes and desires).

When you look at the reproduction rates of educated people vs those who are uneducated, in today's world, you will see a vast difference with the birth rates of educated people most often below replacement levels while the uneducated and often poor are having higher numbers of births, some at the levels dictated by religious fundamentalists or those needed to work a large farm hundreds of years ago.

This disparity in births has created MANY social issues where the masses are demanding unrealistic treatment in everyday living and have expextations of a higher standard of living than what is reasonably possible. This issue is only going to become worse as population levels grow in the under-educated/uneducated and machines are created to replace these unreliable and very often unskilled people with a much more productive, cooperative, predictable and reliable source of labor - leaving even less jobs for those at the bottom of the labor force.

With all the worry about global warming and global resources, it would seem that population control would be of the highest concern in every country, even the smallest. The debate of immigration in the US needs to switch focus or add a new aspect on which to focus, and that is how will a growing population have enough jobs for its citizens when there are already so many workers without jobs? If 10,000,000 people if immigrant status follow normal immigrant growth rates, this could be a population of close to 70 - 150 million in 100 years, which seems that it could create a major problem when it comes to placing people in already disappearing jobs.

I find it odd that this angle rarely discussed in the immigration topic. In the past immigration was great for businesses as it meant cheaper labor but in todays consumer society, it does mean more people to buy things, but it probably also means less profit per person, so all in all, it probably means more work to get the same value of money when selling to a larger population base. Then there is the question of where are these people going to get an income with fewer and fewer traditional jobs. There are only so many services a population can consume and many countries have already started to devote themselves to an almost exclusively service economy, such as tourism, and that seems to leave many people with very low levels of income and at the mercy of many factors beyond their control - which seems to be a recipe for disaster in the long term.

Has anyone seen any studies of projected technology growth in terms of manufacturing and large industries such as farming and seen how this is going to effect job levels over the next 30, 50, 100 years?

Can anyone see how a large population would benefit a nation in the next century? It seems that countries with the smallest populations often have some of the highest standards of living and with the expected increases of technology, that standard of living should only increase at almost an exponential rate and I would suspect that it can also be tied to population size (the standard of living increase along with the technology increase).

Even if the country focused on education (which it seems to have tried for 70+ years) I don' think this would aid in the problem except maybe make some people more aware of the problems facing them and society

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 07:24 AM
Dont worry the plan to thin the herd is on schedule .

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 07:46 AM
Thank you for writing this, this puts into words my exact thoughts on the matter.

One has to wonder why the economy must grow or else it is dying. We've been conditioned to think this way. Who does the stock market benefit the most anyway, a massive proportion of stocks are owned by only the rich and ultra rich. A larger, dumber population just creates more economic units who are subservient to the economic superpowers who now control the governments.

There are too many people and it will all only get worse. Standards of living have already stagnated or gone down as bills are more expensive and incomes stay the same. As automation increases all around us, why would countries need more people to remain healthy as productivity will increase whether or not any increase in population. As a 22 year old I just struggle to find any reason to be optimistic about the world's future, all I can do is keep my head down to achieve my own goals. That's all anyone my age's goal is these days, selfishly ignoring threats to their countries and their people Trying to speak out will get you ostracized more rapidly than in any time in history.

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 07:51 AM
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Do you really want to work youre whole life, and have time to nothing else?

Cause maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea to lower the working hours, and share the jobs.... With the technology we have today, we could all just work a couple of hours a week, and still live like millionaires, offcourse it would mean that all the poweraddicts in control would have to sober up, and let go of control, and retarded things like taking patent on ideas and technology, and Planned Obsolescence would have to be abolished...

But people seems to be to selfcentered and are kept under constant pressure and stress, to busy making money to barely survive, to sit down and think for moment about this. there is a reason everybody cant get a job, if it was that easy, people wouldnt comply and endure the crap they do, if they wasnt affraid to lose wathever little they have, that is how the elite stays in control, and they are not ready to let it go - they are addicts afterall...
edit on 24-1-2018 by IAMNOTYOU because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 08:46 AM
I thought about lowering the work week and that is a possibility. Also, with the record level of corporate profits, companies can afford to pay more employees, even give "part timers" benefits, at least to some extent.

There is one problem with "spreading the wealth" and that is where limited resources comes in. If people start to be able to consume 2-3x what they were before, buying more "toys" and such, does that increase demand on resources or do people just buy better things which may be made of higher quality and possibly in a better manufactuing enviornment (though we see Apple charges high prices yet look at working conditions in their China plants..).

The one thing that we could see an increase in is the arts or in skilled artisan works like custom hand made clothing, knives, restored cars, etc. There could be an explosion of options in this industry where one-off's are much more common when mass production makes things obtainable to everyone for little (possibly??) cost.

What I find most disturbing about the current proposed immigration issue is that we are never talking about just the number of people related to the current debate, we have to take into account what is going to happen over the next 20 years when they demand to have their family here and then we have to consider the growth rates of immigrant classes and how that is going to effect the current population.

For those who thing conservatives are just being big old meanies, I suggest they examine the situation extrapolated 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the road if something drastic isn't done. This is one of the reasons why some people are adamate about the wall as it is not only a physical manifestation but it also represents a psychological standing where we acknowledge our current and future situation and the actions needed to protect ourselves and our nation.

One thing that needs to be thought about is what happens if a country such as ours falls and is no longer able to stand for the values it has for 250 years, because it has such an internal burden of un-assimilated, un or "lowly" educated citizens to support and care for itself. How would this effect all the other countries that get badly needed aid from our country? Then, if no longer able to extend aid to other countries and reap the good-will of these acts, what country is going to fill the vacuum and how does this effect every other aspect of our country down the road.

This whole, tugging at the heart strings about "dreamers" or illegal aliens being able to stay in the country, may seem like an easy decision for liberals (because it will give them a whole slew of new voters), they don't seem to think past the current incumbancy (voting period??) and will screw the future for the possibility to sure up some more votes.

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 08:52 AM
That may have been the thought at one time but that isn't what it is now. Power and corruption is the driving force now (NWO). The world is heading towards a honey bee type of existence. reply to: DigginFoTroof

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 09:35 AM
a reply to: DigginFoTroofuarante

This is speculation on my part, however, there is some evidence that not all TPTB desire less population. The motive is profit for consumer items. From that food production to the other basic survival items.

The automated manufacturing will reduce the need for low skilled labor. I speculate that is the reason for the Guaranteed Annual Income advocates. Reduction in work force creates an unruly populace. A GAI offsets that issue to some degree.

Silicon Valley stands to make huge profits in the future of automated manufacturing. They seem to be the source of that 'trail balloon'. Keep the consumers for profit purposes. After all, population is required to supply those manufactured goods to.

I'm not saying your wrong on this, just that there are likely more issues in play than mere population control.

edit on 24-1-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 01:23 PM
Long post but the part i read was incorrect .
Framing takes less people then any time in history now .
300 years agaio a man could grow enough to feed his family and have just enough extra to sell for money .
Now taht same man can easly grow enough to feed 5000 - 10000 or more people .
combines -Huge plows - fertilizer and machine harvesting it all . In just a few more years no man at all will be needed to farm or harvest as more and more self driving machines are built . A robot conbine or tractor would be much easer to build then a robot car .

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:03 PM
It will look great in 20 to 50 years, but only if we survive the next 5.

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:48 PM
I do feel a population correction is coming either man made or a natural disaster. Otherwise we could be headed directly in to a dark ages overrun by less educated 3rd world barbarians, criminals and warlords.

That is a very pessimistic dark vision of the future but it very well could happen because of simple math like in the movie Idiocracy the poor uneducated, unmotivated, unskilled populace keep popping kids out while the smart, educated, motivated, skilled populace keep having less and less kids.

I think the implementation of basic income could propel us in to a new era of loving on Earth. With automation and robotics taking over the majority of jobs a basic income will be give to people to cover the basic necessities. By not having to work to cover basic necessities people will have more time to develop new ideas and technologies to make life even easier.

Yes there will be a lot of people making beats in their basement studios but you might also get the next Nikola Tesla that will create a new invention with his new found spare time.

I see the future being a one global world order. I feel we are in the beginning stages of that change right now. we will go through some growing pains before all the wrinkles are ironed out but eventually we will end up being one gigantic Earth culture pooling together the Earth and universes resources for the benefit of all.

top topics


log in