Demographic collapse. Capitalism Dies of Childlessness

[Chrysostomos]

The fact that the modern financial system is essentially a giant Ponzi scheme is obvious. Nobody is even seriously trying to hide it anymore. It’s just as obvious that this system will collapse in the foreseeable future.

Modern capitalism is a machine that only runs on constant growth. More people = more workers, more consumers, more tax revenue. GDP goes up, companies make money, debts get serviced, pensions get paid. But once fertility drops below the replacement level of 2.1, the growth stops. South Korea’s population is projected to fall from 51 million today to about 20 million by 2100; Europe from roughly 750 million to around 400 million. This isn’t a “soft decline” — it’s a collapse: every new generation will be 25–50 % smaller than the previous one.

For those of us alive right now, this means that in 20–30 years there simply won’t be enough working-age people. The economy will shrink, factories will shut down, tax revenues will plummet. And my pension? There won’t be one — there’ll be nobody left to pay it. Japan already has 28 % of its population over 65 and fewer and fewer young people; the system is creaking at the seams.

War (like what’s happening in Ukraine and Russia) only accelerates the drop: millions of young people die, birth rates crash even further. In 10–20 years we’ll see empty cities, shuttered hospitals, and weakened armies. Thanks to medicine, the elderly are living longer, but the young are becoming an endangered species.

By 2050 every third person in Europe will be over 65. Who’s going to feed and care for them? In South Korea in thirty years there will be two retirees for every single working person — that’s mathematically impossible to sustain.

Governments will either have to jack up taxes to insane levels (which will kill what’s left of the economy) or simply abandon the elderly. And that’s us — we’re the ones who will become those pensionless, uncared-for old people.

The scariest part?
Nobody is preparing. There is no plan, no alternative model. Countries throw money at the problem (South Korea has already spent $270 billion since 2006 on pro-natal policies), but fertility still doesn’t budge — cash can’t fix the lack of time, the stress, or the cultural shift.

We’re sliding toward a cliff, and we’re the generation that will feel it — not some distant descendants. In 20–30 years the current system will be dead, and nothing has been built to replace it.

Developed societies suffer from extreme short-term thinking: politicians care about the next election (4–5 years), corporations care about the next quarter, capitalism rarely looks beyond quarterly reports. Demography operates on a 20–50-year horizon, and nobody wants to deal with timeframes that long.
We’re in a dead end.
There is no alternative model, no contingency plan. In 20–30 years we’ll be asking, “Where’s my pension? Where’s my safety net?” — and there will be no answer.

 

[Chrysostomos]

The primary duty of any state should be to ensure the survival and prosperity of its own people. Yet in today’s developed Western countries, that goal has been pushed far into the background.

The native population is shrinking rapidly: birth rates are collapsing, death rates are rising, and the demographic crisis is becoming impossible to ignore.

The capitalists in charge offer a “simple” fix: just import migrants. But that’s nothing more than a temporary patch that doesn’t solve the root problem. Migrants who enter the same system will sooner or later face the exact same pressures. A system that is incompatible with life itself is doomed to fail.

So what are the real causes of this demographic extinction, and why does almost nobody talk about them?

Causes of the die-off:​

1. Education and career instead of family
Modern women are increasingly pushed toward higher education and careers rather than early motherhood. This isn’t their “fault”; it’s the result of a system that rewards professional achievement while punishing childbearing. Maternity leave and sick days for kids are treated by employers as a burden. In the capitalist race for productivity, motherhood becomes a liability instead of a value.

2. Urbanization: cities are hostile to life
Modern cities are not places designed for reproduction. Sky-high living costs, artificially created housing shortages, constant stress, and overload make starting a family almost impossible. Unlike a peasant who can rely on his garden or livestock, an urban dweller lives under the permanent threat of financial ruin. Losing a job in the city is a catastrophe; a cow or a field will never “fire” its owner. Urbanization, once hailed as progress, has turned into a graveyard.

3. Usury and economic pressure
Banks and the credit system make everything worse. Predatory interest rates, mortgages, and consumer debt create conditions where having many children becomes an unaffordable luxury. Families crushed by debt can’t even afford the bare minimum for a normal family life, so many simply give up on having kids altogether. An economic system built on exploitation suffocates both the desire and the ability to form families.

4. Capitalism: humans as disposable cogs
Modern capitalism has turned people into consumables. Work yourself to the bone until you break; that’s the motto. Even highly qualified professionals face the same burnout, stress, and depression as low-skilled workers. Add the uncertainty created by artificial intelligence that threatens to make millions obsolete, and the desire to start a family evaporates. Why bring children into a world that feels so precarious?

Why Is Politics Silent?​

Amazingly, none of these issues are anywhere near the center of the political agenda.

The right is obsessed with building border walls and anti-migrant rhetoric while completely ignoring the systemic causes of the demographic collapse.

The left is busy fighting for LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, and distant conflicts like Palestine.

Both sides are playing their own ideological games that have zero connection to the real problems of the vast majority of people.

Politics, in essence, is dead. It offers no solutions, reflects no one’s actual hopes, and gives no reason for optimism.

What’s the point of even showing up to vote when not a single party is talking about what actually matters? Why bother casting a ballot when political discourse is just empty noise completely detached from reality?

 

[Chrysostomos]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1976687664184049906

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which came second in the Brandenburg elections, is labeled “right-wing populist.” In some federal states it has even been officially classified as extremist. But where exactly is the populism and where is the extremism?

“Right-wing populism” usually boils down to simple slogans that promise instant fixes to complicated problems. They focus on symptoms — above all migration — while completely ignoring the root causes, such as the demographic crisis.

Let’s start with South Korea: fertility rate 0.72 children per woman (2023). To just stay stable you need at least 2.1. Without immigration, the Korean population drops from 51 million today to roughly 20 million in 100 years and practically to zero in 200–300 years.

The same picture is true for 50 developed countries. Russia 1.41, Japan 1.26, Italy 1.20, Spain 1.19, Germany 1.58 — all well below replacement level. Without immigrants their populations are already shrinking. I

Immigration is only a temporary patch. The children of migrants adapt to the same system and within one or two generations have just as few kids. Then you need a new wave of migrants. Here’s the paradox: by 2100 even Africa and most of Asia will have fallen to sub-replacement fertility (UN projections). So where exactly are we going to get the people from?

Under capitalism, employers have zero interest in higher birth rates. Maternity leave and child sick days are pure costs and lost productivity. It’s much cheaper for bosses to import migrants who will work longer hours for lower pay and have fewer rights.

In the short term nobody cares about demography: politicians think in 4–5-year election cycles, capitalists think in quarterly earnings reports. Demography, however, operates on a 30+ year horizon, and nobody makes decisions on that timescale.

The collapse of the system is already perfectly visible, but for the next 10–15 years the quarterly numbers will still look acceptable. So right now everything seems “fine” — but it’s an illusion.

 

[kdx]

Good and interesting summary of the problem. And even though I absolutely agree with everything that you have said, and that the system is literally build to uphold and enhance this whole dilemma, I believe you are not going to the real root cause of the matter.

The root cause of all of this is not social or political, it is moral. And by that I mean an express defiance of Gods command, which is this:

"Be fruitful and multiply"

I believe this is the true problem. And this seems to have have started with the ideas put into public by Thomas Robert Malthus and Margaret Sanger, who in turn were influened by the philosophy of Darwin. So all of this initiated the moral decline in this matter. And of course, once this evil seed was being implanted into society, there is all the reason, as the ease, to literally build the whole system around this new principle. And one of the results is the things you just wrote.

There is an interesting Movie about that, called "Birth Control: How did we get here?" I'll leave the trailer below.

 

[Chrysostomos]

What if the “right-wing” banned migration tomorrow?​

Demographic collapse without migration: a universal threat to every low-fertility country

The demographic crisis threatens every country whose total fertility rate (TFR) is below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. That’s roughly 50 developed nations, including Japan (1.26), Italy (1.20), Spain (1.19), Germany (1.58), and Russia (1.41).

If these countries completely banned migration tomorrow while keeping current fertility rates and the existing economic system, they would face a full systemic collapse in just 10-20 years. The economy, social safety nets, and security would all crash — and it would hit us, the people alive today. The scenario is the same everywhere, but let’s look at Germany and Russia as concrete examples.

A system without growth = economic implosion​

Capitalism in low-fertility countries is addicted to population growth. More people = more workers, more consumers, more taxpayers → GDP grows, companies profit, pensions and healthcare get funded. Below 2.1, natural growth is impossible.

Without migration, these populations shrink immediately: Germany loses 150,000–200,000 people a year, Russia 500,000–600,000. Current immigration (300–400k into Germany, 100–200k into Russia) only partially offsets the decline. Ban it, and the system collapses.

By 2100, low-fertility countries will lose 30–50 % of their population. Germany (84 million today) could drop by up to 50 million; Russia (146 million) by up to 80 million. Each new generation will be 25–50 % smaller than the previous one.

In 20–30 years there simply won’t be enough workers. Factories like Volkswagen in Germany or AvtoVAZ in Russia will shut down. Tax revenue will plummet, pensions will vanish — there’ll be no one left to pay them.

In Germany, migrants currently make up 20 % of the workforce in construction and healthcare. Without them, the working-age population would shrink by 10–15 million (25–30 %) by 2040, paralyzing the economy. In Russia, where Central Asian migrants prop up construction and services, the collapse would be even more dramatic because of lower fertility and a weaker economy.

The same fate awaits Japan, Italy, Spain, and every other low-fertility country whose exports and services depend on labor.

Wars like the one in Ukraine only accelerate the crash. In Russia, young men die or emigrate, and fertility falls even lower.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Aging and an unbearable burden​

Low-fertility countries are aging at breakneck speed. By 2050, one in three people in Germany and Russia will be over 65; in Japan and Italy it will approach 40 %. Without younger migrants (median age ~30 in Germany, 25–35 in Russia), aging accelerates even faster. The share of working-age population (15–64) will fall from ~65 % today to 45–50 %.

Social systems funded by current workers simply cannot carry that load. By 2050 Germany will have almost two retirees for every worker; Russia will have 1.5. Governments will either hike taxes to 50–60 % (killing what’s left of the economy) or cancel pensions and public healthcare altogether.

Japan already has 28 % elderly and the system is cracking; Russia’s weaker economy makes it even worse.

For us alive right now, this means that in 20–30 years we will be the old people with no pensions and no care. Hospitals in Germany and Russia will close due to staff shortages and lack of funding. Over-taxed youth will revolt. The same script plays out in Italy, Spain, South Korea — the elderly will simply be abandoned.

Ban migration tomorrow, and the countdown to collapse starts immediately.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Good and interesting summary of the problem. And even though I absolutely agree with everything that you have said, and that the system is literally build to uphold and enhance this whole dilemma, I believe you are not going to the real root cause of the matter.

The root cause of all of this is not social or political, it is moral. And by that I mean an express defiance of Gods command, which is this:

"Be fruitful and multiply"

I believe this is the true problem. And this seems to have have started with the ideas put into public by Thomas Robert Malthus and Margaret Sanger, who in turn were influened by the philosophy of Darwin. So all of this initiated the moral decline in this matter. And of course, once this evil seed was being implanted into society, there is all the reason, as the ease, to literally build the whole system around this new principle. And one of the results is the things you just wrote.

There is an interesting Movie about that, called "Birth Control: How did we get here?" I'll leave the trailer below.

I agree that contraceptives have a negative impact on birth rates.
Theoretically, you could ban every form of contraception tomorrow. But that still wouldn’t solve the problem. People don’t use contraception because they enjoy it; they do it because they have economic, social, career, and everyday-life reasons that push them to take extreme measures.

Basically, I’ve already done an entire investigation into the real causes of the demographic crisis. I’ve previously written about factors such as:
- Education and career vs. family
- Urbanization: cities are hostile to life
- Usury and economic pressure (the credit system is strangling both the economy and demography)
- Modern wage slavery (people work themselves to death and have no resources left for a family)

Another huge reason is the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle) and incels.

One idea that’s extremely popular among Gen Z is the so-called 80/20 rule applied to dating: supposedly 80 % of women only want the top 20 % of men (looks, status, money), leaving the bottom 80 % of men with almost zero realistic chances. Of course it’s not a strict scientific law, but it perfectly describes how a large part of young men feel: completely shut out of romantic and family life. In other words, 80 % of men are effectively priced out of the sexual marketplace — these are the incels (involuntary celibates).

Some numbers:
- Japan: ~30 % of men aged 18–34 have never had sex (2021 national survey)
- South Korea: 43 % of men report having no dating experience (2023)
- PEW Research Center (2022): 57 % of 18–29-year-olds in the US are single (up from 51 % in 2019), and 34 % of them say they’re simply “not interested in romantic relationships”

So yes — you can theoretically ban every contraceptive under the sun. You can even ban abortion.

But tell me this:
How exactly are you going to force people to get into relationships and have sex with the opposite sex?

Are you going to pass a law that criminally punishes women if they refuse to sleep with men?
And are you going to punish men if they finish anywhere except inside a woman?

Who exactly is going to monitor that, and how?

 

[kdx]

Some numbers:

I think here you make a mistake. You are applying mere "numbers" that are the direct result and outflow of the very philosophy I criticique. But there goes a lot with it. It's not simply "Ok, from now on we allow (or disallow) contraception", and then the whole matter is settled. That's why you had to have a lot of debate about these topics in the first place, and that's why a lot of Christians (but others aswell) weren't that easily persuaded to allow for contraceptive (to stay at this example, but there is more) methods when the ideas were being proposed for the first time. It's involving a lot of, let's say axioms, or ideas, that men have. It attacks their immediate worldview in this matter, and it directly implies a lot of their actions (as, for example, using contraceptive methods).

And so, the simple proof I can give as to why this whole philosophy that makes room for (but isn't in itself) contraception is the cause of the problem is this: People, without this philosophy, were having more children. This is just a historical fact. And it's not that far away.

 

[kdx]

Let me give an analogy so you (and others) understand what I mean.

Let's say I am a healthy man and do 100% of work. But then I get sick, with a fever, and do only 50% of the work. Now someone comes and says: Healing the fever doesn't make any change, because the numbers say that the man does only 50% of the work, but we need a 100% of the work.

But healing the fever is the very basis upon which the man slowly regenerates and at last comes to his full potential of working the 100%. I think you get what I mean.

 

[kdx]

So, in other words, you must look at the numbers the man had when he had no fever, but was perfectly healthy. You must look at the situation before the whole current and corrupt philosophy has taken root.

 

[Chrysostomos]

I think here you make a mistake. You are applying mere "numbers" that are the direct result and outflow of the very philosophy I criticique. But there goes a lot with it. It's not simply "Ok, from now on we allow (or disallow) contraception", and then the whole matter is settled. That's why you had to have a lot of debate about these topics in the first place, and that's why a lot of Christians (but others aswell) weren't that easily persuaded to allow for contraceptive (to stay at this example, but there is more) methods when the ideas were being proposed for the first time. It's involving a lot of, let's say axioms, or ideas, that men have. It attacks their immediate worldview in this matter, and it directly implies a lot of their actions (as, for example, using contraceptive methods).

And so, the simple proof I can give as to why this whole philosophy that makes room for (but isn't in itself) contraception is the cause of the problem is this: People, without this philosophy, were having more children. This is just a historical fact. And it's not that far away.

I’m dealing with hard numbers that come not from some philosophy, but from real, present-day living conditions.
Your mistake is thinking that people shape their lifestyle according to their beliefs. In reality, people simply adapt to the objective material conditions they’re forced to live in.

Let’s break it down with examples.

Example 1:​

https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/1jvk5td

Example 2:​

https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/1k4dbtu

Example 3:​

These stories aren’t exceptions — they’re the new normal.

Modern capitalism has created working conditions that treat humans as an exhaustible resource. Insane demands, the constant threat of layoffs, always-on culture, impossible deadlines — all of this has turned burnout and loss of meaning into standard features of life.

If in the past workers only feared being fired, now there’s a new terror: being replaced by AI.
Barack Obama himself said: “AI already codes better than everyone except the very best coders, and ChatGPT can write a research memo better than a third- or fourth-year associate.”
Studies confirm it: AI is already capable of handling programming, legal analysis, design, and even medical tasks. According to McKinsey’s 2023 report, up to 30 % of current jobs in developed countries could be automated by 2030 — and that includes both low-skill and high-skill professions.

This threat cranks the pressure up even higher. To stay relevant, professionals have to constantly retrain, work overtime, and prove they’re still “irreplaceable.” But even that is no guarantee — AI is advancing faster than any human can keep up.
The result? A lot of people lose faith in the future, and that directly affects their life plans, including having children.

Right now we’re already seeing highly qualified specialists who can’t find work in their field at all.

Modern capitalism has built a world in which a person is just a cog that has to run at full speed until it breaks. Even prestigious, well-paid experts suffer the same stress, burnout, and depression as low-wage workers. AI just adds another layer of existential uncertainty, threatening to make millions obsolete overnight.
In an environment like that, the desire to start a family and have kids simply evaporates — which is exactly why we’re heading into a demographic collapse.

Sure, capitalists pay generously on paper, but this lifestyle isn’t a marathon — it’s an all-out sprint. You start at full throttle, burning every ounce of energy, and sooner or later you collapse. The system has zero tolerance for weakness and throws you onto the scrapheap the moment you slow down.

To stretch out that sprint a little longer, people turn to nootropics (modafinil, L-theanine, ginkgo biloba), prescription stimulants (Ritalin, Adderall), oceans of caffeine, and antidepressants. But those things only postpone the inevitable.
The end result is always the same: total physical and mental exhaustion, after which a person is left with nothing.

 

[kdx]

Your mistake is thinking that people shape their lifestyle according to their beliefs. In reality, people simply adapt to the objective material conditions they’re forced to live in.

Wait a minute. What about early Christian martyrs who refused to bow to Ceasar for the simple reason that it is against their faith? If people were simply and always adapting to their objective material conditions, every one of those Christians would not have let themselves get killed, since that is, obviously (I realise it's an extreme example, but it does refute your point), not favorable to their objective, material needs. What could be worse than to die?

I do not say material needs do play no part at all, but it seems like you are suggesting that beliefs have absolutely no part in ones actions. Here we would fundamentally disagree. I mean, I myself change my lifestyle as soon as I find it contradicting with Gods word. And yes, it would be more difficult for me if that meant I could get hurt, or killed. I am not denying a real conflict there. But that doesn't mean that my belief doesn't change my actions.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Let me give an analogy so you (and others) understand what I mean.

Let's say I am a healthy man and do 100% of work. But then I get sick, with a fever, and do only 50% of the work. Now someone comes and says: Healing the fever doesn't make any change, because the numbers say that the man does only 50% of the work, but we need a 100% of the work.

But healing the fever is the very basis upon which the man slowly regenerates and at last comes to his full potential of working the 100%. I think you get what I mean.

You’re also overlooking the fact that just 100 years ago the overwhelming majority of people still lived in subsistence farming; they were peasants. Industrialization completely flipped that world upside down. And then the shift to the post-industrial society we live in now flipped it again.
On top of that, you’re treating the economy like it’s the same for everyone. It’s not.

The Baby Boomer economy was one thing,
the Millennial economy was something completely different,
and the Gen Z economy we have now is a third, entirely separate beast.

The 20thcentury killed the traditional way of life that had existed for the entire history of mankind. For thousands of years the overwhelming majority of people were peasants. Every family was essentially a small private enterprise: the husband was the head, the owner, the boss; his wife and children were his subordinates. The wife answered only to her husband, served only him, and worked exclusively within the family business. Even Roman law spelled it out clearly: the family is an economic institution whose master (pater familias) bears full responsibility for its economic activity. Everyone who lived under his roof—whether born into the family, legally added (e.g. slaves), or ritually added (e.g. the wife)—belonged to that household. Everything was crystal clear.

hen the 20th century arrived, bringing mass industrialization and urbanization. The millennia-old peasant family model simply could not survive in the city. The vast majority of city dwellers became the proletariat—wage workers who owned no land, no workshop, no business of their own. That meant the husband was no longer the master of his wife and children; he became a slave just like his wife. The real master over all of them was either the state (in the USSR) or the transnational corporation (in the West).

Next step: both capitalists and communists decided that women had to work too. So women went to work—on the capitalist side so that corporations could double their profits, on the communist side in the name of world revolution.

That was it. The end of family sovereignty.
Now nobody really knows what a “family” even is. I still don’t.

A modern woman essentially doesn’t need a husband. She depends far more on her boss, fears her boss far more, and only her boss’s opinion actually matters. Her husband? She doesn’t depend on him, doesn’t fear him, and his opinion is worth exactly zero.

The same with children: the moment they enter school, parents stop being absolute, unquestioned authorities.

And why would a modern man want a wife like that? He has basically zero rights over her. Who needs that for free?

And children? What’s the upside? They’re just dependents for decades—school until 18, university until 23—and bring no economic benefit whatsoever. The moment a kid starts school, the father’s authority (especially if he’s just an ordinary worker) collapses to nothing anyway. That destroys personal relationships as well.

So the family is finished.
Then the 21st century arrives. The USSR collapses. “The end of history” comes, as Fukuyama put it. Capitalism has won.
Then comes the demographic collapse. Capitalism dies from childlessness.

 

[Chrysostomos]

So, in other words, you must look at the numbers the man had when he had no fever, but was perfectly healthy. You must look at the situation before the whole current and corrupt philosophy has taken root.

To have children, a man still needs a woman.
But what does a woman do instead? School until 18, then university anywhere from 23 to 27 depending on the degree. Then a career in a brutal, dehumanizing corporate-capitalist environment with cut-throat competition — and that’s the “good” scenario, usually until 35 or even 40, when she finally has a little savings and time left for a personal life. Meanwhile, medically speaking, a woman is already considered “advanced maternal age” from 27 onward.

Now flip the coin: what possible benefit does a capitalist boss get from his wage-slaves having kids? Maternity leave, endless sick days for children, childcare vacations — all of that is pure cost, hassle, and lost productivity. Why would any employer want that headache when he can just import cheap migrants who’ll work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for less money and zero rights?

And honestly, most women themselves don’t want marriage or maternity leave either — that’s not what they fought tooth and nail for, grinding through years of education and breaking into the corporate world.

In Asian countries where the cult of career success and social achievement is taken to the absolute extreme, fertility has crashed below 1.0 birth per woman. South Korea is at ~0.7 nationwide and ~0.5 in Seoul, if I remember correctly. Once you drop below 1.0, the decline becomes mathematically irreversible.

But for capitalists that’s not a bug — it’s a feature.
The more expensive local “slaves” die off or stop reproducing, the stronger the excuse to import new, cheaper, more compliant ones from abroad.

It’s completely out in the open. Nobody even pretends otherwise.
The official, stated goal of every commercial enterprise is profit. People are just a means, never the end.

So in the ideal scenario — to minimize costs and maximize super-profits — the optimal slave doesn’t reproduce at all. He just works, burns out, dies, and gets replaced with a cheaper model.

Humanity has literally never lived this way before in its entire history.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Wait a minute. What about early Christian martyrs who refused to bow to Ceasar for the simple reason that it is against their faith? If people were simply and always adapting to their objective material conditions, every one of those Christians would not have let themselves get killed, since that is, obviously (I realise it's an extreme example, but it does refute your point), not favorable to their objective, material needs. What could be worse than to die?

I do not say material needs do play no part at all, but it seems like you are suggesting that beliefs have absolutely no part in ones actions. Here we would fundamentally disagree. I mean, I myself change my lifestyle as soon as I find it contradicting with Gods word. And yes, it would be more difficult for me if that meant I could get hurt, or killed. I am not denying a real conflict there. But that doesn't mean that my belief doesn't change my actions.

The entire history — and even today’s examples of peasant life in India and many African countries — clearly shows: the bigger the cities and the smaller the villages, the faster society decays and dies out. The more villages there are, the stronger the peasant way of life and the weaker the pull of the city, the healthier the society and the higher the birth rate.

I can’t remember off the top of my head who said it, but one of the ancients claimed that no one can live a decent life in a city with more than 5,000 inhabitants.

As for slavery: you surely know that under Roman law, slaves were legally part of the familia of the paterfamilias. Wife, children, slaves, and the children of slaves — all of them belonged to the head of the household. That was the Roman family, the basic cell of society. A typical Roman household had up to four slaves.

Today we have only one mega-master instead:
- either the state (as in the USSR, where everyone was a slave and there was one supreme lord — the dictator),
- or, in capitalist countries, the top 1 % who effectively own everyone else.

Just google it: “Wealth of the richest 1 % has surpassed that of the other 99 % of the planet’s population.”
It’s exactly the same as when giant transnational corporations swallow up medium and small businesses — which is precisely what’s happening right now. In the US, Europe, and every other capitalist country, the middle class is melting away before our eyes. Social stratification is exploding geometrically. Today you’re either very rich or very poor.

Back in Rome, home-grown slaves (vernae) were preferred because they had been raised in the household since birth, knew no other life, and were loyal. Captured slaves remembered freedom and were more troublesome.

Today’s mega-owner finds it much more profitable not to raise domestic slaves at all, but to import ready-made ones from outside — for free. Modern technology and social engineering have built an impenetrable wall between master and slave. The mega-owner is a “citizen of the world”: today in Monaco, tomorrow in Florida, the day after in Dubai… multiple offshore passports, companies registered in tax havens.

In short, to the mega-owner the ordinary proletarian isn’t a man or a woman — not even a human being. Just a faceless number. One out of eight billion.

 

[Chrysostomos]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1988700204644880799

What happens in 20–30 years if migration stops completely?​

Countries with sub-replacement fertility will face:

- Economic collapse. By 2050 GDP will shrink 25–40 %. German exports will implode, Russia’s resource-based economy will simply die without enough workers.

- Destruction of social systems. Pensions will disappear or be slashed 50–70 %. Healthcare in Germany will become unaffordable, in Russia it will be even worse.

- Empty regions. Rural areas in Germany and Russia will turn into demographic deserts. Cities like Munich or Yekaterinburg will be overwhelmed with old people.

- Defenselessness. Armies will shrink 30–50 %. Germany, Russia, Japan, and Italy won’t be able to resist any serious external threat.

But even with continued migration, collapse is still inevitable — it just gets delayed by 5–10 years and comes with extra chaos. Migrants temporarily prop up the economy, but integration triggers conflicts, xenophobia, and populist backlash that destroy social cohesion even faster.

By 2050, low-fertility countries will still end up with empty cities, no pensions, and toothless armies — migration only decides whether the final crash happens in 2045 or 2055.

 

[Mink57]

Good and interesting summary of the problem. And even though I absolutely agree with everything that you have said, and that the system is literally build to uphold and enhance this whole dilemma, I believe you are not going to the real root cause of the matter.

The root cause of all of this is not social or political, it is moral. And by that I mean an express defiance of Gods command, which is this:

"Be fruitful and multiply"

I believe this is the true problem. And this seems to have have started with the ideas put into public by Thomas Robert Malthus and Margaret Sanger, who in turn were influened by the philosophy of Darwin. So all of this initiated the moral decline in this matter. And of course, once this evil seed was being implanted into society, there is all the reason, as the ease, to literally build the whole system around this new principle. And one of the results is the things you just wrote.

There is an interesting Movie about that, called "Birth Control: How did we get here?" I'll leave the trailer below.

Nope. Not the true problem.

Jesus KNEW that not ALL people (men AND women) would be marrying/having children.

The lack of morality you speak of goes much deeper than that.

 

[Mink57]

I agree that contraceptives have a negative impact on birth rates.
Theoretically, you could ban every form of contraception tomorrow. But that still wouldn’t solve the problem. People don’t use contraception because they enjoy it; they do it because they have economic, social, career, and everyday-life reasons that push them to take extreme measures.

Basically, I’ve already done an entire investigation into the real causes of the demographic crisis. I’ve previously written about factors such as:
- Education and career vs. family
- Urbanization: cities are hostile to life
- Usury and economic pressure (the credit system is strangling both the economy and demography)
- Modern wage slavery (people work themselves to death and have no resources left for a family)

Another huge reason is the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle) and incels.

One idea that’s extremely popular among Gen Z is the so-called 80/20 rule applied to dating: supposedly 80 % of women only want the top 20 % of men (looks, status, money), leaving the bottom 80 % of men with almost zero realistic chances. Of course it’s not a strict scientific law, but it perfectly describes how a large part of young men feel: completely shut out of romantic and family life. In other words, 80 % of men are effectively priced out of the sexual marketplace — these are the incels (involuntary celibates).

Some numbers:
- Japan: ~30 % of men aged 18–34 have never had sex (2021 national survey)

Big difference between having sex and having sex for the purpose of conceiving.

- South Korea: 43 % of men report having no dating experience (2023)

And...WHY do you think that is?

- PEW Research Center (2022): 57 % of 18–29-year-olds in the US are single (up from 51 % in 2019), and 34 % of them say they’re simply “not interested in romantic relationships”

So yes — you can theoretically ban every contraceptive under the sun. You can even ban abortion.

But tell me this:
How exactly are you going to force people to get into relationships and have sex with the opposite sex?

Are you going to pass a law that criminally punishes women if they refuse to sleep with men?
And are you going to punish men if they finish anywhere except inside a woman?

Who exactly is going to monitor that, and how?

Some of the women in Korea started the "4b movement". That is, NO dating, NO sex, NO marriage and NO children. They started this in response to the patriarchal model that women are supposed to be baby makers, sexual satisfiers, maids and child raisers...all at the hand of domestic violence, if it didn't happen for those men. Basically, women world-wide are fed-up with being thought of like that. And they're responding by quietly dropping out of the 'game'.

God's 'command' to 'be fruitful and multiply' obviously didn't apply to ALL men and women. Obviously, Jesus KNEW that. Jesus said that (I'm paraphrasing) that 'not ALL were capable of marriage'. And obviously, we know that now, that SOME men and women CAN'T have children...no matter how much they pray.

But you're right when you ask this:

How exactly are you going to force people to get into relationships and have sex with the opposite sex?

Are you going to pass a law that criminally punishes women if they refuse to sleep with men?
And are you going to punish men if they finish anywhere except inside a woman?

Who exactly is going to monitor that, and how?

So far, it seems like monetary incentives are the way to go for government. Yet, women aren't buying it.

It's going to take more than money to get women interested in having children with men...especially if those men are man-children themselves...

What woman wants to have children with a man who thinks he's superior to her? Who thinks of her as one who cooks, cleans...and has no other thoughts in her head besides those 'duties'? Who puts her down? Insults her? Is rude to her? Insults her family? Her friends? Mocks her job? Criticizes her cooking?

Who thinks that God should move over because HE is king? Who drinks, uses drugs, uses porn (and NOT because she won't 'put out')
Who slaps her around because dinner was 'late'...beats her up because he THOUGHT she was looking/flirting with another man?

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Christ said, "DO UNTO OTHERS." That means, YOU first. If a man wants to be treated a certain way, does HE treat women or HIS woman the way he would want to be treated?

Marilyn Vos Savant was once asked, "What do women want?" She replied: "The same thing that men want: RESPECT." And the Bible NEVER said that women don't want that.

Unless WE can find that, we're going to keep spiraling down....and down...and down....and down.....

 

[Chrysostomos]

@Mink57

You’re moving much too far ahead.
Before discussing how a husband should treat his wife, a man first needs to honestly answer one fundamental question for himself:
Why do I even need a wife?

Let me explain with an analogy (hope it doesn’t sound too crude): you’re trying to teach me how to care for something I haven’t yet decided to acquire, and I’m not even sure I want it or need it.
So first please help me see the value and the purpose. Only after that can we talk about how to live with it properly.

Regarding the theological aspect — I completely understand what you’re saying, and actually the Scriptures support the possibility of a celibate life:
- Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself spoke of those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12).
- The Apostle Paul explicitly says that it is good for a man to remain unmarried and that “those who marry will face many troubles in this life” (1 Corinthians 7).
He literally warns against being “unequally yoked” — and in context that’s about marriage.
- Both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions have a centuries-old monastic calling in which childlessness and celibacy are regarded not as a defect, but often as a higher spiritual path.

Now let’s speak plainly about the practical, financial, and social realities of 2025.

1. Cost
Living alone is relatively inexpensive. Maintaining a family with children at even a modest dignified level in today’s cities requires several times more money than a single person needs. The difference is obvious to anyone who has ever done the calculations.

2. Risk
In Ukraine (and the situation is similar in most countries), 60–70 % of marriages end in divorce, and in 94–95 % of cases the children stay with the mother.
After divorce a man can lose not only his savings and home, but also contact with his children.
The result: a very real chance of ending one’s old age alone and in poverty.

A single man, by contrast, retains full control over his income and life, can save, travel, and prepare financially for his later years without such catastrophic risks.

Given all of the above, my honest question is this:

In light of today’s realities, how would you motivate men to marry and have children?
What concrete advantages do you see in married family life today that clearly outweigh the enormous financial burden and the serious risks most men now face?

 

[Chrysostomos]

Vulnerability to Threats​

Fewer people = fewer soldiers, engineers, and scientists.

- Germany’s Bundeswehr is projected to shrink by 30 % by 2040 simply because there won’t be enough young men to recruit.
- In Russia, where the demographic decline is even steeper, the army is already losing combat capability despite all the imperial ambitions.
- Japan will have roughly one-third fewer potential conscripts, which is existential when you share a neighborhood with an increasingly assertive China.

External threats (cyberattacks, aggression from authoritarian regimes) will become impossible to counter effectively. The war in Ukraine is a live demonstration of how demographic weakness cripples a nation’s options.

In 20–30 years we may live in a world where countries with weak armies and half-empty cities will be unable to resist either foreign invaders or internal collapse.

This applies to every single low-fertility nation, no exceptions.