Is the US really doomed based on current demographics?

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from (self.debatealtright)

The US does better than numerous European countries on multiple metrics. Russia, Romania, Croatia, Portugal, Greece, just to name a few, all have a lower average IQ than the US, and perform worse economically according to GDP per capita. Despite the US being only ~60% white and having a black population. It seems to me the US is not doomed based on current demographics.

https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Bagarmoossen 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am skeptical that the US is inevitably going to collapse. It will continue to decline as a civilization and as a culture, and that decline will eventually lead to it losing its global empire. But the system is not automatically doomed due to demographics alone. The minorities that are growing are not Muslims or Africans, but Latin Americans and Asians, who are mostly capable of integrating into the Judeo-liberal society and will also tend to be "whitened" over time if miscegenation continues. The future US population might look like Argentines added a ~15 percent of negroes, with working-class whites in the more diverse states being gradually turned into castizos by mixing with Hispanics and Asians. Maybe something akin to Brazil, but with a White-Asian-Jewish ruling class instead of a Southern European one, so in reality much worse.

From a racialist perspective, this is of course a nightmare scenario, but it doesn't automatically spell doom to the liberal order in America. Europe is in a much different situation since our minorities for the most part either Moslems or actual savages, and traditionalism is much stronger here as well.

White America can only be saved through a mass racial awakening, middle and working-class whites must segregate themselves or they will be swallowed by the rising brown tide.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd like to see wealthy whites who are sympathetic to our cause using their money for parallel institution projects that will improve dissident moral and dissident fertility. Obviously the Jewish kritarchy and their minions will go after these efforts but that doesn't mean all the projects will fail.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except that the white population keeps shrinking. And Russia will benefit a lot from climate change.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

The problem with the doom scenarios is that it ignores what's currently happening in the technology space. By the end of this century, human involvement will reach an all time minimal, and society in general will be ran by a class of people who maintain and own all the robots.

There are both positives and negatives for this. For example, I could see crime being eliminated altogether, since Robocop will patrol every street corner instead of Derek Chauvin. But now any political uprising will be squashed in the process.

Automation will also eliminate the need for anymore immigrants. But now mass unemployment will reach new levels.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By the end of this century, human involvement will reach an all time minimal, and society in general will be ran by a class of people who maintain and own all the robots.

I find it much more likely that we'll either destroy ourselves with technology, or ecological pressures will render our world into a Mad Max hellscape.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Automation will also eliminate the need for anymore immigrants. But now mass unemployment will reach new levels.

No it wont. Human wages will just decrease. The need for blacks aren't eliminated because white people exist. On the contrary, coorporations enjoy cheap low skilled labor.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

On the contrary, coorporations enjoy cheap low skilled labor.

Which still costs money. A robot doesn't.

Instead of running a warehouse with 1000 illegal mexicans, companies will just buy this robot, which can work 24 hours a day and never requires food/sleep/housing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYUuWWnfRsk

Now multiply this by every job in the future and most humans wont be paid a wage at all.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You don't understand how the economy works. I don't blame you, I didn't either until not long ago. A robot does cost money to produce, to mine metals, energy etc.
The cost of robots is just very low.

Those 1000 illegal mexicans can do another job. Their wage just got reduced by a 1000. They will be paid less. They will own nothing.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If ALL manual labor is automated, what jobs do you think is left for them? And what is the value in paying 1000 human workers, when a single robot could do the same, but with far more productivity and lowered costs?

That's the point I'm getting at. And it's not just an isolated example. Horses may still exist, but everyone knows they're obsolete next to cars and tractors. Or how about when we use to hire people to change the oil in street lamps? Maybe 1 or 2 jobs like that still exist today, but 99% of them are useless.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If a robot can replace 1000 workers and the monthly cost of a robot is 1000 dollars, then the price of a human worker is 1 dollar a month. Economy is relative. It is not static, but dynamic. If you change one parameter, the others adjust accordingly.

The human population might decrease just like the population of horses did. This is very plausible.

New jobs will be created. Time is money - literally. "Unemployment" is a feature of the system, not a bug. You need unemployment for a functional economy to work.
Unemployment in macro economics can be compared to life savings in a private economy. If your finances are in trouble, you can use some of your savings. If there is a need somewhere in the macro economy, you can use the unemployment to fill this need.

Unemployment is not a bad thing

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But what jobs will exist in the future that will make employing any person worth the time and effort? Manual labor already represents the bottom of the talent pool, and if you take that away, the masses of people who hold no degrees are beyond screwed. This is without even mentioning that a $1 a month would immediately be spent on food/taxes/rent, so there's certainly no way to move away from this permanent poverty.

You're correct that it's highly likely we'll see a decrease in human population as a result of all this automation, but that's also proof that immigration will be driven down as well. The only people I actually see moving around, are millionaires, who plan on shuffling their wealth across different borders (well... assuming borders still exist in the future).

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You don't understand how economics work. 1 dollar a month is enough money to hire a full time worker doing whatever you want for an entire month.
In Denmark today you get like 6k dollars a month easily, so those 1 dollars a month is equivalent to 6k dollars in todays money. Relative to worker wages. Do you understand this? Your house will be worth 1 billion usd and your wage will be 1 dollar a month. You can still buy food, you can still buy netflix, etc. Your life will be vastly improved compared to today but your salary will only be 1 dollar. For this 1 dollar, you can buy every product that you want.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're losing me. If a $1 salary can buy everything, why are there still extremely poor people living in third world countries? Even a house being worth $1 billion in this scenario still contradicts this. You're not going to get a downpayment using only a dollar. The only real option for living is renting, but guess who controls that? And who would they prefer renting to if more money exists elsewhere?

You seem to ignore the hyper discrepancies between the rich class (i.e the people who own or manufacture robots in the future) and the absolute poverty class whose talents of manual labor comes with no value. There is no middle class to bridge this gap (where the $6,000 figure comes from. There are still people who make far less today doing jobs like sweeping floors or flipping burgers).

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If a $1 salary can buy everything, why are there still extremely poor people living in third world countries?

What the fucking what!? Seriously, wtf dude. Do you see robots everywhere!? 1 dollars cant buy shit today. You seriously have no concept of money or how an economy works. I suggest taking some 101 macro economy course, because this is simply astonishing. Read my comments until they make sense in your head or take a macro economics course. You clearly don't understand the most basic concepts.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a $1 salary can buy everything, why are there still extremely poor people living in third world countries?

It's called purchasing power parity (PPP). $1 has different values in different places and at different times. You're assuming that $1 can only purchase what is worth $1 presently and that the cost of goods in this future hypothetical won't be fractions of a dollar. Like u/Dragonerne said, it's relative.