No.303135
The past really wasn't that bad for the people that survived.
Looking into it, famines basically just killed off people under 4, the elderly, and people aged 20-40 almost universally survived. Like even the potato famine has only 2% of the 20-40 year old cohort die, 1/50 is pretty good survival odds for your core productive and breeding population. That's like 1 person out of two classrooms, and it probably hit the really poor and lower classes. It looks bad with 18% of the population dying on paper, but considering people over 50 don't have kids and kids under 4-10 can be replaced instantly with a post war baby boom, it's demographically not that impactful. It's why Ethiopia's population doubled so rapidly after their famine, and India bounced back from the Bengal famine like it was nothing.
In World war 1, 16% of the French male population aged 18-45 died, making it significantly more demographically impactful than the Irish potato famine, because they were at the age where they were supposed to be having families and providing.
Famines weren't even people really starving to death that often. They mostly got killed off by an infection due to having a weakened immune system, or ate some risky food and got a disease that way. Famines seemed to displace people who then go into crowded cities, drink shitty water, and then get an infection. Famines seemed to hit once every 15 years or so, so typically you'd experience two really shit years in your adult life and then finally get dealt to in the third one as an old person. It more fucked up your family planning than anything else.
It seemed to have an economically positive effect for the actually healthy and productive part of the population in that it cleared away dependents. Immediately after the famine there'd be more available land per person and the available resources for a baby boom.
No.303136
A lot of the post-famine revolts were simply the peasantry not being as desperate to kowtow to the elites now there was more land per person. I get those vibes pretty hard with John Wycliffe's pushback against the nobility. The population had declined so much that the past feudal arrangements were excessive and demanding well above market rates.
It seems the closer you got to the Malthusian limits, the more servile people became towards the demands of elites, as there were so many other potential poorfag families in the cities who could take your place on the farm. The post famine population drop made people less afraid of the consequences and demand more equitable feudal arrangements.
This was probably seen as trauma and revolt by the aristocracy. But the peasants probably seen their labour rising in value and them being more assertive as good things.
The OP picture I created was probably commissioned by the elite who seen famine as the end of the world, the apocalypse, wah wah. Because immediately afterwards you had "social instability" (poorfags demanding a better lot in life). But the post famine experience was probably one of euphoria for the lower classes, they were motivated to reverse the worst of the feudal abuses.
No.303137
What's completely wild is contemporary low birthrates are more demographically destructive than the black death, the potato famine and the Bengal famine by a -massive- margin. To a fucking HUGE degree, one you wouldn't even believe. You'd need like 50% of the core age population (20-40) dying in a famine in the middle ages to match the long term demographic damage caused by contemporary low fertility rates in South Korea. If 50% of your core age population is dying off, you'd almost certainly have 90%+ of your youth and elderly dying off if it was a disease or famine. Keep in mind a massive famine like the Irish potato famine only killed off 2-4% of the core age population (20-40). That's how little historical famines impacted demography, and how impactful contemporary low fertility rates are to demography. If you were a normalfag adult during the potato famine you'd have a 98-96% chance of surviving, that's fucking nothing. Look at the autism, obesity and disability rates we have today, look at the amount of people we have out of work.
I really don't think there's ever been in history a sustained demographic decline like we're experiencing today. Extrapolate South Korea's fertility decline even over two generations and that's genuinely a shocking and apocalyptic population crash.
We really are living in a silent hell world collapse and very few people are talking about it. I bullied ChatGPT and a few authors are sounding the alarms at how unique and severe the contemporary crash is (pic related). But they're being drowned out by mainstream voices that say "This is nothing compared to past famines" and "population has declined in the past". No, population HASN'T declined in the past, past famines were a fucking blip on demography and had almost no impact. We're setting ourselves up for a hell world collapse the likes of which the world has never seen.
What we're going through is a lot worse than past famines, it's 10x worse. The collapse and degradation when this system comes down will be so catastrophic, so severe, that liberal democracy will be permanently refuted as a system of governance. We're all going to suffer in old age in this collapse and it's fucking over, it's all downhill from here.
No.303139
>>303137There is no population decline worldwide, the global population is projected to reach over 10 billion in the next 50-60 years. Regarding the west, population has grown too much during the baby boom era it has quadrupled in a century while the standard of living has increased significantly. The fertility rate is just an indication that life has become too expensive, western people are developing a major awareness towards life and what it entails, they are giving more value to individuals rather than families. When you will become old the best thing that the state can offer to you is a assisted dying, keeping you alive paralyzed in a hospice bed with a diaper is not fun. You shouldn't worry about old age as life sucks either way.
No.303150
>>303137Presumably the current human stock will be replaced by ultrareligious high fertility people, or life extension gets figured out, thus solving the issue.
You're underestimating how poor the current response is. Antinatalism is common.
No.303151
>>3031503rd option.
AI taking over.
Robots. Also, cyborgs.
No.303152
>>303150Life extension won't mean shit if people can't physically do work. Already a lot of the physical jobs involving repetitive strain, people can't do after the age of 50. Basically anyone at work in a non-managerial, non-cognitive role is functionally a liability after the age of 65. The way our cells work means you can't just have a magic drug that makes people healthy enough to work, aging and degradation is built into the human experience. If anything our raised life expectancy is exacerbating the issue and causing more dependents.
>You're underestimating how poor the current response is. Antinatalism is common.This is like 10 times worse than the Irish potato famine demographically and people should care. Combined with the debt and pension crisis, this will absolutely collapse the global economy.
No.303154
>>303137lol the news has been talking japan's low birth rate for decades. This is nothing new.
No.303158
>>303152Yeah, I've meant something more like genetic modification to stop or massively slow down aging. Replacement organs for every old person would be another straw on the camel's back, since their aged brains keep them out of the workforce. I'm not keeping up with the life extension stuff, but I think youthful blood, which could be cultured has a rejuvenating effect.
The blasé mages ITT have nothing to say about the dependency ratio issue.
No.303160
>>303150>>303151>Presumably the current human stock will be replaced by ultrareligious high fertility people
>or life extension gets figured out, thus solving the issue
>3rd option. AI taking over.Option 3 1/2 - all at once.
No.303568
>>303155>>303155>4 millionto low
too small
х DOUBT