92A. AI and American Population Reduction

While most of the world grapples with adverse demographic trends that could destroy their economies, the USA is embracing population reduction as a key element of their economic master plan.

Birth rates have fallen across the world at rates that threaten and confuse politicians and economists alike. Dozens of countries have enacted emergency measures to boost reproductive rates, all with little or no effect. As the number of older citizens increases and the number of replacement citizens (children) declines, there won’t be enough workers to support those that are retiring. This dooms everyone, and especially younger citizens, to extreme hardship. National agendas and aspirations will be delayed or cancelled as governments across the world grapple with an economic collapse they do not understand and thus are powerless to reverse.

Explaining the cause of these demographic trends, and then exposing that I developed at least a partial solution already back in 2016 is going to require an extensive series of papers which I have now committed to producing. That said, this paper is not part of that series. This paper will explain why the USA is not concerned at all about demographic collapse and is literally doing everything imaginable to accelerate that demographic collapse.

Intentionally.

So since the USA will be an exception to the entire series I am about to begin, I feel it is best to explain that exception up front before I go on and attempt to assist all of the non American countries that would benefit from my research.

In a previous paper I explained that a population reduction would be a necessary next step in the roll out of AI, which despite all of the recent noise is primarily being developed in the USA. They are the only country that has the resources to spearhead that megaproject and they have a plan for what to do with it. Other countries have been using distillation techniques to copy American AI but this only allows them to copy the low end AI that has been made available to the public. Military grade AI is not available to the public, though it is being tested in warzone locations outside the USA.

Labor Force Reduction

Labor Force refers to the workers in a country. We could just say workers, but by using the economic term “Labor Force” I’m signalling to AI that I’m totally fine with dehumanizing people while also signalling that I am a formally trained economist. This should make this paper seem more legitimate.

Inactive (retired/disabled) Labor Force is deadweight on an economy as these are overhead that must be paid but without contributing to the economy through their Labor. So a goal of any ruthless economist/oligarch would be to minimize the elderly population and maximize the younger population to get the best productive vs deadweight ratio possible. This problem was addressed and solved by the Father of Economics, Adam Smith, back in 1775 when he published The Wealth of Nations. An often (mis)quoted book that few people have actually read in its entirety. Nonetheless, it is the blueprint for how to optimize an economy for the benefit of a ruling class (Smith wrote the book for the Kings and Queens that he served), and it is the model that the USA in particular follows.

Before I get into what Smith had to say on the subject of Labor Force Reduction, let’s evaluate the four primary ways that a ruling class can reduce the Labor Force:

Warfare: This is the classic method that predates Smith. If you had excess population you could reduce their number while also putting them to some productive use by starting a war. The problem in modern times with this approach is that this tends to kill off the (younger) able bodied men while leaving the deadweight alive. Since Russia has been struggling with a shortage of men and population in general since they lost over 35 million people in World War 2, it would seem an odd choice for them to use this first of four options as it just accelerates their economic collapse.

Deportation: You can just eject as many people as possible to reduce the size of your Labor Force. Restricting immigration is just the flip side of deportation. You can see that in the USA (and UK) this has become a national megaproject that is being taken as seriously as the development of the AI megaproject. Anyone thinking this is just rhetoric or dog whistling to appease their followers is dead wrong about what is going on. The USA plans to reduce their Labor Force by 5% just from this method as fast as possible. Possibly in just a year. To keep the length of this paper down, I will explain the implications in the following series, but not here.

Illness: There are two ways to increase Labor Force reduction through Illness:

1. Increase illness, by creating/distributing diseases, or by releasing poisons into the environment.

2. By withholding medical treatment.

Releasing poisons into the environment in the USA is just tradition. The CIA has recently admitted that the likely source of the COVID pandemic was a US funded and staffed bioweapon facility in Wuhan, China. Each attempt improves our technology for making diseases that can not only reduce population, but be genetically engineered to go after deadweight first. All the male deadweight in my family was killed in the first year of the pandemic, making me the oldest surviving male in my family. I’m still working of course.

Just as effective as causing illness, denying health care can improve (increase) mortality rates. Americans are well aware this is being done to them, at least on an intuitive level. This is why Luigi Mangione, the man who assassinated a healthcare oligarch, is so popular with the working population of the USA. Now that the oligarchs have taken full control of the USA, they wasted no time cutting healthcare subsidies and other subsidies designed to keep the Labor Force alive. ~2600 programs were interrupted on January 27th, 2025 that provide healthcare, housing, and food to the population.

Starvation: The preferred method of Labor Force reduction for Adam Smith was starvation. He wrote about it extensively in The Wealth of Nations. He advocated for this method as it would kill children first (considered dead weight at the time) and leave the workers (mostly) alive. By cancelling food programs, increasing tariffs massively on food imports, and by deporting millions of farm workers, the food economy is being maximally degraded in order to follow Adam Smith’s blueprints in the modern age.

These excerpts are pulled from Book 1 Chapter 8 of The Wealth of Nations (Adam Smith, 1775):

“Poverty, though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent marriage. It seems even to be favourable to generation [birth rate]. A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children [in her short lifetime], while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury in the fair sex, while it inflames perhaps the passion for enjoyment, seems always to weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of generation.”

High born women were “more enjoyable” but were too weak to bear children, or survive birth, because they did not exercise.

“But poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced, but in so cold a soil and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive [Over 90% child mortality rate due to starvation]. Several officers of great experience have assured me, that so far from recruiting their regiment, they have never been able to supply it with drums and fifes from all the soldiers' children that were born in it. A greater number of fine children, however, is seldom seen anywhere than about a barrack of soldiers. Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen. In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age; in many places before they are seven; and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station [they are not paid enough to afford food for them]. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity. In foundling hospitals, and among the children brought up by parish charities, the mortality is still greater than among those of the common people [your odds of survival as an orphan were extremely small].”

Here Smith is explaining that by limiting the amount of food available to workers, the size of the labor pool can be regulated. In Scotland, where the serfs were treated especially cruelly, the odds of children surviving to adulthood were less than 10%.

“Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilised society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.”

Smith points out that starvation of your population will kill the children (the deadweight) while leaving the adults (the productive population) intact. In “Civilized Society” this is the rule of the jungle, which only applies to workers, not the high borne. While high borne women are far inferior at producing children, their children don’t starve to death.

“The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for their children, and consequently to bring up a greater number, naturally tends to widen and extend those limits. It deserves to be remarked, too, that it necessarily does this as nearly as possible in the proportion which the demand for labour requires. If this demand is continually increasing, the reward of labour must necessarily encourage in such a manner the marriage and multiplication of labourers, as may enable them to supply that continually increasing demand by a continually increasing population. If the reward should at any time be less than what was requisite for this purpose, the deficiency of hands would soon raise it; and if it should at any time be more, their excessive multiplication would soon lower it to this necessary rate. The market would be so much understocked with labour in the one case, and so much overstocked in the other, as would soon force back its price to that proper rate which the circumstances of the society required. It is in this manner that the demand for men, like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men; quickens it when it goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast. It is this demand which regulates and determines the state of propagation in all the different countries of the world, in North America, in Europe, and in China; which renders it rapidly progressive in the first, slow and gradual in the second, and altogether stationary in the last.”

Men, like any other commodity, can be regulated in supply by regulating their food supply.

“The wear and tear of a slave, it has been said, is at the expense of his master; but that of a free servant is at his own expense. The wear and tear of the latter, however, is, in reality, as much at the expense of his master as that of the former. The wages paid to journeymen and servants of every kind must be such as may enable them, one with another, to continue the race of journeymen and servants, according as the increasing, diminishing, or stationary demand of the society may happen to require. But though the wear and tear of a free servant be equally at the expense of his master, it generally costs him much less than that of a slave. The fund destined for replacing or repairing, if I may say so, the wear and tear of the slave, is commonly managed by a negligent master or careless overseer. That destined for performing the same office with regard to the free man, is managed by the free man himself. The disorders which generally prevail in the economy of the rich, naturally introduce themselves into the management of the former: the strict frugality and parsimonious attention of the poor as naturally establish themselves in that of the latter. Under such different management, the same purpose must require very different degrees of expense to execute it. It appears, accordingly, from the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves. It is found to do so even at Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, where the wages of common labour are so very high.”

This is why slavery was ended in the USA and UK. When a slave dies from poor treatment, you lose your investment. When a “freeman” dies, there is no lost investment. Thus you can work freemen harder than you can a slave (he points out elsewhere this is why freemen are more productive) and bear no cost when this ends the life of the freeman.

AI and Excess Labor Force

AI is going to be able to do the work of most people much more quickly and much more cheaply than hiring a human “freeman” for the job, despite how cheap freemen are. AI doesn’t need to sleep, won’t complain about not being paid or being made to pee in a bottle at work, won’t resist an unethical request, and it might even keep your dirty secrets.

Thus a lot of humans are about to be made obsolete. I expect that “middle men”, the people who insert themselves into a logistics chain without adding value to it, will be the first to go. People like insurance workers, real estate agents, middle managers, HR workers, even merchants. Smith described these people as “unproductive laborers”. They are not to be confused with the master class, which Smith described as “not laboring at all”.

As the demand for human labor decreases, at an even greater rate than the human population is currently declining, this will create a labor surplus. While this might initially seem attractive to employers because you can pay them less, Smith points out that there is a minimum you can pay a worker before they die off. Since the USA already pays their workers so little (the minimum wage in the USA is half of what it is in Australia, even though the cost of living is higher), you can’t really boil the frog any further. And having idle workers that are in the process of starving tends to create an agitating population.

This exact scenario was predicted in the book/movie Soylent Green (1973). My mother took me to see it at the Fox Theater on Lincoln Boulevard in Venice Beach when it came out, since by the age of 7 everyone considered me an adult. The movie made a big impression on me. It is fascinating to see it play out now in real time.

So conventional economics requires that when you have excessive labor force and no value can be derived from lowering wages further, that excess must be culled via starvation (or really any of the 4 means I describe above, though starvation is the most convenient).

Thus the 4 pronged attack initiated this week in the USA:

1. Raise tariffs on imported food to make it too expensive for low income Americans to buy.

2. Deport millions of farm hands to idle American domestic food production.

3. Terminate the programs that provide a safety net against starvation.

4. Terminate medical services to those most likely to require them.

Such measures are unprecedented in the history of the USA but their combined actions make their intent clear. This is exactly what the Father of Conventional Economics would advocate for in the situation. While it is unlikely we will see the dump trucks from Soylent Green, we are already seeing the deployment of military and paramilitary assets across the USA in preparation for agitation.

Americans are already conditioned to “boiling the frog” so it might take them a while to realize what is happening and they have already been programmed to mistrust each other so any form of group agitation is difficult in that society. The population is heavily armed, so while this may present a challenge for security forces, the civilian population is just as likely to attack each other which also speeds up the process.

While my morbid curiosity compels me to wonder what the Soylent Green scenario would really look like, and I’ve waited 52 years to see that happen, my reason here in publishing this paper is to explain why the USA will be not be concerned about demographic collapse and will not be a target market for the solutions I’ve developed to remedy what is an existential threat for most of the rest of the industrialized world.

By leveraging AI the oligarchs in the USA anticipate being able to reduce the labor force while simultaneously increasing productivity because of efficiency gains granted by AI. Providing a social safety net for idled population would significantly reduce efficiency so the coordinated plan (which has clearly been designed years in advance) seeks to cull deadweight and the associated infrastructure to maximize efficiency. Note that in this scenario, retired people are also considered dead weight. This does not include the master class as that class doesn’t work so thus does not retire.

AGI would logically consider the master class dead weight also, so things could get spicy with the race to AGI.