When in the history of humanity has a country ever been destroyed because it didn't breed enough to keep its population up?
I want just one objectively true case where a country was destroyed not by outside influence, not by anarchy or revolution, not by anything except for lack of breeding speed.
I can't think of a single case where a strong country just suddenly died because no one was breeding.
Pic unrelated.
>>332573
Rome
>>332583
In 476 C.E. Romulus, the last of the Roman emperors in the west, was overthrown by the Germanic leader Odoacer, who became the first Barbarian to rule in Rome.
>>332573
Your question is stupid. Low population growth and a lack of breeding would be a contributing factor to getting conquered or assimalated into a larger country or culture. Unless you have walls that will completely cut you off from the whole world.
>>332595
That's literally never given as a reason as to why the countries need more immigrants, the reason is always death by lack of breeding which I can't think of ever happening.
>>332593
Because Latins were replaced at nearly every level by Germans, they were a token minority at that point
>>332619
So outside influence.
>>332573
Sparta was seriously weakened by lack of Spartan population (because only Spartans were allowed to serve in the military and hold office). As I recall, they spent most of their life on the front and married only when they were middle-aged. The population count started to falter after a while.
>>332610
The reason isn't death, but because "muh economics". With a shrinking population, the individual share of the public debt gets larger. If you import new bodies, you can basically count everything they earn (and everything you loan them) towards your GDP and the Ponzi scheme keeps puttering along for a while and we can all pretend it's sustainable.
Like holy shit, nothing else demonstrates the flaws of capitalism like this. It should, realistically be, the less people in an area, the less resources they must share, and the more individually wealthy they should logically be.
>>332573
>want just one objectively true case where a country was destroyed not by outside influence, not by anarchy or revolution, not by anything except for lack of breeding speed.
It's probably never happened, though obviously low birth rates help to accelerate collapse.
>>332610
>That's literally never given as a reason...
_What's_ never given as a reason?
>>332673
>flaws of capitalism
>public debt
