People think that there are too many people, it's undeniable that there is a lot of people but the earth can still handle a lot. Everyone says that the earths population is growing but, actually the population growth in the future will be very low or actually be negative. Already developed countries have aging and declining populations Italy, Russia, Japan. even lesser developed or developing nations have very low fertility rates of 1.4
Low fertility rates of 1.4 or lower and a median age in the 40's or lower. And I'm not talking just about Japan or South Korea or Italy or Russia... I'm talking about Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela
Antonio Maldonado you also forgot to mention Mexico hon. Everyone assumes that mexicans and latinos have so many children, but this is not the case. in fact its birth rates are now at the same level of the US, and by the end of the next century, they will be even lower
Delia D I know that lol, I'm Mexican. That about Mexicans having large families...Well that stereotype that was more true more like in the 60's, but now fertility rates are only a little more than 2 children per family. There are still big families, but nowhere near as much as what they used to be. Nowhere near as many families with Jesus, Paco, Maria, Jose, Agustin, and Gabriela and mom and dad...BTW I'm making up the names.
Antonio Maldonado Isn't Mexico City the most populous city on the planet? Your observations appear defensive, and nieve to the degrading effects human population has had on the quality of life on this planet. Don't base your qualitative values on what you see now. It is poor compared to just 50 years ago. In another 50, we will see people fighting for water.
+Aidan Mullan If that was true there would be less than a million people on earth. I hate to say it but the higher the population is the more idiots there are.
@goodguys9 As explained at the beginning of the video, dots represent one million people and are placed in the middle of where those million people live. You'll see that the dots in Canada are concentrated along the U.S. border, where most people live, and the dots in Russia are concentrated in the cities.
the UN seems to have the most credible projection data for populations and they keep revising it downwards, now it is: 8 billion on low estimate 10.5 on high for 2050. I don't think any one would expect population to double in 2009 "over the next fifty years", even on highest projected models. very curious to see where these guys got their data from. I do love the map :)
@8DJUSTINCREDIBLE I'm 18 too, and the thought of having kids right now is terrifying. Before modern medicine, people had more kids because they had smaller chances of living to adulthood, but that's certainly changed in most parts of the world. My AP Human geography teacher showed our class this video, it scares me: It's so chilling how much the population of the world has sky-rocketed in only the last couple hundred years.
@hop208 My view is himalayas will provide future fresh water for south asia for a long time as they have a LOT of water up there so no soon water crysis I suppose
There was a dot first on Edinburgh around 1250AD which could well be right but then a dot in Highland, Scotland?, the population of the Highlands is to this day around 232'000 people. I liked the video though it was quite unique with the sound effects, made it interesting and spooky
@DCfreak87 You are correct that all population estimates are just that--estimates based on projections. We cannot know exactly how many people are on earth. We can only use the data available and make the most educated assumptions.
@ianripken Actually, the guy said that dots will increase outward to show accurately the population on the edges. Also, ND has 2 freakin dots cuz the dots can also show the population of a big area by being placed in the middle of it.
There is little information regarding the population of the Americas during the period prior to the Western conquests. Most of the information available are conjectures.
Especially America. There were 100,000+ cities in America pre Columbian time. Mostly in the area that is now Mexico, Central America and Peru. But there were also at different times cities of less than 100,000 in other parts of America in pre Columbian times. In the areas I already mentioned but also what is now the USA, Colombia and other places.
@uncballer28 Most governments conduct a census every ten years or so. The Demographic and Health Surveys are used in many developing countries as well. We know roughly how many babies are born in each country each year. Many countries with rapidly growing populations have policies that encourage family planning, but can't afford to provide universal access to contraceptive services. Donor countries like the United States can help by funding voluntary family planning programs.
Like I said before, to another commenter who said the same thing you did, I really wish I could be as optimistic as you about that. Unfortunately, I believe mankind is too deeply polluted with superstition, greed and ignorance for something like that to actually be thought of before it's too late.
@meralodem This is simply incorrect. Donor countries do indeed bring their technical expertise to developing countries. They teach medical professionals how to insert long-acting methods of contraception; they educate nurses about life-saving medications to stop hemorrhaging after childbirth; they help non-profit workers in developing countries run public health campaigns; etc.
@JonaBay Those of us who support population stabilization do so in order to avoid a situation like the one you described. Most people don't want to live in a world where people are "dropping like flies" for lack of adequate food, shelter, and medicine. The purpose of population stabilization is to improve the quality of life for people. Population stabilization is the means we advocate for making life better for women, children, households, and societies.
@victormgv Education--especially for girls--is a huge influence on fertility rates, as you stated. In most cases, the better-educated women use contraception to limit their family size because they have knowledge of its existence, where to get it, and how to use it. These methods that you call inhumane (I assume modern contraception?) are the exact methods that educated women employ to reduce their fertility.
@thedodger2x Large scale desalination plants and the amount of infrastructure needed to make the water available to the public would cost billions of dollars and the construction would need to start immediately. Not only that, but with the current technology to separate the salt and other impurities form the water isn't sustainable on that scale. All current large scale desalination plants (like in Dubai) run on massive amounts of oil. Indian oil consumption would go up dramatically.
@DCfreak87 - They say 3 babies are born every second, the population is growing wildly, I don't think anyone knows how many people there are anymore, the more the population grows the harder to keep track of the total. Population is growing everywhere, who is counting the babies being born in remote areas that no one cares about, humans are procreating more than ever because we are more than ever, population growth is unavoidable, why worry, let it grow, we can't stop it!
We'll never destroy ourselves through overpopulation alone. Economic reality will almost always keep us from having more children than we can afford to raise. If our population outpaces resource availability too much, prices of those scarce resources will rise, giving a clear signal for families not to further strain themselves with more mouths to feed, and the overall situation will correct itself before any chaos. If parents can afford another kid and want one, there's no reason to stop them.
Does not change the fact that the Earth is finite, so even if we still have thousands of years worth of resources on the planet, they won't last forever.
Okay, here are some details about the world population as of my knowledge cutoff in August 2023: In August 2023, the global population was estimated to be around 7.9 billion people. This represented a steady increase from previous years, with the population growing by about 1.1% annually in the years leading up to 2023. The countries with the largest populations were: 1. China - 1.41 billion 2. India - 1.38 billion 3. United States - 331 million 4. Indonesia - 273 million 5. Pakistan - 221 million Population growth rates varied significantly by region, with Africa and parts of Asia experiencing the fastest growth, while Europe and North America had slower growth or even population decline in some cases. The aging of populations in many developed countries was also an emerging trend, with higher proportions of elderly residents. This was driven by declining birth rates and increased life expectancy. Let me know if you need any other details about the world population as of that time period. I'd be happy to provide more information.
The problem is not total biomass or area of occupation, the problem is resources. No matter how much of them we have now, they are still finite, and the higher the population, the quicker we consume them. We might be comfortably okay with resources for the next few hundred years, but that doesn't mean the resources will last forever.
It's simple - reduce population growth in the main areas: China (already implemented), Asia, Africa, Coastal South America, Central America and - WAIT FOR IT - EUROPE AND USA. Despite the belief that there are 'better' people in various continents, the consumers of most of the world's resources are in the developed countries in Europe and Nth America, The video shows how Europe and the USA have as much responsibility as the standard of living is higher so the impact on resources increases.
@Mike0Powell Standing room isn't really the issue. We also need land to grow food and absorb our waste (including trees to absorb carbon emissions). We're not the only beings on this planet--wildlife needs a home as well. There are countless social and health issues related to population growth as well--the problems aren't all environmental in nature.
How can property rights be enforced when there is no conciousness about the damage produced? In developing countries, the state does not enforce property rights, but the pops are ultra-concious about damage to the enviroment. Any kind of "progress" is opposed, like the build-up of factories, no matter how non-polluting they are claimed to be. In developed countries, factories go generally unopposed if someone claims them to be eco-friendly. And that is if it hasnt got inmediate notice effects.
@hop208 Let's plan for success and look at another desalinization plant, one built in Israel (Ashkelon Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) Plant ). The cost was much less at $212M. The plant's energy requirements is taken from a cleaner source, that is, natural gas to power turbine engines and not oil reserves. It is backed up by the national grid of Israel. It provides 13% of the country's consumer water demand. It has been sustaining operation since 2006. Let's keep pursuing this technology.
I think he means using science and the remaining resources to make artificial food when we run out of the real ones, or genetically engineer plants to meet the growing demands
@populationconnection Factory farming is another thing. Organic farms are proven to be just as productive as, if not more, than those factory farms. What's happening right now is that some farms are actually abandoned because we can grow a whole magnitude more in the same patch of land than ever. Our productive growth exceeds our population growth. World hunger is a political issue, not because we are running out of food.
We actually limit our growth to what is locally sustainable, not as if resources were infinite. Technological advances allow more growth, but we have been hiding the resource limitations. We need to instead expose the true costs, and then people will react appropriately.
@ HenrSo whats wrong with living healthier longer lives? You have two options; Increase death rate or reduce birth rates, which is better? Today countries with the LOWEST life expectancy have the HIGHEST population growth while "healthy" countries like those in Europe and Japan have so much access to health yet some of their birth rates are below the replacement line. Clearly today pop growth is not related to Longer life, but rather, lack of access to contraception, Edu, and such.
For about a thousand years before WWII, the population slowly increased and stayed between one and two billion, However, after WWII the population started to rise sharply and within the last 50 years, the population has increased by more than three fold. This is very concerning. What will it be like in 2112? There is a documentary about what the world would be like if the population reached 14 billion.
why is there suddenly 20+ dots in Northern Siberia in 1910 at 5:29? also, after the World Wars, the map got pretty unrealistic, should've used a different color dot to indicate 10 million people.
Actually,what we are really going to do is grow our crops on aircrarft carrier sized boats in the ded zones of the sea. This will conserve land, give us a new place to gather water, allow us to conserve water with to-the-roots watering systems, create shadows in the sea thus contributing to the end of global warming,allow us to grow huge fuel supplies which triply end global warming with forest conservation, clean fuel and ocean shadows; and we can build artificial islands.
Yeah we were supposed to run out of oil about 10 times now in the past century... But we haven't because we find ways to produce more out of the same areas that would be considered "dry" just like all resources. Something is only a resource when we have a use for it. There are many minerals and other things in the earth we can't access now but will in the future.
If "balancing" isn't profitable, how can it be ideal? What is profit, if not an indicator of resourcefully converting inputs into relatively higher value outputs? Ironically, "balancing" isn't profitable because it's not resourceful. No state authority could ever know how to properly allocate millions of various resources among the masses. Only individuals engaging in free trade, through their combined knowledge, can come closest to properly "balancing" resources according to their values.
You're ignoring the fact that as supply gradually falls relative to demand, prices will gradually rise. As timberland gradually decreases in availability, it will become more expensive to acquire, making replanting more profitable. Also, there's nothing stopping "conscious" people from forming a fund to buy up this "cheap" land for preservation. I think that's great if people want to do that, but it's wrong to impose those values on everyone via conservation policy & the taxes that pay for it.
This is what happens when an animal doesn't have a predator.
ryan jansen Hitler!
Obama
ryan jansen The only predator's are ourselves.
+ozzy85Mpower putin
the searching wind deep
My teacher showed us this in class years ago. I’m scared. .____.
Why are you scared? More people enjoying life, is surely a very good thing.
People think that there are too many people, it's undeniable that there is a lot of people but the earth can still handle a lot. Everyone says that the earths population is growing but, actually the population growth in the future will be very low or actually be negative. Already developed countries have aging and declining populations Italy, Russia, Japan. even lesser developed or developing nations have very low fertility rates of 1.4
Low fertility rates of 1.4 or lower and a median age in the 40's or lower. And I'm not talking just about Japan or South Korea or Italy or Russia... I'm talking about Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela
if you want to see how fast its growing go to worldometers.com
Antonio Maldonado you also forgot to mention Mexico hon. Everyone assumes that mexicans and latinos have so many children, but this is not the case. in fact its birth rates are now at the same level of the US, and by the end of the next century, they will be even lower
Delia D I know that lol, I'm Mexican. That about Mexicans having large families...Well that stereotype that was more true more like in the 60's, but now fertility rates are only a little more than 2 children per family. There are still big families, but nowhere near as much as what they used to be. Nowhere near as many families with Jesus, Paco, Maria, Jose, Agustin, and Gabriela and mom and dad...BTW I'm making up the names.
Antonio Maldonado Isn't Mexico City the most populous city on the planet? Your observations appear defensive, and nieve to the degrading effects human population has had on the quality of life on this planet. Don't base your qualitative values on what you see now. It is poor compared to just 50 years ago. In another 50, we will see people fighting for water.
No, ITS THAT CREEPY HEARTBEAT SOUND
Errors:
- No baltic, black, caspian seas, great lakes
- Overpopulated Kazakhstan, Tibet, Sahara
Gonaa Gond it said it has to spread it out to show how populated it is (They should have used one dot per million)
Gonaa Gond the again it's from 16 years ago
Guys each dot represents one person right
1 million people.
+Aidan Mullan If that was true there would be less than a million people on earth. I hate to say it but the higher the population is the more idiots there are.
THE FACT THAT THIS IS 14 YEARS IS CRAZY
The youtube video upload is 14 years old but the actual video is from 2000
I'm doing this for class...ooh yeah!
WE SHOULD TAKE BIKINI BOTTOM AND PUSH IT SOMEWHERE ELSE !!!
@goodguys9 As explained at the beginning of the video, dots represent one million people and are placed in the middle of where those million people live. You'll see that the dots in Canada are concentrated along the U.S. border, where most people live, and the dots in Russia are concentrated in the cities.
Nice this channel is still active.
the UN seems to have the most credible projection data for populations and they keep revising it downwards, now it is: 8 billion on low estimate 10.5 on high for 2050. I don't think any one would expect population to double in 2009 "over the next fifty years", even on highest projected models. very curious to see where these guys got their data from.
I do love the map :)
hey, what happened to baltic sea?
+Maciej Qas It disappeared as well as the Black Sea.
+inyazserg Sergey Larin And the Caspian.
+Bianey Velasquez Nunez really?
Maciej Qas All seas virtually disconnected to oceans are missing. In fact, the western part of the Baltic still remains.
Koray Acar But the black sea and baltic sea are connected to the ocean
The map is drawn wrong! if you look in sweden, you wont fine one of the seas (or any sea at all, all over the world)
@8DJUSTINCREDIBLE
I'm 18 too, and the thought of having kids right now is terrifying. Before modern medicine, people had more kids because they had smaller chances of living to adulthood, but that's certainly changed in most parts of the world. My AP Human geography teacher showed our class this video, it scares me: It's so chilling how much the population of the world has sky-rocketed in only the last couple hundred years.
keep making em!!
nice image compilation
Black sea is black. OK.
Jérôme Circonflexe So is the Caspian Sea, and other waters virtually disconnected to oceans, except for the Mediterranean.
What map projection did you use? Impressive, but an equal-area projection may have been better.
My heart is beating so my heart will go on
@hop208 My view is himalayas will provide future fresh water for south asia for a long time as they have a LOT of water up there so no soon water crysis I suppose
Showing this in my oral presentation thanks
This is scary. With life expectancies rising, this map will be all white in 100-200 years.
But if we live longer and longer, it will still rise.
this is the better quality than the other.
this video was made 20 years ago and the phone number still works
There was a dot first on Edinburgh around 1250AD which could well be right but then a dot in Highland, Scotland?, the population of the Highlands is to this day around 232'000 people.
I liked the video though it was quite unique with the sound effects, made it interesting and spooky
Great video. I think you could lose 30 secs of the intro, though, to get people into it more quickly.
Each dot represents 1 million people and they are concentrated in the urban areas because that's where the actual population is concentrated.
@DCfreak87 You are correct that all population estimates are just that--estimates based on projections. We cannot know exactly how many people are on earth. We can only use the data available and make the most educated assumptions.
@ianripken Actually, the guy said that dots will increase outward to show accurately the population on the edges. Also, ND has 2 freakin dots cuz the dots can also show the population of a big area by being placed in the middle of it.
I think the number of people in the Americas and Australia before the colonial event had been unintentionally underestimated by a bit.
There is little information regarding the population of the Americas during the period prior to the Western conquests. Most of the information available are conjectures.
Especially America. There were 100,000+ cities in America pre Columbian time. Mostly in the area that is now Mexico, Central America and Peru. But there were also at different times cities of less than 100,000 in other parts of America in pre Columbian times. In the areas I already mentioned but also what is now the USA, Colombia and other places.
What year did history teachers show this to students?
@uncballer28 Most governments conduct a census every ten years or so. The Demographic and Health Surveys are used in many developing countries as well. We know roughly how many babies are born in each country each year. Many countries with rapidly growing populations have policies that encourage family planning, but can't afford to provide universal access to contraceptive services. Donor countries like the United States can help by funding voluntary family planning programs.
Like I said before, to another commenter who said the same thing you did, I really wish I could be as optimistic as you about that. Unfortunately, I believe mankind is too deeply polluted with superstition, greed and ignorance for something like that to actually be thought of before it's too late.
@meralodem This is simply incorrect. Donor countries do indeed bring their technical expertise to developing countries. They teach medical professionals how to insert long-acting methods of contraception; they educate nurses about life-saving medications to stop hemorrhaging after childbirth; they help non-profit workers in developing countries run public health campaigns; etc.
I had to pause at 2000 A.D.
The beating was too intense for me.
@JonaBay Those of us who support population stabilization do so in order to avoid a situation like the one you described. Most people don't want to live in a world where people are "dropping like flies" for lack of adequate food, shelter, and medicine. The purpose of population stabilization is to improve the quality of life for people. Population stabilization is the means we advocate for making life better for women, children, households, and societies.
I remember us watching this in 6th grade science for renewable and nonrenewable resources. Good times.
"when we're fighting wars for the last remaining scraps of food and clean water."
People don't make food and clean water?
Is that the soundtrack to the space 4X game Space Empires IV?
@victormgv Education--especially for girls--is a huge influence on fertility rates, as you stated. In most cases, the better-educated women use contraception to limit their family size because they have knowledge of its existence, where to get it, and how to use it. These methods that you call inhumane (I assume modern contraception?) are the exact methods that educated women employ to reduce their fertility.
@thedodger2x Large scale desalination plants and the amount of infrastructure needed to make the water available to the public would cost billions of dollars and the construction would need to start immediately. Not only that, but with the current technology to separate the salt and other impurities form the water isn't sustainable on that scale. All current large scale desalination plants (like in Dubai) run on massive amounts of oil. Indian oil consumption would go up dramatically.
@DCfreak87 - They say 3 babies are born every second, the population is growing wildly, I don't think
anyone knows how many people there are anymore, the more the population grows the harder to keep
track of the total. Population is growing everywhere, who is counting the babies being born in remote
areas that no one cares about, humans are procreating more than ever because we are more than ever,
population growth is unavoidable, why worry, let it grow, we can't stop it!
what happened to the 300 somewhat mio population of USA? Why don't I see it in this clip?
much better quality
We'll never destroy ourselves through overpopulation alone. Economic reality will almost always keep us from having more children than we can afford to raise. If our population outpaces resource availability too much, prices of those scarce resources will rise, giving a clear signal for families not to further strain themselves with more mouths to feed, and the overall situation will correct itself before any chaos. If parents can afford another kid and want one, there's no reason to stop them.
Interesting, But I don't think there will be so much people in the area of Tibet etc. in the future!
Does not change the fact that the Earth is finite, so even if we still have thousands of years worth of resources on the planet, they won't last forever.
Okay, here are some details about the world population as of my knowledge cutoff in August 2023:
In August 2023, the global population was estimated to be around 7.9 billion people. This represented a steady increase from previous years, with the population growing by about 1.1% annually in the years leading up to 2023.
The countries with the largest populations were:
1. China - 1.41 billion
2. India - 1.38 billion
3. United States - 331 million
4. Indonesia - 273 million
5. Pakistan - 221 million
Population growth rates varied significantly by region, with Africa and parts of Asia experiencing the fastest growth, while Europe and North America had slower growth or even population decline in some cases.
The aging of populations in many developed countries was also an emerging trend, with higher proportions of elderly residents. This was driven by declining birth rates and increased life expectancy.
Let me know if you need any other details about the world population as of that time period. I'd be happy to provide more information.
I can't watch this because of the heartbeat
I hope you are mentioning that in favor of it, because thats exactly what this world needs. Literally.
That map was the most distorted map I've ever seen.
Still overcrowded to this day!
The problem is not total biomass or area of occupation, the problem is resources. No matter how much of them we have now, they are still finite, and the higher the population, the quicker we consume them. We might be comfortably okay with resources for the next few hundred years, but that doesn't mean the resources will last forever.
It's simple - reduce population growth in the main areas: China (already implemented), Asia, Africa, Coastal South America, Central America and - WAIT FOR IT - EUROPE AND USA. Despite the belief that there are 'better' people in various continents, the consumers of most of the world's resources are in the developed countries in Europe and Nth America, The video shows how Europe and the USA have as much responsibility as the standard of living is higher so the impact on resources increases.
@Mike0Powell Standing room isn't really the issue. We also need land to grow food and absorb our waste (including trees to absorb carbon emissions). We're not the only beings on this planet--wildlife needs a home as well. There are countless social and health issues related to population growth as well--the problems aren't all environmental in nature.
Если эти такое видео и популяцией разных животных?
Please show your math. Would you like to see mine?
The industrial revolution really set things in motion.
If you watch the video again, you'll see that the first dots to disappear are in China, followed by the dots in Europe.
wow i can't just believe this. comparing 1994 (when i was born) to 2013...
How can property rights be enforced when there is no conciousness about the damage produced?
In developing countries, the state does not enforce property rights, but the pops are ultra-concious about damage to the enviroment. Any kind of "progress" is opposed, like the build-up of factories, no matter how non-polluting they are claimed to be. In developed countries, factories go generally unopposed if someone claims them to be eco-friendly. And that is if it hasnt got inmediate notice effects.
No, they already enforce it in major cities like shanghai and beijing and are on of the only countries that enforce this rules
@hop208 Let's plan for success and look at another desalinization plant, one built in Israel (Ashkelon Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) Plant ). The cost was much less at $212M. The plant's energy requirements is taken from a cleaner source, that is, natural gas to power turbine engines and not oil reserves. It is backed up by the national grid of Israel. It provides 13% of the country's consumer water demand. It has been sustaining operation since 2006. Let's keep pursuing this technology.
the video image is too poor, you need to fix it more
The beating is the sound of humanity growing like wildfire, it will be unsettling when
you can't walk because there are too many babies in your way!!
Australia is still a lonely place but it has the warm climate and plenty ground for plant and live.
Colonization of other planets?
On the rocket ride to a population crash, then thermageddon, from overpopulation and pollution.
If you'd like some actual data to go with your opinions, check out the UN World Population Prospects database.
I think he means using science and the remaining resources to make artificial food when we run out of the real ones, or genetically engineer plants to meet the growing demands
Earth has plenty of resources for a population of a trillion people sustained for millions of years.
@populationconnection Factory farming is another thing. Organic farms are proven to be just as productive as, if not more, than those factory farms.
What's happening right now is that some farms are actually abandoned because we can grow a whole magnitude more in the same patch of land than ever. Our productive growth exceeds our population growth.
World hunger is a political issue, not because we are running out of food.
That isn't the problem, the problem is that people aren't dying.
And more people are still being born and moving in and at the same time some people die and population decreases
We actually limit our growth to what is locally sustainable, not as if resources were infinite. Technological advances allow more growth, but we have been hiding the resource limitations. We need to instead expose the true costs, and then people will react appropriately.
and lets not forget something called the dinosaurs which are definitely proven to be older than 6,000 years
They didn't have advanced medicine back then or modern technology, that is why it wasn't so high.
I think he meant that the Black Sea is missing (as is the Baltic and Caspian)
@ HenrSo whats wrong with living healthier longer lives? You have two options; Increase death rate or reduce birth rates, which is better? Today countries with the LOWEST life expectancy have the HIGHEST population growth while "healthy" countries like those in Europe and Japan have so much access to health yet some of their birth rates are below the replacement line. Clearly today pop growth is not related to Longer life, but rather, lack of access to contraception, Edu, and such.
Oh do we? Is space mining a thing already?
@Assassin2036 Actually 7,015,988,747
the nile delta was empty? strange..
Why isn't the Baltic Sea visable on the map (its in northern europe)
For about a thousand years before WWII, the population slowly increased and stayed between one and two billion, However, after WWII the population started to rise sharply and within the last 50 years, the population has increased by more than three fold. This is very concerning. What will it be like in 2112? There is a documentary about what the world would be like if the population reached 14 billion.
@conjack2378 how is the ending political propaganda? We are running out of resources at an exponential rate
i can't believe people were actually born in 1994.
WHERE İS BALTIC SEA, BLACK SEA, CASPIAN SEA?!
why is there suddenly 20+ dots in Northern Siberia in 1910 at 5:29?
also, after the World Wars, the map got pretty unrealistic, should've used a different color dot to indicate 10 million people.
+Donald Fung Gulag
heyo, i helped make a dot
How many people was there in the world at 600?
+زمری د افغانستان Seems legit
This video creeps me out
Actually,what we are really going to do is grow our crops on aircrarft carrier sized boats in the ded zones of the sea. This will conserve land, give us a new place to gather water, allow us to conserve water with to-the-roots watering systems, create shadows in the sea thus contributing to the end of global warming,allow us to grow huge fuel supplies which triply end global warming with forest conservation, clean fuel and ocean shadows; and we can build artificial islands.
@lordkickenwing thx
You also can't see the Great Lakes in the U.S.
Yeah we were supposed to run out of oil about 10 times now in the past century...
But we haven't because we find ways to produce more out of the same areas that would be considered "dry" just like all resources. Something is only a resource when we have a use for it. There are many minerals and other things in the earth we can't access now but will in the future.
Does anyone find that beating unsettling besides me?
If "balancing" isn't profitable, how can it be ideal? What is profit, if not an indicator of resourcefully converting inputs into relatively higher value outputs? Ironically, "balancing" isn't profitable because it's not resourceful. No state authority could ever know how to properly allocate millions of various resources among the masses. Only individuals engaging in free trade, through their combined knowledge, can come closest to properly "balancing" resources according to their values.
VHEMT: "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" Just so people understand what the initials mean.
hopefully it means those people will not reproduce themselves. is it worse than that?
You're ignoring the fact that as supply gradually falls relative to demand, prices will gradually rise. As timberland gradually decreases in availability, it will become more expensive to acquire, making replanting more profitable. Also, there's nothing stopping "conscious" people from forming a fund to buy up this "cheap" land for preservation. I think that's great if people want to do that, but it's wrong to impose those values on everyone via conservation policy & the taxes that pay for it.