Is fertility rate decline an existential risk to our civilization?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2024
- Are we facing a Population collapse?
Can the decline in fertility rate lead to extinction?
Since the 1970s' many books and movies warned the public the one of the biggest issue our planet face is overpopulation. ( #Soylent Green)
But in recent years humanity faced a sharp decline in fertility rate that may change the trajectory of human population growth in the future, and may lead to a population collapse. (Children of Men)
The danger of population collapse was brought to public attention by Elon Musk, Jack Ma and others.
In this video we will review the statistics and evaluate if decline in fertility rate may bring us a population collapse and is it indeed an existential risk.
Ways to support my channel:
Buy my book Escape Velocity: hwww.amazon.com/gp/product/B07...
My Amazon Author page: amazon.com/author/ronfriedman
Pi Coin : minepi.com/raanans
Quora, Sci and Sci Fi: sciandscifi.quora.com/
Quora, Spacefaring Civilization: spacefaringcivilization.quora...
To register to my newsletter: ronsfriedman.wordpress.com/su...
My Website:
ronsfriedman.wordpress.com/
Tags: #Collapse #Musk #Civilization - Věda a technologie
![[Vowel]물고기는 물에서 살아야 해🐟🤣Fish have to live in the water #funny](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3G9MH063Cx4/mqdefault.jpg)
Interestingly India's fertility rate has fallen to 2 (below replacement level) and will probably continue to fall rapidly as the current generation is so paranoid about overpopulation that they are simply refusing to have any children at all. Our education system from 70s and 80s have created such a fear of overpopulation that most are still demanding population control bills even though tfr is already falling rapidly.
Agreed.
Indians see the ill effects of having a large population, all around them, all the time.
For real bro. Our whole economics syllabus is about how our economy is bad because there are too many people.
@@amithrichard6979 Really? I have a university degree in Economics, and that's not what I studied. So, for sure, 100%, this is NOT our whole economics syllabus.
I'm aware such books exist, I even mentioned the Malthusian theory in the video, I just didn't study them as part of my Economics degree.
This theory had been proven wrong, repeatedly.
It's only due to work pressure, high inflation , high unemployment rate, and less farm income....
People will be astounded at how much people paid for real estate in 2022. This may be the peak.
We may still have a couple of decade before the population start to shrink.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 Outside Africa it is already happening. In the US, in particular, our native-born population has decreased every decade since 1970 - 50 years of shrinkage. We have prospered by attracting educated and skilled immigrants, particularly from Asia. If not for continuing immigration we would have barely 200 million Americans.
The promise of opportunity is not empty, either. My financial advisor's parents immigrated from India almost 50 years ago. His mother's savings lost half their value in 1987 during the stock crash, which spurred him to pursue finance. Today he manages just short of $200 million and his mother is financially secure.
@@flagmichael Yeah and people do not see that. another factor on this equation is that many countries actually do not have the real number of their population. I can tell that many countries have a huge chunck of its population being dual citzenship or more, and in many countries it is not easy to identify the deaths specially when there is a pension system in place where many families keep their death in secret to withdraw their pension.
You're basing this on if the trend continues unabated. The population reducing is, likely, a good thing temporarily considering we have 7+ billion humans...
That is correct. I based this video on the trend from the last 20 years.
This video is a warning of what may happen if this trend continues. I hope it won't.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 Why do you want a huge human population? Why do you want to see other species sent to extinction? Are you a property developer or something? Your religious faith in technology is scary.
@@chriswatson1698 I'm not a property developer. I work in I.T. and I'm a science fiction writer who thinks a lot about our future.
How on Earth did you get to the conclusion that I want to see other species sent to extinction? I NEVER said that.
The opposite is true. In 5 billion years the Sun will expand into a Red Giant and will swallow Earth. But long before that, when the Sun begin to expand, all the oceans will boil and all lifeforms on Earth will be sent to extinction. But, if we'll have a large thriving creative pro-science technology-optimist humanist population, then we'll have a chance to become a spacefaring civilization and then we will be able to save many lifeforms from extinction. (Think Star Trek)
Make life multiplanetary want life to become extinct.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 The history of human population expansion is the history of the extinction of other species. Do you honestly think that humans can keep multiplying WITHOUT sending other species to extinction? The rain forests and all the species that depend on them, except humans, are being destroyed to provide agricultural land for food for more humans.
Your faith in technology is ridiculous.
We can save other lifeforms from extinction NOW. After 5 billion years of human expansion there won't be any lifeforms on earth to move to another planet.
@@chriswatson1698 With technologies like clean abundance renewable energy, recycling, preservation, genetic revolution, AI, robotics and space exploration, we can reverse climate change and thrive in large numbers without destroying more habitats. And perhaps we can even bring species back from extinction.
I'm a humanist. I honestly think a thriving humanity is the best way save Terran lifeforms total doom. In the long run, we are our biosphere's best chance.
If I'm not mistaken, and please correct me if I'm wrong, and I apologize in advance if I am - you are an anti-humanist. You suggests, if I read you correctly, to shirk human population and abolish / ban science and technology to pre-industrial age (or to pre-agriculture age / stone age.) In my opinion, the anti-humanist agenda is not a good idea.
I hope I didn't anger you with this open discussion.
Fertility rates can always stabilize at 2 in the future.
Correct
No
2.1, which compensates for mortality before reaching reproductive age and for infertility.
They won't... It will be a demographic problem. Meaning some demographics like blacks and Arabs will maintain high birth rates while white people will steadily disappear. This is why you have a return in neo Nazi ideology like the great replacement theory because they think the other races will eventually replace them.
I do not see a problem here, the biggest alarm bells are being rung by those who wish to push the ponzi scheme of economic growth a little further, and desire more consumer debt chattel, as well as competition to keep labor cheap, to centralize wealth.
The problem here is that if birth rate will permanently be below replacement level, humanity will become extinct.
The remaining flora and fauna will be grateful, humanity is overrated.
Boom, you hit the nail on the head!
Humans became the dominant species because we were able to adapt and solve problems. We don't sit in the dirt and wait to die. Even the near future is unpredictable. In 1950, Venezuela was the 4th richest nation on Earth. Twenty years ago many were certain oil and gas would be running out shortly. Who would have dreamed that the LED bulb would save more energy than any other device? Or who saw the miniaturization and incredible efficiency of machines? Timelines hundreds of year in the future are useless - they will have amassed so much knowledge that their focus will be on things we cannot imagine.
Agreed. We don't sit in the dirt and wait to die. But in order to solve a problem, we first need to be aware there is a problem that need addressing. Hence, this video.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 I agree. But with YT and Doom Porn dominating the web, we all know about every existential problem that did, does and will ever exist. LOL
Population of Japan is decreasing, but population of Tokyo is increasing. Isn’t that the future? Total numbers decreasing, but urbanization increasing, and cities continuing to grow.
I don't know. If more people will be able to work from home remotely, this trend may change.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 I’d say big cities are obsolete
Japanese culture is disapearing, all rural and regional traditions and folklore are being pasteurized by Tokyo...
Since WWII, the world's human population has tripled and our earth is not coping with human consumption and human waste, Our earth cannot cope with another billion people.
A baby is two dependents: the child and an adult to supervise the child. In the family in which I grew up, there was one worker/taxpayer to five dependents and three of us went on to tertiary education.
At the present there aren't enough resources for everyone. There is mass migration from Africa and the Middle East, where the people have continued to breed like rabbits, into western countries which have restrained their reproduction.
Thank you for sharing your view. People with different views can exchange ideas in a civilized manner. Here is mine:
Earth's ability to cope is a function of technology and not a fixed number.
Earth with bronze age agriculture can cope better than stone-aged hunter-gatherers technology, by at least a factor of 10.
Industrial age Earth with tractors, irrigation, fertilizers and recycling can sustain a lot more. In fact, today we have less starvation than in any time in history... despite the fact that human population is 50x of what it was 2000 years ago.
And future technologies including abundant renewable energy, genetic engineering, AI, robotics and advanced recycling may allow Earth to sustain a population of a trillion people.
According to the current trend human population won't reach 9 billion. Regardless, here is a video where someone did the math how the Earth can sustain a trillion people: czcams.com/video/8lJJ_QqIVnc/video.html
I think that our current civilization has only one possible way of remaining prospering and that is to expand to a new land and resources. In other words to colonize other planets 🪐 and use Earth resources more effectively. Colonizers will naturally reproduce more on a new empty land. If we fail to do that in time, our civilization is going to collapse, but that collapse will increase the fertility rate back to high preindustrial levels.
Thank you. I agree with you 100%.
If interested, you can join my Spacefaring Civilization space on Quora. (Link in the video's description). That space is focus on this topic.
I disagree. If we can't take of ourselves ... as far as our health -- eating healthier foods, creating better medicines, creating more and better doctors (without saddling them with so much debt) -- as far as our people -- not having so much poverty, not having too much "have's" and have not's", taking care of our elderly better, taking care of infirm, addicts, and mentally ill better -- and as far as our planet, our ecosystem goes -- planets, animals, soil, water, ozone layer, pollution, contamination, and so on ... what makes you believe we would survive too well on a brand new planet with no infrastructure or other problems already present.
Chances are high we will mess up ourselves and that planet just the same.
@@meierlinksd4996 As I have written, if we fail to colonize in time, our civilization is going to collapse. That of course can happen and we wouldn’t be the first civilization to end this way. But we cannot surrender in advance, our great-great…-grandparents a few centuries ago, were able to sail years on a tiny wooden ships without any modern medicine or technology and colonize the Americas, Australia etc.
"Only one way of remaining prosperous" Not so. Observe that China raised nearly a billion people out of poverty by limiting its fertility. Children are very dependent. To avoid a high dependency ratio, have fewer children.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 Climate Change involves the eradication of the problem causing Humans. Most Scientists know this, and it's a really big deal. Maybe the Biggest, ever?
The really significant advances in technology were achieved when the world's population was a third or less of its present size: the steam engine, the internal combustion, diesel and jet engines, powered flight, antibiotics, sewerage disposal networks, telecommunications. electricity generators and distribution and many of the appliances that use electricity. We don't need a big human population to get innovation.
Again, I have to disagree with you.
Your idea that a small population is expected to innovate more than a large population doesn't make any sense to me at all. I mean, it could theoretically happen if the large population is being repressed. But given identical conditions, a larger population is likely to innovate more than a smaller one.
Today we have more innovation than ever. In the last four decades we had the PC, the internet and the cell phones. In the next decade, the big upcoming technology revolution will including AI, Energy Storage, Blockchain, Robotics and Gene Sequencing. Combined together, those technologies will have an even bigger impact than steam engine and electricity.
www.zdnet.com/article/ark-invest-big-ideas-2022/
True we need high iq for that
You couldn't be more wrong, the biggest advances in technology tend to come from the places with more people, Britain in 19th century, Germany, Japan, USA, Soviet Union, also innovation is much quick today and science is able to discover more in less time, see the vacines against covid for example, or the quantity of planets we are able to discover each year, or even how our computing power has been improved by new technologies that make it possible to reduce transistors to 5nm when ten years before we were using 45nm...
@@diegonatan6301 My post is NOT incorrect. It refers to the world population not individual countries. And the countries with the biggest populations in the late 19th, early 20th century, were India and China.
Innovation in the present day is assisted by the worldwide communication networks that allow cooperation between scientists located in different places in the world.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 All the countries with a raw fertility rate greater than 3 are poor. All of them. 100%. So you feel that copying the poor countries are the way to advance our technology and economy? If so I know some drug addicts who are poor and you can just copy them.
What year do you think world population will start shrinking
We already experience aging population.
My personal thought is that unless the trend change or modern medicine will find a way to dramatically increase live expectancy, global human population may start to shrink after 2050.
The UN is estimating in the early 2100s. It should be very nearly neutral by 2100.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 before id say the in the west its accelerating, people seem to think humans are basically an evil upon the planet, which is in my opinion evil itself. id say 2035.
I spent several years in a rural area of the Mojave desert and watched the rain cycle which is several years long. There would be very dry conditions so very little grass or wildflowers in the spring for several years in a row then we would get a wet year and the desert would surprisingly turn green then multicolored as the wild flowers would bloom. This was feed for the rabbits and ground squirrels so their populations would boom. The next year would still be wetter than average so the ground squirrels and rabbits would be running everywhere only now the coyote population would boom. We might even see a mountain lion.
The next year would be below average and for the next several years rainfall would be below average so the populations would die back to nothing.
Humans have a similar cycle. Farmers need lots of children to work on the farm and because infant mortality was high many children guaranteed some would survive to take care of the parents in old age.
As technology develops and fewer farmers are needed to produce food the farmers move to the city to work in the factories. Children now are an expensive hobby so families shrink from many children to less than 2 kids per couple.
We are now at the point where population of many countries will decline. If we manage not to have a world war the process will reach a low point and the desire for large families may return again.
If we have a world war and irradiate the planet we will have a collapse of technology and return to subsistence agriculture where large families are desirable again.
I think it is likely that it takes a large (several billion) population for technology to develop. cheap and abundant food supports a growing population and people work hard to make new stuff and cheaper stuff to profit from by selling to their neighbors. This works well in a growing population but will have unknown effect in a declining population. we will have to watch Japan and China as they are leading the way in the demographic implosion.
Geez, this hurts. 😢 Please check out the Science of Climate Change and learn the 8 billion Humans, many of 'em carnivores, can't survive without "resources", like clean Water and Air. ♡
You cant have continued exponential population growth on a planet with finite resources. It has to slow down at some point if humanity is to have a sustainable future.
That is one of the reasons why we don't want to be confined to only one planet.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 So, having messed up Earth, you want to despoil another planet. What is wrong with a shrinking population? Of course capitalism requires that resources be gobbled up at a faster and faster rate to maintain profits. It is a matter of finding an economic model that does not require ever expanding consumption.
This video is idiotic.
@@chriswatson1698 Constant shrinking population will lead to an economic collapse, and eventually to extinction.
The math is inevitable, at least, according to Chaos Theory (The Logarithmic Map)
@@sciandsci-fi1723 But it wont shrink forever, will it? There will always be some people who want to reproduce. Population increase in itself, is one of the factors that discourage family formation
@@chriswatson1698 if each new generation is smaller than the priviuos generation, eventually, the population will reach 0.
Google the logistic map, and what happens when r < 1.
I believe it will even out. You mention that high fertility rate cultures will advance relatively. In addition there will be an evolutionary pressure. People that tend to have many children will spread their genes a lot more than those who tend to have few children.
I hope so.
The World food supply is so close to the edge that a loss of 10% (Ukraine's contribution) is causing fears of famine. We have managed to avoid a food crisis by farming almost all the arable land in the World and pumping nitrogen into the soils, but this cannot be maintained. We have very little arable land left, and our waters are being poisoned by the fertilizers. I am sorry but preaching eternal growth is crazy. We desperately need to stop the growth of population in the World to give our technology time to catch up.
Out technology has cached up. Today more people die of obesity than of starvation.
Starvation still happen. But when it does the cause is political and not physical or technological. Like in the case you'd mentioned, (the Russia-Ukraine war)
@@sciandsci-fi1723 The point is that we are running close to the edge. It is like playing a game of Russian Roulette. Everything is fine until we blow our brains out. Most people not in plant science and agronomy don't realize how close things have been in the last 50 years. Thanks to the work of Dr. Borlaug we managed to keep the World fed, but it is still really close. We have had no choice but to do really risky things like dependence on genetically homogeneous crops that are very vulnerable to fungal attack in order to maintain the flow of food. In addition, the genetic diversity necessary to maintain the health of our crops is disappearing at a rapid rate. The Ukraine war shows us how close to the edge we are. Yes, this time it is political, but next time it may be fungal and then we will really be in trouble. Lets get away from the edge and quit playing Russian Roulette.
The 2.1 minimum number is not actually effective on keeping the population stable, if you look into developed countries you can see that an average of 17/1000 die before reaching 18 years old. And yet another issue is that the sexes are not balanced, so there are in average 106 males born to every 100 females. So 2.1 is not a real replacement rate even in developed countries, maybe 2.25 would be enough to replace in these countries. if you check developing countries you can see that this number should be around 2.34 children per woman.
I don't dispute your numbers. But most publications, including ones by the UN and OECD, quote the number "roughly 2.1" as a stable replacement level.
By 2050 human population will be 20 billion
If fertility rate decline continues, probably around 9B. After that the number will start shrinking
Not even close. "The UN Population Division report of 2019 projects world population to continue growing, although at a steadily decreasing rate, and to reach 10.9 billion in 2100 with a growth rate at that time of close to zero." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
for the Earth's population to triple in less than 30 years - a generation and a half - is virtually impossible in an increasingly industrial world.
Not possible
@@flagmichael that will never happen
Rubbish!
Voldemort talking about human population
The world's population isn't shrinking fast enough. Species other than humans are endangered. Land is losing fertility. Carbon emissions are still too high.
I agree with the second part. We should add fertilizers and fix carbon emissions .
(For example, switch to solar, wind, hydro geothermal, nuclear and other non-polluting energy sources.)
@@sciandsci-fi1723 Non-renewables are a good thing but the earth has other problems besides climate warming. Pollution and the loss of biodiversity due to the destruction of forests are just as serious.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 "Add fertilizers" Do you know what fertilizer manufacture and distribution and application involves?
@@sciandsci-fi1723 I suggest trying to lower carbon emissions is extremely bad for Earth in the big picture.
A little over 500 million years ago, in the Cambrian period, atmospheric CO2 was estimated to have peaked around 7000 ppm. Today we are barely 6% of that level. What happened? Life. Marine life, especially, which has locked carbon up in carbonates and taken it to the grave in vast amounts, never to feed life on the surface again. (Well, except for when we calcine lime to make cement.) A lot of carbon is more temporarily locked in fossil fuels; we are releasing some of that but can never release it all.
Life on Earth will predictably end in carbon death; all we can do is delay it by releasing carbon. We are near that point - at least far nearer than in olden days - and still trying to hasten the end of life on Earth by burying, or keeping buried, carbon. We can be such shortsighted and selfish creatures.
@@flagmichael In the last few tens of millions of years our biosphere had adjusted to current level of CO2.
I'm not arguing we should go back to 270 ppm as it was before the industrial age. We should stay at 400 ppm or even 500 ppm. But not more. It would be a mistake to experiment with raising it up to extremally high levels.
7000 ppm is deadly. Above 1500ppm is not healthy long term. But even below that, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which will change our climate, which may disrupt our food supply and raise sea level. Most of our cities and infrastructure are near the sea.
Climate Change is our responsibility. Can't raise little Humans in pollution and garbage and expect them to crave Peace and love other Humans, and other animals. Nobody should be Pregnant, now. Nobody.
Nobody get pregnant = extinction.
I'm a humanist. My philosophy: Transition to renewable energy and better recycling - yes. Extinction - no.
if noone was pregnant then humanity would cease to exist, i think what you are saying is basically evil. you realise that the climate changes right? its not going to stay the same ever never has.
Why do you want to replace the population when population is the biggest problem we are facing
Because either way we’re fucked, less people = global recession decades long without end, extinction, instability, war, extreme poverty. More people = increased competition, starvation, global shortages, ecosystems collapse, war, extreme poverty.
Our best option is to keep innovating, find a way to keep the population stable while supporting what we have, humans populated too quickly so we much settle at where we are.
When industry left places like Detroit, people left and therefore less people to buy goods, shops closed due to less people, less shops less jobs, people leave (repeat, repeat, repeat), now Detroit is a shell of what it was, when population declines, people are poorer, more population decline, this is our issue.
When the population increases it means positives like during the 50s to now, the human race has made more technological advances than the rest of human history, man on the moon, internet, smartphones, medical advances, etcetera. When you run out of resources is the issue but they thought we’d run out as far back as 1914 but yet 100 years later an humans are able to innovate more resources and more solutions to problems, if there’s less people, less scientists therefore more problems. This is why I think population decline is terrifying, it’s happening in our life time and there’s no way out of it other than to force women to get pregnant, a dystopia I wouldn’t want to see happen
@@camatzuma as long as we have countries with armies and borders war will not stop, this is something that the whole world should come together to fix, if we let our egos rule by domination and hegemony we are not getting anywhere
@@tejasam1 despite the recent World events, the modern era is seeing the least amount of war in human history, statistically
@@camatzuma Ukraine war got the coverage, war never stopped it's not getting coverage
@@tejasam1
Not in terms of coverage, in terms of statistics I said
Female identity going from childhood into adulthood is by motherhood and at that only with the right man _(and not multiple men either)._ Without that, they are unhappy and it is important to care about that as it is not a desired outcome for them not go into motherhood.
My comment has no hate in it and I do no harm. I am not appalled or afraid, boasting or envying or complaining... Just saying. Psalms23: Giving thanks and praise to the Lord and peace and love.
male identity from childhood to adulthood is by his brain shriveling up, and his balls taking over the thinking process in their stead. like a donkey.
@@a.person1723 Your usage of accounts is showing desperation. You fear the truth and that I am the truth. You are calling me names as "a donkey" having said I am a man so as to then liken me to a donkey, to dehumanise me and to insult my sex and my wisdom and intelligence. That shows you wish to take something from the man's success because it is easier than rising yourself up, and so that is a cop-out as you feel defeated and have given up. There are those who know I have listened to the fact that they wish to go into motherhood they know I can see it is part of their identity. Your approach is to attempt to induce a negative mood from me so as to antagonise a response. This is because you do not like the fact that my comment is positive in identifying the situation. You cannot cope with that. I have said it is important to care about them and your response to this shows your pain as you lash out at me and at them. To attempt to dehumanise a person in the way you did shows a desire to strip part of a person's identity. You have done that because I have shown the sense of loss and tragedy in the loss of female identity, and that truth is too painful for you to accept and so you attempt to strip away at my identity and as such their identity. You are offended by insight and so you attack wise intelligence and use a sexual remark to create negative connotations about balls which is an argument attack on the reproductive system. You would afford yourself all the rules and laws you can conjure up for female social engineering because a remark like that about female reproductive system would be a statement where you cannot take it, and so you would play victim. You see me as a target for attack because you see me as a threat and you feel raw, sore and under attack by the truth. You have attacked boy children as you strike out at male identity from childhood to adulthood. This is a classic example of females competing with children, feeling threatened by their status displacing them.
All I am doing here is describing what you have written. I'm not phased by it and it does not get me down. It just is what it is. BTW, if you apologise, I am not interested in it. I'm not obligated to be interested in that. You've had your chance. I still care about what I have said in my first comment and whatever you say will not affect that one iota. It matters neither here nor there that you protest you have laughed your "god-damn ass off". Nobody believes that for one moment or that you are a happy person when you write that. Laugh of the damned.
You have changed your comments from the first to the second line.
(quote)
_"LMGDAO. you are a man. i can tell."_
(end quote)
You changed it to this second line.
(quote)
_"male identity from childhood to adulthood is by his brain shriveling up, and his balls taking over the thinking process in their stead. like a donkey."_
(end quote)
My first comment has a typo where it should say _"not to go into motherhood"._ Most would figure it out though.
My comment has no hate in it and I do no harm. I am not appalled or afraid, boasting or envying or complaining... Just saying. Psalms23: Giving thanks and praise to the Lord and peace and love.
Praying that population continues to fall. Pray that population goes down at least to a tenth of what it is now. Everything will be better. The earth will breathe a sigh of relief.
If fertility decline trends continues, population will still grow for another 20 years or so, before starting to shrink.
Population collapse will be terrible for humanity. And I'm a humanist.
@@sciandsci-fi1723 Yeah but it will be GREAT for the planet. Humanity sucks.
@@simianwarthog Where did that ridiculous idea ever start? Every organism has exploited the Earth for its own selfish needs since life itself began; that is what Darwin was trying to tell us. Humans are the only ones who have tried to improve the world as a whole. I am tired of this self-centered "everybody but me is a jerk" trash. Grow up and learn.
@@flagmichael You are delusional.
Me too. Everything will be better with less population size. Earth is dying. We need intentional conscious parents.