We could make every human on Earth rich and happy-if we decided to | Agustín Fuentes
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- This interview is an episode from @The-Well, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the @JohnTempletonFoundation.
Subscribe to The Well on CZcams ► bit.ly/thewell-youtube
Watch Agustín Fuentes’s next interview ► • We need a new measure ...
The traditional measure of evolutionary success is a population's ability to continue, adapt and grow. By that measure, humanity has been a huge success: our population is only getting bigger, and for a lot of countries, so is our average life-span.
Biological anthropologist Agustín Fuentes takes issue with this measurement. In his view, the sheer number of humans living on the planet doesn't necessarily equate to success. In fact, the argument that humans are doing better than ever before is problematic, because it only considers a narrow perspective of Euro-American societies, ignoring other vast cultures and populations.
Instead, Fuentes argues, evolutionary success for humans should be measured by our capacity for flourishing, which includes health, security, interaction, and well-being - and importantly, how this flourishing is distributed across our species.
0:00 The overpopulation myth
1:20 Niche construction, explained
4:06 Human nature: Amazing and awful
5:46 The “it’s just nature” myth
Read the video transcript ► bigthink.com/the-well/niche-c...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Agustín Fuentes:
Agustín Fuentes, a Professor of Anthropology at Princeton University, focuses on the biosocial, delving into the entanglement of biological systems with the social and cultural lives of humans, our ancestors, and a few of the other animals with whom humanity shares close relations. Earning his BA/BS in Anthropology and Zoology and his MA and PhD in Anthropology from UC Berkeley, he has conducted research across four continents, multiple species, and two-million years of human history. His current projects include exploring cooperation, creativity, and belief in human evolution, multispecies anthropologies, evolutionary theory and processes, and engaging race and racism. Fuentes’ books include Race, Monogamy, and other lies they told you: busting myths about human nature (U of California), The Creative Spark: how imagination made humans exceptional (Dutton), and Why We Believe: evolution and the human way of being (Yale).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more from The Well:
How saying “me” or “we” changes your psychological response - and the response of other people
► bigthink.com/the-well/pronoun...
Biology’s unsolved chicken-or-egg problem: Where did life come from?
► bigthink.com/the-well/biology...
Why has every postwar generation since the 1950s become less religious?
► bigthink.com/the-well/postwar...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Well
Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life’s biggest questions, and that’s why they’re the questions occupying the world’s brightest minds.
Together, let's learn from them.
Subscribe to the weekly newsletter ► bit.ly/thewellemailsignup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Well on your favorite platforms:
► Facebook: bit.ly/thewellFB
► Instagram: bit.ly/thewellIG
How do you think we can change our way of life to be more prosperous and sustainable?
We could stop trying to control everyone and let the free market do what it has done for years in rich people and make life better just so I'm clear the government is the worst system for bettering things
@@chriscolumbus251 I sort of agree. The best thing the government can do is try to make markets work as well as they can (addressing market failures). Without some regulation, you often see a race to the bottom. Imagine a world without food standards. You would have explosive diarrhoea every time you go to a restaurant.
_"We could make every human on Earth rich and happy-if we decided to"_
But the average human being is simply far more concerned with their own personal wellbeing in life than to be interested in the prosperity and happiness of mankind as a whole.
Wealth distribution, job creation, high quality universal education and healthcare.
I do think population reduction would be a helpful step. The challenge will be in persuading people not to start families.
I also think getting everyone to change their mindset away from conspicuous consumption.
We have real problems but we don't face them or try to solve them. Instead we create problems (that aren't really problems) separate from the real problems and make them the priority and ignore the real problems. The problem is you can't fix fabricated problems, so we spin our wheels to fix something that wasn't a problem in the first place.
Faux problems...we have to get our epistemology in order.
OKAY SIR I GET YOU'RE PROBLEM .. THAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE ONLY PROBLEM BUT WE FABRICATE THE OTHER PROBLEM THAN IT BECOME THE REAL PROBLEM ...
[HENCE PROVED REAL PROBLEM = FABRICATED PROBLEM ] ...
Congrats. You just described the GOP. 😅
Welcome to earth, fellow consumer.
You mean like drag queens, and transgender people? Lmfao
The problem lies in that not every human has the same standard for what being 'rich' and 'happy' means. If someone's expectations are not met, they will use every power in their hands and gain more power to reach their expectations regardless of who it might detriment. Power comes to those who seek it and do everything for it.
Did you know that there are 3 populations that have more psychopaths than the general public? One being prisoners (which makes sense), two being CEOS, and three being politicians.
I agree that if everyone had the same standards for everything, the world would be a very different place. The Bible actually foretold that many people at this time would have very undesirable traits. 2 Timothy 3:1-5 says that people would be “lovers of money, boastful, haughty, not open to any agreement, without self-control, and puffed up with pride” to mention just some of them. It’s these bad attitudes that cause problems for those who want to live peacefully with others. Our Creator tells us in the Bible how he’s going to solve all our problems so that we can live a truly happy life. His heavenly Kingdom government is poised ready to remove all human governments and all ungodly people. (Daniel 2:44; Proverbs 2:21, 22) Only those who live according to God’s standards, which are laid out clearly in the Bible, will be permitted to live on earth. (1 John 2:17) The Kingdom will bring true peace and security to mankind. (Psalm 37:10, 11; Micah 4:4) Everyone will be joyful because the needs of each individual will be lovingly provided for. (Isaiah 65:21, 22; Psalm 72:16) Tears of sorrow will be turned into tears of joy. (Revelation 21:4) These drastic changes are imminent!
@@sandradixon6205 It's better that they don't. Humans are not machines nor slaves, each have their own traits and individuality, goals and beliefs, it's only a question how to accommodate all of them.
You yourself believe through the Bible with traits most undesirable, your beliefs are greatest and most boastful just not of money but of imagery and worship.
Are you quoting Silco?
There may be truth to what you’re saying, but that’s not even close to a valid justification of the millions who live in abject poverty, a problem which could easily be solved if we decided to
Princeton professor makes generic statements about humans and other animals while not addressing the claim made at the start of his discussion.
But he has great hair, so it all pans out.
Most of these videos follow such a similar structure, now that it is brought upon my own attention. Thanks for saving us time, I'll rethink my choices of spending time on consuming pseudo-intellectual content.
Exactly.
He also uses the word "equity" and "equitable" a lot in other videos I've seen him in which indicates he's likely a Woke activist 🤮
I actually thought he did address the claims throughout his discussion unless I am missing something. Our population is seemingly quite high but it's not the size of it that is worrisome but how well us humans can use our creativity and ingenuity in all facets of our lives to make our population growth sustainable. How well can we leverage and/or make breakthroughs in science, technology, economic and social structures to better benefit mankind's growth. We can't continue to act like a virus spreading and mindlessly consuming without seriously thinking about and acting in a sustainable way. We have the capabilities to make this work is what he's saying.
I'm perplexed how a beaver can have a home while I can barely afford to pay my rent 😢
In the old days, you just cut down some trees and built a log cabin for your family.
Because a beaver's home isn't as luxurious as your home
go make a home like a beaver then
Beavers since rejected Capitalism
Neoliberal capitalism, my friend.
Mr. and Ms. Beaver are not into that sort of Ponzi Scheme.
We definitely have to deeply consider our direction, yet in order to do this we have to truly look back & reflect on our faults that we want to separate from. Which becomes more difficult with the amount of distractions we endure. To empower ourselves takes discipline and setting up boundaries against our old ways ❤
When our Creator and his purpose for the earth and mankind are left out of the picture, the situation looks hopeless. God has the only solution to all our problems and he will very shortly make some drastic changes on the earth. His righteous, heavenly Kingdom government is poised to remove all human governments along with all ungodly people. Then it alone will rule the whole earth. (Daniel 2:44; Proverbs 2:21, 22) The Kingdom will undo all the harm caused by selfish, greedy people and will bring true peace and security to mankind. (Psalm 37:10, 11; Micah 4:4) Joy will fill the earth because all the needs of every individual will lovingly be cared for. (Isaiah 65:21, 22; Psalm 72:16) Everyone will live together in harmony with each other, the earth, and all life on it. (Isaiah 11:6-9) Tears of sorrow will be turned into tears of joy! (Revelation 21:4) These drastic changes are imminent!
The real problem is that being a good person isn’t profitable, so those who could do something about it are encouraged to keep exploiting those whose lives they could so easily change for the better
we could always work together to help one another without money, but you guys chose to help out the rich, so i blame all of you for the problem we have in the world today
@@Dave_of_Mordorwhat do you mean “help”? Treating mental illness, poverty, etc takes more than a hug. 🤫 troll
Absolute nonsense. It’s cultural propaganda to say the rich are somehow bad. It’s an envious mindset. I know plenty of thieving, lying, violent poor people and plenty of charitable, smart wise rich people. Humans are humans. Wealth and success should be celebrated. It is their endeavours that end up creating new jobs, technologies, taxes and investments
@@tomhgriff1 No human needs wealth that could feed millions of families. No human requires that to live, especially while others starve.
The argument isn't "rich people bad". It's "richness as a concept is bad."
@@tomhgriff1 exactly this. The poor keep each other poor while the rich help each other out.
Did not addressed the "not overpopulated", just reiterated what is well known.
facts wasted 6mins of my life listening to a dude waffle
Yup I was waiting for the grand reveal of what humans should be doing instead. Like I thought he had a plan lol
Yup
If every human on earth lived to regenerate the soil, as was originally intended for our species (same as earthworms and beavers today), then the planet could likely sustain twice as many of us as currently exist
@@daysue such argument makes zero sense. It is like saying, we have to let the human population increase so that we will have more minds to think of a solution to the problems caused by overpopulation!
The problem is not necessarily how much we consume, but it’s the damaging and unsustainable ways we choose to consume with. We’re currently devouring the biosphere for money, and it’s as if we’ve forgotten that we’re just as much a part of nature as nature is intrinsically us. We need it to survive, hence why a lot of people view our current ‘economic growth’ behaviour as cancerous. If we can find a way to live symbiotically with nature once again with sustainable-large scale energy consumption methods as replacement nobody would claim overpopulation is an issue. The blatant greed of the oil, coal and chemical industries are truly to blame and those CEO’s should be held accountable and forced to right their environmental wrongs on a mass scale as retribution to humanity as a whole. Time is of the essence however…
Fook me in the worse possible position!!!
We are overpopulated, no matter how you consume.
The only sustainable way is not to overpopulate.
If 1 person consume 2000 calories per day = 1000 people in total would consume 2,000,000 calories.
If 1 person consume only 1500 calories per day = 10,000 people in total would consume 15,000,000 calories.
If you half the consumption to 1000 calories per day = 10,000 people in total would consume 10,000,000 calories.
Despite trying to consume sustainably by dropping the consumption, the increase in population increase the total amount.
Now decrease the population to 100 people and increase the consumption to 4000 calories = That's 400,000 calories despite increasing consumption. Its way less than 2,000,000 calories.
The Population number is the determining factor.
@@A.I.-Have you ever heard the commandments of the Georgia guidestones? I’d assume you have. I personally think anyone with a rational mind that truly loves humanity and wants this planet to continue to host us perpetually would admit those are the guidelines we must follow.
There are more effective ways to curb human caused climate disaster than suddenly reducing our population „for the greater good“. For instance learning to participate in food producing systems that practice healing the land. And then educating others how to as well. Instead of focusing on pointing fingers at how many other bad consumers there are we can look inwards and recognise our own power and change how we relate to our food, our soil, our more-than-human community members etc
@@noahfrazier4813 I don’t want punishment for those in power, but rather a strict ultimatum to clean up their act literally and figuratively. If someone is operating a massive industry in which they know they’re damaging the environment, they are subsequently damaging all of us much more than we could ever rectify ourselves individually. I’m referring to the big offenders; those in oil, coal and chemical industries. The CEO’s should be tasked to find sustainable alternatives within a set timeframe before crimes against humanity are imposed as a threat at this point honestly. Of course the intent is for things not to ever escalate to that, but it’s the incentive to no longer be lazy or greedy. In the end they’ll benefit, since there’s only money to be made on a planet which survives.
Yes we need to stop giving those rich and powerful our money and our power. We use their fuel and their electricity every day. And it makes us more dependent on them and them more profit. The economic markets scar the earth and there is no alternative market for us to participate in yet. How can we opt out of the damaging capitalistic industrial-complex we’ve been birthed into? How can we create new and more mutually beneficial markets for all participants? Must we spend our time punishing perpetrators or can we simply stop feeding them and find other places to give ourselves to? I don’t have an answer only questions and foggily good intentions 😶🌫️
The last part of the video " The "it's just nature" myth ". That is everything. This is what I keep trying to make people understand, because understanding that very very well becomes almost a superpower, an extremely powerful tool to change the world into thriving on happiness, wealth, wellbeing, something like we've never seen and felt before, something so brilliant an amazing to experience, to live and tell and it is not out of reach at all. It's just right there, just one move away, one decision away, one information away, one discussion away. It's right there waiting for us if we want to give it all the major high above importance that it deserves. I wish I could make everyone but mostly important powerful people and organizations see it and feel, it would change everything, it would change billions of people's life, and litteraly the future, the future history of earth, of humanity. Everything. I'd like us to achieve a constant great nation of peace, respect, care and wellness for all and pass it along in our culture and education and everything we are and everything we do. To become all that makes it " Our Nature" .
That's the dream right there. A cohesive, mutually supportive and thriving humanity, interacting with and respecting the natural world that it is itself part of, growing with it as two parts of a whole. We already produce enough resources, and already possess the infrastructure to distribute them, in order to make this vision come true for every human on Earth. This is both the happiest and saddest thought.
What are you saying? You talk about this thing but never mention what it is
As soon as all humans have what they want, after a while, they get used to it and start to want other things that they can't get.
"What does scarcity mean? It means that what everybody wants adds up to more than there is." -Thomas Sowell
Don't go for the carrot on the stick.
Very true. We have standards of living today that kings could have dreamed of. So much power, knowledge, technology, safety, and money, yet the average person forsakes all of them simply because others have more.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 Its just envy and greed at that point. Bad traits to promote for society usually. Especially at the cost of others.
And what, we should simply stop striving to improve? That's basically a huge part of life, to keep moving forward, keep developing, keep learning.
I hate when people say that "this is just how it is" or "that's how it works", when it comes to unfairness and immoral situations. "Well, maybe it shouldn't be that way then" is a perfectly good answer to that, because people said that "this is how it things work" when it came to slavery, not having a universal votingsystem and womens rights etc. We have the power and the possibility to change our ways.
That is how they justify their insane greed and plundering of the world with all the for profit wars and sanctioning to starvation all who oppose them.
The absence of earthworms results in a slow decomposition of fallen leaves, leading to the formation of a spongy organic layer called "duff." This layer serves as a natural growing environment for woodland wildflowers and provides shelter for ground-dwelling animals while preventing soil erosion. However, invasive earthworms consume the leaves that form the duff layer and can completely eradicate it, leading to the death of young seedlings, ferns, and wildflowers. In agricultural settings, earthworm castings can contribute to erosion along irrigation ditches. Similarly, earthworm burrows in urban areas can cause unevenness in lawns.
Uneven lawns! The absolute horror!
Explain to me how earthworms are invasive please? Or are you an idiot that thinks he knows better than mother nature does?
A contemporary question could be within the usage or direction of that human capacity. Its asking a big questions within the context of globalization what is our purpose? What are we doing here, what can we do here and there and everywhere in the stars. This is thrilling, particularly considering what is presently happening with no vision of a future because there is both a perceived and manufactured sense of impending doom.
I believe there are billions of great ideas out there to overcome life related issues. Problem is communicating them. 😊
Thank you, what a fresh perspective to look at the world, a pragmatic and optimistic one. The video was one of those which reduces anxiety unlike most other content in today's world, this reallly made me feel enthusiatic over the subject, would love to learn more.
The generation that’s been in charge, the “boomers” (colloquially..I’m in my 30’s for reference) grew up with and had instilled in them an unfortunate and antiquated mixture of religion and greed. We are not some special, bespoke species that is “other” than beavers, bugs or trees. It’s their planet as well. And the pursuit of money shouldn’t be the ultimate aim of our energy and intellect. Sure, since we need money to live comfortably, and we’re so entrenched in that system I don’t believe it will change, then having some isn’t bad. But needing more and more of it just to make it, with the people who have the most of it changing it’s value, and what it gets you, as it fits them needs to stop. We even classify fellow humans’ worthiness as people based on how much money they have, and many live their whole lives engaging in activity that depresses them just so they can provide for their families. How many great artists or brilliant thinkers were lost to history because it was “safer” to sell insurance or be in middle management so their kids could maybe live a better life, only to fall in the same trap. Sorry to rant but the state of being we’ve collectively both, almost paradoxically, brought upon ourselves and been key-holed into could use, I don’t know, a total dismantling. So much potential and happiness is lost to the rat race, and so much of our planet is taken for granted because we, at least in the West, have come to believe we were put in this world by some omnipotent force, instead of the seemingly obvious fact we are actually of it.
This.
Good points all. Yet we don't need money to live comfortably. Money is a transactional human construct. It wasn't so much designed for transactions as it was to coalesce power in the hands of those who control societies. Perhaps Mr. Robot was on the right track...
Well said Sayes
This guy thinks we're just another animal and that religion is an antiquated notion.
How has society been coming along since we kicked God out? Have you looked at the state of major cities? Is it better under millennials than it was under boomers? Absolutely not!
I posite that we are made in the likeness and image of God, our creator. That's why we're the only creatures on earth that actually become more capable as time moves on.
Wolves, beavers, sharks, porpoises, birds, fish, and insects have not improved their methods of survival in the last 10,000 years. We went from making fire to accomplishing mind-boggling complex feats in that period, especially over the last 100 yrs.
Likeness and images - bitches! Likeness and image!
Proff mentioned about questioning the sustainability and ecological niche,and think about technology and biologically at the same time..just believe me all this boils down to one answer # sanatan...it answers the question how human nature (perception and views and use of every living object(flora,fauna,)/nonliving object affects the environment's(planets) nature.they had the sustainable answer
Many people don't necessarily desire to be monitarily rich. They'd like enough money to feel secure in their future, to have a nice place to live, healthy food, adequate health care, and enough discretionary funds to take vacations and engage in their hobbies. Nobody I know wants extravagant yachts worth 10s or even 100s of millions, or sprawling mansions, or any of the outrageous trappings of current wealthy individuals.
takeaway quote, "There's never just nature. It's always history, and politics, culture, and experience, biology, and bodies, and brains, and hormones and diets, all mixed together. So anyone that says, 'things are the way they are because of human nature', doesn't know what human nature is."
It's never "just" human nature, but everything in human society since the dawn of time is underpinned by our nature as a species. Violence, for example, is a part of what we are biologically - social primates that evolved into highly specialized pursuit predators. Our closest primate relatives are all violent and no human society has ever been able to rid itself of violence, which means it's an element of our nature. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it, but anyone who claims it's not significantly rooted in biology is deluding themselves.
@@zibbitybibbitybop your Comment is a whole lot of nonsense. And you contradict yourself. Also, maybe you’re just obsessed violence. I mean weird example u picked. Because humans are not violent “biologically”. 🙄
@@newagain9964 there's no day without night and there is no peace without violence. Get your head out of your ass 😂
@@newagain9964 yes, violence has a biological aspect, as well as many others. I doubt there's evidence to the contrary.
He has the title of "professor", but he danced around the queston of overpopulation like a politician.
I was SMH.
He was more interested in talking about feelings rather than facts/numbers.
===
If 1 person consume 2000 calories per day = 1000 people in total would consume 2,000,000 calories.
If 1 person consume only 1500 calories per day = 10,000 people in total would consume 15,000,000 calories.
If you half the consumption to 1000 calories per day = 10,000 people in total would consume 10,000,000 calories.
Despite trying to consume sustainably by dropping the consumption, the increase in population increase the total amount.
Now decrease the population to 100 people and increase the consumption to 4000 calories = That's 400,000 calories despite increasing consumption. Its way less than 2,000,000 calories.
The Population number is the determining factor.
Same feeling, and it’s the same in his other videos
@@A.I.-this is a stupid argument because, we can just make more space by going to the stars and building O’Neil cylinders and other megastructures - that solves the population problem through and through.
Carrying capacity is only limited by how efficient your technology is - this is a technological problem, not a population problem.
It's a fair point that it doesn't address overpopulation with data and specifics. In fairness to Fuentes, this is a clip from a longer interview; he may not have intended that as the central thesis. We have updated the thumbnail so it doesn't focus as much on overpopulation.
Here's a video we did a few years ago with Bill Nye that more directly answers the question of overpopulation and whether it's a problem: czcams.com/video/7NcfqRYqXOo/video.html
The tl;dw is 1) population growth is slowing and expected to peak and decline. 2) Human sustainability isn't as much a function of population as it is consumption. Human bodies don't have much environmental impact; it's the energy we use (and specifically, the combustion used to create it); it's the land we use to live our lifestyles, etc. A family of five in Niger could easily have less impact than a single well-off American. So pivoting to make humanity sustainable isn't a function of reducing humanity's absolute numbers (even setting aside the glaring ethical question of how that could be accomplished), but enabling people to live good lives without consuming unsustainable amounts of resources. Fortunately, we are making strides in this direction and it's certainly possible to, but getting to that point still presents a big challenge.
Overpopulation is a myth. Check out birth gap documentary by Stephen J Shaw
Ya but how? It's easy to point out mankind's ability to do better. But judging from our behavior during the last centuries, why would we? And if we wanted to drastically alter all our behavior, the "how to make that happen" would be the more interesting video topic.
exactly by starting where we are right now. Speaking about it, discussing it and not shoving it aside.
This quote 5:14
"What we can do is think technologically, biologically, ecologically, and ask questions about sustainability. And maybe to do this, we might want to listen to peoples around the planet, who are not the major contributors to the problems. It's just that we've been trying one system, a particular mode of economics and technology, and yeah, it's sort of gotten us into a bad place."
Emphasis on "we might want to listen to the people around the planet, WHO ARE NOT the major contributors to the problem. i.e., lobbyist for fossil fuel companies, politicians who are just celebrities in suits, billionaires who could easily setup more foundations around the world like schools, farming, housing but throw those billions to 1 yacht the price of more than a few countries entire GDP's combined while they have half a billion worth of properties that sit empty in some of the most habitable places in the world. All while others live and suffer in towns that are THE entire mining companies and steel companies' grounds, that pollute and mistreat their workers to the point of generational death and disorder and create insane environmental damage instead of those profits recirculating throughout the damn company itself to avoid all of those aforementioned problems, you know problems that can be SOLVED quite easily.. Get it now?
Conversations that ask the right questions instead of creating more problems that don't exist to detract away from the issues we can actually solve.
Dude says we're not overpopulated and then says "we reshape the world in a pace and pattern nothing else does." Dude, we do that to accommodate overpopulation lol
Edit: They changed the name of the video
The fact we were able to get this far in human evolution without the internet gives me hope that now we can move forwards to a collaborative solution to taking into consideration all populations. If we don‘t drown in a wifi wave of misinformation first. Maybe we will be able to move fast enough and mindfully enough to collectively problem solve our current global dilemmas
I thought the point was that we exhaust the planet of its resources to accomodate our population and therefore mismanage our resources, which leads to unequal or little sustainability, instead of adjusting our surroundings and lifestyle in a productive way that makes our environment even more fruitful than before or at least doesn't cut into it as much. Living with the ecosystem, not from it.
thank you, now i understand what is the video about, because i did not see the connection between the vid and title after watching. in my simple mind, i expected some stastistics
this is a stupid argument because, we can just make more space by going to the stars and building O’Neil cylinders and other megastructures - that solves the population problem through and through.
Carrying capacity is only limited by how efficient your technology is - this is a technological problem, not a population problem.
@@mnrvaprjct Believing we're going to live on other planets is a trance induced by stupid Hollywood sci-fi films, not a practical approach to logistics. Meanwhile, we're using up the ability of Earth to support life, distracted by baubles and celebrities and conflicts.
We're ruled by monsters. Let's address that.
By living it simple without distractions i.e living in peace & harmony well control, well balanced, being conscious of our actions with anything & everything in nature including ourselves!
Ultimately, we can strive to create a world where everyone is treated with respect, kindness, and compassion, and where individuals have the freedom and opportunity to pursue their goals and dreams.
God bless ' ❤🙏
People want to much unnecessary things. To much from everything.
We can live more sober.
🌎
We need to both lessen our negative impacts on the environment and simultaneously increase our positive impacts. Humans evolutionarily fulfill a niche requirement in the ecosystem and our participation is a much needed component on a balanced food web. Nature missed us and wants us to remember our role
@@noahfrazier4813 I think the ecosystem would be just fine without us.
@@rehtaeh It will readily turn us into topsoil in the blink of a geological eye.
@@rehtaeh I'm gonna assume your one of the "hUmaNs aRE vERy BAd"people but the truth is if we didn't use fossil fuels and plastics and all those other shit we won't be here at all those things were very essential for us and also the Amazon tribe or smtg is responsible for maybe a huge portion of land into forests without their help that part of the land was lifeless so humans have done good things also
@@noahfrazier4813veganism is the most important factor for the welfare of animals/environment
The solutions to our world's problems always begin within.
We can't change the world unless we change ourselves.
If we want to see peace in the world, we must become peace.
If we want to see understanding, we must become understanding.
If we want to see empathetic connection, we must ourselves become empathetic.
Agreed. If we all start coming from a place of love and compassion - things will get better.
@@rowaine9379peace begins at table go vegan
If we want a grilled cheese sandwich, we must purchase bread, cheese, and butter. There are a lot of people who can't figure out that simple thing. Living in peace and love? Fuhgettaboutit.
@@kristopherloviska9042 probably the most ignorant answer to the most insane holocaust taking place for centuries
Kind of hard to do when there are people out there who need to feel better than everyone else in order to feel like life is worth living. Those are the kinds of people making life next to impossible for the majority.
There will always be those that wish to possess more than they need, or deserve.
That's why capitalism has worked so much better than the failed attempts at utopias, it plays into people's greed
Isn't this how we should all be? That is how we evolve.
We could make every human's basic necessities be met without a problem. But that is no guarantee of happiness.
Not a guarantee but an immense start
Well meeting basic needs gives people a chance for being happy. There is only death without food, water and shelter
I have autism, ADHD, dpression and generalize anxiety. my life has more or less been a slow decent into absolute burnout because i can barely stand to give away 5/7ths of my life to a boss that is objectively stupider than i am who just wants me to be an underpaid yes man. ive learned to be a very frugal survivalist and honestly im not even asking to be rich. I just want to be able to afford a studio apartment, healthcare, a cat, basic necessities and the ability to save up money to spend on bettering myself (fitness, education etc) without having to work two jobs and suffer from severe health problems tied to celestial levels of cortisol. In a reasonable society i could do all of that for around 2000$ usd where i live. far from rich.
Good luck
@@88HaZZarD88 im already like 75% there i just wont be able to retire and the moment i have a health problem ill slip into abject poverty because thats how we roll in america.
@@Rooftopaccessorizer
I'am sorry to hear that.
I'am from Italy, we have a welfare system but it is about to collapse due to the demographic and other problems
I have a hypothesis (although it may be incorrect)
I believe that an unnoticed war is occurring within society:
Autism Vs. Psychopathy.
Psychopaths utilize deceit to manipulate individuals and therefore oppose those with Autism, as those on the spectrum typically value truth and possess the ability to detach themselves from social norms and perceive society objectively, enabling them to see through false narratives.
I think at least some of the problems you listed would be solved if we win this war for truth
@@88HaZZarD88 due to demographic or democrats? cause idk about italy, but america is the way it is 100% because of conservative values and the way they pander to the rich. if you are on wellfare you arent allowed to save more than 2000$ which effectly traps people in the welfare system because theyre legally barred from procuring the funds necessary to make the jump from social services to self sufficiency. also becuase of conservatism, we refuse to spend any resources on actually rehabilitating and supporting vulerable populations, so ironically, measures meant to reduce public costs on wellfare, actually balloon them over time because very few people are able to escape wellfare once theyre on it.
so rad and true, I loved this video. Work with the earth, not just take it over for money and ego.....Big up Life my friend!
Raising human consciousness helps people find happiness where they had never imagined possible: in a certain way to breath, in being so full of the experience of love that any fear vanishes, in hearing a certain sound. This will naturally make us want to destroy the planet much less. Yoga, meditation, devotion and several other things can get us there. I speak from experience
Very well said sir. I'm glad you focused more on the title of the video, not on overpopulation since it's not the main topic and you've already stated there that it isn't the problem. Not sure why some people here wanted more explanation about it. 🤷🏾♂️
More like "Blah" for 5 minutes and then one sentence of relevance.
Dude...we are just overpopulated, and not because of the number of people, but because about what those people consume and discard in different life dimensions. So summarized: we are.
🎯🎯🎯
yeah but it's because Africans are having way too many babies.
I would argue that the concept of overpopulation is a complex issue that cannot be solely attributed to waste produced by people.
While waste management is an important concern for the planet's health, it is not the root cause of overpopulation. The problem of overpopulation stems from systemic issues such as unequal access to resources, a lack of education and access to contraception, and a capitalist economic system that prioritizes profit over people and the environment.
In fact, waste production and environmental degradation are often symptoms of larger social and economic problems, including poverty and inequality, that are exacerbated by capitalism and imperialism. Many of the world's poorest people live in areas with the highest levels of environmental pollution and waste, which is a result of exploitation by multinational corporations and other powerful interests.
Furthermore, the notion of overpopulation often assumes that population growth is inherently bad, ignoring the fact that people are not simply passive consumers of resources, but can also be active agents of change. Many people, especially those in marginalized communities, have valuable knowledge and skills that can be used to address environmental issues and promote sustainable development.
@@yoshi_drinks_tea well said!
Per capita consumption is far far higher in the west than the global south
I think it’s safe to say we were all wanting an excel spreadsheet of “this is where resources are going, this is where they should be going.” I think it’s also accurate to say that people in power don’t want that transparency and the average person doesn’t want to admit they might be part of the problem.
This is basically the first steps of becoming Jacques Fresco. And conceiving of something like The Venus Project.
The bigger question is: how do we get people to even care?
Ppl do care. However, our society doesn’t incentivize caring.
People do care. Humanity is living the best time ever yet some people think otherwise lol
The more important question is how do we get our megalomaniac billionaires leaders to care about ANYTHING other than profits and asking more for themselves.
I disagree with the general consensus of this comment section. I think his point is that the only reason overpopulation is a problem is because people are being immoral; the more immoral people there are, the worse will be the affect. The concept that there are too many people assumes that humans inherently damage the environment, and is far too much of a simple solution to humanity’s problems. What we really need is a profound moral change and social transformation to occur at every level of society. When human beings are working for the betterment of the world, more people is good. When they are only thinking of themselves, more people is bad.
Thank you for sharing.
So niche is either nature affecting the earth, or nature affecting itself, bodies and hopes and dreams, and somethings that aren’t even there, like ideas. This niche backflow covers just about everything under the sun, I guess? What a great little word. Niche.
Got it we'll all become beavers! One thing that worries me is it's great how readily available items are to purchase and be delivered promptly within a few days, compared to weeks or months, convenience is cool but what about the environment? Consumption fuels such a model, but no doubt it drains resources which maybe shouldn't have been used in the first place. What to do?
We are overpopulated. It is true. And it doesn't take someone from Princeton to realize that.
Tell that we aren't to the over farmed animals, fish, trees felled and ecosystems destroyed. Tell that to all the extinct species that were around for hundred thousands or millions of years gone because of us. Tell that to every polluted stream, lake, ocean and reef. I agree with you, we do need a better form of society but the overall root problem is limited resources and the destruction of ecosystems due to our over abundant existence.
More carbon in the atmosphere will allow more resources.
Other species also make other species extinct bro.
Not only humans.
Overfarming,Pollution etc are greed and neglect not overpopulation.
We are overconsuming and overproducing not overpopulated
@@24killsequalMOAB More water on the planet will allow for more resources, let's rise the sea levels then
@@rizizum tell me which resource is gated exclusively by Hydrogen and Oxygen
Poor & unhappy people are the business for some rich people.
Someone has to go to jail so guards can have jobs.
We had what we needed here ; from 1937 thru 1979.
A political structure directed by the majority....thee most important majority -- workers.
It was vibrant, intuitive, responsive.
Change was accelerating at a pace that created a GOLDEN AGE for our partners, our allies. And US.
Then disaster struck.
Competition is the core issue. That begins with competition for mates. The competition for mates fuels all the other competitions outside of healthy competitions such as sports. Only when the mate selection process is fully inclusive and the hierarchies are very flat will humanity have any interest in mutual actualization. In effect, once we choose an abundance mindset where all those who lack will be given access to all they lack, then we can create paradise.
We must take care of nature
You must take care of people... Because it is people who take care of nature. If people are starving and desperate they do not care about nature only where their next meal is coming from.
We are nature, an integral part of the whole. Most humans do not realize this unfortunately.
@@capnceltblood5347as if 99% humans ain't responsible for murder of 60 billion land animals and trillions of marine animals every year for a burger . Go vegan , care for those people who care for the most oppressed beings
@@mpv9866we are the worst virus this earth could ever be exposed to, we don't do anything for nature/animals rather than torture and exploitation. Go vegan
Niches are possible with human ingenuity. And that ingenuity has already been applied to the system's sustainability problems.
The problem i keep seeing is two things: defection in Game Theory (where one wins at the cost of others) and Capitalism (which rewards defection).
If profit weren't the motive, but instead social good, or planet age societies would transform in a couple of years. But we're painted into a corner between feeding ourselves and destroying or doing good and suffering greatly at the sword of profits for it.
Capitalism creates a no-win situation as it matures. I'm the beginning, it's great! But after a while, it sucks.
I believe that what I state bellow summarizes and expands upon what I think is his point. Though his is not as directly presented. Likely due to the fact that this is clearly not one contiguous expression and is a BigThink CZcams production team video cut up of a longer form interview. I do also think he would agree with the thoughts I express.
As simply as I am able to put it. Human beings and what we call consciousness are at this point a force of nature in and of ourselves, that is to say we are capable of the most profound destructive and deconstructive power the world has ever known, as well as the most prolific creative and preservative power.
We are our own double edged sword…
If we change the way we operate as a total whole, by conscious orientation of that power. Overpopulation, poverty, global climate challenges (all of which we have brought upon ourselves through negligence relative to our own power) and for that matter any other challenges we face as a group can be overcome through human creativity, innovation and progression. Same powerful capabilities put to more sustainable, responsible and ergo more effective use.
Specifically when we choose to aim ourselves at sustainable and responsible modes of operation that emulate methods that are used by other species and cultures that have lived in cohesive relationships with the natural environment.
Hope that makes since and assists in the creation of greater understanding of the content maybe illuminating some subtext and providing some context 🙏🏾😌
LOVED IT!!!! I thought you were going to continue, please expand
That was a lot of nothing: "Do better...humans". Consider it done!
Very clearly, if we aren't capable of managing our resources to the point where we aren't capable sustaining equilibrium with our environment we are overpopulated. Its not about what could be, it is always, always, always about what is and adapting when something new comes. Development is so utterly unpredictable that assuming you know what will happen is asinine.
As we are, we are overpopulated.
We are so due to some with large habits over consumption that negatively impacts the rest of humanity and the planet's ecosystems. It's hard to be in the West, typing through networks powered by carbon, and not see the irony that despite agreeing with your conclusion - and even though I may not be a top contributor to that over consumption - I am still a part of that inequity.
this is a stupid argument because, we can just make more space by going to the stars and building O’Neil cylinders and other megastructures - that solves the population problem through and through.
Carrying capacity is only limited by how efficient your technology is - this is a technological problem, not a population problem.
@@mnrvaprjct Congratulations on missing the entire point of my initial comment to say something as short sighted as, "Once we do this stuff we have never done before our problems are over!"
I just want my time. Time to exercise, read important books, learn science, make art, cook homemade meals and spend time around others. It's really quite simple. We don't need to spend all of our days working now that we have systems in place to make our lives “easier.”
Debunking the "it's human nature" myth is the best part of this video. Human nature is always shaped by our material circumstances - basically what dialectical materialism has been trying to convey.
People confidently claiming that communism won't work beccause human nature wouldn't sustain it is actually a very baseless argument. The very goal of a different economic order is to bring change in the current material circumstances, thus getting rid of the barbarity, greed, selfishness, etc which we claim to be 'human nature'.
Beavers’ niche construction benefits beavers and has some other positive effects , but is also disruptive to the wider ecosystem.
It isn't.
@@noahfrazier4813 And what do you think will happen if there are 8 billion beavers on this planet?
@@A.I.- we are more adept at adapting our effects on our surroundings than beavers. They fulfill one niche in their specific regions. I was using them as a metaphor. But to extend it further, they would likely follow a trajectory not unlike our own: taking positive and negative feedback from the environment to adjust their impact on the planet. We have more complex societal structures as well as technologies, such as books and the internet, for educating and working together with one another. Whereas we have gotten to partially ignore our fellow animal and plant kin since the industrial evolution began; beavers, for example, have had to be deeply attuned to their environments. Now we have a reckoning before us. And recognising that all beings on earth (insect, ape, flower, human, octopus) are each only partways completed in the arch of evolution can be humbling in finding our place within the circle. To answer your question, if beavers figured out a way to reach 8 billion it would probably be in a manner that did more good than harm on the planet as a whole. We either find a purpose for our species to continue to exist for the benefit of all or we face extinction. I‘m bias for humans and have hope that, since it‘s in our own self-interest to do so, we will forge a path to coexisting with the rest of life on earth peacefully one day again
@@noahfrazier4813 Why won't you just edit your comment instead..? 🤔
@@A.I.- furthermore, i’m not trying to say we should recklessly encourage human population growth. I’m trying to imagine a livable future without requiring mass genocides. Simply believing that too many people = bad is a quick route to extreme measures. I’m thinking of viable alternatives to just killing off some humans for the betterment of other humans. Its a dangerous notion to swallow that depopulation is the only way forwards. I encourage further exploration on this topic to discover that we can continue not just to survive as a species but perhaps even thrive
Obviously there's a limit to how many people can live on Earth with a decent standard of living. Maybe the limit is higher than the current 8 billion, but we're headed there and beyond soon. The problem isn't just convincing a majority to listen to those of us who already promote more sustainability -- polls might show a majority has already been convinced of that need. The other part of the problem is to compel the world's democracies to switch from primitive voting methods that count at most one majority to a much more democratic voting method that would count all of the head-to-head majorities.
All of the problems with democracy are enabled by the use of primitive voting methods that count at most one majority. The counted majority is often a coalition of minorities on different issues, which undermines majority rule, prevents issues from being settled, and empowers extremists by making their votes needed by the coalition.
The importance of counting multiple head-to-head majorities is demonstrated by the world's most widely used & most frequently used voting method: the Robert's Rules procedure for voting on motions. It counts N-1 head-to-head majorities to eliminate N-1 of the N alternatives (similar to a sports single-elimination tournament).
Counting ALL of the head-to-head majorities would create a strong incentive for politicians to support majority-preferred policies, which would end political polarization. It would effectively eliminate spoiling, increase competition and end the two-party system, would reliably defeat extremists, and would allow issues to be settled. Gerrymandering would become insignificant. States would no longer be controlled by single parties.
All of the head-to-head majorities can be counted using a single round of voting in which each voter expresses his/her order of preference. No primary elections or runoffs are needed.
Is this „Ranked Choice Voting“?
@@noahfrazier4813 : No, it's not the same voting method. Although Ranked Choice Voting also lets each voter express his/her order of preference, when it computes the winner it neglects most of the information in those rankings and counts only one majority. Like the other primitive voting methods that count at most one majority, Ranked Choice Voting is highly prone to spoiling, and it behaves nearly the same as the Top Two Runoff method (which we know from decades of experience maintains the two party system).
I think the reason why its proponents changed its name from Instant Runoff to Ranked Choice Voting was to try to hide its track record of spoiling after its debacle in the 2009 election of the mayor of Burlington Vermont. (Google that election.) Many of its proponents falsely claim it eliminates spoiling.
The Alaska special election in August 2022 is another example of its spoiling, but it's difficult to prove that happened because Alaska hasn't published the voters' orders of preference. Sarah Palin was surely a spoiler, and head-to-head majorities ranked Nick Begich over Palin and over Mary Peltola. Those two majorities weren't counted, Begich finished in third place, and most summaries of the election don't even mention him. The only majority that was counted was the narrow 52% majority who ranked Peltola over Palin. Extremist Palin narrowly lost, but a huge supermajority ranked Begich over Palin: all of the 27% who ranked Begich on top plus most of the 41% who ranked Peltola on top. Counting all of the majorities would reliably defeat extremists.
The 2021 New York City mayoral election may have been spoiled too but, as in Alaska, NYC didn't publish the voters' orders of preference so it can't be proved. Ranked Choice Voting elected Eric Adams, but Garcia may have been a spoiler and Maya Wiley may have been ranked by (uncounted) head-to-head majorities over both Adams and Garcia.
The change of its name to Ranked Choice Voting also causes confusion like yours. That may be another reason why its proponents changed it... to make it more difficult to explain voting methods much better than Ranked Choice Voting.
@@sabrina1380m : If you're suggesting my comment argues against democracy, you're mistaken. I'm arguing for improving democracy through the use of better voting methods.
The root of the issue is how do we use the current system to vote in a new system of voting? Honest question
@@noahfrazier4813 : In the U.S., about half the states allow citizens' initiatives to be placed on the state ballot. This makes it possible for a few activists, with the help of voters on election day, to compel states to change to a better voting method.
I think changing even a few states, or even one large state, would dramatically affect Congress, because neither the Ds nor the Rs would have a majority of the seats. These new kinds of representatives would be both pivotal in Congressional voting and have the moral high ground to justify their leadership. Within Congress, head-to-head majorities should prefer them to be leaders, for instance when voting for Speaker of the House... the D minority should prefer them over R candidates and the R minority should prefer them over D candidates.
I don't know the laws in other countries, so I can't speculate on their paths forward. But wherever it begins can help light the way forward for others to follow.
We have to stamp out human greed first.
So much wealth is concentrated in a few. The rest of us stuck to fighting each other for the scraps instead of demanding a more equitable - notice I didn't say equal - distribution of the resources of our world.
All the while not caring about what happens to our world. Either it's someone else's problem, or for future generations.
He's right: our technology and knowledge at this stage can allow us to ensure that 8 billion humans can be adequately provided for in every way without adversely affecting our environment and the organisms that live in it.
But we have to want it first. Demand it.
And for that, we have to stop being greedy, from the richest person on Earth to the lowliest laborers.
That might be a bit reductionist, but I think it's a start.
Id love to see the full interview, uncut...
Discount Gary Gulman is right. But he forgot to mention that we need to start by having a billionaire spend all his money on building a rocketship (or fleet) that will take all the other billionaires into space, for free.
Then explode it.
This comment alone is more intelligent than the entire video.
The issue is that the global West has over consumed to the point of causing massive environmental, economic, social, and health issues which we are currently trying to break down in various forms. Meanwhile, the global South has been made to work as the majority exporter of western goods and services, while also having to consume Western social and quality-of-life-expectations. Now as their economies gain traction (see China, Brazil, etc) these countries expect what the West advertised to hell and the result is a world that simply can't maintain that level of consumption. Oh, and the South now feels that they are being unfairly lectured by the global West on "responsible" economics, humanities, etc. Which is f*ing rich. Its like a rich spoiled person telling their own servants who just got a raise that money isn't important or valuable.
well said mate
You are talking like these countries are not responsible for their own actions... like it's just bunch of children there...
@@1Quixi1 the actions they've taken have largely been in pursuit/competition with the standard set by the 1st world countries
@@1Quixi1 It's never been about "Choices" when the European Countries imposed imperialism and screwed over the next half millenia of history going forward, then the American Corpo-Puppets come and screw over the next 70 years...
Just do a small research about Project Cybersyn and Operation Condor, south america has never been free.
i disagree with the first part: something that a loooooot of the "we aren't too much" people forget, is that the amount of rare metal needed for building some products is rare and very polluting + expensive to extract. (and it will be for as long as our space-travel technology will be too bad to actually make profiteable and feasable to extract stuff from other places to bring back ressources there)
the more nummerous we are, the more we will have to split the rare ressources into more people (and so less ressources per people)
Exactly. Overpopulation is no problem, we would be able to accomodate everyone somehow; yet not with equal standard of living we have in western countries. It cannot be done from a resource-standpoint.
Compassion for each other and all living things is a must.
Apparently this guy has never heard of the term “overshoot”.
Take one summer off from Princeton and live in a tent on the sidewalk with the people who cook your McDonalds or check you out at Walmart. Then tell us what you think about human nature and creating a conducive environment. Billionaires created THAT, so they can have a dozen houses and a jet to fly from one to the others. I think you spent so much time in ivory towers that you are out of touch with the people around you ,just like the billionaires and politicians.
He's at their behest, most likely. It's grifters all the way down
This man had an impractical and unconstrained vision of the world. His vision doesn’t exist. The idea that there would be zero poor people, zero abusers, zero of any bad outcome… that is reality. We live in an imperfect world. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn’t know what nature is.
The idea is not to have zero poor people or zero abuser or zero negative in the human system, the idea is to strive and fight for this world. The "it's natural, it's normal" argument is always an excuse to let negative things in place and not do anything about them - and it's often used to defend non-natural concept.
Be an optimist, not a fatalist, that's the main idea of his speech. Don't settle for less when you could live a better life in a better world/environment with better people. Don't be manipulated by people in power, people at the top of a system which makes sure only assholes are able to reach the top. Defy them. Defy the system.
This mode of thinking is essential if humanity is to survive the next century. We've seen how not to be. Let's change and make a life orientated world.
_The greatest wealth is to live content with little._ -Plato 💕☮🌎🌌
-one of the richest men in the ancient world
Only a philosopher wants to do that. Nice idea, difficult practice, cause it seems you have to live a rather sedate life without much company if that’s the ideology you embrace. It all cost too much now.
@@stanleywhittaker6623 any relation to doug whittaker? There's nothing sedate about a good life. I think what plato meant was the reduction of pointless consumption.
@@marcinwojtkowski2580 Right! Minimalists lead a simple life away from consumerism.
World is obviously going towards Dark Ages 2.0 Yet my parents are still insisting that me and my wife should be having kids! Why?? For what???????
You don't get kids because of rational reasons, but because you feel the urge to do so. The moment a baby is born, those questions will be most irrelevant to its parents, and the kid will bring intrinsic meaning to their lives. That's why arguing about it in this way makes no sense - just tell your parents you don't want kids because you don't want to, end of story.
You have kids because you were created to leave your mother and father and cleave to your wife. Then to know her (in the biblical sense), and bear forth offspring. Duh!
Can someone highlight when he explains human nature?
I think I missed that part.
Considering all things, I would also like to team up with a beaver!
Universe 25
Over population it's not about how many humans you can put on a piece of Land it's about how many a single person consumptions of Natural Resources over its Lifetime! And how a Human can impact the change on the environment!
Like a Ted talk, full of empty optimism.
😂😂😂
You just read my mind!😄
I was thinking like a Ted talk in which commenters haven't paid attention
To the folks that commented saying that he didn't address the claims made at the start of his discussion: I actually thought he did address the claims throughout his discussion unless I am missing something. Our population is seemingly quite high but it's not the size of it that is worrisome but how well us humans can use our creativity and ingenuity in all facets of our lives to make our population growth sustainable. How well can we leverage and/or make breakthroughs in science, technology, economic and social structures to better benefit mankind's growth. We can't continue to act like a virus spreading and mindlessly consuming without seriously thinking about and acting in a sustainable way. We have the capabilities to make this work is what he's saying.
Good point ! Though I fail to understand how he can expect big chunks of mankind to change their behavior / mindset etc. - of course we have the potential to do great stuff, but I for example still like to spend some time writing YT comments instead.
Yeah, but that's not a real answer to "are we overpopulated." He's saying "if you look at it this way, then hope for humanity to change, then we won't be overpopulated!" but that's not a real answer to the here and now. It's like saying, "can you cure cancer now? well, if enough people are born, one of those babies will grow up to be a researcher and will find the cure for cancer!" So, um... not now, then? And that's _hoping_ on something, not really _knowing_ something.
You have a very good point .
I believe we think in the finite . And policy makers think “one size - fits all” . Which is untrue . But that is how our society thinks . There is an old adage ; “ keep it simple stupid “ , that everyone subscribes to . How do we change this mind set ?
It is true, there should be only half that amount of people on this planet. 🌎
Great, we have found a volunteer.
@@hanskloss7726 You're right, I chose not to have any children and bring them into this crappy world.
I very enjoy Agustín's content on this channel.
Watched the whole clip but still waiting for the HOW?! Hello? I'm still hanging here! Still haven't heard anyone tackle the overpopulation question heads-on. Is humanity overpopulating the world RIGHT NOW & IN THE FUTURE with the current growth rate? If that's the case, what can be done about it? These are the 2 questions I really want to hear direct answers for, not skillfully dancing around it!
We definitely have the capability. The want and will is a little more complicated. Money & power are held in high esteem. It’s the goal to achieve to be a success in life. This misconception is handed to us daily in our commercial world. We are so good at building that many forget we are animals. Thinking of ourselves as separate from the living ecosystem of the planet is unhealthy and delusional. I do believe areas are overpopulated. When more things live in a place than that place can provide sustenance for there is a problem. Mass production farming is not for the rural folks, it’s necessary to feed huge urban populations because they cannot feed themselves living in urban areas due to their construction. I believe there’s much that can be improved in civil engineering and infrastructure that would improve quality of life & lessen ecological impacts while providing economic stability. But profits have to be the bonus outcome not the goal for this to genuinely improve human existence. Just my opinion.✌️💗🤘
True in essence. Some day maybe, it’ll be. Money is fantastic, ideas and such are good too but life’s getting too expensive. Those of you who live it know it, the rest of you don’t. People need money, then get some distance from the wolf and look again. Enjoy your new perspective.
@@stanleywhittaker6623 we need fair trade, but money is made up to do that. Why should money be why you are allowed to live a life? Nothing else needs it. Our current setup demands that we do, but it’s just a concept, it can be executed better than haves and have nots.
The only thing the rich and powerful want is profit. They don't care about ordinary people. We are a resource to them, that's all.
Said absolutely nothing in 6 minutes that is talent.
Yes, typical of someone completely out of touch with reality. He obviously lives in a very comfortable bubble of extreme privilege.
Perhaps we need to include this as a prerequisite for intelligence: the ability of organisms to gain advantages from their environment while ensuring that it is maintained and protected. Ensuring the maintenance and protection of the environment should be an important aspect of intelligence, as it requires an understanding of the impact of one's actions on the surroundings and taking measures to preserve and enhance them for the benefit of the organism and its ecosystem. Many species, from bees to elephants, have demonstrated the ability to manipulate their environment for their benefit while also preserving it. For example, bees pollinate flowers, which benefits both the bees and the plants, while elephants play a vital role in maintaining the balance of their ecosystems by clearing vegetation and creating pathways for other animals to move through the forests.
So, what is preventing humans, a highly intelligent and industrious species, from engaging in environmentally friendly and sustainable activities?
Perhaps that something we should explore.
The main answer to your question is greed. And intelligence is subjective.
0:55 The wealth has already been created. Solving the "distribution" problem is THE SOLUTION to most of the other issues. "Greed" is synonomous for "distribution" in this case, but I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll get there...
Nice intro. When does the interview start?
I never knew Slash from Aerosmith was a Princeton professor
I'm sorry Princeton professor, but I disagree.
--Cambridge professor.
Anti-intellectuals like you are the reason we will never achieve peace.
I Love this way of thinking! I mean with all the panic at our own role in "The Destruction of The EARTH!" . Who do we think we are? We have no say in our true nature. We too are mere animals, subjected to our role in the eco system, a structure and mechanism that surpasses our own power to control. We do not posess that kind of power. Mama Earth does. We, as Humans are going to try to adapt, hopefully with preservation and responsibility for our own role in the shifts that we witness on our planet today. But ultimately we can't change who we are. And what will Be will be.
Question for everyone:
Why majority of parents don't love their kids?
This doesn't address the issue though, there was no scientific argument against us being overpopulated
Exactly, but hey... we have a problem? Let's look what a bunch of worms do in a bucket. Problem solved. This video is incredible.
We’re poorly distributed, and the distribution of goods is poorly managed.
The planet can sustain this population, but we have to make changes in distribution and consumption.
@@adrianacybele Yes, let's consume nothing and breed to infinity, woohoo!! ✌️🥴
@@movement2contact People basically already stopped breeding, we won't get more than 11 billion people on the planet
@@adrianacybele Fook me in the worse possible position!!!
We are overpopulated, no matter how you consume/distribute.
The only sustainable way is not to overpopulate.
If 1 person consume 2000 calories per day = 1000 people in total would consume 2,000,000 calories.
If 1 person consume only 1500 calories per day = 10,000 people in total would consume 15,000,000 calories.
If you half the consumption to 1000 calories per day = 10,000 people in total would consume 10,000,000 calories.
Despite trying to consume sustainably by dropping the consumption, the increase in population increases the total amount.
Now decrease the population to 100 people and increase the consumption to 4000 calories = That's 400,000 calories despite increasing consumption. Its way less than 2,000,000 calories.
The Population number is the determining factor.
Work with - cooperation instead of against which is competition. Also known as to be inclusive or loving or exclusive and individualistic
I have not watched the video yet, but I have always known that. I think it's not possible for all humans to be rich under the current global financial and monetary system. It looks to me that money is a tool to block access to physical resources and make wealth concentrated with the elites. Why can't we have a monetary system that is based on solidarity, so that anyone in need gets access to resources when they need them similar to how health insurance works?
We are overpopulated. If you go to India, or any other south, south-east asian country, you'd understand.
Just because the planet has excess density in select regions it does not indicate excess population as a whole.
There's no world hunger, if you go to a McDonalds there will be plenty of food there
The over-fed are malnourished and the impoverished are denied access to food due to artificial economic barriers. We have an abundance of all the wrong types of food and a distribution issue. The problem with decentrilized and sustainable food systems is that they give communities independance from the state and aren‘t profitable for insatiable investors. We‘ve put all our eggs in the wrong basket and while a few make trillions the rest (proletariat, animal and plant-kind) pay a hefty price
"... and for worse..." and you show a nuclear powerplant. That's how I know this isn't serious science.
I kept having to scroll down to remind myself what the topic was.
When I say that things are the way they are because of human nature I mean the psyche.
There's really only nature as a whole and all living things see themselves as people just like do.
I feel like advancements and better systems and technology are inevitable even though they propagate through individuals.
The title has nothing to do with the content of this video 🤦♂️
It's a nice idea, but I find it too idealistic.
Of course we should try to live more in harmony with nature. But the fact is that most humans are just too selfish to do that. They want to fly, eat beef and consume. In fact I'd say that most of technological advancement has been in order to help us not to be exposed to the will of nature but to allow us to have whatever we want whenever we want.
So because of that, I think it would be better for the planet to simply have fewer people. Of course we need to be more sustainable, but we're just never gonna back to the consumption levels of the Middle Ages.
Sometimes I eat beef while flying and ordering stuff on the plane.
Go vegan
Liked and subscribed. Very interesting video. I look forward to more.
This is great video. watch till the end.
New challenge: describe everything wrong with capitalism without saying capitalism.
The world isn't overpopulated, but rather our economic system is messed up and doesn't distribute resources fairly. We have enough resources to sustain everyone, it's just that they're not being used properly.
And what is a fair distribution?
To know earth ,first we should know ourself (self knowledge ) then only we will understand our relationships to others
THIS IS AWESOME!!!
Thank you professor!
THE ARKISTS ARE COMING!
"We are legion, we are many."
And they built ships. . .
BSC/PHDS/8&3
"The dynamic duo will have the last word and the last laugh".
---Arkists
The Problem is " Money "
The problem is that we stay with outdated monetary systems that don’t work far too long.
The problem with money are a currency is our relationship to it.
Bull. Money is a tool or symbol of exchange of service. It is only a tool and can be used for good or evil. Using food as a form of exchange didn't work because the principle of 20/80 has been constant through out history, and food as an exchange caused much more suffering than "money". I would suggest conforming to bad systems is a much bigger problem, because participating in bad systems strengthens those systems. So if you feel money is bad, try bartering for goods and services. You will see that the same problems come up.
The bible does say the LOVE of money is the greatest evil.......not money itself.
@@adrianacybele You got the point, every solutions on the current global problem is held back by the " Cost "