Overpopulation: From 8 billion to 3 | Phoebe Barnard
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 09. 2022
- Phoebe Barnard is a biologist, global change scientist, and policy analyst with decades of experience confronting some of the most pressing problems of our time, bridging the gap between academia and government. She’s also CEO of the Stable Planet Alliance, a coalition of scientific, legal, social, health, media, policy, leadership, faith, culture, and grassroots organizations tackling the overpopulation and hyperconsumption problem.
Phoebe joins me to discuss overpopulation-its effects, our trajectory, and the difficult decisions we face as a species. She argues we must reduce our population to 3 billion in the next century if planet earth is to survive, and us along with it, warning that population reduction policies may be forced on citizens in the future if we do not choose for ourselves now.
We discuss the morality and politics of overpopulation, addressing the West’s all-too-recent history of eugenics and ethnic cleansing. We then explore population reduction as an intergenerational right: There may be less of us in the future, but those future people may be better off for it.
🔴 Discover Phoebe's work: www.phoebebarnard.com/
🔴 Stable Planet Alliance: www.stableplanetalliance.org/
🌎 Support Planet: Critical: / planetcritical
🌎 Website: www.planetcritical.com/
🌎 Twitter: / debeaudoir
#politicalcrisis #climatecrisis #economiccrisis #overpopulation
© Rachel Donald
Refreshing. We’re not being real if we’re not talking about population and consumption.
When you frame the problem with broad generalizations such as "men are the problem" and "we need women to fix things", you will set off some alarms. What this fundamentally lacks is just basic evidence, as in the form of surveys. She speaks as if - by virtue of being a woman - she automatically knows what women want as if "women's voices" would all be univocal and be unanimous. It might be worth pointing out, for example, that this new phenoman called "fast fashion" is almost entirely driven by young female consumers in the west. So-called "woman's fashion" is far larger - and far more damaging to the environment - than man's fashions. The world of "fast fashion" requires a whole new wardrobe every week, where each kilogram of cotton consumes thousands of liters of water. It's quite an awful thing when the cause seems more or less just and good, but articulated by such a terrible spokesperson.
Indeed
100% correct, this guests academic feminist wokery is pure trash.
Thanks for the well presented argument of how biased this "scientist" is.
Yes, but what about the voices of women in the global south that everybody wants to speak for? What do they want for families, meeting climate crisis challenges, and just life?
Feminism was always just another expression of behavioral sink and has no real positive contribution to environmentalism.
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
Thomas Sowell
Doesn't Thomas Sowell argue that the Civil Rights Act was immoral ☠️ How does anyone take that clown seriously
?
? Hahaha! Here is a thought experiment-would you rather me spend your hard earned money or would you rather spend it yourself?
Not sure I’ve ever read anything in such regards by Thomas Sowell. Care to show your evidence? Sowell did say some Civil Rights legislation violated civil liberties in regards to property rights. But I know how you socialist types despise private property rights.
Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation? -- Thomas Sowell
In 2020, the birh-rate in the US was 1.64 births per woman (over her lifetime). In China it was 1.28 births. In Japan it was 1.34. Except for Africa, most countries are in-line for decreasing population in the next few decades. The problem is not convincing people to lower the population, the problem is figuring out how to handle it. We have an economy that is based on growth, which depends on population growth. All sorts of things will have to change to handle an aging and shrinking population, and that is never mentioned here. They made a snarky reference to Elon Musk, who has been saying that falling population is the problem, not growing population. I think he is wrong, falling population is a good thing, at least for the next century or so. But they don't even seem to know that all predictions of world population are that it will decrease!
Sterilisation Sterilisation Sterilisation
Ralph
Yes Elon is wrong. Over all a falling population is great. We can reduce military sizes and maybe go back to using gold and silver as money and say screw the government endless spending.
But listen to Harry dent a macro economist. Back in the 1980s he bet by 2010 we’d see a recession due to demographics. We basically got that but dumb Obama and the environmentalists printed and bailed out Wall Street.
If you wanted reduced consumption stop war and don’t bailout Wall Street end of story. You’d dramatically see reduced consumption especially as the U.S. brings soldiers home. If nato ended that’d reduce lots of consumption. Imagine less global trade.
But here’s where you are wrong and Elon is right.
If population shrinks a lot what happens when the U.S. can’t borrow money? It can issue money but if less people use it it’ll cause inflation. As they print and monetize more debt eventually you get to Weimar Germany type inflation. What happens if social security ends????
You’ll have millions of old people dying early. Now that’s great for the planet but sucks if you’re a baby boomer or a parent or grandparent or Rachel Donald for instance. No wealth transfer payments does mean millions will die basically. First abroad as the currency problems causes revolutions just like how 2007 caused the Arab spring revolution in Africa.
We’re talking maybe WW3 as greedy democrats, environmentalists like Larry summers and Wall Street and war monger republicans Want to retain power.
Ya Elon is right. A decreasing population means TESLA MAY GO BANKRUPT ALONG WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Long term both may cease to exist.
Personally I think that’s fine as I’m in a rural area but ya gotta realize millions will die. Environmentalists will win out in the long run but loads of environmentalists will die along the way basically.
The economy isn’t the issue. The economy could be based on growth that’s sustainable. For a few centuries gold and silver was used in the U.S. gold let’s you save wealth. It stops inflation or stealing by government.
But here’s the thing. If you had honest money it means you can’t have endless war. It means the government can’t spend billions on wind turbines or solar panels or whatever environmentalists want next. 5 trillion spent in the west to reduce oil consumption from 84% to 83% or something I saw as a stat. That’s amazing. Cheap energy is why lives are longer, better and cheaper. Some hope for magic that AI will solve all problems and energy will be free so even as society collapses because of productivity gains debt maybe paid down. Mike green and other liberal economists maybe they’re right. But I hate to bet on magic or Hail Mary pass basically. I wouldn’t bet on that.
Humans probably can grow and innovate. The world can handle way more people. Look up how in the 1970s some DUMB American mit professors thought society would collapse because of population. That’s very communistic thinking that we live in a static world and not a dynamic world that grows and changes. I’m all fine about the WEF etc. reducing carbon. But ask yourself. Why does Wall Street and the rich environmentalists want to be bailed out? When things get bad they complain. Even the UN did an article last year saying the U.S. should not raise rates because it’ll hurt the poor. It’s like ya the poor will be hurt but bill gates will lose a crap ton more money then I will in a Great Depression. The rich get hurt way more and they love their elite status. If they were altruistic and wanted reduced consumption then bill gates and Warren buffet etc would tell the fed ya keep rates high and don’t bail nobody out and let banks fail and let black rock fail. Think about it.
Ok Patricia. Shall I book you for tomorrow morning. Luckily there was a cancelation. I shall expect you then...
I half agree with musk …… while I’m firmly off the view that the world is currently overpopulated for the sustainable resources off the world going forward and does need to reduce its global population wisely ( otherwise war/ famine/ next pandemic/ natural disaster will more and more likely will) … musk however is right in that if will decrease the population too fast it would cause a lot off more problems and inter generational stresses which we don’t need on top off every thing else …… us like uk since 2000 would be like Japanese and china this last year and shrinking fast had it not been for large immigration which has given the illusion off a still growing population technically.… but it the whole world total figures we really need to keep a look at
Not having kids will not do your kids any favors.
James “Gaia Theory” Lovelock estimated that 1 billion humans is the carrying capacity of Earth.
Rich industrialists and economists who insist we need to have a constantly growing working age population should exactly like Slave-owning plantation owners who insisted their economies would collapse without legions of slaves.
I think about 300 million, not 3 billion sounds, about right.
I put a stable population given resources depletion and ecosystem degradation at 500mil. For no particular reason except it is half a billion and the numbers are cleaner when discussing the actual scale of the mass dying on the horizon.
What a bizarre concept... arbitrarily stating that 95% of living human beings shouldn't even exist...
@@pabsmanhere What is even more Arbitrsrily? It is far more bizzare how we humans are the only life destroying the planet with our numbers.
More people
More problems.
Stalin said no people no problems
Excellent podcast addressing the “Elephant in the Room”. Alas, only natural forces can address this problem without crossing our moral and ethical boundaries. We work so hard to preserve life and this is a fundamental driver of civilised thinking. Until we can accept that Growth is not a measure of success, in all things, we are stuck with this problem. Keep up the good work..
We also haven’t grappled with death being a feature of life. Or change.
A little evasive on how we get from 9 billion down to 3 billion without coercive measures. She completely ignores the Elephant in the room which is clearly the U.N. WEF agenda 30 goals, as if the whole world doesn't know about the NWO and the obvious power grab touted as the great reset but don't worry we all can't wait for the drones to bring our dinner.
Denial of Death.
Unfortunately, with our current economic system, that kind of population reduction will mean living in a permanent recession. It's also possible that climate change and overshoot will cause the economy to crash, leading to population reduction. Either way, the population will decrease, which will mean economic mayhem and, I'm guessing, more inequality.
the current system depends on unproductive adults doing something extremely wasteful while tons of water are used and diesel is burned to keep him alive. This is extremely taxing of the Earth and destructive. Again the US economic model has relied on cheap energy and destruction, plus non-essential production. The Covid disaster proved that if 80% of people stayed home, essential workers were more than capable of sustaining all with materials and services, which reduced consumption and environmental destruction. The only sufferers of less consumption and export are the wealthy class and military. We have so much land to grow food that not only does the US produce enough food for multiple nations but it grows corn for fuel, even though plenty of crude oil exists.
Population decline would mean less workers, but it also means more resources per person. We have already built a lot of really useful infrastructure and if maintained properly it will last for centuries. Buildings, the electricity grid, renewable electricity generation and railroads come to mine. So keeping a high quality of life is a good thing.
Also we have to shrink the economy anyway. Consumption is closely related with environmental destruction and we just can not increase things like renewables fast enough to avoid a massive environmental disaster. So we have to be better at spreading the wealth we have and be more mindful of destruction caused by it.
I take acceptation to the word "Collapse". Human population on Earth is in severe overshoot. Recovery from overshoot is best described as a "settling," not a collapse. In fact, we are on autopilot. Over the next 200 years, we will settle to the carrying capacity of an injured Earth, 2.5 B is a workable estimate.
"EXCEPTION"
Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Facebook have added $4 Trillion in value this year. Distribution of any matter is lumpy, over time and space. Wealth is unevenly distributed, as is population. A wildlife biologist might suggest reintroducing a preditor
Things are out of balance both the size of population and wealth distribution leading to a civilization collapse
Daniel Schmachtenberger recently showed me a much broader view of how broad the search for solutions to our world problems is, needs to be. I've been watching the evolution of this conversation since the 60's and I'm encouraged by various conversations moving to a recognition of the need for a truly wholistic world view.
Much of the population “problem” is already moving in the reduced world population process thru fewer children per couple. Do the math over one or two generations impacts of fewer children. Most western countries are already on a projection of population collapse. This women is about 20 years out of sync with current affairs.
This woman is a diluted and dangerous psychopath
Rachel, no ordinary people have power. "Do what you can, where you are at, with what you have." I will paraphrase Dr. Guy McPherson: Do what you are passionate about, in line with your values, regardless of results-based outcome. I, personally, am a biochemist and I grow flowers and feed the birds. I donate to environmental action groups.
I wish more people would listen to Guy McPherson 🤍
@@raewynhaughton1585 Me too. He is so smart and funny. He explains tipping points very well. I love Pauline too.
@@dianewallace6064 Yes, he is smart, but he'd quite possibly be smarter if he'd get out of the prediction game, such as his prediction we will go extinct in 2026. That would require a crystal ball.
Prophets of doom were always grifters. Sorry to see Rachel get caught up by them. Sure the world is a mess. But extinction or poverty need not be our only outcomes. She should devote one of four episodes to the fascinating solutions now emerging.
Other than Africa there is no major area of the world that is not on track for reduced population. The speed of the demographic collapses in many countries is quiet worrying. The fact that the challenges of how to maintain social and economic stability in a world devoid of children and full of elderly people was absent from this discussion about population and overconsumption is very sad. On top of that at one point the host says: "we know what needs to happen", the arrogance of that statement is staggering. We've never encountered or mananged a situation like this before and it is extremely complicated and multifaceted. In very broad strokes we may know what needs to happen, but we certainly don't know in the specificity required to actually get us from where we are to where we want to be.
*_Demographic Winter._*
What's so worrying about it? There will still be enough people to run all the important jobs because most of the work are done by machines anyways. The opposite scenario is way more worrisome.....
@kostaborojevic498 We already effectively hit peak oil 10 years ago. We now devote 10% of the economy just to energy extraction and it's only going to get worse. Admittedly there is potential for AI to remove the need for a lot of less physical work, but there is no way we are going to be able to continue to power machines to do everything for us even as much as we already have been into the future for very long. America is somewhat insultated from this reality by circusmtances for the time being, but it's already starting to hit a lot of the rest of the world.
If you think renewables solves this issue at all, it really does not, it actually makes it worse, the energy trade off is far less for renewables and the long term figures and at scale figures for material usage is absolutely insane.
There's a giant fusion reactor in the sky, called the Sun. It showers Earth with unimaginable energy which we are learning to collect. It's already cheaper than fossil fuels.
Indeed, the human footprint on the planet is extremely heavy. It seems clear that our planet's systems are responding in a manner that is rapidly reducing the areas of the planet that will continue to sustain human societies as we are now organized.
The population is not going to increase, the opposite is hapening. We will have loads of old people and few young.
Population only matters in context of habitat, carrying capacity and biodiversity. We are in ecological overshoot causing climate collapse and mass extinction. Again the hubris that folks don't see that humans and other living beings could experience mass death from coming events is astonishing... Especially considering mass extinctions in the past and we are changing the climate exponentially faster than any of the previous mass extinctions.
There are cycles of changes in the clinate independent of us but for sure we have a contribution.
More like 8 Billion to 300 million or even 30 million because we are overdue for a very big volcano if not a super volcano going off. Ice loss will produce a rebound of Greenland and Antarctica which could trigger more volcanic and earthquake activity.
True wisdom that we all need to absorb.
Rachel - I am a latecomer to your channel but very glad I have discovered it. I love your human and informed approach as well as your ability to keep the conversation on the lay level! This one was a punch in the guts and made me want to rush out and shake everyone out of their reverie - "Wake up!!!" The powerful only understand power so they will only wake up when their power base moves away. So it seems it's up to the rest of us change the narrative. From the bottom up. You do a great job in lifting the veil. Not everyone, though, is ready for this scorching reality check. We need a vision - not just of what the world could look like but more importantly for many people of how we get there. An alternative to the Chaos that Phoebe spoke of. There are many pieces to this puzzle and we all have role in finding where to put them. And the clock is ticking....
Lovely discussion ,thank you, You could help those who want to do the right thing by turning your cameras around and showing us what an uber modest , model life ,and ideal consumption level look like, it would take the fear out of the proposition.
I think examples from the past might help to.give people a vision of how civilization could be organized around a much lower energy use, and yet maintain a comfortable level for everyone of basic necessities. The Lili project, Living Well Within Limits/ Julia Steinberg/ has calculated this.
I agree with Phoebe Barnard we must reduce the size of the population on the planet. Let us begin - YOU FIRST Phoebe !
She has already started by not having children, now it's your turn!
Sam Mitchell at Collapse Chronicles insist that overpopulation is THE problem. Thanks Rachel!
yeahh, but i told him that. 😁
Btw. the first person talking about it was mcPherson i think.
@@janklaas6885 Ehrlich in the 60s?
@@RichardBullKTM
I never red his book.
Play it again Sam!
@@billwunder7075
thanks
“People who pride themselves on their ‘complexity’ and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.”
Thomas Sowell
Thank you!! Awesome interview.
It's a very real, pragmatic, "just around the corner", "we can't pretend it won't happen", question.
+4 C means carrying capacity below 1 billion (Steffan et al). IPCC says +3 C by 2100, but they ignore tipping points, data lag on energy imbalance, etc, so +4 C by 2100 remains sane. I already adore this lady at 9 minutes. :)
'All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people and harder - and ultimately impossible to solve - with ever more people.' - Sir David Attenborough
Utterly relevant conversation full of critical analysis. Wisdom needs to become common instead of almost extinct
Brilliant and eye-opening podcast, grateful to have the opportunity to learn from the best among us about the ongoing ecological crisis
Crisis? What crisis?
Maybe we should follow the example as set out in, Logan's Run?
Those advocating population control, should lead by example.
Thank you for uploading and sharing.
Have; only 2 chilluns, just replacements!
And they have none !
People are not advocating for suicide or genocide. Ignoring population will lead to global famine and possible human extinction (when the planet dies). That's what people talking about population are trying to prevent.
@@JohnnyBelgium I doubt our species will still exist when the sun expands to embrace Gaia in its warm embrace.
our species will not be around in 100 years@@felipearbustopotd
Came for the population talk and left for the man bashing feminism.
Thanks for the heads up, I’m outta here
Even if birth rates go to 0 its still a slow process
It will be a lot faster once food production and modern medical care collapse.
@Withnail1969 what will be will be. I know that for one, the medical area is more connected to the everyday life of people than some farm in the distance, and so they will fight for the medical part to survive in some form. Remember, the short-term thinking is that food is long-term because it takes time to starve unless you have a total shutdown. But u suspect the weaker part of the world will collapse first, making the manufacturing there a strategic asset that will be protected by military forces before the low populations of the developed world even notice. Then some of those places will fall too because of the cascading effects. Things are then set to specialize, i.e., devolve from the current perspective, around local strengths and basics are to shrink to the local levels, too. This leaves some trade but not much left. Most of the world will starve, and migration will be forbidden, etc. That's what I'm seeing. Society will collapse for those who are emotionally invested in the current social ways, and for others, it will be called normal and return to freedom
"Coercive policy for population reduction"
Oh i can think of a good one, its kinda recent, and global.
I have 3 children under 3 and plan on having 3 more. Nothing stated in this discussion has moved me in the slightest to have less children.
I wish we could do something about it, but I don't think we can. But I will keep trying.
As long as governments like Australia effectively pay women to have kids (we call it the 'Family Tax Benefit if they work, if they don't they are paid more for each child they have), we have little hope of addressing the P issue.
according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the birthrate in Oz is 1.70. This means it is already in decline since 2.1 is the number you need to maintain a population. Population will drop since it is well past replacement numbers. It is only a matter of time as the older generations die.
Yes, without immigration, our population would decline.
Rapidly diminishing crop yields and already on it. Like it or not between the fires, storms and heatwaves we’re losing humans, and habitat for humans, every day now. And the numbers will only grow because there’s no changing course much less stopping the superorganism that is homo-petro-techno colossus.
So, it's back to the Cave, except without the fire! Sweet.
I am glad to see over population spoken of as serious. Consumption and population are very interconnected. I doubt I will ever see it "fixed", by government. We will collapse long before. Just on the off chance we do make an attempt I have two points.
On the consumption side I believe we seriously underestimate how much we could accomplish by abandoning "planned obsolescence". I want a phone that could be passed to my grandkids. So much of our life style could be preserved by not buying garbage. Add sharing such as a neighborhood tool library or cutting out "fashion" so we don't need a new set of kitchen cabinets every five years. I would prefer we saw degrowth as choosing quality over quantity.
On the population side I'd love to see promises to support our elderly regardless of how many kids they have. Support emotionally and physically.
I appreciated Phoebe's perspective. I have hated how we have ignored the issue for fifty years. My heart breaks when I think how easy fixing climate change would have been if we started 50 years ago, when "Limits for Growth" came out, or when we got the first "gas" shortage. How different it would have been if Nixon stopped the Alaskan pipeline, or Reagan left the solar panels on the roof of the White House.
How would the world be different if Reagan had left the White House solar water heater in place?
As a symbol @@aliendroneservices6621
Rachel -- Please get Julia Steinberg of the Lili Project. Living Well Within Limits. Ecological economics.
Terrific sound quality 🎉
People, we wont be doing much to change our ways of life any time soon. Please hear me out. I’m a farmer, builder, and land steward. I spend my days visiting homes and repairing deferred maintenance in houses in an effort to extend their usefulness as dwellings. I have been in over 6,000 homes across the decades in 6 western American States. I find that peoples life ways and how they take care of things, whether rich or poor is a good indicator of how meaningfully they can alter their lives. I have found that the day to day stress and pressure to make ends meet in peoples lives keeps them tied to what they know. They teach their kids those ways regardless of whats popular. If you don’t believe me, why have we not cured littering. Why do people litter when they already know better? Fix that and everything else will fall into place for us humans. Just solve littering and everything else will become obvious.
I wish everyone who distinguish the difference between neo-marxist capitalism and free market capitalism (which non of us have had since the creation of the Federal reserve). As well as the massive role that incentives play in determining where money flows. There are so many solutions beyond those discussed. Free markets (were they allowed), would help solve for this. Even proper incentivization of the fake markets would shift the outcomes.
Exactly 👍👍👍
You hit the nail on the head. US government spends about 60% of GDP, subsidises everything , creates massive debt, FED prints money like never before. And some people still think we live in free market capitalism 🙈
With honest banking system based on gold there could have never been this massive military industrial complex, NGO complex, welfare, mega state bureaucracy and hyperconsumerism.
Marxists are to be blamed not capitalists.
More people, More problems.
What's the difference between power and a value proposition that you can't refuse? Where exactly do you draw the line between co-operation and coercion? Sometimes I think that our ability to see alternative ways we could be is made almost impossible by the mundane concerns of what is. It's so hard to think about how we might organise and take action, or what altenatives there could possibly be when 60% of the waking hours of every week are spent just trying to pay bills and keep a roof over our heads. If we could just make it so that nobody's right to shelter is under threat, that would create incredible possibilities for dialogue and community building that just can't exist in the current paradigm. The economic ponzi scheme we're living in, by definition, makes it difficult for the majority of people to have sufficient wealth to be active civic participants. But if we all got together and started co-operating in the right ways, we could probably coerce a few billionaires out of their billionaire ways.
I am a man, so I doubt if I'll hang around here for very long. I lost track of the times I heard her say the word women, in the time span of a couple of minutes, but it was quite a few.
It looks like the most effective as well as most humane way to lower the birth rate is with prosperity.
Pros: Interesting conversation with many good points made. Cons: Calling people far right Trump supporting arrogant idiots will definitely drive away some people who might otherwise have had sympathy with the ideas expressed.
I share this sentiment, as a man, I am left leaning, but the question we should ask is what drives people to cross over to reactionary politics and I feel that it's not the content of the conversation, but the sweeping statements which drive people away. Dr Barnard repeatedly tried to make the point that we need everyone to come together in solidarity, which includes ensuring women have more choices and that their voices are heard. However, I am convinced that making sweeping statements that men are the problem actually drives support for reactionary figures like Trump and the best thing would be to avoid this type of distraction and focus on the content of the matter at hand.
Two more guest suggestions for ya. JT Chapman over at "Second Thought" on YT. And the guy who runs "Our Changing Climate" on YT. Can't find his name...
Women s voices
Reducing population is not the problem. That is a great thing. What is a problem is that our debt based money system is based on constant expansion. Debt keeps increasing forever. Even stopping and staying stable due to a non increasing population (and non increasing debt) means huge economic problems. Just like a ship crossing the ocean and running out of food, the least producing people are sacrificed and thrown overboard for the good of the whole. In nature, the weak and the sick are culled out. It is a brutal process but the specie is stronger because of it.
Capitalism does the same thing, it culls out the weak. But now we have crony capitalism where some are favored that should not be favored. They need to go under to free up resources for producers. What is open to debate is what are "valued" products.
Things are out of balance not only population but wealth is also not distribute correctly leading to the civilization coallapae we are in
Rex Weyler, Paul Ehrlich or William Rees tell it like it is about population. Get them on.
Also Terrance McKenna
These men are pure evil
The Indian “Complete Family” program is controversial? I’ve only heard good things about it. Would like to know more about the controversy.
This is one of the most encouraging and inspiring conversations I have heard sofar! Over-population is still the elephant in the room, and a taboo for too many people (mostly men). These two extremely intelligent women address exactly the right issues in exactly the right way.
I sincerely hope we will have more women of this type in our governments, at all levels!
Talking of numbers: it seems that the ‘optimal maximum’ population size is somewhere between 1 and 3 billion. Ironically, these numbers correspond to the population levels in the 1850’s and 1960’s, respectively. These were the years when the industrialisation began to take off (1850 approx.) and when the ‘over-consumption’ began in earnest (the’60’s)….
You are incredibly bigoted. Homelessness beckons.
Amazing! Thank you so much for this conversation! Sooo important!!
Thank you, Veronica!
Finally!!! Someone gets it. All the smarts in the world, endless suggestions, policies we SHOULD be implementing, none of it matters, without power. And the psychopaths who got us into this mess are still in power. Nothing will change until they go. First order of business is to get rid of the system.
Love your podcast,
Thanks
Robert.
My pleasure. Thanks, Robert!
how did they get us in this mess
@@didforlove ?
@@robertt7002 you say psychopaths got us in this mess
@@didforlove J.P. Morgan, The Duponts, Edison. All using colonialism to enrich themselves, while treating the world as theirs to take. Driving species to extinction through habitat loss, using debt peonage as a means to enslave the non slaves. I mean, holy cow, which part is not self evident? Now Bezos, and Musk, laughing at the coups going on in South America, to gain access to what they need/want for their own enrichment. Lying and cheating to destroy attempts at unionization in their massively publicly funded operations. How many names would it take to make this point?
This is the end of days, all that matters now, is having God in are hearts. Praise God. Amen.
Voluntarily bend the curve? Maybe this Planet Critical's guest could example how this will be elicited and lead the path to a 3billii
Unfortunatly what i see is people going for the easier and faster option and not let migration to occurn, period for any reason
👍
You never see ant net zero pushers actually living a net zero lifestyle today, you know, voluntarily, why is that?
If you truly believe wouldn't this be your top priority?
Exactly! Flying to their COP28 meetings in their private jets, enjoying nice wine, steak and skiing on artificial snow in desert. Whilst advocating net zero for the rest of the population.
Lead by example, take yourself out...
Nice straw man, dumbass.
This was the best dialogue on overpopulation and overconsumption I’ve heard. It should be noted however that capitalism has many forms as does socialism. Whatever economic system one lives within, people are going to reproduce and consume. I’m not convinced that either system will result in a net reduction of population or consumption over time and space. In any case, top down policy and bottom up education seems to be necessary if a future habitable biosphere is to be achieved. 💋💋
I'm also very leery of any statements about "getting rid of Capitalism", without a LOT of discussion and testing of whatever might replace it. Capitalism is very much like Churchill's "Democracy"; i.e. the worst of all forms (of an economy in this case), except for everything else that has been tried so far. We are VERY likely to find that any successor to "capitalism" is worse for many people, and possibly worse in many aspects, than what we currently have today. Small-scale trials and incremental adjustments are the way to go. That is, after all, how the Netherlands switched (gradually over time) from having highways in their cities in the 1960's to a very safe pedestrian and bicycle-friendly road infrastructure today, one small road re-design at a time.
@@davidbarry6900 Small scale local trial and error is the way to go and your bicycle/pedestrian example in the Netherlands is on target especially considering the ebike revolution in progress that no one’s talking about.
@@davidbarry6900 agreed; there are also many variations on themes between capitalism and socialism, of course but you might not know it if you live in the USA these days, where a certain kind of knee-jerk binary thinking seems to have taken hold. What I think we were actually talking about was the variation of political capitalism that is structured, through endless financial and policy mechanisms like taxes, to work for profiteers rather than for society or the planet or both. Rachel's recent interview with Kate Raworth offers many more subtle insights on that arena.
From 8 billion to 3. I mean to 3 people in total.
I'm a man, and I don't think this is a man or woman thing. We should all work together,, we are in the same boat. This is a all of us thing. Stop the I'm a woman and what you want to lead? I don't understand your statement.
The best birth control measure is prosperity and education for women. That will allow them to regulate their own fertility.
Access to the means of birth control is necessary !
Birth control is evil destroying the civilisation.
What a lovely psychopath.
That’s the perfect description of this piece of work.
I wish all psychopaths were that lovely, we'd have a good future ahead of us. Really!
@@leylanddowling8663”a good future”
What…good…future? There ain’t gonna be one: arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html?m=1
Cluck cluck
How dare you continue to want to exist? Phoebe should happily "move aside". She has lived a "long life". Future society on the surface, is a dystopia where the population and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by killing everyone who reaches the age of 30. To hang on beyond the age of 30 is selfish and "entitled". When are you getting in line at the Soylent Green factories? Your sacrifices will be be remembered. Your sacrifice is feed the rest of humanity.
No problem with that in principle, as long as you do better than I or others at avoiding a dystopia. See my reply above to @Live The Moment.
I 51 and live a dull life so I intend to live it up unstill good heath and I intend to be buried you not have me made in to green soy
such confusing times - we have other people telling us we are now in population collapse due to the ageing population and dramatic reduction in birth rate.
Who is your 'We' ...perhaps you are Euro or Merican? Your country is wealthy enuf to handle it all, but Africa is the growth engine, perhaps the Middle East ? How is she going to convince Nigerians not to prosper?
from what i've seen of the people discussing population collapse its happening all over the place - just go search population collapse and see - not sure its about not 'prospering' just moving away from this mad conspicuous consumption of poorly designed soon to be landfill garbage that extracts and wastes massive resources and does't aid human and planetary wellbeing . The world is shaped by corporate greed and short termism and this has to change - the food system is now largely poisoned in this crazy making context - @@linmal2242
Use critical thinking and statistical data and you will see that the population collapse it's already happening pretty much everywhere except sub-saharan Africa and they are only decade or two behind the rest of the world.
Why we always dividing up so called title s
To be just as direct some specific groups and their values are working in direct opposition: professional economists, conservatives and the political right, and many faith communities. Everyone wants to respect the perspectives and values of others, but why are we dying for them?
Economics is the central dogma at the heart of all these issues, and it works in close alliance with the political right often wielding disproportionate power. The insidious thing is upon accepting the environmental predicament, these people assume innovation is the only solution, which requires greater growth, which requires more people!
They consciously accept a high ‘discount rate’ of the future, and assume that disruption to growth today would be more damaging than climate or population in the future because of the ‘time value of money’. They think that If we invest in growth today it compounds and in 100 years we would be so rich, that climate change is barely a problem. By rich they mean innovation would have driven new products that would somehow fix the problem. So by their logic, cutting back today would amplify global problems in the future! The risk is in mitigating climate change. Do you see how twisted this is? And the discount rate of the social cost of carbon is central to climate policy.
how good a job has "technology and innovation" done so far? has it begun reversing the Earth's biosphere problems.? I don't think so. This is why we are doomed.
How many people depends on how you would like to live. If you want 10 million, then the planet probably can’t handle that over the long term with any mix of technology. If you want to live like today’s 1%, then we need to drop to something like 35 million. And there’s a curving line between those extremes that we can only guess at.
A population of 1 trillion humans could be sustained on Earth comfortably and indefinitely.
Don't forget the rights of involuntarily childless women who are asked to sacrifice our lives for YOUR children. We have a right to resouces that too many children suck up in order to live our good life now. Why should we care about the future of your 3rd, 4th plus more children?
Nothing on either energy or debt. Two big determinants of both policy and individual responses. Where & how will we have sufficient energy? How can the West escape ever increasing national debt? How can the impoverished South be housed when they escape north? The subject is even bigger than Phoebe Barnard outlines.
Wonderfull Channel where dicussion ..closeted.. can talk of eugenics.. reversion of present money system (FIAT debt based) and thinning out of the old non productive .. and rejoycing in new life ..Babies
The problem of women not having a voice is secondary, when compared to the climate emergency. If men stop having a voice for whayever reason, but the climate crisis is fixed great! Priorities and a sense.of proportion is necessary to be effective.
📍1:03:01
²📍36:14 🗯
Wow!
Data please.. Data not feelings
Is it really that hard for you to do a Google search, little buddy?
Climet change is not the prkblem,, when people are more prosperous they have fewer children. In Indonesia older generations had12,14 children to support them in old age, now 1, 2 they want a life with better clouths, house, car
All power reverts to physical reality -- that is, until we repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Vote Libertarian 💯 n00bs 🔥🔥🔥
6:30 Power vacuum? She doesn't know what that term means.
When the population of the entire world is only three people it has reached the end already.
Evolution or extinction? Thank you for pulling all these issues together! For me the key seems to be sustainability and harmony. What would it take to have a sustainable system that allows us to live in harmony with each other, with nature and with technology including AI.
DECRESER LA SOBREPOBLACION DE SERES HUMANOS HASTA LOGRAR EL EQUILIBRIO CON TODA LA BIODIVERSIDAD DE NUESTRO MARAVILLOSO PLANETA. el hiperconsumo y ya estamos en el minuto 59.
Animal agriculture is the other big problem.
over consuming north or the over populating south. Check population densities. The highest population densities are in the richer countries were there's high consumption!!!
The idea of the overpopulating south is another myth.
The world will adapt to a smaller population.
It’s only big business that’s wants growth.
Wow! Unimaginably uniformed. So sad.
God is in Nunawading……
24:30 I expect we'll be getting back to a population of half billion (500 million) in about 80 years. Though not in an ordered fashion. And definitely not with etiquette or manners.
You Malthusian cult-members have been making this same doomsday prediction continuously since 1798.
Good luck with 3 billion people. My estimate is a few million around 2100. The combination of global warming, sea level rise, depletion of both fossil fuels and commodities. Back to 1600 technology but without the same level of resources.
Sea level rise benefits people, by making ocean-trade easier.
@@aliendroneservices6621 What about the billions of people that live in cities and deltas that will be flooded?
@@dan2304 Much-poorer people in the past were able to:
• Build cities
• Build dykes
• Move
If you were really concerned about people in the future, you would help them become far-richer than you by supporting *_energy-freedom._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 My point exactly, Global resources have been squandered, From fertile soils to forests to fish stocks that were avail to the few that lived before the industrial will are already gone. They are replaced by industrial processes that rely on fossil fuels minerals and metals. Once the fossil fuels are largely depleted 8 billion people cannot survive and it will take centuries for the Earth to renew.
@@dan2304There remain at least 50k years' worth of each of the three major types of fossil fuel.
"men have been a large part of the problem..." by making sure that enough crap is produced so that women can continuously fulfill their hyper consumer desires... well at least she put her bias out there at the beginning and saved me wasting an hour of my time...
Agreed. Reproduction and consumption are driving the climate crisis and blaming the part of the population that contributes the least to these distracts from the issue here. Your comment is spot on.
Well said. I gave her a couple of minutes ...a couple of minutes too many.
How does she plan to enforce her population control?
🙀