I'm 70 and took my first environmental science class in the early 70's where the reading list included 'The Population Bomb'. Although scientific advancement has allowed us to postpone the predicted famine crisis in much of the world, we have continued to suffer from the degradation of the environment due to exceeding the carrying capacity for the planet. Exhibit one and two - shrinking habit for our fellow creatures resulting in the 6th Great Extinction and degradation of crop land by unsustainable soil erosion and ground water overuse. I knew back then that we were headed down an unsustainable path and made a conscious choice not father any children and to live a very modest lifestyle big on experiences, but with minimum materialism. It has been a very rewarding life.
Yes, we have known for quite some time. In 1985 I did a report on the sustainable carrying capacity of humans on earth and came up with 2.6 billion. It all boils down to extinction rates of species by humans destroying/overtaking habitats. Today we can see that it is indeed happening with humans at nearly 8 billion and species dropping off like flies. I got myself a vasectomy soon after writing this paper and I too have had a very rewarding life full of experiences!
@@paullienert6100 I feel that the message will only get drowned out by the economics of life. I'm afraid that we are passed the point where we can save the ecosystem for the species that we have been sharing the planet with. The future is going to be man made.
I absolutely love your tireless dedication and obvious enthusiasm to bringing complex issues to the masses through simple explanations and layman's terms. Thank you so much. I now have less work to do in my everyday life trying to explain such things to people. Now I just say "Here, watch this..." 💖✌️💖✊💖
This issue is so complex that he didn't even look for anything resembling facts. Poor bastard. It's like he doesn't know that there are people who study this stuff.
Makes the interesting point that perhaps the growth of human population may become stagnant or even slightly declining thus warding off the fear of exponential growth. What he doesn't explain is that the planet's already overpopulated human population has been catastrophic and will continue to be so regardless if the population reaches 8. 9, 11 billion.
Tell that to the many people having children in war-torn countries as we speak. Whenever I open this subject they chew my head off. Every video they show of syrian refugee camps its filled with children under 5, which means they were conceived and born in said camps. Madness.
I did subscribe to your channel as I saw some random video that I did like. I watch your channel last few weeks (catching up with all your videos) and do not regret a single minute of it. Great content! Keep up the very good work...
The content is so clearly explained. Then on top of that there are the moving graphs. And somehow you find time to find that Tanzania clip. Both your shows have the look of a production house, but you seem to be doing it all yourself. Impressive!
I have to praise your teaching ability, putting complex topics and data into understandable bits while also very interestingly presenting it. You are one of my if not the most favourite Channels on CZcams. Thanks so much for making important topics understandable for everyday people while not fueling our criseses with CZcams sellout like Merchandising or sponsorships. Staying authentic. Keep up the good work
Case in point about how climate change directly correlates to societal organization (e.g. consumption and production patterns): the US produces CO2 at the same level as China, greater than India, and well above that of all of Africa; yet our population is 1/3 of China, almost 1/3 of India, and less than 1/4 of all of Africa
And that isn't even taking into account that much of western nations' CO2 emission reduction can be attributed to the fact that we have offloaded much of our manufacturing to China.
Great video! Overpopulation has been my greatest overall concern since I was 18; I’m 67 now. Although I’m relieved by the dramatic and continuing drop in fertility, I’m dismayed that people still deny that we are currently overpopulated, deny that earth has population limits, believe doing something about population means coercing people to not have children, and believe that constant population growth is essential for the economy to survive. So let me put these bugs in your head. Peaking and then falling global population means that our current constant-population-growth paradigm for economic viability must change. What does the economic research say about robust vigorous economies with a declining population? How do we do it? What’s in store for economic change?
Nice to see someone from the older generation is against overpopulation. I have read about population growth and over population when I was 12 and it scared me so much. I'm 22 now and when I encounter population growth and overpopulation "deniers" my mind goes like, "why tf are these morons saying there's nothing like that's happening, when we are literally destroying this planet with our population?" But it's really nice to encounter folks from the older generations, who are also concerned about the human population growth and overpopulation. 💚
@@NoxAeterna-wf4iv I read about it when I was 16 (1969) and immediately became a convert. It's been my main "thing" ever since then. I've talked about it uncountable times and don't know how many people got sick of hearing me talk about it. I did various forms of OP activism over the years. Made a population counter for San Jose ZPG in the late 70's. Went to CAPS California lobbying day in 1987. Was a co-host with Steve Sak on his KVMR OP radio program for several years around 89-93, and helped Steve write several articles for the Grass Valley Union. Gave a talk about OP to LWV in Grass Valley which was video taped and shown on local public TV. I made about 20 different OP bumper stickers and gave them away online for years. I have two kids (hard decision to make and long story), who are both staunch overpopulationists. Thinking people have been worried about OP since before Malthus. There are more people than you might imagine that understand very clearly that it is at the root of our environmental problems. Still, it isn't enough to shift consciousness, which is deeply embedded in the growth paradigm.
In all fairness, my common sense tells me exactly the same thing on the topic - global population is going to increase only slightly and all the alarmist calls for dealing with alleged overcrowding on Earth are blown out of proportion. Common sense is just a personal heuristic based on one's knowledge and experience, so it's perfectly fine to rely on it provided one is actually knowledgeable and experienced in a particular subject or life in general.
Just love the positivity you bring to what can sometimes be very daunting and frankly depressing news and data. And it's all so well explained!! Thank you for all your hard work
When I was growing up, everyone I knew who had had kids was miserable because of the two incomes needed to support themselves, not to mention having child-rearing duties while both parents held full-time jobs. And yet all were still struggling financially. Middle class jobs paid less, offered less robust benefits, and college costs became prohibitive. It seemed like there was just a big quality-of-life disincentive to have a family if you were a middle class late boomer/millennial vs. the post war/baby boomer generation. And the federal and state gov’ts didn’t seem to care much. The resulting stress of all this caused most of my married-with-children friends to end up divorced. So... I made a conscious decision NOT to have kids. Result? I’m healthier, have much less stress, have money in the bank, and I retired early. Some might say I’ve been selfish. But I see it differently - that it’s about the most unselfish thing one can do. According to a recent study, each new human being born today will produce 9,000 TONS of carbon over their lifetime, not to mention produce many more tons of physical (landfill; wastewater) waste polluting our planet. And each will also require many tons of resources to live their lives. So, it’s a win-win for the planet and for the many who these days decide not to have kids. Until things change, and society makes it easier to raise a family AND avoid causing significant damage to the planet, a lot of people are going to take the same route I did. It just ain’t worth the hassle, and you’ll live a longer, happier, less stressful life.
Thank you for your informative videos. To anyone worried about population growth I'd suggest to watch one or more of Hans Rosling's outstanding videos on the topic. He had a wonderful gift of presenting statistics in a way that makes them understandable by anyone.
If you value wild nature, then both our consumption and population have surpassed reasonable limits long time ago. One species shouldn't be using so much of the whole planet at the expense of all other species. Large mammals like us should not have population in the billions
@@KateeAngel It's not a question of population size but of reasonable handling of resources. There are plenty of resources to feed 10 billion if the resources are used wisely and not wasted on more and more wars and wasting most of what is consumed instead of truly recycling things when they are used up instead of just downcycling them and to build them durable in the first place so that they do not need to be replaced once the warranty is over just to earn more from selling new stuff.
@@KateeAngel Also, if we succeed in colonising mars, we may even lose a few billion that move overthere. And if we ever manage to move out to colonise planets around other stars, this might even lead to many more leaving. By 2200 or 2300 we might be 10 billion people spread out over a few dozen worlds, leading to an earth and every other world we colonise populated by barely a few hundred million and no more... In 200 years we could end up with an earth that's as wild and thinly populated as before the industrial revolution.
The book Empty Planet is easily readable and points out the downward trend in human population. The lower population projections are most likely. This affects everything from CO2 projections, trade, migration etc. There will be less population than is projected and the pandemic, or any future ones only reduces birth rates further.
@@fullmontyuk I did not read optimism into the book. Rather points and facts which lead to the conclusion that others have found. The UN estimates on future human population are most likely the lower end of the three, and the lower end is likely high. Predicting the future is hard, but once a population isn't born, there is no way to replace them. Like the adage, how long does it take to make a 25 year old? I guess we shall see if the demographers are right, either way the world will be ok.
@@odonnelly46 The book argues that of the 3 projections for total global population, the lower end is more likely based on the current birth rates and trends. This must be taken in context as it was written prior to the pandemic, which will likely curtail birth rates even further. The evidence does not appear to support the 11 billion figure, but that is the thing with predictions, they are just that. I could be wrong, but the evidence so far suggests a human population maximum between 2060 and 2080. Of course things could change, just not likely. The more educated women become, the more urban the population becomes, and the less poverty there is, the lower the birth rate.
My former pastor is from Tanzania. He pronounced it Tan-zan-ya. I figure that a native of the country should know the proper pronunciation. His native language is Swahili.
If it was, no one would say immigration was needed for a work force. Because "immigrating" people for "work" has always historically had the people's interests in mind.
@@KevinBalch-dt8ot Nope. Still being advocated for to this day. By the most powerful in government. Then again, those who "imported" "workforce" have always been very powerful, regardless of depriving the "workers" home countries of man power, keeping them impoverished.
I love your channel very much, and it is really informative . I am a medical doctor of South Asian origin who lives in the UK. I have visited India on several occsaions because my family is from Kolkata. However, I think that your population analysis is MISSING SOME VERY important issues . 1) We are causing the sixth mass extinction event on earth. This is according the United Nations biodiversity summit in Colombia March 2018. This is mainly due to overexploitation of forests and the oceans, and also because of climate change. 2) We are causing serious climate change according the International Panel on Climate Change. 3) Hans Rosling (in 2006) said that Richest 20% of people - take 75% of the world income wealth (earning between about 20 - 100 USD per day). 4) The United Nations Global Environmental Outlook (GEO 3) from 2003 stated that 20% of the world’s population accounted for nearly 90 per cent of total personal consumption, and it still likely to be something similar. 5) Hans Rosling (in 2013) said that richest 2 billion people make 75% of the 75% of carbon dioxide emissions. 6) In 2015, Oxfam issued a report stating that the richest 20% of people produce 70% of greenhouse consumption emissions. The world population is approaching 8 billion, obviously I am trying the make the point that we are causing major environmental problems at the moment. But I am also stating that we are principally causing these problems with the consumption patterns of the richest 2 billion people. As I mentioned previously - billions of people in the world are currently transitioning from being poorer to being part of the global middle class (such as in India and China). They are perfectly entitled to want the same lifestyle that we enjoy in the United Kingdom, but this will mean they will usually consume a lot more meat and other resources, including water use and plastic production. With the transitioning of billions of people into the global middle class - this will obviously make our global environmental problems a lot worse. My family is originally from Calcutta . I have visited Calcutta , and the city seriously over populated. When I visited Calcutta, I was just shocked that there so many people everywhere . I was shocked to see people living on the street, and I was shocked that there were people washing on the street. Sir David Attenborough said: “Although people say ‘in the long run, we are going to stabilise [population levels] ’, they’re going to stabilise, as far as I can see, at a rather higher level than the Earth can accommodate.” The most eminent biologist in the world, E O Wilson, has said : " It's obvious that the key problem facing humanity in the coming century is how to bring a better quality of life - for 8 billion or more people - without wrecking the environment entirely in the attempt. " Thank you very much Dr Reza Hussain
The population explosion was on our minds as students in the 70's. It was part of the curriculum. Lately it is rarely mentioned. It's a problem that hasn't gone away. Yet mainstream science and media won't touch it. I don't know why.
Thank you for highlighting the issue of consumption as a key issue. Too much of the discussion of global population ends up being hijacked by eugenicists with racist agendas rather than focusing on the issue of our global survival as a species.
What’s out of control is the second population explosion that eclipses human growth, that is the 70 Billion animals unnecessarily bred for eating every year. That use 1/3rd of the earths ice free land mass, and they use 80% of world grain and Legumes. We currently grow enough food to feed a population of 10 Billion people, but the vast majority of crops go to animal feed, which is why we have world hunger, while growing enough food for 10 Billion people. We in wealthy countries feed crops grown in poor countries to ‘our’ animals, so we can carry on with our unnatural habit of using animals as food.
Not much. Using the US as a gauge (because EU nations individually were too small to make it into the graphs), the population goes from 325M to 336M by 2100. That's a measly +3.4% uptick. It'll be statistically drowned out by India dropping to 1.09B (-21.0%), China dropping to 732M (-47.7%), and Nigeria tripling in population (+283%). If we assume that Europe has similar population growth and immigration patterns to the US (give or take a few percent), we can probably safely say that immigration will have minimal impact on carbon footprint changes on a national and global level, compared to gross population changes and economic development.
Not a lot, because on arrival they're likely to be less affluent and to consume less than the receiving population, and over a couple of generations their fertility will converge toward the mean in their adopted country. And (being more mobile) they're unlike to be the poorest in their country of origin, so the average footprint there might actually fall, though not significantly. So any net impact is muted: migrants don't go overnight from being low to high consumers. Better though for richer countries just to reduce their footprint. Actively wanting to keep others poor would be a sad end to millennia of development.
@@davepx1 That's not what's happening though. In Europe the African migrants keep high fertility rates even in second and third generation. Besides, whatever their fertility rates, they and their children are still a net increase in population. And no, it's certainly not the richest who come. If we're talking about illegals crossing the Mediterranean, it's literally the worst their countries have to offer. Nobody wants poor countries to stay poor, quite the contrary, but they will never become rich unless they drop their fertility rates.
@@apacheattackhelicopter8185 That's entirely contrary to the studies I've seen, with African migrant fertility below 2 in most EU countries against around 3-5 in countries of origin, so I don't know where you're getting that from. The trend's more muted among Muslim migrants to high-fertility areas, but it's still there: I don't have France to hand: with more Maghrebis (home TFR under 3) and French fertility still relatively high by European standards, the effect there may be weaker still. And no, illegal entrants aren't "the worst": many have gone through hell and paid handsomely for the privilege to do something about their lot. The worst don't migrate, they sit at home and blame their neighbours, migrants or sinister conspiracies, whatever side off the Mediterranean they're on.
Well, to see this intellectual vaccum in such a nice high quality output was a cold shower and reminder of ignorance and greed in the world. I honestly would love to not see or hear anything from this human trash in the next 50 years.
This video popped up randomly as I subscribe to Fully Charged. After watching, I have subscribed, great content, well delivered! Now my problem is that the population of subscribed channels is growing out of control.
@@mostlypeaceful5621 - I thought you knew? all environmentalists hate polar bears - we're only doing this because we want those furry idiots to be cold
@JustHaveAThink, Dave, ¡thank you! Your realistic, fact-based optimism is refreshing, life-affirming, and a precious antidote to all the many other mindsets (and derived ideologies) that distract from charting the best possible path forward. Thank you for your precious work, your time, and your generous, realistic, and optimistic spirit. Thanks for these videos and for you! Little numeric trivia -- curiously we two, and our two fathers, share the same years of birth. Abraços from Río de Janeiro!
I consciously made an effort not to have more than two children. Knowing I would only be replacing me and my partner. Should this not be an encouraged actionable item?
It depends where you are. Almost all developed nations are facing a birth rate crisis. Quite frankly educated women have less kids. So really could have another if you wanted.
You are missing the key point. Population growth is not the problem. Over population is the problem. As fossil energy depletes and climate change reduces agricultural yields, the carrying capacity of the planet will range from a few hundred million to 2 billion, depending on whether you assume an affluent or medieval standard of living. One way or the other, our population will reduce by many billions over the next hundred years. One way is civil, the other is not.
Overpopulation is bad. But keep in mind the Calhoun rat universe experiments. With plenty of space and nesting material, they repeatedly went extinct after overcrowding from overpopulation. So we need to get the overpopulation down in a healthy way but we also need to avoid getting caught in a negative behavioral sink and going extinct. I think we should target 2 billion personally. Everyone would live well and be fully educated at those numbers.
That is idiocy. The amount of land needed to replace the total electricity industry with solar panels is about the size of Great Britain. The solution is not less people but less cows.
@@jbiasutti Sure, get rid of the cows (and cars and planes) but don't focus on electricity because that's not the problem. Aware people worry about diesel for tractors, combines, trucks, trains, ships, and mining machines required to grow and deliver our food. Aware people also worry about the natural gas required to make the nitrogen fertilizer we depend on to feed 8 billion people.
Larger CO2 increases food yields. Already happening. Fossil fuels aren’t depleted and allow for human prosperity. We make an already dangerous climate safer with fossil fuels, last 100 years we are 50x safer from climate related emergencies world wide and indications suggest this will continue. Pretty horrible that you’re justifying genocide. Disgusting actually. You could perhaps spend some time challenging your beliefs on that. Plenty of books about population not being an issue (under population actually the biggest risk) and regarding climate change, the positives from current trajectory far far outweigh challenges predicted by the IPCC. 2 bn people. Disgusting.
@@NoRegertsHere Study some thermodynamics. You have no clue how the world actually works. Genocide may occur if we do nothing because that's what humans do in times of scarcity, and our civilization is completely dependent on rapidly depleting non-renewable resources. To avoid future suffering we need democratically supported policies for rapid population reduction.
I think the question was asked too late. It was out of control but its now starting to get under control. The main question is "Is the population too big for the earth to support comfortably?" Everyone in the world wants to consume and to have a nice life. That is a growth in resource consumption and that is out of control. The climate crisis is caused by an overabundance of humanity and their activities. More people mean more cooking fires and more consumption generally. More land is required for farming. More water is needed. All these activities harm the climate and drive a reduction in the resources required for life.
Out of control world debt, potential population explosion, potential so called “man made” climate catastrophe, enter covid 19 world pandemic and vaccines with a stated 10% vaccine injury rate, including sterilisation. Coincidence, I think not!
@@OMGAnotherday Dude, go a bit out to nature, clear you mind a bit of all the soundbites of all sorts. Breathe and contemplate for a while, the longer the better, and then take another look at what effect do all those ideas have in your mind, intellectually, emotionally, etc. And carry on from there. A breather is good no matter what your perspective is.
A far more interesting contrast in fertility rates is reliable electricity. The more reliable electricity produced the less a population fertility rate. Why? Better food storage, cleaner water, more things to do after dark, and better healthcare.
Highly enjoyable to watch. Since GHG emissions of the agricultural sector make up about 25% of total, could you make a video about the technologies trying to revolutionize conservative agricultural to hit net zero? Would be super cool
GHG emissions caused by uncontrollable wildfires all over the planet are proving hard to manage. So far our best response involves running around screaming and trying not to go on fire.
I discussed these topics in my first book and made the assertion that countries like Nigeria will not be able to reach those crazy population numbers that come from the official projections. Already today in 2021 Nigeria, with "only" 200 millions inhabitants, is importing the food necessary to feed tens of millions and agricaltural land in the country is being taken by cities and infrastructure, so the food deficit is growing and economy is very dependent on oil, whose revenue will decline in the future. It seems then obvious that the population resident in Nigeria will not be able to reach the 791 million predicted and instead there will be quite soon a crisis (war, famine, massive emigration, disease) that will stop its growth like it has already happened in Syria or Yemen. What do you think Mr Dave? Thank you very much for your precious work!
Good points. On the global scale, do you reckon there will be some malicious attempt by unknown entities to engineer a great decrease in the human populations? I personally feel some sort of intervention is coming but can not formulate how it happens. I don’t see a world war starting anytime soon, climate change is an issue but not reducing the human population to a vast extend. A virus pandemic or the like seems the most plausible but not by natural origin.
Thank you. Unfortunately, like Noam Chomsky, one can accurately describe a situation, educate (a few) people, yet provide no action or guidance on how to avoid the coming "convergence" of emergencies. I look forward to the next video and hope some of the actionable items/conclusions are included. Love the channel.
What, what?? Chomsky had quite consistently provides advice for action and guidance, and he's always beging on about local organisation and community action. Grass roots. Without those roots, namely working class roots, then nobody in this heavily individualised world could possibly imagine of everyone getting together to challenge power, the power that has caused and is perpetuating our environmental demise, and others such as military Imperialism, regime changes, economic imperialism etc.
@@toyotaprius79 I think he means, doesn't recommend Marxist-Leninist democratic centralism. Because that has work so many times😆 Dustbin of history etc.
As revealed here - population is not expected grow or reduce by a large fraction in the following decades. So it is a rhetorically charged distraction from our common environmental emergency. It appeals to misanthropic instinct and is a red herring served up by groups against positive change. Population size cannot be reduced in any humane way that would be rapid enough to significantly improve our overall prospects - it is our industry and aspirations that CAN. We can build and manufacture with sustainable non polluting materials - woods and plant matter produced in ecologically diverse and positive agriculture. We power from renewable technology already proven and ready to take over. We limit plastics and metals to neccessary hi tech purposes. We clean up the mess, shore up ecosystems and protect species diversity, and feel great about doing that into the future. We even expand into space, mine asteroids and develop heavy industry away from the home planet. Its all ready to happen if the mass confusion and resource grabbing conflicts around us, can be beaten and outlawed by agreement of people of good will, beyond the current political and business norms which developed this situation.
@@julianshepherd2038 Sometimes government planning works best, sometimes the free market, what needs to be in the "dustbin of history" is the notion of ideological purity when solutions are needed.
Population decline is the problem. We need to get resources from the solar system not Earth. We need to populate the solar system. With more people we will get more people like Newton and Einstein.
If you want more people like them then what you really need is to end 'bullshit' jobs and allow people the freedom to pursue their own intellect. To paraphrase Buckminster Fuller and Rutger Bregman...
“With more people we will get more people like Newton and Einstein.” Not necessarily. The populations which produced Newton, Einstein etc. and the social systems which allowed them to reach their potential (European descent, relatively open inquiry) will be a vanishingly small part of the future world population. The nations who will dominate the world’s population in the future will come from nations who have yet to show they are capable of doing the same. They are still searching for one African Einstein.
We may also get more Hitlers and Pol Pots. We need people to have opportunities to access and (as you say) be motivated to take advantage of education. I'm not sure the poor solar system deserves more of us than our local peak 11bn or so.
@@KevinBalch-dt8ot Europe wasn't subjected until a couple of generations ago to half a century of slave-raiding and colonial rule with minimal investment in education. Population trends are an indicator that Europe's trajectory's not unique, it only happened earlier there. Africa has furthest to travel: give it time. And this time richer countries can help rather than hinder. Newton was born at the time of Europe's witch mania, while Einstein saw two world wars and an industrial-scale genocide. Europe's hasn't been a linear progress.
Virtually all of our serious problems, and existential threats are founded in these absolutely insane population levels. Human survival as a species once depended on reproducing to increase our population. It now threatens not only our own survival, but that of all higher life forms on earth, and the very ecosystem we depend on for survival. We refuse to control our population... “Natural” forces will do it for us, and it will not be gentle, pretty, or pleasant. I, my brother, and quite a number of my friends and acquaintances opted out of reproduction.... but not enough of us. Interestingly I know a number of people of reproductive age who cannot seem to conceive. A year and a half ago, I was even asked by a young couple in that situation to “contribute” ....... I never even considered it. Now they are trying via AI, and still failing. How can you look around you and see the havoc we are wreaking on the world around us and want to bring children into it?
Which particular countries have contributed most to the net carbon emissions since about 1890 when Atmospheric CO2 began rising significantly? What proportion of the total global population do these countries make up?
What the models are unable to predict is human behavior when resources deplete due to climate, consumption, etc. History tells us humans (sadly) war against each other. At this point in our species evolution we either find a way to act as a species or it may end badly
Exactly ! There are a LOT of crisis coming up, capitalism and inequality crisis, climate crisis are the greatest ! I am pretty certain that population growth at this rate is extremely dumb. What comes up, must comes down !
That is what we were told in the 1970s, that we would run out of oil by the year 2000. Now the same people campaign to "keep it in the ground". Fossil fuels have helped liberate millions, indeed also helped to end slavery.
It would not hurt one bit to have less people on this planet! People are already going crazy from being packed in to tightly (lack of quiet and privacy) already and it shows in everything we do!
As I see it the the rate of new births is falling and has been for decades as the video explains. The reasons for this are obscure but part choice with people choosing to have fewer or no children and part environmental. While at the moment people are living longer (pandemics aside) and outstripping the decline in birth rates the world population will continue to rise but eventually the birth rate will fall to a point where the world population will start to decline. If male fertility continues to decline we could see a rapid population collapse at some point aided by devastating ecological collapse (so called extinction event) due to climate change, loss of pollinators, acidic oceans, food production does not meet population needs, emerging diseases which we have no immunity to and drug resistant infections as antibiotics fail to work... and so on. Basically, either way, we are all doomed.
Urbanization is a massive factor in population decline. Throughout history, no city has ever been able to replace its own population on its own. Cities grow due to agrarian or pastoral outsiders moving into them. The XXI Century was first time in human existence where more people live in cities than outside cities, with this worldwide trend growing more and more. The result is that cities may be bigger than ever for now, same as the worldwide population, but what always follows is that population in cities level off, and as a result, so will the overall world population, since most of us, worldwide, are urbanized and likely to continue to be.
The Population Bomb was a best-selling book written by Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a “population explosion” were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience.
Would definitely appreciate a deeper dive into this topic, Including socio-economic aspects eg. addiction to growth, "Sustainable growth"(?),demographics etc.
One effect that many people overlook in lower the replacement birth rate. In my county in West Florida we bounce round a mean age of 49 to 55. With nursing homes and assisted living if you can afford it abound. With fewer working age staff and more attempts at automation it can be a lonely and bleak life. And covid shows a vulnerable population. Retires don't spend much money which will have very disturbing effects on our consumption based economics in the future where less people are born and people live longer.
Endless growth of economy SHOULD be stopped, because it is a suicidal strategy. And the current economic system SHOULD be changed in order to account for the aging population. Pushing for further growth is not a solution
I think it would be important to get some perspective (with few graphs) on the impact to have one less child in a developped country vs all our effort to drive electric cars, become vegan etc...
Anybody who is capable of reading a demographic chart would realize that we have already reached max population. Most of the developed world have more 50 y.o. in their populations than 20 y.o. Urbanization has also lowered the birthrates in the developing world as well. The video is poorly researched using extremely (30 years) out of date data. Pointless and idiotic.
@@michaelmaroney1660 this is not true. The planet can support a population much bigger than the one being projected. The problem is the mismanagement of the planets resources. This is due to the inherent values of consumerist capitalism.
Where I live, there are 87 people per square mile average over ~45,000 square miles. Feel free to move in, cultivate the soil and drive up land prices, we are open for business. Did I mention we are generally hard working, tax paying, law abiding and that is part of productivity too? The earth can bear a LOT more folks if we follow those elements.
Simply explain to everybody why it's necessary to reduce the size of the Amazon rain forest at all in the slightest, or to alter it at all in the slightest. Go ahead, don't be shy.
I met a guy from Tanzania a few months ago, and he didn't pronounce it like we Brits do. More "Tan-Zan-Ya" with a slightly heavier stress on the second syllable...
@@Paul_ You'd find it improbably hard to meet locals in Tanzania pronounce it as Trump did or the "Tan-ZA-nya" that your guy did. And they are probably migrants/non-natives. The way he pronounces it in the video is the far more common/"normal" way to say it
You always do a great job and i really like your work. That said (and i have not seen part 2 yet) the question that is the subject of this programme ought to have been answered up front with an emphatic "yes". One need only consider the enormous environmental loss that has accompanied the exponential growth in human numbers to appreciate this. I must say that i detected a hint of anthropentricity in your narrative ... a little too much about us and not enough about everything else. But maybe i misjudge. All the best, though. You are a good man and you are doing a great job.
Did you watch any of it? The population growth rate's halved in the last half-century. Absolute numbers added annually have been falling since the late 1980s. How is that "out of control"? You may not like the absolute number, but that was built in a generation and more ago. The problem isn't growth today, it's growth in the past, and above all in today's affluent high-consuming societies whose populations surged in earlier centuries but are now barely growing at all. Today's fast-growing populations are the ones that tend to consume least and to have least global impact.
@@davepx1 So much to respond to. Are we addressing % population growth rates or total numbers? The numbers being added are still huge and they are being added to a huge existing population. These numbers have already contributed enormously to global environmental decline. This decline continues under the onslaught of growing human numbers. It matters not a jot to other species (or what is left of them) that the rate of this decline is slowing. Of course, the population problems of today and for sometime into the future are a product of past behaviour but your point is? It is critical, for the sake of what is left of a much diminished world that we do as much as we can to limit future growth. So long as we do not intercede (via contraception, education, etc) population growth remains out of control. We are falling well short of what is needed. You are terribly misinformed in other elements of your comments. You will be surprised to discover that the US population has increased by 100 000 000 people since circa 1980. Most western countries populations grow via immigration. This immigration does little to offset the harm being done by rapid population growth in the developed world but does much to feed the voracious capitalist appetite of the west (you know, the consumer societies to which you, blinkered like, take particular exception to). Population growth is out of control and has been for decades. That the rate of growth is slowing does not alter that. There will be enormous harm done to the planet by the next 3, 4, 5 or more billion. Vis a vis the fast-growing (or recently past fast growing) and enormously overly populated countries of the developed world: China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan -- and soon to be numerous African nations) all intend to be and all will become voracious consuming nations ... and that ought to concern you!
@@user-rj5kx8wr6y Both, as I said. Reading is your friend. Just repeating your "out of control" mantra ad nauseam contributes nothing useful. It isn't out of control, you just seem to have a problem with non-white people having children. No, I'm not surprised by US population growth, I study the data rather than mouthing off for the sake of it. I never said anything about "voracious capitalist appetites", I just pointed out that most of the rise in consumption is associated with countries with slower population growth. Immigration isn't the cause of developed-world growth (Europe was spewing out emigrants across the globe as it industrialised), it's a response to resulting disparities. And China's development surge in recent decades has gone hand-in-hand with demographic slowdown: be careful what you wish for.
Why is it hopeless? I guess you can't see the trends toward using less and less material in our economies (Google "dematerialization") or the trend toward decarbonization of transport and power generation. I don't want to minimize the magnitude of the problem, but calling it "hopeless" is just giving up and letting evil people decide our path.
Tell that Africa, India and China. :D Their wave of consumption is just ahead way before we reach any significant amount of dematerialisation. Imagine a billion or more people reaching western levels of consumption. Earth overshoot day is already in July if I'm not mistaken... it looks very dire.
I was 15 and am 19 now. I always knew population growth will be no global issue because it will stabilize itself and people will adapt to a more humble lifestyle.
"Level of consumption" mentioned at the end of the video, looks at our impact. That is, of course, the issue here. We consume 1.5 'earths' of resources every year, are drowning in plastic waste, are warming the earth beyond control, are causing another mass extinction, and humans and food animals account for 96% of the weight of ALL land animals. While we added 880 million people in the last decade. Is there a problem with the amount of humans? Yes. Will adding more people alleviate those problems? No.
My favorite channel by far and large. I always watch every new episode as soon as it shows up in my feed list. No delay. These videos are that good. And the wealth of reliable references for further info. I try to recommend it to everyone on social media. I hope they'll keep coming for still a long time.... We really need channels like this one. Thank you so much, sir!
@@JustHaveaThink Dave this replaces my old Gordo account. Still swatting deniers on a few of your videos, mostly with Swiftly TP on the GSM video. Hope that's okay with you.
Just remember this is based on a consistent stable ecological and economical environment, if both are not stable the fertility rate will plunge even further, completely rewriting the entire statistical scenario. There is an issue with age range as well, especially between the different races, considering the average age of: White: 43, Black: 34, Asian/Pacific Islander: 37, Latino 29 and Mixed Other: 21, so the worldwide average age range is almost 30 years old.
Thank you google for answering this question. I surprised it wasn't able to compute the company will make more money with more people. Wonder what the optimization criteria was.
In 1985 I did a report on the sustainable carrying capacity of humans on earth and came up with 2.6 billion. It all boils down to extinction rates of species by humans destroying/overtaking habitats. Today we can see that it is indeed happening with humans at nearly 8 billion and species dropping off like flies. I got myself a vasectomy soon after writing this paper.
@@charlespalmer3595 The next generation's quality of life better than the previous is just a massive ponzi scheme that will collapse, it's just a matter of time, for some, it's now. The interesting conversation would be how to incentivise the world to lower its population so drastically.
If you value wild nature, then both our consumption and population have surpassed reasonable limits long time ago. One species shouldn't be using so much of the whole planet at the expense of all other species. Large mammals like us should not have population in the billions. So yeah, less than a billion
I have been watching population growth since the 1970's, with an eye towards technology, and food production (nothing about green house gasses). My opinion back then was that the earth's arable land cannot support more than about 1.2 billion people without "advanced" farming techniques, involving chemical fertilizers, and monoculture factory farms. I believe this is still true. I understand the complexity of population models, but I also understand that we need a fundamental change in social thinking before we can make a meaningful change in our long term future. Perhaps the earth is a self correcting system, and climate change will wipe out 6 billion or so in the next two hundred years, solving the problem.
Austin Mackell May I suggest you are being as optimistic as an evangelical anticipating the rapture? In 50 years you will need reverse-aging technology, not anti-aging technology.
@@jfuite When The Rapture comes, people will be springing up out of their graves. It'll either be a Zombie Apocalypse, Housing Market Crisis, or a huge jump in Netflix subscribers (buy NFLX now!). Maybe all 3.
The answer is a big YES. And it is wise to consider the greatest challenge to the planet nowadays as a coin with two dreadful sides, the verse closely linked to the obverse: the first side is CO2 emissions, overall pollution and climate change, the second side is the madness of uncontrolled population growth concurrent with the rise of poverty (more people, and more poor people, both in absolute and relative numbers!). Nevermind the statistics that are pumped out by foolish media without context and commentary that tells us more inhabitants each year rise to the tier of one dollar of income per day! Anyone who earns a dollar per day instead of zero is still poor.
Population growth is not out of control. Period. The world can handle more people. And most importantly, the fertility rate (as mentioned in this video) is way down - and probably will only continue to go down (abortions/contraceptives readily available etc.). At some point we'll actually be depopulating as a natural consequence of the decline in fertility rate.
There is the fact that population is leveling out and possibly declining in many developed parts of the world. And none too soon. But some parts of the world are still increasing rapidly. There are powerful forces in the developed world that are crying for never-ending population growth to maintain their ponzi scheme of inflated housing costs, debt, cheap labour and higher consumption. So they turn to mass immigration to continue the expansion of the commercial economy regardless of the impacts on the well-being of their citizens or on the environment. Transferring large numbers of people from low consumption source countries to high consumption countries is the single worst thing one can be done to the global environment. In Canada, the carbon footprint of its immigrant stream increases by a factor of 4.2 when they migrate to that northern nation. For some source countries, the factor is 15! Population is a huge issue and so is their location. The ultra right wing is promoting both population growth and mass immigration to drive its predatory economic model. So there is population and the age old question : Who profits?"
Children create opportunity for the poor to climb the social ladder. Without children there's no economic opportunity available to their parent. Look at immigrants; it make sense that anyone who immigrate will leverage their parent back home.
@@xponen People don't migrate and leave their homes, social positions and family behind unless they are desperate. Emigrating is something they do in their own interest and it may work to their benefit in the vast majority of cases. However, the arrival of large numbers of immigrants in mature societies (in the 21st century this is everywhere now) damages the prospects of the majority of the native population and is certainly an environmental juggernaut. Look at the farmland losses, quality of life and equality declines, ghg emissions increases in the receiving countries. Better to solve issues in the countries in which they originate than spread the problem. Of course, this means greatly increased and better directed foreign aide which is a very neglected area. Why neglected? Power groups do not get wealthy off foreign aide, they get wealthy off asset inflation, consumption growth and endless supplies of cheap labour.
@@xponen It's not right for a parent to bring a kid into this world just to profit off the kid-- sounds like a form of slavery or exploitation, but not love. Parents should have kids once they are financially ready to support their kids; people should not be expected to financially support their parents, because parents choose to have kids, and kids don't have a choice whether or not to be born.
@@xponen people either defend their resource base or disappear. Same consequence if they over-exploit their resource base, they either disappear or migrate. Declining populations does not mean no population and less people in high consumption countries - also every country, but highest consumption is most important - is a very good thing for long term species survival.
Finally I stumbled over a video that issues the monstrous growth in population! I've seen a lot of documentary's about the problems in our world, mainly climate related, caused by deforestation, huge areas for livestock or plantations, over fishing and killing of whales etc and the destruction of the seafloor, extinction of animals on land and so on.. All in favour of us, the only animal that eat what we want and throw away the rest. They talk about what we could do about the problem but never or only vaguely do they adress the root of the problem. We are too many on this planet!! If we decreased by a couple of billions or more, i think almost all of the climate problems will disappear after a while. I don't understand why not everyone is talking about it ...
Because the left wing agenda is all about "diversity" they can't adress this problem without admitting that unchecked migrant intake is a dumb idea. Western populations are relatively stable. So any attempt to slow population growth is "racist". The hypocrisy and double think can not be considered without them giving ground on one of their most cherished agendas.
@@donutemptycircle8717 Please reference the IPCC document and page number that says humans are going to go extinct because of climate change. I'll wait.
4:35 have you been watching Hans Rosling ? :-) Thank you very much for this update ! I would think this is great news. And it's great to see that Africa is getting more industrialized but without such a big consumption increase. People are always amazed when I tell them that we've probably already reached 'peak child' or close to it.
I’m a little bit disappointed that there was no mention of Hans Rosling or anything in the description linking to his BBC documentary that covers a lot of this, “Don’t Panic”.
@@mrsneeklamy I don't know about the documentary, etc. But remember seeing the exact same method used in his presentation video on CZcams: "Why the world population won’t exceed 11 billion | Hans Rosling"
Population is set to rise, level off, then fall. This has been known for well over 5 years. This video is old news from a guy that normally sells Fake Green tech ideas to gullible, brainwashed Fake Green wannabes... Billions more will be demanding neodymium if the Fake Greenz get their way. It's already expensive and polluting, imagine what 10s of billions of e-vehicles will demand... Look at what's going on with a high demand resource that uses cheap natural resources - silicons chip prices are skyrocketing.. Now imagine that demand with natural resources that are very rare in comparison... A Liberal Nightmare of e-junk on crack'n'roids.
@@PrivateSi Huh, you're all concerned about rare earth, but think that Oil will always be there. Ever heard of recycling? Can't do that with Oil once its burnt. Edit "Researchers at the Critical Materials Institute (CMI) and Ames Laboratory in the USA have received recognition for developing a magnet recycling process in which magnets are dissolved in water-based solutions, recovering more than 99% purity rare earth elements as well as cobalt. The rare earth materials recovered have been reused in the manufacture of new magnets." Besides. New Generators don't need to use neodymium. Google "Enercon use no neodymium in their giant E-126 (the world’s largest to date), which is also direct-drive. " Toyota and other battery manufacturers also are reducing the amount of raw materials required. The same Science that is reducing Oil usage can solve those problems too.
@@dnomyarnostaw .. Sheeple-parrot.. Of course petrol and diesel can be recycled. We have plenty, and e-vehicles still need oil and plastic... Diesel engines use a lot of exhaust gas regen to keep emissions down.. Stage 1, in-car recycling.. Stage 2, CO2 is PLANT FOOD, plants are carbohydrate fuel sources.. Kick all the pen-pushing paper wasters out of office blocks and sky-scrapers... they can work from home now-a-days.. Grow high markup food & drugs in techno-organic vertical farms, with organic biofuel crops outdoors.. This is the Industrial Revolution 2 I'd pay for, as it is GREEN, unlike your Nazti, fake green 'solutions'... -- DC Brushless permanent magnets are the most efficient form of vehicle motor. Any other motor will use more electricity. so again, a zero-sum gain, no net benefit, and much better or bigger batteries are needed. -- If the world had adopted Thorium Molten Salt Breeder reactors, instead of Enriched Uranium I'd have respect for your beloved Military-Scientific-Industrial-Data Collection Complex..... But no, 100s of 1000s of nuke tests and highly toxic nuclear power, with DU and Plutonium waste also used for nukes and dirty nuke bunker busters... Thorium is far safer, far cleaner, far cheaper and far more secure. Australian desert dirt could power the world for 10s of 1000s of years. -- As we nuclear is toxic, and most of the world uses coal and gas power, your 'green' solutions are FAKE.... They are no better than the current system, and far worse because your e-waste is far harder to recycle than iron/steel, aluminium and CO2.. Until you get this through your brainwashed skull, you're just another FAKE GREEN SHEEPLE-PARROT... -- Plant more trees, but be aware, more trees means more local humidity, means much more heat trapped (water vapour is 1000x more of a powerful greenhouse gas and much more abundant). This negates any CO2 absorption... Sky rivers flow between forests, larger the forests, larger the 'sky rivers'... These trap heat too.. -- The IPCC is a corrupt Liberal Socialist + Liberal Capitalism scam. Accurate, useful climate modelling is INTRACTABLE... IMPOSSIBLE... Your Masters are the worst wasters of all time, and they want to DEVELOP AND MODERNISE = INDUSTRIALISE the entire planet.. Open new markets, make sure all the poor participate in their uber-waste mass consumption junk fest.... LIBERAL NAZTIS!
.. Although no cars for the majority, who will be living a poorer life than their parents in the west, and a more junk-making life in developing nations...
@@PrivateSi Wow. Youve got it bad. We dont need Oil for Plastic. Henry Ford built panels out of Hemp. Funny how there is "plenty" of what you support, but no solution for the problems of your "sheeple". Good luck with your blood pressure medication.
Thank you for this video. (I really like your videos, and the way they are presented, understanding the needs of the sort of viewers you have, moderately intelligent, informed and concerned, but non-expert. You don't patronise us, but neither do you bamboozle us. You are an excellent teacher.) But I wonder just how relevant this new information actually is. Fears of "overpopulation" have been with us since Malthus. Fears about overpopulation can also be incredibly politicised. For instance, George Monbiot, nominally a left wing progressive, is very vocal about population issues, stating it's not population that's the problem, but consumption - that's his progressive viewpoint. But here I believe he's serious in error, he's arguing a false dichotomy, they're both existentially important. The problem for me is my firm belief that the planet is already seriously overpopulated. I was born in 1946, in my lifetime the population of the world has trebled, but not just that, the population in the most consuming nations, such as Europe, the USA, has doubled, as our consumption increased even more. For instance, the USA's "effective population" based on the amount of resources its citizens consume is equivalent of double India's present population. So overpopulation or rapid population growth, too often considered as a developing world issue, is equally a first world one, perhaps more so. I put a simple rhetorical question, how much easier would it be to solve the converging crises of global warming etc. that you are going to discuss in future videos, if the population had remained at the level it was when I was born? We are living on a borrowed planet already - our soils, our waters, our oceans, our forests, our minerals, the very air we breathe - our 7.5 billion population is existing on an ever increasing deficit. A farmer unable to replace the seeds of his harvest is not going to thrive very long. Nor are we, even at "mere" 7.5 billion.This wiki page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint ) presents figures for ecological deficits on a national basis, there's hardly a single country that isn't in worrying deficit. So these latest figures of global population projections are scientifically interesting, interesting but pretty useless, like learning what a black hole might look like, but I believe totally irrelevant to the seriousness of the predicament we, as a human species, are already facing. If one's seen the Netflix video "Seaspiracy" then one will understand just a bit better what living on an ecological deficit looks like in just one ecological environment - just extrapolate that to all the other of the planet's resources to understand what ecological deficit truly means, because we're already there.
Agree, it is consumption per head PLUS number of consumers. I left a similar comment above. There is still a knee jerk aversion to promoting smaller families in developed nations, despite the fact it is in effect creating zero carbon footprints (far, far better than any vegan cyclist can do)
You missed that women are having their children between 30 and 40. This means that in your block chart their are still 2 billion per row, but now only four rows. Not five.
Mean while in India if we apply population control bill. It will be a religions prblm. Mean while we will face poverty and for long time and remain devloping nation for 1000 years😊😊😊😊😊😊
Indias total fertility rate is at 2.35 children/woman and tends to drop. Looking at the costs of labour in China, I would not be surprised, if India would have a golden decade till 2030.
@No No Well India has a massive low skill and low cost workforce in what is a somewhat stable enviorment. China is right now loosing manufacturing jobs as wages go up. If India would make it easier for buisnesses to operate, India very easily could attract those jobs leaving China. GDP per capita is extremly low in India, most countries with lower ones have a civil war or are very close to one. India could very well get a decade of pretty high growth rates. Hence a golden decade.
Before video: Isaac Arthur has a great video entitled "Can we have a Trillion people on Earth" where he makes the case that yes we can even with current or near current tech, and without paving over all the forests and stuff. Let's see what this has to think :) After video: Another great one, thanks for making them. I will have to read some of those papers to see how they factored in the wars due to climate change. If you haven't read Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question" take 20 minutes and go read it (or have someone read it to you on CZcams) when you're done with this video.
Those are the best to have many children. The capable and popularly loved should be the ones having children. The incapable and ill tolerated should not have children.
Bangladesh is half of Germany by landmass but it's population is twice bigger than Germany. The population of Bangladesh will grow 230 to 250 million .How will the government feed it's big population?
I've never heard anyone ask if population growth is out of control. That's a carefully crafted question that permits a clear answer. What I hear being asked is 'are there too many human beings on the planet?' No nice pat answer. Lower fertility rates are fine but will we survive long enough to see declining population. Also beware of any discussion where 'modelling is used in every second sentence. Modelling is like statistics: you can make them say anything that suits your prejudice/beliefs
I have heard on this channel and from other sources that renewable are now less expensive than traditional sources of energy... unfortunately this is not my experience: I run sustainability projects for a fortune 200 company and I am constantly quoting energy projects and, from what I see in different markets worldwide, natural gas is still the most cost effective form of energy. Even to reduce carbon production, a cogeneration system can reduce 1 Ton of CO2e annually for $500, while a solar installation is $1500 to $2000... I would be very interested in more details on these type of data, thanks!
Education seems to have a big influence on birth rates. Almost all the who's problems can be traced back to poor education and a lack of deep respect for one another.
@@PazLeBon Are you aware of human biology where it takes a man and a woman to make a baby? How can you say that it is just about women and leave men out of the equation? If men respected women, they wouldn't impregnate them over and over again. Please look at your assumptions and rethink your point of view.
@@ReevansElectro i dont have a point of view, i was questioning yours lmao. whats disrespectful about having lots of kids? From whom to whom and how and why?
I have seen that prediction for Nigeria to go to about 730 million. I find that hard to accept. Yes, I accept science, and statistical modelling. However, I also think that people need adequate food to survive. I don't think Nigeria can grow the food necessary to feed 730 million people. Nor do I think that Nigeria will have the wealth to import that food. Moreover, I think that sea level rise will impact the Niger delta's food growing capacity. And global warming will likely decrease Nigeria's food growing capacity. So, my thinking leads me to think that starvation and famine will put a cap on Nigeria's population growth. How high will Nigeria's current population of 201 million grow to at its peak?? Whatever it is, I think it will be far short of 730 million.
"Nor do I think that Nigeria will have the wealth to import that food" The widow of late President Ubanga has USD$25,000,000 to deposit in your bank account, so they must have quite a bit.
I'm 70 and took my first environmental science class in the early 70's where the reading list included 'The Population Bomb'. Although scientific advancement has allowed us to postpone the predicted famine crisis in much of the world, we have continued to suffer from the degradation of the environment due to exceeding the carrying capacity for the planet. Exhibit one and two - shrinking habit for our fellow creatures resulting in the 6th Great Extinction and degradation of crop land by unsustainable soil erosion and ground water overuse. I knew back then that we were headed down an unsustainable path and made a conscious choice not father any children and to live a very modest lifestyle big on experiences, but with minimum materialism. It has been a very rewarding life.
Yes, we have known for quite some time. In 1985 I did a report on the sustainable carrying capacity of humans on earth and came up with 2.6 billion. It all boils down to extinction rates of species by humans destroying/overtaking habitats. Today we can see that it is indeed happening with humans at nearly 8 billion and species dropping off like flies. I got myself a vasectomy soon after writing this paper and I too have had a very rewarding life full of experiences!
@@charlespalmer3595 how can we get your message out to the masses and into leaders decision making?
@@paullienert6100 I feel that the message will only get drowned out by the economics of life. I'm afraid that we are passed the point where we can save the ecosystem for the species that we have been sharing the planet with. The future is going to be man made.
1960 and the "we're gonna run out off oil" cries called, says hi.
@@charlespalmer3595 Bravo Sir, welcome to the V club! - Best thing I ever did
I really love your dry humour.
Thank you so much for all the work you do and put into these videos.
I absolutely love your tireless dedication and obvious enthusiasm to bringing complex issues to the masses through simple explanations and layman's terms. Thank you so much. I now have less work to do in my everyday life trying to explain such things to people. Now I just say "Here, watch this..." 💖✌️💖✊💖
Wow, thank you! I really appreciate that :-)
Absolutely agree
Was going to comment similar, only thing I'd add is I love Dave's subtle humour he adds to such well thought out opinions.
This issue is so complex that he didn't even look for anything resembling facts.
Poor bastard. It's like he doesn't know that there are people who study this stuff.
Makes the interesting point that perhaps the growth of human population may become stagnant or even slightly declining thus warding off the fear of exponential growth.
What he doesn't explain is that the planet's already overpopulated human population has been catastrophic and will continue to be so regardless if the population reaches 8. 9, 11 billion.
If you don't have a job you can not support a family. Having a child you can not provide for is cruel and irresponsible
Unless you are wealthy of course.
Tell that to the many people having children in war-torn countries as we speak. Whenever I open this subject they chew my head off. Every video they show of syrian refugee camps its filled with children under 5, which means they were conceived and born in said camps. Madness.
That's that aye? Rule no.1 of society. No adaptation of thought.
Jesus wept
Having a society that can't afford to have children but can afford billionaires is not sustainable.
@@bluceree7312 People need to be more responsible. Having a child during a war is crazy.
I did subscribe to your channel as I saw some random video that I did like. I watch your channel last few weeks (catching up with all your videos) and do not regret a single minute of it. Great content! Keep up the very good work...
Thanks Marcin. I really appreciate that.
The content is so clearly explained. Then on top of that there are the moving graphs. And somehow you find time to find that Tanzania clip. Both your shows have the look of a production house, but you seem to be doing it all yourself. Impressive!
He really is doing it all himself. Impressive indeed.
Geez, you'd almost think we was acting like an educated adult. I'm finding that's a minority of the channels I watch regularly.
Thanks Anthony. I really appreciate that feedback. Yes, it is indeed all me :-) (can get busy sometimes!)
@@xxwookey I could probably do it if I had my own personal hairdresser. April One comment.
I have to praise your teaching ability, putting complex topics and data into understandable bits while also very interestingly presenting it. You are one of my if not the most favourite Channels on CZcams. Thanks so much for making important topics understandable for everyday people while not fueling our criseses with CZcams sellout like Merchandising or sponsorships. Staying authentic. Keep up the good work
Thank you Timo. That's very kind feedback. Much appreciated.
I'm constantly baffled how Dave is putting out such high-quality stuff while working in a regular job.
It's not really difficult when you have an army of researchers and your very own make-up artist and hairdresser!
@@donutemptycircle8717 ...hairdresser?
@@williammillard687 for the day that's in it!
Whats your secret @Dave?
Me, too! How does he do it?
You produce SO MUCH QUALITY CONTENT!!!!
Bless you! That's very kind :-)
The narrator did not answer the question....is it out of control?
He only gave statistics .....always good video's but this one was Unprofessional.
Case in point about how climate change directly correlates to societal organization (e.g. consumption and production patterns): the US produces CO2 at the same level as China, greater than India, and well above that of all of Africa; yet our population is 1/3 of China, almost 1/3 of India, and less than 1/4 of all of Africa
And that isn't even taking into account that much of western nations' CO2 emission reduction can be attributed to the fact that we have offloaded much of our manufacturing to China.
@@antred11 Yup; China, India and Africa are our factories and dumps at the same time. It’s appalling.
Great video! Overpopulation has been my greatest overall concern since I was 18; I’m 67 now. Although I’m relieved by the dramatic and continuing drop in fertility, I’m dismayed that people still deny that we are currently overpopulated, deny that earth has population limits, believe doing something about population means coercing people to not have children, and believe that constant population growth is essential for the economy to survive.
So let me put these bugs in your head. Peaking and then falling global population means that our current constant-population-growth paradigm for economic viability must change. What does the economic research say about robust vigorous economies with a declining population? How do we do it? What’s in store for economic change?
Nice to see someone from the older generation is against overpopulation. I have read about population growth and over population when I was 12 and it scared me so much. I'm 22 now and when I encounter population growth and overpopulation "deniers" my mind goes like, "why tf are these morons saying there's nothing like that's happening, when we are literally destroying this planet with our population?"
But it's really nice to encounter folks from the older generations, who are also concerned about the human population growth and overpopulation. 💚
@@NoxAeterna-wf4iv I read about it when I was 16 (1969) and immediately became a convert. It's been my main "thing" ever since then. I've talked about it uncountable times and don't know how many people got sick of hearing me talk about it. I did various forms of OP activism over the years. Made a population counter for San Jose ZPG in the late 70's. Went to CAPS California lobbying day in 1987. Was a co-host with Steve Sak on his KVMR OP radio program for several years around 89-93, and helped Steve write several articles for the Grass Valley Union. Gave a talk about OP to LWV in Grass Valley which was video taped and shown on local public TV. I made about 20 different OP bumper stickers and gave them away online for years. I have two kids (hard decision to make and long story), who are both staunch overpopulationists. Thinking people have been worried about OP since before Malthus. There are more people than you might imagine that understand very clearly that it is at the root of our environmental problems. Still, it isn't enough to shift consciousness, which is deeply embedded in the growth paradigm.
Clear, logical thinking rather than instinctive 'common sense' - love it!
In all fairness, my common sense tells me exactly the same thing on the topic - global population is going to increase only slightly and all the alarmist calls for dealing with alleged overcrowding on Earth are blown out of proportion.
Common sense is just a personal heuristic based on one's knowledge and experience, so it's perfectly fine to rely on it provided one is actually knowledgeable and experienced in a particular subject or life in general.
Just love the positivity you bring to what can sometimes be very daunting and frankly depressing news and data. And it's all so well explained!! Thank you for all your hard work
When I was growing up, everyone I knew who had had kids was miserable because of the two incomes needed to support themselves, not to mention having child-rearing duties while both parents held full-time jobs. And yet all were still struggling financially. Middle class jobs paid less, offered less robust benefits, and college costs became prohibitive. It seemed like there was just a big quality-of-life disincentive to have a family if you were a middle class late boomer/millennial vs. the post war/baby boomer generation. And the federal and state gov’ts didn’t seem to care much. The resulting stress of all this caused most of my married-with-children friends to end up divorced. So... I made a conscious decision NOT to have kids. Result? I’m healthier, have much less stress, have money in the bank, and I retired early. Some might say I’ve been selfish. But I see it differently - that it’s about the most unselfish thing one can do. According to a recent study, each new human being born today will produce 9,000 TONS of carbon over their lifetime, not to mention produce many more tons of physical (landfill; wastewater) waste polluting our planet. And each will also require many tons of resources to live their lives. So, it’s a win-win for the planet and for the many who these days decide not to have kids. Until things change, and society makes it easier to raise a family AND avoid causing significant damage to the planet, a lot of people are going to take the same route I did. It just ain’t worth the hassle, and you’ll live a longer, happier, less stressful life.
Thank you for your informative videos. To anyone worried about population growth I'd suggest to watch one or more of Hans Rosling's outstanding videos on the topic. He had a wonderful gift of presenting statistics in a way that makes them understandable by anyone.
Shoeboxes!
Thank you. And I agree. In fact when I first did a video about population a couple of years ago, I referenced Hans Rosling directly. RIP
If you value wild nature, then both our consumption and population have surpassed reasonable limits long time ago. One species shouldn't be using so much of the whole planet at the expense of all other species. Large mammals like us should not have population in the billions
@@KateeAngel It's not a question of population size but of reasonable handling of resources. There are plenty of resources to feed 10 billion if the resources are used wisely and not wasted on more and more wars and wasting most of what is consumed instead of truly recycling things when they are used up instead of just downcycling them and to build them durable in the first place so that they do not need to be replaced once the warranty is over just to earn more from selling new stuff.
@@KateeAngel Also, if we succeed in colonising mars, we may even lose a few billion that move overthere. And if we ever manage to move out to colonise planets around other stars, this might even lead to many more leaving. By 2200 or 2300 we might be 10 billion people spread out over a few dozen worlds, leading to an earth and every other world we colonise populated by barely a few hundred million and no more...
In 200 years we could end up with an earth that's as wild and thinly populated as before the industrial revolution.
"If something cannot go on, it won't."
I can't get that quote out of my head, and it's greatly disturbing.
The book Empty Planet is easily readable and points out the downward trend in human population. The lower population projections are most likely. This affects everything from CO2 projections, trade, migration etc. There will be less population than is projected and the pandemic, or any future ones only reduces birth rates further.
@@fullmontyuk I did not read optimism into the book. Rather points and facts which lead to the conclusion that others have found. The UN estimates on future human population are most likely the lower end of the three, and the lower end is likely high. Predicting the future is hard, but once a population isn't born, there is no way to replace them. Like the adage, how long does it take to make a 25 year old? I guess we shall see if the demographers are right, either way the world will be ok.
@@odonnelly46 The book argues that of the 3 projections for total global population, the lower end is more likely based on the current birth rates and trends. This must be taken in context as it was written prior to the pandemic, which will likely curtail birth rates even further. The evidence does not appear to support the 11 billion figure, but that is the thing with predictions, they are just that. I could be wrong, but the evidence so far suggests a human population maximum between 2060 and 2080. Of course things could change, just not likely. The more educated women become, the more urban the population becomes, and the less poverty there is, the lower the birth rate.
200 votes against better accounting of population growth. Come on guys get your damn heads out of the sand.
My former pastor is from Tanzania. He pronounced it Tan-zan-ya. I figure that a native of the country should know the proper pronunciation. His native language is Swahili.
Yep, sadly have to say that the former POTUS is correct. Kudos to this channel as others have noted.
@@chrisorourke2110 Shhhhh. There are too many people enjoying the cheap laughs . . . .
If it was, no one would say immigration was needed for a work force.
Because "immigrating" people for "work" has always historically had the people's interests in mind.
That was before universally adaptable robotics and artificial intelligence.
@@KevinBalch-dt8ot Nope. Still being advocated for to this day. By the most powerful in government.
Then again, those who "imported" "workforce" have always been very powerful, regardless of depriving the "workers" home countries of man power, keeping them impoverished.
I love your channel very much, and it is really informative . I am a medical doctor of South Asian origin who lives in the UK.
I have visited India on several occsaions because my family is from Kolkata. However, I think that your population analysis is MISSING SOME VERY important issues .
1) We are causing the sixth mass extinction event on earth. This is according the United Nations biodiversity summit in Colombia March 2018. This is mainly due to overexploitation of forests and the oceans, and also because of climate change.
2) We are causing serious climate change according the International Panel on Climate Change.
3) Hans Rosling (in 2006) said that Richest 20% of people - take 75% of the world income wealth (earning between about 20 - 100 USD per day).
4) The United Nations Global Environmental Outlook (GEO 3) from 2003 stated that 20% of the world’s population accounted for nearly 90 per cent of total personal consumption, and it still likely to be something similar.
5) Hans Rosling (in 2013) said that richest 2 billion people make 75% of the 75% of carbon dioxide emissions.
6) In 2015, Oxfam issued a report stating that the richest 20% of people produce 70% of greenhouse consumption emissions.
The world population is approaching 8 billion, obviously I am trying the make the point that we are causing major environmental problems at the moment.
But I am also stating that we are principally causing these problems with the consumption patterns of the richest 2 billion people.
As I mentioned previously - billions of people in the world are currently transitioning from being poorer to being part of the global middle class (such as in India and China). They are perfectly entitled to want the same lifestyle that we enjoy in the United Kingdom, but this will mean they will usually consume a lot more meat and other resources, including water use and plastic production. With the transitioning of billions of people into the global middle class - this will obviously make our global environmental problems a lot worse.
My family is originally from Calcutta . I have visited Calcutta , and the city seriously over populated. When I visited Calcutta, I was just shocked that there so many people everywhere . I was shocked to see people living on the street, and I was shocked that there were people washing on the street.
Sir David Attenborough said:
“Although people say ‘in the long run, we are going to stabilise [population levels] ’, they’re going to stabilise, as far as I can see, at a rather higher level than the Earth can accommodate.”
The most eminent biologist in the world, E O Wilson, has said :
" It's obvious that the key problem facing humanity in the coming century is how to bring a better quality of life - for 8 billion or more people - without wrecking the environment entirely in the attempt. "
Thank you very much
Dr Reza Hussain
The population explosion was on our minds as students in the 70's. It was part of the curriculum.
Lately it is rarely mentioned. It's a problem that hasn't gone away. Yet mainstream science and media won't touch it. I don't know why.
Thank you for highlighting the issue of consumption as a key issue. Too much of the discussion of global population ends up being hijacked by eugenicists with racist agendas rather than focusing on the issue of our global survival as a species.
What’s out of control is the second population explosion that eclipses human growth, that is the 70 Billion animals unnecessarily bred for eating every year. That use 1/3rd of the earths ice free land mass, and they use 80% of world grain and Legumes. We currently grow enough food to feed a population of 10 Billion people, but the vast majority of crops go to animal feed, which is why we have world hunger, while growing enough food for 10 Billion people. We in wealthy countries feed crops grown in poor countries to ‘our’ animals, so we can carry on with our unnatural habit of using animals as food.
What happens when millions move from nations with a carbon footprint 1/3 to 1/5 of the nations they move to?
Shhh, that's a forbidden topic to discuss
Not much. Using the US as a gauge (because EU nations individually were too small to make it into the graphs), the population goes from 325M to 336M by 2100. That's a measly +3.4% uptick. It'll be statistically drowned out by India dropping to 1.09B (-21.0%), China dropping to 732M (-47.7%), and Nigeria tripling in population (+283%). If we assume that Europe has similar population growth and immigration patterns to the US (give or take a few percent), we can probably safely say that immigration will have minimal impact on carbon footprint changes on a national and global level, compared to gross population changes and economic development.
Not a lot, because on arrival they're likely to be less affluent and to consume less than the receiving population, and over a couple of generations their fertility will converge toward the mean in their adopted country. And (being more mobile) they're unlike to be the poorest in their country of origin, so the average footprint there might actually fall, though not significantly. So any net impact is muted: migrants don't go overnight from being low to high consumers.
Better though for richer countries just to reduce their footprint. Actively wanting to keep others poor would be a sad end to millennia of development.
@@davepx1 That's not what's happening though. In Europe the African migrants keep high fertility rates even in second and third generation. Besides, whatever their fertility rates, they and their children are still a net increase in population.
And no, it's certainly not the richest who come. If we're talking about illegals crossing the Mediterranean, it's literally the worst their countries have to offer.
Nobody wants poor countries to stay poor, quite the contrary, but they will never become rich unless they drop their fertility rates.
@@apacheattackhelicopter8185 That's entirely contrary to the studies I've seen, with African migrant fertility below 2 in most EU countries against around 3-5 in countries of origin, so I don't know where you're getting that from.
The trend's more muted among Muslim migrants to high-fertility areas, but it's still there: I don't have France to hand: with more Maghrebis (home TFR under 3) and French fertility still relatively high by European standards, the effect there may be weaker still.
And no, illegal entrants aren't "the worst": many have gone through hell and paid handsomely for the privilege to do something about their lot. The worst don't migrate, they sit at home and blame their neighbours, migrants or sinister conspiracies, whatever side off the Mediterranean they're on.
there's more than enough food resources and wealth to deal with the projected population increase...the question is one of distribution.
Also sustainability. Can humanity sustain itself through 🕙 & not run out of stuff?
[CZcams has a bot that deletes factual comments]
@@CHIEF_420 trees & plants generate biomass from sunlight. As long as biomass multiply, we are ok.
Tanzaaania, no Tanzania, Tanzaaania, no Tanzania. ☺ Good edit! 😄
From the mouth of a man with a zany tan!
Enjoyed the joke and the video as a whole, keep it up!
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down and beat you with experience." - Mark Twain
@@christalbot210 are you implying DT is an idiot, or the host, or both ?
Well, to see this intellectual vaccum in such a nice high quality output was a cold shower and reminder of ignorance and greed in the world. I honestly would love to not see or hear anything from this human trash in the next 50 years.
This video popped up randomly as I subscribe to Fully Charged. After watching, I have subscribed, great content, well delivered! Now my problem is that the population of subscribed channels is growing out of control.
You have to beat the weaker channels with your oars.
Shout out to Hans Rosling.
Absolutely! what a wonderful man and such wonderful lectures too - we all lost when he was lost.
You beat me to it. Great communicator, greatly missed.
"i don't give a dam about polar bears, i don't need polar bears to live"
what a nice guy. a real hero 🙄
@@mostlypeaceful5621 - I thought you knew? all environmentalists hate polar bears - we're only doing this because we want those furry idiots to be cold
@@JohnnyWednesday oh really you're an environmentalist. what specifically are you doing for the environment?
@JustHaveAThink, Dave, ¡thank you! Your realistic, fact-based optimism is refreshing, life-affirming, and a precious antidote to all the many other mindsets (and derived ideologies) that distract from charting the best possible path forward.
Thank you for your precious work, your time, and your generous, realistic, and optimistic spirit. Thanks for these videos and for you!
Little numeric trivia -- curiously we two, and our two fathers, share the same years of birth.
Abraços from Río de Janeiro!
I consciously made an effort not to have more than two children. Knowing I would only be replacing me and my partner. Should this not be an encouraged actionable item?
nope, you should have 2.1 children ; )
I think it depends on the country you live in but I do applaud you for your altruism.
It has been internationaly wide taught to have only 2 children. Look at Bangladesh. There is also a really great TED talk about this topic.
ah, the abrupt climate change collapse snack pack for emergency food. the kids the
It depends where you are. Almost all developed nations are facing a birth rate crisis. Quite frankly educated women have less kids. So really could have another if you wanted.
Overpopulation is a non word to the capitalists. To them it's called additional customers. Limits to Growth will not allow many more.
I think the earth is already oversubscribed with resource consumers.
As far as I remember "Limits to grow", we have already run out of most resources and live in post-apo world.
You are missing the key point. Population growth is not the problem. Over population is the problem. As fossil energy depletes and climate change reduces agricultural yields, the carrying capacity of the planet will range from a few hundred million to 2 billion, depending on whether you assume an affluent or medieval standard of living. One way or the other, our population will reduce by many billions over the next hundred years. One way is civil, the other is not.
Overpopulation is bad. But keep in mind the Calhoun rat universe experiments. With plenty of space and nesting material, they repeatedly went extinct after overcrowding from overpopulation.
So we need to get the overpopulation down in a healthy way but we also need to avoid getting caught in a negative behavioral sink and going extinct.
I think we should target 2 billion personally. Everyone would live well and be fully educated at those numbers.
That is idiocy. The amount of land needed to replace the total electricity industry with solar panels is about the size of Great Britain.
The solution is not less people but less cows.
@@jbiasutti Sure, get rid of the cows (and cars and planes) but don't focus on electricity because that's not the problem. Aware people worry about diesel for tractors, combines, trucks, trains, ships, and mining machines required to grow and deliver our food. Aware people also worry about the natural gas required to make the nitrogen fertilizer we depend on to feed 8 billion people.
Larger CO2 increases food yields. Already happening. Fossil fuels aren’t depleted and allow for human prosperity. We make an already dangerous climate safer with fossil fuels, last 100 years we are 50x safer from climate related emergencies world wide and indications suggest this will continue.
Pretty horrible that you’re justifying genocide. Disgusting actually. You could perhaps spend some time challenging your beliefs on that. Plenty of books about population not being an issue (under population actually the biggest risk) and regarding climate change, the positives from current trajectory far far outweigh challenges predicted by the IPCC. 2 bn people. Disgusting.
@@NoRegertsHere Study some thermodynamics. You have no clue how the world actually works. Genocide may occur if we do nothing because that's what humans do in times of scarcity, and our civilization is completely dependent on rapidly depleting non-renewable resources. To avoid future suffering we need democratically supported policies for rapid population reduction.
I think the question was asked too late. It was out of control but its now starting to get under control. The main question is "Is the population too big for the earth to support comfortably?" Everyone in the world wants to consume and to have a nice life. That is a growth in resource consumption and that is out of control. The climate crisis is caused by an overabundance of humanity and their activities. More people mean more cooking fires and more consumption generally. More land is required for farming. More water is needed. All these activities harm the climate and drive a reduction in the resources required for life.
Aight, calling a health report a Countdown, that doesn't sound ominous at all..
To make it more so, its not even the report thats called a Countdown, its the collaboration/organization.
Out of control world debt, potential population explosion, potential so called “man made” climate catastrophe, enter covid 19 world pandemic and vaccines with a stated 10% vaccine injury rate, including sterilisation.
Coincidence, I think not!
@@OMGAnotherday Please take your disinformation elsewhere.
@@OMGAnotherday Dude, go a bit out to nature, clear you mind a bit of all the soundbites of all sorts. Breathe and contemplate for a while, the longer the better, and then take another look at what effect do all those ideas have in your mind, intellectually, emotionally, etc. And carry on from there. A breather is good no matter what your perspective is.
@@OMGAnotherday with that kind of outlook i'm surprised you haven't done yourself in already. just chill and think more long term.
The population of Nigeria is projected to reach 791 million by the year 2100.
Climate change: Not if anything to say about it I have.
Put the blame where it belongs the western world.
Sshhh. You're not allowed to mention the obvious. Milque toast content only.
I do enjoy your videos, so I'm a big fan of Another Think!
Thank you. I really appreciate that :-)
@@JustHaveaThink I, and I assume most people watching, very much appreciate you and hope you keep up the good work 👍
hence I am supporter
A far more interesting contrast in fertility rates is reliable electricity. The more reliable electricity produced the less a population fertility rate. Why? Better food storage, cleaner water, more things to do after dark, and better healthcare.
You are always such a cool voice of reason. Ahhhh... Calm logical presentation & analysis. Thank you.
Absolutely brilliant dissertation of the matter . Thank you Dave , please post more topics on your channel.
Highly enjoyable to watch.
Since GHG emissions of the agricultural sector make up about 25% of total, could you make a video about the technologies trying to revolutionize conservative agricultural to hit net zero? Would be super cool
GHG emissions caused by uncontrollable wildfires all over the planet are proving hard to manage. So far our best response involves running around screaming and trying not to go on fire.
Personally I hope we just move to meat alternatives,lab grown meat and things like aquaponics
I discussed these topics in my first book and made the assertion that countries like Nigeria will not be able to reach those crazy population numbers that come from the official projections. Already today in 2021 Nigeria, with "only" 200 millions inhabitants, is importing the food necessary to feed tens of millions and agricaltural land in the country is being taken by cities and infrastructure, so the food deficit is growing and economy is very dependent on oil, whose revenue will decline in the future.
It seems then obvious that the population resident in Nigeria will not be able to reach the 791 million predicted and instead there will be quite soon a crisis (war, famine, massive emigration, disease) that will stop its growth like it has already happened in Syria or Yemen. What do you think Mr Dave? Thank you very much for your precious work!
Good points. On the global scale, do you reckon there will be some malicious attempt by unknown entities to engineer a great decrease in the human populations? I personally feel some sort of intervention is coming but can not formulate how it happens. I don’t see a world war starting anytime soon, climate change is an issue but not reducing the human population to a vast extend. A virus pandemic or the like seems the most plausible but not by natural origin.
Thank you. Unfortunately, like Noam Chomsky, one can accurately describe a situation, educate (a few) people, yet provide no action or guidance on how to avoid the coming "convergence" of emergencies. I look forward to the next video and hope some of the actionable items/conclusions are included. Love the channel.
What, what??
Chomsky had quite consistently provides advice for action and guidance, and he's always beging on about local organisation and community action. Grass roots. Without those roots, namely working class roots, then nobody in this heavily individualised world could possibly imagine of everyone getting together to challenge power, the power that has caused and is perpetuating our environmental demise, and others such as military Imperialism, regime changes, economic imperialism etc.
@@toyotaprius79 I think he means, doesn't recommend Marxist-Leninist democratic centralism.
Because that has work so many times😆
Dustbin of history etc.
Yeah, let's listen to Chomsy, the guy who denied the Cambodian Genocide while it was happening and there was a flood of proof to support it.
As revealed here - population is not expected grow or reduce by a large fraction in the following decades. So it is a rhetorically charged distraction from our common environmental emergency. It appeals to misanthropic instinct and is a red herring served up by groups against positive change. Population size cannot be reduced in any humane way that would be rapid enough to significantly improve our overall prospects - it is our industry and aspirations that CAN. We can build and manufacture with sustainable non polluting materials - woods and plant matter produced in ecologically diverse and positive agriculture. We power from renewable technology already proven and ready to take over. We limit plastics and metals to neccessary hi tech purposes. We clean up the mess, shore up ecosystems and protect species diversity, and feel great about doing that into the future. We even expand into space, mine asteroids and develop heavy industry away from the home planet. Its all ready to happen if the mass confusion and resource grabbing conflicts around us, can be beaten and outlawed by agreement of people of good will, beyond the current political and business norms which developed this situation.
@@julianshepherd2038 Sometimes government planning works best, sometimes the free market, what needs to be in the "dustbin of history" is the notion of ideological purity when solutions are needed.
Good job. Very clear, and concise. If only all CZcamsrs were as good at editing themselves!
Thanks! 😃
Population decline is the problem. We need to get resources from the solar system not Earth. We need to populate the solar system. With more people we will get more people like Newton and Einstein.
If you want more people like them then what you really need is to end 'bullshit' jobs and allow people the freedom to pursue their own intellect. To paraphrase Buckminster Fuller and Rutger Bregman...
@@DrJaxonsElixirOfLife Getting people to pursue their own intellect is often the issue in developed countries. Kids just want to app and game.
“With more people we will get more people like Newton and Einstein.” Not necessarily. The populations which produced Newton, Einstein etc. and the social systems which allowed them to reach their potential (European descent, relatively open inquiry) will be a vanishingly small part of the future world population. The nations who will dominate the world’s population in the future will come from nations who have yet to show they are capable of doing the same. They are still searching for one African Einstein.
We may also get more Hitlers and Pol Pots. We need people to have opportunities to access and (as you say) be motivated to take advantage of education. I'm not sure the poor solar system deserves more of us than our local peak 11bn or so.
@@KevinBalch-dt8ot Europe wasn't subjected until a couple of generations ago to half a century of slave-raiding and colonial rule with minimal investment in education. Population trends are an indicator that Europe's trajectory's not unique, it only happened earlier there. Africa has furthest to travel: give it time. And this time richer countries can help rather than hinder.
Newton was born at the time of Europe's witch mania, while Einstein saw two world wars and an industrial-scale genocide. Europe's hasn't been a linear progress.
Virtually all of our serious problems, and existential threats are founded in these absolutely insane population levels. Human survival as a species once depended on reproducing to increase our population. It now threatens not only our own survival, but that of all higher life forms on earth, and the very ecosystem we depend on for survival. We refuse to control our population... “Natural” forces will do it for us, and it will not be gentle, pretty, or pleasant. I, my brother, and quite a number of my friends and acquaintances opted out of reproduction.... but not enough of us. Interestingly I know a number of people of reproductive age who cannot seem to conceive. A year and a half ago, I was even asked by a young couple in that situation to “contribute” ....... I never even considered it. Now they are trying via AI, and still failing. How can you look around you and see the havoc we are wreaking on the world around us and want to bring children into it?
Fantastic! Thank you 🙏 for your blend of sophistication & humor.
Which particular countries have contributed most to the net carbon emissions since about 1890 when Atmospheric CO2 began rising significantly?
What proportion of the total global population do these countries make up?
What the models are unable to predict is human behavior when resources deplete due to climate, consumption, etc. History tells us humans (sadly) war against each other. At this point in our species evolution we either find a way to act as a species or it may end badly
Exactly ! There are a LOT of crisis coming up, capitalism and inequality crisis, climate crisis are the greatest ! I am pretty certain that population growth at this rate is extremely dumb. What comes up, must comes down !
That is what we were told in the 1970s, that we would run out of oil by the year 2000. Now the same people campaign to "keep it in the ground". Fossil fuels have helped liberate millions, indeed also helped to end slavery.
@@jamescaley9942 Fossil fuels = rotten animals and plants=shit.
SHIT LIBERATES THE WORLD!😎😄
@@BaneTrogdor capitalism and fossil fuels have allowed human prosperity and will continue to do so. Have you actually looked at it?
It would not hurt one bit to have less people on this planet!
People are already going crazy from being packed in to tightly (lack of quiet and privacy) already and it shows in everything we do!
As I see it the the rate of new births is falling and has been for decades as the video explains. The reasons for this are obscure but part choice with people choosing to have fewer or no children and part environmental. While at the moment people are living longer (pandemics aside) and outstripping the decline in birth rates the world population will continue to rise but eventually the birth rate will fall to a point where the world population will start to decline. If male fertility continues to decline we could see a rapid population collapse at some point aided by devastating ecological collapse (so called extinction event) due to climate change, loss of pollinators, acidic oceans, food production does not meet population needs, emerging diseases which we have no immunity to and drug resistant infections as antibiotics fail to work... and so on. Basically, either way, we are all doomed.
Dont be ridiculous its going to be fine.
Urbanization is a massive factor in population decline.
Throughout history, no city has ever been able to replace its own population on its own. Cities grow due to agrarian or pastoral outsiders moving into them.
The XXI Century was first time in human existence where more people live in cities than outside cities, with this worldwide trend growing more and more.
The result is that cities may be bigger than ever for now, same as the worldwide population, but what always follows is that population in cities level off, and as a result, so will the overall world population, since most of us, worldwide, are urbanized and likely to continue to be.
You do the world a great service...
Thank you :-)
The Population Bomb was a best-selling book written by Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth.
Fears of a “population explosion” were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience.
Would definitely appreciate a deeper dive into this topic,
Including socio-economic aspects eg. addiction to growth,
"Sustainable growth"(?),demographics etc.
And thus the reason for this video. Character always reveals itself just give it time.
One effect that many people overlook in lower the replacement birth rate. In my county in West Florida we bounce round a mean age of 49 to 55. With nursing homes and assisted living if you can afford it abound. With fewer working age staff and more attempts at automation it can be a lonely and bleak life. And covid shows a vulnerable population. Retires don't spend much money which will have very disturbing effects on our consumption based economics in the future where less people are born and people live longer.
Endless growth of economy SHOULD be stopped, because it is a suicidal strategy. And the current economic system SHOULD be changed in order to account for the aging population.
Pushing for further growth is not a solution
@@KateeAngel you are correct but it seems to be that humans only do what they should after all other options have failed.
Absolutely a great episode.
I think it would be important to get some perspective (with few graphs) on the impact to have one less child in a developped country vs all our effort to drive electric cars, become vegan etc...
This video is also very interesting, as usual.
No, and don't be a Malthusian or a Neo-Malthusian
clearly need a cull. best to offload those who consume the most resources/cause the most damage. sorry folks, that's us lot.
It’s pretty much the people making millions. Most people I know don’t use much at all.
our monied classes, worldwide
Anybody who is capable of reading a demographic chart would realize that we have already reached max population. Most of the developed world have more 50 y.o. in their populations than 20 y.o. Urbanization has also lowered the birthrates in the developing world as well. The video is poorly researched using extremely (30 years) out of date data. Pointless and idiotic.
@@michaelmaroney1660 this is not true. The planet can support a population much bigger than the one being projected. The problem is the mismanagement of the planets resources. This is due to the inherent values of consumerist capitalism.
the video said population is declining, the apparent present increase is a lag effect.
Where I live, there are 87 people per square mile average over ~45,000 square miles. Feel free to move in, cultivate the soil and drive up land prices, we are open for business. Did I mention we are generally hard working, tax paying, law abiding and that is part of productivity too? The earth can bear a LOT more folks if we follow those elements.
Simply explain to everybody why it's necessary to reduce the size of the Amazon rain forest at all in the slightest, or to alter it at all in the slightest. Go ahead, don't be shy.
10:55 That exchange though! xDD
But the Bad Orange Man is out of office. The current leader, Gimpy Gramps, can't even read from his prepared notes without getting lost.
I met a guy from Tanzania a few months ago, and he didn't pronounce it like we Brits do. More "Tan-Zan-Ya" with a slightly heavier stress on the second syllable...
@@Paul_ You'd find it improbably hard to meet locals in Tanzania pronounce it as Trump did or the "Tan-ZA-nya" that your guy did. And they are probably migrants/non-natives.
The way he pronounces it in the video is the far more common/"normal" way to say it
It was hillarious...xD
You always do a great job and i really like your work. That said (and i have not seen part 2 yet) the question that is the subject of this programme ought to have been answered up front with an emphatic "yes". One need only consider the enormous environmental loss that has accompanied the exponential growth in human numbers to appreciate this. I must say that i detected a hint of anthropentricity in your narrative ... a little too much about us and not enough about everything else. But maybe i misjudge.
All the best, though. You are a good man and you are doing a great job.
Did you watch any of it? The population growth rate's halved in the last half-century. Absolute numbers added annually have been falling since the late 1980s. How is that "out of control"? You may not like the absolute number, but that was built in a generation and more ago. The problem isn't growth today, it's growth in the past, and above all in today's affluent high-consuming societies whose populations surged in earlier centuries but are now barely growing at all. Today's fast-growing populations are the ones that tend to consume least and to have least global impact.
@@davepx1 So much to respond to. Are we addressing % population growth rates or total numbers?
The numbers being added are still huge and they are being added to a huge existing population. These numbers have already contributed enormously to global environmental decline. This decline continues under the onslaught of growing human numbers. It matters not a jot to other species (or what is left of them) that the rate of this decline is slowing.
Of course, the population problems of today and for sometime into the future are a product of past behaviour but your point is?
It is critical, for the sake of what is left of a much diminished world that we do as much as we can to limit future growth. So long as we do not intercede (via contraception, education, etc) population growth remains out of control. We are falling well short of what is needed.
You are terribly misinformed in other elements of your comments. You will be surprised to discover that the US population has increased by 100 000 000 people since circa 1980. Most western countries populations grow via immigration. This immigration does little to offset the harm being done by rapid population growth in the developed world but does much to feed the voracious capitalist appetite of the west (you know, the consumer societies to which you, blinkered like, take particular exception to).
Population growth is out of control and has been for decades. That the rate of growth is slowing does not alter that. There will be enormous harm done to the planet by the next 3, 4, 5 or more billion.
Vis a vis the fast-growing (or recently past fast growing) and enormously overly populated countries of the developed world: China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan -- and soon to be numerous African nations) all intend to be and all will become voracious consuming nations ... and that ought to concern you!
@@user-rj5kx8wr6y Both, as I said. Reading is your friend. Just repeating your "out of control" mantra ad nauseam contributes nothing useful. It isn't out of control, you just seem to have a problem with non-white people having children. No, I'm not surprised by US population growth, I study the data rather than mouthing off for the sake of it. I never said anything about "voracious capitalist appetites", I just pointed out that most of the rise in consumption is associated with countries with slower population growth. Immigration isn't the cause of developed-world growth (Europe was spewing out emigrants across the globe as it industrialised), it's a response to resulting disparities. And China's development surge in recent decades has gone hand-in-hand with demographic slowdown: be careful what you wish for.
I started thinking about this since i was 15. I am 45 now, and all i can say its hopeless. But by all means keep fooling ourselves and say its all OK.
I was 13 and am now 63, I first became aware of this through ZPG in the early 70's
Let's just enjoy it while's afloat. Only way to go about it... :D
Why is it hopeless? I guess you can't see the trends toward using less and less material in our economies (Google "dematerialization") or the trend toward decarbonization of transport and power generation. I don't want to minimize the magnitude of the problem, but calling it "hopeless" is just giving up and letting evil people decide our path.
Tell that Africa, India and China. :D Their wave of consumption is just ahead way before we reach any significant amount of dematerialisation. Imagine a billion or more people reaching western levels of consumption. Earth overshoot day is already in July if I'm not mistaken... it looks very dire.
I was 15 and am 19 now. I always knew population growth will be no global issue because it will stabilize itself and people will adapt to a more humble lifestyle.
"Level of consumption" mentioned at the end of the video, looks at our impact. That is, of course, the issue here. We consume 1.5 'earths' of resources every year, are drowning in plastic waste, are warming the earth beyond control, are causing another mass extinction, and humans and food animals account for 96% of the weight of ALL land animals.
While we added 880 million people in the last decade.
Is there a problem with the amount of humans? Yes.
Will adding more people alleviate those problems? No.
Everybody watch Seaspiracy! It's so essential that we face the music there.
Yes, too bad they only hint, at the world wide, Chinese fishing fleet.
My favorite channel by far and large. I always watch every new episode as soon as it shows up in my feed list. No delay. These videos are that good. And the wealth of reliable references for further info. I try to recommend it to everyone on social media. I hope they'll keep coming for still a long time.... We really need channels like this one. Thank you so much, sir!
Another top notch video. Correcting the former guy was a great highlight.
Glad you enjoyed it :-)
@@JustHaveaThink Dave this replaces my old Gordo account. Still swatting deniers on a few of your videos, mostly with Swiftly TP on the GSM video. Hope that's okay with you.
Just remember this is based on a consistent stable ecological and economical environment, if both are not stable the fertility rate will plunge even further, completely rewriting the entire statistical scenario. There is an issue with age range as well, especially between the different races, considering the average age of: White: 43, Black: 34, Asian/Pacific Islander: 37, Latino 29 and Mixed Other: 21, so the worldwide average age range is almost 30 years old.
I Googled: What is the ideal amount of humans on earth?
2 Billion
Thank you google for answering this question. I surprised it wasn't able to compute the company will make more money with more people. Wonder what the optimization criteria was.
In 1985 I did a report on the sustainable carrying capacity of humans on earth and came up with 2.6 billion. It all boils down to extinction rates of species by humans destroying/overtaking habitats. Today we can see that it is indeed happening with humans at nearly 8 billion and species dropping off like flies. I got myself a vasectomy soon after writing this paper.
@@charlespalmer3595 The next generation's quality of life better than the previous is just a massive ponzi scheme that will collapse, it's just a matter of time, for some, it's now. The interesting conversation would be how to incentivise the world to lower its population so drastically.
@Claire H Hydrogen No one said anything about 2 Billion criminal psychopaths. But hey! I got a great idea for a movie script.
If you value wild nature, then both our consumption and population have surpassed reasonable limits long time ago. One species shouldn't be using so much of the whole planet at the expense of all other species. Large mammals like us should not have population in the billions.
So yeah, less than a billion
I have been watching population growth since the 1970's, with an eye towards technology, and food production (nothing about green house gasses).
My opinion back then was that the earth's arable land cannot support more than about 1.2 billion people without "advanced" farming techniques, involving chemical fertilizers, and monoculture factory farms. I believe this is still true. I understand the complexity of population models, but I also understand that we need a fundamental change in social thinking before we can make a meaningful change in our long term future.
Perhaps the earth is a self correcting system, and climate change will wipe out 6 billion or so in the next two hundred years, solving the problem.
If some of the anti-aging tech being discussed right now comes through the death rate will drop dramatically.
The limit of human lifespan seems hardwired at 110 years so it would be interesting to see if it can be rewrote.
Anti-aging tech has been discussed since mid-twentieth century. It will be 'half-a-century' away for awhile I guess.
@@jfuite well statistically, that's about when I need it.
Austin Mackell May I suggest you are being as optimistic as an evangelical anticipating the rapture? In 50 years you will need reverse-aging technology, not anti-aging technology.
@@jfuite When The Rapture comes, people will be springing up out of their graves. It'll either be a Zombie Apocalypse, Housing Market Crisis, or a huge jump in Netflix subscribers (buy NFLX now!). Maybe all 3.
The answer is a big YES. And it is wise to consider the greatest challenge to the planet nowadays as a coin with two dreadful sides, the verse closely linked to the obverse: the first side is CO2 emissions, overall pollution and climate change, the second side is the madness of uncontrolled population growth concurrent with the rise of poverty (more people, and more poor people, both in absolute and relative numbers!). Nevermind the statistics that are pumped out by foolish media without context and commentary that tells us more inhabitants each year rise to the tier of one dollar of income per day! Anyone who earns a dollar per day instead of zero is still poor.
Population growth is not out of control. Period. The world can handle more people. And most importantly, the fertility rate (as mentioned in this video) is way down - and probably will only continue to go down (abortions/contraceptives readily available etc.). At some point we'll actually be depopulating as a natural consequence of the decline in fertility rate.
You are wrong. Population growth is the greatest threat here.
Areas with greatest Population growth and the most vulnerable places to climate change happen to largely be the exact same places.
There is the fact that population is leveling out and possibly declining in many developed parts of the world. And none too soon. But some parts of the world are still increasing rapidly. There are powerful forces in the developed world that are crying for never-ending population growth to maintain their ponzi scheme of inflated housing costs, debt, cheap labour and higher consumption. So they turn to mass immigration to continue the expansion of the commercial economy regardless of the impacts on the well-being of their citizens or on the environment. Transferring large numbers of people from low consumption source countries to high consumption countries is the single worst thing one can be done to the global environment. In Canada, the carbon footprint of its immigrant stream increases by a factor of 4.2 when they migrate to that northern nation. For some source countries, the factor is 15!
Population is a huge issue and so is their location. The ultra right wing is promoting both population growth and mass immigration to drive its predatory economic model. So there is population and the age old question : Who profits?"
Children create opportunity for the poor to climb the social ladder. Without children there's no economic opportunity available to their parent. Look at immigrants; it make sense that anyone who immigrate will leverage their parent back home.
@@xponen People don't migrate and leave their homes, social positions and family behind unless they are desperate. Emigrating is something they do in their own interest and it may work to their benefit in the vast majority of cases. However, the arrival of large numbers of immigrants in mature societies (in the 21st century this is everywhere now) damages the prospects of the majority of the native population and is certainly an environmental juggernaut. Look at the farmland losses, quality of life and equality declines, ghg emissions increases in the receiving countries. Better to solve issues in the countries in which they originate than spread the problem. Of course, this means greatly increased and better directed foreign aide which is a very neglected area. Why neglected? Power groups do not get wealthy off foreign aide, they get wealthy off asset inflation, consumption growth and endless supplies of cheap labour.
@@johnm2879 the native must make more babies.... The law of nature: "slow replicating organism get replaced by fast replicating organism".
@@xponen It's not right for a parent to bring a kid into this world just to profit off the kid-- sounds like a form of slavery or exploitation, but not love. Parents should have kids once they are financially ready to support their kids; people should not be expected to financially support their parents, because parents choose to have kids, and kids don't have a choice whether or not to be born.
@@xponen people either defend their resource base or disappear. Same consequence if they over-exploit their resource base, they either disappear or migrate. Declining populations does not mean no population and less people in high consumption countries - also every country, but highest consumption is most important - is a very good thing for long term species survival.
Finally I stumbled over a video that issues the monstrous growth in population! I've seen a lot of documentary's about the problems in our world, mainly climate related, caused by deforestation, huge areas for livestock or plantations, over fishing and killing of whales etc and the destruction of the seafloor, extinction of animals on land and so on.. All in favour of us, the only animal that eat what we want and throw away the rest. They talk about what we could do about the problem but never or only vaguely do they adress the root of the problem. We are too many on this planet!! If we decreased by a couple of billions or more, i think almost all of the climate problems will disappear after a while. I don't understand why not everyone is talking about it ...
Because the left wing agenda is all about "diversity" they can't adress this problem without admitting that unchecked migrant intake is a dumb idea.
Western populations are relatively stable.
So any attempt to slow population growth is "racist".
The hypocrisy and double think can not be considered without them giving ground on one of their most cherished agendas.
@@warwicklewis8735
Fairly stable?
The U.S population in 1950 was 152 million people.
It is now 333 million people.
I wouldn't exactly call it stable.
Many people struggling with weight issues will be delighted to know that extinction is very slimming.
Do you mean extinction by birth rates falling below replacement rates?
@@chrimony extinction by iminent and catastrophic climate collapse.
@@donutemptycircle8717 'K, so you're just a silly climate doomsayer that doesn't follow actual climate science.
@@chrimony no, I'm just a silly climate doomsayer who does follow the actual science.
@@donutemptycircle8717 Please reference the IPCC document and page number that says humans are going to go extinct because of climate change. I'll wait.
This is like asking if global warming is spiralling out of control after most of temperature increase already happened.
4:35 have you been watching Hans Rosling ? :-)
Thank you very much for this update ! I would think this is great news. And it's great to see that Africa is getting more industrialized but without such a big consumption increase.
People are always amazed when I tell them that we've probably already reached 'peak child' or close to it.
I’m a little bit disappointed that there was no mention of Hans Rosling or anything in the description linking to his BBC documentary that covers a lot of this, “Don’t Panic”.
@@mrsneeklamy I don't know about the documentary, etc. But remember seeing the exact same method used in his presentation video on CZcams: "Why the world population won’t exceed 11 billion | Hans Rosling"
Hi There. Yes I have :-) In fact in my first video about population (a couple of years ago) I referenced Hans directly. Great guy. God rest his soul.
@@JustHaveaThink he seems like such a nice man. And a great educator/speaker. His family can be proud I'm sure. RIP
Hans Rosling, a statistician, but not a dull presenter, explains population very well.
We can't afford the rich.
80 million is slightly more than one percent. They account for 50% of global consumption of resources.
It would be much more impactful to get rid of the poor.
@@ArdentLion Who's gonna pick your strawberries and bananas?
@@penguinuprighter6231 boston dynamics
@@peace5417 who's gonna assemble the robots?
Balance of human population is the problem we shouldn’t be living so long and let Mother Nature balance it
After watching Attenborough's program - the World is overpopulated.
Population is set to rise, level off, then fall. This has been known for well over 5 years. This video is old news from a guy that normally sells Fake Green tech ideas to gullible, brainwashed Fake Green wannabes... Billions more will be demanding neodymium if the Fake Greenz get their way. It's already expensive and polluting, imagine what 10s of billions of e-vehicles will demand... Look at what's going on with a high demand resource that uses cheap natural resources - silicons chip prices are skyrocketing.. Now imagine that demand with natural resources that are very rare in comparison... A Liberal Nightmare of e-junk on crack'n'roids.
@@PrivateSi Huh, you're all concerned about rare earth, but think that Oil will always be there.
Ever heard of recycling? Can't do that with Oil once its burnt.
Edit "Researchers at the Critical Materials Institute (CMI) and Ames Laboratory in the USA have received recognition for developing a magnet recycling process in which magnets are dissolved in water-based solutions, recovering more than 99% purity rare earth elements as well as cobalt. The rare earth materials recovered have been reused in the manufacture of new magnets."
Besides. New Generators don't need to use neodymium. Google "Enercon use no neodymium in their giant E-126 (the world’s largest to date), which is also direct-drive. "
Toyota and other battery manufacturers also are reducing the amount of raw materials required.
The same Science that is reducing Oil usage can solve those problems too.
@@dnomyarnostaw .. Sheeple-parrot.. Of course petrol and diesel can be recycled. We have plenty, and e-vehicles still need oil and plastic... Diesel engines use a lot of exhaust gas regen to keep emissions down.. Stage 1, in-car recycling.. Stage 2, CO2 is PLANT FOOD, plants are carbohydrate fuel sources.. Kick all the pen-pushing paper wasters out of office blocks and sky-scrapers... they can work from home now-a-days.. Grow high markup food & drugs in techno-organic vertical farms, with organic biofuel crops outdoors.. This is the Industrial Revolution 2 I'd pay for, as it is GREEN, unlike your Nazti, fake green 'solutions'...
--
DC Brushless permanent magnets are the most efficient form of vehicle motor. Any other motor will use more electricity. so again, a zero-sum gain, no net benefit, and much better or bigger batteries are needed.
--
If the world had adopted Thorium Molten Salt Breeder reactors, instead of Enriched Uranium I'd have respect for your beloved Military-Scientific-Industrial-Data Collection Complex..... But no, 100s of 1000s of nuke tests and highly toxic nuclear power, with DU and Plutonium waste also used for nukes and dirty nuke bunker busters... Thorium is far safer, far cleaner, far cheaper and far more secure. Australian desert dirt could power the world for 10s of 1000s of years.
--
As we nuclear is toxic, and most of the world uses coal and gas power, your 'green' solutions are FAKE.... They are no better than the current system, and far worse because your e-waste is far harder to recycle than iron/steel, aluminium and CO2.. Until you get this through your brainwashed skull, you're just another FAKE GREEN SHEEPLE-PARROT...
--
Plant more trees, but be aware, more trees means more local humidity, means much more heat trapped (water vapour is 1000x more of a powerful greenhouse gas and much more abundant). This negates any CO2 absorption... Sky rivers flow between forests, larger the forests, larger the 'sky rivers'... These trap heat too..
--
The IPCC is a corrupt Liberal Socialist + Liberal Capitalism scam. Accurate, useful climate modelling is INTRACTABLE... IMPOSSIBLE... Your Masters are the worst wasters of all time, and they want to DEVELOP AND MODERNISE = INDUSTRIALISE the entire planet.. Open new markets, make sure all the poor participate in their uber-waste mass consumption junk fest.... LIBERAL NAZTIS!
.. Although no cars for the majority, who will be living a poorer life than their parents in the west, and a more junk-making life in developing nations...
@@PrivateSi Wow. Youve got it bad.
We dont need Oil for Plastic.
Henry Ford built panels out of Hemp.
Funny how there is "plenty" of what you support, but no solution for the problems of your "sheeple".
Good luck with your blood pressure medication.
Thank you for this video. (I really like your videos, and the way they are presented, understanding the needs of the sort of viewers you have, moderately intelligent, informed and concerned, but non-expert. You don't patronise us, but neither do you bamboozle us. You are an excellent teacher.) But I wonder just how relevant this new information actually is. Fears of "overpopulation" have been with us since Malthus. Fears about overpopulation can also be incredibly politicised. For instance, George Monbiot, nominally a left wing progressive, is very vocal about population issues, stating it's not population that's the problem, but consumption - that's his progressive viewpoint. But here I believe he's serious in error, he's arguing a false dichotomy, they're both existentially important. The problem for me is my firm belief that the planet is already seriously overpopulated. I was born in 1946, in my lifetime the population of the world has trebled, but not just that, the population in the most consuming nations, such as Europe, the USA, has doubled, as our consumption increased even more. For instance, the USA's "effective population" based on the amount of resources its citizens consume is equivalent of double India's present population. So overpopulation or rapid population growth, too often considered as a developing world issue, is equally a first world one, perhaps more so.
I put a simple rhetorical question, how much easier would it be to solve the converging crises of global warming etc. that you are going to discuss in future videos, if the population had remained at the level it was when I was born? We are living on a borrowed planet already - our soils, our waters, our oceans, our forests, our minerals, the very air we breathe - our 7.5 billion population is existing on an ever increasing deficit. A farmer unable to replace the seeds of his harvest is not going to thrive very long. Nor are we, even at "mere" 7.5 billion.This wiki page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint ) presents figures for ecological deficits on a national basis, there's hardly a single country that isn't in worrying deficit. So these latest figures of global population projections are scientifically interesting, interesting but pretty useless, like learning what a black hole might look like, but I believe totally irrelevant to the seriousness of the predicament we, as a human species, are already facing. If one's seen the Netflix video "Seaspiracy" then one will understand just a bit better what living on an ecological deficit looks like in just one ecological environment - just extrapolate that to all the other of the planet's resources to understand what ecological deficit truly means, because we're already there.
Agree, it is consumption per head PLUS number of consumers. I left a similar comment above. There is still a knee jerk aversion to promoting smaller families in developed nations, despite the fact it is in effect creating zero carbon footprints (far, far better than any vegan cyclist can do)
Population decline is a good thing, way to many people on this planet. If we want to save ourselves and the planet this paramount.
You missed that women are having their children between 30 and 40.
This means that in your block chart their are still 2 billion per row, but now only four rows. Not five.
Why would anyone want a old woman older than 30 that's sick.
Mean while in India if we apply population control bill.
It will be a religions prblm.
Mean while we will face poverty and for long time and remain devloping nation for 1000 years😊😊😊😊😊😊
@No No noop shame
Indias total fertility rate is at 2.35 children/woman and tends to drop.
Looking at the costs of labour in China, I would not be surprised, if India would have a golden decade till 2030.
@@MrMakabar lol but India will be good in gdp not gdp perceptia
@No No true 🤣🤣🤣🤣our gdp had fallen
@No No Well India has a massive low skill and low cost workforce in what is a somewhat stable enviorment. China is right now loosing manufacturing jobs as wages go up. If India would make it easier for buisnesses to operate, India very easily could attract those jobs leaving China. GDP per capita is extremly low in India, most countries with lower ones have a civil war or are very close to one.
India could very well get a decade of pretty high growth rates. Hence a golden decade.
I wonder if they took into account the effect that micro plastic particles seem to have on fertility.
Wonderfully informative video, as always. 👍
P.s. I think Donald Trump would look amazing in a jumpsuit the same color as your t-shirt. 🍻
Give it time Glen. You never know! ;-)
Before video: Isaac Arthur has a great video entitled "Can we have a Trillion people on Earth" where he makes the case that yes we can even with current or near current tech, and without paving over all the forests and stuff. Let's see what this has to think :)
After video: Another great one, thanks for making them. I will have to read some of those papers to see how they factored in the wars due to climate change.
If you haven't read Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question" take 20 minutes and go read it (or have someone read it to you on CZcams) when you're done with this video.
Ha.. this came on my feed immediately after the Sky news article about a celebrities 8th child..
Those are the best to have many children. The capable and popularly loved should be the ones having children. The incapable and ill tolerated should not have children.
@@elinope4745 So no Beethoven, then?
Bangladesh is half of Germany by landmass but it's population is twice bigger than Germany. The population of Bangladesh will grow 230 to 250 million .How will the government feed it's big population?
Meanwhile everywere:
"Ohh noes Covid 19 will kill us all"..
Covid-21 will kill us all.
@@justgivemethetruth covid 19 will kill us all 🤣🤣
@@abdullkareemalbrahim6538
Not me I just got vaccinated ... but may be a good thing if us all means Republicans! ;-)
I've never heard anyone ask if population growth is out of control. That's a carefully crafted question that permits a clear answer. What I hear being asked is 'are there too many human beings on the planet?' No nice pat answer. Lower fertility rates are fine but will we survive long enough to see declining population. Also beware of any discussion where 'modelling is used in every second sentence. Modelling is like statistics: you can make them say anything that suits your prejudice/beliefs
by the year 2064, humans will have completely destroyed the amazon rainforest.
interspatial sea ........ that could easily be corrected if between now and 64 each and everyone on the planet planted 2 trees
I have heard on this channel and from other sources that renewable are now less expensive than traditional sources of energy... unfortunately this is not my experience: I run sustainability projects for a fortune 200 company and I am constantly quoting energy projects and, from what I see in different markets worldwide, natural gas is still the most cost effective form of energy. Even to reduce carbon production, a cogeneration system can reduce 1 Ton of CO2e annually for $500, while a solar installation is $1500 to $2000... I would be very interested in more details on these type of data, thanks!
Education seems to have a big influence on birth rates. Almost all the who's problems can be traced back to poor education and a lack of deep respect for one another.
i dont think lack of respect is correct
@@PazLeBon Please explain?
@@ReevansElectro I just mean that women having lots of children in poor places isnt about lack of respect, its just culture
@@PazLeBon Are you aware of human biology where it takes a man and a woman to make a baby? How can you say that it is just about women and leave men out of the equation? If men respected women, they wouldn't impregnate them over and over again. Please look at your assumptions and rethink your point of view.
@@ReevansElectro i dont have a point of view, i was questioning yours lmao. whats disrespectful about having lots of kids? From whom to whom and how and why?
I have seen that prediction for Nigeria to go to about 730 million. I find that hard to accept.
Yes, I accept science, and statistical modelling.
However, I also think that people need adequate food to survive.
I don't think Nigeria can grow the food necessary to feed 730 million people.
Nor do I think that Nigeria will have the wealth to import that food.
Moreover, I think that sea level rise will impact the Niger delta's food growing capacity.
And global warming will likely decrease Nigeria's food growing capacity.
So, my thinking leads me to think that starvation and famine will put a cap on Nigeria's population growth.
How high will Nigeria's current population of 201 million grow to at its peak??
Whatever it is, I think it will be far short of 730 million.
"Nor do I think that Nigeria will have the wealth to import that food" The widow of late President Ubanga has USD$25,000,000 to deposit in your bank account, so they must have quite a bit.