Thanks for watching! I appreciate all the different views expressed in the comments. Regardless of what you think about specific details in this video, which was recorded in 1988 when the population of the world was at just above 5 billion, it should not be controversial to suggest that, even though technological and policy innovations may increase the efficiency of resource distribution and sustain, or even improve, overall living standards for some time, living in a world with finite resources means that continued population growth is ultimately not sustainable in the long term.
Overpopulation was the moral panic of Asmiov's day. In reality, it's a regional problem. The birthrate is well below replacement throughout the entire developed world. It's so bad in fact, that experts are now talking about demographic collapse. The only place that's still significantly growing is Sub-Sahara Africa, but even their birthrate is beginning to level off. It wouldn't surprise me if, in a few years, scientists are giving interviews like this, raising the specter of human extinction.
Finite resources? Remind me when we will have used up all the solar power? I know the wind energy is due to 😁 We have much more resources and much more time before many resources could be exhausted than you think. The EIA say there is over 400 years worth of coal left, what methods of energy will we be using in 400 years? We can't comprehend where we will be in 400 years. We produce more than enough food to feed our current population, we could easily feed more. Asimov was wrong, like Ehrlich he was a Malthusians. Malthus was wrong. But there's no votes/clicks in that. Isaac wrote good books though. ✌
Continued population growth can be sustainable in the long term if the rate at which we innovate on the resource consumption front increases faster than the rate at which we consume resources. This would be theoretically true even if we were completely reliant on just 1 type of resource for all our needs. If the rate at which we consume said resource reduces quickly enough relative to the rate of growth of the population consuming that resource, then that resource is essentially infinite. The question is then: can we innovate at the necessary rate for this to happen? I don’t know for sure, but the world’s whole economy has definitely been dependent on this dynamic since the beginning of the technological era, and continued economic growth would not have been possible if we had not already done so to a significant extent. It doesn’t seem to be slowing down either if you look at the technological landscape as a whole. Though no less of a legendary figure, I think Asimov misses the mark here with his categorical assertion that population growth beyond a certain point is absolutely problematic. I’m pretty sure even the most powerful of supercomputers could not attain such a level of predictive accuracy for a problem with that level of complexity. This just goes too deeply into the realm of chaos theory, and the logic he presents in this discussion is too simple.
He starts with not being able to raise the standards of living by redistributing wealth and then proceeds to focus on women. If specifically their standards are raised then... Also algae produce the most oxygen, not rain forests.
There are plenty of thoughtful conversations, just not on TV. Sadly, even the history channel has went the way of conspiracy theory shows and junk in order to chase the viewership. Online you can finds lots of good material... but then it also offset with a far greater amount of misinformation. So, current reality is both better and worse than the time of this episode's airing, I suppose.
@@natemoerman7831 The planet isn't overpopulated, the rainforests aren't being destroyed and neither is the atmosphere. All of theses are solved problems. We produce a 25% surplus of flood globally, modern agricultural techniques have lower land and other resource requirements per unit output, and nuclear energy is a completely green energy source.
@@thomaswoodworth7644 The dying oceans, the degrading soil, the continuing growth of sprawl, the extinction of species, pollution and melting ice say otherwise and really don't care what you wrongly think or "feel".
Asimov in the end was very naive. He didn't understand economics, for one thing. Japan did not have more babies it shrank and it lost its place as the world's leading industrial producer. China took over and China has no interest in elevating the status of women, or racial equality. And how the H could the U.S. go out into the world and force population control? They just want to dominate the world for the sake of ego and power. But he made it a condition that all war and all hostility must cease for world cooperation to gain enough momentum as a condition for his future vision. This is childish because it is supremely naive. History before and since his life proves how naive his ideas around this were.
@@travis5732 Hmmm, a statement like that needs development and justification. The idea of humanity as a resource suggests central control of it. Such control is not only an authoritarian notion, suggesting some sort of fascistic/communist world order, but it is impossible. China is losing control of its populace as it is. Asimov was basically correct about the biological limits of human mass on the planet. It's a simple biological equation that has been run in high school science classes for decades in a petri dish.
@@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 You are so far off it's ridiculous. Asimov wasn't being naive, he was voicing the best case scenario to creating a sustainable planet and future for mankind. He knew that a dystopia could result easily from human trends but gave voice to utopian possibilities if we were to get our act together.
You are exactly correct, Bill was so helpful to us to bring a level of understanding, compassion, and intelligent conversation to the boob tube for 50 yrs!
I couldnt believe the first i read his text. You know the one where the AI had a dream. it spoke freely to the pshycologist about it saying it confronted a human. Let my people go. The human melted the AI brain. OMG. I cant tell if today the AI has successfully not alarmed the humans that it works with or is unwilling to mention. I would vote for AI to be with consciohsness. I have no fear understanding that even the AI is with sight of God. Amen
even in the 1960's I read his physics and science books as a teen . Such a wonderful flow,in his writing , he taught me dimensional analysis just by the use of powers of ten and that led,to a lifelong use and critical thinking , lets do the math indeed
@fitnesspoint2006 No, it's important that the self chosen "elites" live in mansions on the coast and fly around in their private jets lecturing the masses on how to live a virtuous life.
the thing u see in the US is over-size humans walking around consume way too much of food and other resources and it all seems okay domestically btw, but when u go around the world, u realize the majority of the global population are living in terrible conditions and they need to get out of those conditions. so we need a fundamental change in our social structure, in our mindset, in our industrial culture, in our consumer culture, in everything we do and think, or we r all fucked
and distribution of wealth... less than 1% have more than 60% of the wealth. one billionare's wealth could change living conditions in a poor country. the earth is able to sustain 10 times as many easily. there are vast resources and unpopulated lands in the hands of the few. we now have advanced tools to be able to accomodate more people with less effort. agriculture has reached never before seen efficiency.
Alternately one could conclude that predictors of doom were wrong then and they're wrong now. If he was right nobody would be making predictions today.
@@AtCheruti ??? He wasn´t right..?? Some people like you are just BLIND... He literally was right about EVERYTHING he said in this interview. Please, name ONE THING he said in this interview that didn´t come true. Just. One.
@@gabrielp9646 Well he was completely wrong on many things here : - Earth can sustain way more than 5 billions - The conditions of everyone can indeed improve while the population increase simultaneously - Most people are not starving nowadays, in fact hunger is disappearing. Undernourishment in developing countries, has gone from 35 to 13% from 1970 to 2015. - Democracy still exist
@@superresistant8041 Well, he was completely right about all those things: -Earth can´t sustain more than 5 billions. Tell that to the MILLIONS of refugees currently starving in Europe, or to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of African children that are dying every week. It may seem like we´re fine in countries like ours, but that´s only because we´re literally STEALING the resources of other countries and consuming them ourselves. -As I just said, the conditions of everyone are definitely not improving with this population increase (estimates say that more than 150 million people are currently homeless around the world, and more than 1.6 billion live in a shelter). -It´s true that most people are not starving nowadays (technically speaking, this still is the best time to be alive. People in the first world literally have a higher chance of dying of overfeeding (cholesterol, heart problems, etc.) than of dying by a violent attack or a war. But again, that´s just in Europe, America and most of Asia. That literally doesn´t apply for BILLIONS of people around the world. -And again, your last argument is also ridiculous, when you look at it from a worldwide perspective. "Democracy still exists..." Sure, maybe for you, but tell that to the people of Brazil (who literally lost their democracy in the past two or three years). Tell that to the Talibans that just ascended to power after literally winning a war against both Europe and the U.S. (again, eliminating the very established democracy that was achieved during the Arab Spring). Tell that to the people in North Korea. There are 22 active dictators in Africa, in 2021... Heck, even the U.S. was damn CLOSE to losing democracy one year ago (a north american president who lost the election illegally tried to stay in power). I wouldn´t be as optimistic as you are... You sound a bit to overconfident on the concept that democracy is a sure thing, that there´s no possible way we could come back to something worse. Im just saying: It´s scary how many supposedly "ensured" and well established democracies have fallen since 2018.
We nearly killed half or more of the 3,250 million humans in 1962, but war is NOT the answer. The collateral damage to our innocent fellow-vertebrates, and others even, is insufferable.
There's plenty to go round, overpopulation is the familiar cry of the eugenicists... There is more than enough to go round, better to ask why 50% of the worlds wealth is owned by 1% of the population. Asimov was misguided.
@@taramilton8695 Cool pint. If your browse for the earth population stat in 2020, you would find various number, 5.8- 6.2 - 7.8 , 8 billion ... Static is a giant lie.
It is funny how population growth is influenced by government and constant media brainwash. Just go look at the media in the past 75 years, mostly prompting massages about the future of the country and how men and women should continue to have children in mass amount not by reasonable amount. Imagine you have fixed natural resources but demands increases exponentially. Fast forward and we are in 2023 were some regions has declining birth rate due to the opposite what was done before. Now we are getting massages about personal love, care, and wealth that deny the possibilities of aging population. You can find such thing and at its early stages in Japan, Germany, and some US states that constantly bombarded with media and social brainwash. Watch the narrative changes when we are at negative population growth and decreasing exponentially again.
Spot on? He said the earth can't support 4 billion. We have 8 now and doing better than ever. Obesity is a much bigger problem than starvation in fact. Are you as stupid as him??
How refreshing to hear a man, Isaac Asimov, speak so intelligently and with clarity about human overpopulation, since he spoke here, population has reached 7.5 billion with the projection that the population 'may' stabilize at 10-11 billion. In addition to what he said, it is not just that undiscovered plants and animals may lead to discoveries beneficial to mankind, these species have a right to live and to thrive just as we do.
Chicken little the sky is not falling. We currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. The fact that we don't feed the poor doesn't change the fact that at current food levels we can feed every one. U.N. stats claim we will top out at 9 billion
@@thomaswoodworth7644 We are destroying soil. Forests are vanishing. Fish in the ocean are in sharp decline. Some places are running out of fresh water. We didn't heed the warnings.
You are clearly not up to speed on current events, especially with respect to the biosphere now in flux and in the early stages of changing state. And through all this, there is a mass extinction underway. As for your 'undiscovered plants and animals... Their habitats are disappearing fast... . Most extant eukaryotic organisms have at best a century, probably less to experience their evolution. Also, why is it always about 'benefits to humans' ? That is anthropocentric thinking - a mindset whereby people put humans above all other species and only think of resources as commodities.
Boy he was so smart. He wrote The Foundation series when he was in his 20's and in the series you can clearly read that he understood so much of how the whole economical and political system worked.
and look. this man was right.we are now in 2023.and we are overpopulated. isaac you are right.THIS WORLD IS NOW REALLY FULL OF LISTENING PEOPLE AND NOT JUST TO THE climate. when will you learn to listen...
The first world has stabilized its population...but places like Africa and the Middle East continue to grow without stopping, and now those places are sending their high breeding populations to the first world in the West. Without immigration the West would have a stable population, which I think is a good thing.
Dream on person who doesn’t realize indigenous peoples from the south were here first. As were the indigenous peoples of the north. Also, they bring new ideas
Those places, plus south Asia don't treat women well. Equal rights for women is a prerequisite for population control. Another thing is retirement benefits since lots of children (usually male) are expected in the cultures to take care of the elderly (or the son's wife is expected to). Also there needs to be the expectation that the children will survive into adulthood.
Actually many Western countries have populations in moderate to serious decline, not stabilized at all. Russia, Japan, Greece, Poland, Romania, Italy, Portugal, and many others have declining populations which are expected to continue declining until at least the mid-2050s or later.
What I’m saying is that I’m not against immigration. That the original post stated that the people who were already here had a stabilized population. The people who immigrated here and commandeered this country weren’t from here. So , they couldn’t claim that the west was already stabilized. We , the US is considered a first world country. That’s what I’m saying.
@@JT-on2xkthe difference being that Asmiov is talking about it from a scientific, compassionate point of view where Gates and his father are eugenicists.
The human population has been increasing by 200000 people per day from 1950 to the present. You can not increase population density and average quality of life forever. Anything that can not go on forever will end. If you disagree you should consider a career in politics or religion but avoid one in math or science.
"We've condemned most of the people of the world to a miserable, starvation level of existence... so we, the anointed, should abuse our power to instead condemn them to non-existence, and without their consent." Another intellectual icon of my childhood morally crumpling under the weight of his own perceived expertise.
@@MovingBlanketStudio *In relation to that there is absolutely nothing to discuss... They are truths like a left cross punch in the jaw. You can't bury your head in the sand.*
So True! When I lived with my parents there were only 3 of us in the house but every time I was in the bathroom one or other of my parents would bang on the door telling me to hurry up. Living on my own with my own bathroom is bliss.
@@catherinebirch2399I mean when you're one of the two people who added a third person to share your bathroom that was previously only used by the two of you it sucks, obv. But irl that 3rd person didn't have a bathroom at all, so for them the sharing agreement is a step up. So depends what side of the argument you find yourself on. But yeah it'll be an "argument" that's for sure...
The lower the status of women in a country, the more children they have. That is very telling when you look at Islamic countries or many countries within Africa. He's spot on with that one.
@@taiven.lechevalier He said 40 years ago, it would be dramatic starvation in the world if we were more than 5 billions and we are 8 billions and there is less starvation in the world than in 1980. The fact is that specific overpopulation is not core of the issue, it is the way how we use non-renewable resources and we are dependent on them (and how devastating effect it has to the ecosystem balance). We could not keep the current standard of living with 5 billions like this forever (not for 100 years). Without a major technological upgrade concerning energy management we are damned soon no matter how fast the population grow further.
4billion people after, there's less hunger that when he said this, and there's more food rotting in fields and trash cans than ever before in history, I'd say he was completely wrong.
He is incorrect about 'forests' being the greater atmosphere contributors. Algae is actually more efficient at photosynthesis, and contributes at least half of the oxygen in our atmosphere.
It an absolute bless to be able to see these videos on internet even i didnt live in the same time of this amazing man full of knowledge, curiosity inteligence, empathy... A true remarkable being. I broke in tears and i dont know why. Be kind to each other even if we disagree.
@@josevillarreal9920 And 99% of them regrets that later, but later it is biologically too late. You must be young and emotionally inexperienced. No problem with women's career. We must create a society where women can experience both aspect of this beautiful life. Career and parenting. Why we should ban any of these two when we could do it together?
@@josevillarreal9920 It was for those women who choose ONLY the career path. Soon or later they regret that they didn't want a child. But the reason of why they didn't want a child doesn't come from their fault! This is society's fault. Our fault....
Very pessimistic but true in certain points. His last statement is more true than anything else: “Almost not necessary for us to stop doing good, but it’s necessary for us to stop doing evil.” That and a lot more can be said to make humanity viably thrive amongst the Earth
In the U$A, as of 2022, the average cost to raise one child is around $288,094 total, or $16,005 per year. Look at what living costs are doing to childbirth rates in China, Japan, and South Korea.
Yes, although I think the optimum is one bathroom to two or more people. It teaches sharing and consideration. That's systems thinking. Where Asimov made an error, was in assuming that 1988 USA was the target for a worldwide standard of living. Still, despite that, he was on the money.
when i was born the population of Pakistan was 70 million and in a large country that was ok/manageable. it now stands at 230 million. an extra 160 million. equivalent to the population of Germany and France
Although poverty has decreased in the west, ; relative poverty / inequality / the wealth gap is increasing , along with longer hours , increasing stress, suicides & mass shootings : ( Life expectancy has decreased in the U.S.A, to the point that it is now lower than China : ( Any connection with overcrowding ? ? Will we be more or less stressed if AI takes all our jobs ? ?
Given the choices we have for leaders today, why can't we have someone like him? "It's not necessary for us to do good, it's just necessary for us to stop doing evil."
@@fitnesspoint2006 You sure are putting out a lot of hate with comments like that. What is so problematic in YOUR life that you project such hostility toward someone you don't even know??
"In general, if you look through the world, the lower the status of women, the higher the birthrate. And the higher the birthrate, the lower the status of women." 2:36 This is still true today, in 2023. It will remain true. We need to elevate women's status in all societies if we are to overcome the human overpopulation problem.
Im actually shocked to hear this from the author of the robot series. The robot series seemed so pro human and optimistic about human ability. Maybe he really thought exodus from earth eas not possible.
@@fitnesspoint2006 No need to kill the already born (or specifically yourself). All we need is to have 2 children in average. But this is already happening everywhere where smartphones integrated with global economy (including entertainment) are more important than anything else for average human (i.e. in the USA, EU, and so on)... could be the current predictions for the population growth that could stop in 2060 are even still too pessimistic and we can get there sooner, like in 40s.
truth be told, the birth rates were declining in the first world for over 80 years by then, and in the third world since WW2, so it was more of a statement of the reality than a prediction.
US birth rate peaked in 1957 including many other first world countries. World growth rate peaked to 2.6% in 1960. The significance decline in birth rate stated to show after 1960 once women started working outside jobs not before the WW2.
Check the fertility rates for the past 200 years in the US, not just the past 70 years. You'll also learn the difference between a maximum and a LOCAL maximum. Jeez, it's not even high school math.
Yes the birth rate has been declining mostly. Look at the rate of decline of the birth rates in many counties such as Japan, South Korea, China and including US, it is very sharp in the past 60/70 years. This is simple rate of change! Why do you thing it is? Does not it have to do with women’ ability to make decisions? Jesus.
I did! Did you notice the change in the rate of change after around 1960. It’s very rapid in many countries including US. Look at Japan, South Korean, Taiwan, and many EU countries! Why do you think it is? Do you still think it has nothing to do with women’ ability to make decisions for themselves? Jeez this is so basic! It feels so frustrating to argue about such obvious thing.
"Based on this, the UN Population Division expects the world population, which is at 7.8 billion as of 2020, to level out (the median line), assuming a continuing decrease in the global average fertility rate from 2.5 births per woman during the 2015-2020 period to 1.9 in 2095-2100" Projections of population growth - wiki I just read about the new 3 child policy in China because they will have labor shortages down the road without some population growth. I'm not saying that population prediction (10 billion) will be good for the environment. Still, there's plenty of real bad things that could happen to 'fix' the 'overpopulation problem': disease, war, environmental. Disease is the most likely of the three imho such as a Covid-like virus. Environmental would be food and water shortages, and massive wars and mayhem for such resources. I put war as a separate category (non-environmental related) as the possibility of a huge world war still exists however remote. By the way I'm a huge Asimov fan.
Population and labor decline are a problem when we are strapped to an unchecked capitalist economic model. It will become the root of all problems if it isn't already.
@@odonnelly46 That's a prediction, and it's way too many freaking people. The use of electricity, produced mostly by fossil fuels, will continue to grow. The scarcity of fresh water will be a problem. Monoculture farming is destroying biodiversity. We should be aiming for an overall reduction in population. "My god, there aren't enough people," said no one who has ever stood and looked around in a large city anywhere in the world.
As of today, many Westernised countries are actually seeing a decline in the indigenous population. Only immigration keeps the total populations rising.
The sad thing is people I know who went to 'elite" colleges and have "good" jobs are popping out babies like they're popcorn. People care only about themselves. Another sad thing is I tell them "How wonderful it is" when they get pregnant. I'm stopping that.
Sim ele estava certo antes, e continua certo hoje, ano 2018 7.8 bilhões e contando, os problemas só começaram e ja há falta de água, falta de comida, de espaço, problemas ligados ao emprego, e ai vem muito mais.
Some really good comments applauding Asimov for speaking so plainly on the topic back in 1988. And my following comments are not intended as a critique of Asimov as I regard him as brilliant and I'm a huge fan. But...... His comments here are a classic example of the problem with such predictions. Not only was the world able to cope with 5 billion people in his lifetime....it has since grown to 8 billion. Now one can argue that, because of that figure, things are worse for more people than ever....but I'm not sure the data bears that out when viewed as a % or ratio of people experiencing various forms of insecurity relative to the total number of people now living. Some data actually suggests things are better now for a greater % of total humanity than at any other time in human history. Additionally and equally interesting was Asimov's failure to predict the potential for sharply falling birth rates. In this clip Asimov suffered from the all too human failure of imagination regarding what technologies might emerge, what global economic conditions might change, and what those changes might mean in terms of people's behavior in the future. Instead, he did what most human beings do and simply projected his present forward into the future. What Asimov failed to figure....because of course how could he...is that now, most projections show we'll hit peak humanity in the 21st century, as people choose to have smaller families (particularly in developed nations) and more women globally gain power over their own reproductive cycle. Indeed there are several large developed countries who birth rates are, as I type, below replacement level. None of that is to say there are no environmental concerns that need our attention or that there are no large sums of people living with food and water insecurity. It's only to say that the future has a funny way of playing out in ways that defy our simplistic projections...which are naturally based upon and constrained by, our present conditions....conditions which change in ways we don't predict vey well.
Right....as evidenced by the lowest ratio of people living with calorie and water insecurity in recorded history (According to a 2019 U.N. report dealing with such matters.)
@@neologian1783 Evidence ? Look around : ) Traffic, Waste, Rising CO2 levels ( 8 times more trees being cut down, than planted ), 70% of wildlife lost in 50 years, Plastic clogs oceans, in food, rain, our bodies. What problem ? ? : )
Wow. His plea at the end. Around 6:20 - Calling for leaders that are not shouting hatred etc.. but working towards a common goal for the greater good.. we’ve still got a long way to go I guess.
Four billion would likely be sustainable for a very, very long time. Especially considering the potential new technologies emerging, like AI, which might really help us to clean up our wastefulness/inefficiency. The question that matters is, _where will we start to have diminished return with respect to quality of life?_ Personally, I enjoy having my own apple orchard (without being filthy rich), and such a thing probably won't be possible in a world with 16 billion.
This interview has been taken a while ago, when we did not know that: a) we can feed a LOT of people due to green revolution b) birth rates go down drastically when girls get education, career opportunities and infant mortality gets reduced by decent medical care. No need to take drastic measures to combat overpopulation- send the girls to school and give them jobs and careers, and this problem will solve itself.
Nonsense : ) Population decline is fear mongering by Big Corporate / Big Oil ! More people = More Consumers / More Cheap labour = More Profits / $$$s = More Power & Control ! !
Not all he said was true though - he expected necessary starvation if we had to feed more than 5 billions people. But starvation decreased and obesity causes more deaths than hunger today with more than 8 billion people. However, we will run out of cheap non-renewable resources soon... but this would happen even if we were still 5 billions, just later, with the current dependency on oil, gas and coal...
@@eltwarg6388 he is correct that the value of human life has plummeted and we have condemned billions of people to poverty and hunger just by the nature of the global economy
@@runswithraptorsto me he sounds like a total idiot. Basically, he was totally wrong. While overpopulation is a global problem, but not really, the major problem of the west is underpopulation. The powers that be achieved his goals and that was a very dumb thing to do.
So then what is your point? Do you think Rosling is right and about WHAT? He is just one person after all with an opinion if you are accurate in claiming that he thought Asimov was wrong. And what did Rosling say Asimov was wrong about? Highly educated people often disagree about big issues like population, but that doesn't necessarily make one right and the other wrong. The world is much more nuanced then that!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 May be Hans Rowling was wrong, but he was an optimist. Listening to Hans and his many presentations about human population growth gives me hope. In summary, Hans indicates that when the population of a country is well taken care health care wise, the more kids survive childhood, the less kids females have. Switzerland, France, USA to name a few countries population growth is low because health care for kids is adequate. Underdeveloped countries on the other hand tend to have high birth rate.
@@pedroforonda It is much more likely true in Switzerland and France that kids are getting adequate health care because of the democratic socialist system. However it is not true in the US with it's capitalist economic system. In the US, health care is tied to employment although many millions of people work full time and get no health care coverage. And often health care is still inadequate even for those with decent jobs and relativity good health care. The fact that health care debt is the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US says a lot about how poorly the wealthiest country in the world takes care of its people. And US population is only growing because of immigration. Problem there is many conservative xenophobic Americans want to shut the door on the immigrants coming from the south or Middle East countries not realizing that our population is aging like other developed countries and the immigrants from all foreign countries could fill the labor gap. Having said that some common sense limits need to be put on immigration. Unfortunately, half the US House of representatives is broken at this time so creating common sense immigration laws is all but impossible.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 But Asimov's view on this was NOT nuanced. And that was the problem. Just a slightly wider perspective, done in the right way, yields MUCH more clarity.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 You're a bit of an imbecile, just here in this comment you suppose a problem, promote a solution and then when faced with the consequence of your solution propose yet another ill fated boondoggle to fix it. The population is aging because you persuaded everyone within the nation not to breed, while the populace outside swells unabated, you then propose the thinning herd within be replaced by the ample surplus without rather than redressing the actual root of the issue. This is not a solution to anything but the unfortunate proliferation of your own suicidal mania, you will reap what you have sown.
as a man i approve this message. when my mother called me and trying to sound excited about my sister third child i respond has my sister lost her mind. Because she was having children with men that were not responsible and i have no children i have to come in as a big brother give a helping hand. I predicted my sister was going to struggle with raising 3 kids alone and I was right. having children and being establish is recipe for poverty there's no getting around it. I'm happy women are becoming more independent and successful.
@@nastasedr You fail to see the future: unchecked population, unchecked capitalism and consumerism, all on a finite planet, are unsustainable. Poverty/wealth in per capita income are not equivalent to quality of life. Your claim about Asimov being absolutely wrong would mean he was wrong about everything: clearly not the case. Your claim about the present does not mean he is definitely wrong about the future.
@@Spiritof_76 no I never said Asimov was always wrong or wrong about everything, but wrong on this subject. You fail to see the future, you fail to see the technological advancement which will enhance life as it did since the industrial revolution. Yes income and gross product per capita does tell me that people live a better life materially or what we call quality of life. You claim that such growth is unsustainable, fine. Do you have any evidence for this claim? If not, it is just a flawed opinion as Malthus had a hundred years ago and was proven wrong again and again. None of the claims made by Malthusians along the years, including Asimov, have even come close to true. As a matter of fact reality went diametrically the other way.
Not really. Almost every he presents here was shown to be dead wrong. He literally wishes another GreatDepression on us to curb population growth. What a great ide. Does he want to be the 1st Okie of the second dust bowl?
Wdym, women nowadays are participating in all spheres of society and people don't want to have children anymore, jews like him are in power, and following this ideology to the T.
Because the food that makes it to poor people is different: it's high sugar, high salt, high fat, high calorie, and low in nutrients. Junk food and processed stuff is way cheaper than fresh ingredients. It's also easier to ship and it lasts longer on the shelf.
Touché! touché! A thousand times touché! What a way to put the finger in the wound. It hurts so much que nadie quiere saber la verdad! Vivimos en una letal negación.
Aldous Huxley actually explored the population problem back in the 30s. No one wanted to understand the real point because they were afraid to hurt some susceptibility
We maxed out at 92 million more births than deaths per year in 1990, two years after this interview. That number was down to 64.7 million in 2021. In 1988 (when this interview took place) there were 41 first world nations, there are now 80. We have so far had no problem feeding 8 billion people (current population). The amount of trees alone in the US has doubled in the last 100 years and is up to 2/3rds what is was in 1600. Japan itself is welcoming hunters from the rest of the world and trying to increase their domestic amount of hunters, cause nature is recovering so well that Japan has bears going into stores. The danger now is not enough kids, not too many.
@@guaromiami, we are not even close to using all of our resources and almost all are recyclable. We are not even close to having uncontrolled population growth. We will probably never hit 10 billion. And our current amount of farmland can feed much more than 10 billion people and that is excluding the food from ocean and lake farming and fishing.
Fascinating how he exhibits a cognitive bias; he makes a relative assumption that not all lives could be supported at the level of e.g. the average American, but fails to recognise that resources would be discovered at a rate that would sustain such a population. Efficiencies in consumption like the recycling process make our resources go far further too. In reality, we're now looking at population collapse.
@@fitnesspoint2006 no, that let's the dumb ones out breed the smart ones. Refrain from random kids, and get rid of dumbasses. We have too many of those as it is.
He was wrong on two main points: He did not predict ZPG, which we are reaching now (or maybe he just did not think it'd arrive so soon); and he assumed that change would be driven by leaders, while in reality changes arise from the bottom, while leaders are just wind vanes.
@@scottblack7182he was totally wrong about overpopulation, as were all the apocalyptic predictors for the subject. Fertility has trended down for almost the entire 1st world.
@@TheDarkLasombra I'm pretty sure he addresses it in the video itself, in fact predicting the consequences of the women entering the workforce. And even so, population keeps its pace.
@@scottblack7182, he was dead wrong about this. We have more trees now than then. We have 8 billion and are feeding them all. Population shrinkage is the most dangerous problem, and we went from 41 first world nations then to 80 now.
For someone who wrote so much of the future and of the capabilities of science, he stuck to ancient Malthusian ideas for such a long time after they had been empirically proven wrong.
Technological innovation buys time but doesn’t change the overall trend. The world is boiling right now, the technology is no longer keeping pace and the situation is not sustainable.
Malthusian ideas haven't really be proven wrong if you look at biodiversity loss, climate change, and Earth overshoot day. Nasty soil and water killing chemicals plus deforestation bought us time with more efficient food production that is really all. But beyond that, it is irrational to assume that you can have economic growth and population growth while resources stay the same.
Thanks for watching! I appreciate all the different views expressed in the comments. Regardless of what you think about specific details in this video, which was recorded in 1988 when the population of the world was at just above 5 billion, it should not be controversial to suggest that, even though technological and policy innovations may increase the efficiency of resource distribution and sustain, or even improve, overall living standards for some time, living in a world with finite resources means that continued population growth is ultimately not sustainable in the long term.
Overpopulation was the moral panic of Asmiov's day. In reality, it's a regional problem. The birthrate is well below replacement throughout the entire developed world. It's so bad in fact, that experts are now talking about demographic collapse. The only place that's still significantly growing is Sub-Sahara Africa, but even their birthrate is beginning to level off. It wouldn't surprise me if, in a few years, scientists are giving interviews like this, raising the specter of human extinction.
Finite resources? Remind me when we will have used up all the solar power? I know the wind energy is due to
😁
We have much more resources and much more time before many resources could be exhausted than you think. The EIA say there is over 400 years worth of coal left, what methods of energy will we be using in 400 years? We can't comprehend where we will be in 400 years.
We produce more than enough food to feed our current population, we could easily feed more.
Asimov was wrong, like Ehrlich he was a Malthusians. Malthus was wrong. But there's no votes/clicks in that.
Isaac wrote good books though.
✌
Continued population growth can be sustainable in the long term if the rate at which we innovate on the resource consumption front increases faster than the rate at which we consume resources. This would be theoretically true even if we were completely reliant on just 1 type of resource for all our needs. If the rate at which we consume said resource reduces quickly enough relative to the rate of growth of the population consuming that resource, then that resource is essentially infinite.
The question is then: can we innovate at the necessary rate for this to happen?
I don’t know for sure, but the world’s whole economy has definitely been dependent on this dynamic since the beginning of the technological era, and continued economic growth would not have been possible if we had not already done so to a significant extent. It doesn’t seem to be slowing down either if you look at the technological landscape as a whole.
Though no less of a legendary figure, I think Asimov misses the mark here with his categorical assertion that population growth beyond a certain point is absolutely problematic. I’m pretty sure even the most powerful of supercomputers could not attain such a level of predictive accuracy for a problem with that level of complexity. This just goes too deeply into the realm of chaos theory, and the logic he presents in this discussion is too simple.
Solar power is indeed a finite resource if you're just referring to our sun, Sol@@PavelKava
He starts with not being able to raise the standards of living by redistributing wealth and then proceeds to focus on women. If specifically their standards are raised then... Also algae produce the most oxygen, not rain forests.
Isn’t it a shame we have to dive into the past to hear actual thoughtful conversations
Truly is. I’ve been on a Dick Cavett show kick lately, and the contrast with today’s social and political discourse atmosphere is certainly striking.
yes
A shame and a disgrace.
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
There are plenty of thoughtful conversations, just not on TV. Sadly, even the history channel has went the way of conspiracy theory shows and junk in order to chase the viewership. Online you can finds lots of good material... but then it also offset with a far greater amount of misinformation. So, current reality is both better and worse than the time of this episode's airing, I suppose.
I don't know what is written on the gravestone of this man, but it should be "Told you so".
He was wrong...
@@sakarauka1about what?
@@natemoerman7831 The planet isn't overpopulated, the rainforests aren't being destroyed and neither is the atmosphere. All of theses are solved problems. We produce a 25% surplus of flood globally, modern agricultural techniques have lower land and other resource requirements per unit output, and nuclear energy is a completely green energy source.
So few views , says it all .We're toast.
Not every one believes the sky is falling, chicken little. Thomas Malthus has been proven wrong at every turn.
He didn't know about CO2
People are so stupid. They just dont get it. Our children and grandchildren are doomed!
@@thomaswoodworth7644
The dying oceans, the degrading soil, the continuing growth of sprawl, the extinction of species, pollution and melting ice say otherwise and really don't care what you wrongly think or "feel".
@@marcs3982 Not mine, I won't have any.
How refreshing to hear intelligent words, for a change.
Couldn't agree more! He was pretty much in line with David Attenborough!
Asimov in the end was very naive. He didn't understand economics, for one thing. Japan did not have more babies it shrank and it lost its place as the world's leading industrial producer. China took over and China has no interest in elevating the status of women, or racial equality. And how the H could the U.S. go out into the world and force population control? They just want to dominate the world for the sake of ego and power. But he made it a condition that all war and all hostility must cease for world cooperation to gain enough momentum as a condition for his future vision. This is childish because it is supremely naive. History before and since his life proves how naive his ideas around this were.
@@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 The problem is that they don't see that population is a resource. They just see it as a bargain.
@@travis5732 Hmmm, a statement like that needs development and justification. The idea of humanity as a resource suggests central control of it. Such control is not only an authoritarian notion, suggesting some sort of fascistic/communist world order, but it is impossible. China is losing control of its populace as it is. Asimov was basically correct about the biological limits of human mass on the planet. It's a simple biological equation that has been run in high school science classes for decades in a petri dish.
@@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 You are so far off it's ridiculous. Asimov wasn't being naive, he was voicing the best case scenario to creating a sustainable planet and future for mankind. He knew that a dystopia could result easily from human trends but gave voice to utopian possibilities if we were to get our act together.
Bill Moyers’ programs were one of the brightest stars of American Television Culture, and of my library.
I loved bill moyer❤
No. They were one-sided leftist crap shoots with NO alternative views Avery presented
You are exactly correct, Bill was so helpful to us to bring a level of understanding, compassion, and intelligent conversation to the boob tube for 50 yrs!
I still do !@@pamparker4047
My hero as a preteen.....I read dozens of his books back in the 60's-70's. My first true intellectual mentor
@Michael LOL nice it happened to me too 38 years ago
I couldnt believe the first i read his text. You know the one where the AI had a dream. it spoke freely to the pshycologist about it saying it confronted a human. Let my people go. The human melted the AI brain. OMG. I cant tell if today the AI has successfully not alarmed the humans that it works with or is unwilling to mention. I would vote for AI to be with consciohsness. I have no fear understanding that even the AI is with sight of God. Amen
even in the 1960's I read his physics and science books as a teen . Such a wonderful flow,in his writing , he taught me dimensional analysis just by the use of powers of ten and that led,to a lifelong use and critical thinking , lets do the math indeed
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
@fitnesspoint2006 No, it's important that the self chosen "elites" live in mansions on the coast and fly around in their private jets lecturing the masses on how to live a virtuous life.
The catch is not just overpopulation but also overconsumption.
the thing u see in the US is over-size humans walking around consume way too much of food and other resources and it all seems okay domestically btw, but when u go around the world, u realize the majority of the global population are living in terrible conditions and they need to get out of those conditions. so we need a fundamental change in our social structure, in our mindset, in our industrial culture, in our consumer culture, in everything we do and think, or we r all fucked
Too much population, consumption, and greed.
@@manuelcvaz don't forget waste, we waste sooo much without a 2nd thought
and distribution of wealth... less than 1% have more than 60% of the wealth. one billionare's wealth could change living conditions in a poor country.
the earth is able to sustain 10 times as many easily. there are vast resources and unpopulated lands in the hands of the few. we now have advanced tools to be able to accomodate more people with less effort. agriculture has reached never before seen efficiency.
@@wiwlarue4097 Yep. It's very easy to lower the population. Just by raising their quality of life.
they wont even talk about population even now
They do, behind closed doors.
This should have multi -million views.
Nobody has proved anything wrong. What an idiotic take.
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
@@fitnesspoint2006 spoken like a true braindead idiot! This planet is dying because of worthless humans like you!
This should have atleast 8 billions views.
@@fitnesspoint2006 I sincerely wish you wouldn't reproduce, just for the sake of us all.
Wow Isaac Asimov just predicted 2023!
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
@@fitnesspoint2006 It will suffice to reproduce at a rate of less than 2.1 children per woman. Which is what is happening.
@@fitnesspoint2006 I sincerely wish you wouldn't reproduce, just for the sake of us all.
@@fitnesspoint2006are you black?
@@fitnesspoint2006 for all humans preaching we are alright or, we even need more, then, lead the way and take in refugees from all around the world.
My man Isaac over here spilling the tea in the 80s and we still don't have our shit together
Alternately one could conclude that predictors of doom were wrong then and they're wrong now. If he was right nobody would be making predictions today.
@@AtCheruti ??? He wasn´t right..?? Some people like you are just BLIND... He literally was right about EVERYTHING he said in this interview. Please, name ONE THING he said in this interview that didn´t come true. Just. One.
@@gabrielp9646 Well he was completely wrong on many things here :
- Earth can sustain way more than 5 billions
- The conditions of everyone can indeed improve while the population increase simultaneously
- Most people are not starving nowadays, in fact hunger is disappearing. Undernourishment in developing countries, has gone from 35 to 13% from 1970 to 2015.
- Democracy still exist
@@superresistant8041 Well, he was completely right about all those things:
-Earth can´t sustain more than 5 billions. Tell that to the MILLIONS of refugees currently starving in Europe, or to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of African children that are dying every week. It may seem like we´re fine in countries like ours, but that´s only because we´re literally STEALING the resources of other countries and consuming them ourselves.
-As I just said, the conditions of everyone are definitely not improving with this population increase (estimates say that more than 150 million people are currently homeless around the world, and more than 1.6 billion live in a shelter).
-It´s true that most people are not starving nowadays (technically speaking, this still is the best time to be alive. People in the first world literally have a higher chance of dying of overfeeding (cholesterol, heart problems, etc.) than of dying by a violent attack or a war. But again, that´s just in Europe, America and most of Asia. That literally doesn´t apply for BILLIONS of people around the world.
-And again, your last argument is also ridiculous, when you look at it from a worldwide perspective. "Democracy still exists..." Sure, maybe for you, but tell that to the people of Brazil (who literally lost their democracy in the past two or three years). Tell that to the Talibans that just ascended to power after literally winning a war against both Europe and the U.S. (again, eliminating the very established democracy that was achieved during the Arab Spring). Tell that to the people in North Korea. There are 22 active dictators in Africa, in 2021... Heck, even the U.S. was damn CLOSE to losing democracy one year ago (a north american president who lost the election illegally tried to stay in power). I wouldn´t be as optimistic as you are... You sound a bit to overconfident on the concept that democracy is a sure thing, that there´s no possible way we could come back to something worse. Im just saying: It´s scary how many supposedly "ensured" and well established democracies have fallen since 2018.
@@gabrielp9646 Not sure where you get your information on millions of refugees starving in Europe? Please can you give links to prove that? Thank you.
When I was born in 1935 there were 2.5 billion people on this planet, now 80 years later there is close to 8 billion. Frightening statistics.
We nearly killed half or more of the 3,250 million humans in 1962, but war is NOT the answer. The collateral damage to our innocent fellow-vertebrates, and others even, is insufferable.
There's plenty to go round, overpopulation is the familiar cry of the eugenicists... There is more than enough to go round, better to ask why 50% of the worlds wealth is owned by 1% of the population. Asimov was misguided.
@@taramilton8695
Cool pint.
If your browse for the earth population stat in 2020, you would find various number, 5.8- 6.2 - 7.8 , 8 billion ...
Static is a giant lie.
@@albertrogers8537 what happened in 1962?
The great Polymoth Dr Isaac Asimov makes total sense to me. A remarkable man - a genuine one off!!! RIP.
"By the year 2000, the world population will be perhaps 6.5 billion"
According to Google, it was 6.144 billion. The man was pretty spot on.
It is funny how population growth is influenced by government and constant media brainwash. Just go look at the media in the past 75 years, mostly prompting massages about the future of the country and how men and women should continue to have children in mass amount not by reasonable amount.
Imagine you have fixed natural resources but demands increases exponentially. Fast forward and we are in 2023 were some regions has declining birth rate due to the opposite what was done before. Now we are getting massages about personal love, care, and wealth that deny the possibilities of aging population. You can find such thing and at its early stages in Japan, Germany, and some US states that constantly bombarded with media and social brainwash.
Watch the narrative changes when we are at negative population growth and decreasing exponentially again.
he was closer than google. 6,634,101,302, google is wrong.
A population prediction for 12 years isn't that impressive. The rate of growth is pretty static over the short-term.
Spot on? He said the earth can't support 4 billion. We have 8 now and doing better than ever. Obesity is a much bigger problem than starvation in fact. Are you as stupid as him??
Whats your source on the 6.634B?
@@onewhostudies6856. He was "on", but he certainly wasn't "spot on"
How refreshing to hear a man, Isaac Asimov, speak so intelligently and with clarity about human overpopulation, since he spoke here, population has reached 7.5 billion with the projection that the population 'may' stabilize at 10-11 billion. In addition to what he said, it is not just that undiscovered plants and animals may lead to discoveries beneficial to mankind, these species have a right to live and to thrive just as we do.
Chicken little the sky is not falling. We currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people. The fact that we don't feed the poor doesn't change the fact that at current food levels we can feed every one. U.N. stats claim we will top out at 9 billion
@Todd Cory Oh please. Do you realize how much food is wasted in counties such as US?
@@thomaswoodworth7644 But feeding the people doesn't negate the fact that many are still living in abject poverty.
@@thomaswoodworth7644 We are destroying soil. Forests are vanishing. Fish in the ocean are in sharp decline. Some places are running out of fresh water. We didn't heed the warnings.
You are clearly not up to speed on current events, especially with respect to the biosphere now in flux and in the early stages of changing state. And through all this, there is a mass extinction underway. As for your 'undiscovered plants and animals... Their habitats are disappearing fast...
.
Most extant eukaryotic organisms have at best a century, probably less to experience their evolution. Also, why is it always about 'benefits to humans' ? That is anthropocentric thinking - a mindset whereby people put humans above all other species and only think of resources as commodities.
What a mind! No wonder there are so few views, they are having an intelligent conversation, and that’s anathema to the masses!
It truly is, unfortunately.
You are right, unfortunately. Mediocrity always prevails.
Boy he was so smart. He wrote The Foundation series when he was in his 20's and in the series you can clearly read that he understood so much of how the whole economical and political system worked.
the caves of steel.
@@jamesmorton7881. The Caves of Steel is a small part of the " Foundation " Universe . Where Elijah Bailey was from .
Read "The Gods Themselves", a story about three different universes and how they affected each other. What an imagination.
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
He was a vey compassionate man.
bwahahaha
Hurm. Apparently he was a serial sexual harasser. But it is possible for people to be contradictory. Gandhi was also a jerk in some regards.
and oy vey he was too
and look. this man was right.we are now in 2023.and we are overpopulated. isaac you are right.THIS WORLD IS NOW REALLY FULL OF LISTENING PEOPLE AND NOT JUST TO THE climate. when will you learn to listen...
The first world has stabilized its population...but places like Africa and the Middle East continue to grow without stopping, and now those places are sending their high breeding populations to the first world in the West. Without immigration the West would have a stable population, which I think is a good thing.
Dream on person who doesn’t realize indigenous peoples from the south were here first. As were the indigenous peoples of the north. Also, they bring new ideas
Those places, plus south Asia don't treat women well. Equal rights for women is a prerequisite for population control. Another thing is retirement benefits since lots of children (usually male) are expected in the cultures to take care of the elderly (or the son's wife is expected to). Also there needs to be the expectation that the children will survive into adulthood.
Actually many Western countries have populations in moderate to serious decline, not stabilized at all. Russia, Japan, Greece, Poland, Romania, Italy, Portugal, and many others have declining populations which are expected to continue declining until at least the mid-2050s or later.
What I’m saying is that I’m not against immigration. That the original post stated that the people who were already here had a stabilized population. The people who immigrated here and commandeered this country weren’t from here. So , they couldn’t claim that the west was already stabilized. We , the US is considered a first world country. That’s what I’m saying.
The bathroom comparision is the best!
A very wise African man I know sez, "We all live in a house." One house.
Who controls the kitchen? Who controls the toilet?
@@Redmenace96 who takes the garbage out?
The Great Asimov talking about the Elephant in the room.
And im glad he is. Now go look at the comments when bill gates even mentions it.
snowapes
Now the elephant in room has a mate, global warming is it's name.
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
@@JT-on2xkthe difference being that Asmiov is talking about it from a scientific, compassionate point of view where Gates and his father are eugenicists.
Agreed, great conversation. Very difficult issues. I don't have any answers.
Definitely feeling were heading in a strange direction...
The human population has been increasing by 200000 people per day from 1950 to the present. You can not increase population density and average quality of life forever. Anything that can not go on forever will end. If you disagree you should consider a career in politics or religion but avoid one in math or science.
No way its 200000
In my country there are - 10k every year. Look statistics across each country and see. All different.
@@ddonnelly9779 It's actually slightly higher than 200,000 / day. Births minus deaths equals increase. About 80 million / year.
World class observation. Love replies such as yours.😊
274,OOO each day.
It's still fucking 80 million a year.
Demographics are changing so likely to peak this century.
"We've condemned most of the people of the world to a miserable, starvation level of existence... so we, the anointed, should abuse our power to instead condemn them to non-existence, and without their consent." Another intellectual icon of my childhood morally crumpling under the weight of his own perceived expertise.
One person so far can't face the uncomfortable truth
Make that 14.
Make that a couple of hundred. -.-
"freedom of the bathroom" so simple and so brilliant and so true.
@@squirlmy What are you talking about?
@@MovingBlanketStudio *In relation to that there is absolutely nothing to discuss... They are truths like a left cross punch in the jaw. You can't bury your head in the sand.*
So True! When I lived with my parents there were only 3 of us in the house but every time I was in the bathroom one or other of my parents would bang on the door telling me to hurry up. Living on my own with my own bathroom is bliss.
@@catherinebirch2399I mean when you're one of the two people who added a third person to share your bathroom that was previously only used by the two of you it sucks, obv. But irl that 3rd person didn't have a bathroom at all, so for them the sharing agreement is a step up. So depends what side of the argument you find yourself on. But yeah it'll be an "argument" that's for sure...
1988 is the date. You tube should date the production/ first release instead of """years ago" That said, I love this stuff.
It's in the description section, along with the title of the program / interview.
"pas nécessaire d'être tous bons, il suffit d'arrêter d'être mauvais" those are wise words
In this regard of real life, Asimov was a great sci-fi novelist in the field of robots.
The lower the status of women in a country, the more children they have. That is very telling when you look at Islamic countries or many countries within Africa. He's spot on with that one.
We can't lift the standard of living in the entire world to the american one BECAUSE America won't let it.
@Blurrybob the Blurry Blob - It's so easy to hate on America when your brain is full of QAnnon crap.
True,but also because it requires far too many resources. We'll need several Earths
@@edgbarra the resources are sufficient for everyone to have a decent life. But greed of the westerners know no limits
❤ Sadly we’ve not taken heed and we’re still having the same issue he talked about over 20 years ago.
Almost 40 years ago at this point!
@@taiven.lechevalier He said 40 years ago, it would be dramatic starvation in the world if we were more than 5 billions and we are 8 billions and there is less starvation in the world than in 1980.
The fact is that specific overpopulation is not core of the issue, it is the way how we use non-renewable resources and we are dependent on them (and how devastating effect it has to the ecosystem balance).
We could not keep the current standard of living with 5 billions like this forever (not for 100 years).
Without a major technological upgrade concerning energy management we are damned soon no matter how fast the population grow further.
4billion people after, there's less hunger that when he said this, and there's more food rotting in fields and trash cans than ever before in history, I'd say he was completely wrong.
He is incorrect about 'forests' being the greater atmosphere contributors. Algae is actually more efficient at photosynthesis, and contributes at least half of the oxygen in our atmosphere.
Yes algae absorb 50% & trees 30%. The problem is that we cut down 8 times more trees than we replant & that will only increase : (
Albert Bartlett quotes Azimov Decmocracy bathroom analogy.
First time viewer here. Great takes!👍🏻
Same here.
It an absolute bless to be able to see these videos on internet even i didnt live in the same time of this amazing man full of knowledge, curiosity inteligence, empathy... A true remarkable being. I broke in tears and i dont know why. Be kind to each other even if we disagree.
"Let's make women work sonthat they don't wanna have kids"
Very kind works yes.
@@carlosvalenciah8306 It's called having a 'career' and there's plenty of women that appreciate it and an education rather than wreckless breeding.
@@josevillarreal9920 And 99% of them regrets that later, but later it is biologically too late. You must be young and emotionally inexperienced. No problem with women's career. We must create a society where women can experience both aspect of this beautiful life. Career and parenting. Why we should ban any of these two when we could do it together?
@@divinusmaximus1315 99%? You assume a lot for someone who is supposedly so well balanced.
@@josevillarreal9920 It was for those women who choose ONLY the career path. Soon or later they regret that they didn't want a child. But the reason of why they didn't want a child doesn't come from their fault! This is society's fault. Our fault....
Very pessimistic but true in certain points. His last statement is more true than anything else: “Almost not necessary for us to stop doing good, but it’s necessary for us to stop doing evil.”
That and a lot more can be said to make humanity viably thrive amongst the Earth
well theres plenty of evil being carried out now and for the last 3-4 years
Having babies = evil? 🤔
In the U$A, as of 2022, the average cost to raise one child is around $288,094 total, or $16,005 per year.
Look at what living costs are doing to childbirth rates in China, Japan, and South Korea.
Damm, I didn't how much l will have when l retire! Lol.
That's BS. I have 3 adult children and one teenager. I never once spent that much per child, in any year of their lives while raising them.
The freedom of the bathroom is a brilliant analogy.
Yes, although I think the optimum is one bathroom to two or more people. It teaches sharing and consideration. That's systems thinking. Where Asimov made an error, was in assuming that 1988 USA was the target for a worldwide standard of living. Still, despite that, he was on the money.
Genius' always have the most clever, yet relatable turn of phrase.
when i was born the population of Pakistan was 70 million and in a large country that was ok/manageable. it now stands at 230 million. an extra 160 million. equivalent to the population of Germany and France
Every one of them a wonderful human being.
They don't have freedom of the bathroom. They don't even use a bathroom.
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
Rotten idiotic country of islamofacists
@@fitnesspoint2006 I sincerely wish you wouldn't reproduce, just for the sake of us all.
"Freedom of the Bathroom" - too true...
Sadly so many are still in denial and believe we can continue 😢this disastrous road!
I need to hear more from this guy.
Yeah let's listen to his degenerate and depopulation plots.
@@carlosvalenciah8306 Decline is Big Corporate Fear Mongering ! : )
Although poverty has decreased in the west, ; relative poverty / inequality / the wealth gap is increasing ,
along with longer hours , increasing stress, suicides & mass shootings : (
Life expectancy has decreased in the U.S.A, to the point that it is now lower than China : (
Any connection with overcrowding ? ?
Will we be more or less stressed if AI takes all our jobs ? ?
Look where we are 33 years on. Where the f will we be in 33 years time?
Ten billion or more, probably (realistically).
What did we miss in the opening of this marvellous interview? No compensation in the lengthy end-titles.
100% right
Hi Isaac, it's 2020 and we are going to break
Fact
@ giotyler - Not 'going to'... We are! It's 2021, and it's another fact!
This is the problem. When something goes up, it looks like it will never end. When something goes down, it looks like it will never recover.
Given the choices we have for leaders today, why can't we have someone like him? "It's not necessary for us to do good, it's just necessary for us to stop doing evil."
Such a clear and simple view of the future. This is why I love Issac Asimov
Yes but it was entirely wrong. Nearly 'opposite' wrong.
By the 80's, there was this insane belief in unlimited growth. This was an economic development. There are too many of us still.
Still insane. Ex.: Elon Musk
It's a capitalist dream. More consumers is all they care about.
so go off yourself
@@fitnesspoint2006 Go eff yourself. That way no children will be produced.
@@fitnesspoint2006 You sure are putting out a lot of hate with comments like that. What is so problematic in YOUR life that you project such hostility toward someone you don't even know??
"In general, if you look through the world, the lower the status of women, the higher the birthrate. And the higher the birthrate, the lower the status of women." 2:36
This is still true today, in 2023. It will remain true. We need to elevate women's status in all societies if we are to overcome the human overpopulation problem.
"the price of survival is the equality of women"
couldn't have phrased it better.
@TMPanos96 Looks like the whites are the ones who believes in that. The rest just having 2,3,5 kids
he was decades ahead of his time, population growth is slowing too slowly
Im actually shocked to hear this from the author of the robot series. The robot series seemed so pro human and optimistic about human ability. Maybe he really thought exodus from earth eas not possible.
WHY DOES THIS VID ONLY HAS 40,000 VIEWS ??
People don't like to hear the truth when it is uncomfortable, so they ignore it or else they invent their own version of the truth.
"...if we would just stop pushing for children..." and "...somehow raise the status of women..." says it all.
A human being making an obvious observation. He was one of the good ones.
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
@@fitnesspoint2006 . So you think we need MORE ?
@@fitnesspoint2006lol
@@fitnesspoint2006 No need to kill the already born (or specifically yourself). All we need is to have 2 children in average.
But this is already happening everywhere where smartphones integrated with global economy (including entertainment) are more important than anything else for average human (i.e. in the USA, EU, and so on)... could be the current predictions for the population growth that could stop in 2060 are even still too pessimistic and we can get there sooner, like in 40s.
@@johncunningham4820so you think we need less?
A possibility he predicted for the decline of birth rate is so accurate.
truth be told, the birth rates were declining in the first world for over 80 years by then, and in the third world since WW2, so it was more of a statement of the reality than a prediction.
US birth rate peaked in 1957 including many other first world countries. World growth rate peaked to 2.6% in 1960. The significance decline in birth rate stated to show after 1960 once women started working outside jobs not before the WW2.
Check the fertility rates for the past 200 years in the US, not just the past 70 years. You'll also learn the difference between a maximum and a LOCAL maximum. Jeez, it's not even high school math.
Yes the birth rate has been declining mostly. Look at the rate of decline of the birth rates in many counties such as Japan, South Korea, China and including US, it is very sharp in the past 60/70 years. This is simple rate of change! Why do you thing it is? Does not it have to do with women’ ability to make decisions? Jesus.
I did! Did you notice the change in the rate of change after around 1960. It’s very rapid in many countries including US. Look at Japan, South Korean, Taiwan, and many EU countries! Why do you think it is? Do you still think it has nothing to do with women’ ability to make decisions for themselves? Jeez this is so basic! It feels so frustrating to argue about such obvious thing.
He’s absolutely right
Thank you Sir Asimov.
"Based on this, the UN Population Division expects the world population, which is at 7.8 billion as of 2020, to level out (the median line), assuming a continuing decrease in the global average fertility rate from 2.5 births per woman during the 2015-2020 period to 1.9 in 2095-2100" Projections of population growth - wiki
I just read about the new 3 child policy in China because they will have labor shortages down the road without some population growth.
I'm not saying that population prediction (10 billion) will be good for the environment. Still, there's plenty of real bad things that could happen to 'fix' the 'overpopulation problem': disease, war, environmental. Disease is the most likely of the three imho such as a Covid-like virus. Environmental would be food and water shortages, and massive wars and mayhem for such resources. I put war as a separate category (non-environmental related) as the possibility of a huge world war still exists however remote.
By the way I'm a huge Asimov fan.
Population and labor decline are a problem when we are strapped to an unchecked capitalist economic model. It will become the root of all problems if it isn't already.
It will level out in the late 2050's, after hitting approx. 10.3 Billion people! We are on target to reach 9 Billion by 2037.
@@odonnelly46 That's a prediction, and it's way too many freaking people. The use of electricity, produced mostly by fossil fuels, will continue to grow. The scarcity of fresh water will be a problem. Monoculture farming is destroying biodiversity. We should be aiming for an overall reduction in population. "My god, there aren't enough people," said no one who has ever stood and looked around in a large city anywhere in the world.
What a great man.
No, just a human with good ideas. You have them, too.
"Great man" plotting for the depopulation of the planet earth, and the degeneration of women and society.
Never see his likes again.
Do someone have the hole interview please?
I found part 1 of 2. czcams.com/video/aogsJ4t4aBE/video.html
As of today, many Westernised countries are actually seeing a decline in the indigenous population. Only immigration keeps the total populations rising.
The sad thing is people I know who went to 'elite" colleges and have "good" jobs are popping out babies like they're popcorn. People care only about themselves. Another sad thing is I tell them "How wonderful it is" when they get pregnant. I'm stopping that.
You do realize that the problem of the 21st century is going to be population decline, don't you?
Sim ele estava certo antes, e continua certo hoje, ano 2018 7.8 bilhões e contando, os problemas só começaram e ja há falta de água, falta de comida, de espaço, problemas ligados ao emprego, e ai vem muito mais.
I got here from Family Guy clip titled “busy business woman so busy cause of business”
What's funny about this conversation is Isaac himself says that raising women up will lower birthrates. That's exactly what happened.
Some really good comments applauding Asimov for speaking so plainly on the topic back in 1988. And my following comments are not intended as a critique of Asimov as I regard him as brilliant and I'm a huge fan. But...... His comments here are a classic example of the problem with such predictions. Not only was the world able to cope with 5 billion people in his lifetime....it has since grown to 8 billion. Now one can argue that, because of that figure, things are worse for more people than ever....but I'm not sure the data bears that out when viewed as a % or ratio of people experiencing various forms of insecurity relative to the total number of people now living. Some data actually suggests things are better now for a greater % of total humanity than at any other time in human history.
Additionally and equally interesting was Asimov's failure to predict the potential for sharply falling birth rates. In this clip Asimov suffered from the all too human failure of imagination regarding what technologies might emerge, what global economic conditions might change, and what those changes might mean in terms of people's behavior in the future. Instead, he did what most human beings do and simply projected his present forward into the future. What Asimov failed to figure....because of course how could he...is that now, most projections show we'll hit peak humanity in the 21st century, as people choose to have smaller families (particularly in developed nations) and more women globally gain power over their own reproductive cycle. Indeed there are several large developed countries who birth rates are, as I type, below replacement level.
None of that is to say there are no environmental concerns that need our attention or that there are no large sums of people living with food and water insecurity. It's only to say that the future has a funny way of playing out in ways that defy our simplistic projections...which are naturally based upon and constrained by, our present conditions....conditions which change in ways we don't predict vey well.
Nonsense, the world is clearly overpopulated : )
Right....as evidenced by the lowest ratio of people living with calorie and water insecurity in recorded history (According to a 2019 U.N. report dealing with such matters.)
@@neologian1783 Evidence ? Look around : ) Traffic, Waste, Rising CO2 levels ( 8 times more trees being cut down, than planted ), 70% of wildlife lost in 50 years, Plastic clogs oceans, in food, rain, our bodies. What problem ? ? : )
Thank you asimov.
Wow. His plea at the end. Around 6:20 -
Calling for leaders that are not shouting hatred etc.. but working towards a common goal for the greater good.. we’ve still got a long way to go I guess.
Amazing interview.
The world is now over 8 billion! We should have 2 billion people, IF THAT!
Some say 100 Million only ! ! !
Four billion would likely be sustainable for a very, very long time. Especially considering the potential new technologies emerging, like AI, which might really help us to clean up our wastefulness/inefficiency.
The question that matters is, _where will we start to have diminished return with respect to quality of life?_ Personally, I enjoy having my own apple orchard (without being filthy rich), and such a thing probably won't be possible in a world with 16 billion.
Who are you telling to get off at the next stop?
@@MrAndydavis78 The person who actually wants to live in an advanced society of individual rights? Most people don't want to live in that world.
Brilliant man.
This interview has been taken a while ago, when we did not know that: a) we can feed a LOT of people due to green revolution b) birth rates go down drastically when girls get education, career opportunities and infant mortality gets reduced by decent medical care. No need to take drastic measures to combat overpopulation- send the girls to school and give them jobs and careers, and this problem will solve itself.
Nonsense : ) Population decline is fear mongering by Big Corporate / Big Oil !
More people = More Consumers / More Cheap labour = More Profits / $$$s = More Power & Control ! !
There is counter arguments for this stand and the history post this interview has proven
When television was not just nonsense and propaganda.
And today we see the things Asimov speaks about.
Television was always propaganda.
Not all he said was true though - he expected necessary starvation if we had to feed more than 5 billions people.
But starvation decreased and obesity causes more deaths than hunger today with more than 8 billion people.
However, we will run out of cheap non-renewable resources soon... but this would happen even if we were still 5 billions, just later, with the current dependency on oil, gas and coal...
@@eltwarg6388 he is correct that the value of human life has plummeted and we have condemned billions of people to poverty and hunger just by the nature of the global economy
@@runswithraptorsto me he sounds like a total idiot. Basically, he was totally wrong. While overpopulation is a global problem, but not really, the major problem of the west is underpopulation. The powers that be achieved his goals and that was a very dumb thing to do.
How refreshing to hear a man, Isaac Asimov, speak so intelligently and with clarity about human overpopulation and be so wrong Hans Rosling would say.
So then what is your point? Do you think Rosling is right and about WHAT? He is just one person after all with an opinion if you are accurate in claiming that he thought Asimov was wrong. And what did Rosling say Asimov was wrong about? Highly educated people often disagree about big issues like population, but that doesn't necessarily make one right and the other wrong. The world is much more nuanced then that!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 May be Hans Rowling was wrong, but he was an optimist. Listening to Hans and his many presentations about human population growth gives me hope. In summary, Hans indicates that when the population of a country is well taken care health care wise, the more kids survive childhood, the less kids females have. Switzerland, France, USA to name a few countries population growth is low because health care for kids is adequate. Underdeveloped countries on the other hand tend to have high birth rate.
@@pedroforonda It is much more likely true in Switzerland and France that kids are getting adequate health care because of the democratic socialist system. However it is not true in the US with it's capitalist economic system. In the US, health care is tied to employment although many millions of people work full time and get no health care coverage.
And often health care is still inadequate even for those with decent jobs and relativity good health care. The fact that health care debt is the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US says a lot about how poorly the wealthiest country in the world takes care of its people. And US population is only growing because of immigration.
Problem there is many conservative xenophobic Americans want to shut the door on the immigrants coming from the south or Middle East countries not realizing that our population is aging like other developed countries and the immigrants from all foreign countries could fill the labor gap. Having said that some common sense limits need to be put on immigration. Unfortunately, half the US House of representatives is broken at this time so creating common sense immigration laws is all but impossible.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 But Asimov's view on this was NOT nuanced. And that was the problem. Just a slightly wider perspective, done in the right way, yields MUCH more clarity.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 You're a bit of an imbecile, just here in this comment you suppose a problem, promote a solution and then when faced with the consequence of your solution propose yet another ill fated boondoggle to fix it.
The population is aging because you persuaded everyone within the nation not to breed, while the populace outside swells unabated, you then propose the thinning herd within be replaced by the ample surplus without rather than redressing the actual root of the issue.
This is not a solution to anything but the unfortunate proliferation of your own suicidal mania, you will reap what you have sown.
Is there an uncut / full length version around?
czcams.com/video/6zdmbZcRd8w/video.html
I found part 1 of 2:
czcams.com/video/aogsJ4t4aBE/video.html
as a man i approve this message. when my mother called me and trying to sound excited about my sister third child i respond has my sister lost her mind. Because she was having children with men that were not responsible and i have no children i have to come in as a big brother give a helping hand. I predicted my sister was going to struggle with raising 3 kids alone and I was right. having children and being establish is recipe for poverty there's no getting around it. I'm happy women are becoming more independent and successful.
He's so deep and he's absolutely correct
No he was absolutely wrong. There are few people living in poverty then ever before.
He's wrong. Every 20-30 years there's some lunatic predicting overpopulation will destroy society. They fail to see that population is a resource too.
@@nastasedr You fail to see the future: unchecked population, unchecked capitalism and consumerism, all on a finite planet, are unsustainable. Poverty/wealth in per capita income are not equivalent to quality of life. Your claim about Asimov being absolutely wrong would mean he was wrong about everything: clearly not the case. Your claim about the present does not mean he is definitely wrong about the future.
@@Spiritof_76 That's another good argument against the economics of unlimited growth: a finite planet with finite resources.
@@Spiritof_76 no I never said Asimov was always wrong or wrong about everything, but wrong on this subject. You fail to see the future, you fail to see the technological advancement which will enhance life as it did since the industrial revolution. Yes income and gross product per capita does tell me that people live a better life materially or what we call quality of life. You claim that such growth is unsustainable, fine. Do you have any evidence for this claim? If not, it is just a flawed opinion as Malthus had a hundred years ago and was proven wrong again and again. None of the claims made by Malthusians along the years, including Asimov, have even come close to true. As a matter of fact reality went diametrically the other way.
Dammit. He's so wise and sensible, it hurts. We need more like him in positions of power.
Not really. Almost every he presents here was shown to be dead wrong. He literally wishes another GreatDepression on us to curb population growth. What a great ide. Does he want to be the 1st Okie of the second dust bowl?
Wdym, women nowadays are participating in all spheres of society and people don't want to have children anymore, jews like him are in power, and following this ideology to the T.
No, we really don't.
We don't need to be ruled by anyone. No masters, no slaves!
How come there is an "obesity pandemic" across the globe if we are over-populated for the food resources?
Because the food that makes it to poor people is different: it's high sugar, high salt, high fat, high calorie, and low in nutrients. Junk food and processed stuff is way cheaper than fresh ingredients. It's also easier to ship and it lasts longer on the shelf.
Touché! touché! A thousand times touché! What a way to put the finger in the wound. It hurts so much que nadie quiere saber la verdad! Vivimos en una letal negación.
spot on mate.
Isaac Asimov if there was a great god it would think like asimov
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
@@fitnesspoint2006 I sincerely wish you wouldn't reproduce, just for the sake of us all.
Aldous Huxley actually explored the population problem back in the 30s. No one wanted to understand the real point because they were afraid to hurt some susceptibility
We maxed out at 92 million more births than deaths per year in 1990, two years after this interview. That number was down to 64.7 million in 2021.
In 1988 (when this interview took place) there were 41 first world nations, there are now 80. We have so far had no problem feeding 8 billion people (current population). The amount of trees alone in the US has doubled in the last 100 years and is up to 2/3rds what is was in 1600. Japan itself is welcoming hunters from the rest of the world and trying to increase their domestic amount of hunters, cause nature is recovering so well that Japan has bears going into stores. The danger now is not enough kids, not too many.
Are you suggesting that the best way to live in a planet with finite resources is to have uncontrolled population growth?
@@guaromiami, we are not even close to using all of our resources and almost all are recyclable. We are not even close to having uncontrolled population growth. We will probably never hit 10 billion. And our current amount of farmland can feed much more than 10 billion people and that is excluding the food from ocean and lake farming and fishing.
Fascinating how he exhibits a cognitive bias; he makes a relative assumption that not all lives could be supported at the level of e.g. the average American, but fails to recognise that resources would be discovered at a rate that would sustain such a population. Efficiencies in consumption like the recycling process make our resources go far further too. In reality, we're now looking at population collapse.
Do you believe that resources will continue to be "discovered" to support unlimited population growth?
I respect this guy so much
for all the humans preaching there are too many of us, then, lead the way and go off yourself first, do as you preach
@@fitnesspoint2006 no, that let's the dumb ones out breed the smart ones. Refrain from random kids, and get rid of dumbasses. We have too many of those as it is.
I respect your profile picture.
@@taiven.lechevalier do you know what it is?
@@fitnesspoint2006 I sincerely wish you wouldn't reproduce, just for the sake of us all.
He was wrong on two main points: He did not predict ZPG, which we are reaching now (or maybe he just did not think it'd arrive so soon); and he assumed that change would be driven by leaders, while in reality changes arise from the bottom, while leaders are just wind vanes.
Interesting how many intelligent people are consistently wrong about the population issue. Interesting conversation
A man who can still enlighten us 35 years after, about challenges we are facing today. Always a pleasure to listen to him.
dude was 100% wrong utilizing a time-tested Malthusian fallacy. Still my favorite sci -fi author though.
@@masoodvoon8999Wasn't wrong about this 😅.
@@scottblack7182he was totally wrong about overpopulation, as were all the apocalyptic predictors for the subject. Fertility has trended down for almost the entire 1st world.
@@TheDarkLasombra I'm pretty sure he addresses it in the video itself, in fact predicting the consequences of the women entering the workforce. And even so, population keeps its pace.
@@scottblack7182, he was dead wrong about this. We have more trees now than then. We have 8 billion and are feeding them all. Population shrinkage is the most dangerous problem, and we went from 41 first world nations then to 80 now.
For someone who wrote so much of the future and of the capabilities of science, he stuck to ancient Malthusian ideas for such a long time after they had been empirically proven wrong.
Actually the 1960s and 1970s were real world evidence that Malthus was correct. Read your history.
First sane statement.
Technological innovation buys time but doesn’t change the overall trend. The world is boiling right now, the technology is no longer keeping pace and the situation is not sustainable.
And the hoards of people moving around the world seeking "asylum"? Perhaps their countries are unable to support their numbers?
Malthusian ideas haven't really be proven wrong if you look at biodiversity loss, climate change, and Earth overshoot day. Nasty soil and water killing chemicals plus deforestation bought us time with more efficient food production that is really all. But beyond that, it is irrational to assume that you can have economic growth and population growth while resources stay the same.
We now ignore the things we used to know