The Inevitable Population Collapse NOBODY Sees coming.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- X - x.com/basileus...
Think we’re in an overpopulation crisis? Think again. This video dives into the real data behind global demographics, exposing the population collapse myth and its shocking consequences. From debunking 1970s overpopulation fears to exploring today’s plummeting birth rates, here’s what the world isn’t telling you-and why it matters.
I'm pleasantly surprised by the return on this video-most people are optimists. However, there are a lot of pessimistic comments about the future. I didn't explore that part much in this video, but I will in the future. Please be optimistic; although there are many issues and problems with our current system-I’m aware of ecological collapse, climate change, etc.-I don't believe these issues will remain unsolved. Being pessimistic about them is essentially embracing a Malthusian perspective. We should have faith in the power of technological advancement because it has saved us in the past and disproved Malthusian theories. Yes, people are dying from hunger, drugs, wars, etc., but these numbers are far lower than at any other time in history. We should take a step back and avoid overfocusing on the short term. The average living conditions of the middle class today are better than those of kings in medieval times. In conclusion, while horrible things are happening, we're making progress, and optimism is key to creating a great future.
I guess you should look into recent peer reviewed papers about climate change a little more. There is nothing Malthusian about the conundrum we are in. The peer reviewed papers are quite clear about the scenario of ecological overshoot that we are in at the moment, never mind the 1,6°C warming we are at now and the carbon pulse that will lead to a great simplification of coping with a lot less energy in the near future.
I would urge you to look into ecological overshoot. The basic idea is that that there is a kind of natural capital in several fields, which are able to "pay dividends", but we use more than it gives, so we are consuming the natural capital itself (hence deforestation, desertification, climate change, etc.). Perhaps the scariest consequence is that oceanic alga may be decimated, and we eventually suffocate in a low oxygen atmosphere. So yes, the middle class lives better than kings before, but only until the natural capital is exhausted.
The other important thing to wrap one's head around is that the economy basically consumes natural resources to function and grow, and if we consume them faster than they renew, then economic activity will inevitably collapse. And of course, many resources are non-renewable to start with, so one can see that a signle planet inevitably means an end to economy. An apt metaphor for civilization is fire. It burns, spreads, and eventually runs out of fuel or oxygen.
300$ t shirts slay satan 33 space squid 37 salsa soldier 37 salty sam 37 nuke naginata 43 jedi jazz 57 have a kid at 33 and you'll be free ban middle school f 3 16 m 4 17
Have you read any of Julian Simons books or seen his lectures, and debates with Ehrlich. I have books from both men somewhere.
@@Time2goExtinct The peer review system is utterly corrupt and worthless. It rewards only groupthink bubble-dwellers.
It's not sad at all. We don't need to be endlessly expanding, cramming as many human beings as possible into every city until the entire globe is a giant shopping mall.
Migration doesn't only delay the problem but it transforms a nation and mangles it's identity.
who tf still think immigrants can solve every problems ever???
@@Panzer_Runner Detached/sheltered people, immigrant-descendants or immigrants themselves, and idiots.
@@Panzer_Runner Um, Albert Einstein was an immigrant from Germany.
@@socoman99 Talented and highly skilled individuals are different from tens of millions of poor unskilled migrants from vastly different cultures. One adds to the host country, the other exhausts and transform the host country culturally.
@@socoman99 >German professor migrates to (largely) German nation because of fear of being prosecuted
vs
>Afghan goat herder migrates to German nation because he heard that the government gives him money for sitting around a cafe all day long from his twenty cousins already living there
Yeah, Einstein is a very representative example for modern migration. Sure.
literally everyone is talking about this
Yet no one can fix it. The future is bleak with population collapse
@@mrstyle4863 Iron wombs.
Well, the iron womb at least can create the requisite number of _babies._ The next challenge is that generally a baby then needs someone devoting about 18 years of their life to raising it. I wonder if "professional child raiser" could become some kind of professional job, with each professional raiser looking after a "family" of 10 or 15 of 20 kids.
I am in your walls I saw you jerk it this morning @Bloodgod40
Because we've all been informed.
@@Bloodgod40 imagine the kids from it. Children without a father alhave insane amount of issues. Now imagine not having parents
"Child free" movement terrifies the rich 1%.
- Less poor, desperate, exploitable labor
- Less cannon fodder for never ending wars.
Putin won't be happy abou this
Africa’s birth rate is so high the African population is going to double. My home town is so crowded I could scream. My local woods have been hacked down to build a new estate, and now the fields in the centre of the village are going to be covered in disgusting rabbit hutch houses. In 1900 the world’s population was a billion. Today it’s eight billion.
Oh, but didn't you watch the video? This guy with the Eastern European accent just told us that we should keep growing our population to create "more consciousness and more humans" and that's supposed to be good for some reason he cannot explain clearly. Something about reaching our "peak". I actually agree with you. I live in Canada am I have watched our population double in my lifetime and now Canada is an overcrowded mess with way more crime, poverty, and depression. And we are cutting down our forests like crazy. But of course, these "overpopulation is a myth" zealots don't care about nature and animals, they are "pro-human", and they would be happy if every single square foot of livable land is inhabited by humans. You always hear them say that there is so much "empty space" in the world for more people. As if every single empty space (which isn't actually empty it just means it's inhabited by plants and animals) needs to be paved over the packed with more and more humans. I don't care at all if the world population goes back down to 1 billion. So what? With all our technology these days there are robots and machines that can do the jobs of hundreds of people. We have high unemployment here because of that. We don't need more people. There already aren't enough jobs for everyone here already. So many Canadians are on welfare or disability because they can't make enough money to live on.
@matthewh6474 lol, not Eastern Europe tabernak. And Canada hasn’t grown like it did bcs of high birthrates but immigration which is another subject… of course I’m pro human.
@Basileus.s UA-cam keeps deleting my reply to you. It must be their AI moderation. It must be very pro-increase the population.
Lets remember that Malthus made all that BS to blame the situation on the poor and cut the aid that the goverment should provide. So saying anything related to malthus is a BIIIIG red flag.
💀
Whatever the "situation" was the poor were to blame
@@universome511What lmao?
Yeah the actual reason is the rich taking up too much of the nation's productivity.
Basically, the current power structure is terrified because the number of slaves that enable the return of investment to take place are in reduction.
They state there is no solution to capitalism, regardless as to the great number of physics based, mathematical and social problems that arise from it, time and time again using different models.
There have been many suggested solutions, all ignored because of the current power dynamics, unwilling to relinquish power, benefiting from the existing system.
It will inevitably be changed by force.
They want to replace us with AI bro.
It was changed by force. In many countries during the 20th century. Most notably in the USSR. Look at what happened then.
Free market capitalism is not the same as corporatism which your mistakenly calling capitalism. Remember the term was invented by Marx who rejected it. Innovation, enterprise and competition, no barriers to entry, with jury law and insurance providing safeguards. That's the future everywhere. If your worried about tax , revenue and welfare look at Assurance Contracts on Wikipedia and the bitcoin protocol.
There is a cure for carcinogenic marxism and communism. It's called Capitalism.
Yeah no, if the population collapses the evil oligarchs wont fall, they will replace all of the rest of us with AI, while the last couple generations of people who had children die in even worse conditions.
Its not a problem, its just capitalism eating itself. Why would they think anyone who wants children can actually afford them when most jobs don’t pay enough to survive anymore.
Why does a lower population lead to economic collapse? More resources are available at lower cost, you can live in a bigger house, burn more oil etc.
Less people to do the jobs, and less that are great at it too, same jobs will increase prices. If a company closes for lack of workers, you also close a center of expertise. More older people that can't work, overloading young people paying taxes. Less people paying taxes too. Less people seeking solutions and science. And other problems. Combine everything and the cost of living becomes even more abismal, and causing more people to give up on children. Just my out of my head two cents.
Basically you need enough population for high degrees of specialisation and infrastructure to be feasible.
More oil that exists per capita doesn't matter if you lose the capacity to access the oil. Practically just means you have no oil.
Just for a oversimplified hypothetical example.
Not just a lower population, but a lower AGED population with few people fit enough to work to maintain the economy
Output by AI:
A lower population can lead to economic collapse due to a decrease in the workforce, consumer base, and tax revenue. With fewer people, there are fewer workers to contribute to the economy, resulting in reduced productivity and economic output. Additionally, a smaller population means fewer consumers, leading to decreased demand for goods and services, which can cause businesses to struggle and potentially close. Furthermore, a lower population also results in reduced tax revenue, making it challenging for governments to fund public services and infrastructure, ultimately leading to economic instability and potential collapse.
You make a good point. There were certain times after the black death when things improved. Workers could ask for high wages, and there were plenty of empty houses to move into. I think the baby bust will soon re-correct in the next 20 years as housing gets de-financialized with the growth of bitcoin.
"Iife is suffering" end of argument
Yeah its kind of a "no shit" when life becomes too expensive to have more than 1 kid, let alone 5 or have kids at all, the birthrates fall.
its actually not that expensive Just dont send your kids to college and forget about having long vacations to resorts. Thats how it was back then theres nothing new under the sun
@@JaimeAlvarez-r9u Yeah my first two years of college were completely free. It was a local one which was dirt cheap and I lived with the parents. It was a good start to life.
Was a no shit when the internet got flooded with a bunch of normies and it ctrl alt deleted itself due to the amount of bots capitilizing and ceos whiping actual internet history off the face of the earth. Should have been a real sign when google deleted billions of its results, cant let your billions of new slaves know about how free we were.
@@JaimeAlvarez-r9u older generations didn’t have anything like the costs of Gen Z. It’s got nothing to do with ‘holidays and new things under the sun’; it’s the confluence of academic inflation creating unrealistic barriers to entry to any decent paying profession (which in turn delays entry into the workforce and ensures young people start out with debt before they can even think about buying a home) and the property sector being intentionally turned into a speculative ponzi scheme that has pushed values from being approx 3X average incomes, to as much as 13X in places like Australia, Canada, NZ etc. I’m a millennial and it was a pain for us, but it’s way worse for Gen Z. But for my father, who was born in the 1930s, he got good paying jobs without even finishing high school and his first apartment was 2X his annual salary and our 3 bedroom family home not far from the beach in a major Australian city was 2.5X his salary. This notion that its the profligacy of the youth that is stopping them from having kids is emphatically disproven by the data.
@@JaimeAlvarez-r9u Go google housing prices and wages over time and come back to me and tell me that living is affordable. Oh and your solution is 'just let your children be poorer than you and be at extreme risk whenever the ten year economic crash cycle starts anew'
You are not only ignorant but also morally bankrupt.
Things would be a lot worse if the population continue to grow.
Why *should* we be expanding? That's really anthropocentric. Our growth has coincided causally with the extinction of other species and loss of biodiversity :-(The problem is unsustainable over consumption..a small percentage of rhe global population wreak the most havoc. Your video is based on already dying economic model
Yeah well I think we’re at v1 of capitalism, it will improve greatly it can be sustainable with technology. Also we should be anthropocentric why not ? But yeah I’m against any sort of damage to the planet it’s a part of us in some ways.
@Basileus.s
We should not and cannot be as anthropocentric as we have been thus far.
It's not ALL ABOUT US. If we destroy the environment, we destroy ourselves.
300$ t shirts slay satan 33 space squid 37 salsa soldier 37 salty sam 37 nuke naginata 43 jedi jazz 57 have a kid at 33 and you'll be free ban middle school f 3 16 m 4 17
Because we're the only thing in the universe that we know of which has meta-cognition. The ability to think about thinking. That should be kept alive.
The larger number of people is what is necessary to create an environment where we can develop interstellar travel.
I think Malthus was right, he just forgot to list all the costs. He only thought about hunger, he didn't think about the destruction of the environment, he didn't think about air, land and water pollution, he didn't think about poisoned agriculture, he didn't think about industrialized food, he didn't think about the energy issue, he didn't think about urban problems of big cities, he didn't think about public health issues, he didn't think about capitalist human insanity, etc. All of this could have been avoided with a smaller population. The planet has already been deeply wounded, the consequences are coming.
.
The present is basically a race between technological advancement and environmental destruction. Can we produce technologies which will sustain our civilization without resulting in the destruction of our environment and earth's ecosystem or will we face the full consequences of our destruction of nature?
Yes, from his point of reference and his known technology he was not wrong.
Wrong. As societies become wealthier and more populous, they invest in restoring their environment. This pattern has been observed in Europe and Japan and is currently unfolding in China, where even deserts are being revitalized. Furthermore, agriculture is not "poisoned"-modern pesticide-treated food is so vastly superior to historical alternatives, a medieval king would gladly trade half his kingdom for the quality and abundance we enjoy today.
Glory to technological progress ! Glory to Capitalism !
@@alfreddupont1214 Consider that you may be giving credit to capitalism for the miracle of millions of years of energy rich ancient sunshine locked in hydrocarbon. This pulse of abundance is likely more attributed to finding a vast amount of energy to develop technology. Without the hydrocarbon energy many technologies are inanimate objects.
@ I would like to have your optimism, but I can't, the knowledge I have about the world and humanity doesn't allow me. Honestly, I really wish everything I know and everything I see was just my imagination.
The key question if the birth rates are falling from a scenario like "Children of Men" where we physically can't have children versus seen societal pressures (do your own thing, marriage is a trap, women don't need no man and men play video games all day) and unseen pressures (the modern world with high stress and expenses isn't conducive to families and happiness). Even looking at Japan they went from a feudal society with male aggression a defining trait to an industrial one but now the peasants could participate to a technical marvel of extreme production to now they're al a bunch of "herbivores" who stay at home all day. It's also a question how much our governments have a hand in this--why overtly be down on big families when you can make girl boss movies and demonize men and achieve the same thing?
The most stable societies seem to be ones where family traditions and generational wealth carry forward, each generation doesn't have to start from scratch each time, and people would be content to marry the boy or girl next door.
The problem is affordability. Most people literally cant afford 2-3 children, they struggle with 1. It is not a cultural problem, that is one of many lies by the rich to hide the fact 1 percent of the population owns a majority of the wealth.
I don't understand why a lower population is a problem. Yes, the transition may be difficult, but it's probably better than a complete civilizational collapse due to actual Malthusian overpopulation. We can't innovate our way to 30 billion people living resource rich lifestyles, for example. We're currently just cheating our way past Malthusian collapse with the use of a finite resource of ancient stored solar energy. It'll just make the collapse worse when it finally comes.
Look solar panels alone could meet our energy needs, nuclear fission soon nuclear fusion… don’t reason on a linear or stationary way about the future. We didn’t cheat on the Malthusian collapse we innovated our way over it. And we will innovate way more exponentially!
It's like the California disaster reports, it's either too much or not enough rain, NEVER mentioned as drought relief. Just watch the news, it's servicing our negativity biases like this video, you think optimism sells, try it and find out. Only in places like the Hallmark channel too sickly sweet for most of us.
With enough technology we can have decent living for a Trillion People on earth
@@Justme-rt4gj
Yeah, in hive cities and pods...
Having 30 billion people really isn't that hard to achieve. If you let go of animal agriculture, you can with just that sustain like 15 billion people the way we do now.
Ofc land based agriculture is simply not up to task for larger populations. You need hydroponics for that which is significantly more resource efficient (at the cost of a much higher initial cost and higher energy cost) but once you establish a hydroponic farm, it does become profitable or sustainable. Really once you can set up a good hydroponic farming system, you can really just scale up the population with not much limit. And nuclear power is up to the task in shear capacity of energy production, especially thorium which is more plentiful, more energy dense and much safer than uranium. And by safer i mean nukes are not possible to be built using them and a big meltdown is mechanically not possible.
We have the technology today to sustain 30 billion people, the real question is if we can turn the entire planet into one big city (an ecumenopolis, and if fusion is actually actually possible, we could support literal trillions without even mining asteroids for minerals) the problem stopping us is an economic system that is at the end of it's usefulness and is breaking down into a modernized form of feudalism.
The mistake people make is assuming that the solutions for this have to do with women and fertility. The solutions to these problems are automation and economic incentive.
Women fertility is the only known way of producing humans lol. It’s not the solution it’s just the mechanism in which population grows or decreases. The solutions are multifaceted and are indeed economic incentives
@Basileus.s maybe we don't need women when we can make lab grown egg cells that then get combined with sperm cell and grown in artificial womb and we can then manufacture humans, but then at that point, what does it matter that we extend the species, afterall, it's reducing the whole humanity to just working machines for capitalism which robots can essentially replace that, but then what are the things made by the machines serving, if no humans are to enjoy it, we make machines with the aim to make life easier, but if it's just robots serving robots, perhaps to humans, it is pointless and makes no sense to such continuation, but maybe to the robots, it's all but conversion of energy from one form to another, so that.... well, the energy can get converted from one form to another, the purpose being within the goal itself, but that isn't too far from most humans are experiencing these days, we work so that we can work more and better, and why do we do that? oh, so we can work harder and more and better, towards infinite regress we go, 7 days work week just so, well, it's not even to surpass another person in the line of work, but only to work more, and the only limit is then the convention of one week having 7 days, and if that's not enough, we can move to a larger planet, where the days the planet orbit around its star is 10 days, there you go, working more days in a week, working more days in a year
@Basileus.s Are you just rage-baiting? You think of things so simplistically that it's a bit worrying. Are you serious when you say things like "Women fertility is the only known way of producing humans lol"?
I do not understand why everyone is worrying about low fertility rates. It is an established fact that the richest 1% captures all fruits of the productivity increase. No one is trying to stop that. At the end of that process this 1% owns everything and the rest vegetates in poverty. In conclusion, this is what we want as a humanity. Lets just stop producing delusions, lets just embrace our true goals without shame. Let the 99% (including me) peacefully expire and the remaining 1% will just enjoy their riches without being concerned by plebs.
You say Japan has problems - I heard that 40% young people cannot find stable jobs. It seems that still they have too many people then, they cannot absorb the workforce they have.
And i Dec. '24 there was these ads in San Francisco: "Stop hiring humans". This clearly confirms, that new people are just not needed...
that's exactly the point they want you to believe in
@ Not really. Malthusians say, that big population is not sustainable. I say that current economic proceses (will) make many people expendable and miserable. Unless these processes will be stopped/reversed, having children is just doubtful decision.
In fact families that are capable (mentally, economically) should have one child, maybe two, not more - if world changes somehow in good direction, there will be people to inherit it.
The Gen Z problem is tragic. My friend who has just graduated with Honours and got a job in her field, and currently pays low rent, if she finally wants to buy a house and have a family, well houses are about $1 million now in Australia, and going up faster than everyone's pay.
you dont need a house to have kids, but bigger apartments are also extremly expensive and nobody wants to go back to the early 20th century. So having kids is for the rich or the poor who lack impulse control
if we have 3 kids - omg overpopulation
if we have 1 kid - omg population collapse
This is something I’ve been reading about for a while now, but to be honest I think you’re actually falling victim to the same fallacies that you recognise Paul Ehrlich and Malthus as having made. Namely, that you assume current trends will remain linear. Industrialisation and the move to primarily urban and service based economies in the west has been punctuated by an almost uniform fetishisation of often expensive higher education degrees and an obsession with the property sector that has led to corrosive policies that have effectively made housing and the security it offers increasingly inaccessible. You combine those two things together, and you create an incentive structure that actively dissuades child rearing - you don’t need concerns about climate change etc etc, all that stuff is window dressing. As many demographers have explained, children went from being free labour in primarily agriculture centric economies to the most conspicuous form of consumption in service based economies - and adults aren’t dumb, so they make the rational economic decision and delay and limit their familites. But the fact that this change occurred with the transition of the economy from agriculture to industrial and services economies means that it absolutely can happen again if there’s a revolution in productivity through AI and the laws protecting the modern landed gentry (which is what we now have) are repealed, and the cost of living declines.
The problem can be very quickly fixed by just making housing affordable for everyday people. The cost of housing is simply impossible for most people to keep up with let alone having 2-3 kids. In the United States for example, the birth rate fluctuating between 2-3 children per woman until the 2008 financial crisis at which point the growth rate would just decline constantly. The Soviet union tells a similar story, their growth rate was also healthy and stable until the oligarch coop that stole all industry and put into the hands of about 100 newly minted billionaires, ofc the birth rate instantly collapsed as a result.
It's not women being educated or women in the workforce, that stuff is what causes decreases from 5+ to 2-3, what causes the extreme low birth rate is capitalists squeezing people dry. The problem is caused by affordability, you fix that problem, the problem literally disappears.
Fantastic video for a small channel, you earned my sub.
Technophobic & antinatalist societies do not and are unlikely to exist, technophilic & antinatalist societies (essentially what we currently live in) will fail to maintain economic growth and are inherently short-lived, technophobic and pronatalist societies (think mennonites) endure but cannot scale without technological progress, and technophilic & pronatalist societies will both endure and scale. Therefore it is necessary and inevitable that a technophilic pronatalist society will gain dominance at some point in the future.
Either they gain dominance or it’s the end of progress. There is a case to be made for technophilic societies that are “anti-natalist” if they develop A.G.I and automatisation through robots more generally general purpose robots. Progress could be accelerated even with fewer humans but not a cool future IMO
@Basileus.s That would probably be a void of a life for anyone who lived it, your labor would have zero value and you would have little to no greater purpose. But yes, you could prevent economic collapse with automation, though I imagine that without the impulse to procreate you'd essentially zombify society. Let's hope things go in a different direction
A few countries in eastern europe are technophobic and antinatalist, which is why they are rapidly collapsing from inside.
The only society that fits this bill are the jews.
None of that is ideal. Ideally we would want to halt population growth and focus on a sustainable population in balance with nature and focus on technological progress. This idea that an enormous population is necessary for progress isn't taking into account the advance of robots and AI that will do the work of hundreds of humans and make an enormous population unnecessary. Plus with life-extension technology people won't be dying out the way they used to and having giant families will no longer be necessary. In the future we will live for thousands of years and once death is no longer a problem having huge families will be a thing of the past. We only needed to have huge families in the past to compensate for all the death and disease we suffered.
This is the most salient problem the world faces and no politician is talking about it. It doesn't matter if you don't care if the global population is only 1 billion, because quality of life will decrease EXPONENTIALLY, and everyone cares about that. If you don't have enough children being born, the population get's older and older which means the dependency ratio is higher and higher. Instead of having 4 workers to 1 retiree/student, we are at 2 workers to 1 retiree/student, and will eventually reach parity. The less workers you have and the more consumers you have, the less you have the ability to maintain complex infrastructure such as roads, air traffic, hospitals, schools, etc... Another problem is that without young people you don't have innovation which is what allows the growth of productivity with technology.
If these wasn't bad enough, you also have to take into account that the countries shrinking the fastest are the developed world, whereas the countries that are growing exponentially are the underdeveloped. For example, Africa can only survive because developed countries send billions in humanitarian aid. If we in the global north get more and more strained, the less we can send to more and more people in Africa.
It's very easy to prove that civilization is going to collapse this century just by looking at demographic numbers.
Very well said.
Finally! A sensible comment!
Why can't humanity take a step back with the Urban expansion and let nature do its course. Enough development, the rich countries already have a fulfilled life,Just abandon the facilities no longer needed. Nothing's gonna get worse from the closure of a few buildings, focusing on renewable energy requiring less manpower is much better.
Why should developed countries "grow", these countries need a steady stream of legal migrants till the demography stabilizes.
One major problem with overpopulation is also the fact that there are too many people to prevent a heath crisis. Look at when Big C took place; hospitals were overflowing and getting treatment for everyone was near impossible. What happens if(when) a more dangerous outbreak happens? Well, look no further than what happened during the 1300's in Europe.
We have better hygiene now but with the overabundance of people a single person skipping out on hygiene can spread disease to so many others by exposure alone and medicine provisions could never keep up with demand.
We are not as invincible as we think we are.
The Earth is not over populated.
@terryharris1291 You may say so, but the next serious pandemic won't be pretty.
@@PhilTruthborne you can be sure of that if the next pandemic finds half of the population on earth above 60 and a third above 80 there will be a shortage of younger people to take care of the sick and every age will see tremendous death rates, maybe with corpses on the streets and things like that.
Big C as you say hit us hard, but with a falling and older population there will be less people and less resources to find a vaccine.
If technology solved overpopulation, why shouldn't it solve population collapse ?
Afterall, with the amount of progress made in AI in the first world, physical jobs requiring repetition will be replaced.
Isn't it the same as Malthus anyway ?
Having fewer people is only good overall for Humanity.
Bro, AI? Nothing what you say matters. 22th Century? Huh. The world will not even be recognizable to us.
Yeah that’s what is say at 7:17 it’s just a question of timing
@Basileus.s Ah, I should have watched it :) Anyway, gave you a comment so that makes up for that.
I believe the greatest threat to global temperature rise is the rise in human population and increased living standards. With fewer people there is less need for oil, housing, food production, transportation, and finite natural resources. Fewer people = less air pollution, less land taken from nature, increased biodiversity, and the list goes on.
Yeah your right. If you look at it in a stationary technological way, fortunately the real world is not stationary and progress will solve most of the mentioned issues. Population doesn’t have to be tied with pollution.
Amusing...we were 2 billion around WWI, so 3.5 billion is around 1940s number, seemed quite a population even then. But seriously, dwindling resources including fossil fuels, planetary overshoot, exceeding world boundaries, pollution, the sixth massive species extinción, depletion of top soil...for crying out loud, we've overpopulated practically since the middle of the twentieth century! Then there is energy consumption, developed countries use something like 20 times more energy than developing countries per capita. We must learn to live using less fuel, leave behind economic growth for the sake of it, bring up a bit the standards of developing countries and truly tighten our belts while the next few generations decline in population. We have to live with the mess we've made of our world. I believe in the end all will be fine with less of us around for our species to last at least another 250,000 years. All those people you talk about set off the alarm bells, being sort of mocked now, but time will tell!
I don't disagree with some of the potential issues with a falling population, but it's a tad disingenuous to say "this exponential decay has happened every time" when the last 60 years is the only time in human history we've seen demographics like this. So "every time " actually means "only this one time". Part of the problem is the whole way we look at economics - uncontrolled/unregulated capitalism has been the cause of more human suffering over the last 2000 years (when it was present, which absolutely was not every where all the time). With the way production per worker has increased, the "scarcity" we live in - which is one of the primary driving forces behind people choosing to have few or no children - is entirely fake and imposed upon us by a very small portion of the population (maybe 5% - though you could make a convincing argument that the 'owners' of most of the wealth and means of production, i.e. Capital, really only includes a few hundred families). Using their wealth they have essentially purchased most - or at least a significant minority - of the world's National gov't's, stealing the product of nearly ALL of the working people's share of production and hoarding it among themselves.
I am not a proponent of communism as human behavior doesn't actually mesh well with the principles of what true communism is supposed to be and what we actually get is just another, more corrosive and and ineffective form of tyranny. However, regulated capitalism, where everyone actually gets to keep their fair share of production rather than have it legally stolen by the corporate owner (billionaire) class. I suspect now that Chump and the GOP are in power in the US, their delusional policies based on ideology rather than reality is going to be the spark that triggers the next major revolution of the sort that France had in 1789 - and has happened in other places - and it is going to be another "Reign of Terror", only it will be a global event, and it will be a forced "redistribution" of the worlds wealth. Unfortunately, since it will be chaotic and uncontrolled redistribution it is going to be very, very bad for everyone - though particularly the current billionaire class ( at least most of them). We could avoid it if, say, the EU or some other major world power block actually gets their sh*t together and act with the political will required to manage a fair and ordered "redistribution", but I really don't see that happening.
So, yeah . . . thinks are going to get interesting over the next 20 years, and adding in the potential dangers of uncontrolled AI that we don't even control or understand at it's current level - even though it is not yet anywhere near having sentience or a consciousness capable of being self-aware (though even now is very good at simulating it) - it is impossible to predict how things are going to turn into chaos. If AI - even the current LLM "fake" AI we have now - wasn't in the mix, I'd expect a global collapse and then a bunch of new power blocks arising here and there and rebuilding civilization after a forced and violent "redistribution", but with the LLM AI we currently have being (stupidly) loosed on the world, I'm not sure the human race will survive. Which really sucks, because most humans are pretty decent people, especially if they are allowed to keep their fair share of the Production that they actually should retain. It's hard to say how things will develop with the AI currently available and the likelihood it will become even even more intelligent, but there is likely only a very small chance that humanity will be in a better position after the coming chaos then if we only had to worry about human foibles. I suspect most of us are not going to be very happy.
Can you expand of the negative effects of underpopulation, in particular economic collapse, infrastructure decay etc? Is it a problem of density that we could solve by moving to other countries?
You have less people to all types of work across the board. Then you also have a higher population of older people, meaning more workers caring for the elderly and more money spent on caring for them. This in turn means even less people and money to build and maintain infrastructure. In addition, people being born are smart enough to create new innovative solutions to problems is actually a random chance, so less people being born means slower progress for society and less people to come up with solutions to the problems created by underpopulation.
@@edeasley144all of humanity migrates to one spot
@@edeasley144
There is also the option of throwing people under the boss, but keep in mind if you are 20+ now, you will most likely be the old people thrown under the bus in the future. So brace yourselves.
@@edeasley144
The environment is more important than the economy. Without a habitable environment, there can be no economy.
We should stop making widgets and make focus on eliminating poverty, hunger and misery.
@@edeasley144 ' In addition, people being born are smart enough to create new innovative solutions to problems is actually a random chance'
This not just random chance. Accessible public education does increase innovation. Affordable higher education boosts that further still. And having an environment you can set up a company in which to pursue that innovation without it being stomped on or bought up by a big corporation gives that innovation a chance to thrive. This is something where a country can load the dice in its favour. But education is too often seen as a political football and disparaged.
You don't need to be a genius to succeed (and I'm not talking about rich kids failing upwards on Daddy's fortune). You need to be born in a place where you can fulfil that potential.
Einstein was undoubtedly a genius. But regardless of his natural potential, would he have been able to make any scientific contribution had be been born a few hundred miles further east in, the still at the time, feudal Tsarist Russia?
It will be good time for me. I will buy a big house, raise my family, start a new community. Most people die out, but my will of life will live
Well,be ready for the new immigrants from Africa and Middle East your government will import from those country to keep you "company".
Infinite growth on a finite planet. What could go wrong?
Oh we have way more than the planet to expand on.
@Basileus.syou mean to pollute? Thankfully it won't happen.
@Basileus.sshoulder to shoulder? Could you prove it?
@Basileus.s
Why do you want to expand so much? It's not actually necessary. Fewer people is better than what we currently have.
No we, have no feasible means of extra planetary exploration due to the physiological affects of space travel, and time dilation. It will be a LONG time before any such thing is possible.
Elderly people abound in Ireland now, the young people are emigrating in droves. Large families used to be the norm, but now the only ones with lots of kids seem to be the Travellers
One population is growing in a dangerous rate very destructive, that is cement, junk cars, waste lands and deserts ,dryed up rivers.
Manhattan is empty!! This is a large waste, pull it down and enjoy the "more for me" in population rebalance.
I don’t think the collapse is a “bad” thing. My wife has 2 kids so in a way we did our part. But honestly, I think once the population really collapses, it will stabilise at around 1.5 - 2b people. A guess. But I assume once the world empties out, people will have more kids (or enough kids to keep the population at the same place) as things are cheaper and there is more space for everything.
The best scenario would be to have a 2.2-2.3 birthrate slowly growing, more consciousness = more ideas, art, progress….
Or we just figure out how to clone people without a woman
@Basileus.s More people = more consumption, worse environmental impact, less individuality, less meaning. Overpopulation is definitely a thing and a huge problem MASSIVELY negatively affecting both the planet and quality of life. Population collapse is a separate issue. Just like in business, "infinite growth" is never sustainable, but just like in business as soon as you stop growing bad things happen.
An ideal world would have less than 100 million humans living in it. But every road to get there will be apocalyptic for the people who have to live through it.
That's not how dropping population works.
Every single time in an industrialized society it leads to an acceleration of the process where young move to places where there are still economic opportunities. In essence you get 2 countries inside a state. A hollowed out, old country A, and 2-5 cities of country B that aren't as affected by the population collapse.
I say acceleration, because it already exists in every country, but in the US it's masked by overall population growth.
@@Poctyk basically anytime it happens, population increase comes from 'old' part. It seems that cities are growing, but cities mainly concentrate people coming from 'old' parts, because their own birthrates are below replacement.
When climate change changes weather patterns to the point that crops are devastated, civilization will collapse. What will that do to population?
Don't be stupid, civilization will not collapse because of the change of weather patterns, even most countries will not collapse, there will be economic hardship and some nations are going to fall, but in reality population collapse has more potential to kill people than the changing weather.
it will stabilize itself as labor becomes harder to get, wages will rise. the only reason things are so expensive right now is because there's excess labor supply and has been for 50 years. when that changes, people will start having children again.
To me the issue I have with the "number" of people on Earth is related to how we expanded and the loss of biodiversity.
66 millions people in the UK, but 2 millions cervids, no wolves and bears in the wild. It's quite sad. We could also talk about the loss of the Scottish forests.
With how aging the population is and how robotic labour is on the way, I hope we can rethink living in cities and make wild again the countryside that is mostly doomed to be abandoned.
Maybe people who are fine with bare survival think that we are not in overpopulation crisis but for many others we are indeed in a overpopulation crisis.
People are being asked to fly less, eat less meat, drive less, drive smaller cars instead of larger SUVs, do not fly in private jets, do not go for international vacations frequently, do not buy a 150 sq yards house for single or 2 person household, too much competition for both low skilled and high skilled jobs, etc.
Why? Life is not just about bare survival
The age of Robots and AI is about to begin...
😱
Robot overpopulation next???
Notice how when a country adopts liberal values it's fertility rate collapses. An example is Britain from 1945 to today. Then look at the fertility rates during the premierships of the bald Italian ex-schoolteacher and the Austrian guy who aspired to be a painter.
Great video! Youre accent is nice and pleasant to hear and the editing was nice, keep up the good work!
I am not a robot
Thanks a lot ! Really appreciate it
Two words come to my mind: Universe 25.
Basically, at a certain point society is unable to pass down what's needed to properly raise children in said society. A lot of behaviors one thinks as instinctual turn out to need constant teaching to the young, and once THAT is made impossible what was once learned becomes unable to suss out without the teaching. And since a lot of long-considered instinctual behaviors include mating behaviors (IMHO), the population dies out from inability to breed.
"Collapse NOBODY Sees coming" I don't get why everyone who makes videos on this says "nobody". A lot of people cover this topic. So I live in Canada and back in elementary school, as early as 2002 we studied the real topic of Canada's and the world's population collapse. We had to calculate the population at specific years via a given growth rate, ie. 0.78, 1.6, 2.2 etc. I've been educated on the topic of demographics since elementary school. So I'd say the topic is very well covered.
How about WHY people feel they can't afford children?
Don’t take your situation as a representative sample of the population. There has been extensive research and polls on the subjects and basically 60% of people think we’re in an over population crisis. I don’t know why but it’s the case.
@Basileus.s Really. Well then I guess people you should educate them. lol Maybe they think that because of high housing prices in almost every country then. Hmm.
Great video from a tiny channel. Keep it up and you will become very big!
Thanks a lot !!
Very good. Most do not know why Malthus was so wrong. He was a feudal land owner who only counted the crops he was growing and only used government statistics that were based on crop taxes. Everyone lies on their taxes. Malthus refused to count small family farms and the new phenomenon of urban edge allotments. He refused to count new crops from the Americas: corn, beans, squash, potato's, and Asia. Rice, sugar and much later soy. However its not true that he had an excuse due to the lack of technology. One of his students criticized all of his arguments in class and all of that students arguments hold true today.
We can just forgive debt, increase productivity, or tax corporations and ultra net-worth individuals when it comes to deficits caused by underpopulation. Humanity will not go extinct, the global population will decrease until it finds a suitable carrying population.
Good one. Thanks.
Glad you liked it!
Be not a cancer on the Earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.
Thx Ted Turner!
“Sex without condoms feels better” - Norm MacDonald
Specialization is the problem. Our modern world is possible because work is so hyperspecialized. Without enough specialized people, global trade breaks down amd quickly becomes impossible. No one person can make a satellite, cellphone, or even a battery. The mining, refining, tranport, input energy requirements, food requirements for the person working...people need people.
I have faith that this can be a good thing. When everyone dies off, we will have excess infrastructure leftover. Its value will plummet, making housing actually affordable. Bigger slices of the cake for everyone at the party, because there are less people.
when everyone dies there won't be enough money that people used to pay in taxes, so the infrastructure will start to collapse due to lack of funding. because it is necessary to maintain good condition of roads, schools, hospitals and medical services and so on
@@jeraras2310 Unless we have AGI that will maintain the country but still, do we wanna live in a house where the surrounding reminds us of a liminal space?
Bruh those will be taken over by the governments and 1% who will give us like 0.00001% portion of them. So,it's not a positive thing.
Maybe Mother Nature is telling us something? People aren't having children because their quality of life and standard of living is so s****y! Not just in the underdeveloped countries in the Southern Hemisphere, but in those developed countries that have embraced hyper-capitalism in which one percent of the one percent own more than half of all the wealth of that country ( We're looking at you, USA ). "The average living conditions of the middle class today are better than those of kings in medieval times." Yeah, that's about 17% of the world's population. The other 83% live in poverty, with less than 1% being wealthy. Malthus wasn't wrong, it's just that the numbers weren't extended out far enough. We've only delayed what Ehrlich predicted would happen by increasing food production but that increase is not sustainable in the face of a population of 20, 30, 40 or 50 billion. This planet could never produce enough food for that many people and if it could, it would mostly be seaweed.
Lots of people see the population eventually going down. At least those of us who choose to self educate ourselves. There is debate as to when it will happen and how rapidly but we know its coming. Humans are putting a strain on the planet and this strain is continuing to grow.
Now everybody sees it coming.
Actually I already believe we are over populated now. But we still need to maintain a healthy population rate. It's falling off too fast.
Stupid people is the reason history repeats itself 😂
Could the economic collapse caused by an aging population and a drastic reduction in the labor force be mitigated by increasing worker productivity-through AI and other measures? While the transition to a less populated world presents significant challenges, I believe that, in the long run, it may not necessarily be a bad thing once the population stabilizes. A shame I won’t be around to see it.
3 billion people is an insanely LARGE population compared to most times in history. We SHOULD reduce populations.
Reduce yourself first.
You first.
@@jasonhas7456 - I'm not planning on having any children so....
Can I afford to buy a house? if not then I'm not having children. But if there's fewer people then I can buy a house and get a wife
Gpt :
Here's a summary of the population scenarios:
Scenario 1: 1.5 children per woman (no decay)
Population after 100 years: 6.192 billion
Scenario 2: 1.5 children per woman (with exponential decay)
Population after 100 years: 7.24 billion
Scenario 3: 1.2 children per woman (with exponential decay)
Population after 100 years: 3.379 billion
Scenario 4: Decreasing fertility rate (1.2 -> 0.7) and replacement rate (2.1 -> 1.6)
Population after 100 years: 573 million
Here are the updated population scenarios after 120 years:
Scenario 1: 1.5 children per woman (no decay)
Population after 120 years: 5.43 billion
Scenario 2: 1.5 children per woman (with exponential decay)
Population after 120 years: 6.31 billion
Scenario 3: 1.2 children per woman (with exponential decay)
Population after 120 years: 2.33 billion
Scenario 4: Decreasing fertility rate (1.2 -> 0.7) and replacement rate (2.1 -> 1.6)
Population after 120 years: 245 million
Great vid why nobody is thinking about this
Coz upper classes prefer it that way
Yeah idk why either now that we have internet
type population collapse into youtube's search bar - you'll find videos from TED, Piers Morgan, Moon, Cole Hastings, Bill Maher.... there are plenty of people talking about this. We all got suckered by a cleverly written clickbait title.
@ Coz upper classes OWN the internet
anyway great video Sir
@@videas3582 No, the upper classes want more slaves.
So then you say we shall extinct ,so what?Let s give earth back to nature again cause we had our chance and we fckd it up bigtime so why not give nature a try to make something beautiful of this planet again.
Oh the irony! "ehrlich" means honest/honorable in German
YOU VILL EAT ZE BUGS YOU VILL LIVE IN ZE POD
Klaus Schwab ? Is that you ?
So will a collapsing population be more or less concerned about global warming?
You should make a video about the real numbers of the population. Solid census have proven that every projection was too wrong to not be made to mislead on purpose. I have followed this topic for around 15 years. I know people who have followed these numbers for over 30 years. We can track false data to back up a lot of policies took against the populations all around the world.
Nothing lasts forever. Get ready to be a fossil.
lol
It’s a double edged sword. Good for the environment bad for us.
Everyone knows about it. There are literally hundreds of videos about it.
I'm like adhd but this captured my attention..nice editing interesting stuff
less people is a good thing because less competition
Good video.
So humans, unlike EVERY other biological organism isnt subject to limits? Birth rate collapse has happened to rome, ottoman, and every other civilization. I agree that the government has no place in birth control, but we need to get comfortable with the fact that future generations will have less material goods because of rising energy prices. Go look into the energy return on investment of shale vs conventional oil. Our currently global industrial economy is much smaller running on shale, and shale will be gone in like. 300 years. Again no other civilization has found a way out of ecological and then population collapse so why should we? Life with less can be just as fulfilling so this isn’t all bad just something to adapt to.
Why should we find a way out ecological collapse ?? Because unlike the ottomans or all others were on the brink of A.G.I, the marginal cost of solar and nuclear is absurdly cheap. Fusion energy will be a thing in less than 59 years etc etc. We won’t care about fossil fuels in the middle of this century were electrifying everything technology is advancing on every fronts like unlike any other civilisation… we can’t compare ourselves with history simply because there is no comparaison in history not even vaguely
@ this is the best point against this theory. However i dont believe that history is progressive in that things keep getting better. i think our technology helps us extract energy not create it and i think cheep oil is so much more useful than other energies that even if it is mostly replaced by shale, or nuclear… we will still have less resources as a global civilization. So i dont believe fusion is inevitable or even likely just because we have oil and iPhones. I could be wrong!
7:19 Why is it sad and why should we be growing and expanding? If we want to maintain capitalism, maybe. But capitalism itself is unsustainable and will likely be replaced with something else in the future.
Furthermore, I think that the reproduction rate is a function of the population as well. Not just the level of development of the country. As population declines, the birth rate will increase, as there will be less people competing for the same amount of resources and thus each person will have a bigger share and it will be easier to thrive. If the economic system is to redistribute the resources fairly, that is... If capitalism remains and the top 1% have 40% of the resources, then yeah... population may keep shrinking.
im your 607th subscriber
Letting ya’ll know that Paul Ehrlich was part of the “tribe”
Pattern recognition strikes again
Malthus was a priest.
"Malthus entered Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1784 and was ordained a minister of the Church of England in 1788. He earned his M.A. in 1791. Around 1796, Malthus became a curate in the sleepy town of Albury, a few miles from his father's house"
according to University of Minnesota Duluth
This becoming somewhat mainstream is very recent indeed, as the worlwide dips in fertility that occured during the Covid pandemic pushed numerous countries below the replacement threshold, including behemoths such as India, while China's population started declining and the likes of South Korea, Italy and Germany faced the Abyss.
Except parts of Subsaharan Africa for now, all the pools of migrant or delocalized labor that were counted upon to make up for the declining demographics of the West were shown to not only being afflicted by a similar decline, but a much faster one even...
Its no coincidence that The Population Bomb was released in 1968, at the flowering of the Boomer generation, which led us to live in a World dominated by those legions of uncultured, all knowing college graduates. Now those are starting to leave the stage.
Unlike the author I've been aware of the issue my whole life, as my family was very involved on those policy issues in the 80s already, led by my grandfather, a high profile intellectual.
But like all the high to very high profile intellectuals and politics that were aware of the issue at least in 80s France, he was of those who had lived and fought WW2 as adults, and knew of the World before. Even if conservative and less conservative politicians did their best to enact policies, they always had to face this chorus, with natalist policies being associated with far-right regimes and anti-immigrant racism.
The main reason the tune is changing is because the alternative sources of labor that were supposed to continue funding and caring for the Boomer's retirement and old age are now visibly drying up.
Amazing video style mate! Super interesting, looking forward to seeing you with 100k subs
Thanks a lot !!
What do you mean nobody? The Limits to Growth.
The reindeers, will save us...
Warning: very sarcastic video:
The video:
ua-cam.com/video/F3Sv5RfeHYI/v-deo.html
Personally I would want to have kids but the problem is I haven't found a woman which would be a good mother for my children.
What do you suggest?
Try dating in low GDP countries.
@aniwee17 I already am in a low gdp country.
@Anton43218 You need to go even lower. For example, if you are in China, try Vietnam. If you are in Russia, try Moldova.
@@aniwee17 the only option left is africa. Still, why would any of this matter?
@ The only place of lower gdp is in africa.
Even my country Denmark recently hit 1.4 tfr and ethnic danes is probably a bit lower due to high tfr of migrants.
I'm 40, not rushing into marriage. When the right girl comes along and my engineering career picks up and I can afford a house in the future, then I'll start a family.
enjoy your little lives while you can
Population not gonna crash out to that extent, mabye 3billion at least
If nobody sees it coming, why do so many people know about it
What do you define as “so many people” the polls show that 60% of the population thinks we’re in a overpopulation crisis
this youtuber is an indian. infinite population growth will make whole world like india.
I’m not Indian lol
really? wow, such a discovery for us all!! how no one else talked about it yet???
This video lend's the theory it is applying to evidence too much credit to be in good faith. Its more likely to be painted as propaganda meant to drive old voters insane rather than an actual contribution to discourse.
I don’t really care if it was in good faith, the result today is that most people believe them.
@Basileus.s That's rather interesting, how such a radical break from conventional intellectual respect in political discourse is rejected and supported by such an articulate interest. Anti-intellectual is a rather loaded word.
Paul would be right with his population bomb if not for green revolution that proliferated use of fertilizers and doubled agricultural production.
There is issue of overpopulation, ecological overshoot to be more precise, use of fossil fuels and fertilizers will exact its price with time, maybe faster than we aticipate.
Like Malthus he forgot the technological progress. And we can grow population and. Reduce co2 in the same time, by switching our economy towards sustainable energy. So your ecological concerns would also be “not accounting for the technological factor” but just the updated version
@Basileus.s Our civilization is based on fossil fuels, 80% of total energy consumption comes from burning them, reducing CO2 emission is like reducing inflation, it won't stop CO2 from accumulating as it stays in atmosphere very very long. The only question right now is what will topple civilization first, climate change or running out of fossil fuels.
I bet that climate change will be first by long margin. The rate of change of global average temperature is very similar to one extrapolated from proxies during great extinctions. With the scale and impact of human, global civilization we do not leave much space for adaptation for biosphere we depend on and it is not something you can engineer your way out of and as I said earlier techno solutions have their price.
With current level of CO2 we are guaranteed 1.7 degree warming even when we stop emitting today, we don't see that yet due to enormous heat capacity of the oceans that introduce delay (it takes time to warm water and bring system into energetic equilibrium), we won't stop emitting CO2 as long as there is cheap energy in form of fossil fuels, switch to sustainable is not happening fast enough.
I'm not sure about what Malthus actually said, but some later hypotheses derived from it I think have gotten it right. Like the Malthusian poverty trap, that when a new technology was developed that provided more food, it would boost population growth for a generation or two, but then it would fall back down because the technology wasn't scalable. Sure, it stabilized on a bit higher level than it was before the new technology, but this would explain why the population didn't explode before the industrial revolution. This is why the demographic transition model fits only after industrial farming and advancements in medical science, but I think the Malthusian poverty trap does explain pre-industrial societies.
Nah. He was just full of it and used fancy language to justify some drity schemes and secure his position in society. Its not that he tried to understand situation, but tried to provide reason why he and people like him have right to a good life, while others do not have it.
@@НиколайЛамбертLike I said, I haven't familiarized myself with Malthus himself and his ideas, but I have read some good ideas that seem to make sense and that are at least partially derived from his ideas. I can totally believe that he might have been a bad person, but I also know that nothing is totally black-and-white.
About population collapse, are you aware of the experiment with rats, between 1958 and 1962) known as the behavioral sink experiment. Very interesting.
I don't see how the propositions that we have to many people currently and our replacement rate is too low are in conflict with each other they can both be true without contradicting one another. the first is just talking about resource usage or potential resource usage and the other is talking about birthrates they are topical but not the same thing
Connect all countries. 1 world 1 country, 1 language, 1 currency. If connect all countries passport, visa , immgration not required.
😂😂😂 Dreams are possible
Wasn't Ehrlich an early proponent of the climate crisis?