The Truth About Human Population Decline | Jennifer D. Sciubba | TED
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2023
- With birth rates falling, the worldwide human population is getting older and smaller. According to traditional thinking, this spells a future of labor shortages, bankrupt social security systems and overall economic collapse. Before you panic about the end of life as we know it, political demographer Jennifer D. Sciubba has a thoughtful playbook for managing the new normal - including ideas on the future of work and migration - and a reminder that a resilient future relies on present-day action.
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: ted.com/membership
Follow TED!
Twitter: / tedtalks
Instagram: / ted
Facebook: / ted
LinkedIn: / ted-conferences
TikTok: / tedtoks
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design - plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
Watch more: go.ted.com/jenniferdsciubba
• The Truth About Human ...
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com
#TED #TEDTalks #population - Наука та технологія
Who would bring a kid into this world where you can't even own a house
exactly
You can't own a house where everyone wants to own a house but you can absolutely own a house if you really want it.
Exactly. I started wanting a kid really badly the last 6 years.. but when I actually think about it, it’s not ethical to have a child in this situation.
Is it only worth to live, if you are owning a house?
Trust me, that's not the hardest part of having a kid lol. Children have always been a burden--they can't even walk on their own for a fucking year!--but they're also a great joy, I would argue the most primal, basic, fulfilling experience we can have. Can't own a home? Teach your kids resourcefulness. Can't own a home? Teach them a work ethic. But more importantly, and your parents should have taught you this, stop using that "can't" word, it's a killer. "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right." - Henry Ford.
Time to rethink our economies instead of birth rates
They are both the same thing.
@@ConanOG they're currently linked, yes. Are they, or do they have to be, the same thing, no they're not. Otherwise a number of Asian countries would be powerhouse economies and they're not. Shantytowns and poverty is what the fixation on having more children than you can afford so someone can look after your aged-care needs results in.
Instead of the accumulation of the Power Tokens we call "money" as the way that things must be done, homeostatic economic methods are possible
Wrong. No... they are NOT "the same thing". What a stupid statement.
I could say "science" and "economies" are the same thing.
Or "Marxism" and "economies" are the same thing.
Two things interacting with each other does NOT make those two things equal.@@ConanOG
@@theultimatereductionist7592 Every economy is dependent of birth rates at the fundamental level, it is one of the fundamental principles that may determine how much your economy can grow, when it can maximize the country growth potential and when it can shrink.
Economy is a science in itself, doesn't make any sense to say that economy isn't a science since we effectively apply the scientific methods in that field of study, it is a social science, economists use mathematical models, statistical tools, and empirical research to understand economic phenomenons, make predictions, inform policy decisions, test hypotheses, create and refine theories based on evidence, etc.
But marxism and economy are the opposite since marxism doesn't really understand economy and always fail to understand how wealth is created.
THAT IS WHY PEOPLE MUST WORK LONGER, SOCIAL SECURITY WILL BE GOING DOWN IN THE FUTURE,
There are too many people on this planet. Hands down! The only people who say we need more people are the 1% who need more workers. In my area alone there are 33% more people than there was 40 years ago. Pollution, loss of arable land, and congestion ate rampant. Worst of all is the decline of our public schools. Too many people, not enough rules.
...and we're sooo much that we can allowed ourself to make wars that kill thousands daily....🙄 We're so much that the human life has no value at all... 🙄
So women, you can give some rest to your tommy 😏
Who's extra? Are you willing to exit?
@@edheldude-
“extra” are all the people yet to be born that governments wants to pay taxes and corporations want to get richer from.
when I graduated from high school, there were 4 billion humans. There are now 8 billion humans. 4 extra billion humans in less than 1 lifetime... That's way way way too many humans.
No that just means people like you and other old people are continuing to stay alive and are straining the recourses of us young people who contribute more to society…
@@smokinace926 wow, full of yourself much??? You seem to forget that if 'us older people' didn't make you, you wouldn't be here at all...
Hey man I’m not trying to be mean but that’s just the cold truth.
@@smokinace926 um, there is no truth in anything you say. The data says it's the older people who have more money, pay more taxes, and have their kids living in their basement... So young people don't contribute more, at this point in time, they are the burden...
@@bikebudha01agree, you lived enough. Now if you stop straining resources that would be great
To have people work longer in life, we need better health care. There shouldn't be medical bankruptcies or fulltime jobs that don't pay a livable wage.
It seems like if there are less people to sustain due to a population decline , there should be more resources to go around !
@@celestialcircledance The govt would just destroy more money than it creates. The result is the opposite of inflation. One dollar would buy more. But after the deflationary period, the economy needs to return to expansion.
@@AnuchanToo complicated for me to wrap my head around ..
Working longer in life has very little to do with health care and more to do with diet and exercise. Healthcare can extend life, but generally can't improve the quality of that life outside of people making better lifestyle choices
Of the rich countries that is only a problem in the US, which is far behind the others.
The wolves are upset the sheep aren’t reproducing
so, so true
How about we write The Soylent Green Cookbook, over here we call it Long Pig.
the perfect way of putting it
How many children do YOU have?
I'm sorry but I disagree with some of the subject material this woman is talking about.
I would love to see a declining population. 8-billion humans worldwide & still growing; it's madness, All the effort, time, money being directed into consuming less energy, producing less pollution & CO2, whilst I don't disagree with those objectives at all, we could achieve far more in pursuance of those objectives if we gradually allowed the human population to reduce back to 1-billion or 2-billion worldwide, as it was around the year 1800-ish.
I reside in the UK & it angers me considerably to have experienced mass immigration to increase our population & the wealth of the 0.1%. We are being packed into ever more high density urban ghettos & having to endure the rise of mainly muslim demands for sharia laws. Rises in crime, particularly sexual assaults. The upset & controversy this is causing is becoming 'off the scale'. I certainly have never been given any opportunity to exercise my democratic vote for this; it's being IMPOSED!
I would dearly love the UK population to return back to 40-50 million, & the UK would still be fairly densely populated even then relatively speaking. I'm about to sell my house & flee to what remains of the countryside, flee the crime, flee the imposed diversity, flee the selfish noise of neighbours packed in like sardines.
I'm guessing this comment will be hidden or deleted, because it does not agree with The Agenda, but I dare to say this in good faith.
I think the important part of this message is starting around 6:12 accepting the inevitable and planning for it. Economists and other policy makers should stop thinking about infinite growth and start thinking about what is possible with what we know. I also appreciate the blink-and-you-miss-it suggestion that we look at how we consume. Consumerism needs to change in every way.
For those who are interested, Kate Raworth's book, 'Donut Economics' has a lot of ideas that have since been further developed many of which work well. The city of Amsterdam has adopted a donut model, to measure how well each person is looked after, within the donut framework.
It's going to take a lot more than that. Humans are moving into a completely new world that is replacing the tribal world we came from and are still most adapted to. We need to adapt genetically and strategically. That is what my work is about, but curiously the title of my book on it gets filtered out here. If you want, you can find the books from my name.
Yep, but that donut will only work with much less people inhabiting this finite world.
Thank you for the book recommendation.
It's not how many we are, but where are the people who are alive now. No expert, but it is obvious the Indian subcontinent has millions of people more than they can handle. We as Americans, if we want to preserve a good life, need to prevent that fate from happening to us.
@@leomarkaable1 Prevent that from happening? Yikes. Population growth is not a button that can be turned on or off.
People are less inclined to have babies when the future is uncertain. This isn't the baby boom era. Houses are way more expensive. Cars are way more expensive. Even groceries are way more expensive.
How do you explain the ridiculously high birthrates of very unstable, poor countries such as Mali, Chad, Somalia, DRC, CAR, Nigeria, Afghanistan etc.?
@@DavidZ4-gg3dm - No access to birth control pills, no education about female health, high death rate of children. Take your choice.
@@DavidZ4-gg3dm free labor and soldier kids, in rich countries we have human rights.
@@TeresitaDelOlvido They're still hungry mouths to feed. Babies & toddlers can't work on farms.
Declining birth rates is still a good thing when the resources are limited. The alternative would be high infant mortality rates. This is what happens in nature.
Not just infants, mothers are at risk too but good point
Until you want a Pension
Birth rates are falling fastest in wealthier societies with higher resources and production. Children are far cheaper in less developed areas, and people have completely different expecatations of how many possessions they need vs want. Whereas in the developped world, many things are being made extremely wastefully or even "designed obsolescence" to get keep demand up and lower supply
Not if you want a Pension. In Japan it's reported they now make and sell more Adult Nappies ( Daipers in USA slttempted but failed English. Non Muslims are breeding at less than sustainable rates of 2.1 per couple. Muslims 4+. Its just a question of time.
@@racheltarentino3314 mothers are only at risk because other females are exercising perceived rights and not meeting their natural obligations to have and mother children.
The stupidest thing about humanity is that it feels it has to always increase everything. Profits are supposed to increase more each and every year. Everybody thinks they’re supposed to have as many babies as they want.
It’s a shame that human beings cannot just live sustainably, but I always have to have more and more and more .
Collectively humans are like a virus or cancer- the main aim is to take over and/or destroy our host. Luckily Elon will save humanity and our descendants will live on Mars and the cycle shall continue- growth at all costs.
❤
Technology evolved insanely fast, and our brains are still stuck in the caveman ages 😂
Humans don't plan more than 10-15 yrs out in most cases--some island peoples like Japan and others definitely make long term plans--for scarcities sake due to finite space and resources.
The unspoken truths about expanding human population--I think the world becomes more violent the more of us there are. There are the obvious consequences but nobody talks about the psychological impacts of the Competition factor and also the value of other humans in our own minds decreasing the more of us there are. We turn off our minds to massive suffering and death world wide as a coping mechanism but secretly we maybe thinking, phew--less pressure on the natural world but more importantly less mouths to feed and resources taken.
The biggest worries should be those at the top and their voracious consumption habits--if the top 400 wealthiest families in the US disappeared--billions of people globally could be much better off in every aspect.
Lastly if we could, we should ask the natural world--hey do you really need more humans? How do humans benefit the natural world? We can easily solve the problem of to few people but we have to resort to some very barbaric solutions to handle the issue of too many people and too few resources.
It’s because theres to many people over competing!
And yet from a biological and environmental point of view there is absolutely no question that we desperately need fewer people. One way or another.
Absolutely
So nice to hear this woman talking about people like resources
That us why the billionaires are crying about birth rates. They use us to gain wealth.
We are just interchangeable production units to these ghouls.
through the eyes of the world leaders, we are all resources.
You notice that the only people freaking out are controlling governments, rich people who exploit slave work, and companies that bleed us dry. No one else is seeing this as a concern. I'm tired of rich people telling me to give birth while simultaneous doing nothing to make birth and raising children easier.
This feels like a disconnected HR meeting trying to convince everyone to knuckle down and keep working! "Come on guys, we're in this together!" F off
Yes, some Hollywood star in their private mansion saying "We are all in this together."
Yes, why are people funding one of the homes of the elites known as Hollywood?@@skylinefever
You think you have a choice; the world's population is shrinking and aging. You can ignore it, but it will not go away.
I think you're missing the point altogether.
@@jenniferh7020 In your comment you're missing a total of one point, coz you failed to make a point, so make one. In other words, tell us what point are we missing, instead of making a vague vacuous comment that includes zero points in it
Ick, sounds more like “how can we maintain capitalistic corporate growth at any cost” rather than actually rethinking a more balanced society that shares in the fruits of what our society has produced. E.g. increasing automation and AI.
To be clear, capitalism has done wonders for humanity and is among our greatest inventions. However, unbridled capitalism inherently breaks us and the earth. We need to be able to employ the fruits of humanities ingenuity, recognize the impact of randomness and evolution, and thrive together.
It's the opposite. Even in a super capitalist society the old would just depend on their family. It's in subsidies economies that the more young are needed for the old
@@barranquillarespondetv2512 “just depend on their family” is doing some real heavy lifting there. Trying to be generous and seeing your point of view, yes you are right in that in a conventional socialized system, this would be true. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about sharing the advantages of automation and ai, which may lift the burden from people and instead of all the fruits of that societal structure being laid at the feet of the wealthy few, then society should harvest a significant portion. E.g. creating a basis for a modest UBI system grounding a balance of capitalistic and social enterprise.
That’s all well and good, but what is the alternative. There is not a political or economic model on the planet that has an answer for what to do when there are so many older retirees and so few younger workers to support them. Automation and AI is only a partial solution at best. It helps to address the productivity issues but machines don’t pay taxes and they don’t consume much, at least not much of the things the global economy is based on.
You mean like a socialist world that drives everyone into poverty but where there are no disparities? A world where we can all be miserable together? Perhaps the real problem is jealousy and envy.
In the US we paid into social security to provide for our old age, and if it would have been invested and left alone the money would be available for retirement. But, the politicians had access to our social security, and used it for their needs not for ours.
Exactly so! The same occurred over here in the UK.
It surprises me that more people don't realise that if the retirement funds available to the government are insufficient then that is mismanagement (at best) rather than a fundamental problem with the system.
Investing the contributions of the potential retirees (after all not all of us make it to retirement) would amply fund the retired population. A consistent 7% return from investments is the norm rather than the exception - so, if a person has £100 taken from their wages each month and placed into such a scheme, by the time retirement rolls around fifty years on, each person would have more than half a million in their 'account'.
Applying even the moderate 4% rule for drawdown (which does not diminish the principle) that would give everyone a minimum of £20k per year in perpetuity.
As Sanders said, someone earning $160K per year pays exactly the same amount into Social Security as someone earning $2 billion. And that could and should be fixed. If everyone paid the same percent, problem solved!
And now, Gen Xers and younger will have to work til we drop.
Thanks a lot, boomers.
People don't even know what money is. Dollar bills are actually unconstitutional.
People don't even know what money is. Dollar bills are actually unconstitutional.
Call me crazy BUT a world with less people sounds like an AWESOME one; less people means LESS traffic, LESS pollution, MORE housing, HIGHER wages because of the "lack" of workers...UNFORTUNATELY nothing will be done to solve this upcoming "crisis", humanity and politicians in particular have a tendency to hide their heads in the sand, I feel so sorry for my nephews and nieces who will be the ones to clean up this mess...
She's saying higher wages means higher costs. But it doesn't have to, if CEOs only earned, say 10 times what their workers earn, instead of 1000 times more - like back in the '50s and '60s when ONE parent working at a modest job (like grocery clerk) could afford a home, a car and even a vacation. Plus help put their kids through college - which cost a smitten of what it does now. I paid my college loan off in a year, back in the '70s - while sharing a nice 3 bdrm house with 4 friends for $250 a month. We paid 50 bucks a month each for rent.
agreed
"a world with less people sounds like an AWESOME one; less people means LESS traffic, LESS pollution, MORE housing, HIGHER wages because of the "lack" of workers." EXACTLY!!
WHY should a CEO be paid A SINGLE DIME MORE than ANY OTHER worker? Socialists and Communists were the heroic revolutionaries who fought for the FREEDOM OF WORKERS TO BE PAID THE SAME AS CEOS! They were revolutionaries just like George Washington and slavery abolitionists.@@gamkal7231
The question is how to get there.
Humanity has a zero per cent track record for "sensible planning ahead" We will just carry on until all the oil is gone.
lol!
You are stuck in the consumer and resource constrained economy mindset. When we enter the labor constrained economy, We won't have enough uses for oil to make it worth extracting. Net zero will be entirely possible.
Relaity the oil will not go till 500 years@@Pugh.Pugh.BarneyMcGrew
@@Pugh.Pugh.BarneyMcGrewAI is already among us. Most work will need very feel people.
@@AnaSchultz-kx9tq Most non-productive work will require very few people. Essential productive work (blue collar) will require the same amount of people.
All the jobs that were essentially leeching off the production economy will be affected, which will be interesting, because these high paying jobs, mostly performed by the richest people are going to become unnecessary.
Also don't conflate AI with Robots, The advantage humans will have over robots, is that they will be very low cost compared to robots. Even now, a lot of people spend more feeding their car, than themselves.
Unless we invent a source of unlimited power, it is likely robots will be a luxury only the super-rich can afford. And I am not sure how the super-rich will exist once AI eliminates their jobs.
I am a Korean in mid-30s.
All politicians and experts see only economic reasons as the cause of low birth rates, but I don't think so.
All living things does not produce offspring unless their safety is guaranteed.
Due to the continued increase in population, we are damaging nature more, raising more animals, and generating carbon dioxide, creating a climate disaster that humanity has never experienced before.
Due to the continued low birth rate and population decline, the government warns that welfare funds will be depleted, but there is bigger issue than the money.
Our economy may collapse, but we want to take action for a better future.
Even amid the dangers of war, climate disaster, energy war, food shortage, water shortage, religious war, and ideological war, we must act for a better future.
I am neither a left-wing activist nor a member of an environmental protection civic group, but I have an uneasy feeling that if we continue like this, the future of our descendants will never be safe.
I am happy to be born as a human, but also I feel guilty for being born as a human.
Because we just realized that humans can not control our own greed and selfishness, I believe that population reduction is the only solution to saving this planet.
Good luck for you and I and us.
I feel like South Korea shouldn't have handed the entire nation's resource and labour base off to a handful of mega-corporations, honestly. That has nothing to do with people not 'working hard'.
People are working harder for less, and more and more wealth is being concentrated in the handfuls of these mega-corporations and the handful of individuals and families who control them. People no longer work for the common good, but for the financial benefit of these mega-corporations and the handful of individuals and families who control them.
yes, population must be reduced to have a brighter future for the next generation...
Soviet have fertility rate . Give south Korea free home
A show of hands for population decrease...
Just remember your also included.
@anormalkorean we need more people like you who talk about the problems that are going on
As far as I know, population is declining only in the richest countries - in most of the world it is still rising. And as environmentalist I know that the real problem is not the number of people, but the impact they have on gobal ecosystem as a whole, and that is definitely increasing in worrying degree. The real root of the problem is inequality in income, property and political power - those who sufer the most from current crisis are not the ones who really make the decision - and for many of those who actually make the decision, crisis are actually an opportunity to get even richer and more powerful, so they are not really motivated to solve anything.
History lesson, in Europe the Black Death ended serfdom and started the Renaissance and innovation.
Yes, the current elder care is built on a piramid scheme, lets focus on that and innovative. What is really important is per-person GDP, not total GDP.
In short, by having fewer children, the masses can create the same result.
This is the real reason for massive open borders. The rich need a fresh new supply of exploitables.
"in a resilient world we compete for talent"
What? No. This is narrow thinking. In a resilient world people can afford to live where they are and don't have to move to have a good life.
But when you have one country competing with the next, it puts both in a position where they need to provide the best quality of life for their citizens or else they could lose them. Competition isn't a bad thing. It makes everyone better. I'm not sure how that thinking is 'narrow' exactly.
@@sirgerbilmacintosh9101 I agree, though I feel OP is reasoning from the perspective of the citizens competing for a better life and you are reasoning from institutions competing for resources. On the other hand such entities need not implement competitivity in a beneficial way; for instance a tyranny can compete with a democracy. People won't move from a tyranny for other reasons than in a democracy; they simply can't or create peril for their loved ones they left behind.
So where competition is 'narrow' in the sense an oppressive elite using it to keep down the proletariat (where the market is controlled by capital and is not truly 'free'), it could be positive if democratic institutions implement particular elements to improve innovation.
@@MrMichiel1983 Parts of these narratives strike me as incomplete, typically to me stemming from a loss of connection to the basic requirements of life. Almost anyone can, if they want, set up in a random field in the middle of nowhere. If not then of course you have to contend with the people who got there before you, i.e. people with "capital". That isn't about not being "free" that is simply a factual constraint. The idea that we could make it so no one ever has to move is just fantasy. The only reason why many people can even be born where they are is because of inexpensive food imports from more fertile nations who produce more than their population can eat. I find that most people complaining about the way the world is and blaming it on some higher class miss the fact that life has certain tradeoffs regardless of one's situation. Life simply has certain constraints to it. As long as one isn't physically forced into not picking a different trade-off, then we are indeed free.
In a world where the environment is fire tornados and daily floods, maybe some people might have to move...
In a better world, it wouldn't matter where your mommy went to the hospital droid, we would all move all over the world anytime we want. No national borders, cultures, or languages. Just one united earth. 🌎
Dear lord. Her solution is we work longer and compete for talent?
Can we please have a non-neoliberal address this?
Thank you, I agree! Her agenda (whatever it may be) runs contrary to what most people in developed countries are thinking, including me. She advocates for more people yet, people in developed countries know better - that's why they're not having children! There are some very, very compelling reasons to not bring children into this world right now. For one, we here in the US have all but lost our middle class and now a sizeable number of people on the right want to kill our democracy. Then, there's global warming which is far from being solved. From all that carbon, we're looking at a future of food shortages, mass migrations, war and God only knows what else. Sounds to me like the uber-wealthy want more workers and I presume she's advocating for them.
Soylent Green?
This is exactly what the Republicans want for "fiscal responsibility "
SORRY, WITH NO YOUNG POPLE TO WORK AND PAY TAXES FOR YOUR RETIREMENT, WHAT CHOICE WILL YOU HAVE,
We will start showing up when the wealth finally trickles on us. The only thing trickling down on us is rich people's piss.
Isn't It great that we have less and less people? We don't have to compete for resources any more.
Resources have to be produced/gather by somebody. Less people, less slaves.
Is that you Klaus Schwab lol🤑
we have plenty of resources.
then whos going to maintain the infulstructure even less people exist, i guess create for efficient systems so we don't need so many people to maintain the infulstructure
As the video mentioned not all places are undergoing population reduction at the same rate. Places that are going to reduce faster are more vulnerable. In addition what was also mentioned in the video, less places experiencing this are free nations. A likely outcome is that the bigger bad actors will eat the smaller vulnerable nations. You're right, there won't be competition for resources anymore. Instead there will be exploitation.
My wife and I chose not to have children. We are hoping to retire at 55-60. Someday we will purchase/hire (depending on how sentient it is) an android nurse to take care of us. Working until you are 70-75 is bullishit. Don't fall for it.
It probably works for people like herself. Not for roofers, masons, and other trades who demand a lot of their bodies.
SORRY, WRONG, I WORKED TILL 77 AND ENJOYED IT, SOCIAL SECURITY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD PEOPLE WITH YOUR KIND OF THINKING, UNLESS YOU SAVED SEVER MILLION DOLLARS TO LIVE WHEN YOU RETIRE EARLY
@@domcizek We are not Americans and do believe in a more social society, not a dog eat dog, selfish American attitude one. Where workers exist to be exploited by the big tax evading corporate dictators and Wall Street crooks.Thanks but no thanks. You work till you drop in the US, that's fine by me fella. And writing in capitals doesn't mean that you win the argument nor does it intimidate me Sir. Have a nice day
Mmmmm
9:07 - Paraphrased, 65-74 year old's are a "vast untapped resource" in a resilient world. Our system already has this built in as a feature instead of a bug. Sorry, but I don't want to build a world where our elderly have to continue to work until they die.
But if they do want to work, we should let them In many countries like Japan, Thailand and elsewhere they are forced to retire despite having the health and brains to continue.
IMO ‘work’, should be made less stressful if people need to work late in their lives. The burnout culture that is glorified these days is the reason people dread about having to work in their older years
I am confused about this point about the number of people currently in 65-74 demographic. At best, having this age group work (in a redefined resilient healthy way, she proposes) will be a very short-term solution. Because the whole point of this talk is that every generation or age group under the 65-74 group is dramatically smaller. Or am I missing something.
THEY WILL HAVE NO CHOICE UNLESS THEY SAVED 2 MILLION DOLLARS TO LIVE OUT THEIR LIFE
@@waringrob Yes but many in Japan keep working as taxi drivers or security.
When all the assets (money) is concentrated into the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us impoverished, why would anyone consider bringing a child into that kind of life?
that is exactly what is happening a few own it all while the masses fight for crumbs
THAT IS WHY YOU VOTE BLUE
@@domcizekvoting blue leads to more concentration of wealth with the 1%.
SORRY, WRONG, TRUMP GAVE 1.7 TRILLION TAX CUT TO ALL THE COMPANIES, AND ALL THEY DID WAS BUY BC THEIR STOCK, AND RAISE THE MARKET, THEN THEY SOLD AT THE PEAK OF THE MARKET AND MADE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS, SO FAR TRUMP HAS INCREASED THE NATIONAL DEBT BY 7 TRILLION DOLLARS, SO CHECK ON THE FACTS, THE ECONOMY ALWAYS DID BETTER UNDER THE DEMOCRATES THE LAST 100 YEARS, CHECK THE FACTS @@girishg414
@@domcizek That has absolutely not helped
Sadly, population won't be declining fast enough! We are currently far into overshoot, destroying the resource bases via overconsumption, to the point that, by the time total population actually declines, our global resource base will be declining FASTER - accelerating total collapse.
The "worker population" decline is meaningless, because automation and AI far more than counterbalance these changes. The challenge is in how to distribute the profits of automated production - NOT to put more human labor-hours into the pool. ALL humans should have declining work-hours needed to maintain a given lifestyle.
That is the problem, they do not want to share the profits. Otherwise we could all benefit from the progress of science and technology. But they need slaves, not talent. When there will be less humans, they will create bio-robots or create humans in machines and make them slaves. The whole human history is about this. Who could slave the others...
Increasing the retirement age is a blunt instrument of very little value globally. What do you do with all the people who have only ever done physically demanding work? I’m also surprised that she got through her talk without putting automation and AI at centre stage. Those factors combined with a huge rethink of how corporations contribute back to society and how that contribution is distributed will be vitally important.
The only thing corporations give back to society is share holder profits. The Government lowered taxes on corps to help share holders but only share holders. That's not going to last long.
Not to mention that businesses don't actually want nor seek older employees, creating an increasing gap, or "doughnut hole" between the official retirement age, and the actual age workers are forced out of the workforce. If you notice, that is almost never discussed in the media.
There are too many people in this world, and very few with humanity
I am overflowing with humanity
@@aligillani7107 well, where is it? Haven't heard a news article about your miraculous humanity
Me too l'm overflowing with humanité, in fact, I even have twin humanities
Less people, less pollution; some problems solved ...
less poverty
more food 😋
@@alexrod9271 more energy more housing more everything
There is only a pie the less people the greater is the slice for each.
Do you know what triggered the renaissance? The plague that killed half of the European population. There was no war, food was in abundance and for one century there was significantly less CO2 in the atmosphere so trees grew slower and the wood got denser and that gave Stradivarius violins their unique sound.
Robots can play a role in addressing the challenges posed by an aging population in several ways:
Labor shortages: Robots can help to fill labor shortages by automating tasks that are currently performed by humans. This can be particularly helpful in industries that are struggling to find workers, such as healthcare, manufacturing, and agriculture.
Strained social security systems: Robots can help to reduce the strain on social security systems by increasing productivity and reducing the need for government spending on things like healthcare and long-term care.
Economic challenges: Robots can help to boost the economy by creating new jobs, increasing productivity, and driving innovation.
As robotics technology continues to develop, we can expect to see even more innovative ways to use robots to address the challenges of an aging population.
OBVIOUSLY we should build as MANY ROBOTS as possible to take over as MUCH labor from humans as possible.
So why have I endlessly heard idiots OBJECT to automation taking over jobs from humans? If there is TOO MUCH WORK to be done to sustain humans at a modern comfort level, then ANY bit of that labor being taken over by robots, AI, computers, whatever, should be welcomed.
Robots will not replace the consumption roll of missing population. They can be programed to do it, tough, but it won't be a natural thing and so far no one can even predict how this will affect our economy.
Robots don't own property, pay rent, or consume goods. Producing is only half of the equation. An aging and declining population will likely lead to a doom loop. Best case scenario much of the world turns into Detroit. Worst case scenario the world enters the third dark age.
Yes 💯
People are in denial. AI is going to trash Capitalism. Humans are obsolete.
This trend sounds like a GOOD THING for the planet! Countries will find ways to adapt, some quicker and better than others!
I retired at 65. I'll be damned if I expect anyone to work older than that. Actually, in a decent world, retiring at 50 is about right, maybe earlier.
This type of thinking won’t be applicable in the near future! Most humans will be older than you- and will want/need to work!
Me too, but I'm hoping to be able to buy a humanoid robot or two for home healthcare, housework, lawn care and other labor about 2030. I'd buy one today if I could, but they are not quite ready yet for that. They have to put in a few years on the factory floor, first, before they will be ready to take instructions from cranky old farts like me at home.
If we lived in a system with the right priorities, technology would serve first and foremost to make our lives better, i.e. to free us from work. But new technology now means new ways to exploit workers so as to increase private profits.
We here in the US already work more than any other developed country in the world. There isn't even a federal law to guarantee Americans vacation time and meanwhile, she has the audacity to suggest that we should work longer..? Wow!
@@gmenezesdea Um . . . no, new technology now IS the labor. Just keep your eyes and ears on the news over the next year and you will hear more and more hysterical warnings about robots and AI tools TAKING YOUR JOBS. Don't believe them. All that new technology has the potential to create more and better jobs for any of us, IF we watch carefully and learn how to take advantage when we see opportunities.
When I was born there were 4 billion people on this planet. 54 years later and there are 8 billion.
Humanity nor this planet will be able to sustain this for a great length of time. That's just reality.
Not with our current technology. There might be a day when advances in technology make it possible. But right now the planet is not absorbing the pollution as fast as we are dumping it.
This is showing up and drastically reduced fertility numbers for males. Then on top of that the cost of living has become impossible for young people to consider having children before they're too old to easily have children.
Also, the population will not begin to decrease until we've reached well over 10 Billion people, in the late 2050s or so.
It just all money they want more workers for the economy
Yeah, the expectation of infinite growth in a finite space is a cult mentality we need to ease out of.
Can't see a bad side with current trend... bigger population, resources decrease, wars break out. A decline is a good thing, doesn't mean the line will continue, maybe it will reach an equilibrium after a few dips and climbs...
Pure chaos: land and jobs for everyone.
I listened to the end to find out if the elephant in the room would be addressed: how many people can our ecosystems sustain, our oceans, forests, soil. A pity that wasn't mentioned
As a Canadian I have to say our immigration model is a failure, not because of the immigration level, but how its distributed. The population density of Canada is 4 person/Km2,(Underpopulated), but the majority of immigrants settle in Toronto with the denisity of 4334persons/Km2.(Overpopulated). The result is we have the worst of both Under/over population.
failure is a strong word, but yes living in Toronto often means too many people dealing with stress over too few resources
Feel sorry for the Canada brand and many countries who in good conscience encourage immigration but then the divisive application on the ground screws it up massively resulting in ghettoised division and resentment on both sides. It's a timebomb.
@@jonr6680. Nah, not a time bomb. Canada is well situated for the future and our immigration policies are a large part of that. We bring in talent and money (and refugees when needed, often at a much higher rate than our neighbours to the south). We are attractive to immigrants because we are prosperous and peaceful and liberal and progressive and tolerant. Immigrants help our economy so much. I’d say most Canadians are fine with people from other cultures and the younger generation is even more tolerant and accepting. Generally, multiculturalism is working. I’d agree that we need better policies to ensure immigrants are encouraged to move to places other than the big cities, but this is a tough sell because immigrants want to be close to others from their culture. If I moved to India, you can bet that I’d settle in a Canadian enclave, or at least a western community (“little Canada” LOL). But my kids would grow up and move wherever. Just my opinions.
4000/km2 is pretty average for a city, here in Geneva we have the double of that. Migrants or not most people prefer to move to cities
@@learningisfun2108 A Canadian being smug about destroying their country faster than America. Amazing.
It´s been a while since I saw a TED talk and wanted to give this one a chance given the subject. Unfortunately dissapointing. So basically Jennifer is suggesting here to ´import´ people from current high birth rate countries (Africa) to magically solve all issues. Apart from all the societal issues this would bring to those lower birth rate countries (which she dismisses as bein simply ´fearful´ behaviour), it´s just a temporary prolongation trying to maintain GDP, while not at all rethinking the world from a different perspective. If labour shortage is the main concern maybe wages should rise, and industry could refocus on what is really necessary and beneficial to society.
WITH NO YOUNG WORKERS TO CONSUME WHAT OTHER PEOPLE MAKE/BUILD, THEN WHERE WILL EVERYTHING YOUR USED TO COME FROM, IMMAGRATION IS THE ANSWER FOR AMERICA AND IS ALREADY HAPPENING,
Agreed. Jennifer is incredibly short sighted by suggesting further immigration as a solution to population decline. Not to mention, second generation immigrants have birth rates just as low as the host populations as seen in Europe and North America.
JUST ANNOUNCED ON TV NEWS, CHINAS POPULATION HAS DECREASED BY 2 MILLION IN 2023, BY 2050, CHINAS POPULATION WILLL BE ONE HALF OF AMERICAS,, DUE TO MASS IMMAGRATION YOU NOW SEE ON THE TV NEWS, FROM ACCROSS THE BOARDER, @@anthonyvelloza2622
I don't think the planet would appreciate lots of people from developing countries being added to the over-consuming first world.
Those countries in Africa are only growing their population because the world keeps pouring food into them. They can't feed themselves. All attempts at teaching them farming have failed. how are people that can't farm to save their lives supposed to maintain a technological civilization?
I will never accept that there are too few people on Earth. There are far, far too many. Our problem is that we have too many people who contribute nothing but expect to be provided for.
WELL, RIGHT NOW THERE IS NOT, BUT IN CERTAIN COUNTRY, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CHILDREN BEING BORN, EACH WOMAN MUST HAVE 2.1 CHILDREN OTHERWISE THE POPULATION OF THAT COUNTRY WILL COLLAPSE, ALREADY HUNGARY IS PAYING WOMEN 90 THOUSAND DOLLARS TO HAVE 3 CHILDREN, ITALY IS GIVING AWAY FREE HOUSEING IF YOU MOVE THERE AND HAVE CHILDREN AND WORK PLUS 30 THOUSAND DOLLARS MOVING EXPENCES
This is a very myopic and backwards understanding of the current situation. With technological advancements, right now a single worker is more productive than 20 workers were a century ago, and over 100 times more productive than two centuries ago. In short, it takes a lot fewer people to get things done, which also means there is an ever-shrinking demand for their contributions.
This enthusiasm for replacement immigration seems to ignore the fact that the incomers are not there to work for our benefit but claim from our benefit system.
Indeed, masses of people buy into the magic dirt fallacy.
I am 63 and disabled, I work nearly 27 years but got incredibly ill 2 years before reaching retirement age, doctors said I was done working and would be lucky to stay alive. Well they where right I died but got better😂, still is funny to say that. But over the next ten years I have got better and can work but not enough to support myself, catch 22 there. I was a project manager for the Transportation Cabinet so knowledge is still there I just can't deal with 60-70 hour weeks, its what got me in the condition I ended up in.
60-70 hour weeks is caused by exploitation on the part of your employer. Such a joke yet many people work like this. Studies have shown that humans are pretty much useless after more than 40 hours work. Not many high stress job types like doctors or CEOs make it to being a centenarian.. not that everyone’s life goal is to live that long, but to me it shows the impact of stressful jobs with long hours- it slowly kills people.
SO, WORK PART TIME, ITS BETTER THEN WATCHING TV OR THE INTERNET OR TIC TOK
It appears that the Economy is the problem?
If we look at that as the cause of the problems of aging,
we get a more clear picture of what is causing our health issues?
We need to consider getting rid of Capital as a measure of Value.
NOT ENOUGH HOUSNG CAUSES HIGH RENTAL PRICES, SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONTROL THE PRICE OF EVERYTING, WOMEN DONT WANT CHILDREN, THEY WANT CARRERS NOW, @@danielhutchinson6604
I am 77 years young, and regularly work 80 hours per week for myself, with no problems, often from dawn until dusk working inside and outside, and then put in some overtime in the evenings on the computer.
The population will decrease back to ~2billion, I hope we do it as humanely and sustainably as possible. And unicorns, lots of unicorns.
it was a transition the world had to go trew as we industrialize
I wish I lived in that world. Advanced technologies but enough space and housing for everyone. And lots of space for nature.
@@MoDa87 that's what the Georgia guidestones are about
I doubt the reindeer on St. Matthew Island were having fun while the population declined from 6000 to 42 over two years, and I doubt humans will enjoy it when the same happens to us. So yeah, unicorns. And rainbows.
@@Caitanyadasa108 its coming tough whether we like it or not things are out balance right now its unsustainable
People who work in offices can work until they are in their 70s, but people that do back breaking work ( roof installers, construction works, contractors, factory workers, etc. ) can not. To make matters worse, if a roof installer applies for a job as an office worker, his resume would be tossed out. These workers haven't seen their life expectancy rise as much as the people who sit behind a desk, and often they have less monetary health. Asking them to work longer is a classist endeavor.
If they want more women to have children then they need to fix the problem that men leave them holding the bag physically and financially for the children. I didn't have children because I did not think I could afford them and I did not want to work full time and be a solo parent. So I said "No way."
Why not learn to choose better men.
@@devolishash3946 Why not learn to be less judgmental?
So that is why they exclude men in this.
Is that the right question to ask?
Or should we globally mobilize to remove the corruption in our governments first?
Bribes, insider trading, foreign sabotage, gross incompetence…If we had decent leaders it wouldn’t matter who lead because they would all be focused on finding the best solutions instead of what we have now.
How many wars, crimes against humanity go on due to this issue? How many trillions of dollars a year globally go to waste due to our inability to unseat and clearly define what optimal leadership is?
that's the Forever War, you'll never change human nature of those in power
Science should have authority. And by science I mean, yes, hard sciences like biology or physics, but also psychology, sociology, political science, all those "useless" humanity degrees.
More government is not the solution to issues that all too likely are caused at least in part by government. LESS government is how we fix corruption and many other issues all at once. How we ACHIEVE 'less' government is, however, the most important challenge of the next century. Can we take back SOME of the duties, responsibilities, and work that we handed off to corporations and to government over the previous century?
Take the FDA . . . PLEASE. Can we replace them and a huge chunk of the pharmaceutical industry costs structure with an open AI system that uses automation and robots to perform all the testing that currently happens in proprietary labs behind closed doors? If all that information is made public, can we be responsible for our own health and diet and medication decisions? What a huge difference that could make, if each of us was under the care and continuous monitoring of a suite of AI medical experts aided by our in-house humanoid robot caretaker(s) mentor(s).
How many of the other 'handholding' tasks we have no time to do properly for ourselves can we hand off to a combination of AI specialist, automation and humanoid robots? Lawncare, for sure! Gardening/Orcharding/Ranching and harvesting, preserving and food preparation would be a bigger challenge. Home energy production, storage and sales to generate both robust electricity, heating or cooling and clean hot or cold water plus a steady revenue stream from surplus electricity sales to the local grid would be fantastic and actually happens in a few places around the world today.
This all requires HUGE amounts of change and work and innovation, of course. Plenty to keep us busy for a century or two, spreading it around the planet and off planet, too. Be sure to plan lots of small, achievable short term goals and rewards, like completely shutting down certain government offices as soon as they are certified unnecessary due to having been replaced by something better.
All humans are corruptible. It's what got us here in the first place. Take religion as an example. There are some decent religious teachings, steeped in goodness and morality. Yet somehow even they fail at creating peace on earth.
Systems fail because of human frailty. Eugenics is the way to go here. (Kidding)
You're fighting against human nature. You can't fix or change that. There will always be evil and selfishness.
We have an economic model that is thousands of years old and was created with scarcity in mind. It is a free-for-all deathmatch that requires infinite growth and pits humans into competition. If we don’t switch out of this monetary system we are doomed.
The magic word in your comment is 'scarcity' which is about to END, if current trends in AI, automation and robotics enable us to create a future of near infinite plenty for every human on the planet, or off it. We will probably know in a year or less whether the AI and the robots will be capable enough to make a huge difference. Today we don't know, because they are not on the job, yet. In 2024 there will be mass production of humanoid robots at Tesla . . . or not, if something fails. Watch for Optimus, then watch what Optimus does.
It's awesome, really, how much of our future depends on a pathetic little collection of motors, batteries, gears and parts, which we will see rise to perform absolute marvels over the next few years.
Or not . . .
Scarcity, and I mean true scarcity, stopped being real after the agricultural and Industrial Revolution. Today’s scarcity is artificial, and AI won’t be the answer. What we need is a shift in social values with a new social system that focuses on providing for humanity.
@@colinkeizer7353there will always be scarcity because when the job will be taken by ai , humanoid, and robot then what about human do for living??? Or will human extinct way faster?
@@filmesharrifena865 human work or activity isn't related to scarcity, e.g. basic income generated from A.I. work tax could support human living
@@colinkeizer7353lol teslabots? Really? Musk and Tesla are not the ones disrupting and controlling the game when it comes to AI and robotics. Fully functioning Tesla bots next year!? LMAO I’ll give everyone commenting in this video 10,000 dollars if that happens. I’ll throw a freebie I’ll do it if it’s a thing in 2028.
Too many people. There has never been more people on earth in history. Therefore it would be logically absurd to say there are too few.
I think you missed the point. Fertility is below replacement, your kids will not have as many kids as you and your parents. The demographic pyramid will implode in western countries creating an army of seniors, and to an extent it already has. I find it logically absurd that you don't understand that.
Many of us in our 60s are unable to work already, bodies wear out, we’re not machines ! I had to retire early and lost a lot by doing so, I was just beginning my peak earning years and my lifestyle tanked when I had to stop working, as well as losing the huge contributions I would have continued to make to my retirement fund. It’s cruel to expect people to work into their 70s, most won’t be able to anyway. Those who want to, more power to them, I just hope they won’t need to. Social security isn’t enough, who the heck can live on $1,200/month? Even with paid and clear housing, it just isn’t possible.
I believe that is why she discussed better health care. There is a movement of medical doctors and researchers to emphasize longer healthful living rather than just longevity by tracking health proactively and by diagnosing early warning indicators.
Yes. And old people won't be able to help their grandkids. So it's going to decline even more. Greed is killing people. We re all adapting to this high cost of living. It's crazy.
@@blueamenaa749 the whole system needs a balance
There are people who can not afford it buying pickup trucks costing $60, $80, $100 thousand dollars! Not because they need it for work but because everybody else has one (who can’t afford them either). Education is the answer but the current trend, in the US anyways, is for the government to cater to the "poorly educated". These are the people who’ll be working into their seventies.
@@LisaFaissSo-called “better health care” will not necessarily prolong the average working lifetime. It will in a few individuals but not across the board.
Not to mention that “better health care” is something we are getting farther and farther away from in western countries. It’s too expensive and that’s not about to change any time soon.
I live in Belgium. I work in the public service. Next month I will turn 65; then I am obliged to retire, by law. I would like to continue working, but I am not allowed. This is discrimination based on age. It is outrageous.
people should be allowed to work as long as there body allows them too
THATS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO EMPLOY THE YOUNGER WORKERS TO KEEP THEM WORKING
Shrinking populations economically (under capitalism) are a bad thing. Ecologically, shrinking populations are a great thing. Which is truly more important?
Ecosystem is more important
In America it now cost over $300,000 to raise a child from birth to 18. That’s more than what a house costs today! People should think twice if it’s the right time to have a baby and think about saving the planet 🌎
Nothing wrong with having 50% lower population and gdp. As long as gdp per capita stays same, people can still have similar living standards. And it's better for environment
Yes but even GDP per capita is an irrelevant metric. Why focus on that abstraction instead of just focusing directly on providing the highest possible standard of living within the limitations of our habitat?
everything is wrong with a working person having to support 3 retirees. the composition of the population is what matters. slightly decreasing population is totally fine but population collapse is another animal. Czech Republic is having a soft decline and it is alright, but Japan is having a collapse and it is ruining the social structure to a point where no individual is intact of severe damage financially and socially.
@@WilliamSantos-cv8rrwell than maybe it’s time that governments start asking us young people what we want and need to have more kids. Instead of just caring about the older voters and their interests.
They can start by making housing affordable and taking care of the environment. Because until I see that, I am not having kids and the clock is ticking.
In this TED-talk, a person (Jennifer), whose mind is functioning on a capitalistic-worldview, discusses decreasing birth rates without really discussing it (e.g. causes). She speaks of a "resilient-world" when in fact what she suggests is only one solution for applying shallow-ecology to maintaining business-as-usual economics while offering to see immigration as a slightly more positive prospect, to those that do not.
She speaks with a vibe of anxiety for over 10 minutes but does not offer any content, details, or framework for the simple statistical interpretation of birth rates.
Jennifer does not, in any way, offer more about these numbers - and what to do with them - than an undergrad in mathematics or what the social-scientists would come-up with if given a class assignment to do so - while in their own university programs.
I am starting to lose the point for what the goal of TED-talks are...Are they meant for university professors to come-up with ideas for what to give as class-assignments?!?
Professor-Marty.
I agree, this was an incredibly poorly thought out TED talk. It felt like she spent more time trying to tell me what to do, instead of trying to educate. It's very uncomfortable for TED talks to accept such drivel now.
That is a preposterous assertion. Given the time frame and the complexity she did an excellent job of articulating the problem and showing potential pathways forward.
She could have provided much more facts and figures but that wouldn't have made the talk better, just more complicated and therefore less people would have got the core message.
If the objective was to demonstrate how smart you are then perhaps your way would work. However if you want to reach more people I think she did the best job possible.
Yes, her "solutions" like forcing old people to work are not solutions at all. But there is a solution. Artificial intelligence is expected to bring increasing efficiency and higher corporate profits. We can tax those profits to maintain humane retirement policies.
If the speaker doesn't have a natural science background when talking about population. I don't even bother listening.
@@PoshMurder Yeah, I have not watched that many TED talks in my life, but I did feel cheated out of 10-minutes here!
1. IMHO, 1 billion is enough. High population puts incredible strain on ecosystem & natural resources (fossil fuels, minerals, arable land, fishing, fresh water & clean air). There's is a limit to which high consuming population can maintain balance with its environment. Even with clean Energy (i.e. fussion) we still need to eat & build stuff.
2. I wonder how this moderately young lady will feel about her concepts when she turns into her retirement age & be asked to still work to 'save the economy'
She will never think about it as she sits in the corporate boardroom, looking to cut even more benefits from the already broken entry level employees.
I worry that attitudes toward population decline are being fostered by the Business as Usual community. People may not want the same life as their parents and grandparents. They see alternative choices being available and want to live a whole new, regenerative and climatically sustainable lifestyle.
But Business and Large Governments want the Growth model to continue. After all, who will buy the Tesla's and Ferrari's of the future if there are less of us? Who will help pay of those massive national debts like we see in China, Japan, USA, Europe? Well maybe no one? Less workers, less taxes? Oh no, we can't support the debts and programs. But we can if fewer people are working smarter and more productively. Most people don't want to be subsistence farmers and factory or retail workers. We want something else.
Yes, the commoner wants something and the elite won't tolerate it.
The fairly obvious solution to an aging population is to increase the retirement age; however, this could be made far more palatable by lowering hours worked or only requiring part-time hours for those above the current retirement age. The one immediate benefit I could see coming from this idea is, some seniors who currently lead a solitary, and often lonely, existence would still have some freedom with lower hours but would also have some benefit of getting out into the world a few days of the week for some part of the day. Having too many hours to oneself is not healthy and, for some, is a road to an early and sad end.
I will emphasize that making people work in elder years like they're a fresh-faced kid is cruel and should be avoided by any society that cares even a little about its citizens.
Worth thinking about.
Your are entitled to your opinion, but having retired in my mid-fifties (now 67), I can definitely say that retirement is one of the richest periods of my life and the thought of having to work decades more than I did is truly depressing. Just saying ...
@@meta4101 they dont mean forcing ppl to work. They mean accessing their social sescurity. Most working class people cant afford to fully retire before 70 anyway. Even in the 90s everyones grandparents had a pension and a pt job.
The real problem with the suggestion is despite life getting longer, we are not lengethening productivity yrs...an old time solution would be to offer elders part time work as consultant-advisors...the problem is due to the rate of technological change and its impact, this is the first time in history that our elders knowlege is not in a position to help us. Like young and peak age people cant even look to peri-seniors for any help with anything, not just technically but in terms of how things relate... and the world is being run by such people. Hopefully those ones are adaptable and surrounded by younger thinkers. It used to be your knowlege would be good for generations, now its obsolete within a decade.
Digesting the Boomers was always gonna be rough, because they are a very large postwar generation. But in addition, there is the increasing rate of technical and cultural change.
Seriously, even Gen X is barely able to understand whats coming and theyre the ones that asked for it.
Its not a situation the human race has ever faced before, where the value of elders is virtually useless aside from their value as individual people we love and who cared for us, but I meant economic.
@@rickwrites2612Dude..I'm retired age, I listen to Vini Vici AI music, play disc golf, teach a class on AI and Space Robotics, programming hivemind swarmbot agents.
I driive a Nissan Juke with a big turbo, probably woop your car. Also..my wife is retirement age and still works full time and I work part time. The leader of our church is 99 years old!
Maybe we old folk need to live a bubble..
So i don't think i be able to retier before i turn 70, or even older, if i still have a job of course.
See if you say that after you worked all your life and now you cannot retire because you’ll have no insurance.🤔
Too crowded. Home prices tell all. Hope we shrink until everyone can purchase home.
That's not the issue. It was greed and short sightedness.
As much as I would like to have a second child, I’m not planning on having on getting a second child in the conditions the world is in.
I don't understand why lately people are talking about low birth rate rather than talking about bad quality of life
The rich like Jennifer like to say that the solution is to force old people to work and she calls this cruel solution "resilience." The reality is that AI will bring greater efficiencies and corporate profits, and we can tax these profits to sustain retirement at a reasonable age like 65.
Profit shouldn’t be the end goal of our species.
I'm optimistic.
Didn't she also say to utilize technology to maximize efficiency/productivity, and to reimagine *what* working looks like? I feel like there's a difference between working/contributing to an economy vs being forced into grueling, unhealthy, or overly taxing work (which yes, is what I'd argue MOST jobs look like right now -- hence the need for reimagining work). Older individuals still have value and contributions to make, not only to society but also to the workforce -- it doesn't follow that any and all efforts to tap that human capital must be exploitative in nature.
@@ciuuin4098 reimagining is essential, I agree. This thought just came to me but like… a job for elderly should be more aligned with ancient ‘elder’ like purposes like education or training (of skills for example). Some of the best sources of teaching is from those who have lived the most, no? Makes me wonder for wisdom is dead 😔 but like you said there’s value there… labor not so much
@@ciuuin4098 That is true, and many older people happily continue to work in meaningful jobs after age 67 (the current retirement age). But Jennifer is advocating for raising the retirement age, meaning removing retirement benefits altogether from those 67 and older. This would force old people to work whatever jobs they can find to avoid falling into poverty, including grueling taxing work that is absolutely unacceptable for people at that age.
In the olden days, elderly used to watch the children. Now in U.S. people work during retirement to supplement and we have a teacher and daycare shortage. Problem is its too expensive to live.
Or perhaps we have too many things to spend our money on?
@@captainamerica3493maybe you do. I don’t spend money on anything but the basics.
MoDa87 "In the olden days" we did not pay for internet access, cable tv, cell phones and data plans, bottled water, air travel was a luxury, Starbucks coffee every morning, motorized kitty litter boxes and the millions of other things and services we couldn't live without that didn't even exist 50 years ago. It's true but I'm sorry you are struggling and it's true that I am not.
@@captainamerica3493 How many people don't buy that stuff, and still struggle to rent an apartment with their crap wages?
Boomers
Amirite?
I’ve been arguing for quite awhile that the Earth would be a lot better place if humans had never evolved. Or any destructive creature like humans I suppose. There might be non-human animals and their planet would then be better. But if my idea is right then it seems to almost necessarily imply that “there will always be too many humans even if there were only one.” (I’m certainly no “Global-Warming Thumper.” But I think the worst thing that’s happened, contrary to the line in I think “The Graduate”: “Think plastics.” Plastics and other pollutants have really degraded things and I guess plastics are even in our food supply.)
Some countries/governments are too obsessed with "growth" as an indicator for a success economy. Countries can't just keep growing. A stable, neutral growth country shouldn't been seen as a negative.
Absurd! If you care about children and can think critically about the world, you might know to question Jennifer. Ask her why people in those developed countries are not having children. Also, we here in the US already work longer than people in every other major developed country. It's what the rich want. They also want Jennifer to convince you to bring more children (workers) into the world even as our society continues to collapse. Who didn't know.
You're correct. It just takes to look a economic history and periods of population growth and decline. When population declines, wages go up and in many cases better working conditions. Now we also have the pressure a new person will apply to our already broken planet and she's asking for people to have more children. Ridiculous. People quit their jobs in mass in the US during the pandemic because they had time to actually think and because of the relief checks. Capitalist panicked so they pass laws in some states to allow child labor. Listen to prof Matei for more stuff about labour and how the rich use economics and lawmaking to keep workers down.
This girl needs to get in touch with the harsh reality, maybe her children should be autistic, homeless, jobless, etc. then she will know the world isn't what she expecting for.
"Also, we here in the US already work longer than people in every other major developed country. "
That's just, not correct. China has longer work hours and work weeks than us, Japan also averages longer work hours, India is doing a little better but not by much. Just to name a few
@@aether3885 But China and Japan have better public education and health care than the US
@@japiro14 That's not what we're discussing, is it?
Too many and too many unthinking, uncaring humans.
Agreed!
politicians
Agreed, peterdollins!
Too few? That shouldn't even be a question.
What about Maximum Carrying Capacity , Climate change etc?
To me you have described utopia with population decline. Have you bothered to do the same study for all the other species? The problem exists with our ponzi system of economics not with population decline
its both
human overpopulation is a global problem that cannot be separated by invisible human made boundaries on maps. earth is a finite planet with finite resources, and there cannot be infinite growth on such a place without negative repercussions. also, population grows exponentially not linearly, which is why the overall population increases even though birth rates are down in certain areas
A key driver in starting the industrial revolution was the rise of workers' pay due to a shortage of workers. And the cost of social security systems grow with aging populations, but not as fast as the GDP grows. Thus, the key issue is that more and more of the GDP does not end in that system, but is kept by rich people. The real issue for these systems is the lack of taxation.
Good lecture, but one point I would make is that fewer workers might mean higher wages for those workers, but that does not mean higher inflation. Countries like Germany and Switzerland that didn't have a lot of workers had low inflation. And countries like Zimbabwe or Venezuela or Nigeria with lots of workers had high inflation. Inflation has much more to do with how the government backs the money and what faith investors have in the money, not the number of workers.
She just said we can all work longer like that's a good thing.
YES, IT IS A GOOD THING, IF YOUR ABLE TO DO IT, YOU WILL HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE FUTURE UNLESS YOU SAVED 2 MILLION DOLLARS
We might enjoy the ability to still function after the economic structure refuses to allow us to participate.
I know some very sick, barely able to work, 70 yr olds but have to keep going to pay for their meds. It still comes down to the government taking alot of our money, people too sick to work and some that never want to work but live off their parents.
In Sweden everybody's only talking about working LESS, not more. 😂
People wanna retire early. Oh boy it's going to be a rude awakening for many in the near future. ❤
@@sweden_is_gone I have spent over 20 years enduring the demands of a couple of women
of Swedish heritage, the experience was enlightening.
I understand that Russian attitudes were forged by being former subjects of Viking Beliefs.
The image of the Swedish Bikini Team seem to fade into some obscurity of advertising lingo......
As the Western Powers attempt to consolidate the Planet into a mindless group of Fiat Dollar Worshipers,
the Asian Unity that stands in their way,
now seem to control around 70% of the available resources on the planet.
BRICS appears to gather all the former Colonies of the G-7 group,
into a Trade Union that seems determined to stop trading their Goods with the West.
The ability to simply take their resources by force,
now appears to be a bluff?
A Mexican Standoff......
As a 50 something I'd be really happy to see an end to age discrimination in the workplace and hiring process if only by necessity . Of course population decline is not all a bed of roses but that is one aspect that I'd really look forward to and celebrate !
Imagine the impact of ageism in countries like India, where the population of young is higher.
In free nations, like USA, any old person can start their own business and quietly hire old people. There's no particular system in place to prevent it. Where I live, it's only about 500 to get a business license, then you're on your way.
This will fix itself. It will be more and more difficult to find workers.
Old workers expect higher wages than someone just entering the job market. This is the real reason why the elites try to flush out the older workers.
it would be nice but won't happen until 2 or 3 generations down
An interesting TED Talk. But her entire speech dealt with the economic/political consequences of birth rates and an aging population. What about the impact on our earth of a still growing population? How many more species will go extinct because of us? How many of us will die as a consequence of a toxic level of microplastics or other pollutants? In short, I feel her talk was rather one dimensional.
Another major factor killed the birthrate: the expensive 2 bedroom apartment.
Housing prices are the biggest factor why I am not having children. It has gotten way too high.
Feminism
Yes, why are my forced to live with my parents(which I hate using songs like "Die in a fire", "Enemies", and "Wolf in sheep's clothing" to describe how I feel) instead of friends in an apartment with a bed for everyone?
Maybe stop incentivising everyone to hold of on even thinking about starting a family until they are 35. Stop wasting kids time baby sitting them in school until they are 18. Teach kids real skills in elementary and high school so they can get out and start working and start a family sooner. Stop making it hard to afford to buy a house and start a family until your 40+.
The majority of inflation is corporate profit.
incorrect. all inflation is an expansion of the money supply.
@@olivertieden6081 Money printer went brrr, yet most of it ended up in the c suite.
Inflation is man made and baked into the currency cake, that started in 1913 in the US.
@@olivertieden6081 Not in Australia mate. It's pushed to a significant degree by excess profits. Find me a government which will do something about it, rather than jack up interest rates and try to increase unemployment and depress wages.
@@alanwatterson2850Competition will push prices down. That's how markets work. Inflation is different from the prices of some goods going up because of demand. You cannot create more stuff with government policy, but you can't stop it from being created.
It doesn’t matter what we think or do or wish for, the number of people will fluctuate according to myriad influences out of our control. We will continue to struggle to survive and thrive right up to the extinction, when ever that occurs. The facts call for theoretical pessimism and operational optimism.
Total Fertility Rates (TFR) in China is 1.3 and in India is 1.9 (top 2 populous countries in the world) and these keeping going down gradually because of the high cost involved in raising a child. The only solution for old age demographics is to raise the retirement age or robotics (and AI technologies). Even large parts of Africa have decreasing fertility rates (currently Africa TFR is 4.1) where regular civil wars / disease / poverty reduce the African population. India has an average lifespan of just 70 years and the lifespan of an African is 64 years whereas the developed world has an average lifespan of over 80 years. This means that for some parts of Asia / Africa - old age demographics is not an issue as the lifespan of these people is very less compared to the developed world. Old age demographics will be a huge problem for the Western/Developed world in the years to come with massive old age / healthcare costs to be borne by the (few) young taxpayers in these countries.
It is only the large corporates and capitalists who are very worried about low population as this will decrease their profits / company share value due to decreased demand for their products and they always advocate for population increase (specifically in 3rd world countries where they can make even more profits due to outsourcing) as the poor-old people are useless to their company profits. Further, young people can also be trained for military recruitment as a good fighting force and currently most world powers are engaged in a war for greater control of the planet resources.
Indeed. The demographics are being closely examined by rich sociopaths who's only question is what makes line go up next fiscal quarter.
Telling people they’ll have to work longer by raising the retirement age will result in rioting in the streets.
They've already started doing it in some countries like France.
Here’s what I have trouble with understanding. All these commentators are talking about depopulation being a terrible thing but what about the huge numbers of lost souls that exist in every country on the planet. The drug addicts, those with mental health issues, those with low IQ, the criminal elements, those with debilitating health issues, the lazy, etc. Do we need more people or do we need the numbers we are actually going to have to be more productive with far less squandered human potential?
I think that category of people has existed within every period of human history, and sometimes those undesirables get shipped off to less densely populated parts of the world and become wonderfully productive, and sometimes they die as miserably as they lived. I don't know if they exist as bigger proportions of modern society or if modern society simply has less use for them.
I personally think that the bigger issue is the displacement between productivity and reproductivity. Every happily married couple with decent incomes that doesn't have kids will contribute to taxes, the economy, welfare systems etc. so long as they are in the workforce, but when they retire, they are depending upon the children somebody else had to pay into the system, keep everything running and otherwise maintain the value of the currency and by proxy their savings, until they die.
South Korea, for example, has structural social issues to do with long work hours culture, poor maternity and paternity support, and so on. Women feel that if they give up their career to have children, they will never be able to return to the job they had. The leadership might think this industrial strategy will continue to keep them at the top, but they appear to be ignoring the obvious demographic sting in the tail that they are inadvertently creating. They can't sustain an economy in the long term without new people, whereas it would take only some reasonable adjustments improve work-life balance, which is better for everyone.
We used to have 8+ kids per family (Irish) in my great-grandparents generation. WW1/WW2 put an end to all that. Now we have one or two.
A decreasing population is undoubtedly in our interest. The cost of living and housing would drop. Our emissions would naturally go down. If the population keeps going up indefinitely we’re all going to die. What’s her endgame? We should expedite overpopulation and extinction? The economy will change and we’ll be faced with new challenges for sure but that’s 1000% better than the other option.
50% of global emissions are caused by the top-earning 5%.
It would be better if we put in more effort into scrutinising them.
You're correct as well, but only if the wealth is redistributed properly. "If the population keeps going up indefinitely we’re all going to die.". With finite resources, indubitably, but if the population keeps decreasing we have more or less the same problem. Now for the increasing population there is a growth solution; space. For the decreasing population there might be resilience for a long time, but probably also far less resources to innovate and say progress space travel to a point it can democratize.
It seems that having a stabilized or decreasing population for a while is fine, but only if we actively pursue the means to sustainably grow beyond the current boundaries.
BS, ''population collapse'' does not lower any basic living need. Take a look in Japan, Taiwan, Italy or Hong Kong. Everything goes up but wages since the productivity filled by The Youth is put down and you have people staying longer on functions they are no longer productive.
Exactly is better for earth is better for us
This is what Government wants.. not the common citizens
A decrease in population is do to overpopulation
As human population declines this means less burden on earth's natural resources, more space for other species , wild animal in land and seas. Actually I hope world population will fall vertically to 1 billion or less soon.
I would submit, the falling "replacement rate" is quite fortuitous as current foodstuff productions are past peak abilities, world-wide aquifers are quickly falling & the resultant crop yields are doomed to fail in epic proportions....such populations while currently "underfed", will only get worse, at an increasing rate.
Lots of good points. Little talk of the destruction of environment with so many people, of how technology might mitigate much of the issues of smaller population, and whether lifespans will continue to grow or reverse. So many unknowns...
Lifespans are already decreasing, mostly due to the obesity epedemic.
People eat themselves into an early grave.
I was going to say, the average life span has already peaked, at least in the US.
A rapidly aging and declining population will almost certainly be catastrophic. It will likely lead to a doom loop of economic contraction. The whole country will look like Detroit. People cheering "yay I'll finally be able to buy a home!" are fools. Yes there will be a crash in property prices, but when you're standing in the bread line and starving, buying a house will be furthest from your mind. It's never going to get better than it is today, the future is bleak!
👍
Nice and enlightening speech..
Just one point.. May be some discussion on 'why the reproduction rate' has gone down would have been useful.
1. Cost of bringing up a baby.
2. Trying to focus on being 'self-sufficient' and more 'career oriented'.
3. Strange and stringent policies of different private companies for women employees.
4. Excessive stress coz of maintaining 'the image'/ fulfilling the 'expectation'.
5. Lesser 'tolerance' among boys and girls ( since both are financially stable thus getting divorced is by no means the 'last option' )..
May be some of the reasons..
Need to tackle these to topple the scenario..
Thinking of people as a resource is so messed up.
The lag also applies to the collapse of our ecology and society, which is already underway
That's the fear-mongering. Society will only crumble if doomers won't take good care of it. What you love, you protect. If people have been propagandized to hate themselves and their countries, of course things will turn to dust.
I disagree!
There are far too many people now living in cities and far too many cars.
Human consumption has no bounds except for natural resources which is reaching a limit.
The growth of concrete jungles, almost concrete dinosaurs consuming everything around them is obvious.
The exponential is fact with a doubling factor, whether it be 50 years or 100 years which means that the people on the planet is more than all the total that ever existed before the previous doubling.
Mother Earth cannot provide and the very air that we breath is being altered by human activity that could be catastrophic within a generation.
Facts speak louder than words.
The most important new fact of this century is sitting on a launch pad in Texas right now, waiting for government permission to begin enormously expanding the resources available to all humans everywhere. When SpaceX succeeds in developing their totally reusable Starship rocket, essentially giving us a 747 to orbit and back, all previous calculations about what Mother Earth can provide become irrelevant. The resources of our entire Solar System will become available, and then the galaxy.
distribution vs overpopulation
@@colinkeizer7353 ok buddy lmao
The people who are still having children now, despite whatever reasons so many don't anymore, will have children that'll tend to have the same demeanor as they do. Other variables not withstanding, population will bounce back at some point. And there's really no need for migration as far as work is concerned. There are developing countries that can handle production. Technology will also continue to advance.
Idiocracy explains it. The smart people remembered to use contraception. The stupid people go in raw and don't think of the consequences.
Too bad "investing in health" in this country (USA) means lining the pockets of doctors and healthcare/ medical companies in our for-profit healthcare system. The cost of a good health insurance plan through an employer increases by around 7% or more each year (in our corporation at least). At the same time, the level of benefits and coverage is reduced and out-of-pocket maximums are increased almost every year. It's not hard to see how this is not sustainable. The same goes for education, people's earnings are not keeping up with the ballooning costs of the for-profit private and underfunded public education system. Unless these fundamental pillars of society are democratized so that not only the upper middle class and higher can afford it, not much hope I'm afraid.
The massive human population is bleeding the planet of resources , one billion will keep the plant alive❤
Researching the available data on world resources, population burden, and long term and affluent sustainability, you are almost precisely on target with that number.
agreed
Exactly, user.
Average person: How can we fund a social safety net for our aging population? I guess I'll need to pay more taxes into social security.
Top 1%: Have fun figuring that out while we use our vast reserves of capital to extract resources for our own gain.
Modern Monetary Theorist: Just print more money, and focus spending on developing the resources you'll need to care for an aging population.
Mmmm
If the world wants use to have kids. We need more money. Prices have sky rocketed all across the board. But not are wages. Ever home in my generation has two workers. ( I remember when my mom was a home wife and many others out there were to, how times have changes.)
huh? you just answered your own problem.. you dont need more money, you need to get married. women work now and things arent the same, you either partner up and double your income or stay alone and struggle. most people aren't going to be rich. and a lot of the things we buy today are a waste of money.
@@julius7949 how does that fix the single income issue. Also how is getting married going to fix the income issue. Marriage dose not guaranteed income.
We need an adaptable, flexible economy that values the health of life and planet. Period. Numbers are a form of measurement, not the end all be all of humanity.
Quality over quantity.
I would be happy if the world less be populated!