Before you get too far into it, which do you think, overpopulation is worse or overconsumption is worse? Then, let me know if you changed your mind on the matter. Do they go hand in hand? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
I think you're right, that overconsumption is the real problem. Many big families (I was a Catholic homeschooler, so...I knew a lot of them lol) get blamed for bringing so many people into the world. Yet those are the same families who can't afford to waste food, the kids wear hand-me-downs and share everything...Big families are just often (not always obviously) less wasteful.
@@erinsheridan4593 precisely! I grew up in a family of 5 and with standard American practices like eating meat and consuming plastic but like you said we never wasted food, always shopped second hand, carpooled and so much more which is probably more than families of 4 and less do. Definitely food for thought
Overconsumption is definitely the issue. I see it in my young friends a lot especially the ones who are making very good money at the moment. Its just crazy all that they buy and get tired of quickly. Fortunately most have been taught to donate to thrift stores but.. sigh. These are my 20 something group of friends. They fast food a lot which creates unrecyclable waste. All I can do is share what I am learning from sites like yours with them and hopefully get them to think more about what they are doing. Anna In Ohio.
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist We try.. we have a lot of good front porch conversations in the summer( my husband and I along with our younger generation and sometimes their Mom too) so hopefully they are listening. The best way is to lead by example. My "girls" all have hung out here since they were little and though I thought they weren't paying that much attention all know the basics of canning, gardening, making soap and candles and are now doing that themselves. Anna In Ohio.
Haven't seen the whole video yet but I feel like saying overpopulation is the problem is just a way for westerners to point the finger at developing nations even though they contributed the most to environmental destruction. The major issue though is that as china and india continue to develop, the population will become an issue as a result of more people over consuming.
THIS!!! I talked about this briefly at the end, but you just hit the nail on the head. It's crazy too to think about we always say China is so dirty and India is so dirty, but they're dirty because we give them our trash and recycling and dirty factories to make our wasteful stuff! Couldn't agree more. Overpopulation is really a big issue if we continue to overconsume!
I've always been a strong believer in overpopulation being an issue to the point of it making me bitter and angry at the world and "breeders" but this was very informative and really helped me see it in a different light. Thanks!
Well I think it's important to understand BOTH are the problem. 120 years ago the population was 2 billion, we are locusts raping the planet and population is out of control. Do we think that if population had stayed at 2 billion we would have this issue? Maybe yes, but also 100 years down the road. We must understand what happens at these levels of population, it will lead to war over water mainly, and we are already seeing migration from poorer to richer, so easy to understand, so impossible in the long term. For the long term security of the planet we need population reduction AND reduced consumption, I don't them as choices.
I'm late to the party but wanted to thank you for this sensible debate. I was dragged through the mud by a colleague recently for ''contributing to overpopulation'' by having three children. He felt morally superior to me for only having one. When we got to the bare bones though his one child was formula fed (by choice, no hate but not as environmentally sound as breastfeeding obviously), in disposable diapers and as an only/first child, clothed in all new. My three kids were all breastfed and the younger two used the washable diapers and clothing passed from the oldest. We are also a one car family compared to his two. I could go on. Overpopulation is a lazy argument imo to avoid addressing the more uncomfortable issue of all our overconsumption.
Given that climate change-which the consensus of expert scientific opinion has declared at least 85% of which is driven solely due to human activity-has grown too big and fast not require radical counter measures not only from all government and business sectors but also from all people-there is certainly nothing unethical about expecting responsible humans to reproduce less. Even if believable numbers could ever be tabulated to prove how much climate change is to due to current consumption levels by ~ 4 of the ~ 8.9 billion (the 4 billion being from the more advanced nations and usually cited as habitually over consuming)-and if those 4 billion had switched to consuming responsibly 20 or 5 years ago-there’s absolutely no plausible reason not to presume that the same birth rate persisting for decades was not what drives the numerous inputs of climate change just as hard or even harder. In any case, the one fact is that there’s at least another billion people dumped on this dying, uglier and increasingly inhospitable planet every decade, and that’s got to be a billion way too much by any measure. Furthermore, in addition to it being at least an accelerant of climate change at least equal to that of consumption rates, in my last post I pointed out how over population is the root cause-and also a convenient excuse for an ever more totalitarian world order-of numerous and multiplying life quality problems, gross economic injustices and soaring environmental destruction. But if you found my analysis and conclusions at all erroneous or questionable please let me know. And as an environmentalist who presumably holds as much of love as I do for what’s left of the natural world, it’s clear that the concern for species extinction and green space destruction held by many so-called “progressive” orgs like the Sierra Club are really so much sham when articles like this underline its long held hypocrisy in the face of soaring human numbers. www.sierraclub.org/sierra/why-i-don-t-stay-awake-night-worrying-about-population-growth That those who don’t perceive that encouraging over population is a deliberate and self-serving policy directive of most governments, MNCs and elite think tanks, certainly among the technologically advanced nations is a testament to how successfully corporate owned mainstream media has blunted the critical thinking faculties of most people in modern societies, along with all the complementary doublespeak from religious and cultural dogma. But those who do see the causalities and still act selfishly are as worse if not more so than those who over consume. Thus, there is hardly anything unethical about asking people to reproduce responsibly, especially since there’s no undo button.
Overpopulation is a big issue. Perhaps not as much as overconsumption but they go hand in hand. I have seen the population of the US double in my lifetime. I have also see the per capita consumption also easily triple in my lifetime. An example would be one you could perhaps relate to. I grew up in a military family in the 1950s and 1960s. We were considered solidly middle class (my father was a command Sargent Major) yet we actually owned so much less than the typical military family of today. No family, not one had more than one car. A large majority had no cars. Obviously no such thing as a cell phone but the average family had no house phone either. There was a common pay phone in the building hallway. We owned enough clothing to last from laundry to laundry day. And btw there were no dryers in the military housing only indoor and outdoor lines. Lifestyle habits were different too. People would have been stunned to see someone drive their children to school. You walked, biked, or rode a bus. Period. Even the General’s kids. I see the photo of your quarters. They are so much larger than military housing then. Yet I see people looking for off base housing looking for 4,5,6 bedroom housing. It boggles the mind. Back to the population idea. Americans are having too many children. One, maybe two max. Your example of someone with six kids all living a lower consumption lifestyle with still produce much a larger carbon footprint than a single child in a high consumption family. There is just no way around it. Just from diet alone. A conscience vegan has a diet footprint of around 1,000 kg/year whereas a meat based diet has one of 3,000 kg/year. While the vegan kid is doing great by reducing his CO2 by 2/3s it still exists and 6 of them is the equivalent of two meat eaters. We must drastically reduce the population growth rate in both the affluent countries and the developing nations to replacement levels or lower. We must drastically reduce our carbon footprints in affluent countries and guide the developing countries who hunger for our lifestyles to a more sustainable path before they become addicted to affluenza too. Another reason for population growth reduction is the fact the in the future there will be a lot less inhabitable and arable land for a growing population. Leading to increased diseases and political strife/wars. And please folks for all those who remain child free do not replace them with a “fur kid” that is a large consumer. A typical American owned dog has a larger carbon footprint than that child in Malawi sadly.
Thanks for the insight! I think it's much easier, though, to convince someone to quit using plastic than to convince them to not have children. I think that is why we need to start with overconsumption. Do you have an article for that stat about dog owners? I think it really depends on the dog owner. For example, the only new items we buy our dog is food (plus we reduced him, no breeding!)
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist Interesting I was going along with this till she mentioned fur babies versus human ones?? Mine use human toys from the thrift store old footballs, frisbees, balls I never buy dog toys from the store. They do eat dog kibble but also lots of fresh veggies their current favorite is shredded zucchini in their kibble. I do have one child but she's all grown up now. Anna In Ohio.
I think the difference between the "solutions" to overpopulation and overconsumption are so vastly different that we can pretty much say that overconsumption is the problem that must be addressed systemically. "Combating overpopulation" may have negative consequences like distrust in government, targeting vulnerable populations (getting into eugenics). Regardless of the idea that these things are ethical (they're not), there is a real chance that systemic "answers" will create instability, leading to the degradation of the very systems/governments that can actually make a difference when it comes to emissions. Focusing on overconsumption on the other hand can target the areas that consume the most without significantly decreasing quality of life or targeting vulnerable people. I think the individual choice to have less children is a great one, but on a systemic level, combatting overconsumption should be the focus.
Wow such good points!! I agree with this so much. Both might need to be addressed but overconsumption can definitely be addressed ethically. Well said!!
I live in a historic neighborhood. 100 years ago a family of 5 or 6 would live in a 1000 sq ft home. Maybe a little more or less but each kid didn't have their own bedroom, closet, car etc. They had fewer clothes, toys, etc..... Most families until the 70s only had 1 car.
The idea that to save the planet we should all live poorer lives is an unlikely sell. Obviously where we stand today over consumption by rich countries is the urgent issue, but overcoming religious objections to birth control and using tax breaks for smaller families would really be of value. Giving women rights over their own bodies would be a good start. And I question whether politicians and businesses are really interested, growing populations = more tax payers and more consumers. We have to find a form for success on reduced GDP's. I do not believe the human race has long to live because I don't believe anyone is REALLY interested in the necessary urgency for action. The planet will shake us off as it has shaken off 98% of all species so far.
Yes!! sex education and access to contraceptives is so important. Even education in general so women don't feel the need to start a family because they don't have access to a career.
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist The most important thing to understand is that Catholic and Muslim leaders policies on this are far and away the first problem in tackling it. Cast of the man made manacles of religion, it's a good way to start.
I’m definitely team ‘many things are the problem’, but I do believe overconsumption is where it starts as you explained with the couple that does or doesn’t have a child. We need to educate the beauty of conscious consumption (minimalism or not) and how to grow their own food. I know more people are gardening now, but we need to encourage even more to get into it and those who’ve started to stick with it. I think backyard gardens are the gate way to discussing and showing people how to live more eco-friendly.
Definitely many things to blame for climate change, but if you think about it, things like factory farming, oil companies, and companies like Amazon are the top polluters but only because we as a society overconsume. So many important tings we need to teach people and should be taught in school! These are all great points :)
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist I completely agree that you can pinpoint the biggest culprits of pollution and that it is due to our consumption. If those two things shifted towards eco-friendly solutions, the world would be in a much better position with climate change.
Issues and feedback with this video 0:40 to 1:01 - Yes they use the "overpopulation card" because we all contribute in some way to global warming, some more than others, Mostly companies are the ones who are contributing most but try to blame people for global warming, though that doesn't mean that each person doesn't contribute, whether they try prevent it or not. I would admit that I contribute in some ways, but everyone else also contributes to the problem too. Though I do agree that Americans contribute a lot to it, everyone else is to blame too, countries like Germany or Australia are much smaller but still contribute in some way. 1:18 Though this is true that smaller families but the reason that they have a smaller impact in different countries is because they are poorer, cultures do have a significant impact too. 2:09 Inherently being in a country doesn't mean that your carbon footprint is going to be large, the wealth of a country contributes to what someone can get access to 2:22 People would love to have the luxuries, espically if they are poor. 2:28 to 2:33 Actually you may not have a carbon footprint but countries like China have one of the most largest CO2 emissions 2:50 While Yes that we should be consuming less, that doesn't mean that our lives would be good, yes there are some who have way too much BUT If you had 10 billion on the world who consumed less VS Our world today with 7 billion people The one with 10 billion would suck, we would have to basically be vegans, consume veggies and restrict our lives too much to be sustainable for the planet 3:40 That would be the only way to sustain the planet, but even if we had a mimalist lifestyle, that would be undermined by the 10 billion other people who consume the resources that we would if we didnt choose to be a mimalist 4:24 I agree, we need to teach our children to not be today's consumer, we need to teach them to be concious on these issues 5:12 I mean it would be a good way to stop overconsumption from occuring, having more than one child just contributes to the problem, we can hardly feed the world, there are 689 million people who are living in poverty, 9 million die from hunger. having a child just contributes to this problem by increasing the number of mouths we have to feed rather than stick with the current population and try to feed them before we start increasing 5:13 Even if we were to educate our children to be responsible, that doesn't mean that they wont consume some sort of resource, and no technology nor education could save us if we kept increasing the population 6:28 They are both a problem that contribute in their own ways, it doesn't matter if we didn't overconsume, but if we had 10 billion people(or too many people) then our quality of lives would go down as the wealth is redistributed to everyone, If we have both a lower population and didn't overconsume, it would be better overal for everyone's quality of life and would stop global warming all together(or at least delay it) 6:40 I can tell you where is coming from, Everyone one, Every individual on Earth consumes some form of energy or resource, to get a car, using electricity or to go on public transport, they contribute to carbon emissions, we are at the point where technology and society cannot keep up with trying to slow down the carbon emissions per year, having more children and people on the planet causes this inherently because we try to give everyone equal quality of life which ultimately is failing. No matter what country you are in, we consume some form of a resource at different amounts, and that number increases as more people are in the world 9:05 Of course in the shortterm the emissions wouldnt magically disapear, It would reduce overtime, having a less higher population makes it more easier to reduce the future amount of emissions in the Earth 9:58 Well no, they would be less wasteful if they didn't even bother having a kid, its better than being extremely wasteful, it doesn't disappear if you didn't have a kid 10:12 It is issue as I said before, even if we consumed the bare minmal, having more than 10 billion people certainly won't help with climate change 10:20 Thats because people don't like talking about it, they are afraid that the population will go into the negatives and that their rights will be taken away, and religious views(since most religions promote having a lot of children then to be sustainable about it because of the high death rates of the past which has passed onto today). Most of the things that they do talk about is not what people areACTUALLY concerned about overpopulation 1. Our living standards would be lowered to sustainable use the planet Which is near impossible since every person would contribute in some way, This could lead to resource shortages and possibly food shortages, Our land nor resources is not infinite, we will run out, 2. Technology might not save us Hoping for a technology to save us from starvation and not enough resources is way too hopeful, what if the technology is outpaced by the population? The tech might only be relevant to a much smaller population(ie a tech made during 10 billion people on the Earth but would only be efficient on a 7 billion population planet) We need to try sustain this *current* population, not barely cling on to stability when there are people starving still in the world and dying from poverty 10:33 There are muitlple factors yes, But overpopulation is one of those issues and denying that its a problem is missing the mark completely, Overconsumption contributes to the problem but so does overpopulation and other factors 10:50 Actually stopping our expansion would help too, we should stop cutting down trees and taking away land by not having so many people, we could stop taking away the enviroment from nature but that would mean a sustainable but not good lifestyle for each individual, espically when the population is increased and we have to cram more people into a smaller area 11:11 No, having six kids would still contribute to the problem, and once again even if everyone acted responsbly with the resources, we would still increase our consumption by increasing the population, It would only delay a worldwide resource war, once the resources and the land of the world were to be used up entirely 11:18 Hardly, Having 1 kid is still better than having 6 children that 1 kid would consume less than those 6 children, since the 1 kid would take up less space than those 6 children combined The 6 children, even if they lived with less of a carbon footprint would still need space to live, and assuming they were living a less overconsumption life, they would probably have to live with the bare minimal essentials, which is a bed, water, food and the bare mimimal entertainment and personal belongings(1 item for each of those) This would lessen the quality of life for those 6 children in comparison to the single child, who would live a better life than those six children since they would have to share the resources while the 11:37 It can be sustained *But what would everyone's lives be like?* it would probably be very poor and mimalistic lifestyle, assuming that technology was not able to keep up with the population demand to try and to reduce global warming 12:03 I do agree that we need to consume less BUT Having a high population doesn't help either 12:14 We could live the lifestyle we already have if we reduced the amount of waste and resources we consume within the world by redistributing the amount of wealth to a fewer amount of people(Maybe 1-2 billion would be sustainable) 12:20 I might as well leave a summary here to why BOTH overconsumption and overpopulation are problems We have more people on the Earth, we are forced to redistribute wealth if we want to give everyone to sustain a equal quality of life(food, water, shelter, electricity) But money nor resources are unlimited If we were a mimilaist soicety, it would be undermined by the amount of people we have to cloth, shelter and feed, if that number was 10 billion, because we would simply *delay* our downfall but not stop it, we would simply live a lifestyle that would be inbewteen a medieval peasant and a person in the 1930s, not great but better than starving But if we still consumed a lot at the current population then yes that would lead to our downfall too but more quickly than the other, however we would be able to have a good life inturn, Most of the things that they do talk about is not what people are ACTUALLY concerned about overpopulation 1. Our living standards would be lowered to sustainable use the planet Which is near impossible since every person would contribute in some way, This could lead to resource shortages and possibly food shortages, Our land nor resources is not infinite, we will run out, 2. Technology might not save us Hoping for a technology to save us from starvation and not enough resources is way too hopeful, what if the technology is outpaced by the population? The tech might only be relevant to a much smaller population(ie a tech made during 10 billion people on the Earth but would only be efficient on a 7 billion population planet) In Short, Everyone should overconsume less AND have less children so that we can all have a equal lifestyle and sustain the planet by fixing our current problems rather than contributing to it by having a lot more children who will force us to try make their lives good while we can't even help those in our current population of 8 billion(or near I think) We need to fix our problems, not contribute to them
Yes!! Education is so important. I think overconsumption is definitely more of a problem than overpopulation, but it's complicated . Both can contribute as you have stated. Thanks for this video on a very important topic.
When I became pregnant with my first child, i came across an article about the option to thrift all the baby’s gear and clothing instead of buying new. I was so shocked and continued diving into the subject on different e-platforms. As a result the only new items I have at the moment are those that my baby’s grandma bought her, which can be count by the fingers on one hand. I am also not using any disposables such as nappies, wipes, etc. With my next kids i will try to step up with elimination communication.
As we have seen, nobody is lucky enough not to be born, everybody is unlucky enough to have been born - and particularly bad luck it is.” ― David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
The only truly sustainable world is one which does not rely at all on non-renewable resources. Therefore, you must do agriculture without fossil fuel inputs. This means not tractors, pesticides, herbicides, manufactured fertilizers, etc. If you are living in this kind of a world, which is how humans grew food for thousands of years, you cannot support more than ~ 1 billion people. Therefore, overpopulation and overconsumption are both issues and need to be addressed hand in hand until we are again at ~ 1 billion people of mainly self-sufficient organic farmers.
But more people, for instance in poor countries, mean that they'll need to consume more resources, such as the basics of food and water, but those resources are not going to magically appear. I'm not talking here about them over-consuming unnecessary gadgets of things of that nature. Add to that the problems that climate change is having in many countries around the world and the supply of food, for those ever-increasing populations, is only going to mean that there will be lots of suffering, illness and eventual death. To answer your question, current overconsumption is causing serious problems to our planet environment right now. We can't keep going at this pace of consumption. I believe both are a big problem. Both going on at the current rates will only cause global collapse even sooner!
Hi this was so interesting - over consumption definitely a huge problem in this day & age - thanks for the lovely video photo content - I enjoy your channel you are so knowledgeable 💚💚 love from Israel 🇮🇱
I would say it does matter how many more people we have on the earth. Yes, we have the legacy load of carbon, but we're still also actively releasing carbon into the atmosphere. It's definitely a combination of both, so both must be considered in a comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, stark blame on overpopulation has been coopted by eco fascism as a way to cast blame on developing countries (which is extremely harmful and inaccurate rhetoric), because as you state, the research blatantly reveals that waste per capita is MUCH higher in developed nations. That being said, overpopulation is still logistically an issue because participation in capitalism is vastly unavoidable. If we're just talking about developed nations for a moment, the majority of people hardly consider the environment in their decision to reproduce, so they're not going to raise eco conscious children. Any child can grow up to be the next eco warrior, or the next Jeff Bezos, you just never know. Also, I know this is a hot take, but I find it strange that people seem to be obsessed from a young age about reproducing their genes specifically. There are so many children in the foster care systems and others needing adoption, yet those options are hardly considered by many people. I just think that humans have an outdated view of "legacy" and the perceived need to create a "mini me" supersedes any consideration of the fact that you never know what/who that child will be. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that overconsumption is absolutely the primary issue!! But overconsumption is only possible with a population and is amplified through a sustained/growing population - neither occurs in a vacuum, they go hand in hand. I just think that people (again, just speaking of people in the west here) are so quick to dismiss the idea that overpopulation is an issue because deep down, they simply want to have their own children and don't challenge that desire. At the end of the day, it's a personal choice, though in my personal experience there's much more of a stigma against people who cannot or decide not to have children! I appreciate you continuing the dialogue and providing the space for different perspectives to be discussed.
WOW excellent points, thanks for the conversation! Yeah, they certainly go hand in hand and it's such a tricky topic!! I think the main point I was going for was pointing our fingers at those reproducing and saying they're causing climate change when it's really 100s of things bottled up together causing climate change, overpopulation is probably one of them! It also blows my mind how it's all about reproducing. We can still be parents of other children without having our own! It's insane how much negative feedback I get from family and friends when I say I don't want to have biological children. I love having conversations with everyone in the comments so I'm happy to hear all sides and all takes :) Thanks, Susie!!
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist Thank YOU! You did a great job explaining all the important topics, because overconsumption must first be understood before touching overpopulation at risk of the latter being vilified.
STUPID question - it's VERY obviously BOTH, in combination. Unless you have a cure to greed (none seems to be on the horizon), people (on average) will overconsume according to their ability to do so. So, as technological ability to do so increases, population will have to DECREASE, or we will end up in a resource catastrophe, abusing and destroying our resource bases, creating a rapid downwards spiral of conflict. It will only end when we have reduced the population and/or the ability to access resources, down to a sustainable level.
I appreciate your feedback and contribution to the conversation, but I will ask that you respect everyone's opinions in return and not call anyone stupid or any other names :) You make some good points though! Thank you :)
This so well-done and well-researched. I’ve always thought that if you’ve ever flown across the U.S. you could never think earth is overpopulated. There is PLENTY of space! It’s how we’re using the available resources. (and how were treating this poor rock)
Every time you mention how you talk too fast and people can change the speed of the video, I laugh because I watch almost all UA-cam videos on 1.25 or 1.5 speed (including yours!).
I havent watched this video yet, but isn't it both contributing to the problem to climate change? And getting rid one vs the other wouldnt make a difference as long as the other still existed?
I disagree and believe overpopulation is the huge issue. It takes 500 years just to produce one layer of topsoil- that’s a problem seeing how the world is running out of healthy topsoil and it’s unlikely the world is going to turn vegan any time soon. A capitalist economic system is just going to encourage the building of more and more wasteful businesses. Overconsumption will continue as long as Capitalism is our system. I agree though that it’s too late. I still plan to continue to personally live as sustainably as possible though.
even if we all went vegan, we would still lose topsoil. it's not about diet but about poor farming practices :( that is great! I'm glad we all get to be part of the solution (i hope) and not the problem at least!
I am a minimalist. I have no kids. Because I am a minimalist, I live a no-stress life. My bank account keeps growing to the point that I can financially support a small kingdom. Life is better when we just think of ourselves and not about procreating.
I really enjoy your videos and am slowly watching them all in no particular order 😅 This is an interesting subject and I think that overpopulation is going to be a problem IF over consumption is not addressed (which... doesn't seem to matter to most people, unfortunately). I don't have (nor don't want) children, don't own a car and moved to a smaller space recently, but it frustrates me to know that as ONE person, even if I do my best, I will never be able to 'compete' with the big corporations who just destroy everything without any regards for future generations. I try to have hope, but it's not always easy 😬 (Also, you should check Terra Nova on Disney+, it's a tv show that starts with a family that has 3 children, when the limit is 2. Very good show!)
Before you get too far into it, which do you think, overpopulation is worse or overconsumption is worse? Then, let me know if you changed your mind on the matter. Do they go hand in hand? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
I think you're right, that overconsumption is the real problem. Many big families (I was a Catholic homeschooler, so...I knew a lot of them lol) get blamed for bringing so many people into the world. Yet those are the same families who can't afford to waste food, the kids wear hand-me-downs and share everything...Big families are just often (not always obviously) less wasteful.
@@erinsheridan4593 precisely! I grew up in a family of 5 and with standard American practices like eating meat and consuming plastic but like you said we never wasted food, always shopped second hand, carpooled and so much more which is probably more than families of 4 and less do. Definitely food for thought
Overconsumption is definitely the issue. I see it in my young friends a lot especially the ones who are making very good money at the moment. Its just crazy all that they buy and get tired of quickly. Fortunately most have been taught to donate to thrift stores but.. sigh. These are my 20 something group of friends. They fast food a lot which creates unrecyclable waste. All I can do is share what I am learning from sites like yours with them and hopefully get them to think more about what they are doing. Anna In Ohio.
@@buckeyedav1 i hope your message gets through to them!
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist We try.. we have a lot of good front porch conversations in the summer( my husband and I along with our younger generation and sometimes their Mom too) so hopefully they are listening. The best way is to lead by example. My "girls" all have hung out here since they were little and though I thought they weren't paying that much attention all know the basics of canning, gardening, making soap and candles and are now doing that themselves. Anna In Ohio.
Haven't seen the whole video yet but I feel like saying overpopulation is the problem is just a way for westerners to point the finger at developing nations even though they contributed the most to environmental destruction. The major issue though is that as china and india continue to develop, the population will become an issue as a result of more people over consuming.
THIS!!! I talked about this briefly at the end, but you just hit the nail on the head. It's crazy too to think about we always say China is so dirty and India is so dirty, but they're dirty because we give them our trash and recycling and dirty factories to make our wasteful stuff!
Couldn't agree more. Overpopulation is really a big issue if we continue to overconsume!
I've always been a strong believer in overpopulation being an issue to the point of it making me bitter and angry at the world and "breeders" but this was very informative and really helped me see it in a different light. Thanks!
for sure! I used to think the same until a lightbulb just went off: what if we consume too much?
with you there... not to mention animals' home gets smaller & smaller... 😒
Well I think it's important to understand BOTH are the problem. 120 years ago the population was 2 billion, we are locusts raping the planet and population is out of control. Do we think that if population had stayed at 2 billion we would have this issue? Maybe yes, but also 100 years down the road. We must understand what happens at these levels of population, it will lead to war over water mainly, and we are already seeing migration from poorer to richer, so easy to understand, so impossible in the long term. For the long term security of the planet we need population reduction AND reduced consumption, I don't them as choices.
I'm late to the party but wanted to thank you for this sensible debate. I was dragged through the mud by a colleague recently for ''contributing to overpopulation'' by having three children. He felt morally superior to me for only having one. When we got to the bare bones though his one child was formula fed (by choice, no hate but not as environmentally sound as breastfeeding obviously), in disposable diapers and as an only/first child, clothed in all new. My three kids were all breastfed and the younger two used the washable diapers and clothing passed from the oldest. We are also a one car family compared to his two. I could go on. Overpopulation is a lazy argument imo to avoid addressing the more uncomfortable issue of all our overconsumption.
It's definitely a combo and a collective problem
You yourself aren't going to fix either one
There's a saying, there's enough for everyone's need not everyone's greed.
WOW what a great quote!!
But the ones who end up defining the needs are the greedy - which is what has destroyed every attempt at creating such a system.
@@Bookhermit mmm...I see your point! I think what Andy means though is our basic human needs
Given that climate change-which the consensus of expert scientific opinion has declared at least 85% of which is driven solely due to human activity-has grown too big and fast not require radical counter measures not only from all government and business sectors but also from all people-there is certainly nothing unethical about expecting responsible humans to reproduce less. Even if believable numbers could ever be tabulated to prove how much climate change is to due to current consumption levels by ~ 4 of the ~ 8.9 billion (the 4 billion being from the more advanced nations and usually cited as habitually over consuming)-and if those 4 billion had switched to consuming responsibly 20 or 5 years ago-there’s absolutely no plausible reason not to presume that the same birth rate persisting for decades was not what drives the numerous inputs of climate change just as hard or even harder. In any case, the one fact is that there’s at least another billion people dumped on this dying, uglier and increasingly inhospitable planet every decade, and that’s got to be a billion way too much by any measure.
Furthermore, in addition to it being at least an accelerant of climate change at least equal to that of consumption rates, in my last post I pointed out how over population is the root cause-and also a convenient excuse for an ever more totalitarian world order-of numerous and multiplying life quality problems, gross economic injustices and soaring environmental destruction. But if you found my analysis and conclusions at all erroneous or questionable please let me know.
And as an environmentalist who presumably holds as much of love as I do for what’s left of the natural world, it’s clear that the concern for species extinction and green space destruction held by many so-called “progressive” orgs like the Sierra Club are really so much sham when articles like this underline its long held hypocrisy in the face of soaring human numbers. www.sierraclub.org/sierra/why-i-don-t-stay-awake-night-worrying-about-population-growth
That those who don’t perceive that encouraging over population is a deliberate and self-serving policy directive of most governments, MNCs and elite think tanks, certainly among the technologically advanced nations is a testament to how successfully corporate owned mainstream media has blunted the critical thinking faculties of most people in modern societies, along with all the complementary doublespeak from religious and cultural dogma. But those who do see the causalities and still act selfishly are as worse if not more so than those who over consume. Thus, there is hardly anything unethical about asking people to reproduce responsibly, especially since there’s no undo button.
Overpopulation is a big issue. Perhaps not as much as overconsumption but they go hand in hand. I have seen the population of the US double in my lifetime. I have also see the per capita consumption also easily triple in my lifetime. An example would be one you could perhaps relate to. I grew up in a military family in the 1950s and 1960s. We were considered solidly middle class (my father was a command Sargent Major) yet we actually owned so much less than the typical military family of today. No family, not one had more than one car. A large majority had no cars. Obviously no such thing as a cell phone but the average family had no house phone either. There was a common pay phone in the building hallway. We owned enough clothing to last from laundry to laundry day. And btw there were no dryers in the military housing only indoor and outdoor lines. Lifestyle habits were different too. People would have been stunned to see someone drive their children to school. You walked, biked, or rode a bus. Period. Even the General’s kids. I see the photo of your quarters. They are so much larger than military housing then. Yet I see people looking for off base housing looking for 4,5,6 bedroom housing. It boggles the mind.
Back to the population idea. Americans are having too many children. One, maybe two max. Your example of someone with six kids all living a lower consumption lifestyle with still produce much a larger carbon footprint than a single child in a high consumption family. There is just no way around it. Just from diet alone. A conscience vegan has a diet footprint of around 1,000 kg/year whereas a meat based diet has one of 3,000 kg/year. While the vegan kid is doing great by reducing his CO2 by 2/3s it still exists and 6 of them is the equivalent of two meat eaters.
We must drastically reduce the population growth rate in both the affluent countries and the developing nations to replacement levels or lower. We must drastically reduce our carbon footprints in affluent countries and guide the developing countries who hunger for our lifestyles to a more sustainable path before they become addicted to affluenza too. Another reason for population growth reduction is the fact the in the future there will be a lot less inhabitable and arable land for a growing population. Leading to increased diseases and political strife/wars.
And please folks for all those who remain child free do not replace them with a “fur kid” that is a large consumer. A typical American owned dog has a larger carbon footprint than that child in Malawi sadly.
Thanks for the insight! I think it's much easier, though, to convince someone to quit using plastic than to convince them to not have children. I think that is why we need to start with overconsumption. Do you have an article for that stat about dog owners? I think it really depends on the dog owner. For example, the only new items we buy our dog is food (plus we reduced him, no breeding!)
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist Interesting I was going along with this till she mentioned fur babies versus human ones?? Mine use human toys from the thrift store old footballs, frisbees, balls I never buy dog toys from the store. They do eat dog kibble but also lots of fresh veggies their current favorite is shredded zucchini in their kibble. I do have one child but she's all grown up now. Anna In Ohio.
@@buckeyedav1 Oh interesting
any environmental group which doesn't put population at the center of the issue is just not serious
interesting take. I agree to some extent, though I don't think it's the central problem
I think the difference between the "solutions" to overpopulation and overconsumption are so vastly different that we can pretty much say that overconsumption is the problem that must be addressed systemically. "Combating overpopulation" may have negative consequences like distrust in government, targeting vulnerable populations (getting into eugenics). Regardless of the idea that these things are ethical (they're not), there is a real chance that systemic "answers" will create instability, leading to the degradation of the very systems/governments that can actually make a difference when it comes to emissions. Focusing on overconsumption on the other hand can target the areas that consume the most without significantly decreasing quality of life or targeting vulnerable people. I think the individual choice to have less children is a great one, but on a systemic level, combatting overconsumption should be the focus.
Wow such good points!! I agree with this so much. Both might need to be addressed but overconsumption can definitely be addressed ethically. Well said!!
I live in a historic neighborhood. 100 years ago a family of 5 or 6 would live in a 1000 sq ft home. Maybe a little more or less but each kid didn't have their own bedroom, closet, car etc. They had fewer clothes, toys, etc..... Most families until the 70s only had 1 car.
Wow it is absolutely insane how much we've changed as a consumeristic, materialistic society. It's really sad, honestly
The idea that to save the planet we should all live poorer lives is an unlikely sell. Obviously where we stand today over consumption by rich countries is the urgent issue, but overcoming religious objections to birth control and using tax breaks for smaller families would really be of value. Giving women rights over their own bodies would be a good start. And I question whether politicians and businesses are really interested, growing populations = more tax payers and more consumers. We have to find a form for success on reduced GDP's. I do not believe the human race has long to live because I don't believe anyone is REALLY interested in the necessary urgency for action. The planet will shake us off as it has shaken off 98% of all species so far.
Yes!! sex education and access to contraceptives is so important. Even education in general so women don't feel the need to start a family because they don't have access to a career.
EXACTLY!! We need to provide these opportunities to all women especially, but even men need the knowledge!
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist The most important thing to understand is that Catholic and Muslim leaders policies on this are far and away the first problem in tackling it. Cast of the man made manacles of religion, it's a good way to start.
I’m definitely team ‘many things are the problem’, but I do believe overconsumption is where it starts as you explained with the couple that does or doesn’t have a child. We need to educate the beauty of conscious consumption (minimalism or not) and how to grow their own food. I know more people are gardening now, but we need to encourage even more to get into it and those who’ve started to stick with it. I think backyard gardens are the gate way to discussing and showing people how to live more eco-friendly.
Definitely many things to blame for climate change, but if you think about it, things like factory farming, oil companies, and companies like Amazon are the top polluters but only because we as a society overconsume. So many important tings we need to teach people and should be taught in school! These are all great points :)
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist I completely agree that you can pinpoint the biggest culprits of pollution and that it is due to our consumption. If those two things shifted towards eco-friendly solutions, the world would be in a much better position with climate change.
Issues and feedback with this video
0:40 to 1:01 - Yes they use the "overpopulation card" because we all contribute in some way to global warming,
some more than others,
Mostly companies are the ones who are contributing most but try to blame people for global warming, though that doesn't mean that each person doesn't contribute, whether they try prevent it or not. I would admit that I contribute in some ways, but everyone else also contributes to the problem too.
Though I do agree that Americans contribute a lot to it, everyone else is to blame too, countries like Germany or Australia are much smaller but still contribute in some way.
1:18
Though this is true that smaller families but the reason that they have a smaller impact in different countries is because they are poorer, cultures do have a significant impact too.
2:09
Inherently being in a country doesn't mean that your carbon footprint is going to be large, the wealth of a country contributes to what someone can get access to
2:22
People would love to have the luxuries, espically if they are poor.
2:28 to 2:33
Actually you may not have a carbon footprint but countries like China have one of the most largest CO2 emissions
2:50
While Yes that we should be consuming less, that doesn't mean that our lives would be good, yes there are some who have way too much
BUT
If you had 10 billion on the world who consumed less
VS
Our world today with 7 billion people
The one with 10 billion would suck, we would have to basically be vegans, consume veggies and restrict our lives too much to be sustainable for the planet
3:40
That would be the only way to sustain the planet, but even if we had a mimalist lifestyle, that would be undermined by the 10 billion other people who consume the resources that we would if we didnt choose to be a mimalist
4:24
I agree, we need to teach our children to not be today's consumer, we need to teach them to be concious on these issues
5:12
I mean it would be a good way to stop overconsumption from occuring, having more than one child just contributes to the problem,
we can hardly feed the world, there are 689 million people who are living in poverty, 9 million die from hunger. having a child just contributes to this problem by increasing the number of mouths we have to feed rather than stick with the current population and try to feed them before we start increasing
5:13
Even if we were to educate our children to be responsible, that doesn't mean that they wont consume some sort of resource, and no technology nor education could save us if we kept increasing the population
6:28
They are both a problem that contribute in their own ways,
it doesn't matter if we didn't overconsume, but if we had 10 billion people(or too many people) then our quality of lives would go down as the wealth is redistributed to everyone,
If we have both a lower population and didn't overconsume, it would be better overal for everyone's quality of life and would stop global warming all together(or at least delay it)
6:40
I can tell you where is coming from,
Everyone one,
Every individual on Earth consumes some form of energy or resource, to get a car, using electricity or to go on public transport, they contribute to carbon emissions,
we are at the point where technology and society cannot keep up with trying to slow down the carbon emissions per year, having more children and people on the planet causes this inherently because we try to give everyone equal quality of life which ultimately is failing.
No matter what country you are in, we consume some form of a resource at different amounts, and that number increases as more people are in the world
9:05
Of course in the shortterm the emissions wouldnt magically disapear,
It would reduce overtime, having a less higher population makes it more easier to reduce the future amount of emissions in the Earth
9:58
Well no, they would be less wasteful if they didn't even bother having a kid,
its better than being extremely wasteful, it doesn't disappear if you didn't have a kid
10:12
It is issue as I said before, even if we consumed the bare minmal, having more than 10 billion people certainly won't help with climate change
10:20
Thats because people don't like talking about it, they are afraid that the population will go into the negatives and that their rights will be taken away, and religious views(since most religions promote having a lot of children then to be sustainable about it because of the high death rates of the past which has passed onto today).
Most of the things that they do talk about is not what people areACTUALLY concerned about overpopulation
1. Our living standards would be lowered to sustainable use the planet
Which is near impossible since every person would contribute in some way,
This could lead to resource shortages and possibly food shortages,
Our land nor resources is not infinite, we will run out,
2. Technology might not save us
Hoping for a technology to save us from starvation and not enough resources is way too hopeful,
what if the technology is outpaced by the population? The tech might only be relevant to a much smaller population(ie a tech made during 10 billion people on the Earth but would only be efficient on a 7 billion population planet)
We need to try sustain this *current* population, not barely cling on to stability when there are people starving still in the world and dying from poverty
10:33
There are muitlple factors yes,
But overpopulation is one of those issues and denying that its a problem is missing the mark completely,
Overconsumption contributes to the problem but so does overpopulation and other factors
10:50
Actually stopping our expansion would help too, we should stop cutting down trees and taking away land by not having so many people, we could stop taking away the enviroment from nature but that would mean a sustainable but not good lifestyle for each individual, espically when the population is increased and we have to cram more people into a smaller area
11:11
No, having six kids would still contribute to the problem, and once again even if everyone acted responsbly with the resources, we would still increase our consumption by increasing the population,
It would only delay a worldwide resource war, once the resources and the land of the world were to be used up entirely
11:18
Hardly,
Having 1 kid is still better than having 6 children
that 1 kid would consume less than those 6 children, since the 1 kid would take up less space than those 6 children combined
The 6 children, even if they lived with less of a carbon footprint would still need space to live, and assuming they were living a less overconsumption life, they would probably have to live with the bare minimal essentials,
which is a bed, water, food and the bare mimimal entertainment and personal belongings(1 item for each of those)
This would lessen the quality of life for those 6 children in comparison to the single child, who would live a better life than those six children since they would have to share the resources while the
11:37
It can be sustained
*But what would everyone's lives be like?*
it would probably be very poor and mimalistic lifestyle, assuming that technology was not able to keep up with the population demand to try and to reduce global warming
12:03
I do agree that we need to consume less
BUT
Having a high population doesn't help either
12:14
We could live the lifestyle we already have if we reduced the amount of waste and resources we consume within the world by redistributing the amount of wealth to a fewer amount of people(Maybe 1-2 billion would be sustainable)
12:20
I might as well leave a summary here to why BOTH overconsumption and overpopulation are problems
We have more people on the Earth, we are forced to redistribute wealth if we want to give everyone to sustain a equal quality of life(food, water, shelter, electricity) But money nor resources are unlimited
If we were a mimilaist soicety, it would be undermined by the amount of people we have to cloth, shelter and feed, if that number was 10 billion, because we would simply *delay* our downfall but not stop it, we would simply live a lifestyle that would be inbewteen a medieval peasant and a person in the 1930s, not great but better than starving
But if we still consumed a lot at the current population then yes that would lead to our downfall too but more quickly than the other, however we would be able to have a good life inturn,
Most of the things that they do talk about is not what people are ACTUALLY concerned about overpopulation
1. Our living standards would be lowered to sustainable use the planet
Which is near impossible since every person would contribute in some way,
This could lead to resource shortages and possibly food shortages,
Our land nor resources is not infinite, we will run out,
2. Technology might not save us
Hoping for a technology to save us from starvation and not enough resources is way too hopeful,
what if the technology is outpaced by the population? The tech might only be relevant to a much smaller population(ie a tech made during 10 billion people on the Earth but would only be efficient on a 7 billion population planet)
In Short,
Everyone should overconsume less AND have less children so that we can all have a equal lifestyle and sustain the planet by fixing our current problems rather than contributing to it by having a lot more children who will force us to try make their lives good while we can't even help those in our current population of 8 billion(or near I think)
We need to fix our problems, not contribute to them
Yes!! Education is so important. I think overconsumption is definitely more of a problem than overpopulation, but it's complicated . Both can contribute as you have stated. Thanks for this video on a very important topic.
It really is complicated! I think overall, we just shouldn't point our fingers as people having children when really all of our actions have an impact
When I became pregnant with my first child, i came across an article about the option to thrift all the baby’s gear and clothing instead of buying new. I was so shocked and continued diving into the subject on different e-platforms.
As a result the only new items I have at the moment are those that my baby’s grandma bought her, which can be count by the fingers on one hand.
I am also not using any disposables such as nappies, wipes, etc.
With my next kids i will try to step up with elimination communication.
love that!
As we have seen, nobody is lucky enough not to be born, everybody is unlucky enough to have been born - and particularly bad luck it is.”
― David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
The only truly sustainable world is one which does not rely at all on non-renewable resources. Therefore, you must do agriculture without fossil fuel inputs. This means not tractors, pesticides, herbicides, manufactured fertilizers, etc. If you are living in this kind of a world, which is how humans grew food for thousands of years, you cannot support more than ~ 1 billion people. Therefore, overpopulation and overconsumption are both issues and need to be addressed hand in hand until we are again at ~ 1 billion people of mainly self-sufficient organic farmers.
I agree!
But more people, for instance in poor countries, mean that they'll need to consume more resources, such as the basics of food and water, but those resources are not going to magically appear. I'm not talking here about them over-consuming unnecessary gadgets of things of that nature. Add to that the problems that climate change is having in many countries around the world and the supply of food, for those ever-increasing populations, is only going to mean that there will be lots of suffering, illness and eventual death.
To answer your question, current overconsumption is causing serious problems to our planet environment right now. We can't keep going at this pace of consumption. I believe both are a big problem. Both going on at the current rates will only cause global collapse even sooner!
Definitely both are big issues, but I still believe one is a more ethical fix than the other. Lots of factors hinge on changing either of these things
Hi this was so interesting - over consumption definitely a huge problem in this day & age - thanks for the lovely video photo content - I enjoy your channel you are so knowledgeable 💚💚 love from Israel 🇮🇱
Thanks so much, Sharon, I appreciate your support! I'm glad this video was insightful :)
I would say it does matter how many more people we have on the earth. Yes, we have the legacy load of carbon, but we're still also actively releasing carbon into the atmosphere. It's definitely a combination of both, so both must be considered in a comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, stark blame on overpopulation has been coopted by eco fascism as a way to cast blame on developing countries (which is extremely harmful and inaccurate rhetoric), because as you state, the research blatantly reveals that waste per capita is MUCH higher in developed nations. That being said, overpopulation is still logistically an issue because participation in capitalism is vastly unavoidable. If we're just talking about developed nations for a moment, the majority of people hardly consider the environment in their decision to reproduce, so they're not going to raise eco conscious children. Any child can grow up to be the next eco warrior, or the next Jeff Bezos, you just never know. Also, I know this is a hot take, but I find it strange that people seem to be obsessed from a young age about reproducing their genes specifically. There are so many children in the foster care systems and others needing adoption, yet those options are hardly considered by many people. I just think that humans have an outdated view of "legacy" and the perceived need to create a "mini me" supersedes any consideration of the fact that you never know what/who that child will be. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that overconsumption is absolutely the primary issue!! But overconsumption is only possible with a population and is amplified through a sustained/growing population - neither occurs in a vacuum, they go hand in hand. I just think that people (again, just speaking of people in the west here) are so quick to dismiss the idea that overpopulation is an issue because deep down, they simply want to have their own children and don't challenge that desire. At the end of the day, it's a personal choice, though in my personal experience there's much more of a stigma against people who cannot or decide not to have children! I appreciate you continuing the dialogue and providing the space for different perspectives to be discussed.
WOW excellent points, thanks for the conversation! Yeah, they certainly go hand in hand and it's such a tricky topic!! I think the main point I was going for was pointing our fingers at those reproducing and saying they're causing climate change when it's really 100s of things bottled up together causing climate change, overpopulation is probably one of them! It also blows my mind how it's all about reproducing. We can still be parents of other children without having our own! It's insane how much negative feedback I get from family and friends when I say I don't want to have biological children.
I love having conversations with everyone in the comments so I'm happy to hear all sides and all takes :) Thanks, Susie!!
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist Thank YOU! You did a great job explaining all the important topics, because overconsumption must first be understood before touching overpopulation at risk of the latter being vilified.
@@ChewonThat For sure!! Thank you :)
STUPID question - it's VERY obviously BOTH, in combination.
Unless you have a cure to greed (none seems to be on the horizon), people (on average) will overconsume according to their ability to do so. So, as technological ability to do so increases, population will have to DECREASE, or we will end up in a resource catastrophe, abusing and destroying our resource bases, creating a rapid downwards spiral of conflict.
It will only end when we have reduced the population and/or the ability to access resources, down to a sustainable level.
I appreciate your feedback and contribution to the conversation, but I will ask that you respect everyone's opinions in return and not call anyone stupid or any other names :) You make some good points though! Thank you :)
I love your channel and it is so informative 💚
Thank you so much, I appreciate it :)
This so well-done and well-researched. I’ve always thought that if you’ve ever flown across the U.S. you could never think earth is overpopulated. There is PLENTY of space! It’s how we’re using the available resources. (and how were treating this poor rock)
Isn't it crazy how small of places we cram ourselves into?! A lot of land truly isn't liveable though.
Every time you mention how you talk too fast and people can change the speed of the video, I laugh because I watch almost all UA-cam videos on 1.25 or 1.5 speed (including yours!).
haha thanks i'm just being inclusive
🌱💚🌍
thank youuuu :)
I havent watched this video yet, but isn't it both contributing to the problem to climate change? And getting rid one vs the other wouldnt make a difference as long as the other still existed?
perhaps, it sure is a very nuanced discussion. Did you watch the video?
@@TheSimpleEnvironmentalist Watched it, look at most recent comment
BOTH
ehh not really
I disagree and believe overpopulation is the huge issue.
It takes 500 years just to produce one layer of topsoil- that’s a problem seeing how the world is running out of healthy topsoil and it’s unlikely the world is going to turn vegan any time soon. A capitalist economic system is just going to encourage the building of more and more wasteful businesses.
Overconsumption will continue as long as Capitalism is our system.
I agree though that it’s too late.
I still plan to continue to personally live as sustainably as possible though.
even if we all went vegan, we would still lose topsoil. it's not about diet but about poor farming practices :( that is great! I'm glad we all get to be part of the solution (i hope) and not the problem at least!
I am a minimalist. I have no kids. Because I am a minimalist, I live a no-stress life. My bank account keeps growing to the point that I can financially support a small kingdom. Life is better when we just think of ourselves and not about procreating.
i agree haha! but, some people live happy lives being parents, it's just not for everyone :)
I really enjoy your videos and am slowly watching them all in no particular order 😅
This is an interesting subject and I think that overpopulation is going to be a problem IF over consumption is not addressed (which... doesn't seem to matter to most people, unfortunately).
I don't have (nor don't want) children, don't own a car and moved to a smaller space recently, but it frustrates me to know that as ONE person, even if I do my best, I will never be able to 'compete' with the big corporations who just destroy everything without any regards for future generations.
I try to have hope, but it's not always easy 😬
(Also, you should check Terra Nova on Disney+, it's a tv show that starts with a family that has 3 children, when the limit is 2. Very good show!)
Thank you soooo much!! Ohh nice take on this. it really is hard to have hope!