The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 кві 2024
- Population Collapse: If you’re struggling, consider therapy with our sponsor BetterHelp. Click
betterhelp.com/twobitdavinci for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a
licensed professional specific to your needs.
We have all lived in a world where populations have been exploding, and for good reason. Between advancements in technology and engineering, we've gotten really good at sustaining human life on our precious planet. But we're living in unprecedented times, and we might be looking at the height of human population before a collapse. In my research for this video, I uncovered some startling data, and we need to talk about this. Let's figure this out together!
》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《
Join our Newsletter! geni.us/TwoBitWeekly
Become a Patron! geni.us/TwoBitPatreon
Buying a Tesla? geni.us/GoTesla
》》》OUR PARTNERS《《《
Protect Yourself Online: geni.us/deleteMe
》》》GOING SOLAR?《《《
Save 50% on Solar Panels ⟫ geni.us/SolarSteals
Energy Sage for Solar ⟫ geni.us/EnergySage
》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《
Sponsor A Video! sponsors@twobit.media
》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《
Twitter 》 / twobitdavinci
Facebook 》 / twobitdavinci
Instagram 》 / twobitdavinci
Chapters
0:00 - Introduction
1:40 - The Drop
5:30 - The Birth Rate
7:20 - Country Level
9:00 - Why?
10:50 - Age Demographics
14:50 - Why Populations Matter
18:20 - What can be done?
what we'll cover
two bit da vinci,population collapse,population decline,stephen j shaw,stephen shaw,elon musk,human population growth,human population and the environment,human population dynamics,human population decline,human population growth crash course,We're 1 Generation from Human Extinction - Unpacking Population COLLAPSE,replacement rate,elon musk population collapse,elon musk population decrease,population decrase,World Population Crisis & Why NO ONE Sees it Coming, The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming , Society will collapse, world population, economics explained, data explained. - Наука та технологія
Click betterhelp.com/twobitdavinci for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a
licensed professional specific to your needs.
We're unlucky, more humans means the cost of each humans are low.Humans are expendable!
And btw the governments will eventually take care of births.Humans will be grown in surrogate mothers for optimum performance.
I don’t have children so how about restricting social security payments to what I put in plus inflation?
with greater automation and use of AI we wouldn't need the extra social security. Ai will take care of the elderly efficiently@@RCdiy
Point of order in regards to Russia.
It's not the fall of the Soviet Union or the war in Ukraine that's shrinking Russia's population.
It's the "Double Echo" from both the famine and purges before WWII and the loses from WWII at12.7% (both around 20m dead). The Soviet Union and thus Russia never had a 'baby boom' era post war like the rest of the war which replaced these population loses and thus they're now seeing the effects.
Basically Russia is experiencing what the world will a hundred years earlier.
RealLifeLore has a good video on this.
How 'bout creating content that doesn't send people to therapy
Maybe we need a system that doesn't rely on growth.
Yes, for most of human history we didn't have economic growth.
It does seem like today's Tier 1 economy is a pyramid scheme that's running out of friends-of-friends to rope in....
@@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy No, we just had war & slaughter instead as every two-bit shitbag fought their neighbors to increase their personal power & wealth. Clearly a much better arrangement, right?
Who says that needs to stop? We got a functionally endless supply of resources to feed it. Just look UP. All we gotta do is climb into the sky & figure out how to survive & thrive there.
We have the technology to feed 200 times the current population.
As a 22 year old Canadian guy the main thing holding me back from having kids is housing. I was raised by a single parent and lived in probably 12 different apartments/houses throughout my childhood. I just want a house but the cheapest houses within an hour from me are like half a million for old shitboxes😂
Half million for a 70 year old sewer connection is a realtor- bankster scam we are all suffering from. OUTRAGEOUS.
Buy land and build your own.
@@allan339 There are few empty lots even near the urban areas and where there are some, the price has gone crazy.
@@allan339 Thats the goal, I will still have to move hours away though. It will still cost around 500k still but will be way nicer than whats out there now. Ive been debating getting land and buying a trailer for a bit🤣
@@bigmike4923 Yeah, better to have a small house on a large piece of land than the opposite.
As a 30 year old millennial I've just accepted that I'm most likely not going to have any form of retirement and if I don't figure out a major vein of revenue or whatever I'll probably just end up in a ditch somewhere by the time I'm elderly if I get that far.
Bro you can't afford a ditch, that's only for the rich.
Good thinking. Worse that can happen is you have too much money.
Yeah or we'll just work until we die basically, honestly i hope I die before I'm 60 or so, because otherwise those last years won't be pleasant
Agree, 31 y/o here. I gotta work till im almost 70 y/o according to the current policies and data. Even though i am living in the Netherlands and we have one the best if not the best pension systems in the world, although i am even wondering if we will still have the same quality of life when i hit 70 y/o as people of this age have nowadays.
I have heard this said by many in your generation, so I have some advice for you. I am at the front end of the boomer generation (77 next month), so have watched life for the working stiff decrease over the last couple of decades. Understand the the economy is like the Titanic after it hit the iceburg, but before it started to sink. The damage is done, but many refused to belive it. So my advice is get off the boat while you still have personal resourceses to create a life boat for you and the people you care about. If you want to now how(no I am not trying to sell you anything) reply to this post and I will tell you how I have created in the third world a place to ride out the storm that we all see coming.
I have three grown kids. None of them have kids. None of their friends have kids. Very few of my friends have grandkids.
When young people are struggling to settle, e.g. buying an apartment and social security is scarce, it's no wonder that having children is not on the priority list.
The idea that it's economic is plain wrong. It's cultural. Even the poorest people in developed countries are wealthier than most humans across history who still managed to procreate. Wealthier countries have the lowest birth rates, and education, wealth, secularism, and urbanism all predict low birth rates. It's not that the life we need is expensive, it's that the life everyone wants is expensive. Within most countries it's the hyper-traditionalist religious groups that are reproducing fastest, from the Amish in the US to the Orthodox Jews in Israel. And they tend to make do with a lot less.
@@sebastianwetherbee9465 I'm sorry but you're just wrong. It is literally just numerically objectively more difficult and expensive to house yourself now than fifty years ago. Wealth is relative. The poorest person int eh US might have more money than a well off person elsewhere. But, they need far far more to survive. It doesn't matter that fifteen dollars an hour would put you in the one percent in Bangladesh. Here in America, that won't even keep a roof over your head most of the time.
Also, culture is adaptive. The culture is shifting away from having children precisely because of economic reasons.
Talking about relative wealth means we're talking cultural expectations, not actual needs. Compared with the wealthiest moment in human history? We are the next most wealthy after the baby boomers in the late 20th century... And sure, it is more expensive to live in a developed economy, but we're not talking about literal survival, we're talking figurative survival, meaning "being able to have gaming consoles, spend time out with friends, have weekends off, have a car, eat really nutritious food, get a higher degree in a subject we find meaningful, etc etc." Don't be so melodramatic about it. Even someone living in a trailer park has all the basic necessities covered. And yes, culture is often adaptive but it can also be maladaptive. We're in an environment where a lot of our cultural values have twisted to start producing maladaptive behavior. At some point there will be a correction. This isn't about what people actually need (economic) this is about what people want (maladapted culture) @@ErikratKhandnalie
@@sebastianwetherbee9465 some of the most out of touch shit I have ever seen. As a 'younger adult' in the US - I can't afford a house, and the economy is just generally worse now than the guilded age. I can't afford to exist, but this isn't an economic problem. Whatever helps you sleep at night
@@sebastianwetherbee9465 @sebastianwetherbee9465 No, talking about relative wealth means that it *literally costs more to live here than it does to live elsewhere*. Like, pull your head out of the sand, dude. Are you really trying to tell me that you could survive in the US on five dollars a day? Or are you just conveniently omitting "home", "healthcare", and "food" from your calculations? This isn't a culture thing, it is an economic thing.
It is literally just more expensive to live here than it is to live in, say, Malaysia. The wealth of our society is meaningless to most people when the overwhelming vast majority of that wealth is concentrated into a tiny handful of pockets. Might as well go to the Congo and declare that, because the country is so rich in mineral wealth, nobody there must go hungry. It's just an awful take all around. You talk about "figurative survival", but then list things that either ridiculously cheap to the point that they barely even factor into the conversation(game console? Seriously? You think people are broke because they bought a console? A console plus like three or four games is barely half of a rent payment for most people. Next to the library, is basically the cheapest form of entertainment available. Nobody is missing rent payments over a damn Xbox ffs), or that we do actually need to survive. In ninety percent of this country, you absolutely *do* need a car to survive. It is not, in any sense, a luxury.
I'm sorry, but you just have a hideously skewed perspective on what people are struggling with, and it betrays the fact that you've never really had to struggle yourself, at least not for a very long time. Things have only gotten harder in the past few decades. People are legitimately *struggling* - not for all that silly nonsense you mentioned, but just to keep a roof over their head and food in their kid's mouth. Stop downplaying the real suffering that people in this country are facing and realize that this problem is, inherently, fundamentally, *economic*, and anything cultural is merely a byproduct
Nobody ever seems to talk about changing the current system. All we care about is bringing in more indentured servants into this world.
Yes, the system isn't caring for the people we have. There are able bodied homeless who would like to work and live in a home. Those people are thrown away and they want us to make more. It's completely insensible.
Exactly this. I believe that this video was in fact sponsored by the Club of Rome or a similar “think-tank” who simultaneously want to see higher childbirth rates and also replace as many workers as possible with AI and automation. What could possibly go wrong with such a scenario? I love that he quotes Elon muskrat, only the single most wealthy and powerful man on the planet nowadays, and one who also seems to have a tenuous grasp on reality. The entire video also assumes that global capitalism will persist indefinitely, even with those 2 aspects of technology making life for the average citizen ever more precarious and increasing the likelihood that something else develops to replace it.
Let it all fall.
The population now had a chance to save themselves by changing laws, implementing innovations or having kids.
They didn't and instead they enriched themselves and kicked the ladder away. 30 years ain't our problem
@@User53123I have seen both sides of the coin. I have talked to people afraid to work; because, working would endanger their government subsidies, and I have also spoken with people desperately looking for work. We need to find a system.
I would say changing the system is discussed EVERY election. Just because it may not be the sweeping instant changes you might want doesn't mean it doesn't matter. That's the nature of compromises.
My wife works in end of life care and she has been talking me how people are not living as long as they used to. Cancer, heart disease, or strokes are taking people younger and younger. It would seem peak life expectancy is behind us as we are exposed to more and more chemicals, electrical frequency’s and poor quality food.
Stop making excuses for Pfizer.
Come on you must know why this is?
And vaccines
It's invisible. Nobody can point a finger at the problem because as always "...there's no evidence" . Trouble is there's plenty of evidence except for where it's coming from, but we all know it's coming from somewhere. Good luck proving it though.
Are you kidding me, the Boomers were the worst at taking care of them selves, Drugs, alcohol, unsafe sex, and risk taking. Both my parents died in there 50s…..did over use of pesticides and herbicides help? Only on the weed they were smoking!
I live in an area of low population, I’m 57 years old and am dreading getting old, this is because there are more retired people where I live than young or working age people, the problem this brings is there are not enough people to carry out the fundamental functions for a healthy society.
I’m an electrician and have been well aware for many years that there is a severe shortage of electricians in my area this means that I am working harder now than I was twenty years ago and it’s just getting worse.
Young people just keep leaving the area to go live in the city, I can foresee the area I live in becoming a pristine wilderness in the future.
>> this means that I am working harder now than I was twenty years ago and it’s just getting worse.
If you are one of the few electricians in your area then you should be able to work less for more money.
I think you are doing something wrong here.
'We're living in a golden age of mental health'. I don't think I've heard anything so at odds with reality. We are actually living in a well documented mental health crisis of epidemic proportions.
Especially our leaders in the west either have dementia or are raving psychopaths
Mental health is such bullshit. The shrinks are usually more "cuckoo" than the patients.
Yeah I just heard that depression rates are up a whopping 50% since like 10 years ago.
Hope this is classy - your part of the psyop lol 😂
Agreeing with you Dominic my post is for what? Producer
We are entering in a time where Plague and war is going to reduce the population. This is a planned event by elites : )
The main problem with increasing the retirement age is not riots like in France, it’s the fact that living longer doesn’t mean being longer fit and healthy enough to deliver productivity on a competitive level. In my country, retirement age was increased to 67, but barely half of the people above 60 actually get a job. You have ever seen a 65 old grandma almost dying while pulling a pallet truck at snail speed, then you understand why increasing the retirement age doesn’t solve workforce scarcity.
In my country 65.
The way I see it is it's just a band-aid solution even head in the sand approach. Question is how low high will they increase it?
@@crevard203 I assume they will increase it until there is virtually no retirement, just people who are officially unemployed, and in reality just too old and frail.
@@peterp5099I think that's the ultimate plan - you work until you either (magically) saved enough on your own to retire, or until you expire. But never actually retire.
peter, let's get out in the real world and see many in their 70s and 80s still working productively.
Detroit had a population of about two million in the 60’s. Now it is at about 600,000 if I remember correctly, but it still takes up the same space. It’s difficult to make a city work when its population density more than halves. It needs, for example, the same number of roads a fire stations but with less than half the people to pay for it.
Edit: oops, I posted this before I got to the Detroit part of the video.
Actually, it doesn’t. I know that’s the way they have done things in Detroit, but that wasn’t the way it had to be done.
When the population was cut in half, they could have halved all the services and had all remaining citizens move into a ring around downtown if they wanted services. This would have required forcing banks to hold the loans of homeowners in the outer city as current, until the owner moved back into their home. And it would have required forcing some people with empty buildings downtown to sell or rent their property, but other than that, it wouldn’t have been that bad. Anyone in the outer city that didn’t want to move could stay where they were, but they were on their own. If I had lived in Detroit, I would have boarded up my home and rented something downtown. I could always go back if things got better in the future and the bank would hold my loan as current.
That’s just one way they could have done things. It would have made a much better place to live while Detroit recovered. I’m sure there are several other ways that would also work.
@@deborahdanhauer8525 do you really believe this? You think everyone with a home has a loan? So what happens, sheriff comes to your door and says “we’re shutting down power, water and sewer in your neighborhood, you have to leave”? A place that coerce you in that way will be a terrible place to live.
@@jstogdill It’s certainly not ideal, but then neither is living in a neighborhood where nearly all the homes are empty and vandalized. What few people who are around you are destitute, desperate drug addicts and your home is the only light in the darkness. When that, or abandoning your city and investment is your only other option, then turning off everything, boarding up and renting somewhere safe sounds good to me. I can go back later and my investment is still there. And if I didn’t have a loan, then that’s great! That means it’s paid for, or I had never invested in the neighborhood in the first place and was renting. It’s easy for renters to move.
@@deborahdanhauer8525
Turn the ghost town parts of the city into parks. When people don't want to move to the areas that are still populated (which are usually the nicer places) then they still have the option to go off-grid, buy some land around their houses cheap and start farming.
@@user-do5ln7ez2d Well, as long as the people who own those houses don’t want them or can’t be found. It certainly could be done where a house fell in or burned down. It would be nice to see big gardens around in those neighborhoods wouldn’t it?❤️🤗🐝
“They burnt Paris to the ground”. Citation needed.
Sadly they did not.
Figure of speech.
Here’s a huge problem:
People used to be able to pass on their gains to their children. Now, their kids have to use every last asset to pay for long term care. It’s evil what that industry has become; overpriced death factories.
Why should anyone else pay to keep your parents alive? They're your parents your responsibility.
@@kimpeater1 of course it is the responsibility to take care of one’s parent. The OP is talking about long term care facilities, where nurses or healthcare workers are on staff. Parents could have illnesses or dementia that need professional care.
@@kimpeater1 correct, the cost of health care and long term care or not has skyrocketed including insurance, that is the point. Cost is an issue that needs to be addressed that is a fact.
@@patrickm6012 again, the cost of caring for your parents is your problem and yours alone. Your parents your responsibility. If you can't afford it you can't afford it. No one else cares!
@@kimpeater1 everyone is concerned about the cost of healthcare, it’s on the top 10 list of voter concerns, so yes we care. Otherwise we would not reform healthcare and insurance. This has to do with systems, corporate greed, and cost not individuals responsibility. When we see something is broken it’s time to remedy it, you don’t ignore it.
I don't remember where I saw it, but I think the problem is pretty neatly summed up by "plants are the new pets, pets are the new children, and children are a pipe dream" in terms of how much just living costs. I don't think social media is why kids aren't dating. I think having to work wage-slave jobs and use every minute of time making money rather than connections is having a much harsher impact.
Then WHY do they WASTE 6+ HOURS EVERY SINGLE DAY PLAYING on their CELL PHONES??????
@@traybern Because cellphones are literally an essential for life in the 21st century. It's how people access the news, it's how people talk to one another, keep up with emails, read/listen to books/podcasts/scientific literature. Extraordinarily powerful companies have pushed all of us to be on our phones constantly, social media has branded itself as the only way to connect with people and Gen Z and Gen Alpha have grown up knowing nothing else. They aren't "playing on their phones" They're interfacing with the world in the way they have been taught to. Just like TV for Millenials and Gen X and Radio for boomers.
Also people live the city if they just leave and gain some independence it's doable and stable to have a family and a community
Please don’t take this as a an attack, but working for minimum wage is not new. As a kid I had my first job at 14. By 19 I was working 2-3 jobs making $5.25 to to like $6.50/hr. for about 7 years. I hated it….it did suck. My friends had similar situations unless they went to college. And yes I know inflation should be used to adjust minimum wage. But the $15/hr offered now is incredible to me, but it’s probably adjusted to be about what I made. But it didn’t stop us from having girlfriends. But if I had the choice, hell no I’d rather not work that many jobs (low pay & no insurance).
@@rythmblood27 No attack taken, but most jobs are not offering $15/hr in my area and a lot of them require a degree. In 2021 I worked at a call center, if you had a bachelors (didn't matter in what) you made $13/hr if you didn't you only made $11. For the city I was working in, you have to make $17.72/hr for it to be considered a living wage (according to one estimate by MIT). When we first moved to the city, my spouse was working on their master's and working in their field was only making $10/hr (2016), we were living in the cheapest studio apartment we could find and went into debt just keeping ourselves fed and the car running.
I'm not sure when you started working, but it might be a good idea to look up a price adjuster and input both what you were making, and see what the costs of goods and services at that time were. Inflation can really pull things out of perspective.
Population collapse isnt a crisis at all. The fact that it could happen naturally without drastic measures is something we should rejoice at. The economic system can change to accommodate this or if not it can be replaced.
Why would i willingly bring a child into a world where they'll have to work till their grave
So basically for thousands of years of recorded history no one should have bothered to reproduce? Because retirement is a new thing.
@@Amlux1984 when did i say no one should?
Get a vasectomy then. Man up.
As a swede, we already have many of the benefits for having children (such as paid maternity/paternity leave), but we still have this same problem with a birth rate that is dropping.
So it is not as easy as implementing a few policies to reverse this trend.
No man in his right mind wants to have anything to do with a Swedish woman. That's the truth.
Same in germany. On the other side as a single person u find it even unfair . Even couples without kids pay less than singles.
@@VxO4fame For Sweden that is not the case we do not have joint taxing at all.
yep, everywhere governments are in control of 'incentivizing behavior' we have less and less children.
hopefully some academics and social engineers or youtubers figure that out. They'll probably insist it just needs MORE social engineering, more 'behavior punishment/reward' from government force and more redistribution of wealth. THEN they're sure it will work.
That's cause the only reason growth was so high is because pre modern medicine as many as 70% of children died before turning 18, since they were needed as workers families then had many to make sure they made it through. Then we hit the industrial revolution and entered a transitional stage where people were still having that many kids but the kids were not dying off, so population numbers BOOMED, once we realized that was the case it became unsustainable and pointless to have so many so a majority of people stopped. Now that 99% of kids will make it and kids are a net loss not a net gain in income/work, people only need and want one or two. It's natural and for the record the transitional period trashed our planet with overpopulation so it had its downsides too. Personally economic woes is not making any of us face extinction, so I think we are better off making it through this transitional period then trying to keep population numbers up. I'd give up excessive consumption for not going extinct anyday lol
I’d riot too. It’s not “just 2 years.” By the time you reach your 60s, you’re tired, your body can’t do what it used to, & you’re much more likely to get a debilitating chronic disease or illness. So, there’s not much time left to enjoy the “golden years.” It’s more like, give the majority of your life to work, and then you can’t do all the things you’d dreamed about.. & then, you’re dead.
@@googleuser868 Facts!
Retirement is a modern luxury that never existed in the past, and will have to disappear in future. And whilst doing hard manual work may not be practical for the elderly, there's plenty of white collar jobs that they can still do. And it will help counter the mental & physical decline.
@@googleuser868I’m a debt free millennial but I didn’t fall for the bs that is college.
@@blueoval250
You're an outlier. There's more folk who didn't go to college and permanently indebted.
@@KatariaGujjar permanent debt is the American way. I chose not start out in life with massive debt. The majority of college degrees aren’t worth the ink it takes to print them. Yesterday I heard a woman working at a restaurant talking about how much she regretted going but the worst is a guy working at 7-11 saying he had a masters degree. I feel bad for these people that got scammed and it’s only getting worse.
truly the world is a funny place, first a complaint about overpopulation and now it's a complaint about population decline
Maybe we need a system that helps parents afford childcare and health care.
We did have such a system, it’s called women prioritizing the family over their careers.
I've been following this topic for some time now. What I have noticed is that most people have their own favorite cause as to why this is happening. Some folks will blame costs of living, some folks will blame social media, "Me Too", female hypergamy, gaming, porn, female educational priorities, personal freedom, wanderlust, lack of religion, too much religion, etc. My own personal favorite is lack of multigenerational interaction (grandparents aren't involved).
The truth is there is a Perfect Storm of environmental inputs that is preventing young people from getting together and reproducing. Everybody's pet reason is part of the problem. You're all RIGHT.
The society we've created is simply not encouraging for people to even date, let alone make babies. No minor changes like increased childcare or tax benefits will do anything beyond minor bumps in birthrates.
Realistically, until having children is more financially advantageous than NOT having children, we're just going to see population drop.
Couldn't agree more. We have had such an unprecedented few decades of change, and we barely know what it will lead to. Exponential technological growth, a social environment where old traditions become obselete, and lack of a new culture to allow people to thrive in this new place...
I remember a quote from somewhere, something along the lines of "we were so preoccupied to know if we could, that we forgot whether we should." In the heat of passion, we have opened many Pandora's boxes over the past decades, some for the better and some for the worse, but all of which we are only beginning to feel the consequence of.
Though, I am glad that at least, we are acknowledging these consequences. It may or may not be too late, but late is still better than never.
@@akman7826Change is happening WAY faster than evolution can deal with. It's demonstrating that we are more interested in luxury than offspring. For the majority of our existence, luxury meant actually HAVING more offspring. Now that the two aren't synonymous, we can see that luxury is what we really want.
I'm very much part of the problem. I didn't have kids (for legit reasons). So I'm really hoping the species figures it out despite my own resistance to joining in on the future.
You seem to forget that having children is often not a decision made solely based on logic and economic thinking, but often also a very emotional decision.
I guess that may be more so because I'm in an actually developed nation (the Netherlands), opposed to a nation like the USA, which is basically a third-world country with golden laqcuer.
When you have an actual social safety net, it most certainly helps the people who want children (emotionally) to not be too afraid to make them.
@@EnchWraitsMusic Why the hostile tone?
Obviously Social Safety nets are your pet reason for this issue, and they will make having children easier for those who choose to. However as your own country shows, generous social safety nets don't even increase the fertility rate above my own gilded 3rd world nation.
It's capitalism, the root of all modern evil... all the other pet peeves are either a result of it or a bad interpretation of its evil... Unless the system is radically dismantled climate collapse and societal collapse are inevitable...
It's really hard to care about this when you mention how many young people it takes to support one old person. We young people have had the rug pulled from beneath our feet. Human productivity keeps rising as wages have stagnated since the 70's, inflation keeps rising and pay doesn't keep up, corporations use every exploit they can to dodge taxes, CEO to average employee salary keeps diverging. It seems the world is going to have to burn before these things get fixes. Especially in the Unites States.
And you can't buy a house because the old folks had 5kids, they haven't died yet and there's nowhere thise 5 kids, woth families now, can live. His proposal is total BS, don't believe this maniac, he only wants his investments to keep on booming so he exploit you to pay more rent on the houses he owns. 😂 This guy is ploting with Elon Musk, that can't be any good, the Millionaire that hypes up non existent currency just to make extra cash is trying to do the same but woth the population. 🤷
Reminder...the old people invented every toy and accessory that young folks can't live without, and most of the old people are actually feeding and housing their kids or grandkids
@@kwren-od3si and the old people of your time invented every toy and accessory you couldn't live without. What's your point. Old people are still feeding and sheltering their kids because they've also lived through that same stagnation. It's been stagnant since the 70s. Most young people can't afford to move out even if they wanted to. Rent is ridiculous, housing prices are insane. Let's not even add the need for a college degree since that was shoved down our throats. So now even jobs that shouldn't need it you do since every other applicant will have one.
@@Havox7 the younger generation are mostly crybabies. I moved out on my own at age 17, In 1970. I left a 3room 400 sqft hovel with a $13 guitar and the clothes on back. Spent years being homeless before it was fashionable. Gave up fun for an education, and i worked usually one full time and one part time job totalling 60+ hrs per week until 1987. After a medical event I cut back to 40 hrs week until my heart developed a life threatening condition. At age 43 I had a part of my heart removed. At age 55 I had two surgeries for malignant melanoma, followed by brain infection of unknown cause, intestinal obstruction, and all the horrors of fibromyalgia. Point being..my life has not been easy, and nobody sent me off with an inheritance. I didn't think anyone owed me anything. Along with partners of the time, I have bought two homes and in this twilight of my life I have bought a home alone, on the country. I never fell for the latest cars or the fancy vacations and I never had children.
If I can earn my own damn college degree without spending the time partying...of I can earn my own down payment without first buying a fancy new car (btw, I only had one new car in my life, and that was a dodge Aries) then the rest of you can stop buying the latest car, cell, computer, giant tv, ATV toy, boat, skis, and save for yourself. So far I have not met a gen x who wouldn't rather party til he puked and blame everyone else for it in the morning hangover in mom and dad's basement.
Yep, this is a stupid topic to promote, considering it is pure speculation and there are so many REAL problems, like you mentioned
It's amazing how some with an "engineering mindset" has no clue.
Good to finally see a vision of the population bubble. I knew this was going to happen since studying biology at school in 1970’s. Population growth in the animal and insect worlds follow a predictable, observable and verifiable path under many scenarios. I have long mentioned the fate of human population growth to friends and colleagues only to be politely scoffed at. Now I can show them your video, kind thanks to you.😊
I think it’s important to include increasing automation in the mix. Mechanised farming has in the last 150 years reduced the proportion of the population working in agriculture from almost 50% to around 2%
Three generations ago children were free labour and a retirement plan when you lived on a farm. Now they are very expensive pets.
Yes and with AI in our midst, what are all these extra 80 million people a year going to do for a living?
@pampence96 AI/automation will not destroy more jobs than it creates.
@heuzame6198 No, but for those of us without the education to work alongside these machines (programming, assembling, repairing, etc) I think we're in trouble.
@@Alderoth There should kickstart programs so they can adjust in time
Ricky, I believe you beautifully elucidated the problem, but have its solution dead wrong. I am a retired environmental science professor. For 11 years I taught the "demographic transition" in many of my SDSU classes.
We have discovered that our societal institutions are nothing less than a growth Ponzi scheme. The solution can't possibly be to feed more customers into the scheme. Human well-being must not depend on a continual supply of more humans. In the long run, the Earth's population cannot increase indefinitely, and I strongly believe it needs to decrease.
How can we do this without catastrophic societal consequences? Perhaps technology can be part of the answer. Perhaps pro-natal policies can slow the crash and give us more time to institute appropriate policies. But as a child of parents who endured the great depression, I can't help but feel that tightening the belt, learning some restraint, and valuing quality of life over quantity of life will be the biggest part of the solution.
In the long run I would favor a planet earth with FAR fewer humans on it, each living FAR better lives. Let's continue to honor women -- both their motherhood and their choice not to be mothers. Let's devalue social media and re-prioritize real world social life. But above all let's work together in the real world to create a healthy culture that can weather difficult times.
"Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of a cancer cell"
- Edward Abbey
👏🏽
Exactly right. I see this being a struggle for my generation and the generations following me, but eventually a new equilibrium will be found. This is a period of de-growth, and all of these calls to have more children are short-sighted. We have overshot carrying capacity, even if it doesn’t look the same as other populations doing the same.
Underrated comment! I want kids but not if I expect they’ll suffer most of their life!!!
Perfect. Loved your response. I work in the oil field(actually out in the field) and I see the devastation we cause for this insatiable need for consumption. Right now, I work in Texas close to the New Mexico border and we are drilling drilling drilling. I have been out on this site since around June. When I first got to this site, not much was going on around me. There were gas flares off on one side of me that I could spot but on the other side, pretty much open land. Now I spot 6 rigs about to start drilling near me. When I got here, we were pretty much overrun with scorpion, tarantulas, gold millipedes and we could also see coyotes and rabbits everyday. Now, there aren’t so many of them. We have seen a lot of birds die since we have been here and I can’t help but think it’s the toxic sludge water that is just sitting yards away from me or the salt water that pools inside our containments after a rain. None of this is good. We can’t just keep making more and more oil pad sites and fragmenting all these living things. We are killing them and killing the environment. Then when I hear about this talk of “renewable energy” I’m just thinking, you’re going from one resource to the next, and we are just going to pillage and burn everything. Renewables are not clean. The way we mine these resources is far from sustainable or clean and we don’t even have the proper methods in place to not just throw away lithium and cobalt and other elements that took a lot of energy to mine. We don’t have proper recycling in place to add new life to these “renewables”and we are just in this endless cycle. Every “clean” energy source is not without devastating problems. We cannot sustain this population like this much less a bigger one. People are ignorant to the problem when they think population growth is the big issue.
Well put.
Surprisingly the major problem is politics. Present situations are counter productive for having families.
Also you didn’t address the issue of preferring a better standard of living for people. So even if you control population level there would be the need for more resources.
As you said the situation is complex.
Having children in today's world is so much more difficult and expensive than it used to be. My (paternal) grandfather had 8 children and not a single one of them went to university or had some great education. They just somehow managed to survive. Today you can't just pop kids right and left. The social pressure is huge. We must do everything perfect and buy the best things for our little angels. It's just honestly too much work for truly no return. No wonder that nobody wants kids anymore.
A am struck by the concept that our "economic model" that drives our society, and will fail due to population collapse, is totally a man made system, there are no laws of physics at play here. The question then, for me, is should we be encouraging people to have more kids to sustain our made up "system" or should we adopt another system that provides the societal benefits regardless of population demographic trends? I don't know the answer, but I would like to see the experts tackle that question.
I vote return to 150 million worldwide and resume nomadic hunting/gathering and building huts. Let's keep the toilet paper mills running though...LOL
The answer is really simple... resource-based economy. It is slapping our leaders f^
I agree with you. A youtube channel called The Venus Project may be interesting to you. Talks about a Resource Based economy.
@@ziplokk1453bidet, man, come on!
;)
@@ziplokk1453 I think we can still support a lot of people, just not 8 billion, if we switch to garden-based agriculture. And it will be sustainable.
In India, during my father's education period. Students per class was 20 and 1 teacher per class. It turned into 40 by the time i entered the education system and by the time i graduated, we were 80-100/class per teacher. Reasons being lack of incentives to be teachers and compitation in the society to be well paid. Resources like food and shelter is no longer enough. Quality of life takes precedent now more then ever in history. Declining population might be the solution. Nature will take it's course.
its course. NOT it’s!!!!!
INDIA STILL has 300 MILLION people who SH1T in the STREETS!!! MAYBE think about INDOOR PLUMBING before…ANY OTHER quality of life issues, Honey!!!!
Its a problem of overpolulqtion in india but other counties around are almost ending due to lack of young people and no children , like China , Japan, even Eastern European countries like Poland …. This are ageing populations that will disappear soon … so it’s a matter of relocation. Besides - why India, being such poor country and many people not afford shelter, food or school for children any people have more and more children?
It is better to be overpopulated than under populated in long term....once replacement rate is low it is very difficult to recover
Not might but the only option for certain overpopulated countries is degrowth.
I don't agree with tax credits that will encourage families to continue the "two income family" issue. I'd rather help but also encourage a one parent income. I don't care who stays home, woman or man... I just think there's value in encouraging one parent to stay home to tend the home and the children. To share and pass values, create and maintain their family traditions. To have fun... with their children. We need to get away from this two income family problem ... what's the point of more children, if you're to tired to pass on your values and traditions?
Imagine how much space everyone had in 400AD when global population was 100 million less than that of modern day USA. Virtually nobody lived in North America.
My childhood (in the US, 40 years ago) was pretty f'd up. As a child, I promised myself I wouldn't have kids if I couldn't guarantee them a stable family environment.
I kept that promise.
Thanks
Same decision, same outcome.
So you gave your child that life or just didn't have one ?
By doing WHAT, removing the genitals???
I made that promise, too, but I’m still a rabbit 💪😏👍🏼
I believe the explanation is simple: life today is insanely expensive and the future isn't looking good. Who would have a kid in this scenario?
Bingo
Hope you’re right! Less of us is the start of the solution!!
@@mikelundrigan2285you can start by 'solving' yourself.
"Who would have a kid in this scenary?"
No, "scenery". I would. Most people would, presumably. There's apparently no way to have a decent life without it.
Stop destroying kids in the womb - problem half solved.
The mouse utopia experiment comes to mind. It was disparaged by other scientists at the time, but mice are social and form bonds like humans. It is an interesting thing in any case to read about.
Not really. It’s a super flawed experiment that denied the mice the space they have evolved to need. Mice don’t live in apartments…they run in wide open fields and forests.
The population going down seems like a good thing., to me. Ocean levels rising, climate getting more extreme, water shortages, etc., etc. The only way for humans to survive is for population de-escalation.
non of that requires the population to fall nuclear out beats fossil fuel way more and is a lot safer.
All the problems described are engineering problems which can be solved. And as stated above the key is cheap and abundant energy
Its a natural progression: what comes up, must come down, including populations. People are thinking we can "engineer" our way out of anything, but the only thing engineering has done since the industrial revolution is create more of the problems they claim it will solve, so I have no faith in their claims of 300 years.
I am 24 years old, the beginning of Gen z. I seriously do not see myself retiring. I will die at the job. It will take a miracle for me to have a child. Only one of my friends has a child and is struggling to feed his child with two incomes in the house even after working well over 50 hours a week and family support for child care. I don't know how he'll afford education when he can't even afford a house. A lot of people my age don't see a point in working for a future generation because they see it as throwing their lives away so their children can struggle as well. My financial goals are traveling and being able to afford a truck, i don't know a single person my age with any hope of having children or owning a home.
Feminism has been a disaster. Letting women work and letting women vote will inevitably cause catastrophic population decline. The only surviving cultures will be those that put their women back in the kitchen, where they belong.
Just have kids. If you stress about having enough money, or waiting for the right time, it'll never happen. Just pop them out and figure it out. That's the only way families will function right now because boomers have ruined our prospects so severely that we can't rely on any stability for the foreseeable future.
Literally why would anyone have a kid at 24 yo!! lol that’s way too young. If I were you, I’d be surprised that one of my friends had a kid, and everyone would assume it was an “accident”, because again, who the heck chooses to have kids that young.
@@agme8045 that’s funny cause the red pill men consider a woman at 25 as “hitting the wall” 😂
@@agme8045 before the turn of the century, many families did have their first kid by 24. My own classmates were popping out babies shortly after high school because that's what rural, poor Texans did, we reproduced and worked at the Piggly Wiggly if we weren't lucky enough to afford college. Someone's gotta populate that shithole of a town.
And the lucky ones, like me, we either got scholarships or sold our souls to the student loan companies (over 20yr later I'm still paying them off, but only 4k left). The latter were too broke to have kids, and the former usually met their spouse in college and had kids as soon as they got their first jobs mid 20s. Looking back much further, traditionally, families were having babies by 17-18 because they were going to need like ten tries to keep three kids alive and it takes about a year to gestate and birth and prepare enough for the next one to hopefully be healthy. Five to six births by the early 30s was not unheard of. Mother mortality was the biggest threat to large families, because pregnancy and birth is freaking dangerous, even today, but especially before modern medicine.
And speaking of mother's mortality rate, the US has the HIGHEST DEATH RATE of mothers during pregnancy and childbirth than ANY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY. Of course modern women aren't clamoring to pop one out. Google it if you don't believe me. I can cite a dozen reputable sources that back this up, including my own family doctor, who mentioned this to my wife. Suffice to say, we aren't having kids.
24 is a good age to start having kids especially if you will not have two or three kids your facility drops after 30, he even said it in the video. Plus you don’t wanna have super old parents. And mostly human history. People were having kids at 24. It’s the reason we’re having a population decline. Did you even watch the video?
I believe Peter Zeihan said it best: “when people were living on farms, children were free labor, so you had as many as you wanted plus one (which is how you found out you had enough).
“But when people moved into urban condos, children became very loud very messy very expensive furniture, so adults have fewer of them.”
Except chosenites like him.
No one should have kids to exploit them
Peter Zeihan is one of these children too. Very loud, very messy, ZERO contribution to humanity.
@@makeitcount2985 "No one should have kids to exploit them"
Why?
The population talking points are ALL a lie. The population growth is healthy. Governments are promoting this BS to secure a poverty class of people, thats ALL!!
At 31 I can 100% say I'm never having children.
I'm so happy to hear this.
Could it be that on an intuitive level younger folks of childbearing years have a knowledge that things are not going to turn out well for themselves and there progeny? Many people might say that they don't want to bring children into such a world: a world where emotional depression, fear, social stratification and isolation, war, environmental degradation and shortages seem like certainties.
I think you're on to something there. Maybe they don't KNOW it's not going to turn out well, but are unsure if it will and like in horror movies it's the tension and not knowing what's coming that really stresses you out and that sustained level of of heightened fear takes a toll on people and puts them into a perpetual fight or flight mode which is not conducive towards having a family.
Another part is the unprecedented levels of information/communication we're subjected to. The average millennial/genz is inundated with social media, youtube recommendations, mobile phone apps, discord and so on. It places enormous burdens on still developing minds as there are literally distractions everywhere they turn to. It's also created challenges in dating. People follow the top instagram influencers and see how beautiful and rich their lives look and then the average person can't measure up to that so they don't even bother with dating. Another is FOMO, people have a hard time settling on one person since there's such easy access to dating markets. No one wants to get stuck with a potato so they hop from one person to the next never able to feel satisfied.
This is my reason to not have kids at least.
"Many people might say that they don't want to bring children into such a world"
Some say that. They might even mean it. But they want sex and drugs.
It is simply crazy expensive nowadays. Having a kid means needing one more room, and many people simply can't afford it. This is also why I am very skeptical of projections predicting that the population will crash. I think once the population starts dropping, real estate will become more affordable, so people should start having more kids again.
I'm one. Withholding having children is the best way for working class people to force a better distribution of wealth.
Finally a video on this, thanks. I was born in the 80s & have already noticed a terrible decline in quality of life. Unfit apartments, anti-social miserable living conditions, stagnant wages & exploitation. Absurd travelling cinsitions & an unfit road network (won't mention train network as it's dire). An increasing obsession with qualifications limiting job options for most, restricting better talent from entering due to a lack of qualifications.
I was born in the 80’s and have encountered the exact opposite.
@@christerry1773 that's called privilege
I thought this was going somewhere. But it's just a list...
Your list is all the negative ramifications of overpopulation.
@@thec9424 Correct
There's zero crisis, the world had one then two people and now 7+ billion.
I really enjoyed this. Data and fact driven information to draw your own conclusion. Thank you for this high-quality content!
Whenever I see discussions about over/underpopulation, I remember the rodent utopia experiment: rodents were provided with as many resources and as much fun as they would want, and they had a BLAST. Their population boomed because they were able to thrive! However, it eventually plateaued, and then dropped. They had as many resources as they would want, but they weren't reproducing as quickly.
Okay, cool, but there will be a lower plateau too, right? Wrong. When rodent populations got low, they didn't start reproducing a bunch again. It was almost like they lost the motivation to have/raise babies, or perhaps lost the knowledge of how to do it.
Since I heard of this experiment, I have always wondered if this is the direction humanity is going.
Sadly this is where we are going in the long term I think
Also, might not be rated but there is a MIT experiment that predicts mass death by 2040.
The main difference between experiment and people is that there was always somebody that takes care of the mice regardless how bad it gets. Once we lose our safety nets we going to be in big trouble.
That’s interesting. I also wonder if this is the human version of the rat experiment
What was the experiment even trying to prove, that rats will overpopulate and go insane in a closed environment? Well, proven I guess.
Interesting indeed. I think the thing is that every single species plus the planet as a whole exept for humans themselves will profit from human population declining massively.
I think ultimately it's down to people not being able to afford having children like they used to. And looking at the development of the distribution of wealth, it's very easy to see why and what needs to be done about this.
I ain't no fan of the rich fat cats either. But it's pointless to blame them. This is a social problem even they couldn't create, nor do they want, and damn sure can't do much about. As the cost of specialist labor continues to climb, it'll outpace even their deep pockets within thirty years. Right now they're deeply funding this robotics & AI development, but I believe that'll plateau out at some point when they realize that robots can never fully replace humans in the workforce for a multitude of reasons. All of which reduce to robots ain't people.
@@brianhirt5027 It's not blaming the wealthy. It's blaming the policies that reward the wealthy at the cost of the working class.
It's not about blame. It's about identifying and correcting a problem. Wealth for working class citizens is falling, while wealth for upper class people is rapidly rising. It started in force in 1972 and hasn't stopped since. Couple that with tax policy that rewards the wealthy. Working class couples MUST work two full-time jobs just to pay the bills, making raising children properly nigh-on impossible. Probably not a stretch to correlate that with our mental health and mass-shootings crises as well. We have to fix this, because society is currently in decay because of it. @@brianhirt5027
When I was a teenager in the 90s I swore I would never have kids unless I could raise them in a home where they had all the opporunity I never had... I'm doing well for myself by today's standards....and that is still far below my 90s quality of life when we went to theme parks every summer, vacations twice a year etc...Making twice as much as both my parents combined and I can't even afford those basics.
@@newtunesforoldlogos4817 kids are cheap if you let them die like they used to.
Humanely raising a kid ain't cheap. Then again maybe you have different definition of humane as I am sure our ancestors did.
Then again you can also force women to have children by putting that in the law, as long as you are willing to compromise on morality it's not really a problem.
In a deflationary economy the value of housing and liquid assets like money in your bank decrease over time rather than increasing. This will have HUGE implications, although interestingly it will make accumulating wealth more difficult. It also means demand will drop and that a lot of production will collapse. Including the construction of new homes. So properties will overwhelmingly age as well.
The countervailing force is if there are less people, then they are in higher demand and should be paid more. This would of course decrease profitability and hurt pensions. The challenge is pensioners tend to vote against any party that reduces their wealth, hence the triple lock in the uk.
I am from Czechia, so part of EU. Our replacement rate has already been below 2.1 for some time. We only grow in population thanks to immigration but that has its own set of problems when not handled sensibly and carefully (which I am afraid it rarely is).
Millennials and certainly Gen Z are now basically openly being told to save some (significant) money for retirement rather than hope for dignified pension from government.
Many people here are giving up having kids because of the high cost of raising them.
I kind of wish I could fast forward 30-40years just so I could see how all of these present time issues developed and where we all ended up at.
Ahoj Libore 😀
Please don't call the country Czechia. 🙁
Being occupied by EU destroys countries.
Jesus will probably return before that happens.
@@earlysda why would he, he deserves his peace.
I used to work full-time at a factory to make $600 CAD a week after taxes.
That’s $2400 a month.
A boomer would think that’s amazing, but they forget that inflation exists.
Rent for a one-bedroom apartment in my area is $1500 a month.
A car is also required to get to work since the factory is in the middle of nowhere, so that’s an extra $500 a month for insurance, gas, and maintenance for a used Corolla.
Utilities take up $200-300 no problem.
So that leaves…
$100-200 a month for food, other bills, and savings…
So working full-time, busting my ass at a factory and destroying my body in the process, made me working poor and forced me to rely on food stamps…?!
No freaking way I’m going to afford a family or risk getting anyone pregnant when I can’t even afford to take care of myself!
Bruv, I feel for you. If you are still in this month-to-month situation (I have briefly lived that cycle but quickly broke it) I am curious to ask : Why not go all-in on fishing, forestry, mining or even the militray to save up hardcore for a few years?
@@luxuryvagrant6496 My answer to this is that sadly, I'm not the only one in this situation, and a lot are even worse off. I've applied before to places such as a mining site in New Brunswick that needed workers, and work for places that were desperately hiring like long term care homes and elderly care.
Despite how my resume was approved and hand crafted by government entities, these places never got back to me.
Now I'm working a job I enjoy much more, am very good at, is in demand in my area, work less in it, and get paid $22 an hour! I'm a freelance videographer!
But sadly, the world isn't the same as it was in the past where getting a middle-class lifestyle where you can support a family of 4 off your income alone was something you only needed a high school degree for.
There's indicators that married couples tend to make more, especially married men. If you team up with someone you're more vulnerable in some ways, and less so in others. Even if it just comes down to getting a male roommate, you can find a way forward brother.
@@user-hv7ef4st2r
Preach. Now I must ads that married or not, woman or not; uniting with someone is a superpower ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY ARE RELIABLE!!
If the person is not gonna synergise with you economically, logistically.. you're better off alone.
Someone with common goals.
Good luck, man.
Honestly, I'm looking forward to it. We need a change.
This video is amazing. Thanks for the in-depth analysis.
i love watching society collapse under the weight of greed and short term profit that could easily be used to fund infrastructure etc and keep the country going for years on end rather than causing people to get desperate and violent.
Its collapsing under "progress". Barbarians at the gate are invited in, while the very smug adopt cats.
@@churblefurbles Looks like I've got to start looking for cats.
Um….we’re GIVING AWAY 13% of the TOTAL national budget to FREELOADING BUMS who CANNOT even run their own LIVES!!!!
Fund what infrastructure, for what purpose? Pursuit of financial success is not greed, it is just the pursuit of financial success. "Greed" can't be successfully and persuasively defined anyway.
@@robertd9850 well, the definition of infrastructure is the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise. The definition of greed is intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. Since my sarcasm didn’t translate well, I went and looked up these very simple definitions for you so you can better understand why your opinion is both stupid and wrong. Corporations are literally polluting the world at unprecedented levels for s h o r t t e r m p r o f i t because they are g r e e d y. This clearly upset you enough to comment because you must also be a greedy person who feels like money is worth more than a functioning society that you can actually spend the money in🙃hope this helps, babe💖
One of the core issues is population is collapsing in the parts of the world that can actually sustain a growth while its growing in the parts of the world that arent self-sufficient.
Your wrong. These places are not lacking in self-sufficiency, they are exploited for their resources and ran by people with an agenda to keep their countries underdeveloped.
Exactly, therefore the burden will collapse everything
well, lets go with birth control for south asia africa and india.
@@CrakenFlux mostly Africa.
Population falling is the best thing that happened to us as a race in hundred year - every metric that counts, from biodiversity loss to pollution (CO2 is pollution - we basically already screwed up) to projcetions about sustainability of industrial agriculture says that we ARE in the middle of the crisis, we are just so blinded by baseline effect that we can still kid ourselves "everything is fine".
Is earth with 8 million people intrinsically better than one with 6 billion? Or worse than one with 11 billion? And if you say it is - why?
Why? Just look at what we've done to the place! And what makes you think that destruction won't continue unless our population goes down by a LOT?
@@Bookhermit But that is exactly what he is saying. I really don't understand the point of this video. So we are worried about money? but the whole ecosystems are going to collapse? I guess we are going to eat money ... :(
Population decline is expected
But this isn't a decline.
This is a population bust.
That's not the best thing that could happen.
That's a civilization ending situation.
Population decline is expected but what we're seeing is a population bust.
That's what makes it dangerous.
@@savioblanc nothing is expected. There have never been so many people on the planet.
I love your conversation guidelines, those reflect the principles I live by! I'm a mom of four young children and a stay at home mom. It is increasingly difficult to live on a single income and it is difficult to even work part time and juggle everything- and we have a pretty minimalist life style! I sometimes wonder if there should be more incentive towards having children (as you said) it also might be worth incentivising living in a multi generational household. A tax exemption for building a second house on your property for example. This might be a win/win, grandparents help young parents, both parents can work at least part time, children might even actually learn *gasp* manners and parents might be willing to have more children if they have adequate support. This might help us to be able to cut back and eventually halt social security more gracefully.
Everything is on fire. The environment, economy, and culture. It’s hard enough to be on your own, let alone raise a family.
Truly
If didn't study this stuff, we wouldn't know this issues even existed. This should give mankind a chance to plan. This does not necessarily fall on the individual, but on society & government.
@@chrisguevara it doesnt take studying to know
As a self-reliant farmer living in a Quaker/Amish community deep in rural America...
I CRINGE when I hear the assertion that "on a farm, kids are free labor:"
It is clear to us that whoever said that first, and everyone who cites that authority thereafter, never lived the life of a working farm and didn't have children.
"Children" are defined as human beings not of child-bearing age-let's say 12 and under. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE are 0 -12 year-old-children a net contributor to the parents around the farm. Not on subsistence farms (animal/draft power) or industrial farms (tractors). Each child is a net consumer of the parents' time, effort, and capital. That consumption is overwhelming when the children are young.
Young adults of childbearing age arbitrarily defined as "children", say 13 to 18, MIGHT have been a net addition in time, effort, and capital in the pre industrial setting, but not if they go to high school, as is (and has been) required (since the late 1940s). Farmers and farmers' wives spend essentially all of their non-working time driving their kids around to pointless activities devised by people who don't have and don't want children.
Other than that... great work. Enjoyed the video.
Hi, please go to any real asian restaurant in ASIA, children are working there, even recently we were served by around 12-years old in one restaurant in Malta (we were surprised that this is also happening in some places of Europe). In Asia if they have house and a farm (poor families have unmechanised farms as it was mentioned earlier), children are also helping to parents...Children are free labour for parents in many parts of the world, just go outside the America and Europe. I'm from central Europe and I remember stories of my friends that when their families were working on a farm, no one could took care of them (everyone were involved), so they were also helping with the harvest and it was normal thing not long ago.
@@TheSowinska They do labour but they aren't a net contributor since kids aren't fully independent and need to go to school and such as well, which costs. Probably, pre-industrial kids on farms would be, but only after years of them not being (meaning it would take a while for them to return the resources invested in them). But the problem with the assertion is that people didn't have kids just to make them work. People had kids because it was just the thing you do. It's instinct, it's societally normal, there's no contraceptives, there's nothing else to do and no notions saying you shouldn't outside of famine if that is a threat. People didn't do an economic analysis and decide to never have sex again. What makes people have kids or not has little to do with financial viability. That was true then and it's true now. It's what they want, their lifestyle and culture and worldview and knowledge and sentiments. There is a strong current of anti-children sentiment and living an individualistic consumerism-based lifestyle that would be partially sacrificed for children. That's basically the problem summed up today.
Bingo. The majority of people who use finances and the cost of living as a reason to not have children likely don’t want children, or aren’t 100% sure if they do. They just want a reason to explain to their parents, friends, society, and maybe even themselves. There’s no need for this subterfuge. If you don’t want children, just come out and say it. Nobody will kill you.
And if you do want children, you are more than likely able to support that child. People of all income levels have children and they manage to survive. It’s just that they don’t prioritize a specific type of lifestyle that would be very expensive.
In the early industrial societies (the early 19th century mainly) children as young as five were working in mines and factories.
@@skyworm8006 '(...) has little with financial viability'. I could not disagree more, the lack of stability is the reason why I still do not have kids...
Everyone who thinks about the future say "it's not good time for having a child". Well, it will never be!
It was in the 50s.
In biology, you always expect a population crash after a population explosion. If we really want people to have kids, we're going to have to address the things that make it miserable to have kids. It's isolating to raise kids as a nuclear family, and there is little support for new parents unless they have enough money to hire it. Young couples don't, typically, and single parents have even fewer options. In other news, Paris is still there and has not been burned to the ground.
No, Paris isn't burned totally down yet, but it is completely overrun with tourists. Hoping it's just a post-covid catch up thing, which is also affecting the main tourist spots elsewhere. Hey people - spread out, check out the countryside and small, peaceful countries not on everyone's bucket list. Venice is now charging €5 a pop to visit and the locals can't even live there anymore. Stay away for awhile.
Exactly. The problem is the system not our bodies. We are burned out completely
Good. There are far too many people in the world by a factor of about 100.
@@cathjj840….tourists? Look again in 5 years. I suspect the tourists you think are overrunning Paris will still be there.
@@geoffreyharris5931 "There are far too many people in the world" - and thats where egoism comes in. Theres to many people making to many problems - for "me". theres too much competition, too much money goes for them and not for me. We all think as one with being individual. It's that simple :/ .
This actually answers the question I always had. Most people I know personally and online have no interest in having children. Some of them doesn’t even want to commit in a marriage at all. I always wonder why the population is still growing.
Trends in population lag roughly 20-30 years behind the causes. China recently began its decline, but this was set to happen in the 1980s and 90s. This is why these projections exist for the remaining of the 21st century. Even if trends reversed and people started having more kids again, which I doubt, we wouldn't see the impact until about 2060s. More likely is fertility rates go down even more causing an acceleration of decline. China due to its size will see the largest cliff losing 7-8 million people every year. That's the equivalent of a mid sized US state every year, year after year. We can see in countries like Italy how disproportionately decline causes feedback loop of people leaving places for opportunities. Cities empty and become ghost towns as the remaining population incredibly centralizes in major cities.
It will be fascinating how humanity handles this coming century.
What you are seeing is not representative world-wide. South America, Africa, and other developing countries are still growing, some growing quickly.
I tell these people to plan their demise, suicide or assisted suicide. No way my children and great childre will provide for them !
@@MacNerfer Actually they are not. South and Central America, don't look at the UN counts, look at the country counts, have been below replacement for more then a decade, and declining. In Africa only Niger (with the highest population growth rate at nearly 3.8 percent), followed by Equatorial Guinea, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Burundi have population growth (all below Niger, but above 2). The rest of the continent is at replacement or below. Already countries in Africa are feeling the effect of not enough young people.
China's aggressive population count during and following Covid found almost 100 million children missing, with again almost half that in missing births (births, like children were registered in multiple locations for funding purposes). The population drop in China (according to the UN and WEF) wasn't supposed to happen until 2050, but we all apparently missed it (including the Chinese) because their population Officially (after signed letters and formal complaints)stopped growing in 2021, but unofficially it started sometime between 2018-19.
India's population is still growing BUT that's a false count because India's women of reproductive age are only having 0.8 when replacement is 2. Couple that with the fact though India has a very young population in total numbers, women of child bearing age only make up 22% of the demographic (the rest are men). And sex selection abortion is common place which means each year less females to males are born (the government has been working hard with religious leaders to stop the practice, as well as the practice of infanticide of girls, but it's been a hard road).
Add in the removal of merit based education & hiring and we're in trouble in the West, no matter how you look at it.
Take care and be well, I hope you have a great day.
south america is also shrinking mate. Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Suriname, Guyana and Paraguay are projected to shrink since woman are not having as much children as necessary to mantain the population. While bolivia, argentina, colombia, peru, equador and venezuela are projected to have a very little growth.
The places that are actually growing are Africa, parts of the middle east and pretty much the south of asia.@@MacNerfer
Thanks for the heads up Peter Zehan.
When someone says that the population of Earth will go down eventually, my answer is always the same :
AND ? .....
And you clearly didn't watch (or understand ) the video before commenting.
@@chinook575 I could say I don't agree with the video. Can you explain briefly why it's so important to keep Earth's population growing?
@@Simboiss Literally the whole point of the video is that its about to fall, a lot and in our kids lifetimes, there is no good inverted population pyramid
@@chinook575 Why is it a catastrophe that the world has 6 or 7 instead of 8 billion people? What's the calculation behind the reasoning?
@@Simboiss It sounds like you didn't watch the video. This was clearly addressed. The problem is it won't go from 8 billion to 6 billion, it will continue dropping, rapidly, because birthrate is below replacement, and it keeps getting smaller. In 3 generations we could go from 8 billion to 1-2 billion.
Ive played a fair bit of city/colony management sims in my life.
It can be downright _catastrophic_ to suddenly lose a bunch of people.
Banished was a famously hard game. Where getting over 200 people was considered and achievement.
If you suddenly drop on population. Or even start dropping a lot over a period of years instead of all at once, you get problems out the ass that can put you into a death spiral.
And you wont even necessarily notice them until its too late. Suddenly people start dying in winter from cold. Why? Not enough charcoal being made.
Your food reserves are low. What happened? Well, you have several less farmers, and didnt stockpile enough food this year. Okay so people are going hungry and feezing. Divert more people to charcoal and hunting. Except as they try to catch up, more people die off, and now _everyone_ is hungry and cold. Maybe you survive the winter and lose half your people. But now your supply chain is shot to shit and you have to shuffle the people you have left to fill the roles that keep them all alive.
And thats in a video game, where you are the god of a medieval village controlling their lives.
Not a modern democratic society full of people who get mad when you tell them what to do.
Don't tell me playing video games all the time makes you depressed 😊
@jillybe1873 can't say.
Although I will say, the quote "outward environment reflects inward state of mind" is a pretty accurate one. So seeing someone's room and home can give you a glimpse into their mental state.
And there's no shortage of gamer rooms that uh... 👀
Interesting thought, but I don't think this applies to real life because the game you mention is a command economy which can't react to changes quickly and has a much lower self-correcting capacity. Economies in the real world aren't command economies and correct themselves to changes much more quickly. That doesn't mean they're perfect, of course. But the situation won't be as dire as in the game, hopefully 😅
Bravo, well said sir.
Banished had a fatal flaw though: Once food shortages were established, a death spiral would be inevitable as farmers and gatherers would starve to death while transporting food to a storehouse. Meanwhile, others would raid the storehouses in order to stock their homes instead of rationing. No wonder those guys got banished...
I think why young people see an over population crisis coming is because we dont see it as a positive, we see it as negative. From my experience, I am having problems competing with others to get good paying jobs, competing with others to get a place to live, competing for mates. I am always comparing myself to my parents and I just seem to have it worse off. My mom rented a house and bought a new Mustang car in the 70s working at Del Taco (lits like a taco bell). My dad was a lazy kid after barely graduating HS but got a job as a city clerk after his mom threaten to kick him out if he didnt get a job. Now that very same position in the same city, you need a bachelors degree and untold amounts of intern hours. By that way, he eventually worked his way to a state agency position and retired. What ever systems we have going on, I dont think its working for most of us.
Young people are getting a ton of deliberate propaganda about lgbt, careers for women, toxic male, over-population, that is helping them choose not to have kids. I love the internet & social media, but if that all went down for 10 years, you'd see an increase in relationships and children, regardless of housing prices being high. Perhaps gov could incentivize couples by selling vacant houses and plots of land dirt cheap like for a $1., if they promise within 5 years to renovate, and living in it for 5 years.
Inflation. Caused by government spending. You have appx 30k more items in your house than your parents did at your age. You don't have a mustang, but you easily could. Your place is also probably bigger and much more technologically advanced. You have more free time too. They were spoiled. You are spoiled. I am spoiled. We aren't working in the dirt like our great grandparents. After slavery ended my father's family worked in the cotton fields. This was before minimum wage. The entire family, especially children, worked the fields for pennies a ton. '16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt' Its an old song, but carries less weight for the new generation.
There is definitely the money issue, but also it is more acceptable for people to just not have children these days. In the past it was kind of seen as a duty, but now people have more freedom to do what they want, and a lot of people don't want children.
why do you care what your parents did and what they had ? Adapt. Why miss out on one of lifes greatests gifts because of what other people say or think . Why want an easy life?
@@ex7229if you like children become a sportscoach...you meet children that are interested and like to learn...children of your own are a liabillity and family life these days means hell
This is a good thing for the planet. Let's hope it acceletes. We need less people, not more.
People are not living longer anymore. We need to lower the retirement age to 65 which seems most appropriate. What most young people don't understand is once you reach 65, you're pretty much done working everyday. Not only that, unless you are already in a good job, most companies will not hire you. Any astute recruiter can determine your age just by what's on your resume. Once you hit your 60's, you're not wanted in the work force. This is why we must lower the retirement age and stop treating our elderly as a burden. They deserve the time off to do whatever they please. After all, they were out there pounding the pavement while you were in diapers watching Barney and Friends.
Well said, Veteran. The trouble with today's younger generations is that they can't see beyond their own noses about the fact that one day, if they're lucky, they'll reach old age. I'm 73 and had to wait until I reached 63 before I could receive a small pension, having worked my whole life since I left school at 16.
Stay safe and well, wherever you are.
You don't think anyone sees this coming? I could probably spend just 10 minutes making a list of like 50 youtube videos explaining this very issue. People have been aware of this for probably the past 20 years actually
Had the same exact thought. Not only yt knows this, but the very goverments are aware of this since 80's and it has shaped immigration politics for decades. Title is a clickbait, correct one should be: "The World Population Crisis EVERYONE Sees Coming".
Very important topic, but already factored into government policies. As you said it, many countries have already in-acted unpopular policies because of it. Here in Canada, our government is perusing agressive immigration growth in response to this. Love your work, but information on current proposals or initiatives would be a great follow-up video to balance-out the topic before calling for discussion. All the best.
I first read about this in the 90s. Not exactly fresh news....
Came to say this. Nobody but the tons of other people talking about it. Elon Musk went viral talking about it 😂
When he says no one, I think he means it’s not getting enough attention. Yeah some countries are an acting some changes but it’s quickly becoming too little too late, just like with climate change. The main issue is to get people having more babies.
As Peter Zeihan once famously said ....
In the olden days, children were basically free labour.
In a modern urban environment, children are just a massive financial liability.
Hence as societies modernise, the birth rate naturally declines.
Birth rates are high when child mortality is high. When mortality rates get lower through better healthcare, better access to food, better shelter, education and and few other factors, birth rates drop. Since mortality rates are rising again in the US, you may be alive long enough to see this in action.
hear me out
Mandatory child labor... kids should be required by law to work, and the educational system must get them job ready before 10
even worse many people are prioritizing their elder relatives over kids. My solution is to ban this. Anyone with under 3 kids should be banned from refusing to work, anyone with 3 kids must also be banned from taking care of elderly relatives. Problem solved. Dementia patients and brain cancer patients cost around 300k a year in economic costs honestly the economic truth is that they never get better and generally they should be just abandoned so we can spend resources on raising kids and getting them working in stem jobs before they are teenagers
Children arent that expensive. And in fact if they are educated and raised well, they increase a families fortune.
The real issue is that most people have little to no capacity for love and caring, and thus don't want to spend time with their children.
Which leads to children that didnt get parential care and love, and were raised poorly; who naturally have little interest in having children of their own as their experience as child was terrible.
@@Tiasung It costs roughly $15,000 to give birth to a single child in a hospital in the US.
@@Tiasungthe reality is that elders are the real expense for the most part, theres states in the usa where you can legally required to pay for whatever medical bills your elder relatives decide to get. Elder care and pensions are sucking the life out of our civilization.
legit we spend 300k per year per dementia patient, and each senior on average 35k a year. The amount we spend on boomers is so comically large while young folks are struggling. Honestly its just much more important to have and take care of kids rather then dementia patients its an actual investment rather then a money pit. We have the wrong priorities as a society. We put so much on "comfortable retirement" often 1-2 decades long and rarely 3 that all our resources as a society go to that instead of things that would make us all better off.
Awesome vid well broken down, clear and concise.
A part of the problem is that today both parents have to work to generate enough income to cover for a child. While that is doable it also means that both parents are likely 10 h per day out of the house. When do you care about your baby? It's not like it goes into stasis at 7 am when the parents leave for work and gets out of it when the parents return. And after working for 8 h and being on the move for 10 h do parents still have enough energy to rear a child? A lot of people say: No!
It just doesn't work in the long run.
At the start of the 20th century a parent (usually the woman) stayed home to care about the kids. Or you had a grandma or aunt who cared about them. That system is gone today.
Why is less people bad? I haven’t been to many places and said, “you know what this place needs? More people.”
It’s because is that that instead of having 8 billion the world will have 5 billion forever.
It’s that if each couple only has 1 child, the next generation will be 4 billion, then 2 billion, than 1 billionm than 500milion until extinction.
And before we disappear we’ll suffer to find young people to work to pay the retirement pensions for the retired people, we will lack basical services that requires a complex economy with many workers, if most people are too old to work.
That’s the problem do you get it now ?
As you get older, everyone around you is also getting older.
You get sick, you have no one running the hospitals or too few people there to look after you.
You're house needs some renovations to make it safer for your aging self? Sorry, not enough people to do that either, which means it becomes more expensive to even hire them.
You want fresh fruits and vegetables to buy from your local grocer? Sorry, not enough people to pick them, sort them and transport them to your grocer.
Want to go for a drive? Sorry, not enough people to fill the petrol stations.
Your EV battery died? Sorry, not enough people to mine the elements that created that battery and the few there are are now out of your price range.
Your trash hasn't been collected. Sorry, not enough trashmen available.
Go live in the wilderness for a month and see how well you fare without people around you.
Grow your food, treat your own wounds, sow your own clothes.
Cos that's the future we're all collectively looking forward too.
And that's the positives.
The real horror is that we likely won't even get to that point.
If history has taught us anything, it's that people who belong to and practise an authoritarian, child bearing ideology will likely take over and those that do not align with it will be "cancelled"
@@markstein2845We’ve had population declines before, baby booms, so how do we know that it would be forever declining? Also the world and generations change a lot that priorities change.
@@savioblancTechnology is also becoming more and more automated.
You are correct on why families are decreasing in size. Living in Asia, I hear first-hand from Koreans and Japanese friends about how expensive it has become to have even one child, let alone two. Three kids is totally out of the question for most families - shrinking housing isn't helping either - it's hard to fit three kids inside a 900 sq ft apartment.
Maybe if you had gotten a DECENT education you could afford MORE than a shanty!!!!
Japan is past the point of no return. I watch NHK news channel quite a lot, and it seems that all they talk about is their population decline. The government is slowly but surely going broke.They will have to make some tough decisions very soon.
(It's a shame to see all those gorgeous Japanese women childless. I would gladly volunteer to help repopulate their country.)
Absurd. It's not hard, it's 'socially unacceptable'. There's a difference. If you look at what society did in the past most houses were two rooms. One room was a kitchen, the other a dining room and everyone slept in the dining room on cold days and on the porch on hot days. If you don't believe me, go visit ye olde 1900's housing. I'm sure there will be a historic housing museum near you somewhere.
There are some families living in caravans too with six children in the US. Two caravans, 8 people. It also promotes good behaviour because nothing pushes people to cooperate more than being forced to live with them for 365 days a year and sleep only 1m away from them.
@@JustinWilliams-ed2ug de la Motte family.
I also know several other families near me that live similarly. Not caravan but 5+ and earn less than me.
It's more a social issue than cost per se. With the increase in living standards these cultures have become very materialistic. Appearances matter a lot and women are expected to keep working while raising infants, and keep those infants looking cute at all times.
Lots of people raise multiple kids in small spaces in other countries. They depend on extended families to help with childcare, and they share used baby clothing and gear with their friends and relatives. That's how you get the costs down and the enjoyment higher.
His comment that an employer pays half the social security for an employee is so naive and illogical. An employer considers the whole cost of hiring. Pay is reduced to accomodate the social security that "they" pay.
Population collapse? It's welcomed, less traffic, less population, less issues...
I think the incentivization needs to start at a different point. When I was a child (and teenager), motherhood was something I really wanted for myself. Why? It was presented to me as something beautiful. A privilege. Hard work, but still a privilege. It proved true for me. I had eight pregnancies in total, only three of them resulting in live births. And all of those three were met by a society that made it a good experience to have (in my country we had long maternity leave, the importance of mothers was still recognized).
Now? I wouldn't have a baby in my country anymore. Motherhood is looked down upon. You're "just a lazy woman" if you want to stay with your kids. Daycare is "so much better for socialization" than being with your mother for the first few years, and you're under constant scrutiny for every little mistake you may or may not make in your child's nutrition, education, and socialization. It's just not a good thing to choose anymore.
Motherhood doesn't have to be romanticized, but it has to be at least somewhat attractive to make it a good choice for women. That's the point I'd start at. 🤷🏻♀️💙
I think the lens society looks through is too much one of economic where it needs to be a full spectrum set of lenses. Have you seen anything on community intelligence and how humans have "lost" it? It popped up on my feed yesterday - it was an interesting concept that is mulling in my mind.
Our short attention spans and the endorphin rewards our minds get here on some social media and quick-paced TV is hurting our ability to think longterm and indepth. Our judgements are therefore quick and good:bad far too soon.
Couldn't say it better! Thanks 👍
This discussion hasn't mentioned the suffering caused by the bearing of human children. Men have no idea how awful it is. But young women, do. Then there is the ordeal of trying to raise them alive to adult independence.
I had two children. One died newborn of a heart defect, the 20 year old by suicide. I too suffered a respiratory arrest during birth and nearly died. They broke my tail bone to speed the delivery and the pain made me stop breathing. I still have difficulties.
I was extremely nauseated for 18 months of my life. My body is stretched and loose. And so I do not recommend childbearing. You are sending a woman into combat. The data show one thing clearly: there is no such thing as maternal instinct. I draw a polite veil over evidence of men strongly feeling the desire to be a father. But when a woman has survived childbearing, she will often say enough. That is what the data say.
It should not be attractive. It should be seen for what it is. It’s not just a job where u can resign after finding out that it’s not as attractive as the company presented it. So many women were pushed into it. My mother even now regrets having us early at 18. She wanted to work but couldn’t because she had me and my brother just at 18,19. So had to stay at home, regretted not having financial independence and respect she deserved bcz she was betrayed by the attractiveness that was portrayed. Let’s not make our age women fools by glorifying motherhood. It’s something you can’t return from. Women should know it before they go into it
I'm 65. In my occupation as a technician dealing with industrial controls, the knowledge level and number of people coming in have dropped noticeably since 2000. Clients have told me they are worried about me retiring because they can't replace my knowledge level. And it's not just clients. Engineering firms with technicians use me to figure out problems their techs can't solve. They are concerned and are starting to talk to me about working with their techs at times and doing on the job training.
Some people don't see an issue thinking AI can step in, but that is not possible with what I do. And I have been the troubleshooter for industries like pharmaceutical, water and waste water treatment, energy production, manufacturing, and the list goes on. You'll start seeing more an more issues with infrastructure starting in 10 years and proceeding from that point .
Actual on the job training? Most places expect you to be contributing 100% right off the bat and have 3-5 year's experience.
@@rileylavonne8863 This would be advanced training while doing the project, not beginner level and can be done while working on a 2+ person project. One owner understands the value of building his people. The company has an open door offer if I ever want to leave where I am right now.
Industrial controls is a rough one because there have been very few new projects in the field in the past thirty years. When all the offshoring was happening twenty years ago, a lot of folks asked themselves "Why go into a dying field?" It's going to take a push to revitalize it.
At least at the university I went to, there was an additional issue where industrial controls is under the industrial engineering major, with no contact with electrical engineering and computer science where a lot of folks excited about programming end up. Early contact is just critical.
@@EmptyZoo393 There have been huge numbers of projects. I've been doing instrument startups in food & beverage, pharmaceutical, oil & gas, water, waste water and other areas. In my 60's and still extremely busy. Electricians are used to fill the gap in techs, but there are areas where they just don't have the knowledge. Analytical, radar, ultrasonic and process related issues are what usually throes them, along with all the digital networks like Fieldbus, Profibus, and industrial ethernet.
The movie Logan's Run comes to mind. You need a lot of skilled minds to keep technology up. Like a rock in water, everyone has to blow hard into it to keep it up, lose some... and it sinks.
I do not think population growth rate is a positive feedback loop. I think it is an inverse feedback loop where the people want to have fewer kids when the population is too much and more kids when the population is too little. Till now we had favourable conditions for growth so we saw one side of the feedback loop. Now that conditions have changed and become unfavourable, we are seeing the other side of the feedback loop. It will keep oscillating near equilibrium according to the conditions.
Happy somebody finally makes a descent video about this subject!
I believe humanity will rely more and more upon robotics and AI to replace this decline in the workforce. It would be informative and interesting to see how many jobs have been eliminated since the inception of such technologies in our contemporary environment.
I'm pretty sure civilization is going to collapse from global warming and peak oil before 2050. There won't be any AI or robots.
Indeed, we are replacing ourselves with robots. They are our intellectual descendents.
the cost to train AI is tens of million USD. OpenAI spent $63million to train GPT-4. The cost to serve ChatGPT to user is half-million USD per day. You will find that, in time, use of robotic will not be widespread even tho the technology exist.
@@xponenThe cost for any individual user is almost always cheaper than the cost of paying the people it replaces. Training an AI is a one time cost, and the operating costs are divided between millions of users.
I agree this is a likely course. Problem is they're not exactly syncing. All the robotics stuff looks set to mature before we even begin to hit the downslope. So it'll functionally displace about a third of working population, further exacerbating the problem down the way.
My wife and I only have one child. We both had siblings.
Out of 5 families we have as close friends, 4 of them are the same as us, came from larger families, only have one child now though. The other one actually has 3 kids.
Cost and time was the main reason from what we can all gather through occasional talks about it. We dont have enough money, or time. No such thing as a single income here in Australia unless you accept you aren't getting far, or are extremely rich already.
one friend of mine has 1 child, 1 has three. The rest of my whole circle of "friends" (10-20 pairs) has 0 children. They are all aged 28 to 35. None of those plans to have children. Im from germany.
@@Erwachsener1492 OMG! I can't believe that. I'm in my 40s and I still don't have kids, but I'm dying to have them. I think children are about the most valuable inheritance we can leave in the world. If you raise a kid to become a good, honest and happy person, it just makes the world a better place.
Bingo. One parent income being sufficient in the past is biggest factor because the family had time for kids and to run a household. We have one child and we both work and sometimes we feel completely overwhelmed. If we had one income and a simple home with a yard we would've had maybe 4 kids.
@@katiegreene3960completely understand you. Me and my wife we would strongly consider having children if one income was enough. Im an educator, shes working in IT. But both income and job security arent good enough to rely on only one income.
We are sharing the housework, Im doing all the shopping and I cook (fresh, no industrial prepared foods), each week I spend about 10-12 hours with my obligations.
My wife is washing our clothes and cleaning the house, it takes her about 6-10 hours a week.
We both work around 30 hours a week.
If we had a child, despite loving to spend time with it, we would be at and above our limits. Its not about downsizing one of our hobbies, its about having almost no time off. You are ALWAYS in demand, either your employer or your family. And over the years (and this is at least until puberty) this really uses up your energy.
I also find this very sad because family should be something thats also invigorating. What is all this technological and economical progress worth if it makes having a family something that weakens you?
People nowadays very much focus on topics like climate change (very important though), (geo)politics and economical growth. But the fact that our populations are literally DIEING before our eyes is a very potent sign that our society as a whole has completely lost track. Overpopulation is not the problem, at least if we somehow can handle (over)consumption. Its people losing hope in the future so much that they decide that having children, family, is not worth it. Its a very very sad status quo we have reached.
Same in a lot of places in the US. The other issue is even if you are a 2 income family, childcare is about the equivalent of 1 income making it almost pointless to work because you are essentially working for pennies on the dollar.
I have been teaching human geo for 10 years. All my past 10th grade students knew about this years ago. This is pretty common knowledge for my gen z students
The problem is not the population size or demografics per se but how the wealth of a nation is distributed. Yes if a growing part of the population has to live from 1700 usd monthly social security, the consumption rate will go back. But if these people would have a fair share of the wealth of some of the super riches, their monthly budget would double or triple, and the economy would remain stable or even grow.
And the system of social security can be changed or adapted to other models. E.g. in Norway, a lot of the nation's wealth is put into a national pension fund. This fund is one of the major shareholders globally, and the profits they make are shared with the population.
its because were to stressed to try and find a partner, get a house and pay for kid. its not complex, politions need to stop pandering to the 1% and start helping the 99%
Why would they increase the benefits for a population more and more expensive and entitled? They can just take in immigrants and let us die. Fresh immigrants are easy to exploit and manipulate. The seconds and third generations become like us now, more expensive and entitled, and they are then replaced by other new immigrants who do the job for cheaper...A beautiful dystopian cycle.
bingo
Exactly!
In reality it is far worse, far more immoral, and outright evil. The current situation in this regard particularly in the western Nations but globally is primarily the direct result of the activities of the evil genocide Rothschild lizard clan and their evil rough child genocide illuminati operatives, beginning in 1815 immediately after the fall of Napoleon at Waterloo. The entire plan of the evil Rothschild clan and their new world order is the destruction and elimination of 3/4 or more of the global population and then the perpetual maintenance of breeding stock and selective breeding to produce slave class to support the rothchilds clan and their progeny as the rulers of planet Earth for perpetuity. If you don't understand this you have a lot of research to do and you need to understand that their total plant was actually written down by Albert Pike, a former u.s. confederate general, destruction of the population is the bassis for the implementation of perpetual total global domination and. In addition to this the Chinese Communist party has been on their own plan, which in many ways mimics major portions of the Rothschild genocide Illuminati New world order plan.
Politicians are sock puppets of the 1% we have studies showing us Democracy doesn't exist, and that we have always lived under economic feudalism.
We've just been gaslighted into believing differently.
I'm not convinced. The human population has almost tripled in my lifetime, yet I don't ever recall a time when it seemed we needed more people. In my youth, when there were 3 billion people on this planet, everyone did just fine. And I'm pretty sure that civilization could thrive with even fewer people than this. Cities would be less crowded, the air would be cleaner, species could recover, global warming would be less of an issue, and the Earth would be better off without so many of us.
The problem is; now that we have wandered into the boonies, how do we find our way back to the pathway with a minimum of pain? But throwing gasoline on the fire is not the answer.
that's because the population was growing and there were alot less old people.
@@ronblack7870 It's not "old people" who are the problem. It is an economic model based on rampant consumerism and continuous growth. Rather than encouraging runaway human breeding, (gasoline on the fire) to support a huge and aging population, we need to re-imagine a sustainable economy based on a more realistic population. Either this or we pave over every square foot of this planet with high rises and parking lots.
Yes! Shortsighted analysis. Sustainability is key over dependence on continuous growth. 😢
@@ronblack7870yes, the future will be fine as long as science and mechanization counteracts the ever increasing void of young workers.
@@UA-camBorkedMyOldHandle_why I agree to some extent. That is, we are to many and has been to many for a long time. Humans need to much energy. An analogy would be a savanna with 1000 lions and 20 zebraz.
However, it's not easy to change our economical system and sci-fi or teck not invented will not save it. It won't get better before we are on the other side of these downfalls. However, it is possible to make the fall softer.
In Belgium, we already have all the possible legal advantages, discounts, birth bonus ,family allowance, maternity and paternity paid leave, partial work with compensation, distancing measures in difficult professions ...
But the problems are
1/ destruction of old values such as family, marriage, ...
2/ no hope for the future
3/ cost of life, housing cost
4/ both parents who work
great information! Thank you
Just as we were told over population was going to end in calamity, now we’re being told the opposite….I think even if we lose half the population human civilization will be fine…our ability to solve problems is greater than ever
Social collapse within a generation time span is a very real possibility. Capitalism is great for making cheap widgets but not for addressing rapid changes since people are the gears that keep the system moving. At least until AI can fill the gaps. The question is how many people can economies lose and how quickly while still functioning? People can adapt quickly but interconnected systems aren't so robust. I think transforming the education system will be huge for how fast we can adapt to drastic changes. Having everything explained clearly once for all students to access online regardless of time/location will turn teachers into tutors helping clarify for those that need it rather than the current army of teachers all trying to teach the same thing in isolated single classroom. The current system leaves little to no time for helping those who struggle and also slows those who excel.
not all halfs are comparable, if the remaining half is made of 90% functionally illiterate and unenployable people lets say societies will be hard pressed
Tell that to your 401(k) when it happens.
"our ability to solve problems is greater than ever"
well, that's because their are more educated people on earth than ever, but with population decline will this still be the case ?
I worry about the loss of human capital. Imagine the progress that 1 billion people can make; the breakthroughs, the slow, gradual progress, the geniuses, ….
Dude, you mentioned cost of living first, but only very briefly before going on to list the 'reasons' women remain childless as though CoL didn't factor in at all.
My whole life (80's child), I was told "don't have kids if you can't afford them". Well, we've had at least three significant recessions in my adult life, I'm told that I'll have six entirely different careers in my working life, homeownership is increasingly out of reach - where does *anyone* find that confidence???
Related: when I was a kid, Reagan/Thatcher had not yet succeeded in entirely dismantling the official social safety net, and neighbourhoods were still a thing. Now, we largely have neither, and the judgment of parents who can't do it all with a smile is *harsh*. (In retrospect, the philosophy seems to have been: why pay to support childrearing here, when we can import fully-grown humans from abroad?)
Oh, and the world is on fire, and we have studies showing that married women are less happy and less healthy than their single counterparts, because most men never bothered stepping up to do their end of the 'second shift'.
I have only admiration for people who take this on, but when literally decades of sustained, thankless heroics are required - you can't really wonder why everyone isn't lining up.
Edit: and your proposed solution is to give tax credits to the *rich* to incentivize them to have kids?! Seriously: people are either rich enough to not have to worry about a tax credit (or that the next administration will reverse it), or not (which is most of what remains of the middle class at this point). Capitalism isn't actually the best approach to absolutely everything - and we understood that in the 50's. Sorry: this vid is getting a downvote.
👏🏼👏🏼 Spot on my guy.
The cost of LIVING LARGE is what screws a LOT of VERY DUMB people!!!
Capitalism is a THOUSAND TIMES BETTER than ANY OTHER SYSTEM!!!!
The “poor” people NEED…to STOP HATING EDUCATION!!!!!!
Um….FULLY GROWN HUMANS from abroad ….HAVE KIDS, DUMBBELL!!!!!
That adults over 85 to 800 million will never happen. History shows us that poverty, war, famine, natural disasters and disease always knocks it down a few levels. A single global Carrington event would cut population levels by billions within months.
Its probably a good thing to see the global population start to decline. I put it down to the cost of living, and usually high demand or lack of supply cause costs to rise.
Housing is a good example, my grandfather was able to buy a house outright with savings on a basic brick laying job while my grandmother was free to bring children up, but my dad needed a higher paying job and could only pay a deposit for a mortgage, my mother had a part time job, but my partner and i need full time higher paying employment and it might not get us a house, this is based in the same city.
Also in the western world it is looked down on to be poor especially if you have children.
So i guess we can just pay higher taxes to help pay for the pension.
We’re 36 and 38. Work pressure and costs of living are too high for us to pursue a second child. Plus, grandparents are older or far away which means we carry the majority of responsibility in raising our child. The German state subsidises having children to a decent extent, but not enough to make it easy, and culturally we are far from Sweden and Scandinavian countries, so employers still don’t get it - it’s hard to find work if you demand work in less than 40hrs/week to sustain a family life. I think our generation also wants to spend enough time with our children to make sure they grow well attended and develop emotionally better than we were. We’re not willing to compromise below a minimum and I think that’s because we’re more educated about children development, and way more conscious about a lot of things.
Maybe not be so worried about having a high income?
You picked an "educated" women who thinks she's a man and doesn't want to stay home and raise your children... too bad for you!
You are exhibit A as to how the economy has been grinding people and families in to the ground. Came from a family of 4, mom took care of the home, never worked and my blue collar dad gave us a very nice middle class life. My parents came from very large families, 11-15 kids and similar although as first gen immigrants they did have a harder time economically. Your child will have an even harder time, they had better pick the right career and make good life choices or they will have a very challenged life.
@@skeptick6513skep, actually, the previous generations had a more difficult time earning a living, but they valued life, so enjoyed having kids. Today we are more about pleasing self and destroying life - witness the 46,000,000 destroyed in the womb just last year.
your problem is that you think your problems are other people problems. That said we were screwed by the boomer academics and tree huggers with their doomsday cults. We need to teach the kids how life works. that man have to earn their value and worth (and they have to start early like it used to be - no extended puberty to 30s) and women need to preserve their value (no tolerance for hoes). The sad truth is that for society to work is that mans purpose in life is work hard and suffer to build worth and womans purpose in life is to be grateful she doesn't have to and take care of the man that can feed her and their kids. We need to let the kids know that in real life good man is ALWAYS the prize and woman finds her happiness when she is with valuable man and she is a woman rather than degenerating herself to the man she desires (and same goes for the man). Man in their 20s need to go back to grinding on their value and worth and they need to pass and ignore all the women that failed to preserve theirs. The society needs to stop encouraging feminism, doomsday cults and simping. Boomers thought they can have it all - and they did. but all at our expense and the future generations. The other problem is young guys are marrying too old girls (almost the same age) and by the time man is in his peak (mid 30s) the woman in her mid 30s is 10 years past her due date and in the mean time the couple wasted money and resources on useless stuff like travels, parties and so on and they are broke and can't afford anything.
In my opinion, it is not only time and money that is needed for a young family to have kids. It is also the mentoring regarding what they will face as a family and couple, how they should manage that amount of stress and responsibility so they will remain a couple and do not break apart.
I agree. The atomization of family structures makes it harder and harder to raise families. People used to have uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters and grandparents nearby to help. Now there's a lot of families where they have no immediate or extended family nearby to help.
volunteerism is what makes nations great
The developed nations' disdain for the family is evident in almost all major governments' policies.
As a parent of 2 boys (a 3rd on the way), I am saddened at the weakened social structure we live in compared to my childhood. Most adults are more concerned about their status on social media and living "the good life" of being single, or married with no kids (DINKS) than they are about being mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles. I have serious trust concerns with anyone without kids participating in the raising and mentoring of my children, because most of them do not have what I consider to be the requisite experience to weigh in on anything meaningful in that regard.
@@MBergyman I've stated that we should rethink universal suffrage and switch to married parents suffrage only. You should have to have some skin in the game of the next generation to vote.
Do you think that countries with rapidly increasing population like Pakistan and Egypt have a lot of money and time for kids?
Every generation until now was living in a time with the highest population ever... a bit like "the best iPhone ever" phenomena
There were less Gen x’s I think than baby boomers and there are less Gen z’s than millennials.
Excellent info. Thank you.
A problem that is very sensitive to mention is that the longer live expectancy is becoming a problem.
In my county 50% of houses are owned by 1 or 2 pentioners. They bought their houses when they had children, who have now moved out. These houses are now missing for young families who need the space. The space consumption of the elderly is 2-3 that of families. Many families are living in flats with 3 rooms - so the parents sleep on the living room sofa. The elderly very often have 1-3 spare rooms.
The next problem is the care of the elderly once they can't take care of themselves anymore. We will have parents fighting for child care against people fighting for care in an old peoples care home.
Then there is also the health care issue, as the elderly have a much higher requirement for treetment. This will put a strain on the health care system.
If you state these things you come across as agist and worse.
It is wealth inequality that has caused this. By making housing something to exploit and invest money into. If society made it illegal to own two plus houses, if you could only buy a house you intended to live in, if renting a house out for profit and exploitation was illegal, housing would be as cheap as biscuits! But the system of exploitation is so normalised that most people can't see that it's wrong! You shouldn't exploit basic human needs.
I work as a gardener. All but one single family sized property I go to is inhabited by a single old person. Some of those properties are huge. The properties were bought when those living in them were doing very simple jobs, like working in a factory or a shop. Those buying those properties today have to contend with prices over four times what they were in relative wage terms. Huge loans are required to buy them today. And if the houses have no residential buyer, they are now snapped up by investment companies to rent out.
@@ricf9592 Its a mess. Housing should be a protected right. No person should be allowed to buy a house they are not going to live in. This needs to be made law now. Renting property out should be illegal as it is morally wrong to profiteer from human essential needs. Current owners keep their property but it can only be sold to someone who intends to live in it. These measures alone will realign the property market for housing and not for profiteering and stop the endless price spiral we are in now. Councils need to build social housing by LAW and have targets they MUST meet. We need radical reform with all of our essential services. Not just renationalised but made fit for public convenience - not profiteering companies.
"These houses are now missing for young families who need the space" - excuse me, but how did these pensioners got to live in their place in the first place? They either bought or did build that home.
The issue, in my opinion, is not the elderly people living in their homes, but that it became quite difficult nowadays for young people to build or buy a home, like the generation of their parents did.
@@SusannaSaunders So what do you propose? House owners bought those houses with their hard-earned money. Where they supposed to keep their money if inflation rates are so high so keeping them in bank is just burning money and investment is risky?
My cousin works as a nurse and they have no maternity leave. That was amazing to me that hospitals in the USA have such crappy care for their employees!
It's the US xD They literally work in hospitals and don't even get healthcare usually lol
Keep in mind that US hospitals are run by utterly ruthless private, for profit companies. And not only that, their customers are equally ruthless (some might say immoral or even illegally collusive) private, for profit, insurance mega-corps.
How is the shithole California a "bright spot"?@@retiredbore378
I'd rather no maternity leave and more money than maternity leave that I can never use. Employers factor in potential maternity leave as money they have to pay. Since I'm not sure I will have children (because no partner) and the difficulty of finding a partner is near impossible, the additional money is more important than the appearance of some benefit I can never use.
Don't get pregnant.
Well said. Personally I intended to have kids, but in practice it proved too expensive to be rational. With everything from housing to food and entertainment all being a subscription and constantly increasing in price, nothing ever gets paid off and it's difficult to grow capital. I'm at a state now where I could probably do so if desired, but I question if it's actually worth the stress. Previous generations have not made it easy to be optimistic about the state of the world. On top of the economic constraints, the psychological one exists too. Who wants to bring a kid into the world surrounded with so much doom/gloom? Between expensive childcare, outlandish medical bills, college loans, constantly increasing rent and a long stagnant minimum wage there is simply no room nor time to balance personal goals and making a next generation. Parents love their kids, but society makes them feel like an unwelcome burden. It would take some major incentives to change that mindset, and they need to have been started over a decade ago. Millennials have seen disaster after disaster growing up, its not surprising that there's apprehension and hopelessness. With everyone becoming more business minded, kids are presently a much higher risk than benefit by a substantial margin so in terms of risk mitigation it's easier to just not. A lot of labour can be automated via machines if we desired, in the future it will become less desire and more necessity, especially once millennials bankrupt the healthcare system. Things would be even worse if the clean air act hadnt removed lead from gas in the early 90s, the long term effects of that are evident in previous generations already.
I listened to a Property Manager complain about not raising rents to keep up with wages .....like just because they can.....🙄🙄🙄