If anything, the few intelligent people left in society will have a field day trying to control the idiots easier, maybe if we are lucky they can use the idiot labour to create a better world
Profits above all else. Capitalism ensures an autonomous bank account will own all wealth long after we have all been killed off by the necessity of adding a percentage point to the autonomous stock portfolio
declining population might actually be worse than overpopulation, as there will not be enough people to work the fields or drive the trucks or move the containers we need to facilitate international trade. this will also lead to famine and societal collapse@@daviddewey2107
I've worked in mining. Probably the greatest flaw in their reasoning was an awareness of the uneconomical deposits. I've seen a significant number of mines where it's a single material mine, but it actually has multiple materials available, they just never bother to "bolt on" a recovery system. For instance, one of the biggest uranium mines in the world is actually a copper and gold mine, but they extract uranium as a bonus section, since it's worth recovering due to the price.
Short sightedness plagues the industry at all levels. I had a buddy running a diamond placer operation in Sierra Leone. Gold dust poured over the edges of the recovery unit to go straight to tailings.
Although the general concept of limitations of finite resources, has some merit. We are so far from that point. Human society is incredibly inefficient. However hard it is to comprehend how society will function differently, we will adapt. That is the nature of life. The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.
@@postmodernmining im not sure how u can live with ur self cooperating with exploiters and expletive behavior that hurts and kills innocent people, ig im making assumptions here so i'll give u a chance to defend urself
50 years ago - anyone who was interested and wanted to know the real prospects for the developed world where quite clear in the 1960’s & 1970’s. We just choose to ignore the problem and ‘Carry On Regardless’. If an economic and ecological car crash is inevitable & unavoidable, why not drive at top speed and see how far we get.
I don't think it was chosen to be ignored, I think they believed things were being taken care of and they went back to their jobs, got money and the cycle continued. There was no limiting factor after money could be printed out of thin air.
Those at the reins of the status quo chose that because their belief systems are informed by colonialism which they inherited. Don't be so quick to write off all humans when it's really a small minority of psychos hellbent on unsustainable ideas
An Age of Strife is what's coming for us. With no work and seemingly no future, people aren't just going to lay down and resign themselves to starve or die in poverty. There will be wars and rumors of wars. Technarchs, warlords, tyrant governments, and marauders will make our world a dangerous place. Weapons, the likes of which we never imagined, will be deployed to bring destruction and devastation to the masses. Those who survive will be a hardened and bitter people who will do whatever is necessary to survive. Then again, I may be wrong and for the sake of a bright future for mankind...I pray that I am.
His rant stinks of tankie tears, sweet sweet tankie tears, that bitter fatalism of a pouting child that screams "it was gonna fail anyways" as he eyes you enviously.
@@lelagrangeeffectphysics4120what are you on about? Do you think he's wrong or he's not wrong but you still wanna dunk on "tankies" despite them being right?
If anything, the problem is stagnation. It's human nature to create, seek and explore. But what we are doing right now is going in circles. That's not growth, it's aimless consumption. The problem is that we are enslaved to "line must go up" instead than to actual progress, breaking of new ground, reaching of new places and ideas.
have you read karl marx? theres a concept in his work of the mode of production (capitalism in this case) growing to become a limiting factor on the forces of production, preventing further progress.
Define progress, this is such a loose and aimless statement that it can be made into anything, "we dont need to make products consumers buy, we need to make green toaster because THAT is progress"
@@lelagrangeeffectphysics4120 I agree with the fact its loosely defined, but it is still true. Like, lets say progress is tied to an increase of value. Value at this point in time is tied to money, and that's how we define progress right now. Imo a big part of the solution is to recognize that value is personal and has different meaning to everyone, thereby letting people decides what they want to focus on and making 'progress' on. If you think making green toaster is progress then by all means suit yourself
Peak Georg. I hope that part 2 covers the MIT study that initially predicted collapse around 2040 along with the recent KPMG recalibration/buttressing, along with the Pentagon and NASA's assessment around a similar timeframe. I've been grappling with this reality for years now. I spent the first little while spiraling into despair especially as the global pandemic set in, nowadays I try to live in the moment and appreciate what I have because the more time I spend worrying about the future, the more time's gone out the door and less for happiness.
@@ChrisChocolyes, but you're forgetting all these people who are on here panicking don't know that so how else are they going to panic? How else would they think we have finite resources if they don't realize energy isn't dinosaurs?😂
Two days ago I was telling my partner about my favorite UA-camrs and you came up. I couldn't remember your name, and I wasn't subscribed, so I was unable to find you! The algorithm spit out this video for me today and I'm both creeped out and ecstatic about it! I'm subscribed now and I have many videos to catch up on. Thanks Georg!! ❤❤❤
Since humanity’s inception, our population and our territory has been growing and growing, even taking the form of stealing territory from less advanced cultures. But now we’ve occupied every inch of land on the earth, and we’ve stabilized our population. Unfortunately our culture is so linked with growth, it’s hard to have a conversation about the economy without mentioning growth. If we can’t find a new paradigm, we’re dead.
Not sure about the less advanced culture bit but good people have to be able to stop bad people and sometimes we forget that. Imagine if one country says they want to continue or even one state, if they have all the guns, how would we stop them? It'll probably, well it is now, going headlong towards destruction and those on top of the rubbish heap will think they have won if their families are still alive. Maybe emergent response from this next few years heat will turn things around and we go in a new direction because this one is done.
@@dougsinthailand7176 Mention degrowth and everyone throws a fit and yet food, shelter and medical care should be the low hanging fruit, maintain that for everybody on the planet and we have come a long way but society doesn't seem to have that control, if you have money, everything is supposed to be at your fingertips and for that there has to be supply. With oil running out and the backbone of society and the pumps about to run dry, it sure will be interesting.
"..stealing from less advanced cultures"? No. Just more avarice and less love. As long as we keep believing in the fake world paradigm & the whole his-story bs, it all ends in nothingness.
I hate those intellectuals. They always think and work from the actual rulers perspective. Nothing related to the society as a whole. Always We, and them and how to squize as much as possible from citizens.
I felt like this rode the line between endorsing and rejecting the conclusions of "The Limits To Growth". I'm so used to everything coming in the flavor of strong bias that right now I'm wondering if my judgment ability is offline or if George was subtly utilizing a scathing support or disapproval of the document. Or was he going for a "journalistic" approach. Remember "journalism"? Anyone? That was when I was a kid and the news was supposed to just relay facts. For real. That actually was a thing. I think. Maybe they just said it was a thing back then. Maybe this video is a very subtle commentary on the fact that journalism no longer exists.
You are mistaken. The news *never* just relayed the facts. They relayed the facts that were acceptable or beneficial (to them) for you to hear, as they still do. I don't know how old you are exactly, but news in the 50's, 60's, 70's and beyond was just as full of propaganda as it is today. Just more subtle, probably because their only real competition was foreign news media. Now, information is everywhere. Television can no longer completely control what information is presented to you.
They definitely just said it was a thing, no matter what era you were born in the newspaper was a propaganda rag. Don't even start with tv news. There has always of course been less biased actual investigation but it's the exception not the rule
"We're all winners, just keep telling yourselves that in case you forget. And remember as well that someone out there wants your cookie you got for coming first place. They want two first place cookies, more even. They're not a winner, they're a loser. But don't worry, if you give me a part of your cookie, I'll make them go away. No need to keep asking me for a part of your cookie, I'll help myself. Just remember that if you find yourself without your first place cookie at all, it was that other guy, not me who took it from you."
@quillo2747 France killed off their monarchy and went to war with the rest of the world in a relatively short time. Russia did much the same, in their own way. Sometimes things change slowly. Sometimes the pressure builds until things change all at once.
@@hellodelightfulrandoYeah but a lot of it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when talking about today, the Roman Republic and its transition to an empire are very pertinent to the modern age.
Ok, hear me out, Soylent Chartreuse. We take the tasty Soylent Green and blend it with the Soylent Yellow, thereby extending our resources by making a more palatable Soylent option that is far more sustainable. We are working on Soylent Orange, but there have been issues. Soylent orange is generally not as appealing to consumers as Soylent Chartreuse, and many consumers complain that they expected Soylent Orange to have an orange fruit-like taste (which it does not).
How about Juicey Soylent, it's soylent of every color, but in stripes! Nibble slow on the part you like, make it last because it's all you're getting until next Tuesday.
It's interesting that everyone was wrong. Malthus was wrong that population would outstrip supply, as we observe population growth declining. On the other hand the optimists were wrong that there would be a technological solution, and we have overexploited our planet's natural abundance in a way that isn't sustainable.
Malthus may have been incorrect on supply and demand, but when I look at every city centre being full of miserable dis functional violent deviants and look back to the end state of the Mouse Utopia experiments, I think he stumbled on some correct conclusions.
Malthus was right in how we described what was happening in his day, he was wrong about predictions and possible solutions. And new revisions of Limits to Growth show in fact we are following the predicted trajectory in many ways
@@SwordJames city centres in America are bad due to suburbanisation, car-centric development and consequences of past segregation. Where I live city centres are the most elite places, with insanely expensive apartments, and all the places worth visiting
i think the issue here is that no one couldve predicted population collapse from no one having children in developed nations. everyone thought we would continue to grow our population. i believe our population will shrink before we run out of resources. climate change will end us as it will drain the most precious resource of all, water.
No water ? But due to your imagined climate change we get lots of rain and flooding all over the world. That flooding is actually caused by man made Geo Engineering, not climate change.
Climate change won't get rid of water though. Have you even looked at any of the mate modles? Even the most catestrophic (and so far extemely unreliable) modles show that the overall presipitation will actually increase. Some regions will be drier yes, others will be wetter. You climate change almarists are just as much science deniers as climate change denialists. Worse infact.
You should make a video showcasing your cast iron pans, film it as if you're a big cast iron enthusiast channel, talk as if you have like 10 years worth of cooking and cast iron review videos, plans for the future, etc, etc, etc. Just a thought.
Also by The Club of Rome in a publication entitled The First Global Revolution : "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.". Don't swallow your enemies propaganda.
@@andrewbaumann2661 Of course pollution a problem and a tool. Fixing pollution would be far from an insurmountable task if there were a will to do so. Likely food shortages will be also at some point. All will culminate into totalitarian controls over our lives if nothing is done to stop it.
The people who will continue to thrive are those who choose to work a little harder at embracing minimalism and getting off the voluntary treadmill of the aquisition of consumer clutter. We did this in the 1970s, achieving independence by refusing both debt and detritus. We put sweat equity into homestead living. We can live easily on the hidden resources of our modest looking property. The key is to choose a place that nobody else can easily find and that no corporation will try to steal via "emminent domain". We also volunteer in our local community so that we can see when things start to go bad more quickly. Don't worry. Our system will implode in another hundred years but an autocrat will promise to fix it before the end. Keep buying frapoe-latte-chinos and junk food. Keep giving your wealth to corporations. Nothing to see here!
What is even growth, anyways?.. really, it's just a bunch of increasing statistics in the eye of investors. It does not take quality into account whatsoever. Economical stagnation is nothing to be worried about, it means you have reached a nice environment, now it's time for intelligence to flourish.
Followed you for yeara man. Thanks for the content. Just everyone know its gonna be okay. No matter what we all get put back in the box once the game is finished.
Millenium is awfully optimistic! Taking your words literally, I agree, because if we we're unlikely to make it through the next couple of centuries, we can't make it to the next millenium, but I think the clock is ticking much faster. Gotta love that scientific precaution and modesty (I'm not insulting you, I do love it, it's why scientists should speak out more and people who aren't as good at reasoning should speak less and listen more). Humanity is trashing its environment so quickly and doing so little planning for how it's going to deal with the crises that will come from this, that we're almost certainly headed towards a significant collapse after a chain reaction. Even a moderate reduction in food production combined with a large increase in migration due to climate change will lead to conflict, which will reduce our ability to provide for everyone, which will lead to more conflict, in a death spiral. Not only that but most people will have forgotten how to live a less technologically advanced lifestyle, and the environmental devastation will make it much harder for those who do know. On the other hand, anything can happen in that length of time. It's fully possible to produce people who are forward-thinking and responsible under the right conditions, and those people may become very powerful and correct the course. We have to let go greed and classism if that's going to happen though, because right now a lot of the most capable people are totally spellbound by their power and status and not doing much for the world.
I’d be surprised if the human species survives another decade. Climate change will impact all. Insects are constantly becoming extinct, if one of those species is the honey bees, humanity has only a few years left.
If you're a scientist then you'd be aware of how adaptable humans are from a survival standpoint. Yes, society is screwed but tribes of people will exist unless Earth is completely destroyed.
As a gardener, I have to agree. I argue with people who claim there is no climate change, even though they know I am as connected with the environment as it is possible to be. Every year, for the past 20 years, but the years following the pandemic in particular, something changes, often drastically. The smell of the air, the power of the sun - and the 'different' way it burns skin and leaves, the way I cannot scent rain on the wind anymore, the overall diminishing productivity of soil (even though I do more to feed it than ever), the sudden omissions in insect/animal species - which are then replaced by feral/invasive/highly adaptable 'vermin' species, the way insect species are migrating to and past my location at an increasing rate, peculiar growth rates in plant species - enabling some to suddenly dominate beyond the normal balance, the massive increase in plant diseases (blights this year have been at their worst), the change in wild species balance, and the despairing rate at which people are just giving up (obvious by the increasing rate they are willing to befoul the landscape around them, buy silly stuff to distract themselves from immediate problems, continue to try and keep up with the Joneses (like that's the most important thing), and breed indiscriminately (with no thought of their children's future in a fast diminishing world.
Orwell once quipped that there are some ideas that are so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them. But now, it's clear that his view was much too limited. There are even some ideas that are so profoundly ridiculous that to fully describe them requires a whole gathering of intellectuals, and a whole global media system to distribute them.
Malthus and his supporters have constantly been proven wrong. His thesis was published prior to the industrial revolution, something that his projections could have never accounted for. He was fond of the British aristocracy and looked down on the poor as savages whose impulses should be regulated by the wealthy elites. His ideas would later come to serve as the basis for eugenics and later on, fascism. Those who support him knowing this do so not out of a sense of genuine concern for humanity's future but because they seek to feel superior to it.
I would recommend reading “Cadillac Desert” to anyone interested in the bit about agriculture. Haunting book that one. If you are looking for hopium in regards to agriculture, I recommend doing some reading on Cuban agricultural reforms following the collapse of the USSR.
3:19 - 3D printing was invented and patented about the time the guy gave his speech. He didnt predict 50 years of innovation. Frankly what this example illustrates best is the utter failure of patent system at promoting innovation.
Also lets not forget that the USSR wanted to create something like the internet for a long time. Sadly (?) soviet cybernetics failed partly thanks to decades of neglect during the Stalin era ban. The most surprising thing about thd internet is that it came from the west.
Issue with limits to growth is quiet fundamental. It makes.predictions based on 5 variables. The sources for which migth as well be "i pulled em strait outta my backaide". Most obviously this includes himan fertility. Less obviously it pretends that currently economically viable reserves, are the same thing, as... ...not just currently technologically exploitable (anything but cheapest to exploit) reserves... ...not justcurrently known reserves... ...but total sum of all reserves known and unknown that exist on the planet. It also makes truly extreme assumptions about technological possibility of recycling. ...in essence the conclusion of the book is a good demonstration of the "garbage in -> garbage out" style of theorycrafting.
Except whaling hasnt killed itself. As of now (in 2024) 8t could be slowly restarted - as whales are slowly recovering - with an appropriate quota.system. Were it not for legal prohibitions.
Issue is that (outside planned economies) there is no inherent "worth" of resources. As such the "it becomes more effort to extract resources than their worth" is a fucked argument. As estimates of worth used are frankly made up - including by authors of said book.
Thanks for your work. I find that your videos back-to-back with Just Have a Think's are a welcome antidote to the relentless jollity and good news of todays mediaspace. Refreshing.
Looking forward to part 2. One of the most impactful things about the limits to growth imo is how it has been scrutinized over time yet still appears to hold water, even as recently as 2023. Our ruling class should be held accountable as criminals for so blatantly ignoring such insight and insisting upon a status quo that has already unjustly costed lives.
The only thing we have an unlimited supply of is human creativity. We should start moving to an arts economy. Unfortunately, we view arts as commodities these days.
There are limits to the output of all of these. There are limits to how many can be built too. There are limits to how much nuclear waste the earth can handle. It all generates heat and waste. There are limits to how much heat and waste the planet can take.
There’s been “sequels” published since TLtG but they aren’t particularly optimistic either. But what gets me is that it’s obvious. All these companies and governments seeking constant growth are deluded. EVERYTHING is finite.
Another critique of Malthus is the self-fulfilling nature of Malthusian driven economic policy - take the Great Famine in Ireland, where the supposed overgrowth of the Irish population led to the disaster, despite very limited state intervention and continued food exports
@legend36555 and by hostile British occupiers you mean the Irish. The Irish nationalists like to pretend they were oppressed, but they had power in the British government, and their local governments. And these were elected by the Irish. Ie No more and no less than any other British subjects.
I think these types of reports also make the wrong assumption of thinking that they truly know how much of a given resource is available on the whole planet. And more importantly, they assume that humanity was intended to go on just as it is now, forever. Which we aren't.
ive seen lectures on youtube where they explain this mining thing exactly.... smaller amounts of cromium of copper per ton of rock is gathered nowadays meaning more energy and effort is needed to get same output. eg uranium mines stop mining when price goes too low. perhaps in china and couple other places taxpayer subsidizes it for their domestic industry so we dont see total collapse.
I think there was an update somewhere in the last years that said that we were currently tracking for BAU2 and CT which are two of the four main scenarios proposed by the original LtG.
"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse." ~ CEO Nwabudike Morgan on The Centauri Monopoly
I think the biggest flaw in this model is how it doesn’t account for innovations for closed production cycles. Not only do new technologies make previously not viable resource extraction viable, but we get better at recycling and re-using previously extracted elements. We are also getting way better at producing energy at scale despite the pause in nuclear. At the end of the day the real limits to growth are energy and matter, none of which are really scarce.
Funny that, I had a class where my teacher used him as an example of someone who was completely wrong about technological growth because 'see? we didn't run out of food yet!'. And this is why I've regretted ever being in school, It was a waste of my time and filled with teachers dumber than their own students
So the Population collapse thesis can never be proven wrong ? basically some pseudoreligion gibberish , is that what you're saying ? Your teacher is wrong because elevated it to a credible scientific thesis and tried to test it Because none of the predictions are even close to be achieved . We aren't running of anything We produce so much food , that we use most of it to feed animals to produce meat .
@@JohnSmith-mc2zzWhy? What about pollution and resources other than food? Granted, some very promising and potentially sustainable replacement materials (bio-based and others) are being invented, but what if it's too little too late? The book's points are still mostly valid.
@handanyldzhan9232 he is wrong about every other resource though. Improving technology and simple discovery has opened up more deposits of pretty much every nonrenewable resource and we use every non-Renewables resource more efficiently despite still using them extremely wast fully compared to how we could be useing them. We are not running out of anything anytime soon.
"i ThInK tHeSe TyPeS oF rEpOrTs ArE dUmB cAuSe WhO kNoWs HoW mUcH wE hAvE oF wHaT rEsOuRcE aNd HoW mUcH wE nEeD" the nerds commenting this have never played a video game where it becomes harder to find a certain type of resource the longer the game goes on. IT IS CALLED COMMON SENSE, RICHARD.
Anyone who ever played Age of Empires and relied on a strategy that made he at use of one particular resource would know that. Like, if you’re using wood for A LOT of things, you’re going to start running out of trees quickly.
@@CarrotConsumer That’s true, but the principle still exists regardless. You use too much of a resource too quickly, you’re going to run out. And that’s real bad when your entire infrastructure relies on said resource.
@@CarrotConsumer We live in a simulation, all that will be left us soon is the data points of hour history. The data already tells us that taking and using the resources we have found to date is making our planet unsurvivable, defeating the entire point of progress in the first place. Doesn't matter if you still have five rounds in the gun, if one has entered your brain.
The thing I don't understand of this logic is that it assumes that per person consumption of resources increases exponentially, even if everyone disposes of most things every year (think from smartphones to houses), the actual resource consumption per person over time will tend to be linear. Maybe with population growth consumption can increase in line with population growth, but with current birth rate trends, it doesn't seem like long term population increases will realize.
Give half the people in the world an extra five dollars a day and they could double their consumption, Africa is supposed to be almost half the world by 2100, I don't think there needs to be population growth to still have exponential resource consumption, it's possible the next 100 years looks like the last 200. With such a large percentage of the world turning over 65, it will be interesting how the next few decades goes as these people have consumed or bought most of their goods that will see them out.
@@antonyjh1234 For low incomes, economic growth might have an exponential effect on resource consumption, but I don't think that a 40k a year income produces exponentially more raw resource consumption than a 20k a year income. Taking into account economies of scale, it might even be that as more people can afford certain goods, the industrial infrastructure gets "cheaper per person" (same factory divided between more people). That said, I don't know how many raw resources people will use when/if they have first world level incomes, but I suspect that it will be less than expected, because of the capitalistic incentive for efficiency.
@@EmmanuelMess As I say it doesn't need to be the difference between 40k and 20, it could be an extra 2k that could achieve that and the potential to get them to 10 times that exists.
@@antonyjh1234 Yes, but my point is that you can't expect the same people to consume exponentially more every year forever, even when you take into account large income growth. Even if they consume exponentially more for say 10 or 15 years of their lives, it seems to me that resources wouldn't be depleted fast enough to make a dent on global production, especially after taking into account the economic incentives to ramp up production of those specific goods that will be most consumed.
@@EmmanuelMess Of course not, I'm saying exponential can continue, Africa will be almost half the world population over the next 80 years, even if the west maintain spending, exponential growth can still happen. They of course have resources and arable land so whether they will be a big drain on current accounts of resources of more will be found is yet to be seen. I think they have 9 of the worlds 13% that is arable land, largely untouched, the consumption they and the world over the next 80 years could be the same as the last 200.
I am gonna get popcorn for part two! For real great video. Been thinking a lot about the big civilization questions like this. Pretty sure the rest of the 21st century and a good chunk of the 22nd are gonna be very bad for human civilization. We are in our own 'Bronze Age Collapse' and will go through an actual dark age. That being said I do believe ultimately some form of civilization will survive, but I don't think we will ever see the size and complexity the latter half of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st. I am sort of sad I won't get to see what comes after. The historian in me is very interested.
@@kellywalker1664 I agree. I tend to think our future will look Solar Punk but won't be the peaceful utopia we usually envisioned it as. I think we will see little solar punk city states competing with each other.
I think most of us, at least in the west, can "feel" some sort of "end" is getting closer and closer since the pandemic...and the pandemic was almost 5 freaking years ago.
People keep talking about a "pandemic" happening a few years back, but I have no idea what they're talking about. Let's try to isolate exactly when it is alleged to have occurred. Was it before or after the authoritarian government clampdown?🤨🤔
Third world refers to non aligned nations. So Yugoslavia and indonesia, one socialist and one capitalist, were both thrid world countries. It has nothing to do if a nation is developed or not.
You can always play fast and loose with this terminology. China still claims to be a developing country so they can claim various exceptions to WTO regulations, even while crowing that (by some measures) they have the largest economy in the world, and are very eager to use that as a cudgel.
On the one hand, the systems and their interactions are exceedingly complex. On the other, that complexity is irrelevant when we're talking about subtracting at an increasing rate from a finite quantity. X + (-X) = 0, no matter how clever you are.
you should read it. it DOES HAVE scenarios for what happens for instance when there is unlimited pollution free energy, thanks to human ingenuity. arguably makes things worse. but yes, human ingenuity will find ways to ignore the problem.
I mean, it all would have come true already were it not for adaptations in agriculture and pharmacology. Science is keeping us limping along - whilst we deny it every day in parliament and on Facebook.
As a member of the International Bell Protectorate Organization or IBPO, I must inform you that Bells are to be rung, you may ring a Bell, Bells may not be banged, clanged or otherwise cajoled into producing sound. Please, for the sake of Bells everywhere, refrain from promoting such malicious actions in the future. P.S I rung your bell.
It makes me laugh when I hear enviromentalists saying that population growth isn't a problem. Here it is: More people means more consumption and eventually we will run out of certain vital resources, it is inevitable. In my lifetime of only 51 years, the human population has doubled from 4 to 8 billion and every 12-13 years you can add on another billion. It is widely agreed that the world's population will peak at somewhere near 10.5 billion. Just think of the resources required to sustain so many people. Decline is inevitable and we cannot simply think our way out of this problem as we are stuck on this planet with an ever growing population. It really is remarkable what we are living through, an incredible rise and a glimpse into a future that I will certainly never live to see. Have a nice weekend!
Environmentalists? I refer to “The Population Bomb” written by Paul Erlich and published in 1968. Erlich’s book was accepted by many environmentalists.
@@bb1111116 yah but I dont see that mentioned by any greener... they now talk of human rights, implying rich(moneywise) means rich in resources. curious change in those agendas
Ive thought that too... it is convenient coz all manufacturing is outsourced faraway. but that means they also have jobs and "future" so they have more kids than in west where future is just based on fiat numbers. china is joining that west club now(population wise). but they still wanna manufacture. everything fundamentally needs tons of energy and renewable energy seems bad fix for that. yes there is enough iron ore in world but digging it and smelting and then transporting it to places needs energy sources. Fun guessing game(in college take shot/bingo card... for next 10 years) is to guess how and which things fall apart first in this endlessly complex global system.
People used to think horse manure on the streets would cause cities to collapse. Then the car was invented. The prediction for peak oil production has come and gone many times without it happening.
It has happened. Peak Oil just means low hanging fruit. There's still a lot left as long as we can subsidize two barrels of oil to pull one out of the ground. Tar Sands would not be a thing otherwise. We ain't no Clampetts anymoar.
We will have wrecked the climate and the biodiversity loooooong before we run out of any critical resources. We keep on discovering new oil fields and improving extraction methods.
Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/2VTvnWE0oJc/v-deo.html
I'm truly thankful it's still only the 1970s. We have time!
( :
I'm sure those 2020s chaps will come up with a solution.
@@mauriciomorais7818 nah they lost to the battle of brainrot
If anything, the few intelligent people left in society will have a field day trying to control the idiots easier, maybe if we are lucky they can use the idiot labour to create a better world
Lol
Growth means nothing without the welfare of human beings
The welfare of the fat cat's bank account.
All our Bitcoin rigs will continue humming as we rot
Profits above all else. Capitalism ensures an autonomous bank account will own all wealth long after we have all been killed off by the necessity of adding a percentage point to the autonomous stock portfolio
@@roscojenkins7451 who cares about the planet when we can make the magic number on the screen go up
@@Blackfyre741 exactly
I talked to my sister about this. She called me a "Negative Nellie".
Now I'm in prison.
An average Bitlife playthrough :p
All the population all over the world is going down very quickly. So none of this is actually relevant.
nah. west papua is worth fighting to keep free. they actually do function a bunch higher than anyone you know would believe.
@@daviddewey2107 where's there proof of this?
declining population might actually be worse than overpopulation, as there will not be enough people to work the fields or drive the trucks or move the containers we need to facilitate international trade. this will also lead to famine and societal collapse@@daviddewey2107
I've worked in mining. Probably the greatest flaw in their reasoning was an awareness of the uneconomical deposits. I've seen a significant number of mines where it's a single material mine, but it actually has multiple materials available, they just never bother to "bolt on" a recovery system.
For instance, one of the biggest uranium mines in the world is actually a copper and gold mine, but they extract uranium as a bonus section, since it's worth recovering due to the price.
Short sightedness plagues the industry at all levels. I had a buddy running a diamond placer operation in Sierra Leone. Gold dust poured over the edges of the recovery unit to go straight to tailings.
Although the general concept of limitations of finite resources, has some merit. We are so far from that point. Human society is incredibly inefficient. However hard it is to comprehend how society will function differently, we will adapt. That is the nature of life. The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.
@@postmodernmining im not sure how u can live with ur self cooperating with exploiters and expletive behavior that hurts and kills innocent people, ig im making assumptions here so i'll give u a chance to defend urself
@@NickLaslett Tell that to the Easter Islanders....
You see this all the time in academia, they don't understand the difference between reserves and deposits
50 years ago - anyone who was interested and wanted to know the real prospects for the developed world where quite clear in the 1960’s & 1970’s.
We just choose to ignore the problem and ‘Carry On Regardless’. If an economic and ecological car crash is inevitable & unavoidable, why not drive at top speed and see how far we get.
I don't think it was chosen to be ignored, I think they believed things were being taken care of and they went back to their jobs, got money and the cycle continued. There was no limiting factor after money could be printed out of thin air.
Ronnie Raygun opened the floodgates for an oligarchy to supplant a democracy. It’s working exactly as planned.
Too bad This thesis has been completely disproven
See " The ultimate resource " by Julian Simon for the copious receipts
Those at the reins of the status quo chose that because their belief systems are informed by colonialism which they inherited. Don't be so quick to write off all humans when it's really a small minority of psychos hellbent on unsustainable ideas
Or, "How I learned to stop worrying and love the Hiptang."
"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."
What else are you going to predict?
@mas7833 Good job spotting the joke, mate!
Exactly. Lemme predict the past
I'm pretty sure the pencil I'm holding will fall to the floor if I let go of it.
@@peterwiley706 I'll bet you 50 Greek drachmas that it won't.
Yeah what happened to all that free time technology was gonna give me, strange that.
Capitalism happened, unfortunately.
Well, with AI taking our jobs, yes we're all gonna get a lot of free time
Just don't expect to be paid a single cent when that happens
The cake is a lie.
An Age of Strife is what's coming for us. With no work and seemingly no future, people aren't just going to lay down and resign themselves to starve or die in poverty. There will be wars and rumors of wars. Technarchs, warlords, tyrant governments, and marauders will make our world a dangerous place. Weapons, the likes of which we never imagined, will be deployed to bring destruction and devastation to the masses. Those who survive will be a hardened and bitter people who will do whatever is necessary to survive.
Then again, I may be wrong and for the sake of a bright future for mankind...I pray that I am.
@@Watchmanskey
Don't understand how not everyone can see this. It is already happening, damn it!
Another dose of Georg's limitless optimism
Why is it refreshing though
Slurp up that Hip Tang
I bet he's a hoot to hang out with at funerals.
His rant stinks of tankie tears, sweet sweet tankie tears, that bitter fatalism of a pouting child that screams "it was gonna fail anyways" as he eyes you enviously.
@@lelagrangeeffectphysics4120what are you on about? Do you think he's wrong or he's not wrong but you still wanna dunk on "tankies" despite them being right?
If anything, the problem is stagnation. It's human nature to create, seek and explore. But what we are doing right now is going in circles. That's not growth, it's aimless consumption. The problem is that we are enslaved to "line must go up" instead than to actual progress, breaking of new ground, reaching of new places and ideas.
But the company will have to close it's doors if my fridge doesn't break within 18 months.
have you read karl marx? theres a concept in his work of the mode of production (capitalism in this case) growing to become a limiting factor on the forces of production, preventing further progress.
Define progress, this is such a loose and aimless statement that it can be made into anything, "we dont need to make products consumers buy, we need to make green toaster because THAT is progress"
"I haven't even begun to peak"- humanity
@@lelagrangeeffectphysics4120 I agree with the fact its loosely defined, but it is still true. Like, lets say progress is tied to an increase of value. Value at this point in time is tied to money, and that's how we define progress right now. Imo a big part of the solution is to recognize that value is personal and has different meaning to everyone, thereby letting people decides what they want to focus on and making 'progress' on. If you think making green toaster is progress then by all means suit yourself
The Soylent green music always adds anxiety
Great movie
Caught that. 🐉
Gonna have to start digging into the Hiptang reserves
Hiptang!
[Dial up noise]
Touch the Strategic Hiptang Reserve ™ at your peril. Please understand Citizen, you are being watched.
I sure hope there are Hiptang asteroids or something that our saviour Elon can harvest for us...
Hiptang! “At least it’s not people”
Peak Georg. I hope that part 2 covers the MIT study that initially predicted collapse around 2040 along with the recent KPMG recalibration/buttressing, along with the Pentagon and NASA's assessment around a similar timeframe. I've been grappling with this reality for years now. I spent the first little while spiraling into despair especially as the global pandemic set in, nowadays I try to live in the moment and appreciate what I have because the more time I spend worrying about the future, the more time's gone out the door and less for happiness.
Coming to the same conclusion myself. Time to enjoy the planet. Even if we wipe ourselves out, the earths beauty will still persist.
Perfect! Been looking for a new book to read the kids at bedtime.
Well, that trip to England certainly lightened the mood
Immediately following the line about famine at 10:09, UA-cam served me a commercial for hamburgers
I got Starfleet Command.
get an ad blocker!
Burger King
Why do people still watch youtube ads? It's really easy to block them. Adblock and Adblock Plus.
I got offshore wind resources. I win.
I guess they did take action by removing chromium from car bumpers. Now they are made of dead dinosaurs and spent popsicle sticks. Thank goodness
oil isn't dead dinosaurs
@@ChrisChocolyes, but you're forgetting all these people who are on here panicking don't know that so how else are they going to panic?
How else would they think we have finite resources if they don't realize energy isn't dinosaurs?😂
@@bluegill5802 Oil is abiogenic and replenishes, 'dead dinosaurs' & 'fossil fuels' is a marketing term.
@@scottsauritch3216Yep, Dead Carboniferous Critters just doesn't have the same hook. 😕
Two days ago I was telling my partner about my favorite UA-camrs and you came up. I couldn't remember your name, and I wasn't subscribed, so I was unable to find you! The algorithm spit out this video for me today and I'm both creeped out and ecstatic about it! I'm subscribed now and I have many videos to catch up on. Thanks Georg!! ❤❤❤
Welcome back, cheers
Since humanity’s inception, our population and our territory has been growing and growing, even taking the form of stealing territory from less advanced cultures.
But now we’ve occupied every inch of land on the earth, and we’ve stabilized our population. Unfortunately our culture is so linked with growth, it’s hard to have a conversation about the economy without mentioning growth. If we can’t find a new paradigm, we’re dead.
Not sure about the less advanced culture bit but good people have to be able to stop bad people and sometimes we forget that. Imagine if one country says they want to continue or even one state, if they have all the guns, how would we stop them? It'll probably, well it is now, going headlong towards destruction and those on top of the rubbish heap will think they have won if their families are still alive. Maybe emergent response from this next few years heat will turn things around and we go in a new direction because this one is done.
Primarily I’m referring to our addiction to growth. And at a certain point it becomes unsustainable.
@@dougsinthailand7176 Mention degrowth and everyone throws a fit and yet food, shelter and medical care should be the low hanging fruit, maintain that for everybody on the planet and we have come a long way but society doesn't seem to have that control, if you have money, everything is supposed to be at your fingertips and for that there has to be supply. With oil running out and the backbone of society and the pumps about to run dry, it sure will be interesting.
we need space exploration asap
"..stealing from less advanced cultures"?
No. Just more avarice and less love.
As long as we keep believing in the fake world paradigm & the whole his-story bs, it all ends in nothingness.
I hate those intellectuals. They always think and work from the actual rulers perspective. Nothing related to the society as a whole. Always We, and them and how to squize as much as possible from citizens.
Once again I feel my internal organs shrivel up for a Georg video. Nothing makes me feel so alive
I must say he knows a thing or two about captivating story telling.
I felt like this rode the line between endorsing and rejecting the conclusions of "The Limits To Growth". I'm so used to everything coming in the flavor of strong bias that right now I'm wondering if my judgment ability is offline or if George was subtly utilizing a scathing support or disapproval of the document. Or was he going for a "journalistic" approach. Remember "journalism"? Anyone? That was when I was a kid and the news was supposed to just relay facts. For real. That actually was a thing. I think. Maybe they just said it was a thing back then. Maybe this video is a very subtle commentary on the fact that journalism no longer exists.
And maybe you should hush up 😭
@@tidypog3272no u
You are mistaken. The news *never* just relayed the facts. They relayed the facts that were acceptable or beneficial (to them) for you to hear, as they still do. I don't know how old you are exactly, but news in the 50's, 60's, 70's and beyond was just as full of propaganda as it is today. Just more subtle, probably because their only real competition was foreign news media. Now, information is everywhere. Television can no longer completely control what information is presented to you.
keep looking, it's out there
I mean this is pretty good journo, no?
if you're not satisfied with what you're reading, you haven't looked enough
They definitely just said it was a thing, no matter what era you were born in the newspaper was a propaganda rag. Don't even start with tv news. There has always of course been less biased actual investigation but it's the exception not the rule
"We're all winners, just keep telling yourselves that in case you forget. And remember as well that someone out there wants your cookie you got for coming first place. They want two first place cookies, more even. They're not a winner, they're a loser. But don't worry, if you give me a part of your cookie, I'll make them go away. No need to keep asking me for a part of your cookie, I'll help myself. Just remember that if you find yourself without your first place cookie at all, it was that other guy, not me who took it from you."
That's true. I am the cookie.
That sounds like Cave Johnston.
but the bunch of guys at the lodge with the black and white tile floors, still ignore that, that's irrelevant huh crazy
Welcome to the jungle. We've got what you need. You can have anything you want, but you'd better not take it from me.
i hope we dont run out of the resources to make my cookie
Always good to see Georg referencing that well-known 70s feel-good sci-fi classic, Soylent Green.
Reminds me of the interview with the EPA guy in HBO's "The Newsroom". Can't wait for part two.
When I hear politicians go on about 'growth', I can help but imagine tumours.
That's how politicians see us
*can't
@@Ptaku93 Argh, another typo! If it wasn't for these damned TUMOURS...
Tumour is a word that describes a politician perfectly.
That is what capitalism is. Unending growth in a limited system.
Probably not gonna end. People don't really understand how supply economics work, things won't suddenly end, they just get gradually worse.
a lot of things in history has suddenly ended.
@@DanuxsyName one? It took centuries for the roman empire to collapse into the dark ages.
@quillo2747 France killed off their monarchy and went to war with the rest of the world in a relatively short time. Russia did much the same, in their own way. Sometimes things change slowly. Sometimes the pressure builds until things change all at once.
@@quillo2747 love when dudes’ go to example is the Roman Empire. There is so much more history out there than the Roman Empire fam
@@hellodelightfulrandoYeah but a lot of it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when talking about today, the Roman Republic and its transition to an empire are very pertinent to the modern age.
This does remind me of many depressing Adam Curtis films. That’s a huge compliment , by the way.
'But this was a fantasy...'
“And what they found… was *extraordinary*”
Curtis actually covers this text and the council of Rome
I immediately thought of Adam Curtis at the very start also. I wonder what he is doing now. Ps, I loved his stories.
Nothing since the welsh drama, we wait with baited breath @@antpoo
Ok, hear me out, Soylent Chartreuse. We take the tasty Soylent Green and blend it with the Soylent Yellow, thereby extending our resources by making a more palatable Soylent option that is far more sustainable.
We are working on Soylent Orange, but there have been issues. Soylent orange is generally not as appealing to consumers as Soylent Chartreuse, and many consumers complain that they expected Soylent Orange to have an orange fruit-like taste (which it does not).
How about Juicey Soylent, it's soylent of every color, but in stripes! Nibble slow on the part you like, make it last because it's all you're getting until next Tuesday.
GO AWAY BigSoy! I AM NOT EATING YOUR SOYLENT! I AM NOT A SOYBOY!
But Soylent is made of People! IT'S PE-OPLE!
Don't forget soylent zero for those trying to watch their figure
@@freshbornmute2752it’s PEOPLE!! Say you never saw the movie without saying the words.
It's interesting that everyone was wrong. Malthus was wrong that population would outstrip supply, as we observe population growth declining. On the other hand the optimists were wrong that there would be a technological solution, and we have overexploited our planet's natural abundance in a way that isn't sustainable.
Nuclear power can easily be the technical solution. But its politics stopping it from happening.
Malthus may have been incorrect on supply and demand, but when I look at every city centre being full of miserable dis functional violent deviants and look back to the end state of the Mouse Utopia experiments, I think he stumbled on some correct conclusions.
Stop moving to rural areas when you destroy the cities you inherited.
Malthus was right in how we described what was happening in his day, he was wrong about predictions and possible solutions. And new revisions of Limits to Growth show in fact we are following the predicted trajectory in many ways
@@SwordJames city centres in America are bad due to suburbanisation, car-centric development and consequences of past segregation. Where I live city centres are the most elite places, with insanely expensive apartments, and all the places worth visiting
i think the issue here is that no one couldve predicted population collapse from no one having children in developed nations. everyone thought we would continue to grow our population. i believe our population will shrink before we run out of resources. climate change will end us as it will drain the most precious resource of all, water.
No water ?
But due to your imagined climate change we get lots of rain and flooding all over the world. That flooding is actually caused by man made Geo Engineering, not climate change.
Climate change won't get rid of water though. Have you even looked at any of the mate modles? Even the most catestrophic (and so far extemely unreliable) modles show that the overall presipitation will actually increase. Some regions will be drier yes, others will be wetter.
You climate change almarists are just as much science deniers as climate change denialists. Worse infact.
So I only have to wait half a decade to start singing "Five Years" by Bowie without feeling disingenuous? OK, good to know.
Daaaaad
You should make a video showcasing your cast iron pans, film it as if you're a big cast iron enthusiast channel, talk as if you have like 10 years worth of cooking and cast iron review videos, plans for the future, etc, etc, etc.
Just a thought.
Also by The Club of Rome in a publication entitled The First Global Revolution : "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.". Don't swallow your enemies propaganda.
Well I guess pollution isn't a problem then. Thank God for that!
@@andrewbaumann2661 Of course pollution a problem and a tool. Fixing pollution would be far from an insurmountable task if there were a will to do so. Likely food shortages will be also at some point. All will culminate into totalitarian controls over our lives if nothing is done to stop it.
Club of Rome said back in the 70s, we'd all be dead by now.
So long as we are unwilling to change, there will always be an impassable obstacle.
And good day to you too, Georg!
Good news is that these clowns are wrong about everything. Lighten up George.
The people who will continue to thrive are those who choose to work a little harder at embracing minimalism and getting off the voluntary treadmill of the aquisition of consumer clutter.
We did this in the 1970s, achieving independence by refusing both debt and detritus. We put sweat equity into homestead living. We can live easily on the hidden resources of our modest looking property.
The key is to choose a place that nobody else can easily find and that no corporation will try to steal via "emminent domain". We also volunteer in our local community so that we can see when things start to go bad more quickly. Don't worry. Our system will implode in another hundred years but an autocrat will promise to fix it before the end. Keep buying frapoe-latte-chinos and junk food. Keep giving your wealth to corporations. Nothing to see here!
It truly is the old Scottish proper verb of “what are you selling and how much does it cost?”
What is even growth, anyways?.. really, it's just a bunch of increasing statistics in the eye of investors. It does not take quality into account whatsoever. Economical stagnation is nothing to be worried about, it means you have reached a nice environment, now it's time for intelligence to flourish.
Followed you for yeara man. Thanks for the content.
Just everyone know its gonna be okay.
No matter what we all get put back in the box once the game is finished.
As a scientist, I am endlessly frustrated at humanity's refusal to course correct. I don't see our species surviving to see the end of the millennia.
Millenium is awfully optimistic! Taking your words literally, I agree, because if we we're unlikely to make it through the next couple of centuries, we can't make it to the next millenium, but I think the clock is ticking much faster. Gotta love that scientific precaution and modesty (I'm not insulting you, I do love it, it's why scientists should speak out more and people who aren't as good at reasoning should speak less and listen more). Humanity is trashing its environment so quickly and doing so little planning for how it's going to deal with the crises that will come from this, that we're almost certainly headed towards a significant collapse after a chain reaction. Even a moderate reduction in food production combined with a large increase in migration due to climate change will lead to conflict, which will reduce our ability to provide for everyone, which will lead to more conflict, in a death spiral. Not only that but most people will have forgotten how to live a less technologically advanced lifestyle, and the environmental devastation will make it much harder for those who do know. On the other hand, anything can happen in that length of time. It's fully possible to produce people who are forward-thinking and responsible under the right conditions, and those people may become very powerful and correct the course. We have to let go greed and classism if that's going to happen though, because right now a lot of the most capable people are totally spellbound by their power and status and not doing much for the world.
I’d be surprised if the human species survives another decade.
Climate change will impact all. Insects are constantly becoming extinct, if one of those species is the honey bees, humanity has only a few years left.
If you're a scientist then you'd be aware of how adaptable humans are from a survival standpoint. Yes, society is screwed but tribes of people will exist unless Earth is completely destroyed.
“Behold, I come quickly.” ~ Jesus
BOOK OF REVELATION IS COMING TO PASS
As a gardener, I have to agree. I argue with people who claim there is no climate change, even though they know I am as connected with the environment as it is possible to be.
Every year, for the past 20 years, but the years following the pandemic in particular, something changes, often drastically.
The smell of the air, the power of the sun - and the 'different' way it burns skin and leaves, the way I cannot scent rain on the wind anymore, the overall diminishing productivity of soil (even though I do more to feed it than ever), the sudden omissions in insect/animal species - which are then replaced by feral/invasive/highly adaptable 'vermin' species, the way insect species are migrating to and past my location at an increasing rate, peculiar growth rates in plant species - enabling some to suddenly dominate beyond the normal balance, the massive increase in plant diseases (blights this year have been at their worst), the change in wild species balance, and the despairing rate at which people are just giving up (obvious by the increasing rate they are willing to befoul the landscape around them, buy silly stuff to distract themselves from immediate problems, continue to try and keep up with the Joneses (like that's the most important thing), and breed indiscriminately (with no thought of their children's future in a fast diminishing world.
i was just thinking of your channel the other day and couldnt remember what you were called. and there you were in my recommends. i like you
Orwell once quipped that there are some ideas that are so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them. But now, it's clear that his view was much too limited. There are even some ideas that are so profoundly ridiculous that to fully describe them requires a whole gathering of intellectuals, and a whole global media system to distribute them.
This was a fun one. More of this content please.
Malthus and his supporters have constantly been proven wrong. His thesis was published prior to the industrial revolution, something that his projections could have never accounted for. He was fond of the British aristocracy and looked down on the poor as savages whose impulses should be regulated by the wealthy elites. His ideas would later come to serve as the basis for eugenics and later on, fascism.
Those who support him knowing this do so not out of a sense of genuine concern for humanity's future but because they seek to feel superior to it.
World turns slowly. Sun don't shine. Silence stills the air and kills the chime. ~ Black Sabbath (1990)
it's been five minutes to midnight for the last 74 years
Georg, you have become my favorite Englishmen living in the states.
I would recommend reading “Cadillac Desert” to anyone interested in the bit about agriculture. Haunting book that one. If you are looking for hopium in regards to agriculture, I recommend doing some reading on Cuban agricultural reforms following the collapse of the USSR.
3:19 - 3D printing was invented and patented about the time the guy gave his speech. He didnt predict 50 years of innovation. Frankly what this example illustrates best is the utter failure of patent system at promoting innovation.
Also lets not forget that the USSR wanted to create something like the internet for a long time. Sadly (?) soviet cybernetics failed partly thanks to decades of neglect during the Stalin era ban.
The most surprising thing about thd internet is that it came from the west.
Issue with limits to growth is quiet fundamental.
It makes.predictions based on 5 variables. The sources for which migth as well be "i pulled em strait outta my backaide".
Most obviously this includes himan fertility.
Less obviously it pretends that currently economically viable reserves, are the same thing, as...
...not just currently technologically exploitable (anything but cheapest to exploit) reserves...
...not justcurrently known reserves...
...but total sum of all reserves known and unknown that exist on the planet.
It also makes truly extreme assumptions about technological possibility of recycling.
...in essence the conclusion of the book is a good demonstration of the "garbage in -> garbage out" style of theorycrafting.
Except whaling hasnt killed itself.
As of now (in 2024) 8t could be slowly restarted - as whales are slowly recovering - with an appropriate quota.system.
Were it not for legal prohibitions.
Issue is that (outside planned economies) there is no inherent "worth" of resources.
As such the "it becomes more effort to extract resources than their worth" is a fucked argument. As estimates of worth used are frankly made up - including by authors of said book.
Thanks for your work. I find that your videos back-to-back with Just Have a Think's are a welcome antidote to the relentless jollity and good news of todays mediaspace. Refreshing.
Excited for part 2!
Looking forward to part 2. One of the most impactful things about the limits to growth imo is how it has been scrutinized over time yet still appears to hold water, even as recently as 2023. Our ruling class should be held accountable as criminals for so blatantly ignoring such insight and insisting upon a status quo that has already unjustly costed lives.
The only thing we have an unlimited supply of is human creativity. We should start moving to an arts economy. Unfortunately, we view arts as commodities these days.
Glad we have dependable power sources like hydroelectric geothermal nuclear etc...
There are limits to the output of all of these. There are limits to how many can be built too. There are limits to how much nuclear waste the earth can handle. It all generates heat and waste. There are limits to how much heat and waste the planet can take.
And coal.
@@HiNickCares and moon rocks
And Hiptang.
There is enough growth for everyone. Only problem is oligarchs dont want competition
Respectfully disagree about growth, but the point about oligarchs is true.
From a fellow aston martin fan
There’s been “sequels” published since TLtG but they aren’t particularly optimistic either.
But what gets me is that it’s obvious. All these companies and governments seeking constant growth are deluded. EVERYTHING is finite.
It's malthusian nonsense.
I've just discovered your channel. This is an excellent video. Thanks
Ah yes the yearly reminder of how effed we are. Thanks for this.
If Georg had access to the BBC footage and sound libraries he would be on the par with Adam Curtis
Another critique of Malthus is the self-fulfilling nature of Malthusian driven economic policy - take the Great Famine in Ireland, where the supposed overgrowth of the Irish population led to the disaster, despite very limited state intervention and continued food exports
I would say severe state intervention, just not in a good way.
And by state, you mean hostile British occupiers.
@legend36555 and by hostile British occupiers you mean the Irish.
The Irish nationalists like to pretend they were oppressed, but they had power in the British government, and their local governments. And these were elected by the Irish. Ie No more and no less than any other British subjects.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 you haven't a clue
Sounds like every discussion on Nate Hagens' channel.
Peak oil is just around the corner guys i promise just arohnd the corner
One of your very best videos, really hope there actually is a part 2!
Part 2 will come out September 27th. Cheers
I think these types of reports also make the wrong assumption of thinking that they truly know how much of a given resource is available on the whole planet. And more importantly, they assume that humanity was intended to go on just as it is now, forever. Which we aren't.
ive seen lectures on youtube where they explain this mining thing exactly.... smaller amounts of cromium of copper per ton of rock is gathered nowadays meaning more energy and effort is needed to get same output. eg uranium mines stop mining when price goes too low. perhaps in china and couple other places taxpayer subsidizes it for their domestic industry so we dont see total collapse.
and wildly ignoring plastics
I think there was an update somewhere in the last years that said that we were currently tracking for BAU2 and CT which are two of the four main scenarios proposed by the original LtG.
Keep Manifesting that Destiny Humanity 🦾🤖🏭🔥☢️💀
"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse."
~ CEO Nwabudike Morgan on The Centauri Monopoly
Great. Now I’m going to have nightmares about chromium depletion.
I think the biggest flaw in this model is how it doesn’t account for innovations for closed production cycles. Not only do new technologies make previously not viable resource extraction viable, but we get better at recycling and re-using previously extracted elements. We are also getting way better at producing energy at scale despite the pause in nuclear. At the end of the day the real limits to growth are energy and matter, none of which are really scarce.
We will all harangue that bell until YT stops with the bell shenanigans! 😉☮️😎🤘
Funny that, I had a class where my teacher used him as an example of someone who was completely wrong about technological growth because 'see? we didn't run out of food yet!'.
And this is why I've regretted ever being in school, It was a waste of my time and filled with teachers dumber than their own students
But he was wrong...
So the Population collapse thesis can never be proven wrong ? basically some pseudoreligion gibberish , is that what you're saying ?
Your teacher is wrong because elevated it to a credible scientific thesis and tried to test it
Because none of the predictions are even close to be achieved . We aren't running of anything
We produce so much food , that we use most of it to feed animals to produce meat .
@@JohnSmith-mc2zzWhy? What about pollution and resources other than food? Granted, some very promising and potentially sustainable replacement materials (bio-based and others) are being invented, but what if it's too little too late? The book's points are still mostly valid.
@@handanyldzhan9232 Because the thing he predicted isn't going to happen, at least not in the timeframe he said. And that's okay.
@handanyldzhan9232 he is wrong about every other resource though. Improving technology and simple discovery has opened up more deposits of pretty much every nonrenewable resource and we use every non-Renewables resource more efficiently despite still using them extremely wast fully compared to how we could be useing them. We are not running out of anything anytime soon.
What a video!!! looking forward to part two!! :)))
"i ThInK tHeSe TyPeS oF rEpOrTs ArE dUmB cAuSe WhO kNoWs HoW mUcH wE hAvE oF wHaT rEsOuRcE aNd HoW mUcH wE nEeD" the nerds commenting this have never played a video game where it becomes harder to find a certain type of resource the longer the game goes on. IT IS CALLED COMMON SENSE, RICHARD.
Anyone who ever played Age of Empires and relied on a strategy that made he at use of one particular resource would know that.
Like, if you’re using wood for A LOT of things, you’re going to start running out of trees quickly.
The world is a tad more complex than a computer game.
@@CarrotConsumer That’s true, but the principle still exists regardless. You use too much of a resource too quickly, you’re going to run out. And that’s real bad when your entire infrastructure relies on said resource.
@@CarrotConsumer We live in a simulation, all that will be left us soon is the data points of hour history. The data already tells us that taking and using the resources we have found to date is making our planet unsurvivable, defeating the entire point of progress in the first place. Doesn't matter if you still have five rounds in the gun, if one has entered your brain.
@@CarrotConsumerthe computer game is attempting to model an approximation of a clearly real principle
"to undermine the idea of a proletariat utopia (and we were so close!)..."
And those side remarks are why I love Georg's stuff.
The thing I don't understand of this logic is that it assumes that per person consumption of resources increases exponentially, even if everyone disposes of most things every year (think from smartphones to houses), the actual resource consumption per person over time will tend to be linear. Maybe with population growth consumption can increase in line with population growth, but with current birth rate trends, it doesn't seem like long term population increases will realize.
Give half the people in the world an extra five dollars a day and they could double their consumption, Africa is supposed to be almost half the world by 2100, I don't think there needs to be population growth to still have exponential resource consumption, it's possible the next 100 years looks like the last 200.
With such a large percentage of the world turning over 65, it will be interesting how the next few decades goes as these people have consumed or bought most of their goods that will see them out.
@@antonyjh1234 For low incomes, economic growth might have an exponential effect on resource consumption, but I don't think that a 40k a year income produces exponentially more raw resource consumption than a 20k a year income. Taking into account economies of scale, it might even be that as more people can afford certain goods, the industrial infrastructure gets "cheaper per person" (same factory divided between more people).
That said, I don't know how many raw resources people will use when/if they have first world level incomes, but I suspect that it will be less than expected, because of the capitalistic incentive for efficiency.
@@EmmanuelMess As I say it doesn't need to be the difference between 40k and 20, it could be an extra 2k that could achieve that and the potential to get them to 10 times that exists.
@@antonyjh1234 Yes, but my point is that you can't expect the same people to consume exponentially more every year forever, even when you take into account large income growth. Even if they consume exponentially more for say 10 or 15 years of their lives, it seems to me that resources wouldn't be depleted fast enough to make a dent on global production, especially after taking into account the economic incentives to ramp up production of those specific goods that will be most consumed.
@@EmmanuelMess Of course not, I'm saying exponential can continue, Africa will be almost half the world population over the next 80 years, even if the west maintain spending, exponential growth can still happen. They of course have resources and arable land so whether they will be a big drain on current accounts of resources of more will be found is yet to be seen. I think they have 9 of the worlds 13% that is arable land, largely untouched, the consumption they and the world over the next 80 years could be the same as the last 200.
Universal Paperclips being a reality, here we come baybee!
I am gonna get popcorn for part two! For real great video. Been thinking a lot about the big civilization questions like this. Pretty sure the rest of the 21st century and a good chunk of the 22nd are gonna be very bad for human civilization. We are in our own 'Bronze Age Collapse' and will go through an actual dark age. That being said I do believe ultimately some form of civilization will survive, but I don't think we will ever see the size and complexity the latter half of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st. I am sort of sad I won't get to see what comes after. The historian in me is very interested.
Maybe the Solar Punks won't be as Utopian as we think they are. Stranger things have happened and hope springs eternal .
@@kellywalker1664 I agree. I tend to think our future will look Solar Punk but won't be the peaceful utopia we usually envisioned it as. I think we will see little solar punk city states competing with each other.
I think most of us, at least in the west, can "feel" some sort of "end" is getting closer and closer since the pandemic...and the pandemic was almost 5 freaking years ago.
I dunno, it felt earlier for me, way earlier, 2012.
People keep talking about a "pandemic" happening a few years back, but I have no idea what they're talking about. Let's try to isolate exactly when it is alleged to have occurred. Was it before or after the authoritarian government clampdown?🤨🤔
Polycrises have erosive effects on our fragile bubbles of civilization. Expect more in the coming years to cocktail with Overshoot and Climate Change.
Sucks to have not owned any SP500 then I take it.
getting my "Road Warrior" costume together......
Sounds like a very Malthusian idea, just applied more broadly.
17:00 -> called it
I was always going to die anyway.
Hell yeah. Can't wait for graphs.
Third world refers to non aligned nations. So Yugoslavia and indonesia, one socialist and one capitalist, were both thrid world countries. It has nothing to do if a nation is developed or not.
It once did. But it is more conventionally used to refer to underdeveloped nations these days, or for about the last 30 years or so.
Well Yugoslavia was the only semi-developed non-aligned nation, so the conventional use of the word still applies.
You can always play fast and loose with this terminology. China still claims to be a developing country so they can claim various exceptions to WTO regulations, even while crowing that (by some measures) they have the largest economy in the world, and are very eager to use that as a cudgel.
Ramifications! It's such a lovely word.
On the one hand, the systems and their interactions are exceedingly complex. On the other, that complexity is irrelevant when we're talking about subtracting at an increasing rate from a finite quantity. X + (-X) = 0, no matter how clever you are.
These growth models always ignore innovation because it is impossible to quantify. However innovation can sidestep limits to growth, up to a point.
"up to a point" The point of "Limits to Growth" was suggest where the point lies.
you should read it. it DOES HAVE scenarios for what happens for instance when there is unlimited pollution free energy, thanks to human ingenuity. arguably makes things worse.
but yes, human ingenuity will find ways to ignore the problem.
People who confuse a fifty year old prediction with reality are very dumb.
I mean, it all would have come true already were it not for adaptations in agriculture and pharmacology.
Science is keeping us limping along - whilst we deny it every day in parliament and on Facebook.
Love the Koyaanisqatsi riff.
Philip Glass
Thank goodness we have discovered Soylent Green!
Georg, have you got an ETA for Part 2?
Keep up the good work 👍
Well, I'm sure the election in November will solve everything.
Doesn't it always.
Im 68 so i hope i dont have to worry bout this two
As a member of the International Bell Protectorate Organization or IBPO, I must inform you that Bells are to be rung, you may ring a Bell, Bells may not be banged, clanged or otherwise cajoled into producing sound. Please, for the sake of Bells everywhere, refrain from promoting such malicious actions in the future.
P.S I rung your bell.
More disinformation from Big Bell
It makes me laugh when I hear enviromentalists saying that population growth isn't a problem. Here it is: More people means more consumption and eventually we will run out of certain vital resources, it is inevitable. In my lifetime of only 51 years, the human population has doubled from 4 to 8 billion and every 12-13 years you can add on another billion. It is widely agreed that the world's population will peak at somewhere near 10.5 billion. Just think of the resources required to sustain so many people. Decline is inevitable and we cannot simply think our way out of this problem as we are stuck on this planet with an ever growing population. It really is remarkable what we are living through, an incredible rise and a glimpse into a future that I will certainly never live to see. Have a nice weekend!
Hmm how terrible. Apart from, we are facing a population implosion.
Environmentalists? I refer to “The Population Bomb” written by Paul Erlich and published in 1968. Erlich’s book was accepted by many environmentalists.
@@bb1111116 yah but I dont see that mentioned by any greener... they now talk of human rights, implying rich(moneywise) means rich in resources. curious change in those agendas
Have a nice weekend too
Ive thought that too... it is convenient coz all manufacturing is outsourced faraway. but that means they also have jobs and "future" so they have more kids than in west where future is just based on fiat numbers. china is joining that west club now(population wise). but they still wanna manufacture. everything fundamentally needs tons of energy and renewable energy seems bad fix for that. yes there is enough iron ore in world but digging it and smelting and then transporting it to places needs energy sources.
Fun guessing game(in college take shot/bingo card... for next 10 years) is to guess how and which things fall apart first in this endlessly complex global system.
Oh, so looking forward to part two, Cheers!
What do you sell in your marketplace, branded revolvers with matching ammo?
People used to think horse manure on the streets would cause cities to collapse. Then the car was invented. The prediction for peak oil production has come and gone many times without it happening.
It has happened. Peak Oil just means low hanging fruit. There's still a lot left as long as we can subsidize two barrels of oil to pull one out of the ground. Tar Sands would not be a thing otherwise. We ain't no Clampetts anymoar.
Also 😂😂 just want to add, the history of improvents in oil extraction is one of constantly needing new technologies to meet production demands
Predictions are merely predictions until they start coming true.
Are you suggesting there is an infinite supply of oil.
We will have wrecked the climate and the biodiversity loooooong before we run out of any critical resources.
We keep on discovering new oil fields and improving extraction methods.
The Limits To Growth could have been a little longer? The irony was not lost on me.