Birth control! people like to make this issue more complex than it needs to be. People like having sex, having sex is how people make babies. Until modern birth control was invented in 1960, people did not have a reliable (non-abortion) way of having sex with out getting pregnant. With various forms of birth control people are perfectly happy to have sex and not make a baby. the birth rate was previously high because people were having sex and made babies, not because they were trying to make more babies. @ 7:35 the Chinese government has successfully decreased the birth rate with the one child policy, but now are not able to increase it with the two or three child policy.
That ‘summary’ at the end really takes the mask off the agenda of the sponsors. It’s like they’re whispering in my ear: “Don’t worry about climate change”
Think of climate change as a roller coaster, you start stopped and go up, that's what we're doing, every moment we climb more and add some curves, some loops and in the end we will get to where we started, stopped, in this century we will the whole route, the problem is that, while some are seated and wearing seat belts, others are without seat belts, as they do not have the money to prepare and others are outside the carts, grabbing what they can, and along the way many will fall. It will be a turbulent journey.
No, I heard them clearly caveat that climate change will have profound consequences but that a declining population will more readily cope with it than an overpopulated one.
@@byronbuck1762 exactly, we and our children will be the most affected, perhaps our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will feel the effects much less.
@@sanrezende Actually they will be more affected because the worst outcomes are still decades away, but it may be easier to cope with some effects. For instance, if there is a surplus of housing due to declining population, retreat from coastlines is easier.
@@byronbuck1762 you are right, i always forget that a generation is considered 20 to 25 year. So they will sufer the most and the ones in under development countries will sufer even more, because their population wil not decline so soon.
You are exactly the person the man talked about. Like where do you get your numbers from to come to the conclusion we're too many or too few. Your source is only your rear parts it seems.
If GDP holds steady as population declines, then per capita income increases. If cost of production declines due to technical advances and per capita income increases, then even with a declining population, consumption will hold steady or increase. Government Debt with a declining population is manageable as long as the government properly plans for the future (don't count on it). Government does engineer growth. Through municipal by-laws housing is restricted. Supply does not meet demand, investors speculate, prices drive up. Due to increased education to land higher skilled jobs citizens spend more time in school and possibly acquire debt. The combination of longer school + increased debt + increased home prices = marrying later = having kids later = couples hit infertility at 35-40 = less children. This is engineered. This trend started in the 1960s when governments started to fear the population bomb. The population can be made to grow again any time by creating factors that encourage marriage and home ownership at a younger age. Couples produce children when they feel they are secure enough to do so (not all couples, some chose to be DINKs). I hope we experience geriatric peace. There are some dark horses though, today, talk to Russia, China, and several middle eastern countries. Tomorrow talk to most of Africa, because those national dividing lines were not drawn well and will be subject to violent change I am sure.
That is the result of neoliberalism Neoliberalism despite what it's remaining supporters may preach is antithetical to nature and has created the first ever generation in the modern world that live worse off that their parents Only socialism can change this trend
@@oec9355 I am not a fan of socialism. I believe some things belong in the social realm: Police, Fire, Health, Municipal Services, Military, Education. Some things are better when managed collectively by a central authority and distributed at equal cost to all. However, other things should be the purview of the free market: resources, land, jobs/wages, R&D (though R&D has cross over to the social realm also), copyrights/patents/trademarks, etc. People need motivation to work. Full socialism takes incentive out of the system. Without reward, why should one man work harder than another? Every nation so far that has gone full socialism has failed. Even the current king of socialism, China, was on a path to failure until Deng opened up in 1979. After free market reforms, China grew to the behemoth it is today. And all that is dark and unjust in China falls into the social realm. Redistribution of wealth just makes everyone equally poor.
10:50 Why is it a moral imperative "to produce more tomorrow than today"? The only moral imperative of capitalism is the right to own property and free exchange. All free exchanges are win-win, hence growth.
You seem pretty conditioned by your environment. All “free” exchanges have-to some degree, or in one way or other-a winner and a loser; else, by definition, there would be no profit. And, hence, no capitalism. You are also wrong about the imperative of capitalism (I don’t know about the morality of it, but the imperative is plain), which is to continually increase profit and profitability by continuous change and improvement of the means of production. You should turn off your Heritage Foundation podcasts and read Marx. He got it right-analyzing and describing capitalism, that is. If Marx is too tough, try reading London’s *The Iron Heel* with an open mind. That’s easy-the reading, not the open mind part-and it will give you the equivalent of a Master’s in Economics with no Student Debt.
@@notsoancientpelican If I trade my bicycle for a skateboard, who wins and who loses. I think I won because I valued the skateboard more than my bicycle. The same thing goes for the other person. In both of our minds we each think we won - profited.
@@sdrc92126 If you don’t know what it is, then you’ve probably been a subject of its propaganda. …And please, don’t try to impress the Crowd with your sci-ahn-tific cred-ahn-tials; plenty of scientists, and plenty of truck drivers have been schnooked by the right wing corporatist oligarchic propaganda machine.
@@sdrc92126 Insofar as you “think” I agree, it’s a belief. But in absolute economic terms there must be some actual profit and loss in a transaction, no-? -Or, what’s the point of it? Come come, you can see my point unless you are intending to be deliberately obtuse.
Right now, technology can produce far more than humans can pay for and consume. As more jobs are eliminated, without universal basic income, there will be fewer and fewer humans to buy stuff. Also as the population ages, fewer people will need stuff. I am 75 and buy very little more than food because I have all the clothes, shelter and toys I have ever wanted. Even though my skills are in very high demand and I could make hundreds of thousands of dollars, I have no desire to do that. There are lots of people just like me. What happens when no one needs to buy the abundance of stuff the robots can make?
Truth. I'm 59, retired, and I'm going to have a garage sale this summer to get rid of all the useless garbage I've accumulated over the years. After that I'm downsizing my house and yard so they are easier and cheaper to maintain. This should make it possible to travel and do more. They call it the rat race for a reason.
We should get rid of social security. You people spent all the money, and now have no desire to work? Even for hundreds of thousands of dollars?! And y’all call the millennials lazy SMH
Ehrlich was shortsighted and used flawed reasoning by projecting trends in human behavior indefinitely into the future without the least understanding of human dynamism. He was wrong for 60 years without learning a thing from his errors. My conclusion is that the man is a charlatan, mountbank and humbug.
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences include foiling natural selection. Ages ago, stupid people would not survive long enough to squirt out stupid kids.
Resources was mentioned once... and I think that is the key... including fossil fuels... current renewable resources are no match and probably won't be! I think Dr. Karabell gets it but is diplomatic about it!
This episode was substantive and informative. Im kind of surprised. i expected a political bent when i saw the sponsors of this episode but the information held to the title of the show “ the whole truth”. I am subscribing to this channel. Thanks for this content.
Thank you for the diffusion of these much educative series of 'The Whole Truth with David Eisenhower', for its guests, its host and then for the sharing online of them.
Very interesting. And, I'm hopeful that the human population will decline significantly because humans are, unfortunately, destructive to the environment.
There is no human race. Race implies a soul, spirit and body of people that are different. Many different races and they are fundementally different human nature
Birth control! people like to make this issue more complex than it needs to be. People like having sex, having sex is how people make babies. Until modern birth control was invented in 1960, people did not have a reliable (non-abortion) way of having sex with out getting pregnant. With various forms of birth control people are perfectly happy to have sex and not make a baby. the birth rate was previously high because people were having sex and made babies, not because they were trying to make more babies.
@ 7:35 the Chinese government has successfully decreased the birth rate with the one child policy, but now are not able to increase it with the two or three child policy.
I see you posted this comment before they banned abortion in half of America. Any thought on how you argument has changed?
That ‘summary’ at the end really takes the mask off the agenda of the sponsors. It’s like they’re whispering in my ear: “Don’t worry about climate change”
Think of climate change as a roller coaster, you start stopped and go up, that's what we're doing, every moment we climb more and add some curves, some loops and in the end we will get to where we started, stopped, in this century we will the whole route, the problem is that, while some are seated and wearing seat belts, others are without seat belts, as they do not have the money to prepare and others are outside the carts, grabbing what they can, and along the way many will fall. It will be a turbulent journey.
No, I heard them clearly caveat that climate change will have profound consequences but that a declining population will more readily cope with it than an overpopulated one.
@@byronbuck1762 exactly, we and our children will be the most affected, perhaps our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will feel the effects much less.
@@sanrezende Actually they will be more affected because the worst outcomes are still decades away, but it may be easier to cope with some effects. For instance, if there is a surplus of housing due to declining population, retreat from coastlines is easier.
@@byronbuck1762 you are right, i always forget that a generation is considered 20 to 25 year. So they will sufer the most and the ones in under development countries will sufer even more, because their population wil not decline so soon.
To the contrary, government has been very effective in influencing population , decline, that is.
Lol! Yeah, idiots like this influencing government policy. They believe in climate change, no wonder we are living in poverty.
The people exist to service the financial sector…. This is why the chamber of commerce want 75+ million young immigrants right away
Good. There are too many people in the world by a factor of perhaps 100.
Lol u first Geoffrey
Nou.jpg
You are exactly the person the man talked about. Like where do you get your numbers from to come to the conclusion we're too many or too few. Your source is only your rear parts it seems.
You weren't listening.
its more like a factor of 10 only...
If GDP holds steady as population declines, then per capita income increases.
If cost of production declines due to technical advances and per capita income increases, then even with a declining population, consumption will hold steady or increase.
Government Debt with a declining population is manageable as long as the government properly plans for the future (don't count on it).
Government does engineer growth. Through municipal by-laws housing is restricted. Supply does not meet demand, investors speculate, prices drive up. Due to increased education to land higher skilled jobs citizens spend more time in school and possibly acquire debt. The combination of longer school + increased debt + increased home prices = marrying later = having kids later = couples hit infertility at 35-40 = less children. This is engineered. This trend started in the 1960s when governments started to fear the population bomb. The population can be made to grow again any time by creating factors that encourage marriage and home ownership at a younger age. Couples produce children when they feel they are secure enough to do so (not all couples, some chose to be DINKs).
I hope we experience geriatric peace. There are some dark horses though, today, talk to Russia, China, and several middle eastern countries. Tomorrow talk to most of Africa, because those national dividing lines were not drawn well and will be subject to violent change I am sure.
we don't need so many people on this planet
I don’t see it as engineered, more as a confluence of events outside of any master plan of control.
That is the result of neoliberalism
Neoliberalism despite what it's remaining supporters may preach is antithetical to nature and has created the first ever generation in the modern world that live worse off that their parents
Only socialism can change this trend
@@oec9355 I am not a fan of socialism. I believe some things belong in the social realm: Police, Fire, Health, Municipal Services, Military, Education. Some things are better when managed collectively by a central authority and distributed at equal cost to all. However, other things should be the purview of the free market: resources, land, jobs/wages, R&D (though R&D has cross over to the social realm also), copyrights/patents/trademarks, etc. People need motivation to work. Full socialism takes incentive out of the system. Without reward, why should one man work harder than another? Every nation so far that has gone full socialism has failed. Even the current king of socialism, China, was on a path to failure until Deng opened up in 1979. After free market reforms, China grew to the behemoth it is today. And all that is dark and unjust in China falls into the social realm. Redistribution of wealth just makes everyone equally poor.
10:50 Why is it a moral imperative "to produce more tomorrow than today"? The only moral imperative of capitalism is the right to own property and free exchange. All free exchanges are win-win, hence growth.
You seem pretty conditioned by your environment. All “free” exchanges have-to some degree, or in one way or other-a winner and a loser; else, by definition, there would be no profit. And, hence, no capitalism. You are also wrong about the imperative of capitalism (I don’t know about the morality of it, but the imperative is plain), which is to continually increase profit and profitability by continuous change and improvement of the means of production. You should turn off your Heritage Foundation podcasts and read Marx. He got it right-analyzing and describing capitalism, that is. If Marx is too tough, try reading London’s *The Iron Heel* with an open mind. That’s easy-the reading, not the open mind part-and it will give you the equivalent of a Master’s in Economics with no Student Debt.
@@notsoancientpelican If I trade my bicycle for a skateboard, who wins and who loses. I think I won because I valued the skateboard more than my bicycle. The same thing goes for the other person. In both of our minds we each think we won - profited.
@@notsoancientpelican I also don't know what the heritage foundation is. My background is nuclear physics and mathematics.
@@sdrc92126 If you don’t know what it is, then you’ve probably been a subject of its propaganda. …And please, don’t try to impress the Crowd with your sci-ahn-tific cred-ahn-tials; plenty of scientists, and plenty of truck drivers have been schnooked by the right wing corporatist oligarchic propaganda machine.
@@sdrc92126 Insofar as you “think” I agree, it’s a belief. But in absolute economic terms there must be some actual profit and loss in a transaction, no-? -Or, what’s the point of it? Come come, you can see my point unless you are intending to be deliberately obtuse.
Right now, technology can produce far more than humans can pay for and consume. As more jobs are eliminated, without universal basic income, there will be fewer and fewer humans to buy stuff. Also as the population ages, fewer people will need stuff. I am 75 and buy very little more than food because I have all the clothes, shelter and toys I have ever wanted. Even though my skills are in very high demand and I could make hundreds of thousands of dollars, I have no desire to do that. There are lots of people just like me. What happens when no one needs to buy the abundance of stuff the robots can make?
Truth. I'm 59, retired, and I'm going to have a garage sale this summer to get rid of all the useless garbage I've accumulated over the years. After that I'm downsizing my house and yard so they are easier and cheaper to maintain. This should make it possible to travel and do more. They call it the rat race for a reason.
We should get rid of social security. You people spent all the money, and now have no desire to work? Even for hundreds of thousands of dollars?! And y’all call the millennials lazy SMH
Old people don't revolt only young do
Ehrlich was shortsighted and used flawed reasoning by projecting trends in human behavior indefinitely into the future without the least understanding of human dynamism. He was wrong for 60 years without learning a thing from his errors. My conclusion is that the man is a charlatan, mountbank and humbug.
But its old ppl that start wars....
I will present you a guy called Alexander, he is a great guy
@@diegonatan6301 Lol! Great comment. People usually didn't live long back then. The definition of 'old' has changed.
Old mate David represents the demographic 'old man interruption'.
natural selection still works. Individual fertility rates vary.
that conference panel prove the opposite
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences include foiling natural selection. Ages ago, stupid people would not survive long enough to squirt out stupid kids.
"Static affluence" is my new favorite term. I think a slowly declining US population would solve more problems then it would create.
Resources was mentioned once... and I think that is the key... including fossil fuels... current renewable resources are no match and probably won't be! I think Dr. Karabell gets it but is diplomatic about it!
Hi David. I wish you didn't interrupt your interviewees so they can complete their ideas.
Great discussion, but pity about the unnecessary "climate change" nonsense.
This episode was substantive and informative. Im kind of surprised. i expected a political bent when i saw the sponsors of this episode but the information held to the title of the show “ the whole truth”. I am subscribing to this channel. Thanks for this content.
mass formation extinction no if's no but's
The human race cannot end too soon.
Maybe you can get us started.
@@billweberx done.
Thank you for the diffusion of these much educative series of 'The Whole Truth with David Eisenhower', for its guests, its host and then for the sharing online of them.
CONGRATULATIONS 👏 AND GREETINGS FOR ORGANIZING SUCH A WONDERFUL PRESENTATION/EVENT.REGARDS FROM RAVINDER TALWAR INDIA
In Klaus Schwab and George Soros we (Juwz) trust. Karl Marx would be proud.
Civilization is a heat engine.
#DEGROWTH
Keep the White in White Western
Lol rubbish
I find it humorous that there are low birth rates in yellow eastern. It shows what BS some alt right points are.
Erlich is wrong at every level, i.e., see Julian Simon.
Very interesting. And, I'm hopeful that the human population will decline significantly because humans are, unfortunately, destructive to the environment.
We need more people to populate mars.
There is no human race. Race implies a soul, spirit and body of people that are different. Many different races and they are fundementally different human nature
Hispanic.
Germany is in decline.
So is Russia. So is China. So is all of Eastern Europe
the stone age collapse 1333
b.c. 2022 reacted out 2022 !
that it campers . do us a Tru
favor wear WW3 fatiques k !
rev
The veil needs to be stripped, the future belongs to you the Chinese!
Due to demographics, the Chinese are doomed. By 2050, they will halve their population.
They had a birth rate about about 1.5 for years.