The overpopulation myth, debunked by a data scientist | Hannah Ritchie
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 сер 2024
- About the sponsor: If you're ready to transform your business' operations, go to www.odoo.com/bigthink to start a free 14-day trial, no credit card required.
About the video: Is human overpopulation alarmist hype with disturbing consequences? Oxford data scientist Hannah Ritchie debunks the overpopulation myth.
Subscribe to Big Think on UA-cam ► / @bigthink
Up next, Psychologist debunks 8 myths of mass scale ► • Psychologist debunks 8...
A widespread concern with overpopulation became prominent in the 1960s and the 1970s, when scholars wondered how we could produce enough food for a rapidly growing global population. Brought to the fore with the publication of the book, "The Population Bomb," by Paul R. Ehrlich in 1968, it seemed that the only way to solve this problem was to discourage people from having more children.
This concern hinged on the assumption that the world population would continue to grow exponentially, but it hasn't. While the global population is still growing, in fact it's growing at a much slower rate, as global population growth rates peaked decades ago and have halved since then.
So is this concern completely unfounded? What can future population projections tell us? Data scientist Hannah Ritchie explains why.
00:00: The overpopulation concern
02:01: Global population growth rates
02:28: The fall in global fertility rates
03:06: Amount of food produced per person
03:50: Per capita CO2 emissions
04:17: The underpopulation concern
Read the video transcript ► bigthink.com/series/devils-ad...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go Deeper with Big Think:
►Become a Big Think Member
Get exclusive access to full interviews, early access to new releases, Big Think merch and more. members.bigthink.com/?...
►Get Big Think+ for Business
Guide, inspire and accelerate leaders at all levels of your company with the biggest minds in business. bigthink.com/plus/great-leade...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Hannah Ritchie:
Hannah Ritchie is a data scientist and science communicator focused on the largest problems that shape our world, and how to solve them.
Ritchie's work focuses on environmental sustainability, including climate change, energy, food and agriculture, biodiversity, air pollution and deforestation.
Ritchie is a Deputy Editor and Lead Researcher at Our World in Data, and a researcher at the Oxford Martin Programme in Global Development, at the University of Oxford.
I think it would be better to think of the human population as bacteria rather than cancer. No cancer is good, but a balanced amount of bacteria is, although too much bacteria is bad for our health.
Then all species are bacteria, because we are all part of the same ecosystem and evolved from the same source. We are just a highly successful bacteria!
The good environment and food don't improve the population in the developed world... Who would say that? That's was tricky true for the science.
In other hand no food couldn't stop the África growth...but they growth not pressuring the food price. The life expectancy is low as 35 years.
The environment eco problem is an industrial problem but since 80's the model has improved with recycling, renewable energy and ethanol for cars.
We need think more to make verdicts.
The planet doesnt belong to humanity. We have to give space to the rest of life on Earth. Its called "ecosystem" not "humansystem."
Humans are part of the ecosystem, we just choose to ignore this fact!
The real problem is the system works for the benefit of a handful of billionaires in detriment of the planet itself.
I agree wholeheartedly, but if a critical mass of people decided that they were sick of that then it could be changed, nonviolently even.
& that is why we need education
The real problem is that while you are all right - it's a system for billionaires, we need a critical mass of people sick of this to change it, and education is key (education in Marxist theory) - , there is an ideological veil over society that does net let Big Thinkers be that explicit: let us look at class antagonism, is that something that should exist?! People getting more money out of money without working for it just because they have (inherited) it? They can only do that on the back of others who have to work for that (material!) wealth but don't have the fruit of their own labour. Now in a system that works like this - some work hard but get nothing, others hardly work and get a lot (A LOT) - it is understandable that we become greedy (both those that work a lot and want to be rewarded and those that hardly work and want to maintain that). And then we say: "oh that's human nature, we are naturally greedy!". No, let's not have an economic system, capitalism, whose driving value is greed because it creates inequality and thus recreates classes, people who are high and low value, just because of how much currency they own. In the video, she showed well that the world can be fed and that we need to tackle environmental questions but she should have said clearly that the contradictions of the capitalist system do not allow us to address demographic and environmental issues adequately. That she doesn't say this although it's obvious and that this only shows up in the comments of videos is the ideological veil I'm speaking of.
How dumb can you be not to see the over population problem? Have you seen India, Nigeria and Bangladesh filth? How are billionaires involved?
Greed should be a crim punishable by law.
The problem isn't the sheer number of humans, it's the damage to the environment exacted by each individual human. If we were 7 billion hunter gatherers the damage would be far less harmful. The problems arise due to the desire of billions to possess and consume at the level of the 1%. Multiple cars, multiple homes, massive carbon footprints and massive waste. If there were only a million humans the ecosystem could probably deal with it. The open question is which will happen first, reducing human materiel ambition or reducing human population?
Agreed. And what do you think is the cause of the desire to possess and consume?
The earth can’t sustain 7 billion hunter gatherers. The population per area that can be sustained in those societies is much lower. It’s about moving forward to new, more efficient systems, not going back to hunting and gathering.
@@AhmdHidayatIn a way, what you (and she) are saying that as long as a population is poor, then we can handle feeding us.
But climate change makes it difficult to grow more food and makes living more difficult, particularly for poor people.
Inflation, partially because of crop failures, makes it even more challenging for those people to live.
This also doesn’t take decreasing resources, like potable water, into account.
The truth is true!!!
There is no climate problem.
Other comments have already pointed out a number of problems with this argument, but one I haven't seen is that most of the agricultural practices being used to reach such a high food output are very unsustainable and constantly depleting the soil.
The idea that we can sustain billions more people is just ridiculous when many around the world are already starving and even in the US (supposed richest country in the world) people can barely afford groceries. There's a reason data scientist don't make these kinds of decisions, there's a hell of a lot more to consider than numbers and factors on a spread sheet.
That plus the dead zones from overfishing & algae plumes from chemicals we’re spilling into the oceans. We are very behind in sustaining anything.
It's not as simple as people seem to want to make it. Yes, population growth is slowing. Yes, food production yields have skyrocketed over the past several decades. But these yields are not sustainable - due to overuse of fertilizer, industrial monoculture farming techniques, and climate change, we will see massive food shortages. In that respect, it's good that pop. growth has slowed, but there will still be massive deprivation.
Not to mention the shift to the far right in reaction to mass migration.
Yes . . .Humans have been able to produce much much more crap unnatural, poisoned, unhealthy foods in order to feed a sick (over)-population . . Great solution!!!
Interestingly this modern prediction has always been false. The reason is that with larger population comes more collective problem solving ability. People simply figured to solutions faster than problems could cause devastation.
It could go differently this time, but yields are so massive now the most I would expect are price shocks.
I can't take serious about video which slanders the opposing view with talk of forced sterilizations and secret birth control conspiracies!
Really things like this are the only reason I follow this channel. To see how far you can move away from actual thinking and discourse. 90% of the Videos published here are left wing, woke bullshit from the first to the last second.
I am not sure what arguments she is trying to make. Overpopulation isn’t a problem because birth rates have fallen? Okay, but in the countries with declining birth rates, people are typically wealthier and the carbon emissions per capita are dramatically higher. In less wealthy countries, the birth rate is higher but that’s okay because they barely use any resources? I thought that moving people out of poverty is a good thing. Since economic activity is tied to environmental disruption, at least currently, as people in these less wealthy countries increase their standard of living, this argument makes less sense.
We need more people in their working age years to keep the economy moving forward? That is a problem of a population which has a rate of growth that is too low. It has nothing to do with population size. Also, how does she define “moving the economy forward”?
She neglects to mention the absolute environmental destruction required to increase food production. People think the carbon cycle is a problem? Look at the nitrogen cycle.
There is some population that is reasonable given a certain standard of living that falls within the constraints of what natural systems can provide. The rate at which you get there, on the decline, creates problems in how the society functions. That is the concern. The problem of overpopulation has not been “debunked”.
SPOT ON !!
Except in SOME countries in Africa, population growth is declining, even in India for example. Check the data in any media. 😅
There is no problem of overpopulation. There never was. It's a myth. Population can continue to grow without any environmental consequences.
@@user-gh3wt2uf2pthe existing population is too much in india
Exactly, spot on.
She presents questions and then answers them with a fact that might not have any correlation with the problem. The SYSTEM we have for having a decent life (shelter, food, energy) at the moment is not sustainable.
And also who’s quality of life improves with an increase of population? When now in the US for the first time parents had it better that their future generations.
This video was simple-minded, the topic is a complex one where there might not be a one-fit-all answer.
I'm not sure this video answered the question that set out to answer in the beginning.
The question: Is population causing enviromental problems?
One answer prompted: We are able to feed the people.
I have absolutely no idea how "We are able to feed the people" is an answer to the question "Is population causing environmental problems?"
I grew up in the sixties and seventies, UK population estimated 50 million, UK population today (2024) estimated 70 + million and still growing.
That's an extra 20 million people.
Today there's a severe housing shortage, an NHS that's at breaking point , overcrowded prisons, shortage of school places for children not enough doctors or dentists to cope with the number of people, infrastructure break down etc etc
It's obvious to me that the UK is vastly overpopulated.
You are highlighting huge systemic issues but then, for some reason, point to population instead. The problem isn't families, it's policy.
you uk people are foolish to allow certain groups of non grateful immigrants in galore. (condolences from your Indian wellwisher.)
Yes and why? Mass immigration? Could be.
Unfortunately, she has a rather narrow view that does not consider a deeper analysis of variables including wealth distribution, quality of life factors and economic inequalities. I’d rather pay attention ecologists who are in general very clear about the overpopulation problem. For starters we live in a finite ecosystem but believe and try to operate an infinite growth model in economics. Very disturbing.
And she is being promoted by rich Elon Musk and bill gates
Compared to ten thousand years ago, humans have lowered wild mammal biomass to be only 1/5 what it was. 98% of all mammal biomass is now humans and livestock, and human and livestock biomass is 11 times what all mammal biomass was 10,00 years ago. Someone please tell me how this could possibly be workable for the longterm health of our living systems.
It most certainly isn’t workable for the long-term.
@@user-gt2cp7oz4c I don't think they're ready for this.
Totally agreed . . and we have stolen too much land from the animals etc., not allowing places where nature can thrive untouched by stupid human scientific manipulation. . .
I follow teacher Aurelien Barrau e Hubert Reeves. We are at sixth mass extinction...
Interesting stats, nice one
An absolute masterclass in how to deceive with statistics. Bravo! The declining population growth argument is misleading because it forgets to mention that you are applying this growth rate to a base population that's 3x larger than it was in 1950. Global population grew by 44M from 1950-51 vs. a gain of 74M from 2023-24, a whopping 68% increase in people added annually versus 1950. For the CO2 emissions per capita argument: 1) no credible scientist would support the assumption that India and Africa could "add billions" with zero corresponding impact to their CO2 per capita rates 2) multiplying a small number BY BILLIONS still adds up to billions on a planet that should be decreasing its CO2 emissions, not increasing them.
As I tell my students--statistics can't lie to those who understand them, only to those who are ignorant of statistical analysis. Take a math class, folks!
It's easier to imagine the end of the world then the end of capitalism.
They really demoized depopulation in this video. The real key to depopulation is educating women, giving them contraception and the right to choice and good health care
hey genius.. learn how to use paragraphs.. I think thats taught in grade 3
CO2 is Not the danger some claim. Right now the Sahel is greening because CO2 has increased. The excess will be absorbed in plant growth.
You need to read "what to expect when no one is expecting". What you aren't getting is that birth-rate results in GENERATIONAL growth/degrowth patterns.
So what happens is, less children being born. So population keeps growing, and growing... until the old people start dying. Then suddenly population falls off a cliff...and because children are born slower than old people die, the population just keeps falling and falling for decades.
Economic growth goes negative, and STAYS negative until the population falls back parity.
This means complete economic collapse for the 1st world, pretty much worldwide. The middle east and Africa will look rosy but Asia, Europe, and America will be ghost towns.
After living on the front range near Denver Colorado for 43 years, I've seen an alarming number of changes due to population increase. Traffic jams. Toll roads. Reservations required to go to Rocky Mountain National Park, Mount Blue Sky, Brainard Lake and many other venues. None of this is good.
You're problem with more people is that they inconvenience you?
well, that doesn't represent most of the rest of the world...
... in that case the issue is high population density
Statisticians often ignore or are ignorant of scientific facts. This subject is so complex that a base line of facts needs to be accepted first before any ideas formulated can move on and make real progress. Study both the Milankovitch Cycles in detail along with their most recent super computer modelings alongside accepting that we are not yet at the natural cycle bottom that is glacial minimum. Temperatures will rise as we approach GM and are unstoppable. Further more understand that CO2 levels are not the most urgent problem with the environment in so far as sustaining 8-10 billion people. Our loss of natural habitats, general bio-diversity and massive decline in numbers and species of insects is a huge problem looking forward in the case of food production. The earth will continue to warm even if we had zero CO2 emissions tomorrow. We must urgently stop the destruction of natural habitats, counter chemical and waste pollution, care for the oceans that regenerate 60-70% of our oxygen and are a huge food source. As the climate warms, populations need to adapt and some move geographically over the next 100-200 years, if mankind is capable of that vision and planning. Mother earth will recover as she has done over billions of years but mankind has a choice if it wants to survive here or not. The myopic approach of just looking at rising CO2 and temperature increases without firstly addressing the above points will spell the biggest problem for mankind's future and that of most other animal species.
The truth is true!
Apparently, habitat and biodiversity loss are the most important topics in which, apparently, nobody is really interested.
I couldn't agree more! This is true.
Well said!
We don't want to be here, if we did, we'd act differently.
The UN predicts that in the next 50 years or so, the population will increase by another 2 Billion. Not sure I buy into her argument. It may not have the impact on climate change, but we already have a problem with the quality of life for much of the current population. Adding 2 Billion isn't going to help.
Thats weird because I know multiple people who are actual ecologists who deal with fixing population collapse for various species and they all say that humans are on course to either see our population drop like a rock when climate change makes a large portion of our usable farmland worthless or full extinction if our activities and pollution take out a few more keystone species or ecosystems.
We don't have to worry about overpopulation because there won't be many of us left who live somewhere where food can still be grown or gathered.
This is why you don't hire a data scientist to explain the complicated relationships between real world ecosystems and how human civilization will likely be affected by them. The real world doesn't work or organize itself into neat little categories where exact numbers rule the day and predict outcomes. The only people who don't mind overpopulation is the super rich, more slave labor to make sure when the collapse does come only those rich people will have the resources to survive.
Propaganda has poisoned your mind
@@LOGOS_Officialwho has the most to gain by increasing population? Multibillion dollar companies do! They depend on many poor people. The ones who gain from population decrease are the environment and future generations. If you learn more about the environment and how everything we do effects it you would not be able to deny this simple truth.
"when the collapse does come" 😂 but you can't trust the data.
@@billygauthier9512Poor people don't consume so much. 😅😅😅
“[Hannah Ritchie] earned her undergraduate degree in environmental geoscience and a master's degree in carbon management.”
How does that foot taste?
Human chauvinism is the problem.
Overshoot is the problem.
More humans living in unsustainable ways is the problem for all life that enables us to exist.
The human ego is insultingly pompous to the very life event that allowed us to figure out how to use a thumb.
Nope. Our food production systems are unsustainable. The degradation of the environment we are wreaking as a species is unsustainable. Our manipulation of global fauna now sees a concentration of biomass into just a few food species plus ourselves, this is catastrophic for biodiversity on which we rely in more ways than we even know!
I hate these quantity over quality people. We cannot provide the people we have a quality of life but lets add more.
But that has nothing to do with the population. We have more resources availability than we ever have as a planet. Technology advancements are exponentially faster than population growth. There's so much food that obesity is a major health crisis, yet people still starve. There's so much land that the wealthy have multiple homes, and entire skyscrapers are empty, yet people are still homeless.
People not getting enough access to those resources is because of greed of the powerful, plain and simple.
What qualifies as quality of life? Would hot running water qualify? Would flush toilets qualify? Would heating and air conditioning qualify? Would ready-made meals qualify? Would access to all entertainment and education ever conceived qualify?
All the people you think have a low quality of life have those things and much more. Most people in this country just a few decades ago didn't have those things.
They got their water from hand pumps they bucketed into the house. Their toilet was outhouses. Their air conditioning was a shade tree. Their furnace was several layers of clothes. Their entertainment was humming songs and playing with rocks and sticks. They lived ignorant and died ignorant.
So what qualifies as quality of life, in your view?
@@michelestidhamwhitmore8313 quality of life for an average human has improved over time. You're living in more comfort than 'kings' 400 years ago. Lately it seems like we're evening out the quality between people globally which feels like your quality of life is becoming worse... But overall it's still better.
no it's just the rich countries my guy@@user-if7vt2ni2z
@@user-if7vt2ni2z The way I see it there are 3 solutions: 1. we keep the population the same but everyone lives like an indian. 2. we cut the population in half but everyone left gets to live like an american. or 3. americans get to live like americans and everyone else can fight over the scraps.
Try feeding real food to the whole world, then you will realize that there is too much people.
Population is an issue of equality and distribution. That's to say blaming any single issue isn't relevant in the complexity of human society. Let alone the environment.
The environment is dying due to greedy 1%s.
Just saying
Most folks look at what wealthier people have and want more for themselves and their families.
This completely fails to address overpopulation concerns. All it debunks are slightly insane overpopulation remedies from the '60s and '70s...
Not ONCE did she even mention energy. Big Think….really?
She didn't mention energy, she didn't mention pollution, she didn't mention ecological collapse due to over farming, over fishing, over encroachment.
This is easily the worst "Big Think" I've watched.
@@LukasBradley Thank you, I straight away came to the comments section after seeing the title. And now I know I don't have to watch to this Sh**
@@LukasBradley Pollution and ecological collapse are not due to overpopulation. Overpopulation is such a pervasive myth that people are not willing to even consider the possibility that it may not be the root cause of all the things they have been led to believe.
Usually these are snippets from a longer conversation. Hopefully they'll post the full video soon.
@@FekuEntertainmentLtd same here. Thank goodness for thoughtful educated commenters.
Nope, still too many people. We know kids demand a lot more attention than what we give them nowadays. The more you have, logically, the more complicated it becomes to provide attention to each individually. We'd raise much healthier kids if we were having less per family. Also Humans are acting as if this planet is our own - it is not. We share it with a whole lot of other species that are as intelligent or more than us, although they use theirs differently.
The video argues that overpopulation is not a critical global issue, citing slowed population growth and agricultural advancements. However, this view overlooks the ongoing environmental pressures from a growing population, such as resource depletion and ecological degradation. It also fails to consider the cumulative local impacts of high population growth in low-income countries, which can exacerbate poverty and environmental damage. While concerns about aging populations in wealthier countries are valid, they do not negate the significant challenges posed by overpopulation.
Most low income countries also has a decreasing birth rate. Check the data. 😅
@@user-gh3wt2uf2p not india / pakistan
Needed to be said. Thank you. Complexity is the hobgoblin of many a youtube video.
It's also worth noting that the much of the damage our species is doing purely on the basis of habitat loss on other species as a result of our demand for resources is permanent. Anyone who tries to argue that overpopulation isn't a problem must focus on this or immediately their argument falls due to a complete lack of of compassion for others
@@KrispKiwi even with no compassion for other species, biodiversity is essential to our survivial.
For sure no problem. with large resources needed to feed so many people, and of course it is very humane to kill another species to feed a large number of new consumers for new iPhones, etc. and giant dumpsters are also the norm. so new consumers are definitely needed in even greater numbers.
We have massively increased the amount of food we have produced and gotten there through deforestation. Additionally we have lost a lot of farm land for suburban housing sprawl.
no urban housing is 10 perecent compared to farm land or forests in world . i think you never saw world map bruhh
@@shubhthepro well bruhh! Your response has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't mention urban housing and providing a percentage has nothing to do with farmland being converted to suburban housing. Less is less.
@@shubhthepro 10 percent is still huge, though. Suburban housing is clearly an issue.
Also destroyed local ecology
Quite astonished by how poor this is. Ritchie is usually balanced and well-informed. As are Big Think videos. This is anything but.
So many problems with her argument:
1. What about biodiversity loss?
2. What about deforestation?
3. What about plastic?
4. What about overfishing?
5. What about the fact millions are still starving?
6. What about the fact global population is still rising?
Of course overpopulation is not the single root cause of all problems. But it is indeed a factor in many of the environmental and social problems we face.
6 out of 9 planetary boundaries have been crossed. The fact there are 8.2 billion people on the planet, twice as many as there were a mere 50 years ago, is clearly correlated!
This videos shines a light on the limits of thinking through data and not through systems.
it doesnt matter if the population is declining, but the rate at which the resources are declining and also species extinctions is surpassing the population decline so we wouldn't reach the stabilising rate probably the climate change will be irreversible before the population stabilisation
Our planet is pretty capable of preservation. I mean it did survive that cataclysmic event a while back. If it starts to tip too far on the scale, we're saddled w plagues, poor soil quality, dying oceans and climate change. We're in the throws of it already. A winnowing fork.
America once had a vast dust bowl region. The use of human made fertilisers
later created a food productive region that changed the world for the better.
In Asia used concrete was dumped in the ocean to create reefs that became
richly inhabited by fish, sea weeds and shell fish. There are other examples
of the planet proliferating life - thus benefitting from humans.
We aren't making enough cheap laborers for the bourgeoisie. 😅 How could I even think about having kids when I can barely afford to survive... why would I drag another life into this miserable existence?
Why not? our parents did the same with us... misery loves company I suppose...
She didn’t debunk overpopulation. She’s just saying it’s not the only problem.
Her arguments about food make no sense. Those methods of producing food on massive scales are not good for the environment. Although they seemed to feed the population, the harms happen over a long term.
Exactly. And if we may reach a point where the population stops growing is because there was an alarm and countries like China took very strong actions.
I am now saying that aging population cannot be a problem to. But if pollution can be a worse problem than food production. And CO2 is just one small type of environmental damage
Exactly. This is what I came to say.
Food waste and starvation (extreme poverty, inequality) haven't been mentioned either.
No. She is trying to educate people to the fact that the problems that most people attribute to overpopulation are in fact not fundamentally due to overpopulation.
@@aliciauxso go feed them.
This completely fails to address overpopulation concerns. All it debunks are slightly insane overpopulation remedies from the '60s and '70s...
Exactly. It just says that the population isn’t growing as fast as the original addicted, but it doesn’t at all address still the problems of overpopulation that genuinely would be fixed if those people weren’t there. Mainly also the fact that we produced so much food, but it’s at the expense of the environment and so much of that said food is wasted, and we predict your climate change that we won’t be able to produce it in the same way for much longer if things keep going the way they are.
@@danielwhyatt3278 The video commentary is actually worse...
She's basically claiming that natural remedies are already addressing the issue, and suggesting that means we don't have to worry about it.
The thing is we all KNOW that nature will address the issue, but those remedies, such as starvation, and sterilization, are EXACTLY what we should want to avoid.
But yes, as you say, where we've increased production, it's largely unsustainable, most especially where meat products are concerned.
Anyway, the whole point in pointing out the population issue, has always been more about improving quality of life, not about what kind of numbers we're capable of sustaining in theory, but what kind of numbers we can sustain in comfort...
And, thing is, on that metric we've already been grossly overpopulated for some time now...
No. What she's saying is that "overpopulation" is not the reason for climate change, nor is the reason for hunger, or overpopulated cities, or i don't know what else. "Overpopulation" is not even a term that describes the current situation, as it refers to a World with too many people, which is not the case (what is "too many" supposed to mean?). Thus, this current "overpopulation" is not a problem per se, and it doesn't make sense to address it.
What we need to address is problems such as climate change, hunger, etc., but those problems would also be there with smaller World populations, and are for sure not gonna be solved by addressing this "overpopulation", they need to be addressed in other ways. She's just pointing to that fact, claiming besides that those "overpopulation" policies typically point towards the weakest people in the World, which are also the least responsible for all those problems (a message that is also quite convenient for certain people, especially in power, by the way).
In the shadow of unprecedented wealth inequality, a climate crisis, 6th Mass Extinction, our life sustaining topsoil and coral reefs being wiped out and multiple genocides, the richest man in the world wants us to breed like rabbits 🐇🐇🐇🐇🐇🐇 Doesn’t anybody else think that’s weird? Apparently not this channel 👋🫠
I dont understand the video at all. She kept giving stats but nowhere she pointed evidence to say its a myth. I mean her idea is to consume till the last drop of water and last piece of fruit and the last chicken and egg. Then she may start thinking okay there's not enough.
The idea of overpopulation is its not there's not enough to go around. Its that we have to destroy more forests and ecosystems to cater to the population. The idea that its harder to educate a million than how hard it is to educate 100K. We are already seeing heatwaves and temperatures killing thousands and air becoming unbreathable. Ofcourse the planet will recover but not before we go extinct cos of our own doing.
Population vs quality of life … that is the question
That's not a question. Clearly quality of life has increased with population increase.
@@micahgmirandathat depends on how you measure quality of life. Because I don’t eat many foods anymore because they’re toxic. And even healthier foods don’t taste the same & are proven to have less nutritional value due to factory farming. Our water supply is full of toxins too. So yeah, maybe some things have improved for our comfort & safety but other things that we need to sustain a healthy lifestyle have gotten worse.
@@coolbreeze3 What does any of that have to do with overpopulation? Factory farming is not a function of overpopulation, that has to do with regulation of the industry. I would argue that as the population grows it allows for niche industries that grow organic produce to be more viable. Toxins in the water supply has nothing to do with overpopulation, again that has to do with manufacturing malpractice not overpopulation.
@@micahgmiranda because it everything I mentioned supports larger populations. It’s unsustainable.
@@coolbreeze3 that doesn't make sense. If you'd research sustainability you'll see it's about using sustainable energy sources like wind and solar or using sustainable practices like crop rotation. The real problem here is that a lack of education is unsustainable.
The food supply is so secure we're talking about eating insects. The water supply is so secure we;re talking about fresh water being more expensive than oil. The idea that the population isn't too high is absurd.
These are policy issues, not people issues. Time to put the justification for eugenics practices in the trash. Perhaps instead getting curious about our inefficient food systems and unchecked dumping into fresh water streams? Maybe even favouring native plant species, which are far more resilient and use less water than non-native counterparts? There are sustainable, life-affirming solutions well within reach.
@@edithskeard Nobody is talking eugenics. This is individual making the decision that the world is over crowded.
The climate change argument of "The poors don't count in emissions, so more poors is fine" is highly suspect. The problem is that the world is developing, and everyone likes cars, AC, etc. The West has reduced emissions, but it has been more than offset by the developing world, especially China. In the mid 1970s, China could have been considered poor but now has emissions per capita of Europe and is the largest single emitter. Global emissions continue to climb year after year.
What you call developing world are the countries with the lowest fertility rate: China, S. Corea... So, fighting climate change with demography is not realistic. It should have been done like two centuries ago to work.
And the reduction of emissions in the West may just be an illusion, as most of the production for the West is made in other countries. We can blame Chinese for getting richer, but they are still way below Americans regarding their consumption. So, can we ask them to stop getting richer, so that Westerners can keep getting richer? How could the accept?
The only way forward, I'm afraid, is to reduce one's consumption to a sustainable level, especially in rich countries and among upper classes all over the world.
@@scivolanto China is now developed by most standards. I don't expect the developing countries, like India, to not do it, but if they use fossil fuels as the West did, then we will get a hot planet. We need sustainable emissions, but billions moving to increased emissions is not sustainable. China now emits more than the USA and Europe combined, so what the West does is not even determinant now. USA is the second largest emitter, but India will probably overtake it by the end of the century.
Nature knows best, and when nature said that this earth is can't hold much longer, there will be catastrophic consequences.
It’s amazing how much wildlife was teeming with just a few weeks of the global shutdown in 2020. Air quality was better too. If that’s not proof that there’s too many people I don’t know what is.
We can’t sustain so many people with consumer mentalities when their output is mostly self serving & bad for the environment. Lots of people are waking up & no one telling us there’s something wrong with us seeing how bad things have gotten in a short period of time (gaslighting us) is gonna change that.
We're definitely clever enough to come up with a way to support. more humans without destroying the planet. like no need to be genocidal
Oh Pablo
The C0R0NA death rate wasn't quick enough to account for the "teeming with just a few weeks" statement above. It was that much better for wildlife because the population (not yet dented in those first few weeks) was staying home and not generating the carbon emissions as before lockdown. In fact, there was a dramatic drop in climate changing emissions almost immediately after lockdown, followed by a corresponding rise once lockdown was over (links in my reply below). Perhaps largest contributor was the dramatic drop in airplane travel and other forms of transportation. So, it's not the population that changed in that instant, it was the way we use / abuse our resources that made a huge difference.
@@m53goldsmith Your drop in flights & emissions are factors in what I stated. Where’s the contradiction? Or do people just type to argue?
Of course there can be too many people. Too much pollution. Not enough food. Let's add 8 billion people to Africa and see what happens to the chimps, gorillas, rhinos, and elephants. Let's let millions of bison and horses roam the steppes, great plains, and pampas and see how many people we can feed. Living on a planet where nobody has seen the wild spaces or animals in eons is not living.
I suggest you watch the video.
@@scivolanto I did. I suggest you improve your reading comprehension.
You really can't blame people way back when for not anticipating the technological advancements that allowed for much greater food production. As much as many of us have faith in steadily improving technology, we can't know for sure what technological improvements will actually pan out and which won't until they're atcually tested and tried, a process that can take many years or decades. So many people that try to project future trends tend to be very conservative on the impact of new technologies, as that's one of the biggest variables no one can really foresee.
The fact that over 600 people in the space of one day have debunked this ridiculous twaddle is encouraging. Let us hope that another data scientist has the opportunity to give a counter argument that overpopulation is decimating the environment, climate and other species (who have as much 'right' as humans to occupy the space).
Eventhough food production has increased, Many study suggests that the nutritional value of the food is at the all time lowest. We are just eating to fill us and not to make us healthy !
Sand ,water , soil,air, forest everything is carrying the burden and lack of resources!! Insane competition to survive
So, why the hell do people move to the city to be around a lot of people and find “jobs”? Why do they need a large population to find jobs? Why aren’t people moving to the country where there’s no competition and less people?? 🤔
@@willinthearea6318that’s a great point but it’s not exactly analogous to the original comment, because the humans are going to be around other humans, while in an ecosystem there are thousands of species competing for the same resources. And I would disagree with both comments to some extent because nature is much more complex than just species vying for resources against each other, it has a very specific order and balance that is maintained by the _cooperation_ of all species
@@bradleythebuilder8743 Humans aren’t competing for food with other animals. We can grow food,
other animals can’t. There’s no shortage of water…. The earth is 71% water. 85% of drinking water in Israel comes from desalination. Humans are smart, we can turn salt water into drinking water if we wanted to. Only 10% of the earth is populated by human cities”. The problem is, the vast majority of our population want to consume and not produce. They want an easy life working at an office in a big city with “jobs” and spend their money on plastic. An economy is like a pyramid, it needs a working population feeding that pyramid otherwise everything falls apart. A shrinking population means death to the economy. That’s why rural areas like West Virginia and Mississippi are the poorest states in the US. If there’s no economy, that means you have to be self-sufficient and grow your own food otherwise you will starve to death. Also, our population is shrinking in many parts of the world….. Japan, Korea, white Europeans, White Australians, White Americans, White Uruguayans, white Brazilians, Sierra Leone etc…..Birth rates are going down in many places.
Very poor arguments. Estimates are that we need five times as many resources as we have for the level of consumption that's going on. In other words five earths are needed to maintain the current population and she saying let's have more.
I've never heard the barbaric arguments that she says people are making for how to reduce population and I wouldn't agree with the ones she provided. But saying nobody's come up with a good solution for population problems is not a valid argument that there's not a population problem.
Yes. The only problem with high populations is food.
No other concerns or considerations.
The value of labor isn't a concern, housing prices with a lot of people creating a high demand isn't a factor, to say nothing about the fact that humans evolved to live in low pop tribes not massive fucking colonies leading to massive mental health problems we already see.
I'm not trying to dump on African countries... But they do not produce as much Co2 emissions because they are less industrialized. You can't argue that's it's fine to increase the population there by BILLIONS (yes, she said BILLIONS) without considering poverty, unemployment, war, terrorism, and illegal mass migration.
I think we need to hear more arguments from this lady because I'm not sure she has explained herself very well.
I come from Malawi. The country is in a crisis in every way. One crisis is deforestation because of wood fires for cooking like they've done for thousands of years. And then the resulting erosion and floods. All a direct result of there being way way too many people.
No matter what she says...its already the sixth mass extinction...
why do all the population estimates never seem to take into account generational population expansion....ie humans don't die as soon as they have kids they are still around when their kids and sometimes even their kids kids have kids...so a replacement rate of 2 only works when you die when they,'re born..not when you continue to live another 60+ years. add to that the increasing life span....population may decline a bit due to the boomer bubble checking out soon but long term it isn't going to decline unless birthrates continue down, lifespan declines or a major catastrophe wipes out a large portion of the bipeds here.
Because it is NOT about general population expansion, but about WORKING AGE related Population expansion, and here, especdially, the YOUNG WORKERS, that do the heaviest lifting for the lowest pay.
It's not just food. It's plastic. Paper. Clothing. Lithium batteries. How much raw resources are consumed by the average person from an industrialized country?
Also, look at tourism. If there's long lines to travel up Mt. Everest, there's probably too many people.
Yes.
@@karmicbreath if there’s too many people in a line , there’s too many people 😂😂
Pkastic our oil reserves have never before been as high as they are today so there is no risk of us running out of plastic any time soon, paper yes trees can grow, yes plants can also grow, lithium, we have barely even looked for it, because it was so easily found in old salt basins.
Its also that those things are not exactly consumed, they are used once and then return back to more earth, they dont cease to exist, most of them end up in landfills, if we do run out of fresh resources those landfills will become worth quiet a bit of money.
If we look at people wanting to climb mount everest that only tells us that people have grown a lot richer and they want to feel like they have accomplished something nothing else really. But a plus side of this is that people who live in that area have become wastly much better off as they can charge ludicrous amounts of money to help them up the mountain.
from what you're saying consumption is our problem... Not overpopulation
Tourism is one of the most pathetic forms of activity. I used to love the idea of traveling but looking at what people do, the donkeys and horses that are used up in the North Easten India because these tourists couldnt carry their own two nuts, the animals suffering and the crowded invasive behaviors destroying the local ecosystems. Hence, I dont travel because I am just invasive somewhere else.
I remember a few years ago I read somewhere that the Earth population is throwing away tons of food every day. I don't really remember the source and what was the exact amount of food mentioned but if it's not a false information - then there's no way we don't produce enough food for the population.
The problem is the location of the food, do you think the 500 yogurt cups a German supermarket throws out because the yogurt can't be sold anymore is going to help any starving people? How about the stale donuts of any donut chain? Sure the local homeless can get a few but nothing significant can't be done with these.
They sadistic.
They prefer you as dumb, poor, and starving.
You could also argue that with more people and therefore more food production, there will also be more food waste.
The British government raised the concern about the lack of food however the Indian government retorted with the response if we reduced the amount of food waste there would be no issues with food supply
30-40% of all food is thrown away. It all used to go to landfill (releasing methane w/28x warming effect of CO2, but now a lot of that is atleast composted locally or on-site, improving soil quality, while the rest is turned into biogas & biofuel which power 2-3% of the electricity grid in CA since 2021.
If capitalism renders the poor worse off--then there are too many people. The have-nots way outnumber the greedy upper class. Pay attention to the starving thoussnds in the world who are suffering, and while the rich get richer. No one needs billions of dollars to live. Until there is a more equal distribution of wealth and equality--we have too many people.
What’s your solution to capitalism? Failed command economies that have been tried dozens of times?
@Thrasalt tax the wealthy, big time. No one needs millions or billions of dollars to live. Provide healthcare for all and affordable housing. Free education.
Its not the amount of individuals, but the efficiency and the cost of the system that we live in. We have build a feedback loop of complexity in our society, which makes bigger and bigger imbalance and we will have to put more and more effort to keep things in motion. Moreover we tend to forget that we live in a closed system called planet Earth and every action, is contributing to changes in that system and we just don't know when the system collapse threshold will be met.
She must not live in an overcrowded polluted city where human decency and society is breaking down. Just because you can fit 100 rats in a box doesn’t mean you should
Agreed, she lives in a first world. Let her live in slums of Kenya, India, Bangladesh and let her see what we are talking about.
this is rubbish. centring on food when there are many other aspects of the population such as energy, housing, education, medical, finances plus all the ephemera people do and use. like holidays, hobbies, furniture, white goods, shampoo, televisions and so on. the total "bill" for a population isn't simply food it's everything that makes a typical life.
Bingo!
and nearly all of it is created by other human beings working.
The majority of those things aren't daily necessities and/or are luxuries. There are plenty of cultures/lifestyles that don't require 1st world country quality of life. You're just framing those things in due to your own understanding of how (your) society works. You even equated those things to a "typical life", which is obviously ignorant. You should think deeper and with a more open mind before calling something rubbish...
@@djackson4605They don't think they repeat outdated slogans like parrots. 😅
@@daniellassander which means that you're putting consumerism first before the environment
I have been working with population groups for 20 some years now. I don't know anyone that is thinking forced sterilization or putting sterilants in water is a good thing. That just seems like fear mongering the Big Thinks part. Education and a fair system on living has been our approach. Where you do not need to have 5 kids to have someone take care of you in your old age.
The population has more than doubled in my life time and to say that we can just keep growing is straight up irresponsible.
Unless things change fast, the worst thing you can do for your carbon footprint is have another kid.
In the far distant future, alien archaeologists will find this video on a ssd and say: hey look how stupid these people were.
Food production has increased, but food nutrition has plummeted. It'd be nice to compare nutrition , because it's not about eating kilos of carbon.
I was surprised there was also no mention of food waste, either.
Exactly. Food quality. Why are so many people so unhealthy? Also, she neglects to mention what has been done to the environment to increase food production so dramatically.
Just like she argues 1950’s didn’t account for variables changing from then to today, birth rates, food production. She doesn’t account for todays variables changing in the future. Super virus. Plant species extinction. Consumption of resources per capita. There may not be to many people but those people are definitely doing to much.
I like that video editor used corn almond and coffee as the food examples. All in danger of extinction or depletion.
No valid arguments presented. Fact is we are over populated as of today, irrespective of whether or not growth rate is rising or falling. Carbon emissions case is also not well argued. Bottomline is, we need to fall back to a world population level of about 4 billion.
Learned absolutely nothing. Big Think usually a very reliable & interesting information source
Nothing that she has said has really convinced me of the contrary.
WATER.
Life can not exist without it, and Ms. Ritchie neglected to plug that data into her calculations. Or, perhaps, she isn't aware that the supply is finite and dwindling rapidly. Accelerating climate change and growing demand is only exacerbating the problem.
Keep thinking!
Her PhD / general background appears to be in geosciences.
Never take a data scientist seriously unless their background is statistics or mathematics straight up.
Just because you can crunch numbers and deny it doesn't make sense when urban sprawl is impacting wildlife habitat and isn't slowing down in any way whatsoever.
That food is less nutritional. Weak argument.
The problem is a big population who aspire to live at western world standard …and it will not happen .
Most peoples drive to work says otherwise
Hannah Ritchie must live in a sparsely populated rural area. And she's just debunking Thomas Malthus's predictions about overpopulation. She failed to mention the psychological problems created by living in densely populated urban areas where the housing is predominately vertical. I hate living in high-rise apt buildings; I hate crowded streets & sidewalks; I hate the incessant noise & constant delays in overcrowded cities (NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, Osaka, Yokohama, Taipei, London, Paris, e.g., all places I've spent much time in). Too many rats in an overcrowded cage leads to violence.
This has nothing to do with the purpose of the video. 😅
Anecdotal
I think I found one of the neanderthals that would turn violent...
This is so ridiculously ignorant. Objectively, if resources were distributed equally, could the world sustain the current population? Of course. However, that is assuming we live in an apolitical, equitable, global society, which has never existed and will not exist for centuries to come - if ever. This is an extremely myopic point of view.
Don't believe your eyes and see the world crumbling. I have some numbers which says things are great!
What about energy?
I am certain that in poor country like india people use similar or more air conditioner than any other developed countries - they have to due to climate change.
2. They also have to use cars only for travel. At this point of extreme heat they just really can't think about money or environment anymore. Its a necessity nowdays
3. The amount the plastic use per person is tremendous, which is a huge problem in itself.
And literally there are a hundred more reasons.
1804, world population eclipses ONE BILLION. 1927 (2), 1960 (3), 1975(4), 1987 (5), 1999 (6), 2011 (7), 2023 (8 BILLION). What is the real quality of life for the majority of people living today?
Better than it was during any time of the written history
@@Choo-choo-chookcha like really?
Resources have grown but it has become way too fast paced , I don't think we are gonna last next 1000 years even
"Infinite growth on a finite planet is suicide." Michael Moore
Not his quote
"Infinite growth on a infinite universe is literally in all of the sci-fi movie" I guess, Dream big.
@@YoavHillel Then who's is it?
Let's refute each of these points one by one:
The world population growth rate has slowed down significantly and is expected to peak before the end of the century. This is because the average number of children that an average woman has globally has fallen.
Refutation: While it's true that global fertility rates have fallen, the sheer number of people reaching reproductive age in densely populated regions still results in significant population growth. Moreover, the momentum of population growth due to high fertility rates in previous decades means that even with lower fertility rates, the population will continue to grow for some time. Additionally, population momentum in regions with high fertility rates can lead to continued growth and strain on resources.
Technological advancements in agriculture have allowed us to produce more food than ever before, despite the fact that the global population has grown.
Refutation: Although agricultural advancements have increased food production, they have also led to significant environmental degradation, including soil depletion, water scarcity, and loss of biodiversity. These advancements often rely heavily on fossil fuels, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides, which can have long-term negative impacts on the environment. Furthermore, food distribution remains unequal, and many regions still suffer from food insecurity and malnutrition.
Even in countries where fertility rates are still high, the per capita CO2 emissions are very low. This means that adding more people in those countries would have almost no impact on global CO2 emissions.
Refutation: While current per capita CO2 emissions might be low in high-fertility countries, as these countries develop economically, their emissions are likely to increase. Rapid population growth in these regions can lead to greater demand for energy, transportation, and industry, all of which contribute to higher CO2 emissions. Additionally, deforestation and land use changes driven by population pressures can significantly impact global carbon cycles.
An aging population can cause problems for some countries because it means that there won't be a large enough group of people in the working age category to prop up the economy.
Refutation: An aging population presents challenges, but it can also create opportunities for innovation and shifts in economic structures. Countries with aging populations can invest in automation, technology, and policies to support older workers and increase productivity. Additionally, immigration policies can help balance demographic shifts. The assumption that a larger population automatically ensures economic stability overlooks the complexities of sustainable development and resource management.
The video argues that comparing humans to cancer is a dire prediction and a damaging message.
Refutation: While the comparison of humans to cancer may be extreme, it highlights the urgent need for sustainable practices and responsible resource management. Ignoring the potential negative impacts of unchecked population growth can lead to complacency and a lack of action in addressing critical issues like environmental degradation, resource depletion, and climate change. The analogy, although harsh, serves as a wake-up call to rethink our approach to growth and development.
Yes! To say "Humans are a cancer" does not automatically mean WE want to kill other people called THEM . . .it is a recognition that each and everyone of us is responsible, is part of the problem, and needs to be part of the solution. It does not imply war and genocide!!!
The comments section gives me hope for humanity. More and more people are realising that overpopulation IS a huge problem. This video leaves out too many important elements. If we take a holistic look, not just a humans first look, we are clearly behaving like a virus on this planet. Either we consciously take control of it, or mother nature will do it for us.
overpopulation is a huge problem.. just take a look at Bangladesh..
No man. That is such a human centric point of view. From a biodiversity and conservation point of view, the major damage has already been done 50+ years ago. The human population was already way too big then. The fact that we now have technology that can feed billions more people doesn't make a difference to the fact that there are already too many people on this planet. It is actually a moot point now what is going to happen to the human population, except in places like Africa and South America where the populations are still exploding. There are, for instance, huge areas of Africa where there are no more large birds of prey outside of protected areas. Majorily because their prey base has been eaten by humans and they get persecuted for e.g. killing lambs. The damage is globally already irreversible in terms of habitat and biodiversity loss, at least in human time frames. Just don't be disillusioned that the human population is or was never an issue.
if you visit countries like India, Indonesia, South America...human rights are being violated on daily basis. it is not just food etc. Quality of life is huge factor that the speaker doesn't cover. if i believe over population is a problem, my concern is not because i hate other humans but the opposite. I am concerned that lopsided population growth give unethical agents an opportunity to exploit them. Every human life is valuable but we are not commodity to be traded and unmanaged over population facilitates that.
2:22 This is the point where the population stops growing because of starvation...
3:15 We produce enough food right now to feed the entire world, yet starving populations remain...
The problem will never be too many people or too few.
The problem will always be that there is no profit in feeding everyone.
There is no incentive to give food to those who cannot afford food.
It is the world we now live in.
Sooooo many strawman arguments
Her arguments shy around the real problem here. There are too many people, period. Not too many poor people, or rich, or in this country or that. Just 'too many people'. We are an overcrowded fish tank, where the filter systems are overwhelmed and the tank is slowly dying. We either need less population overall, or new miraculous technology to 'filter the tank'. We could get that, and we may be so far gone that it's the only way out for us, frankly. We innovated our way out with food supply, now we need to do it with environmental maintenance behavior and technology.
As they say hindsight is always 20/20.
It is easy to say that because population growth has slowed down significantly and food production has increased significantly, that the concerns about overpopulation in the past were overblown.
But when those concerned were raised there was no indication of any slowing of population or that we technology could keep up with the grown anticipated.
So, what happened?
Was it all just alarmism and nothing needed to be done?
OR maybe, just maybe a lot of things WERE done to head off that crisis and that is why we see less population growth and higher food production today.
In the 80 politician actually talked about 'population control' a lot, and some people actually heard these messaged and maybe decided that 2 or 3 kids was 'enough' instead of having 6.
Industries saw a need for more efficient food production, so investments were made there, leading to change.
To say that if nothing was done everything would have been fine is just as short sighted as saying the world was going to end do to overpopulation back in the 70's making the assumption that nothing would be done to address that situation back then.
Humans are not a cancer. They are the only specie capably of directing their own evolution over time. They do that though adaptation based on observation and prediction and taking action based on those predictions (science to the rescue).
Saying past predictions are worthless because the most dire outcome did not come to pass and ignoring the impact those predictions had on decision that alter human behavior which led to averting that worse case outcome lead to the belief that future predictions are just as worthless.
Should we ignore the warning of climate change today and just have faith that everything will be find if we do nothing?
If 50 years from now we have found ways to 'undo' climate change and everything is fine does that means the warning from today are worthless?
It's not a myth. There are limits to natural resources, such as land to grow food, and all the items around you that have been mined from the ground. With more people, prices will rise as these items become more expensive to obtain, resulting in more conflict and an overall lower quality of life due to scarcity. Overpopulation was a real concern worldwide and is still an issue in sub-Saharan Africa. Africa's overpopulation problem will become the world's problem in another generation, as they are unable to take care of themselves. If the world had continued the 5 child average from 70 years ago, the resulting problems from scarcity and pollution would be exponentially worse today. Imagine if we currently had an extra 3 billion people. How much extra oil and gas would have to burnt to support them? How much more CO2 would be in the air? How much worse off would our oceans be with the overfishing? The list of negatives is long with very few benefits. Currently, there are 2 billion people living who don't have air conditioning or a car. Imagine the extra stress on our resources and the pollution this will cause once they do get these simple items? The answer is to stabilize the population and slowly reduce it to match the resources that we have. Show me a country with 4 children per mother, that doesn't have extreme poverty, lack of education and oppression of women?
With this bad reasoning skills it is possible to get a PhD? Listing some random dystopian measures and declining growth rates are no arguments against the damaging impacts on ecosystems of large scale farming. Just because the soil is still able to produce food today does not refute that we are potentially doing irreversible damage and depleting resources, which wouldn't have occurred in a more sparsely populated and less "advanced" society.
Where do you not stand in line? Where do you get immediate service, or how long do you have to wait to see a dr? The food is horrific because it has been mass grown void of nutrients and health benefits, our water is polluted because we treat our water with poison in order to provide enough "clean" water to the masses. We are depleting our resources faster than the Earth can regenerate. We are OVERPOPULATED. It will take decades for the planet to recover. If ever.
I think this is more alarming when you see it all through an American-centric point of view. There are many things that we see as normal and necessary that actually aren't. E.g.: using cars to get everywhere, air conditioning and heating, houses that allot 1,000 square feet per person, replacing smart phones every couple of years, etc. If 8.5 billion people were living this way then, yeah, we'd probably be in trouble. But that's far from the reality.
Do you wanna be king in 16 century with around 2 billions people around? Or just a wage slave with 8 billions people around?)
"Oxford data scientist Hannah Ritchie debunks the overpopulation myth." - I don't think so. A large and growing population can exist at a rate that exceeds the planets sustainable capacity for a time. Solutions to yesterdays food problems shown in the video - use of fossil fuels and ground water reserves will eventually be depleted and new solutions will need to be found. The graph using percentage population growth was misleading since in the base year the word population was 2.5 billion and over 3 times that in 2020... so halving of the % growth rate over the period means the number of people born today is 150% of the number in 1950. People who see the reality of the future for their children will tend to chose to have fewer children. If there is a downside to a actual world human population decline - will it be any easier for the population in 2083 than those of us alive today ?
Population is an issue! Because us rich generally whites don't share and distribute to people in need.
While we've an economic system based upon consumption and therefore waste. We have no hope of survival.....
Well you're kind of responsible for your own survival is what i understand.
@@itzhexen0 I chose not to have children from teenage years. Just starting without a different economic system we are fcked.
Is my honest opinion. Having followed the 'science' for decades. I'm 63 and self educated. I doubt you've able to name a science I haven't researched. Including social sciences like economics.
So you are saying you don't have kids and you are going to die with a lot stuff because you never share?
@@edgarjdq Correct.
@@edgarjdq You to will no longer be with us and you cannot take it with you. Yet I bet you're trying.
The problem is that poor countries, especially in Africa, are leading the way in population growth. .
Our food and water supplies are absolutely under too much pressure. Also maybe make it easier for people to become citizens?? I am so confused how I keep hearing "the population is actually growing globally," but we don't see the solution. lol
We consume more resources than the earth can provide. Therefore we are too numerous as a specie.
When they say overpopulation, what they are saying is big business doesn't need as many workers.
You are the carbon they want to reduce
I'd say big business wants more customers to consume their products
Yet populations are still growing steadily and unabated. Maybe we should learn to provide for the people we already have. This is all very western centric
Less is more. More is better. Better is...
Where did you get your dataset from?