Pure and simple. I live in a city along with most people on earth. I’m sick of competing for a job, stuck in traffic, standing in lines everywhere I go, thousands of laws and rules to micromanage billions of people. Food and energy is not the only thing holding man back. We have a brain and we’re sick of living like rats. Solar panels and fertilizer is not the only things propelling humanity forward. Human happiness is the biggest contributor to happiness and propagating.
Agreed. Personal perspectives play a large role in whether or not one would or wouldn’t propagate. It isn’t as simple as one topic solutions, as we all see the word differently.
the point is that population bust isn't going to make your lives better. the bust is not what we wanted, we wanted it controlled. bust is not control, it's another extreme. in some parts of japan, the price of drinking water is going up because they don't have manpower.
@@TheYoli182 seems like we don't know what the middle ground is. when gaining population we gained fast, when losing, we're losing fast. in japan drinking water prices are going up in places where manpower is low.
Honestly, productivity has soared while our wages stagnated starting in the 1970s. We have to take on debt and have two worker households to maintain the same quality of life... HOW are we supposed to add children to that when we have no money?!
This is exactly it, and I hate, hate, hate HATE that it keeps getting blamed on access to contraceptives and women's education... Like... It's economics, not education FFS!!!
@@coimbralaw nope, just stating basic economic fact and history. The environment most conducive to having many children is where one parent works and the other stays home and cares for the children and the home. This is very difficult for people to achieve now considering stagnant wages, high cost of living, inflation, and the high financial burden children have become.
More and more people are realising that you don’t need to raise a child to love a happy and fulfilled life, especially when you are struggling to provide for yourself too. Why is this being seen as a bad thing? I don’t understand!! The city in which I live in called Mumbai in india, is overpopulated as hell. People here, there, everywhere! There isn’t even a street in which there aren’t hundreds of people!! The pollution is so bad it feels like my lungs are on fire!! I would give ANYTHING for the population here to decrease because I really love this city and want to spend my life here!
Exactly, you live in a huge country with a huge population that isn't old, and birthrates are high. In my country, Portugal (Europe) you wouldn't be so enthusiastic about a rapidly declining population. We already have one of the oldest populations in the world, and also one of the lowest fertility rates. It's devastating to go into smaller cities and villages and see most of them abandoned or filled with very old people. Seeing children here is becoming rare. Super rare. The smartest people go abroad since there are less opportunities here. Do you think this is a good thing? Our situation is so bad we let practically anyone in to work. And we need people. And as they said in the video, immigration is only a band aid, and mass immigration destroys the culture of a country. So yes, low fertility rates ARE A HUGE PROBLEM. Maybe not in India though. A lot of Indian's come to Portugal which I think is great if they want to learn our ways and language :)
@@franciscofernandesdorosari8736 Regardless of people's opinion on culture change and the many problems and challenges with immigration, immigration in itself will not work in the long run because 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants adjust their TFR to that of their host nation. So in the long run you're going to have to import even more people and so on. Like you wrote, it's a very temporary bandaid. Also, TFR is declining in the countries that are sending migrants. Eventually they won't have enough young people to send abroad, they're going to need their few youngsters for themselves.
@@franciscofernandesdorosari8736 just take in brazilians. Most of us would be happy to live there, and the cultural change is the minimum you can get from any other people. Maybe it's not the perfect solution, but it's the best one Portugal has at the moment
@@franciscofernandesdorosari8736 Could not have said it better. I was born in Bulgaria. We have one of the highest if not the highest death rate in the world (only 60k were born last year, and 120k died). Youngsters are leaving, there is no immigration to the country, so basically, the society is slowly dying. For Indians, this might not be a problem but for Europeans from countries such as ours, it is. Nowadays, it is promoted that we should not have children, and societies are becoming more individualistic. However, I do think that children bring happiness and a purpose to your life. Unfortunately, we are currently facing global crises, such as pollution, global warming, constant war threats, so no one is focused on making their country more family-friendly and promoting birth rates. Anyways, more and more people/media are talking about fertility rates, so I think in the future this might change. Personally, most people I know want/wanted 2-3 children; however, due to the capitalistic society, they can barely afford one. Also, I know people who have been saying that they do not want children, most of them change their minds after 30. Not having children is normal, however, having many children should also be accepted and supported by the governments.
Boy that is a good question. If you're my age at 55 you probably have children, so you want the best for your children. On one hand you feel for the economic challenges your millennial children face so the last thing you want is for them to have another mouth to feed right now, but on the other hand if you are really looking out for their future you wonder how they will be taken care of when they are older if they dont have children.
That''s what common sense speaks. You are with me on that . spot on. Everyone is slave from the day they are born. And only wise parent knows this fact.
@@geoffreyharris5931 The point here is we all have good times and bad times, but, good times need not be from our own off spring. So, keep them safe from not bring them into this world. Let humans use more common sense and find good times in other things other than being crazy about having kids to have good times. Our life is very uncertain and one can die any day in any unexpected way and leave kids at the mercy of others, which is nothing but being very cruel to one's own kids. One should have kids only if he or she can guarantee to stay healthy and alive at least 80 to 100 years , to take care of their kids.
Yes, and the interviewer did a fantastic job to circle back and ask David Coleman if he could list examples of population rebounding like he implied was a common occurrence. Of course his response was essentially “let’s talk about something else”
@@mickmegson6241 They won't discuss the causes if they won't mention MGTOW or herbivore men. I've heard herbivore men exist because of the pressure in Japanese society. MGTOW exists because of laws and policies producing a profound penalty on men who find themselves pairing up with the wrong women. They're talking about global demographic decline and they won't or can't talk about those two things.
@@zebrafinch12 " They finally get some men ..." - this is the first discussion about the population decline that I've seen with ANY men, and STILL they ignore half of the population of the world.
@Anthony W Moore which is a good thing. Humans will be probably around for millions of years, we have to get on a more sustainable path for our existence on a planet with finite resources.
@Anthony W Moore Correct i think dinosaurs lasted 10s of millions of years. Primate species appear to last a couple million years. We may be able to do some sort of genetic engineering to evolve into a species thats better suited to survive a changing climate.
@@greenearth9945 Less people, more automation means the elites don't need workers or consumers. They want the rest for themselves. Ted kazinsky mentioned this and predicted depopulation sometime in early 21st century.
Of course women who are now getting educated and having good jobs and earning good money don’t want many kids they go to work then go home and have to run a home with no help from a husband ! Why should they ! Forget it
After the horror of the black death, things got so much better for the peasants... wouldn't the same thing happen again? Our labor would be worth so much more again and our money would go further. We could actually buy houses in the cities we were born in... what a concept!
no, we import people from 3rd world nations to prevent high costs of labor and increases the carbon footprint. I hear how declining birth control is a great thing, but we practice mass immigration.
@@PistonHonda87 true, and our media refuses to talk about how bad it is. In the last 7 months over a million people have crossed the border! They say they do jobs Americans won't do... but they make those jobs so low wage of course no legal citizen would. If we didn't have that these jobs would pay more and citizens would do them. It's basic economics. The worst part of this is so many people understand this and are sick of it but it just keeps continuing and getting worse.
Same it’s like Governments don’t know that women think about these things. Even Africans birth rates are slower throughout the pandemic!! We’re biologically concerned with the state of the world especially when it comes to children
I'm hearing two things about this anxiety of de-population a) capitlalism is being driven to its natural conclusion and depopulation shows how it is untenable and b) the global north/rich countries/white folks are having anxiety about being bred out of existence
@@InVinoVeratas the non-white people aren't expressing this anxiety...they're too busy surviving from the various genocides...so they've faced and are still recovering
People on average really can’t afford children. I make a respectable salary and I can’t afford a child. I see my less well off siblings and their children with children and they are struggling immensely. I find it very sad and also sobering.
That's why I had a vasectomy at age 27. Not in a million years was I going to end up like most of my friends. I work real hard. No way am I going to give half away by getting a woman pregnant.
I can't believe it took the full 25 minutes before someone mentioned making family life and women's experiences in childbearing and child rearing better. Four dudes talking about replacing people with AI rather than just treating women better. classic
Fresh, because it's all about women, right. Children need their fathers, just as much as their mothers. No stable family, no families. The deck has been stacked against men. Men are walking away.
@A. person we women are expected to do all of the childrearing while working full time underpaid jobs at the same time, and then add in childcare expenses, it's just not worth it to us women. It's too exhausting.
@@theveganvillainess Isn’t this what women in the West asked for? Isn’t that what “equality” and female empowerment was all about. Did not Western women completely buy into the idea that they could “have it all?” You got what you asked for, and all women do is complain about getting what they wanted. It is the height of female arrogance to think that the whole world needs to change for them. You made a concerted effort to drive men out of the family, and you created a welfare state to replace men. “You don’t need no man,”….you only need his tax money, child support and alimony. Men did not change and abandon marriage and the family….women did. Time to quit complaining about the situation you created.
Yesss mothers especially single mothers ( whether due to being widowed or deadbeats) feel ALOT of pressure from society and other women. It’s a lot safer and peaceful to be alone (if your dedicated and realistic) and fulfilled than blamed for all of societies problems.
@@rednab2001 erm you missed the point sir.... she’s asking how can we make society more “mother and family” friendly. To encourage women to have children...
Excellent observation, almost never noted. Which means almost the entire world is already below replacement. You’d think these experts would notice that.
@@heyskipper6363 you have a 1960s view of the world. The higher fertility rate needed was due to high infant mortality. That has plummeted in almost every nation on Earth. Plus, life expectancy has risen... everywhere.
@@avernvrey7422 re: infant mortality. True, but 2.1 is almost always cited as replacement total lifetime fertility to maintain the population. That is only true in countries where almost *all* women survive to bear children. Outside rich countries, that isn't true. re: life expectancy. Increased life expectancy only temporarily contributes to a rising population. After it stops increasing (by some amount of time depending upon the degree of increase), that is the new normal. Further population increase is determined by TLF in comparison to that societies replacement fertility.
after the black plague, the wage scale and power of workers in great Britain increased. Workers went from being serfs, tied to the land, to being free yeoman, a middle class with rights that had never existed before.
@@Zelp789 I don't know if that is possible. However, we might be able to increase Darwinian selection pressures so that the idiots don't live long enough to reproduce. I love the Darwin Awards and wish more people received them.
@@sunnysunshine8897 if we keep growing our population, extinction becomes a prophecy not just a possibility. For 99% of human history, our population didn't surpassed the 10 million mark. We should strive for those sustainable numbers again.
Most people would choose to raise familes if they did not feel so economically precarious and vulnerable in modern society with the constant pressure to work and earn or fall behind. Then people who cannot afford to rear their children get told they should not have had kids they could not afford. Loss of family support due to career pressures taking people away from their traditional support structures. Fix the economics and society will follow.
Exactly. Capitalism as an economic model had failed. Now we just need to make sure the next system goes back to more traditional family and social values while the economy becomes more shared among the average person and their family.
Nope, it's declining in most countries in the world. Some countries started off with a much higher TFR than the rich countries so their TFR is comparably high right now, but it is going down.
That is because in poor countries, parents get to use their children for free labor. It ends up paying them to have children. Later, they become the only form of old age caretakers. Meanwhile, in rich countries, children are an overpriced hobby. Putting money in stocks and real estate is more effective.
it's interesting that there are no female experts on the panel, especially considering it is only women that can have children and that carry the lion share of responsibility for child-rearing. Perhaps it might be interesting to have a future panel of all women discussing why they don't want to have children?
Just like the ccp one child policy. No female input, thus millions of girl babies murdered. Didn’t work out too well did it. And has there been any “education “ about girls being as important to have as boys?
The species isn’t going to disappear. We’re going to find a new balance sometime in the 22nd Century-when we are in balance with our habitat and a our society and our needs are getting met. I imagine we’ll stabilize somewhere between 3 and 6 billion, but of course that is a long way out to forecast. The final number will have a lot to do with what we’ve done to the world between now and then.
We've reached our sociological carrying capacity. There are plenty of resources, but human society cannot bring itself to distribute those resources fairly. When times are good, greed, pride, arrogance, and a desire to dominate have an outsize influence on critical members of society. Oppressors arise to hog all the resources, and the less fortunate masses starve out. It's a feedback loop that prevents the existence of too many humans.
@@nothereyetlost As if women weren't complicit in anything the men did. When the men were out conquering for land, wealth, and slaves do you think their wives cared the least about the people whom their men oppressed? Silly cooze. Grow up.
@@zuchotheghost We don't. We want to help kids and take care of the ones suffering in orphananges. We just don't want more unwanted kids in an overpopulated world.
They aren’t smart because they’ll go extinct in a few hundred to a few thousand years if not reversed. It’s bad that the rest of the world is headed that way.
Make discussion of fertility a standard part of femake healthcare as well as presentation of all options . Making fertility care 100% subsidized would help.
Do you really think that makes up such a large percentage of the decline? There are many people deferring childbearing that don't even know what MGTOW or "herbivores" are.
People need higher wages, the ability for a family to live on one income. If a parent is able to stay home the family as a whole is less stressed. When I was home with my kids, family life was so enjoyable but the budget required me to go back to work. Even though I wanted more kids, the 9-5 grind and only 2 crappy weeks of vacation wear you out that you can barely take care of what you already have. We need companies to give more time off and higher pay. People want more kids but most worry about the cost and stress of raising them in todays working climate.
If you don't have the environment at the centre of all population discussions, you are not having a meaningful discussion. A dropping population WILL be great for the planet. The ageing population problem is BS. It is an issue which can be readily and easily overcome. As for immigration being a solution, it is a solution to nothing at all. What it does do is grow the economies of the western world (it is doing much more than prop them up) and further compromise their already much diminished environment. Poaching younger people from other countries merely hastens the ageing in the donor countries. The real tragedy remains that the human population will continue for a very long time yet (as our demographer outlined) and we are not doing enough to lower the ceiling. (As for declining pop impact on housing prices?) We just have to deal with it. The first step -- long before this -- is to stop building economic well-being via housing prices (as in Australia). That will soften the blow. Fewer and poorer. Poorer than what? Poorer at the end of this century than we are today? Hardly an issue. Poorer than we might otherwise be? Big deal! The advantage offered to the environment and any notion of sustainability (the latter of which does not exist at the moment) outweighs ALL the downside. Bring it on!
Because of high population we are all just rats competing all our lives until retirement. Ofcourse most of the adults dont want this to happen to their children so they avoid having babies.
Machines don't buy products. Automation may lead to highly efficient well produced products, but an older population doesn't demand goods. Economic activity will decline, which will increase poverty and crime.
It used to be (1970s) that the average person died in their 70s - now it's the 80s or 90s. Does this not place additional pressure on younger generations? That person in their 90s still occupying a property or plot of land in a desirable area would have been dead 20 years earlier in an earlier time. That's two decades of taking up valuable resources, or an entire generation that couldn't access that resource to raise the next generation. The longer people live (assuming there's quite a few people doing that, which there are), the more pressure is exerted upon the "up and comings" - those trying to get an education, enter the workforce, raise a family. There are people who finished raising children in the 1960s, more than 50 years ago, still exerting pressure upon the new generations by taking up housing, land, public funding for pensions, a potential inheritance for their children in order to finance a new generation.
We can move from variable cost to fixed cost. Like instead of providing pensions to 5 grandpips, we put them in homes and hire one nurse. So the capacity is managed in this way, wherein the cost and the number of people wouldn't be linear.
@@jandrews6254 I'd move further out to a place that would not be suitable for workers so as to allow the land to be used for something that's relevant to 2022 not 1962. I did not mean that anyone should be dead - I said they used to die a lot earlier, about 20 years earlier on average. If there's large blocks of land in highly desirable locations for those working to support the economy, but they are being used by retirees for more than say 15 years, that's placing a burden on the working age who will be paying much of the taxes. It doesn't seem unfair to cap how long these highly valuable resources can be used before penalties kick in. In the case of an elderly person who lives in a property where there are other properties (rented units, shopfronts) which they let to people, I see no issue at all in them staying there as long as they maintain that arrangement. It's the exclusive hogging of land essential to the future development of the nation that lasts for too long now compared to 45-50 years ago. There just isn't enough to go around anymore for it to be used like that. The outer fringe needs to be developed for those who can move there in their final years. This is simply a supply-demand equation - if the 90 year old started working full-time again they would be just like any other worker.
Old people can still work and many would like to ! There are many jobs that could be taken over by older persons. Like looking after kids at home !it happens in countries like India ! And working in supermarkets on tills ! I see in aus they use elderly people to work in the immigration services!
This is good news. People will have more kids when a balance is reached and prices are not so ridiculous high like now. Resources can’t support the population at current technology/efficiency
@@robbenvanpersie1562 rapidly ageing and declining population far sooner than was anticipated by the UN, and a faster than expected transition towards transhumanism. the future remains a mystery. if transhumanism doesn't arrive, then feminism will take a backseat, and traditionalism will return. either way, singlehood is rising fast and isn't going away anytime soon. marriage just isn't working like it used to.
When the population of Pittsburgh went down because of the loss of the steel mills, the quality of life went up. City constantly ranks as one of the most livable cities in the US. High population does not equate with high quality of life. Just the opposite.
Same with Detroit and St. Louis after the auto industry left both? Or did they descend into poverty and chaos after people left and economic activity declined along with services and maintenance that pays for.
the quality of life has dropped the food is lower quality education and healthcare is worse its overcrowded everywhere cost of living id higher too much traffic etc etc overpopulation is bad
What incentive do you have to have a child in the United States none we have zero maternity leave for time off here children are expensive, and our country does not support it you are literally penalized by these in the poor house as soon as you have one
These are the factors (the moving parts) in a nutshell; I have written about this for many years: 1) The average Age of Menarche has dropped significantly while the average Age of Menopause has not moved. If you need a real life antecedent, the 12-year old girl across the street from where I lived in the 1990s got pregnant, she had a baby just after she turned 13. 2) There are disputed claims from reproductive science that the sperm count of men in at least Westernized countries has dropped significantly (up to 60% from the 1970s) and no one knows why; the data from undeveloped countries is uncertain or unreliable so we are not sure it is global. 3) Most of the larger countries in the world, or the richest countries, are having sub-replacement birth rates, that is, demographers state that we need an average of 2.1 babies per adult female during their lifetime to maintain population levels. Women are having babies older, sometimes not before they are 30 years. The United States is at 1.6 births per adult female, China claims to be at 1.6 but is probably much lower. 4) China in particular, with a third of the world population is headed for a demographic collapse in the form of their population-age pyramid being bulged at the top or seemingly inverted due to the long running one-child policy. China is in fact, probably at its power peak right now and the leadership knows that the next generation will start the decline.
Why is the media rather biased toward a bad future? When first 1) the disparity will be skewed with more older people - people who have already spent their lives and would eventually die, and 2) automation, a car wouldn't even be touched once by humans until assembly in the plant, all people's left to do is to care for the elderly.
I live in Canada and could barely afford living with roommates while working full time and paying off student debt. I'm 34 now, childless, and would never be able to afford to have kids anyway. The government will have to figure out how to make it possible before my swimmers dry up lol
In 1970 I learned about compound interest and applied it to world population. The result was truly appalling and decided I would never have children and subject them to the horrors of insane population growth. The only people who respect the planet have less than 3 children preferably 1. Anyone with more than 2 children cannot care about the environment one iota.
The unasked, but fundamental question is this: The capability for the females of a species to choose their fertility is completely unprecedented. On average, how many children will women choose to have? If it less than two - which seems likely - population will crash.
I just thought it was funny watching 4 men of various ages explaining why women dont want to have a lot of children anymore. 20 men in a thinktank can rarely explain why women do anything they do.
Feminism and contraception has made child rearing unattractive. But in the future, machines will provide all the products and service people need. What has to change is the profit motive. The greed of people. Capitalism and exploration of workers will hopefully end. A socialist paradise. Even nation-states will end.
I've always said the family unit is the smallest example of a cooperative society that spreads outward to the community. The family should be seen as a staple for society, where men and women come together for emotional security rather than resource security.
From society, I feel like such a loser because I don't work full time to provide for my girls. My husband works long hours as a herd manager at a dairy farm. I have trouble maintaining employment because of mental health issues. PTSD and depression. I enjoy staying home and keeping the house clean and making food from scratch, but society says that I should be able to "Do it all" and I feel like I fall short or am just an ordinary housewife even though the evidence is we can make our money stretch farther because of cooking from scratch and taking care of our belongings and keeping them clean.
I have a brilliant idea, you're going to love this one...How about we change the media propaganda from gynocentric to PRO mother and PRO family and PRO Father! I KNOW! WHAT A SHOCKER!
@@Zelp789 No it's no deflection it's a tactic. Hold the person to the value to which they hold in order to find out who they really are. What we found here, is that you are a hypocrite.
The salient correlation is with the education of women. Quite simply, the more women in college the fewer children being born. 3:10 Almost as if every civilization before this one understood that and made policies to avoid this crash. 8:45 Did you not see the beginning of this video? It's education of women. 11:02 as well.
With our dependence on fossil fuels for industrial agriculture. You might hope that the crash in population coincides with the crash in oil supply. Search Albert Bartlett
Very good, european window of Turkey. Could be a DW discussion as well. Surely all you blabla people like your jobs and do not like to go into pension. But hard working people will not be like you and will not work a single day longer, than they have to. They do the work the society needs to survive and they will be sparse in future. There will be tons of overaged physicians, lawyers, journalists, politicians and joga teachers, but no welders, plumbers, bakers and lorry drivers.
Only Europeans and Japanese, highly liberalized societies, are dying out. But no problem much of Asia and Africa in particular have excellent birth rates. What is happening now is the replacement of Europe’s population, millions of young people are being imported from Asia and Africa as labor. It will soon happen in Japan as well.
In Canada we have lots of space and trees and lumber and yet average housing cost is 700 000 dollars because of greedy older generations… I refuse to have kids ☠️
Did Roundtable even try to have a more diverse panel? Did you not find any female or non-white male expert panellists or did you just not bother looking? The lack of diversity seems absurd to me.
If we are all the same and should be treated equally then what does it matter if they are white or not? I’m Nigerian and have no issue with the make-up of this panel. Perhaps you should be more interested in their ideas than the colour of their skin? May I ask out of interest are you white yourself?
This sounds like people trying to make a problem where there is none. Automation is so wide spread that labor is not really an issue. Overpopulation is a much bigger problem than under population. As for taking care of the elderly, it seems that the focus should be on living better not living longer.
It is not everywhere, just in the Western like nations. Africa, Southern Asia and many in South America have no issues. Funny that none of them talk about feminism, abortion, over education and hypergamy as the reason for it.
@Kea Lucky So what is showing up in demographic data in most of the western nations is now considered as hate women rather then an actual analysis. I reason and logic are no longer a valid argument I see.
@Kea Lucky Not necessarily, maybe hates the fact that knowledge gave women power to choose, and many women choose education over populating the earth. However, what they seem to forget is that it wasn't necessarily the women folk who fought for equal rights that caused this. In some countries they needed women to start working after wars killed the men off, leading to economic crisis. Also in some countries where the women rarely work or only work certain jobs. It caused couple to reframe from having babies. This caused those countries to create more jobs for women to increase the chances of couples having babies. It not just education lowering the birth rate, it's couples feeling the financial strain that causes birth rates to go down. Then government change laws to try and get couples to have more babies.
Tax the rich more. Aren’t robots going to take all our jobs. 30% of working age Australian men don’t have a job! Won’t less population be wonderful for the environment?
I read a number of comments but haven't heard this...I think The population of western nations is declining cause people are fighting for a good lifemore things more entertainment and more me time and Kids kinda get in the way of that new 70 inch TV every 2 years and that New SUV ever few years. People would rather things like that than have a kid.
Pure and simple. I live in a city along with most people on earth. I’m sick of competing for a job, stuck in traffic, standing in lines everywhere I go, thousands of laws and rules to micromanage billions of people. Food and energy is not the only thing holding man back. We have a brain and we’re sick of living like rats. Solar panels and fertilizer is not the only things propelling humanity forward. Human happiness is the biggest contributor to happiness and propagating.
Well marginal groups like gypsies and women in Africa have more children despite their primitive living conditions.
Agreed. Personal perspectives play a large role in whether or not one would or wouldn’t propagate. It isn’t as simple as one topic solutions, as we all see the word differently.
the point is that population bust isn't going to make your lives better. the bust is not what we wanted, we wanted it controlled. bust is not control, it's another extreme. in some parts of japan, the price of drinking water is going up because they don't have manpower.
@@delmanpronto9374 can't it work for us? Less harm on the environment with less people?
@@TheYoli182 seems like we don't know what the middle ground is. when gaining population we gained fast, when losing, we're losing fast. in japan drinking water prices are going up in places where manpower is low.
Honestly, productivity has soared while our wages stagnated starting in the 1970s. We have to take on debt and have two worker households to maintain the same quality of life... HOW are we supposed to add children to that when we have no money?!
If every child is having state education and health care , more women could afford 2-3 children for the population to stabilize at present level
@@kleparaskevas2628
They already do that in Europe and the birth rate is STILL below replacement level. Women don’t want to have children.
This is exactly it, and I hate, hate, hate HATE that it keeps getting blamed on access to contraceptives and women's education... Like... It's economics, not education FFS!!!
Sounds like you’re too tethered to victimhood to figure out the solution to a problem of your own making?
@@coimbralaw nope, just stating basic economic fact and history. The environment most conducive to having many children is where one parent works and the other stays home and cares for the children and the home. This is very difficult for people to achieve now considering stagnant wages, high cost of living, inflation, and the high financial burden children have become.
More and more people are realising that you don’t need to raise a child to love a happy and fulfilled life, especially when you are struggling to provide for yourself too. Why is this being seen as a bad thing? I don’t understand!! The city in which I live in called Mumbai in india, is overpopulated as hell. People here, there, everywhere! There isn’t even a street in which there aren’t hundreds of people!! The pollution is so bad it feels like my lungs are on fire!! I would give ANYTHING for the population here to decrease because I really love this city and want to spend my life here!
Exactly, you live in a huge country with a huge population that isn't old, and birthrates are high. In my country, Portugal (Europe) you wouldn't be so enthusiastic about a rapidly declining population. We already have one of the oldest populations in the world, and also one of the lowest fertility rates. It's devastating to go into smaller cities and villages and see most of them abandoned or filled with very old people. Seeing children here is becoming rare. Super rare. The smartest people go abroad since there are less opportunities here. Do you think this is a good thing? Our situation is so bad we let practically anyone in to work. And we need people. And as they said in the video, immigration is only a band aid, and mass immigration destroys the culture of a country. So yes, low fertility rates ARE A HUGE PROBLEM. Maybe not in India though. A lot of Indian's come to Portugal which I think is great if they want to learn our ways and language :)
@@franciscofernandesdorosari8736 Regardless of people's opinion on culture change and the many problems and challenges with immigration, immigration in itself will not work in the long run because 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants adjust their TFR to that of their host nation. So in the long run you're going to have to import even more people and so on. Like you wrote, it's a very temporary bandaid. Also, TFR is declining in the countries that are sending migrants. Eventually they won't have enough young people to send abroad, they're going to need their few youngsters for themselves.
@@SpacepilotPirx Exactly. Immigration is just a band-aide.
@@franciscofernandesdorosari8736 just take in brazilians. Most of us would be happy to live there, and the cultural change is the minimum you can get from any other people. Maybe it's not the perfect solution, but it's the best one Portugal has at the moment
@@franciscofernandesdorosari8736 Could not have said it better. I was born in Bulgaria. We have one of the highest if not the highest death rate in the world (only 60k were born last year, and 120k died). Youngsters are leaving, there is no immigration to the country, so basically, the society is slowly dying. For Indians, this might not be a problem but for Europeans from countries such as ours, it is. Nowadays, it is promoted that we should not have children, and societies are becoming more individualistic. However, I do think that children bring happiness and a purpose to your life. Unfortunately, we are currently facing global crises, such as pollution, global warming, constant war threats, so no one is focused on making their country more family-friendly and promoting birth rates. Anyways, more and more people/media are talking about fertility rates, so I think in the future this might change. Personally, most people I know want/wanted 2-3 children; however, due to the capitalistic society, they can barely afford one. Also, I know people who have been saying that they do not want children, most of them change their minds after 30. Not having children is normal, however, having many children should also be accepted and supported by the governments.
They are worried about there no being enough slaves to work for them !
"A problem that will arise in our children's lifetime? " I have no children so it isn't a problem, or is that the problem?
I have no children. Less people, less environmental damage.
@@victorsvoice7978 correct. people create waste!
Singly, no. As an individual, you're not going to save humanity by yourself.
But with enough people saying "no" to children, it may/will be a problem.
@@godozo yep . But everything is getting expensive
Boy that is a good question. If you're my age at 55 you probably have children, so you want the best for your children. On one hand you feel for the economic challenges your millennial children face so the last thing you want is for them to have another mouth to feed right now, but on the other hand if you are really looking out for their future you wonder how they will be taken care of when they are older if they dont have children.
This world is a very unfair unjust place who would want to bring another human being into this world so that they can suffer
That''s what common sense speaks. You are with me on that . spot on. Everyone is slave from the day they are born. And only wise parent knows this fact.
Life is pain and suffering. What is the point to it? There are good times too.
@@geoffreyharris5931 The point here is we all have good times and bad times, but, good times need not be from our own off spring. So, keep them safe from not bring them into this world. Let humans use more common sense and find good times in other things other than being crazy about having kids to have good times. Our life is very uncertain and one can die any day in any unexpected way and leave kids at the mercy of others, which is nothing but being very cruel to one's own kids. One should have kids only if he or she can guarantee to stay healthy and alive at least 80 to 100 years , to take care of their kids.
end your suffering right now, if you have the cojones
lol.
The really interesting part is that there is not record of any country reversing a birth rate below replacement value.
"Interesting" 🤔
Yes, and the interviewer did a fantastic job to circle back and ask David Coleman if he could list examples of population rebounding like he implied was a common occurrence. Of course his response was essentially “let’s talk about something else”
They finally get some men to discuss population decline, but I can't remember one mentioning MGTOW or Japanese " herbivores ".
Because they are symptoms not the cause.
@@mickmegson6241 They won't discuss the causes if they won't mention MGTOW or herbivore men.
I've heard herbivore men exist because of the pressure in Japanese society. MGTOW exists because of laws and policies producing a profound penalty on men who find themselves pairing up with the wrong women.
They're talking about global demographic decline and they won't or can't talk about those two things.
It would be nice if ypu had some ladies discussing it too
@@zebrafinch12 " They finally get some men ..." - this is the first discussion about the population decline that I've seen with ANY men, and STILL they ignore half of the population of the world.
That's because most men in the media are feminized NPCs rather than men with actual talking points.
I sure hope population levels plummet over the next couple centuries then reach a stable equilibrium.
@Anthony W Moore wife and I are both engineers in our early 30s, should have $10 million saved up by retirement.
@Anthony W Moore which is a good thing. Humans will be probably around for millions of years, we have to get on a more sustainable path for our existence on a planet with finite resources.
@Anthony W Moore Correct i think dinosaurs lasted 10s of millions of years. Primate species appear to last a couple million years. We may be able to do some sort of genetic engineering to evolve into a species thats better suited to survive a changing climate.
The big companies are not gonna be happy about that. Less people equals less consumers which is less profit.
@@greenearth9945 Less people, more automation means the elites don't need workers or consumers. They want the rest for themselves. Ted kazinsky mentioned this and predicted depopulation sometime in early 21st century.
Of course women who are now getting educated and having good jobs and earning good money don’t want many kids they go to work then go home and have to run a home with no help from a husband ! Why should they ! Forget it
After the horror of the black death, things got so much better for the peasants... wouldn't the same thing happen again? Our labor would be worth so much more again and our money would go further. We could actually buy houses in the cities we were born in... what a concept!
OMG. Don't speak such logic! We obviously need Idiocracy and Poverty.
@@Zelp789 lol I know, and the media is dead set on helping that along! Its actually really sad.
no, we import people from 3rd world nations to prevent high costs of labor and increases the carbon footprint.
I hear how declining birth control is a great thing, but we practice mass immigration.
@@PistonHonda87 true, and our media refuses to talk about how bad it is. In the last 7 months over a million people have crossed the border! They say they do jobs Americans won't do... but they make those jobs so low wage of course no legal citizen would. If we didn't have that these jobs would pay more and citizens would do them. It's basic economics. The worst part of this is so many people understand this and are sick of it but it just keeps continuing and getting worse.
@@dustin628 it's now closer to 2 million and let's be honest, they are never going back.
The billionaires who got rich getting us slaughtered on battlefield after battlefield can have them. What’s the problem?
Im one of those women who doesn't want kids for now, just by looking at how chaotic the world is, I can't bear my kid living in a wicked world
Name a better time in History to be alive.
@@garmin1488 Renaissance, Post world war 2 economic boom, 90s.
@@Zelp789 there you go the answers, and many more lmao, thanks
Same it’s like Governments don’t know that women think about these things. Even Africans birth rates are slower throughout the pandemic!! We’re biologically concerned with the state of the world especially when it comes to children
I'm hearing two things about this anxiety of de-population a) capitlalism is being driven to its natural conclusion and depopulation shows how it is untenable and b) the global north/rich countries/white folks are having anxiety about being bred out of existence
Because only white people live in North America.
@@InVinoVeratas the non-white people aren't expressing this anxiety...they're too busy surviving from the various genocides...so they've faced and are still recovering
@@1971gift This excludes sevral shades of yellow, Just look at Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan.
@@skylinefever see my point a
People on average really can’t afford children. I make a respectable salary and I can’t afford a child. I see my less well off siblings and their children with children and they are struggling immensely. I find it very sad and also sobering.
That's why I had a vasectomy at age 27. Not in a million years was I going to end up like most of my friends. I work real hard. No way am I going to give half away by getting a woman pregnant.
I can't believe it took the full 25 minutes before someone mentioned making family life and women's experiences in childbearing and child rearing better. Four dudes talking about replacing people with AI rather than just treating women better. classic
Fresh, because it's all about women, right. Children need their fathers, just as much as their mothers. No stable family, no families. The deck has been stacked against men. Men are walking away.
@A. person we women are expected to do all of the childrearing while working full time underpaid jobs at the same time, and then add in childcare expenses, it's just not worth it to us women. It's too exhausting.
@@theveganvillainess Isn’t this what women in the West asked for? Isn’t that what “equality” and female empowerment was all about. Did not Western women completely buy into the idea that they could “have it all?” You got what you asked for, and all women do is complain about getting what they wanted. It is the height of female arrogance to think that the whole world needs to change for them. You made a concerted effort to drive men out of the family, and you created a welfare state to replace men. “You don’t need no man,”….you only need his tax money, child support and alimony. Men did not change and abandon marriage and the family….women did. Time to quit complaining about the situation you created.
Yesss mothers especially single mothers ( whether due to being widowed or deadbeats) feel ALOT of pressure from society and other women. It’s a lot safer and peaceful to be alone (if your dedicated and realistic) and fulfilled than blamed for all of societies problems.
@@rednab2001 erm you missed the point sir.... she’s asking how can we make society more “mother and family” friendly. To encourage women to have children...
2.1 is replacement fertility rate only in developed countries.
Much higher in poorer countries so slow down must be sooner than projected here.
Excellent observation, almost never noted.
Which means almost the entire world is already below replacement. You’d think these experts would notice that.
@@heyskipper6363 you have a 1960s view of the world. The higher fertility rate needed was due to high infant mortality. That has plummeted in almost every nation on Earth. Plus, life expectancy has risen... everywhere.
@@avernvrey7422 re: infant mortality. True, but 2.1 is almost always cited as replacement total lifetime fertility to maintain the population. That is only true in countries where almost *all* women survive to bear children. Outside rich countries, that isn't true.
re: life expectancy. Increased life expectancy only temporarily contributes to a rising population. After it stops increasing (by some amount of time depending upon the degree of increase), that is the new normal. Further population increase is determined by TLF in comparison to that societies replacement fertility.
after the black plague, the wage scale and power of workers in great Britain increased. Workers went from being serfs, tied to the land, to being free yeoman, a middle class with rights that had never existed before.
I wouldn't worry until they are less than 500 people left on this planet.
You do hate your own species, don’t you?
@@hectorcardenas2171 More like despise.
@@jlasud
That’s sad.
@Mas Salleh
That’s sad that he hates his own species, that’s what he/she is. 🤷🏽♂️
@Mas Salleh
Yes need
Well first of all the next generation isnt all going to live to 100 most people will still die around 80 plus or minus
Maybe they are if the avancement of CRISPR have a breakthrough. We could have an average lifespan of over 100 years and mostly healthy
Population will decline eventually
@@r.chavez5513 We need a global ban on idiots breeding.
@@Zelp789 I don't know if that is possible. However, we might be able to increase Darwinian selection pressures so that the idiots don't live long enough to reproduce. I love the Darwin Awards and wish more people received them.
@@skylinefever I think global ban on breeding makes more sense. What you're describing is recipe for increased crime, homelessness, and slums.
Fewer people on our planet is definitely a good thing
The old guy seems to have the most amount of perspective of the three
Age gives u that and less of a tendency to worry about trivia usually.
This is great news. We need to adjust how we think and live on this planet. Let the Earth repair itself.
With a small enough population. We can return to a more agrarian lifestyle where people live like a higher tech version of the amish
@@anon9579 That won't happen when there's no humans left
@@sunnysunshine8897 still a more sustainable off grid lifestyle is the best future I can think of
@@sunnysunshine8897 if we keep growing our population, extinction becomes a prophecy not just a possibility. For 99% of human history, our population didn't surpassed the 10 million mark. We should strive for those sustainable numbers again.
I don't have enough money for myself. I certainly don't have enough for a family.
Most people would choose to raise familes if they did not feel so economically precarious and vulnerable in modern society with the constant pressure to work and earn or fall behind. Then people who cannot afford to rear their children get told they should not have had kids they could not afford. Loss of family support due to career pressures taking people away from their traditional support structures. Fix the economics and society will follow.
Exactly. Capitalism as an economic model had failed. Now we just need to make sure the next system goes back to more traditional family and social values while the economy becomes more shared among the average person and their family.
I agree we need to create a more family friendly society!
How dumb are you?
How about don't have kids.
@@Zelp789 why do I think your profile picture is smarter than you? 🤔
@@zuchotheghost BAHAHAHA. And you're so smart by wanting more resource draining brats on an overpopulated planet with global warming and peak oil.
@@zuchotheghost It's best to take care of all the kids now instead of pumping out more kids. There are kids in orphanages FYI.
Declining population is only a problem of RICH countries tbh 😂
Lol true but they have to take in immigrants
@@robbenvanpersie1562 that is not a good solution. Then the immigrate became the majority and the natives become extinct.
Nope it's everywhere
Nope, it's declining in most countries in the world. Some countries started off with a much higher TFR than the rich countries so their TFR is comparably high right now, but it is going down.
That is because in poor countries, parents get to use their children for free labor. It ends up paying them to have children. Later, they become the only form of old age caretakers. Meanwhile, in rich countries, children are an overpriced hobby. Putting money in stocks and real estate is more effective.
it's interesting that there are no female experts on the panel, especially considering it is only women that can have children and that carry the lion share of responsibility for child-rearing. Perhaps it might be interesting to have a future panel of all women discussing why they don't want to have children?
Just like the ccp one child policy. No female input, thus millions of girl babies murdered. Didn’t work out too well did it. And has there been any “education “ about girls being as important to have as boys?
The first problem with global fertility, is there are 4 men & 0 women in this conversation.
there are 4 white men, and no one else
well dont worry then because nobody will listen . smileyface
Civilization doesn't require any female opinions or preferences. It only requires them to have babies and make them strong.
There was one with all women, go watch that post.
if another woman was invlved in the conversation does that change the statistical data?
im asking for a friend.
The species isn’t going to disappear. We’re going to find a new balance sometime in the 22nd Century-when we are in balance with our habitat and a our society and our needs are getting met. I imagine we’ll stabilize somewhere between 3 and 6 billion, but of course that is a long way out to forecast. The final number will have a lot to do with what we’ve done to the world between now and then.
Let's be fewer, richer, more sustainable, and do away with diseases like aging or begin to
It's already happening in east asia
Everywhere
Yes we are, and that is a good thing
I don't think so..
We need reduce people, set the suitable number, and live alongside nature and environment
How low do u think it will go. 1 billion 100 million 10 million? I think it needs to come down a factor of 10 to 100.
i kid you not, child desertification is a massive problem around the world.
Not in many parts of Africa.
Anyone remember Logan's Run? It always comes to mind watching this sort of thing.
R E P L E N I S H
We've reached our sociological carrying capacity. There are plenty of resources, but human society cannot bring itself to distribute those resources fairly. When times are good, greed, pride, arrogance, and a desire to dominate have an outsize influence on critical members of society. Oppressors arise to hog all the resources, and the less fortunate masses starve out. It's a feedback loop that prevents the existence of too many humans.
Y’all keep being shy about blaming the real culprit. It’s not humans. Women aren’t involved. It’s MEN.
@@nothereyetlost As if women weren't complicit in anything the men did. When the men were out conquering for land, wealth, and slaves do you think their wives cared the least about the people whom their men oppressed? Silly cooze. Grow up.
Automation are you guys forgetting that.
We are sick of being treated like slaves and expected to have many kids and no help from men ! We are better off at work
I think you've got some issues to work out.
More money/wealth does not mean that you have a better life for your nation's citizens.
The Japanese are smart people.
Thank you spencer very cool
They’re so smart, they’re not having kids. I don’t mean that sarcastically, I literally mean that is a smart thing to do.
@@InVinoVeratas why do you hate children so much
@@zuchotheghost We don't. We want to help kids and take care of the ones suffering in orphananges. We just don't want more unwanted kids in an overpopulated world.
They aren’t smart because they’ll go extinct in a few hundred to a few thousand years if not reversed. It’s bad that the rest of the world is headed that way.
Make discussion of fertility a standard part of femake healthcare as well as presentation of all options . Making fertility care 100% subsidized would help.
Nobody wants to hear the truth. That is why no one here is talking about MGTOW or herbivores and lets not forget feminism.
Do you really think that makes up such a large percentage of the decline? There are many people deferring childbearing that don't even know what MGTOW or "herbivores" are.
People need higher wages, the ability for a family to live on one income. If a parent is able to stay home the family as a whole is less stressed. When I was home with my kids, family life was so enjoyable but the budget required me to go back to work. Even though I wanted more kids, the 9-5 grind and only 2 crappy weeks of vacation wear you out that you can barely take care of what you already have. We need companies to give more time off and higher pay. People want more kids but most worry about the cost and stress of raising them in todays working climate.
If you don't have the environment at the centre of all population discussions, you are not having a meaningful discussion. A dropping population WILL be great for the planet. The ageing population problem is BS. It is an issue which can be readily and easily overcome. As for immigration being a solution, it is a solution to nothing at all. What it does do is grow the economies of the western world (it is doing much more than prop them up) and further compromise their already much diminished environment. Poaching younger people from other countries merely hastens the ageing in the donor countries. The real tragedy remains that the human population will continue for a very long time yet (as our demographer outlined) and we are not doing enough to lower the ceiling. (As for declining pop impact on housing prices?) We just have to deal with it. The first step -- long before this -- is to stop building economic well-being via housing prices (as in Australia). That will soften the blow. Fewer and poorer. Poorer than what? Poorer at the end of this century than we are today? Hardly an issue. Poorer than we might otherwise be? Big deal! The advantage offered to the environment and any notion of sustainability (the latter of which does not exist at the moment) outweighs ALL the downside. Bring it on!
I agree. We should be investing in creating sustainable systems that works with less carbon footprint.
Because of high population we are all just rats competing all our lives until retirement. Ofcourse most of the adults dont want this to happen to their children so they avoid having babies.
our grandchildren will have an awful future
First world countries can build robots to do jobs. They have investment capital. What are the second and third world countries going to do?
They pump babies. Africa, India, Indonesia, Philippines, they all have above 2.1 birth rate. Above the minimum of replacement rate. Don't worry.
@@prostspezi5 The birthrate was higher 20 years ago. And higher still 40 years before that. Do you not see the global trend?
Father struggles supporting family,gets drunk, high and home troubles...getting divorced,in prison,homeless,jobless ....
Machines don't buy products. Automation may lead to highly efficient well produced products, but an older population doesn't demand goods. Economic activity will decline, which will increase poverty and crime.
It used to be (1970s) that the average person died in their 70s - now it's the 80s or 90s.
Does this not place additional pressure on younger generations? That person in their 90s still occupying a property or plot of land in a desirable area would have been dead 20 years earlier in an earlier time. That's two decades of taking up valuable resources, or an entire generation that couldn't access that resource to raise the next generation. The longer people live (assuming there's quite a few people doing that, which there are), the more pressure is exerted upon the "up and comings" - those trying to get an education, enter the workforce, raise a family. There are people who finished raising children in the 1960s, more than 50 years ago, still exerting pressure upon the new generations by taking up housing, land, public funding for pensions, a potential inheritance for their children in order to finance a new generation.
It does. I'm waiting for my selfish Boomer parents to die.
We can move from variable cost to fixed cost. Like instead of providing pensions to 5 grandpips, we put them in homes and hire one nurse. So the capacity is managed in this way, wherein the cost and the number of people wouldn't be linear.
And you are how old?
Will you shuffle off to make room for those younger breeding couples? Lead by example. Off you go then.
@@jandrews6254 I'd move further out to a place that would not be suitable for workers so as to allow the land to be used for something that's relevant to 2022 not 1962.
I did not mean that anyone should be dead - I said they used to die a lot earlier, about 20 years earlier on average. If there's large blocks of land in highly desirable locations for those working to support the economy, but they are being used by retirees for more than say 15 years, that's placing a burden on the working age who will be paying much of the taxes. It doesn't seem unfair to cap how long these highly valuable resources can be used before penalties kick in. In the case of an elderly person who lives in a property where there are other properties (rented units, shopfronts) which they let to people, I see no issue at all in them staying there as long as they maintain that arrangement. It's the exclusive hogging of land essential to the future development of the nation that lasts for too long now compared to 45-50 years ago. There just isn't enough to go around anymore for it to be used like that. The outer fringe needs to be developed for those who can move there in their final years. This is simply a supply-demand equation - if the 90 year old started working full-time again they would be just like any other worker.
You also wouldn't have to sell it - you'd just have to advertise it, and you would have to get an offer reflecting fair market value.
Old people can still work and many would like to ! There are many jobs that could be taken over by older persons. Like looking after kids at home !it happens in countries like India ! And working in supermarkets on tills ! I see in aus they use elderly people to work in the immigration services!
We are not going extinct so do not worry.
This is good news. People will have more kids when a balance is reached and prices are not so ridiculous high like now. Resources can’t support the population at current technology/efficiency
men are running away from women.
@@delmanpronto9374 coz of divorce rates?
@@robbenvanpersie1562 and falling marriage rates.
@@delmanpronto9374 how will it end if more and more men say no to marriage?
@@robbenvanpersie1562 rapidly ageing and declining population far sooner than was anticipated by the UN, and a faster than expected transition towards transhumanism. the future remains a mystery. if transhumanism doesn't arrive, then feminism will take a backseat, and traditionalism will return. either way, singlehood is rising fast and isn't going away anytime soon. marriage just isn't working like it used to.
When the population of Pittsburgh went down because of the loss of the steel mills, the quality of life went up. City constantly ranks as one of the most livable cities in the US. High population does not equate with high quality of life. Just the opposite.
Same with Detroit and St. Louis after the auto industry left both? Or did they descend into poverty and chaos after people left and economic activity declined along with services and maintenance that pays for.
the quality of life has dropped the food is lower quality education and healthcare is worse its overcrowded everywhere cost of living id higher
too much traffic etc etc overpopulation is bad
What incentive do you have to have a child in the United States none we have zero maternity leave for time off here children are expensive, and our country does not support it you are literally penalized by these in the poor house as soon as you have one
yet the Germans who do get maternity leave have even less children on average
These are the factors (the moving parts) in a nutshell; I have written about this for many years:
1) The average Age of Menarche has dropped significantly while the average Age of Menopause has not moved. If you need a real life antecedent, the 12-year old girl across the street from where I lived in the 1990s got pregnant, she had a baby just after she turned 13.
2) There are disputed claims from reproductive science that the sperm count of men in at least Westernized countries has dropped significantly (up to 60% from the 1970s) and no one knows why; the data from undeveloped countries is uncertain or unreliable so we are not sure it is global.
3) Most of the larger countries in the world, or the richest countries, are having sub-replacement birth rates, that is, demographers state that we need an average of 2.1 babies per adult female during their lifetime to maintain population levels. Women are having babies older, sometimes not before they are 30 years. The United States is at 1.6 births per adult female, China claims to be at 1.6 but is probably much lower.
4) China in particular, with a third of the world population is headed for a demographic collapse in the form of their population-age pyramid being bulged at the top or seemingly inverted due to the long running one-child policy. China is in fact, probably at its power peak right now and the leadership knows that the next generation will start the decline.
Why is the media rather biased toward a bad future? When first 1) the disparity will be skewed with more older people - people who have already spent their lives and would eventually die, and 2) automation, a car wouldn't even be touched once by humans until assembly in the plant, all people's left to do is to care for the elderly.
I live in Canada and could barely afford living with roommates while working full time and paying off student debt. I'm 34 now, childless, and would never be able to afford to have kids anyway. The government will have to figure out how to make it possible before my swimmers dry up lol
Dear God, please send us LESS babies!
MORE
In 1970 I learned about compound interest and applied it to world population. The result was truly appalling and decided I would never have children and subject them to the horrors of insane population growth. The only people who respect the planet have less than 3 children preferably 1. Anyone with more than 2 children cannot care about the environment one iota.
Now use compound figures going into the negative :) because that's where we're heading.
@@thelourensfamily8048 10 million is a sustainable number, but half of that would be a good number for the species. Let's strive for that.
The unasked, but fundamental question is this: The capability for the females of a species to choose their fertility is completely unprecedented. On average, how many children will women choose to have?
If it less than two - which seems likely - population will crash.
In our family, my partner and I made the rule to not let their team (the kids) outnumber our team (the adults) - so we had 2.
@@apopuffkin1717 Same here.
I just thought it was funny watching 4 men of various ages explaining why women dont want to have a lot of children anymore. 20 men in a thinktank can rarely explain why women do anything they do.
Found the propagandist.
Found the propagandist.
Hopefully yes. Down to a stable few billion would be ideal. This would increase resources/biodiversity and decrease pollution/emissions.
HUMANS DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN OR THE EARTH AS MUCH AS THEY DO ABOUT CONFORMING OR FELLATING THE BOSS. WE ARE DONE. THIS IS A HOSPICE.
I am trying to figure out mass rape in the old days of several nations
Mass rape used to be legal in America as long as it was Native Americans.
Feminism and contraception has made child rearing unattractive.
But in the future, machines will provide all the products and service people need. What has to change is the profit motive. The greed of people. Capitalism and exploration of workers will hopefully end. A socialist paradise. Even nation-states will end.
In the same breath you don't like feminism, but congratulate socialism. You sir have wild fantasies.
I've always said the family unit is the smallest example of a cooperative society that spreads outward to the community. The family should be seen as a staple for society, where men and women come together for emotional security rather than resource security.
From society, I feel like such a loser because I don't work full time to provide for my girls. My husband works long hours as a herd manager at a dairy farm. I have trouble maintaining employment because of mental health issues. PTSD and depression. I enjoy staying home and keeping the house clean and making food from scratch, but society says that I should be able to "Do it all" and I feel like I fall short or am just an ordinary housewife even though the evidence is we can make our money stretch farther because of cooking from scratch and taking care of our belongings and keeping them clean.
Somehow, without Bibles, India has managed to have very strong families.
I have a brilliant idea, you're going to love this one...How about we change the media propaganda from gynocentric to PRO mother and PRO family and PRO Father! I KNOW! WHAT A SHOCKER!
Will you advocate for the massive social changes that will make parenting rewarding?
How about no. We need less parasites in the world.
@@Zelp789 okay. You go first.
@@jcstang8952 Nice deflection. Common argument made by people who don't understand that malthusianism is real.
@@Zelp789 No it's no deflection it's a tactic. Hold the person to the value to which they hold in order to find out who they really are. What we found here, is that you are a hypocrite.
Can’t you get A.I. to make your babies?
Thank goodness. There are 10 to 100 times to many people.
you are 10 to 100 times too stupid to talk about this.
The salient correlation is with the education of women. Quite simply, the more women in college the fewer children being born.
3:10 Almost as if every civilization before this one understood that and made policies to avoid this crash.
8:45 Did you not see the beginning of this video? It's education of women. 11:02 as well.
Good less people, love it!!!
When both sexes learn to live together again humanity is doomed until we do
With our dependence on fossil fuels for industrial agriculture. You might hope that the crash in population coincides with the crash in oil supply. Search Albert Bartlett
Whilst we retain an economic structure that supresses the people who can you have not hope!!
Very good, european window of Turkey. Could be a DW discussion as well. Surely all you blabla people like your jobs and do not like to go into pension. But hard working people will not be like you and will not work a single day longer, than they have to. They do the work the society needs to survive and they will be sparse in future. There will be tons of overaged physicians, lawyers, journalists, politicians and joga teachers, but no welders, plumbers, bakers and lorry drivers.
Only Europeans and Japanese, highly liberalized societies, are dying out. But no problem much of Asia and Africa in particular have excellent birth rates. What is happening now is the replacement of Europe’s population, millions of young people are being imported from Asia and Africa as labor. It will soon happen in Japan as well.
Can population crash? There is a lagging effect,right? It's not like in a year, there's suddenly a drop in people, not even in a pandemic.
And make all people pay into a pension fund !
My opinion less people is good thing. Will be less work force bat also will be more robotics to help. Fact people can t grow forever
Time to re-read "The Empty Cradle," and "Children of Men." (Yes, I know books should be underlined. Can't do it here.)
Prosperity will cure over population
In Canada we have lots of space and trees and lumber and yet average housing cost is 700 000 dollars because of greedy older generations… I refuse to have kids ☠️
Environment can't sustain 7 billion people. Not, even, half that. It's, all, for the better
Did Roundtable even try to have a more diverse panel? Did you not find any female or non-white male expert panellists or did you just not bother looking? The lack of diversity seems absurd to me.
If we are all the same and should be treated equally then what does it matter if they are white or not? I’m Nigerian and have no issue with the make-up of this panel. Perhaps you should be more interested in their ideas than the colour of their skin?
May I ask out of interest are you white yourself?
Do you complain when you see a panel of all women? I've seen a few discussions on birth rate with all female panels, can't say it bothered me.
Really? Still trying the "diversity is a strength" trope in 2021?
Is your name Helen or Karen?
This sounds like people trying to make a problem where there is none. Automation is so wide spread that labor is not really an issue. Overpopulation is a much bigger problem than under population. As for taking care of the elderly, it seems that the focus should be on living better not living longer.
Logan's Run and Soylent Green.
Well that's your opinion.
It is not everywhere, just in the Western like nations. Africa, Southern Asia and many in South America have no issues. Funny that none of them talk about feminism, abortion, over education and hypergamy as the reason for it.
@Kea Lucky So what is showing up in demographic data in most of the western nations is now considered as hate women rather then an actual analysis. I reason and logic are no longer a valid argument I see.
@Kea Lucky Not necessarily, maybe hates the fact that knowledge gave women power to choose, and many women choose education over populating the earth.
However, what they seem to forget is that it wasn't necessarily the women folk who fought for equal rights that caused this. In some countries they needed women to start working after wars killed the men off, leading to economic crisis. Also in some countries where the women rarely work or only work certain jobs. It caused couple to reframe from having babies. This caused those countries to create more jobs for women to increase the chances of couples having babies.
It not just education lowering the birth rate, it's couples feeling the financial strain that causes birth rates to go down. Then government change laws to try and get couples to have more babies.
@@MrsNicolas its happening in Greece
That's because the poor countries have zero access to birth control
There getting everything they want but it's not working.
Tax the rich more. Aren’t robots going to take all our jobs. 30% of working age Australian men don’t have a job! Won’t less population be wonderful for the environment?
who want to live in world its going to be hell
I CERTAINLY HOPE SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to retire early haha:
I read a number of comments but haven't heard this...I think The population of western nations is declining cause people are fighting for a good lifemore things more entertainment and more me time and Kids kinda get in the way of that new 70 inch TV every 2 years and that New SUV ever few years. People would rather things like that than have a kid.
Exactly. Many people like me choose materialism over the possiblity of getting divorce wrecked after having kids!
Less population is better for the planet
Hopefully a crash accelerates as men avoid divorce ruin by marriage
Hopefully
Too much pollution
Is the population reduction been engineered or is it a naturally occuring effect?
Just bring more african migrants yay
No
Only if they are skilled, which is sadly unlikely.
more population is a problem less population is also problem