Do you really think soccer moms, party fuccbois and mr 9-5 wants to care about this? Your leaders have created enough for you to worry about. Also, in general, people avoid unpleasantness. This video only has 250 000 views because people don't want to watch it because it makes them sad. I know I won't watch all of it, but I already know what he's gonna say.
@@kayadapantha8286 And yet if there were not 7.8 Billion of us packed in like sardines in a can this virus would never have become a thing. I'm not saying that I hope a bunch of people die but what I am saying is that perhaps this whole thing will give some young people pause and convince them to have no more than two children.
You are missing the point completely. The first colonies were always in danger of annihilation and many did perish. What you speak of are technical difficulties , no worse that then technical difficulties the colonists faced.
This presenter, like many presenters, is well aware that he would not have a platform unless he ended with a positive ending. This is what most people have come to expect and is the kind of pitch they crave. This presentation was made almost five years ago and we remain on pretty much the same trajectory as was taking place then. No mention was made about passing thresholds beyond which no recovery is possible. That likely happened over a decade ago and almost no-one is willing to admit to that. The massive release in CO2, from our fossil fuel use, continues and we are now seeing the consequences of much of the dumping that took place around 40 years ago. There is no possibility of a turn-around now. The current predictions of recovery are now based upon assumptions that within a decade an unprecedented new technology will be developed and deployed on a massive scale to drain the excess CO2 out of the Earth's atmosphere. This is magical thinking from a species under great stress.
I agree Vernon. I'm interested to know what you think we should do as individuals given our current situation. It is a very depressing reality. I want to be part of a positive effort towards a sustainable solution. Any ideas? I am not having children, trying to live a simple life and not waste resources. Feeling like I need to do something bigger. Trying to raise awareness and instigate change by encouraging people to not create more humans and to not manipulate others and the resources we all share for a higher socio-economic status, seems to depress and even anger people. Human nature is to compete to survive, manipulate and procreate. It's been my experience that people don't want to hear it without getting defensive. Any thoughts?
I see you have many good ideas and have made valiant efforts to make needed changes. By doing so you've discovered the resistance of most people to accept the truth. Humans have natural protective coping mechanisms and you have the privilege to see these in action. Sustainability is no longer possible since, at least a decade ago we moved beyond a threshold beyond which humans can not reverses our cascading rush into a 6th mass extinction event. Try to find things to be thankful for, such as you didn't have kids who will sacrificed by the planetary plague that humans have become. I suggest you Google VHEMT and the Nature Bats Last blog.
Hardly anyone is seriously considering reforestation on a massive scale. I mean massive. Irrigate the Sahara desert and grow food and trees there. Of course that's easier said than done! But consider this: It's possible to transport oil, via pipeline, from the Middle East, to Europe. I live in Scotland, where it rains A LOT. I'd happily share my water with Africa - if only there was stationary infrastructure to transfer it. Obviously, we also need to drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption AND address overpopulation. To be clear, I do not advocate forced sterilisation, eugenics, genocide or abortion. Also, if it became 'normal' for the average person to eat less meat and dairy, that would help too.
@@chadleggett77 Yes, the one thing we must do is ensure that EVERYONE knows that averaging more than 2 kills children. If my descendants average more than 2, everyone else can have zero babies, but the population still grows to the limit. At the limit children must die to stop the attempted growth when we average more than 2. The descendants of the guy in China must not average more than 2. The descendants of the Joe Blow in England, and Jane Doe in Africa must not average more than 2. This is basic math and not only is Gilding not teaching it, neither are our population scientists. Failure to comprehend basic math is enabling most everyone to believe that it is A-OK to have as many babies as they damn well please. If you are serious about wanting to be a part of a positive effort please help me to figure out how to explain this to population experts. I know it is rather unbelievable that population experts don't know this, but go ahead and find one that states that averaging too many babies kills children. Find any that state that children must die at the rate of (x-2)/x where x is how many babies we average.
A voice of reason. The earth may indeed be past the point of no return due to runaway climactic feedback loops which could very possibly lead to an atmosphere resembling Venus. An intelligent species? I think not.
Not every meter^2 of Earth is overpopulated. However, let's look at the numbers a bit. Three billion people lived by July 1959, around the time my dad was born. Four billion happened around April 1974 A boy from my country was chosen as the 5 billionth child. That was 1987. I was -2 so to speak. When I was 10, we had 6 billion. That's 1999. Two years ago, we passed 7 billion. My dad was around 52. So, in half a century, the world's population had doubled. Does that sound like a good thing?
In a talk called "The Earth is Full," he never actually advocates for a smaller population! He ends up saying we can still have 9 billion people, no problem at all. Very disappointing.
A key is to voluntarily have no children, Having a child is a great privilege but the planet has definitely reached it's carrying capacity for people, it is just a fact. We are also living much longer and in first world nations, while also very healthy, my dad is 74 in excellent health, works full time, volunteers, gardens, recycles, he is so emotionally/psychologically healthy and engaged with the community around him. Many people are living like this and will so I think well into their 100's. Thus people are living longer, but the key is to have no or one child or adopt a child whom needs a forever home or donate/volunteer with organizations that help other species at risk.
Brandt McCall people arnt the problem, he said economy.. The WORLD is having less children than ever seen in human history, and the ramifications of that will be evident 30 years from now. But of course he forgot to mention that, we are actually beginning to decline in workforce population, give it 50 years
@@ZEPR0FESS0RR The habitat is not giving us 50 years. Or 10. Not even 5. The vast majority of people in the know or have researched fully understand that 1-3 years is it. Not prediction, not prophecy. An understanding of the process of our existence and the situation, circumstances and limits. Simple projection is sufficient to reveal all.
Neutral population is ok, 1:1, but looking at Japan and China you can see why having less children is actually bad for the aging and the ecomonic well being of everyone.
@@robertr392 learn to deal with it. That is an imbecilic argument. We need more people forever and always?! So in the US, let's go to 500 million. They will need to go to 1 billion. Then 2 billion. Then 4 billion Americans...Then what? Our system collapses and what, they have to figure out how to thrive with smaller families when the country is like Bangladesh? Lets be smarter than that.
@@nickbryantfyi no reason to have kids, so many born unwanted or cared for. But that does not make you a loser. Live the best life you can. That's all any of were here for anyways.
@@nickbryantfyi Kids are overrated. And they are not little copies of their parents. Often, in this entitled narcissist sociopathic culture, their either slaves or masters with few in between.
You completely missed the point. He is not talking about the physical space our bodies or houses occupy, he is talking about the exploitation of natural resources. Some resources are renewable but we are burning through them much faster than the environment can make them. As he put it, it's unsustainable. The insanity of infinite economic growth will clash with reality and reality will win.
Science = operation paperclip. Traitors in government. Important points to recognise, when it comes to how things are interpreted. Yes, we need to look at things. But when you can't trust the information you are getting. Then it's time to deal with those who are putting out the fear propaganda.
...unending growth is not possible. In his day, there was a school of philosophy that held that man was improving, would always continue to improve, and we'd eventually achieve a 'heaven on Earth' sort of state. Malthus's work was basically a reaction to that - he was saying it was nonsense. To say Malthus has been 'proven wrong' is not accurate. In fact, he's been proven right many times with past civilizations. But it is true to say this great experiment we've embarked upon is still going.
I have thought since I was 17, that there should always be no more than 2 billion humans living here. A year later the first EARTH DAY was born. Few took heed . I did.
An inspiring and very necessary talk! We need to prepare ourselves to act out of hope and trust in ourselves, not out of fear, when the big collapse comes! And we need to create communities based on love and mutual help, instead of waiting for our "rulers" to solve anything. This can be a wonderful awakening for many of us, and a new beginning, and a great opportunity... it certainly will be a great challenge.
i dont think he is calling for genocide, but one way or another a lot of people are going to die, think about what happens when we run out of clean water and fossil fuels
When you say "occupy" you just mean "live" you don't mean the occupation that drives us to plunder the last few remaining wildernesses and bring about the age of the greatest extinctions. Economists don't take biodiversity and ecology into account but we depend on these things and the human economy is a part of the greater planetary ecology. I'm not saying he's right, just that your economists study wealth creation not what makes for ecological abundance. So don't trust them.
The main obstacle in any form of change before crisis is that so many people cant grasp the idea that strongly regulated consumption is the only solution and that means the end of free markets and capitalism. Actually if people could understand that they would be happier with "enough" than "as much as I can get" the world would be a better place. But with so many opposing socialism its just impossible to realise unfortunately. Most people still have a money-carrot motivation system for working.
Paul Giding summarizes the situation very well in 16 minutes. The switch-off after 10 minutes is very effective (could perhaps lasted longer). For me, it is inconceivable that what he says is not public knowledge. As Paul says, we've known that society's relationship to nature is unsustainable for almost 50 years. We can not take more than we get! Right now, which Giding addresses, we would need 1.5 Earths to support us all right now. In the near future we need two globes!
Even if we had the means to reach & colonize 3 Earth-like planets, it still wouldn't take long before they too would be as crowded as Earth is now. At 12 noon, when a full bottle of bacteria is split evenly with 3 other bottles, that makes 4 bottles that are 1/4 full. One minute after 12 the 4 bottles are half full. Two minutes after 12, all 4 bottles are full; no more growth is possible.
The only way to solve this problem is relatively easy - stop wasting. Shift your standards down. Do not ride your personal car - use public transport. If you can't, at least don't buy new car every couple of years, and have just one car in your household. Stop buying tons of clothes. Do not expect to have fresh fruit or vegetables on your table in mid-winter
hitssquad to some extent, you're right. but saving money is different. the person should opt for saving resorses of the planet (even if he can afford buying these resources), rather than saving his personal resource (=his money). the psychology behind seemingly same decisions is different. we should learn to sacrifice our comfort
hitssquad money is one of the resources, and again - in this context it is personal resource. it belongs to you personally. resources of the planet - is different type of resource. it belong to nobody or everybody. we need to save latter, not the first
Daniel Meyers Why not simply get rid of subsidies and save money? Is that not complicated enough? Also, are chickens not animals?: "Tegel Poultry of New Zealand have reported *FCR* as low as *1.38* on a consistent basis."
The key is illuminating the notion that compassion is in the best interest to the self. Without me there is no you. Taken at face value, it obviously means little to your self interest. I die, I don't directly affect you. You go on living. But where do we draw the line? Will you start to care when there is no one left to take away your trash or package your meals; no suffering left on which to build your dream? "Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind."
There are plenty of resources for people. It is banks creating scarcity of access to those for the general public by creating money out of debt. Meanwhile, perfectly good houses sit dilapidating while people die to the elements. Masses of our food is thrown in the garbage while people starve. There is more than enough. The manner in which things are distributed is what the real problem is, and that problem is Keynesian economics.
My problem with Malthusians is that they do not depopulate themselves. It is always someone else who must make the sacrifice. All of the Malthusians are of course too good to stop having children, sterilize themselves, or have abortions. Their genes must be propagated..
This is brilliant, long overdue. A 2013 poll of 2,000 UN scientists showed them agreeing that overpopulation is the world's biggest problem, bigger than and a cause of climate. Not surprisingly, the consumer-driven media ignored this. Thank you Paul Gilding, and than you for posting this.
@@نادرالیراحمان No, it's religiots and their organisations who prevent the word from getting out. After bashing China's one-child policy for decades, they just cannot now reverse and admit that they were wrong, too.
As long as the third world has no social security and pensions, they will breed as much as possible. your children are your only support when your old and unable to earn. Until that is addressed nothing will change.
Well, I guess you should read his book where Paul Gilding unequivocally explains that overpopulation is absolutely NOT the driving factor of human impact on the environment.
And what happened? Corvid19 happened. Unemployment in the U.S. has plummeted and not likely to bounce back anytime soon. Petroleum futures have also plummeted. We have arrived at the place that Mr. Gilding described back in 2012.
"I know the free market fundamentalists will tell you that more growth, more stuff and 9 billion people going shopping is the best we can do. They're wrong. We can be more. We can be MUCH more." Agreed. Best line of this entire lecture.
Awesome, thoughtful, compelling and so brutally true! I have lived my life in the most gluttonous, irresponsible and wasteful phase of society that will ever be. Left to the children and their children's children will be a world so different that it is horrifying. Perhaps the human race will survive for three or four generations more at a diminishing level of freedom and abundance if we don't act now, but those hard decisions to ensure survival beyond that must be universal. Is that possible?
Exactly, well said, the madness of infinite growth cannot be stopped by a system that can only work at all by having infinite growth. There is still not one of our useless 'leaders' that is doing anything else but try to increase economic 'growth'.
some ideas: - implement a one-child policy EVERYWHERE throughout the world and have it implemented for at least a century until human numbers are down by at least a half. only lift it if terraforming becomes possible. - all countries should implement capital punishment by the death penalty - all those rapists and murderers in our jails taking up resources have to go. - there is no reason for keeping the elderly around. the humane way around this is that attitudes needs to change. when you feel your time is up, you should have the right to die. assisted suicide should be legal. - education and have the next generation learn the importance of this while they are young overpopulation is the root cause of: - wildlife going down by 50% since the 70s as more habitats are taken up by humans. what right do we have to render gods creatures extinct? - insect life going down by 75% since the 80s both of the above have catastrophic consequences because a healthy ecosystem and biodiversity is required for us to survive on. otherwise humans will run out of food to eat, considering loss of animal life and plant life taken up because of more living space needed. - plastic pollution in our ocean - there will be more plastic in the sea than sealife by 2050 - deforestation happening at a rate at 1 football pitch per second. and if the amazon gets destroyed, this will have devastating effects in our atmosphere - climate change by human activity
he did a very good job with this. this is a harsh reality to embrace, i can only imagine the courage it takes to stand in front of an audience of thousands and be the reminder and bearer of such sad news.
It is perfectly natural for humans to put their own species first without understanding how dependent we are upon the rest of the Earth's life support systems.
Strictly speaking that would ensure that humans go extinct in about 100 years which is fine by me and since no human will ever experience human extinction, should be OK with everyone else. However, I doubt you will succeed at convincing any interesting number to have no babies. Keep in mind that if your descendants average more than 2, everyone else on the planet can have zero, but the population still grows to the limit. I suggest we learn this basic math and teach everyone so that everyone knows that we must not average more than 2.
To whom it may concern: Please listen to the idea even if you disagree with my arguments. Truth does not depend on the verbal skill of the one who tries to express it. This is PART OF A SOLUTION to the problem Mr.Gilding addresses. It's a way to help stop the constant economic growth model. It isn’t enough to just raise minimum wage. We also need to start talking about getting rid of the 40-hour week and transitioning to a shorter one--probably 32 hours, since that would be a neat 4-day week. We really need to do both of these things at the same time, and we need to do it soon. The problem is not really what we need to do but how to go about it. There just isn't enough work for everyone anymore. We’ve automated it. That's not going to change; it's just going to get worse. The future is here-the one science fiction writers used to tell us about--the one in which we don't have to work much because machines and computers do the work. Or, I should say, it's ALMOST here, and the effects are beginning to be felt. It's coming and we need to seriously start thinking about how we’re going to deal with it. As more and more automation takes over our work for us, we need to gradually transition, in steps, to a shorter and shorter workweek-or there are going to be fewer and fewer people able to have enough work to make a living. We must share it. We've had the standard 40-hour week so long that I think it perhaps hasn't occurred to anybody to get rid of it. It’s an integral part of what defines full-time work for us, and we’ve lived with it all our lives. Possibly only a former science fiction buff like myself would even think of it as a problem. The signs of unemployment gradually becoming a permanent systemic problem have been camouflaged up to now by fluctuations in the unemployment rate as the economy goes through its ups and downs. I really think we were in a kind of employment bubble up to 2008, and it has burst. Think how bad it would be if we had another recession in a couple of years, when we have NOT recovered from the last one yet. We’d be watching people starve in the streets. For this reason, I intend to send this same message--or one very similar--to anybody else I think might listen because I can find no evidence that anybody is working on this problem or has even realized it IS a problem. I can find no person or organization that is advocating such a change or I would add my voice to theirs, and my money . . . If I had any. Putting people back to work would change the balance of power. Workers are afraid to try for better conditions right now because if they lose their jobs they’re in a world of hurt. They have no leverage anymore. We need to restore that balance by putting people back to work. Even people who believe in a so-called "free market" ought to be able to see that it can't work if the standard workweek isn't the right size for there to be a balance between work and workers. Now supply and demand is exerting a strong downward force on wages because of the high unemployment rate--too many people for the available work. If we could put everybody back to work, it would allow supply and demand to start putting positive pressure on wages instead of negative. It would be a silent, almost invisible force doing this work for us. In addition, sharing the work in this way would (perhaps I should say could) theoretically put everybody back to work immediately. If you could get businesses to do this voluntarily (and with a good case, I think a lot of CEOs would, at least those who haven't bought into the sociopathic mindset of greed über alles. It actually would improve the bottom line for many businesses.) Then we wouldn't have to wait around for our glacially slow, dysfunctional government, which would just argue us to death. We can't really afford to wait for them. If businesses would do it voluntarily, it could be done much more gently, at a pace that would minimize any economic damage to individual businesses, and there would certainly be some. It would be better to keep the hamfisted government out of this if possible. Perhaps some organization of businesses and workers could monitor things and try to guide the process. Someone needs to do the job of coordination. Once some businesses make this change, I think it would become an unstoppable force, and other businesses would have to follow, or they wouldn’t be able to get decent employees. After it’s already done, or pretty much done, then change the law. Sharing the work in this way would (could?) theoretically put everybody back to work WITHOUT BUILDING A SINGLE FACTORY. You get to stop talking about "job creation" as if that term really had any meaning. We don't, as a matter of fact, WANT to go back to the frenzied orgy of consumption that it would take to employ everybody now. We would have to make "busy work," really, to employ all the people who need jobs at 40 hours, and that kind of work is really, truly BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. We could, perhaps, ease off of the horrible materialism that we have embraced that keeps us running around in a rat race. We don't need all that stuff. A good many rich corporations could do exactly what I’m talking about (in stages) and pay for it out of their profits, without raising prices at all. (If everybody raises their prices we’re going to start having a problem with inflation. Profitability would seriously return, I suspect, after a few years anyway.) If you put the profit a company makes (one of the big ones) together with the money they pay their employees-like it was a partnership, which it certainly ought to be considered-and put that in a pie graph, you can see that the ratio of profit for the employer to profit for the employee isn’t right. Out of every dollar an employee makes, too much of it goes to the employer. Way too much. It would be good to try to fix the problem here, where it begins. Other miscellaneous points: Getting the corporations who can afford it to do this first would put money back into circulation that's currently doing little, according to what I've read. That would help the economy improve and make it easier to do more. We could stop raising the retirement age, and Social Security would be on a much better footing. It won’t work for all jobs. Teachers, for instance, would continue to work M-F. The manager of a restaurant or other business wouldn’t change anything. An archivist. A farmer. A business owner. Thank you for listening. Think about it.
You are a genius! I love your ideas! And I think you do a very good job of explaining them! If you do find a person or organization advocating such change, please let me know so I can join you in supporting it as well!
Sorry, but if you don't specify that we must average less than 2 babies until we no longer require the use of non-renewable resources, you have no solution. If we do average less than 2, then your solutions are rather irrelevant.
I agree. As an outdoor instructor, I try to educate others to the damage we cause in everything we do. I'm hoping to live a life that consumes as little as possible, but unfortunately that's expensive. I can't afford a home of me own, a fuel efficient car, or to choose more sustainable food sources because it's expensive. Also, annoys me because I want to buy like an eco home, but I can't afford. If they really want to make a difference, start selling homes that run themselves cheaply.
You make a good point about short term persuasion. Also, the westernization of China and India is a reason the process of environmental collapse is accelerating. The American Dream is simply unsustainable globally. The question is how soon will we reverse the process and align our values with sustainable living and move away from the wasteful, conspicuous consumption values that our current market system demands. Capitalism/consumerism/materialism is the cancer at work here.
@danny2078 It's not about how much space we occupy, it's about how much resources we use. I've heard this Texas thing repeated so many times and it's a pseudo-scientific annoyance.
@Dreamcaseal Actually, I'm very skinny. I'm broke and I eat accordingly. I have nothing against Africa or it's people. In fact, I kind of like them. If I were greedy, I'd be rich. As for the problem of food, I think there's too many middlemen taking their 5% out of every stage of food production. Cut out the middlemen and you have yourself cheaper food. Unfortunately, some of those people have armies. Agribiz exporting food that's needed domestically is another problem. Cut them out too.
@@MCshlthead the good thing is that by that time all the groundwater will either be gone or polluted, nuclear plants will have exploded due to societal chaos, most animal and plant species will have gone extinct...and the climate will be superhot and chaotic....there will not be a functioning civilization or planet for those a-holes to enjoy.
Do you really expect him to elucidate all the technical and scientific reasons for the coming economic collapse in 16+ min.? As he said at the beginning, this is isn't a philosophical statement, it's a scientific one, anyone smart enough to receive his message is smart enough to fill in the blanks, all it requires is looking at what is in front of your face, assuming of course you're not living in complete denial
I hate it how he doesn't even tell what resource is actually going to run out? Show those studies and stop fear mongering. I want to hear about what is really going on.
He basically said that man expands faster than resources and that would lead to famine and disaster. It just happens that in all developed countries the birth rate is very low, and that mankind proves to be adaptive enough to solve every problem it encountered until now, there is no reason to doubt it will change in the future. Resources as an absolute has no true meaning, the factor here is available resources, genius and technology make the availability, constantly.
This is why we need to address the public, we need to address the corporations, and we need to fund scientific research to find other alternatives to material and energy.
@hitssquad Considering that we've already reached peak oil (the point where discovery of new oil wells will only decrease from now on), and that solar panel/windmill power plants would either take up too much space or have too many conditions on where they can be used to be plausible. Also, I love how everyone who's saying that's saying everyone can live together in NYC isn't bringing up where the workplaces for all those people would go, and where they would get their resources from.
He try s to appeal to the emotional side of all of us because the facts are already readily available and readily distributed by a number of amazing speakers. He attempts to trouble people, so that they can do their own homework. We live in the information age, he doesn't need to inform, he needs to inspire and spark our curiosity. And he does.
well, I think he points out that we have to change from a system that depends on constant economic growth. that can't last. there are alternatives, such as participatory economics or natural capitalism. how we can convince gov'ts and the people to embrace such a big change is the difficult part
I'm like Gilding in that I've done the research - I see our path, I know it's going to lead us to dark places. But I've done my grieving. Now it's time to look towards ways of adapting to a different future. Those in advance of a problem can be the guides towards bettering others (and how cool would that be?). And this is what Gilding is saying - we don't have to panic or be hopeless, we can choose a different path.
So by that rational the earth could support tens on billions if everyone ate compressed plankton cakes and lived in horizontal phone booths? I would prefer to see less people, better and happier people, and higher standards of living for all.
@sephkurai It's not about physical space on the planet - obviously, there's a lot of that. It's about the resource flows that are needed to sustain 7+ billion people. If we're JUST talking a modest lifestyle of basic needs met, that's one thing. If we're talking about the massive consumption we currently enjoy that's another thing. Gilding is addressing that last scenario only, and he mentions the sheer impossibility of extending that lifestyle to all humans on Earth for any significant time.
1(dot)usa(dot)gov/c2dTWA NOAA: "Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still." Please point to contradictory evidence.
People are not pollution. What we are doing as a society is far more pollutive than is necessary, and it's a simple fact that any species exceeding the physical limits of its environment will face consequences. Humans can just bend it a little further due to higher intelligence. Like the climate change debate, it doesn't matter what we "believe". If the impending limits are real, we'll see them in concrete ways. If they aren't, you can laugh all you want - no "rounding up" is necessary.
Am I obligated to feel compassion? By which standard? Is anyone obligated to feel compassion? Everyone is free to feel whatever he wants. And the difference between asking for a person to feel in a way vs. appealing to his interest is self-delusion vs practicality.
Armis board game is designed to provide a fast brain workout. Some benefits of playing Armis: * Armis develops critical thinking skills, and provokes logical thinking, * Armis builds self-esteem, and inspires you to be inventive. * Armis spurs you to plan for and attain success. * Armis emboldens you to learn and understand complex matters easier and faster, * Armis boosts will-power, * Armis sharpens your analytic and cognitive mind,
In many cultures it is expected that one will reach a stage in life where its time to have children....to choose not to will incur a collective psychological onslaught from friends workmates family and relatives. ...the result being, in my case, almost complete social withdrawal. ....changing the mindset of tradionalists is a monstrous task...
I feel you mate. Where are you from? I'm from Italy, things are getting better as the economy gives us a scapegoat to blame for our unwillingness to have children, but it's still hard.
Bollox. I've no kids (21 pets instead), 2 female partners and a large group of friends... and I live in Ireland ie Catholic breeder central. Your boring and weak hence= no friends. Be the opposite and youll flourish anywhere any time
We all want to live by each other's happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone and the earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful. But we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls -- has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.
That's good news - you ought to write articles on this subject of boycotting the Fortune 500 and replacing the current system we have with real innovation and technological progress. I would definitely be interested in read it. Paul Gilding's 1.5 Earth's number is indeed from an org funded by and connected to Fortune 500 interests - GMO monster Syngenta being one of them. Shell-funded WWF being another.
Malthus is greatly misunderstood. He wasn't saying that England faced a catastrophe by population growth in the 19th century, he was saying that man expands in population when resources allow it, but man will face hardships when resources are below subsistence capacity. This is basic biology.
This serves as a good intro to his book "The Great Disruption" which I am in the process of reading. For those that are criticizing this speech as not having enough detail, check it out for more in-depth citing of statistical data etc. that doesn't translate well into TED talks.
That's a good point, actually. I get the feeling from some of the comments to this video that Gilding is the only one saying this stuff. He's not. He's one of a great many saying it, writing books about it, lecturing in depth about it, and preparing for it. This is not new material - it's really a synopsis of the material. The majority haven't heard it simply because it's deeply depressing and because a proactive solution requires major change - and a corporate-owned media isn't keen on that.
People aren't able to turn this around. If we did the impossible we'd slow it down. I can't wait to see the end of our species honestly we're the ones causing almost all the pain and suffering and unfairness in the world
How is it possible that this video only got 250,000 views? If this is our attitude towards his warning - we are screwed!
Do you really think soccer moms, party fuccbois and mr 9-5 wants to care about this? Your leaders have created enough for you to worry about. Also, in general, people avoid unpleasantness. This video only has 250 000 views because people don't want to watch it because it makes them sad. I know I won't watch all of it, but I already know what he's gonna say.
UNCLE IROH
Yes William, We are.
Even with 4000,000 views.
We are so foolish led by economists who believe in infinite growth.
@@cacciato69 Some people think they can profit from that, and also, religiots think that their god will spare them, while destroying the rest of us.
Six years after this talk and we are still in denial. I mourn for future generations.
Let's change it now.
7 years and maybe we are getting there.
@U.S.S. Scambalam U shouldn't have said that :/
@@kayadapantha8286 And yet if there were not 7.8 Billion of us packed in like sardines in a can this virus would never have become a thing. I'm not saying that I hope a bunch of people die but what I am saying is that perhaps this whole thing will give some young people pause and convince them to have no more than two children.
@@mafarmerga no we need youngsters to have 1 child max
I think some people underestimate how difficult colonizing another planet would be.
Napoleon we have no time
Here's a hint. Mars is a cold shithole. Nobody lives in Alaska. Mars would be a 1000x harder
It would be as difficult as the first colonies in the new world.
Yes, because the first colonies in the new world had no air, no accessible water and weren't protected against cosmic radiation.
You are missing the point completely. The first colonies were always in danger of annihilation and many did perish. What you speak of are technical difficulties , no worse that then technical difficulties the colonists faced.
This presenter, like many presenters, is well aware that he would not have a platform unless he ended with a positive ending. This is what most people have come to expect and is the kind of pitch they crave.
This presentation was made almost five years ago and we remain on pretty much the same trajectory as was taking place then. No mention was made about passing thresholds beyond which no recovery is possible. That likely happened over a decade ago and almost no-one is willing to admit to that. The massive release in CO2, from our fossil fuel use, continues and we are now seeing the consequences of much of the dumping that took place around 40 years ago. There is no possibility of a turn-around now. The current predictions of recovery are now based upon assumptions that within a decade an unprecedented new technology will be developed and deployed on a massive scale to drain the excess CO2 out of the Earth's atmosphere. This is magical thinking from a species under great stress.
I agree Vernon. I'm interested to know what you think we should do as individuals given our current situation. It is a very depressing reality. I want to be part of a positive effort towards a sustainable solution. Any ideas? I am not having children, trying to live a simple life and not waste resources. Feeling like I need to do something bigger. Trying to raise awareness and instigate change by encouraging people to not create more humans and to not manipulate others and the resources we all share for a higher socio-economic status, seems to depress and even anger people. Human nature is to compete to survive, manipulate and procreate. It's been my experience that people don't want to hear it without getting defensive. Any thoughts?
I see you have many good ideas and have made valiant efforts to make needed changes. By doing so you've discovered the resistance of most people to accept the truth. Humans have natural protective coping mechanisms and you have the privilege to see these in action. Sustainability is no longer possible since, at least a decade ago we moved beyond a threshold beyond which humans can not reverses our cascading rush into a 6th mass extinction event. Try to find things to be thankful for, such as you didn't have kids who will sacrificed by the planetary plague that humans have become. I suggest you Google VHEMT and the Nature Bats Last blog.
Hardly anyone is seriously considering reforestation on a massive scale. I mean massive. Irrigate the Sahara desert and grow food and trees there. Of course that's easier said than done! But consider this: It's possible to transport oil, via pipeline, from the Middle East, to Europe. I live in Scotland, where it rains A LOT. I'd happily share my water with Africa - if only there was stationary infrastructure to transfer it. Obviously, we also need to drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption AND address overpopulation. To be clear, I do not advocate forced sterilisation, eugenics, genocide or abortion. Also, if it became 'normal' for the average person to eat less meat and dairy, that would help too.
@@chadleggett77 Yes, the one thing we must do is ensure that EVERYONE knows that averaging more than 2 kills children. If my descendants average more than 2, everyone else can have zero babies, but the population still grows to the limit. At the limit children must die to stop the attempted growth when we average more than 2. The descendants of the guy in China must not average more than 2. The descendants of the Joe Blow in England, and Jane Doe in Africa must not average more than 2. This is basic math and not only is Gilding not teaching it, neither are our population scientists. Failure to comprehend basic math is enabling most everyone to believe that it is A-OK to have as many babies as they damn well please.
If you are serious about wanting to be a part of a positive effort please help me to figure out how to explain this to population experts. I know it is rather unbelievable that population experts don't know this, but go ahead and find one that states that averaging too many babies kills children. Find any that state that children must die at the rate of (x-2)/x where x is how many babies we average.
A voice of reason. The earth may indeed be past the point of no return due to runaway climactic feedback loops which could very possibly lead to an atmosphere resembling Venus. An intelligent species? I think not.
Not every meter^2 of Earth is overpopulated. However, let's look at the numbers a bit.
Three billion people lived by July 1959, around the time my dad was born.
Four billion happened around April 1974
A boy from my country was chosen as the 5 billionth child. That was 1987. I was -2 so to speak.
When I was 10, we had 6 billion. That's 1999.
Two years ago, we passed 7 billion. My dad was around 52. So, in half a century, the world's population had doubled. Does that sound like a good thing?
It sounds disgusting.
In a talk called "The Earth is Full," he never actually advocates for a smaller population! He ends up saying we can still have 9 billion people, no problem at all. Very disappointing.
A key is to voluntarily have no children, Having a child is a great privilege but the planet has definitely reached it's carrying capacity for people, it is just a fact. We are also living much longer and in first world nations, while also very healthy, my dad is 74 in excellent health, works full time, volunteers, gardens, recycles, he is so emotionally/psychologically healthy and engaged with the community around him. Many people are living like this and will so I think well into their 100's. Thus people are living longer, but the key is to have no or one child or adopt a child whom needs a forever home or donate/volunteer with organizations that help other species at risk.
Brandt McCall people arnt the problem, he said economy..
The WORLD is having less children than ever seen in human history, and the ramifications of that will be evident 30 years from now.
But of course he forgot to mention that, we are actually beginning to decline in workforce population, give it 50 years
@@ZEPR0FESS0RR
The habitat is not giving us 50 years. Or 10. Not even 5. The vast majority of people in the know or have researched fully understand that 1-3 years is it. Not prediction, not prophecy. An understanding of the process of our existence and the situation, circumstances and limits. Simple projection is sufficient to reveal all.
@@ZEPR0FESS0RR the population is still growing by 80 million a year and we should reach 1-3 billion quite soon…
Neutral population is ok, 1:1, but looking at Japan and China you can see why having less children is actually bad for the aging and the ecomonic well being of everyone.
@@robertr392 learn to deal with it. That is an imbecilic argument. We need more people forever and always?! So in the US, let's go to 500 million. They will need to go to 1 billion. Then 2 billion. Then 4 billion Americans...Then what? Our system collapses and what, they have to figure out how to thrive with smaller families when the country is like Bangladesh? Lets be smarter than that.
The assumption of having grandchildren is a big part of the problem.
@@nickbryantfyi no reason to have kids, so many born unwanted or cared for. But that does not make you a loser. Live the best life you can. That's all any of were here for anyways.
@@nickbryantfyi
Kids are overrated. And they are not little copies of their parents. Often, in this entitled narcissist sociopathic culture, their either slaves or masters with few in between.
Nature will correct itself by ridding itself of us!
We are a weed. And we are creating a planet of weeds. That is half the problem.
"And the planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas." - George Carlin
I can't think of a reason why we should want that
nope
You completely missed the point. He is not talking about the physical space our bodies or houses occupy, he is talking about the exploitation of natural resources. Some resources are renewable but we are burning through them much faster than the environment can make them. As he put it, it's unsustainable. The insanity of infinite economic growth will clash with reality and reality will win.
Miranox thank you for pointing that out!!!
“Stop having children” is about as ignorant as it can get
Philip, I take it that you have kids am I right???? Thank God I didn't have any damned kids, because that would have been selfish on my part.
Science = operation paperclip.
Traitors in government.
Important points to recognise, when it comes to how things are interpreted.
Yes, we need to look at things. But when you can't trust the information you are getting. Then it's time to deal with those who are putting out the fear propaganda.
He didn't mention any concrete data, just some vague info
@@fredachildress3728 You have been a damned kid yourself.
These are the type of TEDTalks that I love to see. Keep these coming!
Vague info. Yeah!
Here from my Environmental Science class
After 6 years from this speech, let's change it now.
We got no time now.
...unending growth is not possible. In his day, there was a school of philosophy that held that man was improving, would always continue to improve, and we'd eventually achieve a 'heaven on Earth' sort of state. Malthus's work was basically a reaction to that - he was saying it was nonsense.
To say Malthus has been 'proven wrong' is not accurate. In fact, he's been proven right many times with past civilizations. But it is true to say this great experiment we've embarked upon is still going.
I have thought since I was 17, that there should always be no more than 2 billion humans living here. A year later the first EARTH DAY was born. Few took heed . I did.
I don't think 2 billion is realistic either. The real number is probably much lower.
1 to 2 billion people living in a circular economy.
Only a century ago, the world pop'n was about 2B. Now we're almost to 4x that.
"Our economy is bigger than its host, our planet"
An inspiring and very necessary talk! We need to prepare ourselves to act out of hope and trust in ourselves, not out of fear, when the big collapse comes! And we need to create communities based on love and mutual help, instead of waiting for our "rulers" to solve anything. This can be a wonderful awakening for many of us, and a new beginning, and a great opportunity... it certainly will be a great challenge.
i dont think he is calling for genocide, but one way or another a lot of people are going to die, think about what happens when we run out of clean water and fossil fuels
Dean Fowles we will be long gone
@@heavyhanded1782 nope we will see the end of fossil fuels
When you say "occupy" you just mean "live" you don't mean the occupation that drives us to plunder the last few remaining wildernesses and bring about the age of the greatest extinctions. Economists don't take biodiversity and ecology into account but we depend on these things and the human economy is a part of the greater planetary ecology. I'm not saying he's right, just that your economists study wealth creation not what makes for ecological abundance. So don't trust them.
The main obstacle in any form of change before crisis is that so many people cant grasp the idea that strongly regulated consumption is the only solution and that means the end of free markets and capitalism. Actually if people could understand that they would be happier with "enough" than "as much as I can get" the world would be a better place. But with so many opposing socialism its just impossible to realise unfortunately. Most people still have a money-carrot motivation system for working.
Paul Giding summarizes the situation very well in 16 minutes. The switch-off after 10 minutes is very effective (could perhaps lasted longer). For me, it is inconceivable that what he says is not public knowledge. As Paul says, we've known that society's relationship to nature is unsustainable for almost 50 years. We can not take more than we get! Right now, which Giding addresses, we would need 1.5 Earths to support us all right now. In the near future we need two globes!
Even if we had the means to reach & colonize 3 Earth-like planets, it still wouldn't take long before they too would be as crowded as Earth is now. At 12 noon, when a full bottle of bacteria is split evenly with 3 other bottles, that makes 4 bottles that are 1/4 full. One minute after 12 the 4 bottles are half full. Two minutes after 12, all 4 bottles are full; no more growth is possible.
This guy is totally spot on. I just don't know what his solution was
th-cam.com/video/vk0dGqLpReg/w-d-xo.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1-oC2OYkCjTLj2iIcbLABNMOMILET6GKqXIVu7rOxadV_oeCNb2Po227g
His solution was for us to stop consuming so much
This is the best talk I've heard in years. Thank you Paul!
Over population is inevitable, whether it's in 50 years or 200 shouldn't we still take his talk into account?
re-set is imminent.
Yes
@@dedriaduke2345 What are you talking about? nothing is gonna re set
Thank you for stating the plain truth of our current predicament Mr Paul Gilding.
The only way to solve this problem is relatively easy - stop wasting. Shift your standards down. Do not ride your personal car - use public transport. If you can't, at least don't buy new car every couple of years, and have just one car in your household. Stop buying tons of clothes. Do not expect to have fresh fruit or vegetables on your table in mid-winter
Anastasia Matushkina Why not just say, "Save money"?
hitssquad to some extent, you're right. but saving money is different. the person should opt for saving resorses of the planet (even if he can afford buying these resources), rather than saving his personal resource (=his money). the psychology behind seemingly same decisions is different. we should learn to sacrifice our comfort
Anastasia Matushkina There's no difference. Money = resources.
hitssquad money is one of the resources, and again - in this context it is personal resource. it belongs to you personally. resources of the planet - is different type of resource. it belong to nobody or everybody. we need to save latter, not the first
Daniel Meyers Why not simply get rid of subsidies and save money? Is that not complicated enough?
Also, are chickens not animals?: "Tegel Poultry of New Zealand have reported *FCR* as low as *1.38* on a consistent basis."
The key is illuminating the notion that compassion is in the best interest to the self. Without me there is no you. Taken at face value, it obviously means little to your self interest. I die, I don't directly affect you. You go on living. But where do we draw the line? Will you start to care when there is no one left to take away your trash or package your meals; no suffering left on which to build your dream? "Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind."
greed is the problem. end of story.
There are plenty of resources for people. It is banks creating scarcity of access to those for the general public by creating money out of debt. Meanwhile, perfectly good houses sit dilapidating while people die to the elements. Masses of our food is thrown in the garbage while people starve. There is more than enough. The manner in which things are distributed is what the real problem is, and that problem is Keynesian economics.
My problem with Malthusians is that they do not depopulate themselves. It is always someone else who must make the sacrifice. All of the Malthusians are of course too good to stop having children, sterilize themselves, or have abortions. Their genes must be propagated..
This is brilliant, long overdue. A 2013 poll of 2,000 UN scientists showed them agreeing that overpopulation is the world's biggest problem, bigger than and a cause of climate. Not surprisingly, the consumer-driven media ignored this. Thank you Paul Gilding, and than you for posting this.
Can you link the study?
Even if not for consumerism, the media will still not report overpopulation, fearing the backlash of people with large families.
@@نادرالیراحمان No, it's religiots and their organisations who prevent the word from getting out. After bashing China's one-child policy for decades, they just cannot now reverse and admit that they were wrong, too.
As long as the third world has no social security and pensions, they will breed as much as possible. your children are your only support when your old and unable to earn. Until that is addressed nothing will change.
Well, I guess you should read his book where Paul Gilding unequivocally explains that overpopulation is absolutely NOT the driving factor of human impact on the environment.
And what happened? Corvid19 happened. Unemployment in the U.S. has plummeted and not likely to bounce back anytime soon. Petroleum futures have also plummeted. We have arrived at the place that Mr. Gilding described back in 2012.
"I know the free market fundamentalists will tell you that more growth, more stuff and 9 billion people going shopping is the best we can do. They're wrong. We can be more. We can be MUCH more."
Agreed. Best line of this entire lecture.
As he says, that has been known for 50 years... But the hippies have always been laughed at and still are being laughed at.
Awesome, thoughtful, compelling and so brutally true! I have lived my life in the most gluttonous, irresponsible and wasteful phase of society that will ever be. Left to the children and their children's children will be a world so different that it is horrifying. Perhaps the human race will survive for three or four generations more at a diminishing level of freedom and abundance if we don't act now, but those hard decisions to ensure survival beyond that must be universal. Is that possible?
I believe you are 100% accurate.
Exactly, well said, the madness of infinite growth cannot be stopped by a system that can only work at all by having infinite growth. There is still not one of our useless 'leaders' that is doing anything else but try to increase economic 'growth'.
There are 3 billion living in poverty today , thats the world population of the 1960s.
Eternal growth can't work.
some ideas:
- implement a one-child policy EVERYWHERE throughout the world and have it implemented for at least a century until human numbers are down by at least a half. only lift it if terraforming becomes possible.
- all countries should implement capital punishment by the death penalty - all those rapists and murderers in our jails taking up resources have to go.
- there is no reason for keeping the elderly around. the humane way around this is that attitudes needs to change. when you feel your time is up, you should have the right to die. assisted suicide should be legal.
- education and have the next generation learn the importance of this while they are young
overpopulation is the root cause of:
- wildlife going down by 50% since the 70s as more habitats are taken up by humans. what right do we have to render gods creatures extinct?
- insect life going down by 75% since the 80s
both of the above have catastrophic consequences because a healthy ecosystem and biodiversity is required for us to survive on. otherwise humans will run out of food to eat, considering loss of animal life and plant life taken up because of more living space needed.
- plastic pollution in our ocean - there will be more plastic in the sea than sealife by 2050
- deforestation happening at a rate at 1 football pitch per second. and if the amazon gets destroyed, this will have devastating effects in our atmosphere
- climate change by human activity
he did a very good job with this. this is a harsh reality to embrace, i can only imagine the courage it takes to stand in front of an audience of thousands and be the reminder and bearer of such sad news.
I thought he was going to say "The planet will be fine, the people are fucked" lol
It is perfectly natural for humans to put their own species first without understanding how dependent we are upon the rest of the Earth's life support systems.
This Ted Talk will continue to go over a lot of people’s heads.
Thanos has the best solution.
Amazing talk...everything he said was so true...at the start he was pessimistic but then he concluded with an optimistic tone...
Complete ban on having kids
Strictly speaking that would ensure that humans go extinct in about 100 years which is fine by me and since no human will ever experience human extinction, should be OK with everyone else. However, I doubt you will succeed at convincing any interesting number to have no babies. Keep in mind that if your descendants average more than 2, everyone else on the planet can have zero, but the population still grows to the limit. I suggest we learn this basic math and teach everyone so that everyone knows that we must not average more than 2.
Every parent needs to follow the rule: I child is good 2 are enough.
Okay, China.
@Liteboyiam
What part is not true? I am interested in your opinion on this.
To whom it may concern:
Please listen to the idea even if you disagree with my arguments. Truth does not depend on the verbal skill of the one who tries to express it.
This is PART OF A SOLUTION to the problem Mr.Gilding addresses. It's a way to help stop the constant economic growth model.
It isn’t enough to just raise minimum wage. We also need to start talking about getting rid of the 40-hour week and transitioning to a shorter one--probably 32 hours, since that would be a neat 4-day week. We really need to do both of these things at the same time, and we need to do it soon. The problem is not really what we need to do but how to go about it.
There just isn't enough work for everyone anymore. We’ve automated it. That's not going to change; it's just going to get worse. The future is here-the one science fiction writers used to tell us about--the one in which we don't have to work much because machines and computers do the work. Or, I should say, it's ALMOST here, and the effects are beginning to be felt. It's coming and we need to seriously start thinking about how we’re going to deal with it. As more and more automation takes over our work for us, we need to gradually transition, in steps, to a shorter and shorter workweek-or there are going to be fewer and fewer people able to have enough work to make a living. We must share it.
We've had the standard 40-hour week so long that I think it perhaps hasn't occurred to anybody to get rid of it. It’s an integral part of what defines full-time work for us, and we’ve lived with it all our lives. Possibly only a former science fiction buff like myself would even think of it as a problem. The signs of unemployment gradually becoming a permanent systemic problem have been camouflaged up to now by fluctuations in the unemployment rate as the economy goes through its ups and downs. I really think we were in a kind of employment bubble up to 2008, and it has burst. Think how bad it would be if we had another recession in a couple of years, when we have NOT recovered from the last one yet. We’d be watching people starve in the streets. For this reason, I intend to send this same message--or one very similar--to anybody else I think might listen because I can find no evidence that anybody is working on this problem or has even realized it IS a problem. I can find no person or organization that is advocating such a change or I would add my voice to theirs, and my money . . . If I had any.
Putting people back to work would change the balance of power. Workers are afraid to try for better conditions right now because if they lose their jobs they’re in a world of hurt. They have no leverage anymore. We need to restore that balance by putting people back to work. Even people who believe in a so-called "free market" ought to be able to see that it can't work if the standard workweek isn't the right size for there to be a balance between work and workers.
Now supply and demand is exerting a strong downward force on wages because of the high unemployment rate--too many people for the available work. If we could put everybody back to work, it would allow supply and demand to start putting positive pressure on wages instead of negative. It would be a silent, almost invisible force doing this work for us.
In addition, sharing the work in this way would (perhaps I should say could) theoretically put everybody back to work immediately. If you could get businesses to do this voluntarily (and with a good case, I think a lot of CEOs would, at least those who haven't bought into the sociopathic mindset of greed über alles. It actually would improve the bottom line for many businesses.) Then we wouldn't have to wait around for our glacially slow, dysfunctional government, which would just argue us to death. We can't really afford to wait for them. If businesses would do it voluntarily, it could be done much more gently, at a pace that would minimize any economic damage to individual businesses, and there would certainly be some. It would be better to keep the hamfisted government out of this if possible. Perhaps some organization of businesses and workers could monitor things and try to guide the process. Someone needs to do the job of coordination. Once some businesses make this change, I think it would become an unstoppable force, and other businesses would have to follow, or they wouldn’t be able to get decent employees. After it’s already done, or pretty much done, then change the law.
Sharing the work in this way would (could?) theoretically put everybody back to work WITHOUT BUILDING A SINGLE FACTORY. You get to stop talking about "job creation" as if that term really had any meaning. We don't, as a matter of fact, WANT to go back to the frenzied orgy of consumption that it would take to employ everybody now. We would have to make "busy work," really, to employ all the people who need jobs at 40 hours, and that kind of work is really, truly BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. We could, perhaps, ease off of the horrible materialism that we have embraced that keeps us running around in a rat race. We don't need all that stuff.
A good many rich corporations could do exactly what I’m talking about (in stages) and pay for it out of their profits, without raising prices at all. (If everybody raises their prices we’re going to start having a problem with inflation. Profitability would seriously return, I suspect, after a few years anyway.)
If you put the profit a company makes (one of the big ones) together with the money they pay their employees-like it was a partnership, which it certainly ought to be considered-and put that in a pie graph, you can see that the ratio of profit for the employer to profit for the employee isn’t right. Out of every dollar an employee makes, too much of it goes to the employer. Way too much. It would be good to try to fix the problem here, where it begins.
Other miscellaneous points:
Getting the corporations who can afford it to do this first would put money back into circulation that's currently doing little, according to what I've read. That would help the economy improve and make it easier to do more.
We could stop raising the retirement age, and Social Security would be on a much better footing.
It won’t work for all jobs. Teachers, for instance, would continue to work M-F. The manager of a restaurant or other business wouldn’t change anything. An archivist. A farmer. A business owner.
Thank you for listening. Think about it.
You are a genius! I love your ideas! And I think you do a very good job of explaining them! If you do find a person or organization advocating such change, please let me know so I can join you in supporting it as well!
Sorry, but if you don't specify that we must average less than 2 babies until we no longer require the use of non-renewable resources, you have no solution. If we do average less than 2, then your solutions are rather irrelevant.
I agree. As an outdoor instructor, I try to educate others to the damage we cause in everything we do. I'm hoping to live a life that consumes as little as possible, but unfortunately that's expensive. I can't afford a home of me own, a fuel efficient car, or to choose more sustainable food sources because it's expensive.
Also, annoys me because I want to buy like an eco home, but I can't afford. If they really want to make a difference, start selling homes that run themselves cheaply.
You make a good point about short term persuasion. Also, the westernization of China and India is a reason the process of environmental collapse is accelerating. The American Dream is simply unsustainable globally. The question is how soon will we reverse the process and align our values with sustainable living and move away from the wasteful, conspicuous consumption values that our current market system demands. Capitalism/consumerism/materialism is the cancer at work here.
@danny2078 It's not about how much space we occupy, it's about how much resources we use. I've heard this Texas thing repeated so many times and it's a pseudo-scientific annoyance.
There is no hope, we're only interested in today, laughable to think otherwise!
true
@Dreamcaseal Actually, I'm very skinny. I'm broke and I eat accordingly. I have nothing against Africa or it's people. In fact, I kind of like them. If I were greedy, I'd be rich. As for the problem of food, I think there's too many middlemen taking their 5% out of every stage of food production. Cut out the middlemen and you have yourself cheaper food. Unfortunately, some of those people have armies. Agribiz exporting food that's needed domestically is another problem. Cut them out too.
"We need to act as if we have only one Planet..."
@SpaceSapian - specific numbers are irrelevant - the problem is the basic process : exponential growth using finite resources.
JUST STOP BREEDING YOU ANIMAAAAALS !
Stop offending animals. Biped vermin is the problem, not the other species.
African population growth is the problem
Dante Marotta I wonder where the pollution is coming from...
+Brian H. Stastny You mean "stop offending nonhuman animals". Humans are animals.
Loooool
April 2022, exactly one decade later, nothing has changed🤪
things have changed. the 1% have their luxury bunkers built.
@@MCshlthead the good thing is that by that time all the groundwater will either be gone or polluted, nuclear plants will have exploded due to societal chaos, most animal and plant species will have gone extinct...and the climate will be superhot and chaotic....there will not be a functioning civilization or planet for those a-holes to enjoy.
R.I.P EARTH - 2070
Rip 2020
Do you really expect him to elucidate all the technical and scientific reasons for the coming economic collapse in 16+ min.? As he said at the beginning, this is isn't a philosophical statement, it's a scientific one, anyone smart enough to receive his message is smart enough to fill in the blanks, all it requires is looking at what is in front of your face, assuming of course you're not living in complete denial
finally im in the smart part of youtube XD
247 libertarians dislike the notion that the free market isn't god incarnate.
I hate it how he doesn't even tell what resource is actually going to run out? Show those studies and stop fear mongering. I want to hear about what is really going on.
here you go ,bare facts, no scaremongering, just scary. www.worldometers.info/
He basically said that man expands faster than resources and that would lead to famine and disaster.
It just happens that in all developed countries the birth rate is very low, and that mankind proves to be adaptive enough to solve every problem it encountered until now, there is no reason to doubt it will change in the future.
Resources as an absolute has no true meaning, the factor here is available resources, genius and technology make the availability, constantly.
A good talk but not so helpful. :)
not a word about overpopulation. 1-3 billion would be a suitable number and he wants 9?! One-child policy gives results in 9 month.
Couldn't finish because of the mouth noises.
PJ Pa Me too.. Too much smacking😣
This guy more or less said exactly what I'm thinking, I'd better start spreading this video right now, as should everyone!!!!
This is why we need to address the public, we need to address the corporations, and we need to fund scientific research to find other alternatives to material and energy.
@hitssquad Considering that we've already reached peak oil (the point where discovery of new oil wells will only decrease from now on), and that solar panel/windmill power plants would either take up too much space or have too many conditions on where they can be used to be plausible.
Also, I love how everyone who's saying that's saying everyone can live together in NYC isn't bringing up where the workplaces for all those people would go, and where they would get their resources from.
He makes good use of Logos at 1:06 and 5:03. Pathos at 9:50 10:21 and 13:50 and Ethos 0:28.
Well done!
I'll start with you. It's the RIGHT kind of comment. I also suggest you not to attack others.
He try s to appeal to the emotional side of all of us because the facts are already readily available and readily distributed by a number of amazing speakers. He attempts to trouble people, so that they can do their own homework. We live in the information age, he doesn't need to inform, he needs to inspire and spark our curiosity. And he does.
well, I think he points out that we have to change from a system that depends on constant economic growth. that can't last. there are alternatives, such as participatory economics or natural capitalism. how we can convince gov'ts and the people to embrace such a big change is the difficult part
Want to know what harm religion is going to do in the future? With religious peoples views on contraception we are all screwed.
You ROCK, Paul Gilding! And don't forget MATH along with physics, chemistry, & biology.
Yes. That is exactly what I have been saying. We are in agreement.
I'm like Gilding in that I've done the research - I see our path, I know it's going to lead us to dark places. But I've done my grieving. Now it's time to look towards ways of adapting to a different future. Those in advance of a problem can be the guides towards bettering others (and how cool would that be?). And this is what Gilding is saying - we don't have to panic or be hopeless, we can choose a different path.
So by that rational the earth could support tens on billions if everyone ate compressed plankton cakes and lived in horizontal phone booths?
I would prefer to see less people, better and happier people, and higher standards of living for all.
@sephkurai It's not about physical space on the planet - obviously, there's a lot of that. It's about the resource flows that are needed to sustain 7+ billion people. If we're JUST talking a modest lifestyle of basic needs met, that's one thing. If we're talking about the massive consumption we currently enjoy that's another thing. Gilding is addressing that last scenario only, and he mentions the sheer impossibility of extending that lifestyle to all humans on Earth for any significant time.
1(dot)usa(dot)gov/c2dTWA
NOAA: "Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still."
Please point to contradictory evidence.
People are not pollution. What we are doing as a society is far more pollutive than is necessary, and it's a simple fact that any species exceeding the physical limits of its environment will face consequences. Humans can just bend it a little further due to higher intelligence.
Like the climate change debate, it doesn't matter what we "believe". If the impending limits are real, we'll see them in concrete ways. If they aren't, you can laugh all you want - no "rounding up" is necessary.
Am I obligated to feel compassion? By which standard? Is anyone obligated to feel compassion? Everyone is free to feel whatever he wants.
And the difference between asking for a person to feel in a way vs. appealing to his interest is self-delusion vs practicality.
It's happening. It's been happening. And it's worsening by the week.
exactly
Thank you for sharing this guy...I searched for someone with a opposite view! Thanks a lot :)
Armis board game is designed to provide a fast brain workout.
Some benefits of playing Armis:
* Armis develops critical thinking skills, and provokes logical thinking,
* Armis builds self-esteem, and inspires you to be inventive.
* Armis spurs you to plan for and attain success.
* Armis emboldens you to learn and understand complex matters easier and faster,
* Armis boosts will-power,
* Armis sharpens your analytic and cognitive mind,
In many cultures it is expected that one will reach a stage in life where its time to have children....to choose not to will incur a collective psychological onslaught from friends workmates family and relatives. ...the result being, in my case, almost complete social withdrawal. ....changing the mindset of tradionalists is a monstrous task...
I feel you mate. Where are you from? I'm from Italy, things are getting better as the economy gives us a scapegoat to blame for our unwillingness to have children, but it's still hard.
Bollox. I've no kids (21 pets instead), 2 female partners and a large group of friends... and I live in Ireland ie Catholic breeder central. Your boring and weak hence= no friends. Be the opposite and youll flourish anywhere any time
don't have kids.
We all want to live by each other's happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone and the earth is rich and can provide for everyone.
The way of life can be free and beautiful.
But we have lost the way.
Greed has poisoned men's souls -- has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.
That's good news - you ought to write articles on this subject of boycotting the Fortune 500 and replacing the current system we have with real innovation and technological progress. I would definitely be interested in read it. Paul Gilding's 1.5 Earth's number is indeed from an org funded by and connected to Fortune 500 interests - GMO monster Syngenta being one of them. Shell-funded WWF being another.
Well, someone is certainly full of it.
Malthus is greatly misunderstood. He wasn't saying that England faced a catastrophe by population growth in the 19th century, he was saying that man expands in population when resources allow it, but man will face hardships when resources are below subsistence capacity. This is basic biology.
everybody gangster till the world is gonna end
After all those years in 480p, TED finally has 1080p videos
this guy is saying it to you all as it is. take it or leave it but don't go crying when mother earth comes knocking at your door..
This serves as a good intro to his book "The Great Disruption" which I am in the process of reading. For those that are criticizing this speech as not having enough detail, check it out for more in-depth citing of statistical data etc. that doesn't translate well into TED talks.
That's a good point, actually. I get the feeling from some of the comments to this video that Gilding is the only one saying this stuff. He's not. He's one of a great many saying it, writing books about it, lecturing in depth about it, and preparing for it. This is not new material - it's really a synopsis of the material.
The majority haven't heard it simply because it's deeply depressing and because a proactive solution requires major change - and a corporate-owned media isn't keen on that.
people are blind . people don,t want to know. why i don,t know. they are just me first people.
People aren't able to turn this around. If we did the impossible we'd slow it down. I can't wait to see the end of our species honestly we're the ones causing almost all the pain and suffering and unfairness in the world
the hippies that everyone laughed at were right all along.
pleeeez pleeez pleez look up RBE!!!! its the best and logical direction ive heard so far
Ok..I get what you're saying. I just prefer to listen to Dr Patrick Moore on the same subject