Which Is Worse: Underpopulation Or Overpopulation?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ธ.ค. 2022
- This video was made in partnership with Gates Ventures. The human population of the world will soon peak - and then decrease - thanks to a combination of two quickly changing economic and educational trends.
LEARN MORE
**************
To learn more about this topic, start your googling with these keywords:
- Overpopulation: a situation in which there are too many people for the amount of food, materials, and space available.
- Underpopulation: a situation in which there are too few people to realize the economic potential of an area or support its population's standard of living.
- Exponential growth: a pattern of data that shows greater increases with passing time, creating the curve of an exponential function.
- Extreme poverty: an income below the international poverty line of ~$2/day
- Total fertility rate: the average number of children born to each woman over her lifetime.
- Population bomb: a theory that the human population would grow faster than available food supplies.
SUPPORT MINUTEEARTH
**************************
If you like what we do, you can help us!:
- Become our patron: / minuteearth
- Share this video with your friends and family
- Leave us a comment (we read them!)
CREDITS
*********
David Goldenberg | Script Writer, Narrator and Director
Lizah van der Aart | Illustration, Video Editing and Animation
Nathaniel Schroeder | Music
MinuteEarth is produced by Neptune Studios LLC
neptunestudios.info
OUR STAFF
************
Lizah van der Aart • Sarah Berman • Cameron Duke
Arcadi Garcia i Rius • David Goldenberg • Melissa Hayes
Alex Reich • Henry Reich • Peter Reich
Ever Salazar • Leonardo Souza • Kate Yoshida
OUR LINKS
************
Merch | dftba.com/minuteearth
MinuteEarth Explains Book | minuteearth.com/books
TH-cam | / minuteearth
TikTok | / minuteearth
Twitter | / minuteearth
Instagram | / minute_earth
Facebook | / minuteearth
Website | minuteearth.com
Apple Podcasts| podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
REFERENCES
**************
Cohen, J. (1995). Population Growth and Earth's Human Carrying Capacity. Science. 269: 5222. (341-346). www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
Pradhan, E. (2015). Female Education and Childbearing: A Closer Look at the Data. World Bank. blogs.worldbank.org/health/fe...
State of the World Population 2022. Seeing the Unseen. The Case for Action in the Neglected Crisis of Unintended Pregnancy. www.unfpa.org/sites/default/f...
Smeeding, T. (2021) Adjusting to the fertility bust, Science, 346, 6206, (163-164). www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
Herrmann, M. (2022). The Global Population Will Soon Reach 8 Billion-Then What? UN Chronicle. www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/gl...
Our World In Data (2019). World Population Growth. ourworldindata.org/world-popu...
Rosling, H. (2018). Factfulness. www.gapminder.org/factfulness... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Question not answered: "Which is Worse"... not even really described.
Real title: "Why exponential population growth is starting to reverse".
yeah also complaining educated women have less kids .... really tired of hearing it. how about instead complain uneducated men don't help with kids.
@@HisameArtwork he's not complaining
@@HisameArtwork where did he complain? He was just stating facts about why there are less kids. Genuine question.
Yeah, click bait title
@@HisameArtwork I think you are hearing what you want to hear. It's not complaining, it's stating a fact.
Do you often twist statements you hear into criticism and complaints? (This is a genuine question, not an attack on your way of thinking)
Also worth noting. I’m 29. 5 years ago I was so sure I round be a mother. But with skyrocketing rent and cost of living, I just can’t afford a family. I can hardly afford me
This is something conservative types always ignore. It's all "retvrn to tradition" "have more kids" "quiverfull" bs but then they never actually look at **why** people aren't having kids
Curious what state r u in?
Find rich man and you won't have to worry about it
As woman you don't have to provide or work for resources
If we can all live in comfortable prosperity, can we promise that the strain on the environment will not increase?
@@baha3alshamari152 there's also the growing trend of holding men accountable for being a holes so there are even less men to have children with.
You didn’t answer the question
You get anarchy when poor people have no employment options. A competent government steers the economy so that especially young people stay productive.
But still, the environment, anyone?
Well, overpopulation will inevitably lead to underpopulation, so... They're basically the same 😂
that's how clickbait works
He did tho. He said towards the end of the video that some experts believe that underpopulation is find as long as it goes faster than the economy decline, because it means that each people would be more prosperous
He kinda just exposed the answer badly.
I'm 32 and I still have to live with family because rent is too expensive here in the United States. Starting a family or meeting someone is waaaaay below my priorities.
True, and plus aint healthcare expensive in the US?
@@amoresjohnwendell-os5ev There's a reason why our average lifespan is shorter than overseas. We can't afford to get seen for minor illness/injuries.
Move to a 3rd world Country and Have online Jobs
You'll have good Life there
@@acevergel1999Sorry that's just an assumption. As an Indian, although the cheap food, rent, and education looks pocket friendly from your country but the problem is that Indians are earning pretty low on average and unlike you guys we don't have Iphones everywhere. Infact, In India, we have a saying that is one recession can make all middle class Indians poor. So, please don't think that a 3rd world country earns more. And I only gave you the example of one of the highest GDP country.
@@highgaming8237 Thats why he mentioned an online job, so he could still work for a US company with US salary, but live in country with much lower cost of living and as such have much better life. Without the online part we do that quite often in Czechia with neighbouring Germany and Austria having even two times bigger salaries, so some people just daily cross the border and work a full time job in one of those countries, while living more cheaply here, although an online jobs in some of richer countries get more common too.
One thing that's not spoken about enough is that the issue isn't necessarily the population in _absolute_ terms, it's the rate of change. If a population doubles or halves over 500 years, that's not likely too problematic for people within it - tax revenues, pensions, infrastructure...etc. will adapt.
But if a population doubles or halves in 50 years, then you are looking at a really serious strain on society and keeping a country functioning. _That's_ why South Korea, Japan, Italy and Bulgaria's (to name a few) are in a difficult situation. Their rates of decline are going to be _really_ steep, with the possibility of their populations halving by the end of the century. Which creates all sorts of problems the same decline over a longer period would not, like a disproportionately large elderly population and relatively small workforce.
This is very true, thank you for shedding a new light on my thoughts, I think I left this out on my last comment
Japan could possibly increase their birth rate by banning JAV industry
but that will also effect the whole world
That't why the immediate solution would be immigration from fast-growing countries to declining countries. But some cultures are more open to that than others.
the problem isnt as much for people. but more for the rest of the planet. i think its pretty arrogant to only care about yourself. the planet isnt made for you you know
@@focidhomophobicii2426 or Korea banning male kpop groups. They be satisfied with the boy groups to satisfy their hormonal needs.
Jk.
One thing that was overlooked was the problem of a shrinking *working* population, while the retired/disabled/unemployed population grows.
That can be solved with technology, that can help disabled people have jobs.
@@fghsinging Retired people tend to be declined physically AND mentally. Plus they just refuse to work. Look at the massive protests in France when they tried to slightly increase the retirement age. Also, most technology that would allow retirement-age people to work would be better suited / more lucrative put towards robotic automation.
Some folks have dementia to ALS, physical defects and impairments that some jobs can’t accept, folks who have debt and evicted to homelessness add with the drug epidemics and folks finding job searches waiting weeks or not for an interview
Przeoczono głównie to, że wojny, choroby, pandemie i niedostatki zawsze dotykały wszystkich gatunków które nadmiernie się namnożyły. Jeśli chcielibyśmy mieć spokój z pandemiami wojnami, biedą i na nic nie chorować, to musielibyśmy jako ludzkość zdecydować na harmonię demograficzną. Ale tego z kolei nigdy nie zaakceptują wielcy tego świata. Bo główny problem jest w tym, że większość przywódców politycznych i religijnych ma głęboko W POWAŻANIU dobro ludzi, jak i przyszłych pokoleń. A interesują ich jedynie ich własne partykularne interesy. A te nakazują, by mieć jak najwięcej podatników (niewolników), taniej siły roboczej, wyznawców, i mięsa armatniego, gdyż od tej ilości zależy ile znaczą wśród innych podobnych wielkich tego świata.
A dla "bydła" (czyli dla nas) które (mentalnie) hodują, mają bajki o emeryturach, postępie, depopulacji, itp, brednie.
You can't put burden of old generation on new generation that's an endless Ponzi scheme. Children are not retirement plan.
When resources are limited. over-population is definitely much worse as more people are suffering.
Overpopulation problems IMHO are much worse than underpopulation problems. For example with overpopulation you get more pollution, more traffic, more people competing for resources. Underpopulation problems don’t really hold water because the Earth has had less people before. Underpopulation really only hurts giant corporations because they will have fewer people to sell their products to. For example if you are a company that sells cars, 10 billion people is better than 5 billion people because it means you have more people to sell cars to which means more 💰 for wealthy corporations.
Isn't the point of savings nature from pollution to pass on good nature to future generations? and plus 90% of all nature's pollution comes to Asia, the place where about saving the nature is care less about fo example Europe with its large populations and smaller territory. Let me remind you that Europe has a smaller territory than Central Asia. making less pollution to the earth around only 5% of it and this is the meaning of the fact that in Europe the demographic crisis, the continent that brings the world the majority of technology, has a demographic problem which will in turn pre-empt an economic one because that they will work less and taxes will be high in order to pay pensions for the old generation wich will be half of the population
Big corps losing money isnt just it small business also loose money due to lack of customers which leads to less shops jobs and overall poverty and famines since there is usch a scarce number of farmers and other jobs
if breeding like an animal is your only legacy you aren't any better than an animal.
@@CodyRayJohnsonfamily is a respectable life goal, what's your magnum opus cody?
@@SL-wt8fm inventing a life changing invention would probably be a better life goal.
Main issue is that most social securities depend on a very large ration of working:retired people. As it shrinks, the older generation has in some countries started to crush the younger ones.
well you could, you know... do the unthinkable and tax the rich?
@@chronictimewasterdisease Oooor stop artificially propping up wages via the minimum wage laws and let the system do its job.
@@GiRR007 the minimum wage today is already a worthless amount of money, why would you want people to make even less. Lowering the minimum wage would just mean more people end up needing welfare, it just leads to corporations using welfare to subsidize their criminally low wages *even more than they already do*
@@GiRR007 but if you increase minimum wage you also increase taxation that consequently helps fund retirement.
@@GiRR007 i have a better ideia, how about we nacionalize all the factories and and get rid of landlords by expropriating their vacant properties
the "money on average" is kind of useless if a few people have so much of the money
That is true, but often other metrics are used instead which are more meaningful. For example, median income measures the income of the "average person", so it is not really affected by millionaires. Other metrics, such as the percentage of people below the poverty level which was used in this video, are also very useful.
I mean given that there exist SO many more people that are in poverty than there are a few people who are rich the average is quite accurate as its still correlating to the average person. The largest denomination.
@@GiRR007 No... Median is better and yet still flawed.
The average is in this context completely fucked.
@@cortexavery1324 Median is just picking an arbitrary number in the middle that doesn't take everyone into account. The average is fine since there are extremes on both ends the compensate for each other.
@@GiRR007 ... learn math
I think that a stable population of 1 billion is ideal.
Of a country?
@@cnachopchopnewsagency Total bish! Wake up!
With u or without u
So the title is clickbait.
i think the bigger issue with decreasing population is that the average age of people gets higher. Meaning you have the same amount of elderly people but less working age young people to support them.
Yes, that is the actual concern today, that they skipped over entirely.
Less young tax base you mean?
so the gov't can't collect enough tax to support older gen and yet multinational pay 0% tax on billions they make!
And we keep scratching our head, why the youngs won't get married and have children while we are pricing them out of all opportunity to have a decent life!
Wojny, choroby, pandemie i niedostatki zawsze dotykały wszystkich gatunków które nadmiernie się namnożyły. Jeśli chcielibyśmy mieć spokój z pandemiami wojnami, biedą i na nic nie chorować, to musielibyśmy jako ludzkość zdecydować na harmonię demograficzną. Ale tego z kolei nigdy nie zaakceptują wielcy tego świata. Bo główny problem jest w tym, że większość przywódców politycznych i religijnych ma głęboko W POWAŻANIU dobro ludzi, jak i przyszłych pokoleń. A interesują ich jedynie ich własne partykularne interesy. A te nakazują, by mieć jak najwięcej podatników (niewolników), taniej siły roboczej, wyznawców, i mięsa armatniego, gdyż od tej ilości zależy ile znaczą wśród innych podobnych wielkich tego świata.
A dla "bydła" (czyli dla nas) które (mentalnie) hodują, mają bajki o emeryturach, postępie, depopulacji, itp, brednie.
Yes, that's why we should end social security. This will incentivize people to have more kids to look after them when they get old. Just as it was in the past.
@@codecode1948 Wars, diseases, pandemics and shortages have always affected all species that have multiplied excessively. If we wanted to have peace with pandemics, wars, poverty and not get sick from anything, we would have to decide as humanity about demographic harmony. But this, in turn, will never be accepted by the great people of this world. Because the main problem is that most political and religious leaders deeply care about the good of people and future generations. And they are only interested in their own particular interests. And these require us to have as many taxpayers (slaves), cheap labor, followers, and cannon fodder as possible, because this amount determines how much they matter among other similar greats of this world.
And for the "cattle" (meaning us) who (mentally) breed, their fairy tales about pensions, progress, depopulation, etc. are nonsense.
All the fuckers known from history, who dreamed of even greater power, always ruthlessly forced their subjects to have maximum fertility (Roman emperors, rulers of Islam, the Vatican, most kings, Ceausescu, Mao Tse-Tung, Hitler, Stalin, General Franco, Mussolini, etc., etc. Moreover, just like slave owners, they always took care of and promoted their fertility.
Social is just one way to do this.
Europe, thanks to lower fertility rates, experienced peace and prosperity (which it had not known before, when there was a huge fertility rate). But many leftists didn't like it, so they provided great welfare for childish people. However, after the experiences of WWII, most people were not bought. So angry leftists brought invaders against us to end peace and prosperity! And to exchange us for a more docile nation.
The bigger problem with overpopulation, I'd say, is that we can't keep up with our various wastes. And the more of us there are, the worse that problem becomes.
Przeludnienie - pojęcie bywa względne. Gdy się liczebność (zagęszczenie na km 2) zwiększa, to najpierw braki są dostrzegalne w mniejszej ilości najbardziej pożądanej zwierzyny - u nas dotyczyło to dla przykładu turów. Ale to jeszcze bardzo mały problem, gdyż na inne można jeszcze swobodnie polować. Jednak wraz z dalszym demograficznym "postępem", i kolejnych zaczyna być deficyt - i wtedy silniejsi sobie jedynie przyznają prawo do polowania na nie. Ale i wtedy jeszcze nie ma tragedii, gdyż ludzie zaczynają zwierzęta hodować. Co prawda jest to już powiązane ze znacznie większa ilością pracy, itp. - jednak i jeszcze wtedy na tym etapie mamy naprawdę dostanie i wspaniałe życie. Gdy jednak i wtedy dalej ludzi przybywa - jak w Europie w 19 wieku - to zaczyna być coraz wyraźniejszy deficyt ziemi. A co powoduje masowy odpływ ludzi w kierunku jej poszukiwania i walki o nią. I w tym etapie mięso staje się towarem luksusowym (w początkach 19 wieku mięso było jeszcze tańsze od chleba. Połowa 19 wieku, to już tylko bogatsi mogą je codziennie spożywać). A dziś, to większość nawet nie zna smaku prawdziwego mięsa.
Dziś dzięki postępowi technologicznemu i powszechnej chemizacji rolnictwa, niby mamy poważny kryzys żywieniowy rozwiązany. A tak naprawdę, to nigdy w historii nie istniała taki kryzys i taka katastrofa w tej dziedzinie.
Dawniej żywność była po prostu niesamowicie smaczna. A co ważniejsze, to dostarczała nam wszelkie potrzebne dla zdrowia i prawidłowego rozwoju składniki.
Każdy ludzki organizm codziennie podlega niezwykle doskonałemu procesowi samoregeneracji - JEDNAK! - by ten proces mógł zachodzić, to nie może być w danym dniu zbyt wiele stresu - gdyż wtedy ten proces podlega zawieszeniu - gdyż organizm koncentruje się na potencjalnej walce, lub ucieczce. A że dziś żyjemy w niezwykle nerwowych czasach...........
Dalej - by proces ten mógł zachodzić, to organizm potrzebuje do niego wiele mikroelementów, itp - a które w zbilansowanej ilości były dostarczane w formie żywności. Dziś z każdym rokiem tych składników jest coraz mniej!!!! - a za to coraz więcej trucizn!!!!!! - WIĘC TERAZ NIE DOŚĆ ŻE ŻYWNOŚĆ JUŻ NIE LECZY, TO DODATKOWO CORAZ BARDZIEJ TRUJE!!!!!
I stąd coś tak niespotykanego dawniej jak choroba - DZIŚ JEST CZYMŚ TAK POWSZECHNYM, ŻE STAŁA SIĘ ONA NORMĄ!
W dodatku spotykamy jeszcze choroby tzw cywilizacyjne - a które w (nieprzeludnionej) naturze nie istnieją - jak choroby zębów, stawów i układu kostnego, nowotwory, cukrzyce, itd. itd, itd.
A i nie zapominajmy, że choroby typu pandemie - jak dżuma, itp - są powiązane wyłącznie z większym zagęszczeniem (tak przyroda się broni przed nadmierną ekspansją jakiejkolwiek populacji). I dla przykładu - Polska w 13 bardzo słabo zaludniona - i dżuma która wyludniła prawie połowę Europy - naszych nieprzeludnionych wtedy jeszcze ziem - nie dotyka!
PS Oczywiście wiem że ktoś może teraz polecić mi jakieś jedno z wielu opracowań, a które piętnują przeszłość, a pokazują nasza wspaniałą teraźniejszość. I jak np w średniowieczu w biedniejszych domach na przednówku dziecko za całodzienne pożywienie dostawało zaledwie kilka ziemniaków. I tylko autorzy tych rewelacji - a które były w podręcznikach! - nawet tego nie wiedzieli, że roślina ta była sprowadzona z Ameryki - więc jej tutaj zwyczajnie w średniowieczu być nie mogło.
Po prostu bez przerwy demonizuje się przeszłość, by wtedy współczesność na tle tej zafałszowanej przeszłości, to nie tylko nie wygląda tak straszliwie katastrofalnie - ale wręcz wydaje się lepsza.
@@marcinkonieczny3737 lol we've found cancer in dinosaur fossils, try again and look into paleopathology please
@@nope19568 A co w tym dziwnego?! Myślisz ze przed Potopem nie było nadmiernego mnożenia się?
No chyba że wierzysz w religię ewolucji i bajdurzenie o milionach lat.
We still have too many people. We're in a 6th mass extinction and causing global warming because of our population. Needs to go down faster.
2:15 thats only if wealth is equally distributted
This is a good overview of the birth rate tapering off, but I would point out some people have been worrying about population growth for much longer than a few decades. Famously Malthus even worried about it before the industrial revolution! But said revolution massively improved farm output with mechanised harvesting and fertiliser, averting Malthus’ fears.
Yep - and there's still a school of thought that technology will give us "permanent abundance" even if the population did continue to grow exponentially.
Also, Malthus was politically motivated in his alarmism by the goal of letting Ireland starve for the benefit of Britain.
While that's true, the caveat to the Green Revolution was that it came at the cost of massive environmental damage and loss of species diversity across the world, a process which is still ongoing. The Earth could indeed support many more humans than Malthus expected, but it wasn't for free; more food and resources going to humans meant that OTHER species were losing out.
But going back to the main topic, I believe in the long run underpopulation won't really be a problem, because of one big factor that's looming on the horizon; the AI/automation Revolution. Eventually, we're going to reach a point where nearly all the work society needs can be done by machines, even better than humans can. We won't be able to stop this; the free market and economic efficiency means that once machines reach that point, businesses WILL start using machines over humans in preference. (The machines don't have to be PERFECT. They just have to make less mistakes than humans, and we make a LOT of mistakes.) When that happens, we simply won't need that many humans anymore, and having a smaller population actually becomes a positive rather than a negative, because it means we won't have humans desperate for jobs that no longer exist. And as machines continue to improve, we could even reach a stage where the machines can now maintain and build themselves, freeing humans from the need to work at all. You would be free to pursue of a life of leisure, learning or crafting, purely because you WANT to, not because you have to.
So a UN study in 2014 says 12 billion people is likely. You are sponsored by Gates, so this whole video is pointless drivel, we haven't heard before. We are already to many on the planet, without robust systems to help those in need. Im so tired of not achknowledging this issue because "herp derp Japan" - You all mention Japan every single time, but its 1 country...Look at South America, Africa and other continents that do grow.
Wasn't Malthus the guy from: poor people should die so there will be no poor people in the future
Both scenarios should be avoided. Slow consistent growth, or slow declines, or just flatlining the population numbers would probably lead to better results compared to extreme fluctuations.
Underpopulation is right around the corner. Japan and korea have such old people and theyre suffering the effects. The world needs more people because all the other will die.
@@DaddyM7MD As noted by OP, it doesnt matter if the population grows or shrinks, what matters is how quickly it does so.
If population stagnates, there are just as many people being born as there are dying out, just as many entering the workforce as there are leaving. Slight growths means more people entering the workforce which grows economies, and slight retraction can be offset by the increasing productivity of an individual person.
A drop in the population is amazing. People only think about the short term and the current generation of baby boomers. Long term we DO NOT need your kids.
The resources are finite. I don't think Earth can go 100 years more like this
@@CBRN-115 Earth will but we still need to be more sustainable.
It constantly feels like we're both way too many humans, and that it creates huge issues, but never enough humans to find solutions to the problems we have.
Were not too many people
@@aeuropeannotbritish7754 8 billion people seems like a lot.
seeming, doesn’t mean it is. Many people can argue that the earth seems flat.
The reality is that most people live in big cities that have a lot of people, but most countries are empty, even China that has 1.5 billion people, has 90% of its population living in 15% of its territory.
Some cities are crowded, but we’re not overpopulated. Most cities need more people to have any economy, and depend on the tax payers money of big cities to even have any public service working.
We are too many people but the world is unequal, lot of people have their potential never realized
Compared to world's habitable mass, 8 billion is nothing. World has way more than enough resources and land to sustain people. @@yomilala8929
Fewer people, less poverty!
A fine video, a good title for a video in general... A bad title for this particular video. I was expecting much more contrasting, but underpopulation was hardly mentioned at all
You gonna cry?
Constructive criticism = good.
That's because underpopulation isn't actually bad
@@alexrogers777 underpopulation turns cities into a rural economy. Imagine if people stop moving to cities, it replicate the effect of underpopulation, as business and shop closes because lack of foot traffics, the city eventually get abandoned.
@@xponen Most everyone I know wishes people would stop moving to their city
The problem with the economy is that currently, it's goal is to grow instead of working on a cycle with a constant amount of resources, we keep the need of ever more and more while it doesn't make sense in an universe where you can't make up matter for the resources
Thank you! I don't get why this point isn't mentioned in most debates. Like what are we trying to grow into thin air, into the vacuum? The planet and its resources are limited, and sure we can go out look for more but still, matter in the universe is finite. I think someone misunderstood the universe expanding beyond its limits.
I'm going to get a bit philosophical now. The amount of matter and energy is fixed, you can't create more of it, and the universe tends to expand and dilute. Energy doesn't disappear but it is sort of used up. As life evolved it has always tried to minimize its energy usage for this same reason, the more efficient you are the better. The end goal is being a perpetuum mobile, but since that's impossible, there's an exponential curve of reduced gains. So all kinds of life are simply feedback loops that take something from the environment and use a bit of it to maintain itself against the chaos that surrounds it. Life, by definition, must be consistent in not using more than required because that would be its own death sentence. The exception are viruses that don't even care about that because they steal energy from other organisms. If we want to survive for the long term, we definitely need to find an equilibrium in what we use up. It is likely impossible to find a perfect balance where everything is reused 100%, because that by itself would disobey thermodynamics. But the earth is a pretty good example we could learn from. For millions of years, it's been sustaining life on a rock with just a few tonnes per year of external material and the warmth and radiation of the sun.
The economy can keep growing, it's basically a measure of how many monetary transfers happen each year.
The largest economies do that by having the most valuable people and skills, rather than resources. Dictatorships rely on resources because it's easy to control.
@@ayoCC if I understand that correctly, given an economy of just us two and a total resource cap of one apple, if we exchange the same apple ten million times between us is like creating an empire out of nothing. That's why I don't trust economics the same way I trust math. Both use numbers, but only one of them lies.
@@DavidCastillaGil The problem with that hypothetical is that it's not representing anything. That's why you have good watchdog institutions and in a non dictatorship you actually don't pad your numbers (there's deeper reasons). Math is just neutral here, while economics achieves a greater good, since people will always get more value out of buying something than the one who sold it. (in a world where all is domestic) It's incentivising scaling what you produce and providing your service more efficiently.
And in a roundabout way optimizing toward as many clean transactions within a year leads to all things to be more abundant and standards to rise.
The dirty way of scaling is of course cheating by abusing other humans rather than technological advancement.
I think that bottleneck is way too large to even start to consider, starting to mine stuff from asteroids and other planets will raise the ceiling an insane amount. Getting other planets like Mars habitable will also greatly increase the possibility for growth in the economy and our race as a whole. I'm sure getting to a whole other solar system is going to be insanely hard but as long as we haven't utilized the one we're in right now I don't think it's reasonable to stop growing
I’m disappointed that logistic growth wasn’t really mentioned. I feel that that should be an important factor to consider since all populations tend to follow that
Logistic is the most simplistic model. Delta-Notch like, total annihilation or more complex nonequlibrated ODEs can be uses more succintly.
There is no overpopulation issue, there is a resource distribution issue. Wealth inequality is what causes people to have less kids
actually this is false. People who are rich tend to have less children than people to have less money.
And country where people are richer, have a lower birhtrate than countries wherre people are poorer
@@markstein2845in fact thats false. That argument is already debunked
I see Dawn, Misty, Lillie, Penny, Nemona? Nice to have Turo as the one taking the lead in the discussion.
pretty sure that is rika at 1:49
Would actually been funny if the scientists at the start were the version proffesors
Me after finishing Pokémon violet
thought those were some anime-esque hairstyles lol
1:40 I think is Entrapta from She-Ra
1:20 This is the real issue. If a woman gets more than 16 years of education, she'll start having negative children.
Oh My God
Man discovers the reason for all homicides commited by women: They were educated too much!
The Nega People!?!!
What kind of sorcery is this?!
What about positive children? Are you talking about electricity?
I'm new and I already love this channel
I really like the pokemon references, a lot of care is put into each of these videos. Keep on going minute earth
One of the big issues with population predictive models is that there are LOTS of factors seen and unseen to take into account. It’s more than just “how many people are there?” And more than “just” the economy. It’s also availability of food production, technology, how many of what types of jobs are available?
In the earlier 1800s, poor families needed to have lots of kids because that helped keep the family farm running, which was necessary to feed anybody in the family. Infant mortality was super high, life expectancies were low, modern medicine was still in its early stages. Since the industrial revolution and the subsequent technology boom that continues to happen, we hardly live in the same world anymore. Comparing populations over the past couple centuries might as well be comparing populations of different planets. Trying to predict the future of the population more than a decade or two in advance is probably about as useful as trying to predict the exact weather in your home town a year or two in advance.
I think we're seeing a pattern, actually. Families living in larger cities will have smaller families.
Because of stress, lack of cohesion (Isolation), and a higher cost of living.
I figured it out when I was studying Fertility Rates in Japan. Obviously, the lowest rate was Tokyo.
@@eksbocks9438 Exactly the main factors at play.
Badałem temat holistycznie, i w WIELKIM skrócie podsumuję go tak:
Przeludnienie - pojęcie bywa względne. Gdy się liczebność (zagęszczenie na km 2) zwiększa, to najpierw braki są dostrzegalne w mniejszej ilości najbardziej pożądanej zwierzyny - u nas dotyczyło to dla przykładu turów. Ale to jeszcze bardzo mały problem, gdyż na inne można jeszcze swobodnie polować. Jednak wraz z dalszym demograficznym "postępem", i kolejnych zaczyna być deficyt - i wtedy silniejsi sobie jedynie przyznają prawo do polowania na nie. Ale i wtedy jeszcze nie ma tragedii, gdyż ludzie zaczynają zwierzęta hodować. Co prawda jest to już powiązane ze znacznie większa ilością pracy, itp. - jednak i jeszcze wtedy na tym etapie mamy naprawdę dostanie i wspaniałe życie. Gdy jednak i wtedy dalej ludzi przybywa - jak w Europie w 19 wieku - to zaczyna być coraz wyraźniejszy deficyt ziemi. A co powoduje masowy odpływ ludzi w kierunku jej poszukiwania i walki o nią. I w tym etapie mięso staje się towarem luksusowym (w początkach 19 wieku mięso było jeszcze tańsze od chleba. Połowa 19 wieku, to już tylko bogatsi mogą je codziennie spożywać). A dziś, to większość nawet nie zna smaku prawdziwego mięsa.
Dziś dzięki postępowi technologicznemu i powszechnej chemizacji rolnictwa, niby mamy poważny kryzys żywieniowy rozwiązany. A tak naprawdę, to nigdy w historii nie istniała taki kryzys i taka katastrofa w tej dziedzinie.
Dawniej żywność była po prostu niesamowicie smaczna. A co ważniejsze, to dostarczała nam wszelkie potrzebne dla zdrowia i prawidłowego rozwoju składniki.
Każdy ludzki organizm codziennie podlega niezwykle doskonałemu procesowi samoregeneracji - JEDNAK! - by ten proces mógł zachodzić, to nie może być w danym dniu zbyt wiele stresu - gdyż wtedy ten proces podlega zawieszeniu - gdyż organizm koncentruje się na potencjalnej walce, lub ucieczce. A że dziś żyjemy w niezwykle nerwowych czasach...........
Dalej - by proces ten mógł zachodzić, to organizm potrzebuje do niego wiele mikroelementów, itp - a które w zbilansowanej ilości były dostarczane w formie żywności. Dziś z każdym rokiem tych składników jest coraz mniej!!!! - a za to coraz więcej trucizn!!!!!! - WIĘC TERAZ NIE DOŚĆ ŻE ŻYWNOŚĆ JUŻ NIE LECZY, TO DODATKOWO CORAZ BARDZIEJ TRUJE!!!!!
I stąd coś tak niespotykanego dawniej jak choroba - DZIŚ JEST CZYMŚ TAK POWSZECHNYM, ŻE STAŁA SIĘ ONA NORMĄ!
W dodatku spotykamy jeszcze choroby tzw cywilizacyjne - a które w (nieprzeludnionej) naturze nie istnieją - jak choroby zębów, stawów i układu kostnego, nowotwory, cukrzyce, itd. itd, itd.
A i nie zapominajmy, że choroby typu pandemie - jak dżuma, itp - są powiązane wyłącznie z większym zagęszczeniem (tak przyroda się broni przed nadmierną ekspansją jakiejkolwiek populacji). I dla przykładu - Polska w 13 bardzo słabo zaludniona - i dżuma która wyludniła prawie połowę Europy - naszych nieprzeludnionych wtedy jeszcze ziem - nie dotyka!
PS Oczywiście wiem że możesz teraz polecić mi jakieś jedno z wielu opracowań, a które piętnują przeszłość, a pokazują nasza wspaniałą teraźniejszość. I jak np w średniowieczu w biedniejszych domach na przednówku dziecko za całodzienne pożywienie dostawało zaledwie kilka ziemniaków. I tylko autorzy tych rewelacji - a które były w podręcznikach! - nawet tego nie wiedzieli, że roślina ta była sprowadzona z Ameryki - więc jej tutaj zwyczajnie w średniowieczu być nie mogło.
Po prostu bez przerwy demonizuje się przeszłość, by wtedy współczesność na tle tej zafałszowanej przeszłości, to nie tylko nie wygląda tak straszliwie katastrofalnie - ale wręcz wydaje się lepsza.
Wojny, choroby, pandemie i niedostatki zawsze dotykały wszystkich gatunków które nadmiernie się namnożyły. Jeśli chcielibyśmy mieć spokój z pandemiami wojnami, biedą i na nic nie chorować, to musielibyśmy jako ludzkość zdecydować na harmonię demograficzną. Ale tego z kolei nigdy nie zaakceptują wielcy tego świata. Bo główny problem jest w tym, że większość przywódców politycznych i religijnych ma głęboko W POWAŻANIU dobro ludzi, jak i przyszłych pokoleń. A interesują ich jedynie ich własne partykularne interesy. A te nakazują, by mieć jak najwięcej podatników (niewolników), taniej siły roboczej, wyznawców, i mięsa armatniego, gdyż od tej ilości zależy ile znaczą wśród innych podobnych wielkich tego świata.
A dla "bydła" (czyli dla nas) które (mentalnie) hodują, mają bajki o emeryturach, postępie, depopulacji, itp, brednie.
Bóg stwarzając Ziemię, stworzył też jej doskonałe prawa - I łamanie ich nigdy nie jest pozbawione tragicznych konsekwencji. Jedną z nich są epidemie chorób, zwłaszcza psychicznych, i brak sensu życia i stale rosnąca liczba samobójstw.
Nie bez powodu, Bóg (W Starym Testamencie) mówi o mnożeniu się ponad miarę, że gdy mnożymy się jak trzoda, to zamieniamy się w ludzką trzodą, itd, itd. Zresztą Bóg nieustannie gani Izraelczyków, za oddawanie czci bożkom płodności - I nieustannie pokazuje i zapowiada kolejne tego straszliwe konsekwencje.
The problem of a decrease in population is not the decrease per se, but the fact that fewer people being able to work will have to take care of more people not being able to work (namely, elderly people)
Canada has a huge scandal currently over assisted suicides. I expect them to become a thing outside Canada as well, maybe even mandatory. Right besides the government pressuring women to have children.
People just need to be responsible for their own retirement instead of expecting other people to support them.
Retirement should be banned and instead they should do less labor intensive jobs like working at home
@@SoupyMittens ur fuckin crazy bro. Maybe we just not give them social programs to retire with and have the economy function well and not have the expectation that the economy would grow enough to pay off its current debt and the more debt it collects the more the economy exponentially grows to compensate
It's MUCH more than just taking care of elderly.
The entire economic system is based on population growth.
We need to change that system.
Since you did not even talk about it, I am gonna say that overpopulation is worse.
Notice the skeptics ignore the water problems worldwide. We are running lower on water. Egypt is expected to be fully dry in two years. That will be the start. If India follows, THE biggest crisis ever! We are depleting our resources, 8 billion humans does this!
If Egypt ever runs out of water, I suggest you guys a tutorial on youtube of how to desalinate water.
It’s very easy and it’s a very useful information to have if youre in a isolated island, you just need to boil water and a cloth to catch the steam, you can do this to ocean water and you’re good to go.
Wealth distribution is a factor not mentioned (and I understand it would have made the video longer), but if the world population shrinks, and if the amount of wealth hoarded by the tiny elite continues to grow, we'll go back to a quasi-feudal society where a tiny proportion has nearly everything and the vast majority have very little of what's left.
Nevermind the fact that these same wealthy elites use immigration to keep their country's populations high, keeping them poor. Which also ends up causing brain drain in the emigrating countries, which keeps them poor also.
Not that I think we should do some kind of one-child policy or anything like that. But I don't think most people want their country to be more like Qatar either.
Well this is something that the video will never address as they rather complain about underpopulation and don't even mention the fact that the population distribution in regards to countries is completely uneven and there are hundreds of different factors instead of just claiming which one is worse as both scenarios are worse eitherways, that last sentence is in a way true sadly if you take in the general populace overall we are indeed living in such times but the difference is that poverty isn't in bulk and rather distributed evenly as to avoid any attention towards them compared to the past where poverty in one area was obvious than today where it's hidden or masked
There are good rich and bad rich people...
Well, if it brings you some comfort, we've seen localized depopulation during the black plague. What happened was that low class people suddenly found their labor was worth a whole lot more as they were less replaceable than before. It is viewed as something of a beginning of the end to feudalism, though a slow end.
It is difficult to say if that's a relevant comparison though. Modern economies are very different and in the developed world people don't have kids because it's expensive while in the developing world people have kids because they have more money. It's never really possible to predict the future with history I guess.
The wealth "hoarded" is just stock in companies. There isn't as much money out there as you think.
You guys are really good at making short informative videos and god awful at making good, accurate titles. Why set up false expectations about questions you wont even discuss?
Yea, its really aggravating
But maybe it's intentional since they get so many comments on it and comments bump it in the algorithm
Moral of the story:
Dont let women go to school
(please don't hurt me its a joke)
Could you please cite a paper that cites the overall poverty rate decreasing. Thank you!!
The only people worried about not having enough people to -exploit- work are the ones that gets the most out of hyper competitive and individualistic behavior 🤔
Underpopulation can be very advantageous to the working class. After the Black Death caused a massive population shrinkage in Europe, the surviving workers had enough bargaining power to obtain several rights. This is because the reserve army of labor was practically nonexistent, meaning the aristocracy had little choice but to accept the demands of the workers.
You make it sound like having FEWER people to compete with harms individualistic behavior when its quite the opposite.
@@GiRR007 source?
@@GiRR007 one of the most powerful tools of capitalism is the reserve army of labor, which’s described in Marx’s Das Kapital (and also Wikipedia). When there’s a significant portion of the population in unemployment, then the bourgeoisie have all the bargaining power, since any workers that demand better conditions can be easily replaced. Fewer people means competition is less fierce among workers, and therefore if a significant portion of them organizes and collectively demand better working conditions, there’s not enough unemployed people to replace them easily and they have more bargaining power.
@@joaovmlsilva3509 The source of basic supply and demand? I dont think I can "source" common sense and logical reasoning. The fewer people you have the more the individual matters. Those who already excel in individualistic and competitive behavior will thrive MORE when they can take advantage of their individualism and have less to compete with.
A major problem with populations shrinking is you get more and more old people, which puts incredible pressures on a country’s finances (particularly pensions and health care), with fewer working age adults to pay for it all.
or them old people can just start elderly porno genre and make some living out of it
and ruin next gen pornhub recommendations
But those working age adults would have a better education and would earn much on average. People would have more savings and would be less dependent on government programs anyway. Overheads like environmental pollution, and bureaucratic costs would significantly diminish and cheaper work can be either outsourced or obtained by immigration as required
@@jamespower5165 what happen when every nation continue the trend, can you get migrant from non existent nation or you just build the concept of a slave nation
@@jamespower5165
A) much more educated adults working better jobs would require a strong export market in order to sidestep the issue of bad domestic market. Export markets come with its own problems, especially when you're importing raw resources to turn into advanced products (just as Taiwan)
B) maybe on average, people have more savings, but then comes the question of distribution. Following from A, it is likely only large companies can handle the overhead related to export of products, and said companies have the resources to gatekeep. Essentially, a good bit of wealth is controlled by a few companies. South Korea has this problem with Samsung. You're born in a Samsung hospital. You go to a school built by Samsung. You buy insurance from Samsung, and your house is owned by Samsung.
C) Pollution by companies reduce costs for those companies, but at the cost of making the surrounding region highly dependent on the jobs provided by said companies. If all those companies are in the same industry, what happens when that industry is no longer viable? There used to be a plethora of mills on the Hudson river valley that dumped their waste into the river. To this day, only the Albany region and NYC are significant economic centers in NY, precisely because they didn't rely on only mills and steel factories when manufacturing jobs declined in the US
@@fenhatte Won't happen because there's still a wide economic gap between countries and also a wide population gap. By the time this declines, we will be living in an era where most work will probably be done by machines and the economic system will be very different
The idea that we are living in a stable world when we are on the cusp of the AI transformation is silly
If everyone has more money, everyone has less money.
But no, the crisis in Japan is interesting because due to the declining birth rates, the average age of the country is rising. They still pay aged benefits to the elderly, but now there are fewer and fewer young people paying taxes which cover that. It seems like it should stabilise eventually, but will the system break before it does?
Japan is a literal dystopia bro
It's gonna break the US and the West ain't far behind
The doomsayers were stating that due to overpopulation we would run out of food. At the time 1billion people were starving, not malnourished which is the current definition, but starving. What happened was the green revolution, which solved the issue. We have 1 billion malnourished people out of a global population of 8 billion today, but these people are not literally dying of starvation. In the 1970’s a quarter of the planet was starving. The lesson to be learned is a simple extrapolation of current trends without factoring in new developments, initiated by that trend, always ends up being wrong.
The 2nd is the impression global population is dropping. While true for the 1 billion people living in the developed world, its not the case for the 7 billion people living in the developing world. China is still growing in population in 2021 and if it flips into a negative growth then the countries which make up the declining population world will grow to 3 billion. There is one caveat; the developed world is making up for any population shortfall with immigration, so apart from countries such as Japan, no major country is declining in population. The UN has indicated that there are 120 million economic refugees ready to relocate immediately if there was a country willing to accept them. There is no lack of immigrants. They may lack skills a country may wish, but babies born in a country also lack skills.
The final point is living in a country with a declining population is not bad for an individual. Japan is the best example, living standards per person continue to match, or exceed, that of the US. Unemployment is very low so there is no lack of jobs, even if you lack any skills. There is no housing shortage and the list goes on. There is one major downside of stable or negative population which is stagnation. Overpopulation results in major issues which pressure society to solve, such as what occurred which resulted in the green revolution. When there are no major issues to solve, innovation slows and there is little incentive for change. The individual which lives in Japan today will have a happy, long and prosperous life, but the nation as a whole may decline in subsequent generations. Solve that issue and there is no core issue with a stable population.
The problem was never overpopulation, it was *overconsumption*. Globally increasing wealth is an existential threat because our planet simply doesn't have the resources to support our entire population at the American standard of living. The fact that the solution defaulted to "we need fewer poor people" is pretty emblematic of how global elites would rather make everyone else suffer to subsidize their lifestyles than take even slight responsibility
Simply put, the American standard being excessive indulgence and consumption is the principal issue here. Population itself isnt the issue at all
"we need fewer poor people" is one way to put it. Here's another, less cynical: "countries that don't manage to produce or import enough food to support their population are obviously overpopulated."
Overpopulation is an issue. Sure we could support everyone, but you fail to see that we are destroying the planet and driving other species to extinction.
But by the same token, Americans are also among the most economically productive, which drives the innovation and development of new and/or more impactful solutions. Unlike say the highly inefficient labor output of China or India, or the grossly net consumptive lifestyles of the modern Middle East.
We need fewer people. The government will preach that we need more.
I feel like most governments enact disastrous policies every time the economy shrinks, even though, as you said, it might not be such a big problem after all.
Right on.
Probably because even though it might not be a huge problem in the long run, it could have serious negative effects in the short term (the term they have to "prove themselves" to the population in order to stay in office)
This is incorrect. If the economy shrinks, then the interest on debt becomes harder to pay back, and that creates more debt and more interest on debt that cuts into public services. Usually, debt it issued with the idea that the GDP rises faster than the debt, so if it doesn't, it could create an economic disaster.
You also forgot the part where more people are single because it's easier to be a social recluse.
And the part where houses are too expensive.
The internet provides. Who needs to be social and sexual in real life when the virtual covers that and so much more.
You're forgetting that the people who will still have children despite modernity are genetically predisposed towards having more of them. Therefore, it stands to reason that after the non-breeders slowly die out, more of the population will be predisposed to having kids, thus sending us back on track for higher populations.
a.k.a. there have been forecasts that half of the marriageable women will be unmarried and childless by the end of their fertile years. Once these women die, and their genes with them, the remaining women will have been from families that stressed child rearing despite this social climate. Their daughters will end up having more kids than the previous generation.
Not only that, it's their culture and religion too. Enjoy liberal western civilisation? Say goodbye to that as democracy gives those with the highest number of humans the win. You won't get a choice. Your race, culture and religion will be a minority in your own country of origin.
Sorry, but where have you found the information of people having genetic predisposition to have children.
All the info we have lead us to believe that is a society change that make people more or less prone to have children.
Your grand parents, probably had like 5 children, while your parents had 3, and you’ll most likely have 1. The same genetic that existed in your grand parents exist in you right now, but the society changed.
things that make people have more of less children.
- money (more = less)
- religiosity (more = more)
- rural area (more)/urban area (less)
- interest for family (more = more)
- women’s time in school after 18 (more=less)
Title:- *Which one is bad? Overpopulation or Underpopulation?*
*Video:-* _"We don't know, let the experts figure it out."_
or just wait for the outcome and says the other one would be better
Experts who, with the help of a sensationalist media, have a way of crying wolf.
I can assurs you it will depend of where you are, shengen won't have the same problemin 30 years as lagos
“Experts”
A big part of the problem isn't the number of people vs the economy, but that far too much of the world's wealth is in _very_ few hands
YES YES YES !!!!!
Not everything is political but this very much is !
Wojny, choroby, pandemie i niedostatki zawsze dotykały wszystkich gatunków które nadmiernie się namnożyły. Jeśli chcielibyśmy mieć spokój z pandemiami wojnami, biedą i na nic nie chorować, to musielibyśmy jako ludzkość zdecydować na harmonię demograficzną. Ale tego z kolei nigdy nie zaakceptują wielcy tego świata. Bo główny problem jest w tym, że większość przywódców politycznych i religijnych ma głęboko W POWAŻANIU dobro ludzi, jak i przyszłych pokoleń. A interesują ich jedynie ich własne partykularne interesy. A te nakazują, by mieć jak najwięcej podatników (niewolników), taniej siły roboczej, wyznawców, i mięsa armatniego, gdyż od tej ilości zależy ile znaczą wśród innych podobnych wielkich tego świata.
A dla "bydła" (czyli dla nas) które (mentalnie) hodują, mają bajki o emeryturach, postępie, depopulacji, itp, brednie.
The potential consequences of climate change are not discussed at all in the debate, which provides another deeply concerning perspective. The global population is predicted to increase in the coming 40-50 years, and considering that this growth is expected to occur in areas heavily affected by climate change, it could have devastating consequences. The political refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 would pale in comparison to a potential future climate refugee crisis.
Just close borders
Cause the climate change seems to be a easier problem to deal then the population collapse.
For you to understand, if things get really serious, the governement can just make laws that force companies to reduce CO2, or plants more trees.
But the government can’t force people to have more children.
And the governement is doing a lot for climate change, since 2015, the CO2 emissions of all western world has reduce. While in the east it didn’t cause the governement didn’t do anything.
While about child birth, only countries with relative high child birth are africans and muslin countries, while in Europe they pay mothers to have children, but they still don’t have enough children, the goverments of the world are feeling hopeless.
1:09 I love how the girls on the books are Penny and Nemona from pokemon sv. I think its cool how you guys add pokemon references in your drawings.
I just want to point out that the bit about the poor being less poor isn't entirely true. $2 in 1970 is $15.36 today, and globally 61% of people make do on less than $10 a day.
Finally! Great job on that. Yes, we have ironically gotten poorer and THAT is why we don't have as many babies.
Can't feed more babies if you can only afford 1!
Edit: but our standard of living has increased drastically, but also countered by high rents/mortgages what force room mates. Hard to have babies when your poor and rooming with other strangers!
@@derekwatson8965 yes so a big problem is rapid inflation as that actual increase has mostly happen in the last few years. But let’s keep spending trillions we don’t have and keep ruining the economy Yay! Oh and if you point this out you are now the enemy.
A brand-new house including the lot etc. in 1950: $ 10000.
Now: $ 500000
Income about $ 1.- per hour in 1950.
Now? $ 30.- ?
He said equivalent.
Inflation doesn't work like that internationally
What about overconsumption though? People might be having fewer children, but if each of those children consumes more, so that the sum total global consumption increases even as the population decreases then you've still got a major problem.
If you have a market economy this doesn't exist as pricing pressures make consumption over a reasonable standard more and more unaffordable.
"Overconsumption" imagine if you will, a population so spoiled that they actually want less. Without knowing how horrible having less is actually like
@@ryantsui2802 "it's ok, the poors will just have less and any luck will starve to death... who's that with the pitch fork knocking on the door?"
@@sosopwsi829Jjw9 that's right, if everyone lived like the US, we'd need ~5 earths of resources... so the max global population would be < 1/5 of our current number.
Overconsumption exists. And of course, no one, in general, wants less. That's the damn problem
What are you talking about? When demand is higher than supply, price will increase even for rich people.
As the population shrinks, the economy will shrink too, driving price even higher, production of goods and services decreases, and businesses tank.
I mean, market economy will set everything in balance eventually.
Even when let's say hypothetically demand keeps rising up because of overconsumption, it means more demand for workers and wages will go up.
But if there's no more value added to the economy because of underpopulation, it means less savings to invest on businesses, and even less goods and services to overconsume! I mean, if you don't mind having worse living standard, underpopulation is good for the environment then!
The question is: For how long will the planet be able to house 8 billion people?
1:07 was that a pokemon reference?
It is!!! 😊😮
I don’t care as much what happens to the economy; that’s something people can figure out how to fix or replace. What I do care about is the impact we’re having on our ecology. We’ve already done irreparable damage to numerous other species that are part of our ecosystem, and that will come back to harm us in the long run.
The thing is that the economy you eat, the ecology you feel.
If the temperature rises 10 degrees, people will survive cause in most european countries you have 10 degree variation in a single day.
But if the world wrinks 10%, butchery will sell bones, cause meat will be too expensive.
When I was a teenager, I read an article predicting that the population would level out at 10 billion; this is where the scientists thought the birth and death rate would be equal.
My biggest concern would be any disaster that interrupts trade. With humanity producing just enough food for a large population, any little thing could cause a famine that racks up a serious body count.
like a boat getting stuck in a canal?
Those numbers had nothing to do with food, they rely on an expectation of birth rate being an equal ratio on average to the death rate, death being from all aspects and birth being slowed as the trends currently see. Food wise we can support more than 10billion people so long as they aren't poorly placed relative to the food production, which is becoming less of an issue with modern technology for environmentally controlled farming and environmental modifications.
We may see that playing out in the next years, starting right about now, with increasing droughts and floods, rising energy prices threatening the production of fertilizer, and the whole Russia/ Ukraine war disrupting grain production and trade.
@@nick11crafter I know there's a lot more going into that number than just food production. What I really meant is that as the population grows, we'll be skirting the edge of what we can support. Like you said, production and distribution are less and less of an issue with improvements in technology -- right up until that technology fails us. And it'll happen in a situation where nobody has any margin for error.
I look at the pandemic-related shutdowns as a good example of this. Companies all over the world had grown accustomed to a complex web of supply chains, and when things ground to a halt it all got royally screwed up. With more people and more modern farming techniques, the world's food supply will be sitting on the same house of cards.
@@godsamongmen8003 it sounds like your real concern then is with Globalism. If every person and or nation becomes ultimately self sufficient then there would be minimal risk of supply chain being able to impact society that much.
Globalism actively opposes self sufficient in favor of global interdependence and relies entirely on the supply chain not getting interrupted.
Too late anyway. We're horked no matter what we do. We've pushed it all too far, and there is no way to recover it.
Is it weird that when someone in their 20s tells me that they're a parent, my immediate thoughts are: how do they afford this? Are they rich? Do they have rich parents?
I honestly don't know how people can afford them at that age.
They cant, they are just hoping that 1 of their kids becomes rich enough to support them in old age.
It's a investment, an unwanted buisness transaction on the long run
We don't have a shortage of food, we just don't have a good way of transporting it to places in the world where it is needed - especially perishable items.
And also a lot of food waste
I went in expecting the question answered. I sat patiently through what I thought was tangential information thinking it was being introduced to establish a foundation for more information. I am really disappointed that our question was never answered.
But it is some good knowledge
Underpopulation is worse currently because overpopulation is no longer a problem.
@@DeadlyBlaze Can you elaborate on how it's not a problem?
@@ungoyone Technology outpases population growth in most sectors. Food is well beyond current needs lacking only in logistics, and so the only major resource shortages theoretically would be commodities that we can generally live without.
Compare with underpopulation where there wouldn't be enough labor to maintain current living standards and resource negative populations such as the elderly or disabled would essentially need to be sacked to support the health and productive population.
@@DeadlyBlaze This is very Western centric view that under population is a problem, say this to smaller country like Bangladesh and they will have a very different outlook!
it's problem for West cause you can't get people to collect your rubbish for cheap!
So it's a economics problem of people refusing to do menial task because the pay is low (so rich can keep the bigger share of profit), and because the pay is low and everything getting expensive those with smaller disposable income not taking children.
Thus the cycle continues!
Very good, very quick, and brings up the last part about that the population shrinkage also matters when factoring in the world economy. Fuckin great for 2 minutes
Women with higher educations is also less likely to be in a relationship, as they tend to search for someone with a higher education than them, but is setting that bar higher with their own education.
Goes to show how the best kind of life is one that is balanced. Too much or too little of anything is never good. The same applies to collectives.
I'm glad that you made Nemona higher than Penny although 'something' tells me she's a bit more down bad than her Eevee backpack counterpart
Overpopulation is worse. I mean there would be enough wild food and wild animals around to eat if you were in a underpopulated world.
Underpopulation also happened in many places in Europe as a result of the black plague. While not a global phenomenon, it did lead to a much higher level of power for working class (somewhat anachronistic term but you know what I mean) people. Many modern people in developed nations have less kids because it's expensive, both in the immediate future and over the course of at least the first 18 years (likely longer given modern trends), but this would be less of a problem with better economic outlooks given a higher labor power.
It probably won't be clean or clear cut for a while but I suspect this problem will more or less be self correcting provided overall economics don't get too skewed.
Wojny, choroby, pandemie i niedostatki zawsze dotykały wszystkich gatunków które nadmiernie się namnożyły. Jeśli chcielibyśmy mieć spokój z pandemiami wojnami, biedą i na nic nie chorować, to musielibyśmy jako ludzkość zdecydować na harmonię demograficzną. Ale tego z kolei nigdy nie zaakceptują wielcy tego świata. Bo główny problem jest w tym, że większość przywódców politycznych i religijnych ma głęboko W POWAŻANIU dobro ludzi, jak i przyszłych pokoleń. A interesują ich jedynie ich własne partykularne interesy. A te nakazują, by mieć jak najwięcej podatników (niewolników), taniej siły roboczej, wyznawców, i mięsa armatniego, gdyż od tej ilości zależy ile znaczą wśród innych podobnych wielkich tego świata.
A dla "bydła" (czyli dla nas) które (mentalnie) hodują, mają bajki o emeryturach, postępie, depopulacji, itp, brednie.
Przeludnienie - pojęcie bywa względne. Gdy się liczebność (zagęszczenie na km 2) zwiększa, to najpierw braki są dostrzegalne w mniejszej ilości najbardziej pożądanej zwierzyny - u nas dotyczyło to dla przykładu turów. Ale to jeszcze bardzo mały problem, gdyż na inne można jeszcze swobodnie polować. Jednak wraz z dalszym demograficznym "postępem", i kolejnych zaczyna być deficyt - i wtedy silniejsi sobie jedynie przyznają prawo do polowania na nie. Ale i wtedy jeszcze nie ma tragedii, gdyż ludzie zaczynają zwierzęta hodować. Co prawda jest to już powiązane ze znacznie większa ilością pracy, itp. - jednak i jeszcze wtedy na tym etapie mamy naprawdę dostanie i wspaniałe życie. Gdy jednak i wtedy dalej ludzi przybywa - jak w Europie w 19 wieku - to zaczyna być coraz wyraźniejszy deficyt ziemi. A co powoduje masowy odpływ ludzi w kierunku jej poszukiwania i walki o nią. I w tym etapie mięso staje się towarem luksusowym (w początkach 19 wieku mięso było jeszcze tańsze od chleba. Połowa 19 wieku, to już tylko bogatsi mogą je codziennie spożywać). A dziś, to większość nawet nie zna smaku prawdziwego mięsa.
Dziś dzięki postępowi technologicznemu i powszechnej chemizacji rolnictwa, niby mamy poważny kryzys żywieniowy rozwiązany. A tak naprawdę, to nigdy w historii nie istniała taki kryzys i taka katastrofa w tej dziedzinie.
Dawniej żywność była po prostu niesamowicie smaczna. A co ważniejsze, to dostarczała nam wszelkie potrzebne dla zdrowia i prawidłowego rozwoju składniki.
Każdy ludzki organizm codziennie podlega niezwykle doskonałemu procesowi samoregeneracji - JEDNAK! - by ten proces mógł zachodzić, to nie może być w danym dniu zbyt wiele stresu - gdyż wtedy ten proces podlega zawieszeniu - gdyż organizm koncentruje się na potencjalnej walce, lub ucieczce. A że dziś żyjemy w niezwykle nerwowych czasach...........
Dalej - by proces ten mógł zachodzić, to organizm potrzebuje do niego wiele mikroelementów, itp - a które w zbilansowanej ilości były dostarczane w formie żywności. Dziś z każdym rokiem tych składników jest coraz mniej!!!! - a za to coraz więcej trucizn!!!!!! - WIĘC TERAZ NIE DOŚĆ ŻE ŻYWNOŚĆ JUŻ NIE LECZY, TO DODATKOWO CORAZ BARDZIEJ TRUJE!!!!!
I stąd coś tak niespotykanego dawniej jak choroba - DZIŚ JEST CZYMŚ TAK POWSZECHNYM, ŻE STAŁA SIĘ ONA NORMĄ!
W dodatku spotykamy jeszcze choroby tzw cywilizacyjne - a które w (nieprzeludnionej) naturze nie istnieją - jak choroby zębów, stawów i układu kostnego, nowotwory, cukrzyce, itd. itd, itd.
A i nie zapominajmy, że choroby typu pandemie - jak dżuma, itp - są powiązane wyłącznie z większym zagęszczeniem (tak przyroda się broni przed nadmierną ekspansją jakiejkolwiek populacji). I dla przykładu - Polska w 13 bardzo słabo zaludniona - i dżuma która wyludniła prawie połowę Europy - naszych nieprzeludnionych wtedy jeszcze ziem - nie dotyka!
PS Oczywiście wiem że możesz teraz polecić mi jakieś jedno z wielu opracowań, a które piętnują przeszłość, a pokazują nasza wspaniałą teraźniejszość. I jak np w średniowieczu w biedniejszych domach na przednówku dziecko za całodzienne pożywienie dostawało zaledwie kilka ziemniaków. I tylko autorzy tych rewelacji - a które były w podręcznikach! - nawet tego nie wiedzieli, że roślina ta była sprowadzona z Ameryki - więc jej tutaj zwyczajnie w średniowieczu być nie mogło.
Po prostu bez przerwy demonizuje się przeszłość, by wtedy współczesność na tle tej zafałszowanej przeszłości, to nie tylko nie wygląda tak straszliwie katastrofalnie - ale wręcz wydaje się lepsza.
I would love to have a source for this, because the black death happened in the 14th century, and the workers rights happened started in the 18th and it became a big thing in the 19th century.
In the 14th century, europe was still a big farm, and in feudalism, workers already worked only 150 days a year, cause of the crops season.
But the thing about that is, we're still using all kinds of non-renewable resources; so, even if the Earth does not explode with people, it seems like we're headed for disaster one way or another as eventually things like sand and petroleum will run out. So, we must find a way to do without all such things. Will we before losing them makes a huge impact?
I understand petroleum but, forgive my ignorance, what do sand got to do with anything?
@@isaacaaron540 , ha ha, I figured some people wouldn't know. A particular type of sand is needed to make concrete. Concrete is pretty important isn't it? Already wars have been fought over access to good sand.
There are already workable chemical alternatives to petroleum gasoline (like fermented bioethanol) and much research is also already headed towards improving them. There are also already papers published for much more sustainable alternatives for river sand (like coal-bottom ash) that have been well received in the scientific community.
People are dumb (sometimes) but people aren't thaaat dumb to not think of using science and technology to provide an alternative source of resources. If anything imo the global warming is more of an issue than resource scarcity is.
Because it's more than just volume. It's the level of brain power that the majority has.
That's why some places are able to get things done easier.
@@NickRoman exactly+Funfact: Saudi Arabia imports sand. Country that is almost entirely in the desert imports sand because its sand is useless.
Economists: "Have children or the economy might collapse!"
Millennials/GenZ: "Oh no, another Tuesday."
"Women with better education choose to have less children."
Amy Coney Barrett : "Hold my beer."
Well overpopulation doesn’t happen not just because woman are better educated but probably because more people can do things to support more than just themselves
I'm so glad I rediscovered this channel
The two problems with a shrinking population are:
The inverted population pyramid putting a strain on pension systems and elder care. Eventually these should balance out, but things are already precarious now, and they'll be getting worse for decades with no end in sight.
Our current capitalist system having the concept of infinite growth at its core. Now, that has always been nothing but foolishness and avarice, and the sooner we go back to a stable, sustainable economy, the better, but things won't be pretty when the fat finally hits the shin. Publicly traded companies, their overpaid executives, and their shareholders won't let the gravy train stop quietly.
I know for my millennial & Gen-Z kids, they see the mess the world is in, how hate & prejudice taint things, how the climate is changing for the worse because of things our parents did & they don’t want to bring kids into it. I only hope
There are enough of those generations to keep the momentum of change going.
Though, most gen z will probably have kids. Especially the ones who live outside the USA
@@billcipherproductions1789 In the USA, we're going to have the opposite of a baby boom
@@ilovecakecanihaveapiece Well glad that I ain't an American or live in the USA. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@billcipherproductions1789
Eh, that is quite debatable. Similar Chinese cohorts are putting off child rearing for very similar reasons. Most population growth would be concentrated in Africa and South America
@@Demopans5990 Well, a stable population is the best so in Europe, it is that.
It's weird that abundance of resources is reducing the population. Usually it's the lack.
it depends, only resources that aren’t produced by humans. Most resources humans consume are produced by ourselves, like clean water, meat, crops, etc.
If an animal will go extint it won’t be a chicken, that are killed by billion every day, it will be a weird frog that nobody cares cause the temperture increased 2 degrees and all his eggs which made all his children be females, and it collapsed the mating ecosystem
well its the goverment that said that in order to live on a land you have to pay monthly tax, and the goverment set prices of land, THE GOVERMENT IS LIMITING ACCESS TO RESORUCES
You did not answer the question
0:47 Did you adjust prices to inflation? Also, have you considered the increase in cost of living? It doesn't matter how much money you make, but what you can do with that money. So, even if the poorest people make more than $2 a day, if they cannot buy more than what they did in the 1970s, their situation has not changed.
He most likely meant 2$ equivalent in that time
@@Cookiekopter Yeah, but dollars isn't a good way of measure in this case, because the power of consumption for 2$ may vary quite a lot from region to region and time to time. Why does it matter to get more than 2$ if you can't buy more with that?
It makes more sense to look at health stats like percentage of hunger or malnutrition
My thoughts exactly.
this is what a works cited page is for. you're not going to get anywhere with a youtube comment, if you have questions on the information then read their sources.
@@durdleduc8520 And you should consider that a question in the section comments can be directed to the rest of the audience, not just the author(s) of the video! And the intention of a question can also be to foster questioning, not just to obtain a little bit more information.
My point is, I appreciate your intention to let others know there are better ways to obtain information than just directly asking, but a question can do much more than just clarify an uncertainty :).
2:09 is that eraserhead?
The title has nothing to do with the video
I'm really surprised you didn't mention the green revolution at all, which is such a massively important factor to being able to feed do many people
What's that?
@@acid9033 a very big shift around the 1960s in third world countries away from traditional farming practices to modern fertilizer-based farming spearheaded by a few American scientists, there were very big fears in popular culture (and in reality) in the 60s and 70s that there will be a large famine due to population growth and that probably would have happened if not for the green revolution. Some people say that by some metrics it's the most important event in human history because it let to the life of several billions of people, and while that's obviously a very big exaggeration it's definitely a big part of why you personally are alive. It also should be noted that these practices have pretty big environmental impacts (though it should be noted that this is countered by the fact that they simply produce so much more food, so I think that it might be better if you measure it per calorie)
@@smorcrux426 so you're saying farming without fertizilizer is more effective?
@@acid9033 that's exactly the opposite of what I said
I think there is a problem because it is assumed that countries will continue to develop and women will continue to have more years of education. Recently I'm not entirely sure this is going to be the case.
That's because of all the push-back from Egoist people.
What people don't realize when it comes to human nature is that not all humans have the same way of thinking.
In fact when civilization was first being formed, our ancestors were literally in a tug-of-war with people who didn't want it.
They liked all the Tribal conflict. Even though it wasn't right.
Examples?
I don't really understand. What does women getting more education have to do with this problemm
@@ten_tego_teges Afghanistan, Fanatic Islamists. I think that’s what he’s talking about.
Asia will leave Europe and rest of the world behind in each and every aspect sooner or later. It's inevitable
I think focusing on population instead of consumption was a flaw all along. Not all people consume as much of the earth resources, so higher populations will not create shortages on their own. The concern about overpopulation, while I believe genuine on the part of scientists, was latched onto by ecofascist movements to try and vilify poor families in the Global South despite the fact that the average person in the developed world consumes more resources then someone in a underdeveloped or developing area. The issue with talking about population is population is just a proxy for resource consumption, and when talking about sustainability and environmentalism I think it is better to talk directly about consumption itself and what societies in the developed world can do to limit consumption to safer levels as well as help the developing world grow in more sustainable ways
the most based comment seen in this section, only one seeing that we can increase population and maintain a carbon-neutral society at the same time.
Consumption I dont think is the problem either. The bigger problem is waste. We consume alot because we waste alot, less waste=less consumption.
Mega Based.
Antinatalist environmentalists: "The best thing rich Westerners can do to reduce consumption is to not have kids"
Pronatalist socialists: "Why do you hate the Global South you ecofascist"
I think the bigger issue is that many young people don't want children, or they give birth very late, so in 30-40 years there will be a lot of old people.
Nah
I think because it is expensive to have an child, I sure don't see any millionaires nor billionaire with less than 3 kids
i feel like we shouldn't just expect the economy to keep growing, it always does eventually have to shrink, and i feel like it would just be better to reorganise it to stop it from growing at all, since thats the main cause of economic collapse
The basic drive up factor of the economic growth is the demographic growth. More people are creating more businesses and adding up to more GDP, so when this population trend reverses itself then your economy won’t grow anymore. I doubt we need to artificially limit economic activity except the circumstances when it harms environment
Growth and collapse aren't linked linked like that. Even if you were to somehow completely stop economic growth that won't stop economic collapse.
@@kosatochca actually, there are many economies today (such as the japanese one) that are growing as their populations are stagnant or even shrinking- it isn't population growth causing new business actively that grows economies, it's already wealthy people fiddling around with papers and stocks, and banks storing and lending money that grows the economy the most.
the issue here is how our capitalist institutions have been left to grow and fester, benefiting a hand full of extremely rich people, while by its unintended design leading us into climate and social catastrophe. the reason i think we need to either set up limits on this system (or preferably rebuilding society without any kind of market for capitalism to leech onto and reinfect human society) is because letting economies grow in perpetuity can only lead to destruction and instability. sure, no one would be a billionaire, but everyone would be many times freer and could do nearly as they pleased without needing those untold billions in their bank accounts anyway.
The big thing that defused the bomb is the exponential yield of food per acre due to new types of fertilizers and their ease of production.
That certainly helps feed the giant population we have today!
that idiot leaders in Canada want to ban nitrogen fertilizer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change -- they claim its not a ban -- they say "It is absolutely not a fertilizer ban. It is a strategy to reduce our emissions. Farmers need to be mindful there are not many growing seasons left before 2030, so it's vital they figure out how best to implement sustainable practices as soon as possible." --- idiots
And the wondrous benefits of GMO to boost yeild.
Completely unsustainable production but yes
The rivers are choked with nitrates
Should really retitle this video to “why the developed and some upper tier developing countries are having population decline”
We were fine when there were only 50k humans in existence. But we definitely won’t be fine if we go down to only 3.5 billion 💀
50k humans didn’t have massive city’s. I don’t wanna go back to hunting bears with stone knives do you
We were 50k when we didn't have an actual modern civilization, but now, with our systems, our cities and our mindsets, 3.5 billion will be a disaster.
Tip for the future, don't defuse a bomb with scissors, their rubbing could create a spark and reignite the fuse
Don’t worry, in the canvas word, the physics don’t exist, we have to manually deattach the fuse cause scissors dont work as they should in the canvas
2:22 that pun was the bomb yo😂
In my fictional world, there are overpopulated but people didn't care about it
For their first point on poverty, they understand that more then $2 a day still isn't good like wow I got 2.5 dollars time to go buy everything I need and more!
0:45 This kind of flat line for poverty like 2$ per day have been critisised for completly disregarding how much people actually need to fulfill their basic need depending on location where they live.
Notice the pokemon scarlet and violet references. Also the problem is the age difference in some places its predicted that most of population will be retired in a few years.
the doomsday scenario is pretty much happening in India
1:20 someone giving birth to -1 children 💀💀💀
Dark af 😅
can you do more/contiunation vids specifically explaining the effects of underpopulation? this isn't clear enough, im dumb
Lots of old people who can't work as much (and also require more costly care) and less young people to pick up the demand for labor in the economy. Basically economies would start creating less value than the societies they support could reasonably handle long-term
If you can look for my comment I've written in detail of a scenario that will happen due to underpopulation. Gist of it is, you either let the old people who retire die to prioritise survival for the younger generation, or die from mass shortages of necessities from an economic collapse.
we often think that underpopulation meant less people, but we forgot what it actually meant is everybody become old people.
@@prateekkarn9277 there is no die from "mass shortage" in a overpopulation scenario. It's much more boring and less dramatic than we gotta let all the old people die or everyone dies.
What actually happens when overpopulation happens is there would be so much more people that demand for limited goods would increase proportionally. Because of that things get more expensive and people decide to have less kids and buy less overall. Because people can't afford as much we reach a new equilibrium of supply and demand that might cause a few death and increased poverty but nothing dramatic but overall a lesser quality of life and a negative birth rate until the population becomes stable again.
This is literally what we see in all populations and products. Things just go into a new equilibrium. Overpopulation won't become extreme unless billions of people magically appear. No once it comes to the limit it naturally stays at equilibrium or falls off slowly.
@@xponen old people is still people 🙄🤔
Lol, Aizawa being a voice of reason is very on brand.
The problem in the future will be to convince the people to have more children, when they are used to people not having kids or used to think, that a family with 3 children is already a really big family.
As an introvert,overpopulation is worse
Well they both have downsides, that's why there need to be a healthy balance on population.
In Turkey, it's like a spectrum:
in the west side od the country, it's more civilized and modern, having cities like Izmir and Istanbul (and thus people have 3 kids max) . But on the east side, most girls don't get educated much and it's much more of a farming area (and so they can have up to 6-7 kids).
Over all the problems of underpopulation on a global scale are easier to solve than those of overpopulation as the decrease in human production can be solved by more industrialization (much like in Europe after the black death).
0:45 About 2$. It it's including rate of inflation or not? (1970. 2$ are 14.99$ in 2022 and 2022 2$ are 0.27$ in 1970)