MIT Forecasts Civilization Will Fall By 2040
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 มิ.ย. 2024
- Get Insider Access ➤ / cooper447
MIT have created a model called the limits to growth which calculates that civilization will collapse by 2040 if keep going business as usual. But how accurate is this model and what will cause this 'collapse'?
⊳Value Investors Website: www.buffettinvestors.com/?via...
Twitter: / cooperacademy1
📷 Follow me on Instagram: / tristanjcooper
TH-cam Subscribe Here: bit.ly/2Y1kNq8
___
DISCLAIMER: It's important to note that I am not a financial adviser and you should do your own research when picking stocks to invest in. This video was made for educational and entertainment purposes only. Consult your financial adviser. * Some of the links on this webpage are affiliate links. This means at no additional cost to you, we earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase and/or subscribe. This has no impact on my opinions, facts or style of video.
For boomers and senior citizens, the current market and economy are unnecessarily harder. I'm used to simply purchasing and holding assets, which doesn't seem applicable to the current volatile market, and inflation is catching up with my portfolio. My biggest concern is whether I'll survive after retirement.
Just buy and invest in Gold or other reliable stock , the government has failed us and we cant keep living like this.
Yes, gold is a great investment and a good bet against the devaluating dollar, been holding some for awhile now, I’m grateful my adviser’s moment by moment changes in the market are lightening quick, cos who know how much losses I would’ve had by now.
Please can you leave the info of your lnvestment advsor here? I’m in dire need for one
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Marisa Michelle Litwinsky” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
Thanks a lot for this suggestion. I needed this myself, I looked her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
So, you are telling me we still gotta do this shit for another 17 years?
Goddamnit!
Patience my child Patience. All good things come to those who wait.
🤣😂
The trend of recent generations having fewer children is not just a choice. All things are NOT equal. It is more difficult to raise a family now more than ever. Between the expenses, lack of support, and the difficulty in dating, the social climate is NOT sustainable to raising a family. It now takes TWO incomes to have the money to raise a family, and then no one is home to raise the kids. Daycare is more expensive than ever. Older generations are more reluctant to assist in childrearing for the young parents. And dating is a nightmare. The list goes on and on... But sure, it's a "choice"... A forced choice.
A 'suckers' choice.
Interesting comment. 🙂
I agree. However, the problem is that it's not a managed scenario. It's just a reactive one. Should demographics be managed? And to what extent should individual choice be curbed by the government? I mean if population growth or decline is controlled, then shouldn't we have the best possible babies, raised in the best possible conditions?
@@tanler7953 4b honestly the US birth rate should be 0.78% like South Korea humanity does deserve new life!
@@tanler7953 If we don't want the population to decrease due to the modern difficulties for young couples to raise families, then the best thing we can do is stop the rich/poor gap from continuingly expanding. We need more policies that support a middle class.
“I’m too selfish to consider giving things up for the sake of the future.” Humanity’s epitaph.
Prisoners Dilemmas more like
Who would’ve ever thought that greed would be humanity’s downfall?
Me.
This is always how empires fall. Its history. But heaven forbid anyone understand “if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it”
I think it’s greed/envy along with in ability to communicate.
Greed is what drove humanity to its peak tho, so greed is only responsible for setting a 'bar' to measure its downfall. It would be like saying climbing a ladder caused your fall.
No, what causes a downfall is many reasons with different degrees on different times, by different types of people and processes.
@@davidgdraper6269 Correct. I would add Apathy and stupidity as well. In Cuba, for example, envy and ideology drives many bad things to happen. Many people do bad things to those that they envy (experienced this myself) And ideology causes meritocracy to fall, such as allowing incompetent people making horrible decisions (experienced this too)
And ultimately, apathy allows all the bad stuff to happen as people don't care for either the problem nor the solution.
They are basically saying the Rich are the Problem
That's what everyone's always been saying.
Always point fingers outwards because there is no way that you as an individual could be responsible. Like all predictions this one will not come true. To say the rich is the problem as if you aren't using the resources and products that make them rich. More idiots online like you recycling Marxist and malthusian bullshit. Guaranteed global collapse is not on the way.
Humans are really good at adjusting behavior over time. It's call adams law of slow moving disasters.
Greed is the problem. If you want to call that the rich, ok, but most of us are greedy in one way or another.
Look at French history, now there is even worse income disparity than then.
I was born in 1970, and every graph in my lifetime has peaked between 2030 and 2050. I’ve always assumed I’ll see the apocalypse from my porch rocking chai in my 70’s. It’s been a good run.
I'll be in my late 60's, hope i manage an early retirement ^^
Me to. At 20, 1990 told my keeper girlfriend there was no point to breed. She didn't like hearing that. Unregulated Growth is called cancer in a limited system.
You do not have 17 years. Societal collapse is not an event -- It is a process. We are already in that process. We've already dropped a level due to previous crises from which we really haven't recovered, and each new crisis wears down our capacity to respond until we drop another level. Adaptability is inversely proportional to the level of specific adaptation. We are highly adapted to an environment that is rapidly disappearing. Collapse will continue until we lose a sufficient amount of our current adaptations (i.e., civilization) to begin actually adapting to the new situation. The problem is that the situation is changing rapidly so we may not be able to catch up to it.
It can collapse though and literally over night. The cracks do I agree first though. Falling value of wages. Rising levels of poverty and homelessness. Government debt especially, corporate and private debt too though. Failing agriculture from drought or floods. Rising food and energy prices we today call a cost of living crisis. Rising migration as people migrate from the first and worst hit areas, the poorest nations least able to absorb these price rises. But in the end a collapse can occur literally over night. In the past, they've always been local, Easter Island the most famous but equally similar might be Titanic, the wealthy elite escaping in half full lifeboats. We haven't seen a global collapse of mankind before but there's always a first time for everything. World's banks collapse it would all collapse, literally overnight. But for flights and shipping commandeered by Governments to head off to sea and remote islands, the crews given the opportunity, probably with family, to join I the escape and at least a chance of survival. All flights stop. All shipping, fuel stations, electricity, food deliveries, water treatment, how long would most survive? The vast majority? I'd give them less than three months and less if a flu like bioweapon were unleashed by the escapees.
@@flyhi2773 There is a difference between countries or nations and civilizations. The Maya were multiple nations some of which did disappear overnight when conquered by their neighbors, but the Mayan civilization took hundreds of years to collapse primarily due to the degradation of their farmlands by overpopulation and overdevelopment. Rome did not fall in a day, and neither did Easter Island. Our global civilization (which includes all the countries in the world) is collapsing. It is not going to happen overnight, and it will entail decades of recurring crises that erode our capacity to maintain our various societies. Eventually, we will lose the capacity to repair or maintain the services that keep our civilization running, but we'll spend a good century of things slowly breaking down while we make do day to day. There will be no place to run to, no place safe, and no place to hide. Don't bother digging a bunker because you will never get the signal to go into it. Treat your neighbors well lest they eat you.
@kimwelch4652 When I say over night it means over night in the grand scheme of things. Meaning, we've been around for millions of years. The length of time between the pyramids being built and the days of Caesar and Cloepatra is longer than the time between those two and us today. I don't expect man to go extinct I might add but civilisation as we know it? I reckon it's getting so fragile it COULD disappear almost over night. In reality possibly, some poorer third world countries may pretty much collapse first. Is sort of happening with some but my view is it could happen and might well happen close to over night... All it needs is for the world's banking system to collapse. Not saying it will but it could. I can even see Government intentionally collapsing it. Why? Well...if they thought your way threatened their survival and it was all going to collapse at some point in the not too distant future anyway, it would be better for them to control it in order to aid their escape. All Governments have survival plans. My father was a diplomat, in reality part of the British intelligence community, AT TIMES a Government advisor, mostly to Margaret Thatcher. Long retired, retired mid 1990s but if you think they won't plan to survive, you're very much mistaken. Its a perk of the job...they can plan to survive. And they do. Where threats can be detected decade's in advance, they begin to prepare decades in advance. They'll keep it going as long as they can, literally have to, wouldn't work otherwise but if they so much as THINK it's going to collapse anyway, and in the not too distant future to threaten them and their escape and survival plans, do not put it past them to make it happen, globally when it suits them.
Many seem taken in, disguise themselves as caring humanitarian, people as they do but behind closed doors, all but a few are highly dispensable. In reality, those at the top only care about themselves. This requires some. Can't survive on their own, but it's comply or they'll find someone who will. Months, years, in the scheme of things taking thousands and thousands of years to go from building the first permanent settlements, a few years even, would be overnight.
Secondly, the Maya etc didn’t have the technology we have today. This being the digital age, everything depends ultimately on electricity. Maya etc may have local floods, fights, whatever but ours is a whole different world… And Governments do hold the power to literally switch it all off over night. This is the thing…mankind has not seen a global over night collapse ever, but there’s a first time for everything, this time, no nukes required…Though they’ve developed EMP weapons that do the same thing; shut it all down, literally everything with a microchip in it. That’s not just aircraft but buildings, cars, trucks, practically everything.
@@flyhi2773 As I said, governments can fall overnight. The Roman republic fell to the Roman Empire, but Roman civilization ran through Byzantium times. Humans and pre-humans may go back 2.5 to 3 million years depending on how you defined human, but civilizations only started 12 to 20 thousand years ago counting Göbekli Tepe. The EMP bombs are not as effective as advertised though they can wreck havoc on infrastructure. It isn't the destruction of infrastructure that destroys a civilization, but the exhaustion of social capacity that results in the inability to repair the damage. The US has literally bombed countries into the stone age, but it did not end them as countries or even win the war. Infrastructure can be rebuilt social institutions when they fail are far more difficult to put back together.
We need only one mad dictator who pushes the red button once,I know a couple.
I heard some new juicy societal collapse related pfas story,hold tide?Farmers are using pesticides (on scale)mixed with pfas to make the pesticide work longer!!!! Cosmetics contain pfas to keep it longer on the skin,so children mainly girls are using more and more make up and ointments wich will help them to get less and less fertile.
We are poisoning ourselfs globally and the economic growth cult will not stop this money machine!!!And even if they will it’s already way to late.The climate problems we encounter every day are the result of our behavior from the 1970’s after that time co2 levels raised exponential.Every year the fuel production breaks the record of the year before,so we have to create a revolution,to have a chance but the world leaders don’t want that the masses don’t want that too.We are fckd if we do and fckd if we dont!!!@@kimwelch4652
It's actually "growth" that will stop.
It's inevitable that growth cannot persist forever in a finite system without eventually hitting a limit. Rather than a societal collapse, perhaps we can use this as an opportunity to shift away from the obsession with continued "growth" into a stability mindset where the goal is to live sustainably in balance with the environment.
Let's be real. People aren't smart enough to do something about it
@@aaronkerrigan241 I'll agree on that
Not going to happen, capitalism is based on infinite growth, those at the head of the bus knew that wasn’t a thing so they began purposely making things that wear out, you can have growth in capitalism if your refrigerator runs for a lifetime, make things cheaply , sell more stuff.
@@greenthumb8266 Capitalism is based upon an impossibility. Infinite growth is impossible in a finite world. This is why Capitalism will ultimately fail, leaving behind a ruined planet.
That would be nice. Not sure why we're waiting for everything to burn down before we start figuring out how to put out this sort of fire, but it's almost like people prefer the illusion of this way of life being good, than they fear being wiped out by an extinction they're currently participating in.
"I don't want to set the world on fire... I just want to start... a flame in your heart."
I remember my Mother singing that song, as we filled the sandbags for the shelter....
Fallout fans when there’s a nuclear war (they won’t get to be a wasteland explorer)
@@Kingedwardiii2003 Well, they will. For a very short time...
@@Kingedwardiii2003I’m gona explore your moms wasteland……..😬
I learned recently of the massive insect population decline happening across the globe, which is the reason why one may not have to clean their windshields as often as decades ago, or why we don't see fireflies as often (I haven't seen one in years). This has the potential to cause a trophic chain collapse that would affect pollinating plants, in the end, putting the survival of our species at risk.
For bees, yes. For the majority of insects, we could certainly do with less. Nature goes through a cataclysm every 12,000 years and fixes itself after these mass extinction events. The last one sunk Atlantis, and the next one is coming in about 10 or 20 years.
You joke, this week I have kinda 20 fireflies in my garden every night.
The problem is that it's about years that I don't see them. It's incredible to see many like in these days.
I have noticed the decline in various insects in New Zealand too, especially circadas
There was a short bee colony collapse which made news headlines… they have not only recovered but have more than recovered their loses… (not news worthy if it doesn’t fit the narrative). if you”learned” this recently… find a better source, they are feeding you lies.
People are having less kids because you can't afford them as resources are becoming more scarce while our demand increases. Remember that collapse 2000 2020 it's not an instant it's a start. Rome didn't fall in a day it weakened over time then tore itself apart until we hit a dark period where society had fragmented and records weren't kept. It's happened other times too.
Well it’s not necessarily about scarcity or demand. Like you mentioned Rome. Rome started to inflate its money by having lower percentages of silver or gold etc. the government quite literally STOLE from soldiers etc. paying them in devalued money basically stealing part of their labor.
Governments today steal through inflation but also through wasted taxes. Before 911 the pentagon admitted they lost 3 trillion. We have demand for resources as the U.S. has endless war. Just cause there’s demand for it doesn’t mean it’s real. It’s technically artificial as the government created the demand. Well I guess also ya had China enter the WTO. The last 20 years cheap Asians worked and made things for the west. That was deflationary.
What I don’t like is the U.S. not putting the U.S. first. The U.S. always puts war and power and global dominance first. Biden could have called Ukraine and said you’ll not Join nato and Russia you can have Donbas. There’d be no war. Politicians democrats included love the never ending growth. They claim we care about global warming and pollution but then go and waste however much pollution needed to have American power over Ukraine. It’s like we’re not goin to make Ukraine a state or tax it.
The dark ages seem like a lie, how could so many incredible structures get built during that time period with no one writing blueprints and keeping records
@@nothing2see315it's possible some parts where still thriving whilst others were collapsing
Resources have been always scarce in history, so stop with all the global warming bs.
@@dinosgura we certainly could stop the climate change bs if we stop putting more carbon into the air than is absorbed.
When you're in a room filling with smoke and people say, stop the coughing bs, if you put less smoke in the room than is settling out, sure enough soon the coughing bs stops as the air returns to a stable low smoke environment.
I think your assumption that they changed their prediction is slightly misinterpreted. This book was written in the early 70’s, before there were any emission standards, and before there was wide scale recycling , before there was limits to ozone depleting chemicals which alone would have created a disaster decades ago . Their models have been accurate, however as a society we did avert the worst of the first few models through adaptation and efficiency which has also increased over 30% in the last 25 years) , however our pollution problem is currently far far worse on a global scale . What the limits to growth did not account for was the effects of pollution on the worlds climate systems. It wasn’t until the early 80’s that ice core data and other paleo data started becoming available . Had we continued on the same “business as usual” that existed in the 70’s we would be in much closer alignment with the first and second models . There is a more recent paper written on the limits to growth that accounts for some of the adjustments in our efficiency as a society to use materials , but also accounts for some of the newer data that represents our current pathway as far as pollution ( greenhouse gasses primary) , I’m not sure if it includes models on peak oil but that is also a major factor considering our entire civilization including the ability to create new technologies relies heavily on hydrocarbons, so while it was impossible to account for every exact probability and pathway in 1970, as a macro study it was more accurate than not.
If anything, I would say, the fact that we have not collapsed already is a success story for the measures that we’ve taken and we shouldn’t say oh then that’s enough we should say we should make more measures because they will be attainable and that will make a difference, and as long as we are continuing to kick the can down the road, we have the chance to outrun this so that we don’t actually collapse. We know that these things work because we healed the ozone layer, so we have no reason to say that we won’t do it usually they say it’s gonna cost jobs, but here we have an unusually low unemployment to the point that I don’t think that’s a problem we need to be concerned about if not when
The construction industry is a good indicator, they have many empty buildings but build more and more.
@@playinglifeoneasy9226 Just go and calcuate how much its costs to own a family house, the medical bills of full term pregnancy and childbirth, the cost of raising a child, the cost (and possibly loans) or ensuring a higher study for them, how much cost of living has increased compared to just 5 years ago, and finally, after all these humongous cost, what are the chances that you can bestow a good life to your kids. Calculate all that and tell me we're not in the process of a collapse.
If you don't faint doing all of these, then do one more thing - just calculate the disparity between the top 1%, the 10% and the bottom 90% and how it grew since the study. Then tell me if a welfare and wealth distrubuted society is the better choice or not.
I think the video was referring to which years the original charts used for when the collapse would happen (2000-2020 vs the current 2040).
@@innertubez Actually, looking at the reality, I feel like the 2000-2020 scenario happened quite well. And we're living it.
the only solution is replace money, power and greed with cooperation, unity and equality, society will finally evolve
I remember as a kid half the cars on the road, half the size of most freeways, half the densities of suburban areas, half the population of children in each school. Now it seems we are shoulder to shoulder at all times, freeways packed and dangerous, schools overcrowded, and too many people everywhere we go. Tell me we’re not overpopulated.
Not yet.
Your experiencing to many people in one spot.
It's not overpopulation, it's just the density of people in major cities mostly from people moving to those cities as is the case in immigration etc., i've lived in the suburbs, of NYC, then lived in NYC and now I live upstate, there's far less people where I am now compared to the cities and suburbs, there's enough space on earth and we have the resources and almost the capability to find new resources to sustain the population, I think in the next couple of decades we'll develop better technology where we can send crafts to go mine asteroids for resources, as far as population growth, people also die too so overpopulation is almost impossible, the only thing that ends or drastically diminishes civilization is either the natural climate cycle of earth sending us into the coming ice age, an massive asteroid or comet impact or full scale nuclear war, the latter is the most likely one imo but in the end, no one really knows anyway so it's all speculation
we are in population overshoot
Population and consumption have to decline precipitously if we have any chance of surviving overshoot.
@@didforlove Uh no we are in a population decline. We are actually having fewer and fewer children in developed countries, to the extent that the economy will be greatly hurt
Historically, human beings have been exceedingly terrible at two things: Predicting the future and not killing each other.
Perpetual growth for the sake of growth is unsustainable.
Tim
Yet perpetual growth is exactly what the government needs even if you’re a Democrat! You need growth and taxes to do handouts or to have endless war.
Edward Abbey ;-)
God's endgame WILL change our societies FOREVER.
The catch is that 99 out of 100 people will not survive it on earth.
@@josefwissarionowitschstali1225Oh yeah God has a plan
Lust and Greed are the ultimate killers of any civilization in this universe. They cause population to rise and so does pollution, corruption, crimes, competition, poverty, diseases, global warming, climate change and natural disasters.
11:43 Human beings have NOT always tried to grow. For thousands of years the lives of most people was exactly the same as the lives of their grand parents. We are living in unprecedented times when we go from horses to space rockets in one person's life time. "Growth" is a new concept that started with the industrial revolution.
Look at what’s happening we just have a G4 Geomagnetic storm that affected certain systems and amounts to small opening in the earths ozone layer. One expert on the earths ozone stated that some areas of the earth’s ozone layer is as thin as a dime. He said that is very concerning not to men the earths weather system being whipped lashed like never before and so called 100 year storms occurring damn near every year now. I am an optimist so I am not going to guess when the world will be flipped on its head but I am not ignoring it either look up feed back loops and how they are directly putting this planets future in great peril. Do your own research no matter what you believe the more informed the populace the better off we will be or at least prepare so that some of civilization remains and keeps the human race going well into the future.
@@aaronkerrigan241 For over two millions years there was no change in the stone tools our ancestors made. About 10,000 years ago some significant change started to happen as some groups were forced to adopt agriculture, they eventually mastered it and started building civilizations, but even those civilizations grew over the course of thousands of years, NOT a couple centuries or decades. The best indicator for economic growth has been population growth. On average the population grew very slowly from 10,000 BCE to 1700 (by 0.04% annually). After 1800 this changed fundamentally: the world population was around 1 billion in the year 1800 and is now, at around 8 billion, 8 times larger. From 10,000 BCE to 1700 there was growth but it was imperceptible. What we've done since the 1800s is unnatural and unsustainable. We have become accustom to expecting rapid growth so therefore we pursue more rapid growth, until we fall of the cliff. And we may already be falling, most young peoples lives are not as good as their parents lives were.
@@paulespinoza1994 You are as close to the truth as most others will get.
This is the real problem. We're acting like this has always been the plan when really it's an artifact of global war... not even just industry, but the war industry. We converted the products to not have guns (cars and planes) or the factory to make something new (washing machines, driers, etc), but we maintained the pace of global war as the pace of modern life.
It's catastrophic intergenerational trauma that made us contestants in a race to our own extinction, hoarding resources as insulation for ourselves against the hardship the hoarding of resources creates - it's even the same mindset as global war!
WWII never ended, it came home.
@@phrenologisto Good point. Its been noted the US won the cold war by out growing the Soviet Union. Now China is trying to do the same to the US.
It's something to consider but this was all the rage in the 70's. People thought we were going to run out of oil. The US supposedly hit 'Peak Oil" in the late 70s, now we have the Shale Boom and the Fracking Boom. Sure, we have problems. Consider that China used to be the most populous nation on Earth, now second place because they have the fastest ageing society in history.
we are at peak oil and when the oil goes away so do billions of people
in 1972 an MIT Professor said that we would run out of oil in 1992. And look at what happened!!!
It is just too costly everywhere in the world to have a family. It's too stressful.
I think you statement here nailed it .. Families needed and balanced resources, time, resources, knowledge passed to siblings, love for family members, yes!
Im not sure why someone would bring a human into this f up world.
And yet my girlfriend and I have 5 kids between us and we make 250K a year as a couple. Get an education.
250k isn't enough to support 5 kids now
@@danmarshall3225 You don't even need an education or money thought. I got 3 kids, no college or university, only I work, and on paper I make minimum wage. I have a house, no debt, wife's got a minivan and I got a car. Single income to support a family of 5+ was the EXPECTED NORM for quality of life for the previous generation, you just got duped. You gotta work smarter, not harder.
I made that very point about the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet in a macroeconomics class at UC Berkeley 25 plus years ago and my professor and classmates not only laughed at me, they asked me to shut-up or leave the class. Moreover, I hate to break it to you but Elon Musk isn't terribly bright. He is merely a shrewd man. Not bright, shrewd.
sadly a vert common reaction to someone voicing an inconvenient truth.
Very good point about Musk. Bright people become drug addicts, alcoholics and guitar players. Shrewd people become billionaires.
Well, it's obvious where we are going and it's obvious that those in power don't want the change, but change is our only way out. Problem is that we would need to convince majority that we need degrowth and even that might be insufficient, because a lot of countries is not democratic. In practice I don't believe that we can unite everyone into single system, but maybe we can still work with the fact that maybe we can have two or three systems, but they would still have to be aligned on degrowth and that's tricky with authoritarian states that give promises and break them, because they may want to try abuse lack of growth. As far as I know China would need to have 6% growth and it's currently problem, because their insufficient growth leads to internal instability.
I read LTG in 1979 and was given the argument made by economists when the book was published, which was that we had found ways around limits in the past, so we would do it again as needed. I responded that there was no cause and effect relationship between what had been found in the past and what might be found in the future. The expectation around this was superstition. I couldn't say with complete certainty that we wouldn't find what we needed, and in a timely way, but given the stakes on the matter, it looked a lot wiser to find what was needed before it was needed. I was a newly graduated mech. engineer at the time but left to learn more, and have learned a lot. Scientists tend to go silent on this, won't talk about it. Living in a long term sustainable way would be a huge change, I think most people would rather die than try to do it, and there are far too many to do it anyway. I've felt how this might play out is that that people who actually respect science, want physical evidence for beliefs, and make the effort to change with like minded individuals -we are social animals- have better odds of surviving.
That kid didn't looked bright either, who thinks Elon musk is a brilliant guy and quoting Jordan Peterson out of all.
I think we're all screwed if we don't become truly humble again and figure out a way to get all the plastic and toxins out of our oceans and rivers etc...
People need to start by living within their means. To curb plastics we need to move back to glass, paper and metal containers, all of which are truly recyclable.
That stuff will be there for thousands of years. Microplastics will eventually probably become part of ecosystem. We need to adapt to it
I'm 63 years old and got to begin life just before the "great society" reached it's peak and began it's collapse (interesting how those 2 occurred simultaneously) and to what it's become now....never thought my final years would be something beyond Orwellian to say the least. Greed indeed does kill...the spirit or energy of existence is all that matters you fools who made this possible.
Sorry MIT you're 10 yrs off, try 2030
💯
Not only that, but we're acting like it's a loss. This was only a useful project if it didn't create a doomsday device, but it has. What we're holding onto IS the suicide pact. The net result of what we've been doing is suffering which means it isn't progress and instead, we're clinging to the source of our suffering like it's the only thing holding us together, while it tears us and the planet, apart. It's a collective Stockholm syndrome that justifies our continued participation in a way of life that PROMISES to kill the future, and a lack of courage that keeps us from leaving the burning wreckage of a demonstrably terrible idea... truthfully, I dont understand why our species hasn't simply changed course to devote our efforts to restoring the planet rather than continuing to destroy it and acting like we still have 10 years to make things worse and "live our lives". It's a bizarre reaction to a concrete reality
MIT is wrong but a random in the YT comments is right?
Yes! Emphatically yes !!@@eatonmahfeelins LOLs
2029
I love this optimism, I'd only given it another five years. I learned of the crisis in the seventies (Limits to growth), spent the eighties in energy conservation (went bankrupt), worked for a charity in the nineties pushing 'alternative (energy) technology' (CAT) and since then trying to run away, while getting old and sceptical. Conclusion, just be kind as you can.
Damn good answer.
I read limits to growth in the 70s. It changed my life. The idea has been vilified out of existence by the free market ideology
Does it Really Matter? All a Preset Anyway! oH? Did I Type that OutLoud?! 🌐
I didn't think we'd make it this long, but here we are. Maybe you know this podcast "Enviromental Coffeehouse", if not, check it out...🙋♂️
The seventies projections were way off. The world, excluding Africa, hit peak baby in about 1990, and even with Africa included, only about 138 mln babies are born per year on average, with that number not changing markedly in 40 years. Even if you had an average global lifespan of 80 and 138 mln born per year, you're only at about 11 bln people, but realistically since a greater proportion of that 138 is in Africa, which has a GDP of about 3.1 trillion, the rest of us face no threat to our food and water supply. The Americas are set - the population of North and South America is about a billion and will never be as high as China's or India's. The biggest threat to planetary stability would be climate change in India (which has a population density 3x that of China and 4x that of France) pushing out a wave of hundreds of millions of refugees. The way to mitigate that is greater overland transit capacity from China and Russia. ourworldindata.org/grapher/births-and-deaths-projected-to-2100
No it wont. Doomers always see the end of the world coming. Always
We were taught about futurology at UCLA. What we were taught was that at Stanford and other universities and elite think tanks there was bewilderment concerning every futurology computer program producing results predicting complete disaster. Target dates would come and go with no disasters occuring. Futurologists could not explain their failures to achieve accurate predictions. The computers always produced alarming predictions of doom that never occurred.
I mulled this over for some decades before I realized what the computer programming error is.
And the problem with the failed programs that predict disasters IS a programming error.
People can SEE the core problems like the computers and extrapolate, also. However where the computers fail but people succeed is that people set about with human CREATIVITY to solve the problems that pull society down.
The computer programmers DON'T factor in enough human CREATIVITY in problem solving.
It may well be that the computer forecasts actually are accurate. But if so, people's problem solving efforts avert the disasters. If the computer programmers factored in enough human creativity, computer social forecasts and real outcomes could more closely match.
I agree with you, but it looks like with every crisis, our adaptability is reducing, weakening, like a sick person left weaker after an infection getting sick again, and even weaker after that infection.
Good job bro. Yes the algorithm is broken. The conclusion is; stop relying on computer predictions that historically are false.
I've been trying to do my part by consuming less and minimalizing my life. I moved recently and ditched over half of my possessions, and am currently going through more of my things. Our society is too greedy and too obsessed with wealth and materialism, no one takes the time to enjoy life.
America and elsewhere must reject illusions of debt-based consumerism, an infinite world of pleasure with no foundation of morality, or see an end to current freedom and prosperity.
The demographic implosion might save a part of the world's population, as water shortages and, with that, food shortages are growing rapidly.
While I applaud you I must point out that just because you are consuming less doesn't mean manufacturing companies have taken you and others like you into consideration. The truth won't be told because corporations aren't in the truth business, they are in the profit business. And since the 60's or 70':s the corporations, who are by far the largest consumers of pretty much everything, and by far the worst polluters, have managed to convince people that's it's the individual that is to blame. I see first hand how much companies and corporations waste and in the last 20 months or so have made over 100k intercepting that waste before it hits the landfill. I'm not trying to tell you your labors are in vain and less things equal more time to spend with things that really matter, like friends and family. And the corporations will continue to consume every available resource to manufacture their products and what does not get sold will get written off as a tax deduction and sent off to the land fill and those deductions will add up to more than you and I will ever make in a 1000 lives and that waste will fill up more land fills than you and I could fill up in a 1000 lives and the pollution created to manufacture those goods that were sent off to the landfill will....you get the point. So, you see, it's not your fault but you have been given the blame and have accepted it also.
There is one product I do endorse that, in my opinion will improve your happiness and well being, the trash bag. Fill it up with all the stuff you don't want or need and donate it. That way it fill up someone else life with stuff they don't need and then they will maybe make the discovery you have made and they will go buy trash bags. And maybe this cycle will continue until years later when one of those things have become en vogue again, and someone will find one of those items you threw away years ago but is now worth a small fortune and they will sell that item and live quite comfortable off the profits.
Now tell the phaggz at the WEF to do likewise and watch them laugh
I can’t help but think the people complaining about “not enough population” are actually hoping for a steady supply of cheap labor.
Try not to think it’s not your forte
they are also worried about the end of a supply of underaged girls from poor families to places like epsteins island. underaged girls is literally the raison d'etre for a lot of the super rich. if they dont get their old nasty hands on those sub-18 girls they are like "whats the point?"
If I wanted cheap labor I would just open the borders and keep the people crossing labeled “noncitizens” so said crossers earn a small percentage of what the people labeled “citizens” earn.
@@seanu6840 so true lol.
Ya think? That’s all any of this is about. They don’t want Americans to have more kids bc those kids will grow into adults that don’t want to do slave labor. So they’d rather citizens have less kids and they’re happy to import the cheap labor they can exploit. And anyone who is against their agenda will simply be dismissed as a racist conspiracy theorist.
I am 72. I won debate in grade school, age 9. Topic: over population and the fact the earth has it's limits.
THE KEY UNDERLYING Driver of the "disruption of the ecological cycle" is - TOO MANY PEOPLE.. WE CAN'T "Tech" our way out of THAT...! : (
-70SomethingGuy
This is the first generation that faces worse conditions than previous ones. You just haven't noticed the beginning of collapse.
Those of us who are paying attention, are seeing it.
I think you might have to be dead not to notice.
@@billbo7630 But the video ignores it
Heard that exact same thing at the end of the 70's, yet here we are. Seems the same narratives are recycled every generation.
That’s funny. So many say that…then you tell them that the Bible predicted all…ALL of this happening, and all,of a sudden people respond ‘oh, well it’s always been like that….’ . The condition is real. It WOULD happen if God doesn’t step in (which the bible says that as well), but he says he made this planet to be inhabited forever, and that the meek would reside on it. You will not, EVER, get any real hope from ANY promise, ANY man makes. Everything we do, AT BEST, is a 1/4 measure, not even a half measure. Our arrogance and desire to be master over a domain, that we have no freaking idea how it ACTUALLY works, and why, has caused this. And the video ignores this because they actually think they’re gonna fix something that they broke, and don’t understand.
If history teaches us anything, it is simply this: every revolution carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. And empires that rise, will one day fall. -Princess Irulan, DUNE Frank Herbert
Every civilization carries the seeds of its own destruction, and the same cycle shows in them all. The Republic is born, flourishes, decays into plutocracy, and is captured by the shoemaker whom the mercenaries and millionaires make into a king. The people invent their oppressors, and the oppressors serve the function for which they are invented. - Mark Twain.
Civilization began with the agricultural revolution and exploded with the industrial. It is unsustainable.
It's never about "limited" resources. It's always about unlimited greed for power
MUAD’DIB
You are 100% correct. Each civilization sets itself up its own self-destruction. Modern society has told Mother Nature to go screw herself. If she can't conform to man's ways, she isn't worth saving. Sure, sure, sure. Now we will see how man handles Mother Nature's comeback, which will show little mercy for modern man's foolishness. Man has created a full crisis-mode culture fully bent on not changing its ways, but making nature conform to man's ways. Big, big, mistake.
Irulan was part of the problem. Remember she was in line to a throne, in line to inherit a big centralized empire. People like her can be smart in fiction, but they are dumb in reality. Just look at how easily her family was deposed by "inferior" people who are always smarter, more intelligent and more clever by design. Your intelligence is directly proportional to your capacity and willingness to live off your own capital. Irulan, lime every noble in history, lived off public money paid by herr family's vassals. She was a dumb tick like all politicians.
When violence is the language you speak, it is the tongue you will be spoken to in...
We are say 70-80% thru the now on-going mass extinction. Witness the 65% loss of trees, the 90% loss of birds, plankton, fish, insects, and worms which are the core element of a healthy soil, and on & on…
The fall has already started at this point the question is when does it hit rock bottom to the point where things literally can't get any worse and they start getting better because I think it's going to get way way way way way way way worse we're already in the fall though. Just haven't crashed on the rocks yet at the bottom. But its coming quickly
They mean to say, "They won't have enough people, on this planet, to exploit."; if the population is more, the humans can be treated like sheeps and if it is less, they can't be treated like sheeps.
The AI and robotics revolution doesn't 'need' more people. The "they" will have what they need increasingly without people needed to supply it.
Sheep's ?
@@nathanielacton3768 The AI is stupid, the robotics highly depends on cheap labor to be made from rare earth metals, and the maintenance requires highly specialized human operators which they lack greatly due to inefficiency of modern Capitalistic system where profit stands before versability
You will not be paid for your talents, you are paid to be loyal
@@FredrickWendroff-um2kn😂
We are and have been “sheep’s” since the dawn of money
This MIT “prediction” exemplifies the beauty of being an academic.You’re able to hypothesize on any subject and you pay no price for being wrong.
Gawddamm too true
Yes but who listens?
@@elasticharmony Sadly,hiding behind the imprimatur of the letters MIT,many people take these people seriously.The major contributors to these hypothetical scenarios are computer modeling and government grants that reward new and destructive sounding threats. Academicians are not paid to study great outcomes. There’s nothing that attracts more government funding, than scenarios that instill fear in the voters.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the public in fear ,thus clamoring to be led to safety,by menacing it with an endless stream of hobgoblins all of them imaginary” H L Mencken
That's why meteorology is the best profession.
@@lv4077 It does make sense to anticipate possible disasters in order to mobilize resources to prevent them. Refusing to change course when you're headed for a cliff is not a good idea.
I live simply, so that others can simply live. I have nothing fancy, I mean no thing. But I don't do without....I do within.
80 years ago my grandmother was scrapping chicken legs to eat, now I have everything I could ever have wanted. Give it 100 years and it'll go full circle as you cannot get exponential growth unless we find a new planet every few years.
This has a major Club of Rome/Limits To Growth/WEF vibe to it.
Good to see some people have their eyes wide open.
Some do .i keep my mouth shut about these subjects because socially they are poison.open dialogue with strangers on the internet about woe begotten subject matter is what Im here for though.Its like a game of Zork where information zergs right into your face.
So you're saying limitless growth is possible on a finite planet?
@@FuriousImp It's not but it's also important to specify what we mean by growth. It's then also important to clarify what's the best approach towards growth. It's then also important to clarify what areas do we need to grow at and which ones are unnecessary.
Point being that in a monetary based system, growth means first and foremost, well... monetary growth. Resources come second, as in that it's profit first and everything else comes after. If it's good for profit to over consume then we shall promote overconsumption. We'll use the power of advertising and marketing to achieve that.
Monetary efficiency and resource efficiency also don't always mean the same thing, planned obsolescence being a prime example of that. This also applies to the topic of sustainability.
The problem is that business as usual means profit >>>> all, and this is the model that world inevitably follows simply due to the system it's operating on... and a system reinstall wouldn't change anything. We need a new system.
@@sterix_ggso you read limits to growth and just decided for yourself "nah, that's bs"?
Im guessing you're older than 60. Am I right?
Water is what I worry about. The Colorado is drying up because we pump so much water out of it for agriculture and continued residential growth. We are going to pump the aquifers in California, Texas and the great plains dry. Where will the potable water come from?
Deseret rat
I’ve thought about that. Las Vegas wanted to do a pipeline north to an aquifer. Luckily the judge blocked it cause the water rights between Utah and Nevada wasn’t finished.
But Las Vegas did the same length could build a pipeline tk the ocean. You then could use a nuclear reactor and run a desalination plant and pump water to Las Vegas and Phoenix. It’d be expensive but cheaper than other options. That way those two states could sell water shares to Utah and Colorado so they could use more water rather then running a pipeline further.
But remember the dust bowl. That was made by a 89 year cycle. It’s been proven by counting tree rings. There’s studies on it. Anyways we’re soon to the same cycle that made the dust bowl. The dust bowl in Kansas had temperatures get to 115! Imagine that. Did you know in the Great Depression we basically had a huge drought?
The other thing in my view is we need way less people building in California or Las Vegas or Phoenix. Honestly like it’s the cities that seem to be the problem as rural or small towns tend to grow slowly cause they don’t have massive job growth. It’s the cities that need to be fixed not the most I think. Maybe there could be some incentive for people in LA or phoenix or Las Vegas to move east of the Mississippi. If people would leave the cities and go east where they have plenty of water that would solve that. But then it would destroy the environment back east as more cities are built.
Another issue is rivers being opened up. Damns are being destroyed in California which maybe good for salmon but that’s horrible for storing water or hydro power. Another river I read they send water down to save an extinct fish in the bay and took or limited farmers water. Many people speculate that they claim it’s to keep the salt Water at a certain percent in the bay. However it may be that sewers etc leak into the bay and human waste is causing more fresh water to flush out the bay. Facebook has some water groups and has some interesting charts and speculations as to why sometimes politicians seem to waste water or wants to change all their reservoirs etc.
Nestle's and Coca Cola will sell you the potable water you need, for a price. And instead of stock dividends, they might give share holders cases of water instead of money.
what I observe Distillation technology is getting cheaper. I don't know about the desalination technology but that will solve much of the worlds water problem.
And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them.
The folks in the multi family bunkers will eventually get low on supplies and start offing each other.
Yep these big CEOs and governments around the world are too blame and they're not going to quit until something stops them they want that money and power
Well, if you want to survive a collapse of civilization, money and power is a rational choice, right? You can't fault people for making rational choices when civilization is becoming irrational. It's not my plan but I understand it.
@@neilreynolds3858 Money isn't a rational choice when society collapses. Power? Sure, that's a given.
But money? If we used gold bars and the currency had some inherent value to it then sure I'd give you that one, but most of the world uses some sort of fiat currency which has no inherent value to themselves or even worse, just a number in a bank.
Who holds that value? Governments and institutions, and now, tell me, what governement or institution is going to be left standing after a major societal collapse happens? Absolutely none my friend. So, no, holding money isn't as rational as you'd think it is, sure it can get you power but it might be too late and the transfer rate of currency --> power/weapons/bunkers/etc. might be too high at the point when you actually start seeing the symptoms.
You don't realise they are the ones pushing for a one world order and removal of all your rights.
@@neilreynolds3858 Money is used to control us plebs
Ya, because all the average, self indulgent, obtuse masses have nothing to do with it. Rrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiggghhhttt….
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
-Albert Einstein, 1932.
"The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad."
Even the brightest people are often wrong.
So facts, as far as they are known, don't matter? Shall we stake the world on that?!
“Facts” can only operate within the bounds of our current understanding. Look at where we’ve come in the last 200 years of technological growth? “Facts” deduced now will quickly become obsolete as technology continues to outpace our ability to understand its ramifications.
Not to say everything will be fine, merely to say that no one has any idea what the world is going to look like in 100 years, so these doom and gloom posts based on what humanity is currently doing are coming from a point of technological ignorance.
This study was in 1970, just before the collapse of Bretton Woods. Along with the factors that MIT noted, some of which are now becoming evident, the post-Bretton Woods economic system always had a natural end point. Central Bank attempts to extend the current system, using excessive debt, means we a taking more & more future demand now. This shortens the timeline for eventual societal collapse. History shows us that the sort of currency degradation we've seen over the past 50 years, ends empires.
@@LucyKelly-of6cu Facts that were calculated more then 50 years ago with a pen and paper.
@@richardhastie1432 So far you're the only commenter that knows what's really going on here. There's a lot of nonsense about "glowball warmening" and "too many people" and "plastic" and "evil greedy capitalism." It's the politicization of monetary policy that is going to take down the world. And every nation on Earth is contributing to it to some degree. The American hegemony is built on it and those running it have become astonishingly arrogant and isolated from ordinary people. A day of reckoning is quickly coming but it won't really be good for us either.
Nikola Tesla in his famous work 'The Problem of Increasing Human Energy " essentially said there will always be conflict until the world is united under one central power. Pretty grim.
I really enjoyed this video, but I have a suggestion to improve your audio quality. There are a lot of plosives in your narration. Plosives are caused by blasts of expelled air hitting the mic's diaphragm and they're most audible when your facing forward and talking directly into the mic. To avoid this, turn your mic to a 45-degree angle when you're narrating. Hope it helps!
They didn't say that governments have to control everything they said that the focus has to become social wellbeing instead of material growth. It's common sense.
Unfortunately, human greed will never allow that
It's also been 50 years and we haven't changed a thing
and without rampant capitalism making millions of dollars how do you pay for all this welfare. I notice he didn't mention on that graph anything about peak welfare.
@@garethwilliams4467 Money is just a convention to get things done.
Which this species painfully lacks.
Each year is already worse than the year before. We are already in the process of collapse. There is no way out.
Not at all. We're just infinitely more aware of global events than at any other time in history. Looking to the left of this comment section, I see youtube has recommended a video of a story of a guy that killed 2 people in Haiti 3 days ago. We're not coming to an end, although the end might come tomorrow. In any case, everyone watching this video is going to end at some time between now, and about 80 or so years. Is that a catastrophe? Depends on the way you look at it.
Optimism and hope, can propel us to adaptive and novel societies .
Right on!
@darrinheaton2614 they missed the part about spraying the sky's Chem trails , they are spraying more and more. Tell us why
Agreed.
The good news is that I don't have to worry about retirement anymore
We'll never run out of oil. Every oil well that's ever been drilled and closed, is still half full of oil. We don't pump oil from those wells because it's too costly. But when we create a system that allows us to pump it out efficiently, we'll go back and retrieve the rest of the oil from those wells
We will still run out at some point, it takes several million years and huge amounts of pressure to create oil.
@@krashd Human's are pretty crafty, I don't see why it can't be synthesized at some point.
For as useful as plastics are, we need to cut down on disposables and only use it for necessary things. Time to go back to growing food in a garden. I know people that have a break down when the internet goes down for an hour. I know people who don't know how to get hot water if it doesn't come from the tap. If the electricity goes out for any real length of time, most people are screwed.
Even if they have electricity! Some of my friends on FB did not know how to prepare food and were facing issues by not being able to purchase pre-made consumables at the market. Seriously! couldn't even make one meal! :/
I'm 35 and sae this coming around 2005. When I was like 16. Literally everything I've been telling ppl for over a decade is all happening right now
So if your not preparing you need to be
No amount of preparation will save you or anyone else.
@EmeraldView I'm not worried. Unless I die in a nuke or from poison or radiation I can hunt and grow my own food. Make my own medicine. So unless I go in the initial whatever. I'll be ok
Prepare for what exactly?
I dont understand how anyone can prepare. What are you preparing for? You're imagining a future that isn't supported by current ecological trends.
Unless the goal is to be the last person on an earth so hostile you can't leave your bunker, species level action in the direction of restoring life and not taking resources is the only direction that nudges humanity away from extinction.
Or be a prisoner in your little bunker until it gets cooked by cascading reactor failure.
I was like you. I had a whole community of supplies prepared because, as you know, you can't do much without a tribe. But then I saw extinction up close and realized there's no human structure that can save us from what's coming. It's not just a new climate, but an exponentially more alien one.
We didn't stop when we needed to, now there's no "after"
Will th stock market still exist at that time is the question.Compound interest make the rich richer.And the dark side of compound interest makes the poor poorer.So one the stock market cease to exist then something terrible and new will the order of the world.
It's a relief to know that, if one had been born before 1965, one hardly needs to worry about a 50 year old prediction of THE END in 2040. Last time I'd heard, life underground or as scattered ashes is going to be very quiet & peaceful. So 2040 for us would be a NO WORRY non-event in any case. Thanks! What a relief! I'm definitely not going to hoard toilet paper.
Since the KPMG study 25 years ago, the world economy has continued to hue closely to the LoG/MIT "Business As Usual 2" scenario. The world has chosen to follow that path, and as Dennis Meadows says "we can no longer avoid what is coming".
It’s going to collapse sooner than expected
it will because the producers are not breeding but the less resourceful darker humans are multiplying exponentially. So it wont end well. I go along with Issac Newtons prediction of a 2060 timeline for the Societal collapse and population crash or end of days. Him spenf more time studying the Book of od Rebelation than what he is famous for
Just like my game of Jenga when i am drunk!
Maybe before Christmas!?
3 years
Agreed
You can't have uncontrolled growth, something has got to give.
In addition to this, there are other non quantitative factors that come into play, such as breakdown of the society , racial problems, war, lack of personal responsibility , breakdown of social cohesion that will speed up the collapse of industrial civilization.
You have to have uncontrolled growth as long as you have uncontrolled population growth and people who want to improve their lives. Most of the controlled proposals I've seen guarantee that the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer but they try to cover that part up.
It gets complicated, but the end result is the same, the end of idiot man as he presently is.
@@neilreynolds3858 This makes no sense at all. The point being resources are finite. Perhaps each generation can extract more benefit, but uncontrolled population growth? Forever?
What do you mean about uncontrolled growth? We know that the global population will max out reasonably soon and start declining, but it won't just collapse.
The world is the most peaceful it's ever been. It's not great, but there were constant wars before, way more than now. We just didn't have the technology to communicate that.
Racism is bad and it names the occasional resurgence, especially white supremacy lately. That said, even most racists would disagree with the idea of slavery; something they would support just a century or two ago.
Cancer - dictionary definition: malignant tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically by metastasis. b.
I studied various things anout 15 years ago. I concluded it would start in 2020 and end in 2050 but i had a date of 2040 i couldnt see thr meaning in. 2025 will be a year of energy issues with an oil shock in saudi arabia.
Go away and look up your governments long term plans for housing, motorways, food etc. they all end 2040 or 2050 no matter when the plan started.
I add that I worked as a disaster recovery manager and change manager for some global companies Inc oil.
Well, the way the planet is going: it looks like Business As Usual V1 is the ‘orderoftheday.’ Ain’t no one slowing down much or adopting any economic models to curb consumption. Yep, here we are
The water is warm and getting hotter , we are the frog
Nice analogy but, in biological reality, the frog jumps out of the water when it becomes uncomfortable. Humans, on the other hand, ain't that bright.
At least >this< frog is swimming in milk. 😂
😱
@@johnmachinmegavegan8378 Actually we had been trying to jump out of the boiling water for quite a few time, but then they just put the lid over the pot and start stirring the water around to make it seems like not a good time to jump out.
Damn nice one
Your fawning over Elon Musk spoiled this for me. That last thing we need is more narcissistic, cruel billionaires.
This is what made me realize how much a joke this dude is. Somehow he believes in Elon and Jordan Peterson know more than MIT researchers, and it's mostly because their doomsday prediction still allows him to keep the same value system that's causing these issues. He doesn't like the MIT prediction because it invalidates his values and it forces him to change it, which he doesn't want to do, so he has to do everything he can to rationalize how MIT is wrong and Elon is right. Now he can artificially have his cake and eat it too, but it's a false positive.
Vision
You’re highly ignorant! You’re saying the show being against MIT showed he’s simply going with his value system.
Like read a book or google. MIT made similar predictions In the 1970s that by 2000 or whatever society would COLLAPSE! Like MIT did a model 50 years ago saying society would collapse already!!!
Fr57
Elon isn’t a cruel billionaire. What’s cruel is the fact we live in a society with a private central bank that pays a 6% dividend and then ya got democrats etc think oh the government is there to save them.
The fiat dollar enslaved you and everyone else letting the government and banks and big business steal your purchasing power. But when democrats are in control they spend like drunken sailers like republicans. The government created these billionaires today really by the massive credit or currency creation they did. Obama the democrat bailed out Elon musk remember!
@@koltoncrane3099 I don't think that means Elon Musk or Jordan Peterson know more about the subject than people who are paid to research the subject. Sorry, I don't care.
It takes a special person to become a billionaire.
Psychopaths get it.
Like...
The experts also predicted we would be a paperless society by 1995.
Experts also predicted global collapse on 12/31/1999 - 2000.
Mining company BHP and oil company Shell have their forecasts regarding resources. It is worth looking at that as well
I think we’re the frog in the pot of water. Things are worsening so gradually that we don’t notice it day to day…. but when you look back 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, you start to realize how far quality of life has fallen, and how frayed civilization has become. So we remain content in the proverbial pot of warming water, oblivious to just how unbearable it will become.
At a helicopter view, it isn't that bad. Today, sure. Last year. yep. Overall? I don't know about that.
The info is out there. I couldn't breathe during the Canadian wildfires. Lungs hurt and that smoke blocked out everything. People know what is coming, but mostly feel powerless to stop it. We might have if we worked at it during the 1980s, but too many people were greedy and didn't care. So now civilization has to collapse. 8 billion, 10 billion, or whatever was never sustainable all of those individuals all wanting more. 20 years give or take, that is the time remaining. The next decade will be tough, the 10 after that will be nightmarish. Enjoy your food and comfort now, it is all going away. Humanity turned into a swarm of locusts.
Just to defend frogs, they’re not that dumb. They will hop out of a pot when the water gets too hot.
Exactly… PFAS in the water in every town, extreme droughts and floods, air pollution, pandemic, and too many people using up resources…
you might go back to say india a hundred years ago and see if you think it is better
17 years is OPTIMISTIC
It is nice to pretend we'll be here 17 years from now😢 94 million barrels of oil used every day tells us different
@@billyjoesmo8251 we’ll be here in 17 years, bro. lol
@@AyjayAlleyway that's the way to be keep the faith👍 the alternative is sad and depressing and useless to know
@@AyjayAlleywayI won’t be, hopefully. Had a great life and continue to do so everyday for as long as my ailing body cooperates.
Isaac Newton - 2060
I trust him
There isnt much thats civilized about what we have now
when you have places like india china and Africa with billions of people what you expect
@@didforlove yep
In my opinion this has all ready happened. Thousands of years ago when we hunted to extinction all the mega fauna. And it might have happened small scale on Island too.
Population collapse due to low birth rates in the next few decades is a mathematical fact. But that's just one piece to the puzzle
It will happen at different speeds in different parts of the world, so it will not be a collapse, just a decline. Luckily, the rich world is generally the part with the lowest birthrates, so we can import people if we need them.
@@blueodum Import the third world, become the third world.
Considering there's WAY too many people to be sustainable, that should be a good thing.
@@HamptonGuitars Unfortunately not. The less people that are born each year, the less people there are to solve the problem. Less people means not enough people to do the work that it takes to keep feeding humanity. As the population begins to decline, it will compound and decline even more rapidly. It is predicted that by 2100, 75% of todays population will cease to exist. 6 Billion people are going to vanish in the next 75 years through lower birth rates and starvation.
@@rlcernick Feeding humanity does not require hand-men anymore. It is machinized. You don't need more hungry people to produce food as it would be a ponzi scheme and you know the end of those.
In the 1970s MIT said we would be out of oil before 1990..
They are not all knowing, advance in technology made digging deeper in highly hostile areas possible, and shale oil is profitable now
🏆! I once did the mistake of asking a much younger person who MTI was, I got no response, they walked away! 😮
Did they really say that? Do you have a source? I thought the 70s oil crisis was more about availability (turmoil in the Middle East) than about quantity...
They also said in the 1970s we were heading to a global ice age. Made entire documentaries on TV about it. Then less than 20 years later, everything was global warming! The O-Zone! We're gonna die! And then it was we only have until 2012 to stop climate change. Oh nevermind, 2020. Oh wait, now it's 2040. Hmm, did I just hear a boy crying wolf somewhere?
what's yer point, spell it out for us :)
I can tell you one thing these ads are going to be the end of the world and if watching ads, burns the world down i will be ok with it. As long as the ads are gone
Wonderful. 1 year after my hopeful retirement year. But with the way things are today I’ll be working until I die in my office chair.
I was told that as a 16 year old, some 50 years ago, and I am still here.
That's the amazing thing.
People has always thought that they live near the end of days. Just look att the book of revelation.
The children of the silent generation, the boomers, are the people holding back meaningful change in the direction of stabilizing the planet.
I cant tell if it's out of pride that you can't admit this was all the wrong way to do it, or out of an obsession with the heroism of your parents and a blindness to any critique of what came out of the war.
Either way, that's some really specious reasoning. If I throw you a grenade that's supposed to blow up in 5 seconds, and those 5 seconds pass, will you go and pick it up, assuming it's actually fake?
You're betting in the wrong direction against risk. When insurance companies and scientists agree that something bad is coming because of how we're living, you'd hope to have something better than "hasn't happened yet" as proof that they're wrong.
If a smoke detector goes off and so does your CO detector, do you check where they're made and suggest it's a hoax because they're made in China, or do you leave the house?
You're currently betting the future of all life that your detectors are all faulty, despite going off at the same time and even smelling smoke in the air.
For a generation of gamblers, you really don't understand risk management
@@wittiza2102Book of revelation is now, dummie
@@wittiza2102 they live near the end of _their_ days...
Robert Heinlein said "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." The survival of society would take a shift from blinkered selfishness (stupid) to enlightened self-interest (intelligent). There is no way that could possibly happen, unfortunately.
It would take a quantum shift or leap happening right now to change the situation. Us humans are so set in their ways that a change of that magnitude is not on the cards as you say.
I remember this and know some of the people. They totally failed to understand that we would become millions of times more efficient. The phone in your hands is a billion times more powerful than the computers of their times yet use billions of times less power. Similarly cars, refrigerators, cookers have become more efficient.
"as we know it" is the operative phrase. Everything changes.
From what I have seen of most people, I simply cannot see having a decrease in population being a particularly bad thing.
If u want to live under the rule of the ppl reproducing the most than yah ok.
@@HeywoodJablowme58 Unfortunately that’s how it works.
This is a weirdly common sentiment. Do you think that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other forms of social safety nets are good. If you do, you shouldn't want population decrease. Societies need working age people to fund those programs.
@@paulwheeldreyer7127 Yes. Population decrease means more older people who can’t work, and less younger people who can work. That’s why China dropped its one child per family policy. The UK is responding by raising their retirement age, but long term that isn’t going to work, especially with the strain that’s already apparent on the health system.
As long as it's poor brown people?
It is not the date that is important, it is the trajectory & acceleration of the rate of change. Does it matter, other than selfish reasons, if civilization crash in 20 years or 100? We should do our best to leave a future for humanity & other beautiful sentient beings, they're all innocent.
Tell that to the excelerationists an rich who believe the fourth turning us unavoidable
They plan on crashing it as soon as they start building it. The building phase involves labor currency and property. The destructive phase takes all the chips off the table that were given value and takes all the land and art.
The date is important if you declared it was year 0 last, and there is a real good chance we just don’t know who is in charge… but they seem to be Rome.
Direction is more important than speed
@@chrisbova9686 not clear which comment you are responding to.
Perfect. Just in time for my retirement.
i feel like i am missing something, if there are no people, food is plentiful. it's like the concern is that if there are no people, you can't go to the store and get stuff. if there are no people, there is an abundance of free land. if there is land, you don't really need anything. people don't die on free land.
By 2040, as a result of overfishing, there will not be enough seafood to harvest to provide the protein source that 70% of the world's population depends on. Humanity will be faced with the worst health crisis we have ever experienced. In 2040, the arctic ice shelf will be completely melted away during the summer months. Ships will be able to sail over the North Pole.
I don’t care for seafood
@@whit6444 You dont care about seafood? You? Oh, guess its ok then, false alarm guys, this guy doesnt like calamri, we are good.
I know it's crazy to think, but humans adapt. No fish? Eat something else. More water? Okay. We're still at the tail end of an ice age. You'd complain if we were going into an ice age. "Oh, now, we can't sail north, the waters are lowering." _"Prepare for doom so I can be happy with my pessimism!"_ 🤷♂
@@grondhero Are you familiar with basic math? Do you know how much is 70% out of 8 billion? That many people are dependent on seafood. There was hunger in Africa when 1 European country couldnt export wheet due to war. What do you think happens when suddenly you cant feed 5.5 billion people?
@@procerusgigas I'm familiar with people exaggerating their points as facts and not thinking with common sense. For example: *_"According to the United Nations, seafood provides essential nutrition to over three billion people worldwide."_* You're over two billion off.
So, are you a *LIAR* or are you *MISINFORMED* and/or are you purposely giving *DISINFORMATION?* (Let me guess, you saw the OP state 70% and you assumed he was 100% accurate because you agree with him and didn't research anything.)
Now, let's see if you're familiar with common sense. Did you stop for one minute to think _how long it would take_ for all the fish to be wiped out? Would they disappear in one day or over the course of a century (or two)? If you think "one day," then you're a moron. If you think "over time," then congratulations, but you still need to use common sense.
What happens if you eat apples every day, but suddenly your local grocery store stops supplying them? You have two options: go elsewhere to _another_ grocery store _OR_ eat something else instead of apples.
For every person that eats something else, another goes to another store. Now, after a while, the other stores in the same city all stop selling apples. Half the people who were eating apples _pay more_ to get the apples from another city (whether by driving or having them shipped) while half the people eat something else. And with a shortage the apple prices start going up. Eventually, the state bans apple sales. Half the people pay more money for apples to be shipped to them while the other half eat something else.
Eventually, the continent runs out of apples. You can either pay exorbitant amount of money to get those apples, or you can eat something else. In theory, the planet runs out of apples. The vast majority have been eating something else, while the minute minority has to learn to adapt.
The difference is, unlike apples, if fishing gets banned (meaning no one is allowed to catch or eat fish), then the fish populations will bloom like they have always done in the past. And unlike apples, fish are mobile, meaning they can make their way to a place they haven't been before (as fish species have been known to do) repopulate and then get fished again.
most humans are wired for improving themselves but not for uncontrolled growth fuelled by greed. this mindset comes from the minority which have propagated well into the modern day society by no other than the capitalism system that rewards the ambitious.
They'll be making videos like this about 2060 in 2040. It's all fear, uncertainty, and doubt. People love a good video to freak the living daylights out of them.
This makes no sense, how can there be "not enough people"? Who defines "enough people" for this world? The real issue is having a sustainable balance between population and resources.
Important: MUSK is not an innovator. He is an investor in tech who got lucky. Now he thinks he knows what is good for the rest of us - how much speech, who can say what, he wants to control the wavelengths or rather the internets, like this You tube here.
So a potential decline in celebrities sounds like a bonus.
Indeed! I think his Asperger's is really kicking in!🤔 Seems he managed it well for a couple of decades, but old age is catching up with him.
Elon is trying to bring back free speech to Twitter and TH-cam that liberals are taking away from us. You sound like liberals.
@@bigjohnson7415 Amazing how he want from shining to shit once he wised up and dumped the lefty bullshit.
@@robertlee6949 Amazing how the Reichwing LOVES Musk now, even though he's mostly responsible for developing the entire EV ecosystem and markets in the US. And we KNOW how much y'all loves ya some Electric Cars, don't we? No, what Muskie loves is his Tax Cuts, not anything to do with any other Rightwing policies. Simple as that.
@@robertlee6949 nah, Musk was always a conman. Just took people some time to realize.
Sadly, you could simply observe that the planet is a closed system... thermodynamics... game over.
Asteroid mining or mining on the moon, could add to the pool of some resources.
Our planet is NOT a closed system. Remember something not of the Earth, but without which, our planet would be dark and dead. Big and bright? There's a season named after it? Still not? OK, the great Egyptian god? Gold-color, very hot.
@@kb-xp1zu you best review your concepts and definitions, goofball.
@@kb-xp1zu A closed system does not interact with external systems. It only allows in energy, but not the transfer of matter. Within the atmosphere, these systems do not interact with the universe.
You're are unschooled and ignorant, thus confuse closed and isolated systems.
@@LioComichi The geomagnetic storms produced on Earth by solar flares on the Sun disprove your hypothesis that the Earth is a closed system.
Is there a way to speed it up? Just asking. And as for the "Doomsday Preppers": You can bury yourself in a hole and horde supplies, but you will run out of them sometime. What will they do with all that toilet paper when your food is already gone? Hydroponics? Underground farming? All that will slowly decay to being unsustainable. Then they die anyway. How about trying to solve the problem instead of figuring out how to live a few months/years longer? Fear of death should move us to action but the fear of losing money is greater with some.
Do not let technical engineers handle your social engineering. Last time we tried that we got a certain German fellow that we're not allowed to mention in YT comments.
one of the reasons no one wants kids is because they can't spend time as a family with kids.
ppl wanted large families before as they spent time with their children, cooking, cleaning, farming, working etc.
that familial bond fathers and mothers loved having children.
nowadays, parents are stuck in an office prison and children are stuck in a school prison and they never socialise with each other.
the result is ppl no longer want kids. as they'd rather socialise with their friends or on Internet. As kids aren't around parents enough for them to enjoy their company.
Don't forget about the amount of people who would be unfit parents. Endocrine disruptors in the environment are making it harder to "have kids" anyhow...
The superrich have clawed back all the gains made by the middle class in post WW2 and now have the nerve to tell overworked apartment renters that they are selfish for not having kids? Clearly they need to pay more taxes
They also don't want to bring children into a dying world.
@@reubenmorris487 Those endocrine disruptors don't exist here in Africa. All the 21 year-old girls I meet have kids already. I am genuinely concerned by the young men who would like to marry. The only option now is to accept to be a step dad. In my time (I am 40 now), we used to complain if you married a girl and found out she wasn't a virgin.
There’s the cost of raising children when the prices are escalating while wages are stagnant: just look at the exponentially increasing cost of a college education and that of buying a house.
They’ve made sure that nobody can afford to have kids anymore.
Unless you're a minority.
Complete nonsense. The poorest people on the planet have most kids.
@@PaddyPatrone That's changing. If there's one societal positive of smartphones, it's that even in the poorest countries people can get information. The UN used to predict that global population would peak in the 2080s and then gradually decline, but indications are that it will peak in the 2060s because of changing patterns, especially in low-income countries.
Can anyone remember comments from 10 years ago regarding any discussion of possibilities of collapse? It gives me chills to recognize how much we've all become closer to realizing that life is not only about living with only happy days, forever and ever.
This is why we should be constructing Knowledge Arks to preserve our culture and learning so the descendants of the survivors won't have to re-invent a lot of things but benefit from what we have discovered - as well as keep alive our literature, music, etc.
265 years. Had your fill while it lasted, but nothing is forever.
Look how young people are already more involved with internet than they are with each other ! Scary times
@moonwater5116 touché ...😂
They are interacting with each other on the internet. And I can see why they choose to interact that way. I'm a progressive living in a very conservative area. Interacting with my fellow townspeople can be very confrontational. Apparently, I don't have the right to support progressive policies in rural America. If not for the internet, I would feel rather lonely in my political views
Part of the young people and their internet consumption is because their seniors have blown the lid off of the sanity of living in harmony with planet earth. Their seniors, of which I am a 79-year-old member, swore to conquer nature and make nature bend to man's ways. Big mistake. Now both humanity and Mother Earth are paying the price. Do I blame the younger generation for their attitude? Hell no! Their attitude is a response to the hell hole they have been left with that is now on full-life artificial sustainment with man-made systems, all of which are about to collapse or go completely into crisis mode. I actually feel sorry for the younger generations. They are all but screwed.
Hey, Moonwater, I think you better reread my comments. My statement is that we of the older generations have screwed the younger generations royally. They, and perhaps you, are going to have to pick up the crumbs we have left them. The younger generations are going to have to dump "free-market capitalism" for an environmentally friendly and man-friendly green and sustainable capitalism based upon need that is friendly to planet earth first, and then man. All I can follow up with is "good luck."@moonwater5116
Peoples Internet habits are definitely unhealthy, but that has nothing to do with the collapse of civilization. lol.
That’s right. The choice is stark, either we look after everyone, or we look after no one and humanity will be devastated.
that sounds like the mantra of those that can't rise to the top through competition. Now tell me any society in nature that thrives and doesn't embrace competition.
There is only so much fresh water on this earth, there is only so much dirt and land.
We need checks and balances
"Control of the wavelengths in radio". This MIT video is so revealing and telling. Orwelian. Thanks.
The 4th theory/model will never happen.There will be a collapse.
You can feel it coming.
*IM AN AUTHOR* on psychology and the collapse of civilisations - yeah 17 years is reasonable. Id have said 25 years. But make no mistake - it WILL happen.
The age of abundance and availability is over, and living standards across the world are falling and will continue to fall.
These people also predicted the Millenium Bug would strike and end our way of life.