We’re Looking at Shrinking Communities, We’re Looking at Societal Collapse: Stephen J Shaw
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ค. 2024
- NTD’s Lee Hall sits down with data expert and documentary maker Stephen J Shaw to discuss population collapse, why birth rates are plummeting and what we can do about it.
House to expensive for new family . Old rich people have 4 home As an investment. Increase house prices
The rich d3stroid society and now want us to breed more slaves in order to keep their priviledges.
Many young people are lazy and won't work for a rent to put head over family head. My mom owns a company and we are seing many unmotivated lazy employees. People need to have some attitude changes
@@Always1happy In earlier times . The average human life expectancy is 40 years. Your mother should be gone and have left her property to you. So the majority of wealth always resides in the younger generation
@@Always1happy old rich people destroy Yong poor people future th-cam.com/video/qEJ4hkpQW8E/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Optp3S8VxQZOFyIi
@@Always1happy
Old rich people destroy poor Yong people future
th-cam.com/video/qEJ4hkpQW8E/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Optp3S8VxQZOFyIi
It’s funny how he avoided the question about the economy. It’s too damn expensive to have children and getting a career is a necessary for most high-paying jobs.
Capitalism is the reason why people don’t want as much children and are starting parenthood later on.
You re totally right!
The former Soviet Union, contemporary China, and even Nazi Germany all suffered massive fertility problems, this is not a problem created by capitalism or solved by socialism.
@@robertmartin6800 I would advocate for something completely different- like a money-less society but that would take an essay to dive into.
How would one justify the homeless when there are more homes vacant, and the rich having multiple mansions?
It’s just greed, plain and simple, and massive ignorance about the vast income inequality we have.
We shouldn’t just continue breeding to make slaves for the elite
Actually poor people have more children. We are low income and on baby #9. We grew up poor so we are used to not having much. Our children have more and are better off than we were. It's the more well off that are not used to going without so they won't downgrade their lifestyle to have kids.
@@inthisseason it’s true, the very poor are the ones having the most kids. But IMO it’s not a good thing.
I wouldn’t bring children into poverty to just grow up to be slaves of the elite.
It’s very hard to put one kid through college, imagine many.
My antinatalism is focused on the abject misery that my life has been and not wanting to pass any chance of such experiences onto any potential children. As a wise man once said, "life is suffering". And Agent Smith had a point too, sadly. I wish it weren't so.
Why are you still here if it so bad?
@@jackpotbear4559probably because it is hard to fight ones own survival instincts.
I often joke about how popular it would be if Futurama telephone booths existed.
I don’t know your life and I’m sorry if it’s filled with suffering. All I can say is joy is found in others not the self. Is denying autonomy and existence to others because you believe you know best for them fair? You’re not just making the decision for children but also for when they are adults. I understand your immediate experience should be the significant factor in having kids. But the potential person should be considered in the decision.
Jesus is ALIVE and coming soon!
@@jackpotbear4559Are you really questioning why person has NOT attempted suicide? Because that's what I infer from your comment. That's callous.
There's many reasons for collapsing birthrates, most of which are tied to the misdeeds of the greedy and power-hungry.
Why rip the non consenting out of perfect nonexistence so that they can be a plaything fir the rich?
@@skylinefeverwait are you an anti natalist?
@@nah131 I opt out of having children, and I have no problem when others opt out.
I say people should choose to have kids if they can afford them and make life good.
@@skylinefeverI am too an anti natalist, sure is I don't want my unborn children to be suffered, life is a gamble where the system is rigged.
@@skylinefever good life? what constitutes a good life? anybody that thinks modern people don't live good lives are never going to be satisfied. The poor in nations with infertility crisis live better lives than the rich a century ago. the average poor person world wide live more stable lives than most rich 2 centuries ago. things materially continually get better. and yet we have this stupid movement that thinks the opposite is true.
Its quite clear that material wealth isn't the issue, and since anyone can provide a loving environment (as that is 100% up to personal choice) everyone can provide a good life.
When the birds can’t afford a nest they won’t lay their eggs simple is that 😂😂😂
Women in Afghanistan are having 6-7 kids each, making 20x less money, living in dirt huts. It's not an economic issue.
@@Morphine242
Yes, because it is the only way to secure your future in those countries. Having a large family is priority for them. However in developed countries there are other ways to secure your future and live easier without children.
That's right! That's me right there! I knew this at age 10 when I spied an encyclopedia entry about the population explosion expected around the year 2000 (from the 1970s perspective), I looked at how young girls older than me were walking from home to store with a baby stroller rather than DRIVING to the store and back, and especially when I saw how Dad was destroyed by divorce - he got custody of me, but was left destitute except for an old International Harvester Scout 80, a travel trailer, and $30 borrowed money in 1974 when we showed up in south Texas, to start all over again. F no. F all y'all if you expect me to subject a child to even a hint of a possibility of repeating what my parents (AND I) went through. I cut the family line of misery right then and there. I was not going to subject a child to the things I suffered. And I was NOT going to make promises to a child that I wouldn't be able to keep anyway.
I never married, never had children. I wouldn't have been able to ANYWAY because I am profoundly deaf all my life and grew up under my non-Christian father, who gave me the ability to look at things with a different eye and eventually find my own path. My parents passed from old age 25 years ago. It was a hard life of working retail and office work, and not being able to rise in any company. I have seen a LOT of "passovers," meaning seeing people getting hired 2-3 years behind me and yet promoted to a job that I wanted within a year or two and becoming MY supervisor.
I ended up fleeing the US almost 6 years ago to save myself financially after 5 years of odd jobs and 3 emergency eye surgeries to keep from going blind in one eye. After I fled, I paid off all debt within 9 months and started rebuilding my life, however fragile it is. It's better than working retail somewhere and being emailed, "Don't come in. Our stores are closed nationwide. We will inform you more as soon as we get information" in early 2020. What would I have done without a job? As a part-timer, would I have qualified for unemployment? How much? Would it have been enough, particularly if I got sick with the particularly nasty bioweapon that was killing Americans by the thousands every single month? America has had the highest death toll of any country to date of this thing. How would I have paid for the bills imposed by the Medical Mob?
And now look at today, where AI is being used to take away the jobs I used to do. There's no discussion by the US gov't regarding mass job retraining for the next 20 years, nor is there any discussion about UBI for AI-affected people. Read through the latest budget released by our gov't stolen by demons voted into office. There's nothing there to help us, but there's certainly plenty of money for Ukraine and everyone else BUT us.
See, every time I had sex, I was always protected, and when we forgot about protection beforehand, I would always have this foreboding feeling that would pull and hold me back. "Don't do it, don't do it..." It felt like being at the edge of a cliff. I would always insist on protection before going any further.
@@Morphine242 Bro Afghanistan 🇦🇫 is ruled under Taliban it’s complete sharia law where women has no right than to stay at home and breed basically sexism is there and Afghanistan 🇦🇫 is in a worst humanitarian crisis situation than ever before it is an economic factor
@@Morphine242How many of those kids are wanted, treated well, and raised right?
What good is a birth rate of broken people?
I often joke "If the Idiocracy did not shit out brats, what's the loss?"
I would like for this man to look at women who delayed careers in America to have children then got divorced and left by the father of their children, and see where they are in life. These are youtubers. Population decline started when stability was no longer an option. If you are not stable for 30 years to raise a child and see them into the workforce and working then, the risk of having children is extremely high.
He also needs to look at how many women sperm jacked some random guy to desperately get pregnant, then played the victim crying single mother on social media...
This worldwide problem has been caused by five intersecting problems. (1) The Industrial Revolution (2) man, children and family hating Feminism (3) A family court system that punishes men and rewards women, who are well capable of looking after themselves and don't need financial support from an ex-husband to survive (4) Legalised abortion. Millions of babies have been murdered each year since it became law that it is okay to do so (5) The falling away from Christianity coupled with decline in morality and family values. We simply hate God and His commandments.
This has no doubt occurred, but the reality is that this is a minority of divorces and have always been a minority. Women are the ones that have traditionally initiated divorce proceedings.
Women initiate almost 80% of the divorces, go look it up.
70-90% of the time it’s not deadbeat men. The remaining percent that can be blamed on legitimately bad and deadbeat men, are often deadbeat before the child, often badboys, and there are plenty of signs/redflags
Don’t blame us innocent and good men. We don’t blame innocent and good women. We love them. Adore them. Appreciate them. Respect them
Can you women do the same?
It's not the number of people on earth that's important, it's the quality and intelligence. There is a much worse collapse in that but they don't measure it.
Harvey Danger has been around the world and only stupid people are breeding.
Because dumb people have kids
WW1, WW2, threats of WW3, Vietnam, Boer War, Irish civil war. We’ve got the message.
Also just to note the highest birth rates in Hungary are of regions with significant Romani population. Those that are of with little Romani/gipsy inhabitants have very low fertility.
THIS
Birth rates aren’t plummeting because of “antinatalist”. They are plummeting because governments and companies have made it impossible to be a human woman with a life and a job of your own AND a mother.
Exactly so.
and yet Israeli women are able to have well above replacement level birth rates, female participation in the workforce is higher than male participation in Israel.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 If female participation in the workforce is higher than male participation, perhaps some of the men are doing their fair share of the child care.
@@chriswatson1698 I don’t think that’s it. Judaism is fairly pronatal. I feel like western culture began denigrating motherhood. So it’s no surprise the birth rate has fallen in response to that.
@@rathelmmc3194 Western culture has never counted the labour of mothers as having the same value, and of being as deserving, as the labour of men. I doubt that other cultures ever have either.
"Might is right" has been the basis of social organization since humans began.
What is the optimum birth rate? Also, should the population carry on increasing until there is one person for every square metre of land? What would life be like when the population of the world reaches 20 billion? Or 30 billion? Does exponential human population growth have to stop somewhere or can it carry on infinitely?
Allegedly we are in nothing more than a digital matrix of frequencies so there's an infinite amount of "entities" we can sustain.
@@bribri1657 thats just bs
If we reach 1.7-1.9 that would still mean decline but slow enough to maintain retirment and healthcare system. Anything Below that will be nightmare long term.
I think it's South Korea that has fertility rate like 0.8. Imagine what will happen next 30 years, when current working class will retire and new geberation will be less than half... I imagine they will up retirment age to 70 or Higher....
2.1 births per woman is the replacement level for developed countries, ie no growth but not decline. the global average replacement level is 2.3. the current global average fertility rate is 2.2, and most nations are well below their development level replacement rate, ie the world population is going to shrink, some countries already have (china for example), and some would have if they didn't import immigrants.
if you are fearmongering about population growth you have nothing to fear from replacement level birth rates. which we don't have. and thats ignoring there is plenty of space left to grow. just with 2005 level distribution methods as is (ie the hodgepodge of different development levels) the world can support 11.4 billion people, and if we upgraded all farms to modern production levels and all distrubition levels it could support well over 150 billion without expansion into wilderness (and 282 billion with expansion into wildernesses like forests), and thats before we account for future advances.
If you want more space per person then you want a near replacement level birth rate to avoid social institutions collapsing or radical issues resulting from an overburdened work force supporting too large a population of the old. that is once again going to be dependant on development level but you don't really want it less than 1.8.
2.1 IS REPLACEMENT RATE, AMERICA IS NOW 1.6 PER WOMEN NOT ENOUGH FOR THE ECONOMY
I would not have been surprised to See Mr Hall reading a newspaper while Mr Shaw was answerimg the questions.
Thank you, TH-cam algorithm. I love every opportunity to see Stephen J. Shaw preach, again and again, with indubitable intelligence, even brilliance - and make no difference whatsoever.
I think it could be a combination of Endometriosis, low sperm count - widespread Pthalates in the environment. Higher education funding. Social media replacing real relationships (huge birth rate dip during lockdowns). No reasonably priced accommodation for under 30's graduates in the UK.
Yes, plus limited upward mobility, depressed wages, and sky high rent. The last thing the megacorps will tolerate is line not go up.
It's too expensive to have children and a giant nightmare for women if they don't have a serious partner who does his part.
No.
Hormonal contraceptives.
None of what you listed really matters. In 1965 in the US the age of first child on average was 19. Today it is 29. The vast majority of people who have issues giving birth post 30 could have most likely given birth sub 20. We treat biological adults as children (not making a value judgement here) and shouldn't be surprised that the birth rate has subsequently collapsed in response to that. I'm not saying we should have more teenage mothers, but if we pushed the importance of finding a spouse in your early 20s it may help. People don't have as much time as they think.
all truE, BUT WOMEN WANT A CAREIR
We are in the mouse utopia
Indeed we are.
The government needs to majorly reform family court laws. Men are not getting married or having kids anymore until obvious things change.
You cant say all women want kids becaise so many parents complain about kids
Nobody mentions Thailand. The TFR is now at 1.1. The population has declined since 2022. The effects of this crisis and bleak future are beginning to be felt throughout the nation.
People simply dont want to walk to a job , live on absolute edge of poverty. And women became pickier and will wait till 28-35 to have children.
We want disposable income, modern housing , good cars , tech. And 2-4 kids. So a nice life.
Civilizations end either by being overrun or large numbers of people trickling away. This reminds me of the population explosion hysteria. There are a lot of people right now. We are coming down from the largest increase in population ever experienced. Population grew too fast and this is a correction. There are still 120 million Japanese. They could half those numbers easily and be fine.
There are many errors the Japanese could make which would make that collapse accelerate to zero. Like replacing their youth with immigration among other things.
I’m one of the few people who agree with you. Japan is the size of California; they’d be a happier country with a population of 40 million. Same goes for the UK. There’s no reason there should be 65 million people crammed onto the island of Great Britain. They’d also see an increase in happiness with a population half that
@@bensanderson7144 The 'happiness' of the wealthy few is the unhappiness of all of us who are falsely considered an “unnecessary surplus population.” We've been there already with Nazis' 'lebensraum' ideology🤦♂
There is no such thing as a “surplus population.” We are here for a reason. Human reproduction is its essence. The current global human population could be gathered in an area of just 54 miles on a side. You would be able to see the entire global population within the distance to the horizon, with the farthest people only 37 miles away.
We already know about 2 or 3 habitable planets per PERSON, and we have only discovered a fraction of the existing Universe, let alone the multiverse.
@@TheGalacticIndian thats wrong
@@TheGalacticIndian Those are nice theories but for now we have to deal with the reality we have
You haven't followed the recent Hungarian data. Birth rates are collapsing there as well. It fell from 1.59 in 2021 to 1.51 in 2023. The data for first months of 2024 show another -9,3% decrease
YES, GIVING MONEY DID NOT WORK
@@domcizek Yep, it would never work because the problem is not really about the economy or lack of resources, it's a cultural and lifestyle issue associated with individualism, feminism and women choices.
Look at mouse studies. Exactly the same things happening with human. It is a cycle.
Mouth utopia its called
@@mateuszsmagacz8332
I think the original name of the study was "Universe 25".
Feminine men and masculine women? Yep, that's our world now.
Given how horrible women are being treated world wide and how little we are regarded, what the hell is in it for us? I have one child who is profoundly disabled and he can't do even the simplest of tasks for himself. I would give up my life for him in a nanosecond, but had I know this was going to be our lives,I never would have had a child. And his Dad abandoned us so I reared him alone. The whole thing has been devastating. I can't recommend parenthood if I care about about other people. It's up to the woman if she wants to be a parent. Thanks to our misogynistic Supreme Court, women no longer have protected right to choose across the nation. In otger words, we have a group of misogynistic sickos that would rather force women to give birth rather choose whether they are financially and mentally able to have children. Well,women have already died from loss of access to reproductive health care. So now wonen are taking too much of a rosk having children. Its also expensive as hell, so many are opting out of whole situation. We are now going 4B in America like the movement started in Korea because women are done with the domestic violence, poverty, lack of resources they need to parent children, or having a partner that actually does his part in patenting.
I had admiration for you. People like you must be heard an cared for.
No money to care for you or your child yet they have unlimited $$ to give to illegal aliens. It has to be obvious at this point that this is not a coincidence
Everybody agrees, if you don't want children then nobody's trying to convince you otherwise
Total nonsense. Women were treated far worse centuries ago and yet we had very high fertility. If anything, women are treated too good.
The fertility/population rate doesn’t have much to do with how egalitarian our society is. Maybe 4B can exacerbate the population problem, but it isn’t the cause. They certainly aren’t capable of fixing any problem.
I can't even imagine having a child.
I know a solution, instead of flying immigrants to rawanda, the government can arrange flights for single UK men to go to Thailand and get a woman, and then give her national status when see gets pregnant 😊
Thailand brith rate is 1.4 Thai women don't have many children
Ok dude you see how racist this statement can be taken? So are you saying Thai women should just be viewed as breeding animals for UK men? How about the uk get what it deserves and the east and west bifurcate their economy leading to the destruction of the UK. Hope the Muslims take over the UK in the next 10 years 😊
Good idea. But I'm sure if the men outshore will like the competition. There is already a surplus of males in Asia etc.
Or any other non western countries. Wow I never thought of this. As a happily married woman with 6 sons I want my sons to be able to get married to women who appreciate men and actually want children. It's so hard to find western women who are feminine and family oriented.
We're all fine with muslim people outpopulating the native uk population right? If the UK men can't do it with their own women, what makes you think getting thai women are going to fix it? Its not only racist but the hilarious thing is that they are going to lose regardless, but thinking that thai women are just there as breeding material for uk men, well I wish you the best but also don't cry if the muslim population outpace the native uk population.
When you build a world civilization on a Ponzi scheme business model, this was always going to be the outcome. It was a good run; as a boomer I had fun. Bigger question is whether there is a better model that can be phased in after the collapse of the current one?
Who cares what happens to humanity? Nobody lives forever.
Whites don't live forever. Africans are the original people and will be the last ones standing. Thanks for building civilization for us... essentially. Maybe God put you on Earth to develop technology for Africans.
But you want good for your kids , dont you? Just as generations before, struggled to make your life better.
@@lovrovalentic3056 I'm not having kids
Tactical nihilism?
@@Stoddardian No, I'm gay and I don't like kids, and I couldn't afford to raise a family anyway. It all worked out though on account of climate change and plenty other people's preference for having children.
37:00 "when you share how most people actually want children, it threatens those ideologies (radical feminism and environmentalism)". Same is true of detransitioners being dismissed, suppressed and explained away because it threatens gender identity ideology
Yup, they can't have it all. If you are coupled with a feminist, basically a doomer version for females then what motivates me as a man to fight for such a disgusting person, or further have children with such a person? Then the climate shit, the same thing. There is no future for such people, I am a happy person and I would not put my money and motivation for such people, they are a bad investment. Best for them is to fuck off and live with their shit. If the majority of the society is like this then as a happy but stoic individual I would not invest anything into it and I refuse to deal with such people because there is no future with them. Plain and simple. I want love, happiness, smiles, if this is impossible, at least fuck off, I am no part of this insanity. This is the correct way to see why we are in this situation. Most people like me see no future in these societies. And who is at fault? All the shitty ideas and opinions people have, because our reality is formed by those.
@@r0ck3r4ever "Then the climate shit, the same thing." ??!! The climate crisis is a proven scientific fact, it is already harming people, societies, other species, and ecosystems in hundreds of ways. We can't smile or wish it away.
This is something that Peter Zeihan has been talking about as well. Zeihan's work supports what Stephen Shaw is saying.
Life has just become more competitive over time, and eventually, more and more people are going to fall off and not procreate. Capitalism is working perfectly and these are the boundaries that it absolutely had to come up against. It's up to humans to move into an optimized population model in the coming centuries (after all the imminent suffering).
Competitive in Western and Eastern countries. Thank God that Third World countries are behind so they can learn from the mistakes of the First World. Already African women reject Feminism, even if it could actually help them rise higher in tax bracket, they refuse Feminism.
The education system, social media, chemicals, machine like life is the reason why population is going down. I say let it fall organically. Do not try to push it up artificially. That would be a disaster
its not falling organically though
Of all the looming crisis the world faces, this one frightens me the most. We can cope with war, climate change, and even massive _overpopulation_ easily enough, but population collapse in another thing entirely.
What population collapse? World population is growing by 100 million a year.
@@NashHinton I said "looming," as far as I'm aware populations aren't falling anywhere on account of low fertility yet. The birthrates around the globe fell below replacement within living memory, many of the people born immediately _beforehand_ are still alive, but once they start dying off en masse the population will begin to fall, because the people who came afterwards haven't had enough children of their own to replace them. Once the Boomers start shuffling off their moral coils, here in the next few decades, we'll see that population growth slow, and then turn negative.
@@robertmartin6800 And we all will be better off with a smaller human population. We have a huge workforce now, because women stopped giving birth to dependents and became taxpayers.
@@chriswatson1698 That's a dreadfully Malthusian perspective, I don't know that I agree with that at all, part of why we are as wealthy as we are is that there are so many of us working and generating so much new wealth all the time, if there were fewer of us we would have fewer mouths to feed, but there would be less food to go around.
Even accepting that premise for the sake of argument, that's only true in the very long term, or if the decline were _very_ gradual. As it stands, in the immediate future, for the next couple of generations, the problems that population decline are going to create will be enormous, and the _speed_ of the decline is going to be such a sharp, abrupt shock to our civilizations that the consequences will be magnified significantly. A good analogy might be something like; it would, at least apparently, be good if we were no longer dependent upon hydrocarbon fuels for energy, but only if we're able to ween ourselves off of them over the next century or two, it _wouldn't_ be good if we ran out of hydrocarbon fuels tomorrow.
@@chriswatson1698did you even listen to any of the points raised in this video?
When I was growing up, my country's population was half what it is now. Yet everything got done, even though the women were out of the workforce, raising babies, and a high proportion of the population was still too young to be in the workforce. The idea that the human population can keep increasing is irrational.
But in the future there will be a huge number of elders compared to the work force, that's the difference
They must work, end of story. There will be no room for retirement. Those who are unhappy about it causing trouble is our biggest issue, so i suggest we do something about the peoples ability to be hysterical. Its just the regular kind of purge, not a big deal for me as a 27 year old male. In addition, it will a biotech or die world, becuase it can address aging, disease, food, and replace the birth process. @@olefosshaug5565
You clearly haven't been paying attention to the technological advancements in agriculture medicine, transportation and housing that enable a.large population wand the fact that more.people means more prosperity and and overall improvement. Environmental activist socialism has blinded you. Thomas Malthus and his spiritual descendants have been thoroughly debunked and yet people still cling unto population growth alarmism.
@@olefosshaug5565 In the 1960s, there were a huge number of babies and women compared to the work force. Children are dependents too. They don't need much health care, but they need expensive education. Young populations have a higher proportion of dependents than older populations. The elderly are often self-sufficient and sometimes even economically active.
So that is your take from the whole video? Geez...
Unplanned childlessness is as useful a concept as unplanned brokenness.
What he fails to take in to consideration is with the advancement of robotics, AI, and all together automation we’re not going to need so many people in the near future
Hmmm. Very prescient!
AI and its Impact on Society
Oct 31, 2023, updated on April 11, 2024
We must ask ourselves, "What will happen when AI has taken 85% of jobs present in 2020? What will we do? How will we eat and survive without incomes from jobs or other means?" What is disturbing is that while AI is taking these jobs, the gov't and the corporations have not done ANYTHING to prepare us for an AI'ed civilization. They have not said anything about major retraining of an entire economy to something else, and they have not followed up on a discussion of universal basic income. This is supposedly supported by a lack of information in the latest government budgets submitted and approved as reported by some TH-cam videos.
It appears that the US gov't and the corporations intend to kill off the majority of Americans passively, through starvation from lack of income to buy food. (check and see if farming production is declining or will start to decline ahead of the "starvation phase") (also check to see if the "makeup" of robot equipment allocation would change to reflect a trend away from retail and services for the masses, possibly indicating an extinction of the American public - this means taking a robot from Chipotle and repurposing it for some other job not related to the public, or scrapping affected robots to be remade for some other purpose that has nothing to do with the public) It appears that the decline of farming has already started with the state of Maine buying farm land under the pretext that there are "forever chemicals" present at around 20 parts per TRILLION (safe level is said to be only 4 parts per TRILLION), which does not make sense, BUT this would rope in a LOT of land across the US. Other states may follow suit in addition to the ten states that have similar laws in place.
This way, there are only enough people alive to get some things done, and the rest is done by AI, and the survivors who planned this can claim the whole country for themselves. Imagine having an estate mansion half the size of a mall on several dozen thousand acres of land, and robots would be used to maintain and clean the estates and do the farming FOR THE ESTATE OWNERS. The White Man's wet dream of civilization. What will the Native Americans south of the US border do when they see this coming, especially when they can buy firearms legally now? Hopi prophecy...
It takes too much energy and you don't have it
What you fail to take into consideration is falling EROI on energy production
I see you are part of a death cult.
Back in the day a lot of manual labor was replaced with machines, putting people out of work but also taking society to another level. There is a downside in that the machines also enabled 2 world wars. Not the machine's fault, humans' fault, but still. Now machines (AI) are taking over the "low grade college educated" jobs. What will we do with those machines? Go to war or take society to the next level? It's up to us.
Rome 1. That is how America will end as well.
No. Mouse Utopia
I marval at how people dont understand this. Easy: 1) How many people do you know that have died in the last 3 years? 2) How many pregnant women have you seen in the past 3 years?
More deaths than births equals a big problem. For my hometown it is 20:1 ratio almost. This is a comprehensive and ultra-slow developing problem, the type of thing we humans struggle with until it is already too late and we go: "Oh. We shouldve seen this coming and done something about it".
I really like this guy. He is giving out a great message and ringing a warning bell. I am surprised for someone who lives in Japan that he doesnt talk more about this as Japan is already 30 years into their demographic crisis. There are a million and a half abandonded homes throughout Japan and its only getting worse. Schools are being converted into old homes, but the country keeps functioning. I dont beleive that Human civilisation will collapse due to depopulation but there sure will be some changes.
japan's fertility drop was slower.
What a surprisingly good channel!
All of the old saws turn out to be true. For example, Nature knows best.
The obvious solution to an increasing old population is us dying because of lack of health care. Yes, the NHS goes away because they won't be able to implement cost effective rationing between effort and health outcomes. State funded education goes away because the voters just won't care. The current civilization won't survive, but you have to identify that the current civilization is the welfare state, not necessarily the people living in particular areas. The crash in population will be slower than the rise happened. The reason it seems so traumatic is not the extent of the change. It is that the benefits occurred during the expansion by following folks natural inclinations and the cost will be paid for on the decrease unless folks can change their natural inclinations.
Thankfully this isn’t an issue about which to worry oneself. Human society is incredibly resilient when adapting to the needs of the living.
In a farming society children pay their parents back in manual labor before they leave the home. In a technological society children take 30+ years to pay their parents back if they ever do.
No, it's just less obvious. We've created pension systems and a welfare state. Which is good, I'm very pro those. But...they are paid for by the young in a transfer of wealth from young to old. That's how our current society functions, and has meant plenty of freeloaders without children (myself included) get back 10 times what's paid in to pension pots. Someone else's children will pay for my pension, just like they will yours most likely.
@@theirishdreamer Well, when you socialize something you get less. When you privatize it, you get more. Agriarian economies privatized the ROI on having kids.
I'm not sure why he claimed Paul Ehrlich's work on the population bomb is 'ideology'. Our population doubling time keeps shortening, and if you graph it our population over human history has had a crazy spike over the last 100 years. The earth is now overpopulated, and we're seeing the effects of that in terms of resource use and waste.
That can be true at the same time as the issues addressed in this video. Low birth rates have problems for the economy, but the population growth we've had has problems for the environment. One we can live without, one we can't. It will be good for the planet that our population decreases, and it needs to happen so we can live sustainably. Unfortunately our entire economic system is built on infinite growth, and we're seeing the failings of that now.
A really interesting interview.
the earth is far from over populated. it could easily support a population of 11.8 billion with no method changes.
the fact we waste so many resources proves the opposite of overpopulation. we have too much abundance.
and guess what if the population collapses it will lead to system collapses, which very well could lead to deaths just as bad climate change's worst predictions.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 "the earth is far from over populated. it could easily support a population of 11.8 billion with no method changes. " That's simply not true: Because of the combination of our population size and the enormous consumption and wastes of industrialized consumerist economies, we are rapidly de-stabilizing the climate and pushing the ecosystems that all life on Earth depends on toward collapse. Only a humane shrinking of the global economy AND global population and adoption of far simpler lifestyles while spreading the wealth more equitably can prevent a catastrophic collapse of ecosystems and human civilization. But industrialized civilization itself is doomed to come to an end--it simply doesn't fit Earth's limits or the laws of nature.
I love the optics of two men opining about what women really want, as though they are some kind of animals or alien beings with whom no hope of communication exists.
I love to read how people try to find completely irrelevant and mostly fictional arguments to avoid thinking about the underlying issues that were presented
@@hyperadapted I've thought about the issue quite a bit. I just found the optics funny in this particular case.
I watch way too many of these videos.
@@Veylon I don’t think that you thought about anything, really
@@hyperadapted Same to you.
@@Veylonif we made men taller and richer would they have babies?
The solution is easy, take the money that corporations have avoided paying in taxes and provide incentives for young families. It is really not that hard.
The human population is collapsing and the African population is exploding. What could possibly go wrong?
The corpos could put their faith in magic dirt and invite them in.
"human" vs "african" - you might consider your wording a bit more careful there
Yep, some european people complain about economy immigration right know, but in the future everything is head for a much worse scenario. With climate change and a huge african population of almost 2 billion, I can see massive invasion of people happening towards Europe because of climate disasters, lack of water, or just political or military turmoil in general. The future of Europe with a shrinking population and being "open" for immigration will be a complete disaster.
@@hyperadapted It’s worded perfectly, but thank you.
@@damonmelendez856 it’s worded racist, if that’s what you call perfect ok
What's with the intercut of the female guest at 36:16?
I presume she is the Charlie Bentley Astor referred to by the interviewee.
@@raymond7427 it certainly is. Thanks for clarifying.
Wait... you called her "female"? Gosh... cringe!
@@anhangamirim cringe away, snowflake
What's really sad is that my generation, gen-x, had a good chunk of our kids during teenage up to 20 years old. To young to be mothers in many cases. Generation after us, saw this and learned. Unfortunately, they learned that they didn't care to be mothers themselves.
I wanted kids, but most of the people I dated already had ready made families that were missing a father. I wanted to start fresh. Unfortunately, most of the women available wanted to wait until it was too late and they could not longer have kids. Sadly, I missed my opportunity.
Yeah, I'm not buying that economic argument either. If these people were honest, even if they were secure financially, they wouldn't have kids. Maybe they are similar to me in my 20s where there was really no true opportunities. There were women, but many had kids and/or they didn't want any more.
I loved listening!!!
I thought zero population was the goal since the 1960’s. Now what? I’m so confused!
NO, ZERO GROWTH, 2.1 IS REQURED OF EACH WOMEN TO PROVIDE WORKERS FOR THE COMPANIES
18:00 the only reason the birthrate in Hungary increased is because of the Roma. Magyar fertility is still 1.2
Intergenerational confict will equate to intergenerational immigration. Young people will not spend their lives paying for old geriatrics. Go where you're treated best
This will decline will happen everywhere and will cause asset deflation. So being asset rich and mobile won't fully help.
As mr shaw said there are pockets of people with large families. If they raise their children well , they will also have large families and so forth. In a few generations this will be the norm again. The meek shall inherit the earth.
Let them inherit the earth. What do we care, we the childfree, we who have abandoned the idea of immortality through children, we who have nothing but despise for the very concept of immortality?
@@patcartier8171 because there will be none to look after you in your old age. you think the young overburdened by your choice not to maintain the population will keep welfare programs that look after those that chose to make their lives harder out of short-sighted selfishness? and unlike other burdons this one won't have the strength to resist the ending of the burdon, nor the ability to pay off the burdon in the future.
@@patcartier8171 Sure, your choice.
THE BIRTH RATE WILL NOT GO BACK UP
Look around.
This is exactly what it looks like.
The specific idea doesnt matter. Just that a faulty idea takes holsl
Or social media has turned each individual person into a llc social influencer marketing brand. How do corporations mate?
Earth doesn't belong to us. There is nothing wrong with Earth having about 2 billion people instead of 8, in fact it is way better for everyone and everything. Earth of 2 billion people would have enough resources both for humans and animals and nature in general. The ONLY PROBLEM that you should be talking about are social and practical solutions for transitional period while population numbers are going down. Having 8 billion people (and still growing in numbers, although that growth is slowing down and will eventually stop) is not normal. Animals would never grow their population above sustainable numbers, why did we?
I think best time living was 60‘s to 2019
The problem seems to be not the shrinkage in population, but the dependence on systems that rely, like a Ponzi scheme, on increased population, generation after generation. Social welfare systems were made to help the poor elderly widow and then expanded.
The people who are most dependent on these systems are the poor. The wealthy can afford healthcare and all of that without relying on the government. Also, the people who are not having children are people on the left, primarily, who are the advocates of the systems. Leftists don’t want the children, but they do want the welfare system…
the thing is the dependants will be dependants whether its a state dependence or a family one. so its always a problem. the ponzi schemes make it a worse problem (both in costs, and in the fact it enourages people to not have kids. as the state will look after them instead of their children/nieces/nephews like pre-welfare societies)
No, the shrinking population is a problem by itself, it creates a cascade of bad developments for society, the dependence ratio to support the pension system is only the most obvious of them. With a small population even the lack of good engineers or doctors can become a problem, contrary to expectation the rates of disruptive innovations is already at a historically low and with a even smaller population great disruptive innovations will probably become even rarer.
😊
This argument is based on the assumption that the projections used are accurate but they may not be accurate. the alarmist argument that population decline is a problem is just the flip side of the alarmist talk in the 1970s that we were going to have too many people. The truth will be somewhere in the middle. The life expectancy in places like the USA has already started to stagnate plus the poor diet, loneliness epidemic and wider social problems means that the current generation are unlikely to live as long as the current elderly population, so the fear that things like the NHS will be overwhelmed is probably unfounded, especially if you consider the different A.I. technology coming down the line which can help prevent illnesses like dementia and strokes etc which will reduce the cost of such illnesses in the future by reducing the number of who get these costly illnesses. We may get a loss of population from a lower birthrate but also a lower population from a reduction of the population reaching retirement too so it will level itself out creating a new equilibrium with those that do reach retirement being healthier until the end of life.
Nope, they have solid evidence the other side was terribly wrong and we really have to worry about the downside. But I see forecasting your solution as a gigantic wave of self terminations. Is that any good for you?
The alarmists of the 1970s proved to be right. We do, indeed, have too many people on earth and our Earth is not coping with human consumption and waste.
golden mean fallacy.
anyway if the current working people live as long as the current old people, but the next working population is significantly smaller we have a problem. its not just if we keep getting our max age older. an ageing population is also a problem with a stagnant max lifespan but the dependant old generation overburdening the working population due to the later shrinking.
@@chriswatson1698 they were wrong, we are coping above and beyond. the waste is a result of overabundance not the scarcity that would result from overpopulation.
there is a good argument the waste would increase if we dropped our population.
Just go outside and look around. I have only seen 8 pregnant women in the past 2 years. I know 40 people who have died
Suicide in 1914.
Sadly, Shaw is unable to say the word "feminism" and instead has to dance around with "certain ideologies". Peter Zeihan has been talking about demographic collapse for a long time. His book "The End of the World is Just the Beginning" is a great read.
A senator here in Texas tried to get a bill passed that would eliminate property taxes for large families. It was immediately mocked and shot down. This would have been helpful to us because We have a large family and the $3,000 saving a year would have covered our homeschool costs. We know many who want to have children but are concerned about being able to buy a home. A forgivable loan or down payment assistance would help those wanting to start families.
Not only was that senator mocked he was even removed from office after what seems like a political trap. The world isn't ready to promote large families yet
A tax break for "the help"?
That wouldn't serve our overlords at all, the whole issue is they don't want to pay the help anymore as it is, they would have to inconvenience themselves by making a lifestyle change, no, its way better to put guys like this on the budget to shame the poors into taking on more responsibility.
PROPERTY TAXES PAY FOR THE SCHOOLS,
@@domcizek by "schools" you mean to pay the school superintendent and all the school board members all 6 figures, and put in new sports equipment every year while cutting more basic programs?
@@domcizek We don't use the school's, they are indoctrination prisons. The school's perpetuate the breakdown of the family. They teach promiscuousness and the killing of children in the womb.
How can it be that the average family size has remained the same while the average age of marriage has been rising? are mothers having children closer together?
It's the housing prices.
Young people cannot afford to buy a home anymore
No, women since the start of humanity have been able to have children up untill very late in life. Those who live long have a fertility range up until 50 years. Look at when was the last child born to women who have large families. They had a surprise child in their late 40s. I think most men who are not married or who are not really interested in women and women's health do not understand that many women don't want children. Many women delay having children because they don't want them at all or initially. Very few want them from the get go. Those who do make moves in their careers to ensure they can have them. Ie, freezing their eggs. I guess conservative men need to understand that ivf is the future because stable careers don't exist anymore.
No its that the number of children per family was kept low by various birth control methods after they had the number of children desired in previous decades. while now couples just try more times on average before they are successful at getting the desired number of children (despite the overall fertility drops, like drops in sperm counts, and the age related fertility drop [which is sometimes over estimated])
Economy is tanking, cost of living is absurd: let’s blame Antinatalism. 😂
yeah, lets wait a few decades until reproduction rate drops below 2.1 - the economy sure will recover with a lower labor force!
Titus 1:15 - 2:5 ...that the Word of God be not blasphemed.
The amount of nihilism and stupidity I see in these comments is disappointing.
Migration destroyed Europe
In the 1960s, there was a huge number of babies and women staying home, compared to the work force.
A child is two dependents: the child himself and the adult who must supervise and care for him. Children don't need much health care but they do need a lot of expensive education. In my family the ratio of worker/taxpayer to dependents was 1:5. The bloke in this video is carrying on as if children aren't dependents.
No they don't there are plenty of occupations that need little to no studies. I took only two years for my two diplomas, and I have an average pay and could earn more if I wanted to move. One thing I am happy is that I quit my degree. My friends are now in a long debt they will only pay by mid 30s. Amyway you can expect to witness a wave of self terminations in the future, that is not good.
The massive number of degrees devalued the degrees and the apprenticeship system is gone.
There should be a thing known as "Big School" and have all the contempt as big oil and big tobacco.
@@WilliamSantos-cv8rr Really? When did you apply for jobs after spending a year looking after a baby? You still have a child and will have to take time off work to look after him when he can't be in school. Do you really think that you would be able to compete with workers who have no family responsibilities?
@@chriswatson1698 the cost of 1 child to raise from conception to indepedance is the same cost as a single old person dependant for just 2 years. Old people dependants are massively more expensive than young people dependants.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I don't believe that. I don't think that the cost of the mother is being taken into account. It is very easy to ignore costs like the cost of housing.
There are solutions.
Can Stephen comment on the feminist thought process of women delaying having children until they have established their careers and even more so, not having children?
Okay this makes me wonder if men are much more eager then women to start families and have kids before establishing a stable career.
@@FluxNomad678aha, with anti-men judicial approach and divorce rates filed by women and taking away children and assets from men.
The absence of a legally enforceable marriage contract makes motherhood untenable.
FairPoint if I understand what you're implying. A woman trying to be a traditional housewife and mother who lacks job skills could be in serious trouble if ever divorced and on their own or even a single mom. Even aside from that if the husband had an untimely death I think the modern economy is way too brutal for an unskilled person to try to suddenly enter the job market
@@FluxNomad678 Ageism kicks in at about 45. Employers don't want older people with no experience, even with qualifications.
You’re worrying about absolutely nothing. The Worlds population has almost tripled in my lifetime (I’m 61). Replacement birth rates are nonsense because as Western (yes and this is the issue) populations have shrunk so has available infrastructure. Societies expand and contract to suite the economic landscaper and resources available. Put simply, populations don’’t need to expand as many countries are struggling to look after, house and employ the population levels they already have.
I agree. What we need is a revised economic model aside from endless exponential growth. I think AI is going to change the economic landscape over the next 20 years more than anything we've seen.
I worry more about social unrest due to rapid demographic shift than falling birth rates over the next 70 years.
I just try to remain optimistic and trust that we can adapt and work together as a species.
western states population shave expanded, due in part to importing the 3rd world. and this plus the aging crisis is resulting in increased pressure on the infrastructure.
@@DextraVisualexactly. Why can't we change our economic decisions?
If it was entirely western populations, the eastern populations of Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan would be multiplying like rabbits.
@@skylinefever i live in Taiwan, the flats are not big enough to have large families 😒. Our biggest worry is finding jobs and housing for our current levels of population. We could halve the population and still be screwed.
The world's population is still growing. Our Earth is not coping with the consumption and waste of 8 billion humans.
Oh how I wish you could live long enough to see the misery that is to come as the population plummets. That is a much scarier outcome, for us as a species at any rate. I have been praying for forty years that *this* time we had climbed high enough up the technological ladder to be able to make it 'stick' but, tho' we are close, unless we get fusion very soon, it's back to barbarism for us.
Harvey Danger has been around the world and only stupid people are breeding.
The number of deaths for natural disaster has only gone down
Multiple countries have proven that economic growth is possible without increasing emissions
The Situation is dire not hopeless
In one lifetime, we have seen the largest growth of wealth in human history. We can do this
It's going up by 100 million a year. What is this guy smoking?
@@NashHinton Well, some populations are going up, some aren't. Harvey Danger has been around the world and only stupid people are breeding.
There is already intergenerational conflict. We are trying to raise a larger family while paying taxes for social security to boomers who spent their lives consuming and not saving. We will not see that money back. On top of that we are asked to support our own boomer parents who again did not save or have enough children so that way there'd be more of us to share the burden. This will only continue to get worse as the tax burden becomes unbearable and people with no siblings are the primary caretakers of aging parents. I fear for what will happen to those who don't have any children in old age. There will be no one who loves them to make sure they're not being abused, and it will be easier for the government to write them off for the "greater good" as I fear it will be presented.
Tell you what. As a 64-year-old childfree man, I share absolutely none of your fears. “They” can confiscate my future, but not the quiet and productive life I have had up until now, free of children and family constraints.
Are you kidding me!? Shrinking populations is not a problem, it is the solution. Growth, individualism and conservatism are the problems.
At the same time he needs to look at the number of women who left the child's father and pushed him away after cheating, and how many women stole sperm from a random guy just to get pregnant then used them for an ATM machine while crying on social media that they are a single mother...
How do you slow population growth across any and all cultures without anyone even realising it? Empower women (even to the point of absurdity) but say it’s about equality. It’s more effective and subtle than a one-child policy. And again, it works across ALL cultures. No exceptions.
Yes, then when those women enter the workforce and contribute to the GDP, blame capitalism as well.
I'm fine with women having more education, more economic freedom, and fewer children.
so an advocate for single mommis? Beyond crazy.
Here's my take. The world is overpopulated. There is ecological overshoot now. But another way to look at it, we've hitched a ride these last couple of centuries or so on fossil fuel, but that's coming to an end, gradually but inevitably. The way down won't be as joyful as the way up, so in essence what Mr. Shaw says is music to my ears, the lower number of people in the future is inevitable. I'm all for people who want kids to have them, but by what you say birthrates are decreasing anyway. It dawned on me that lack of feeling of social mobility might be at fault and the rat chase continues. So maybe the economic system that brought all this material gain is the same one that is unmotivating people to bear children. Listen to human ecologist William Rees for a contrasting view!
the world is far from overpopulated.
tredeau willl change that law.
Since the 1950s. the world's population has more than tripled. If we can shrink the world's population back to what it was in 1900, we will all be better off. The world's population is still growing.
You will also have to go back to 1900 standards of living and technology
@@davidjohnson-tq4qx Why?
@@chriswatson1698 2 reasons:
1. The loss of knowledge from population collapse resulting in a competency crisis. The beginning stages of this have already occurred just by replacing workforce with immigration. What we have leaned from this error is that civilization cannot be communicated. Furthermore, advanced technology of the complex type does actually require large numbers of people to explore ideas of which most will not result in productive outcomes.
2. The energy crisis. Return on investment from hydrocarbon energy surplus will begin to plumet in about 3 years and there is no replacement. You cannot build wind mills with wind mills
@@chriswatson1698 also, all of the most easily accessible resources have already been consumed. We can only obtain raw materials now with large scale production and high capacity energy surplus from hydro carbons. We mine Copper in the parts per million now. So when we lose the ability for large scale production we cannot just restart at a smaller scale
@@chriswatson1698 so it will actually be more like the 1600's
"Almost global now." This is nonsense. According to UN projections conservative estimates put the world population at 10 billion in 2050 which represents a 25% increase on today. There are claims that by the end of the century world population may begin to show decline but there is nothing actually to suggest this other than wishful thinking that the high fertility countries in the global south will experience the same systemic declines in birthrates seen in the developed world. The question I have is that if that hasn't happened by now, which it hasn't, why expect it to magically happen in the future.
10 billion figure isn't reached primarily through new births, but by longer lifespans. So when the elderly die off there will be an overall collapse as the younger generations are relatively smaller than older. In the developed world at least. The global South is declining too, but no way near as fast as the developed
the UN states the fertillty for the world has dropped below replacement level in 2023.
the 10 billion figure is obsolete, made from data assuming no changes to birth rates of pre-2022 data, aswell as no change in ecconomic development.
the current figure that does account (assuming development rates remain the same, and the rate of change in ferility remain the same) for these projects a peak of 8.6 billion.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 you're making this up. You're assuming, in spite of all the evidence, that all human population groups are the same and low fertility is some kind of inevitability for all cultures. For a very real example, the fertility of the Amish in America is unaffected by your beliefs. There is no reason to suppose the fertility of rural poor in the global south will decline significantly absent widespread famine, particularly if continued export of surplus population is possible. Given the dire economic forecasts for developed countries there is no reason to presume continued economic development. There was an artificial improvement post pandemic restrictions but this is an outlier not indicative of trends.
@@nikobellic570 It's not a "collapse," It's moving toward a right-sizing of the population. The Earth can only support maybe 1-1.5 billion people living a UK-level lifestyle, maybe less. That's why the ecosystems that support all life on Earth are breaking down.
@@karlwheatley1244 😂😂
The assumption with these analyses is that the solution is always to increase population and continue on with the same old same old economic design. In Canada, we are basically a service (not a knowledge) economy and the foundation of the thinking of government on economic growth is to build houses and bring in newcomers to buy those houses. This is not a sustainable economic model in a finite world. The more important question is, how do we thrive with lower populations, not how to get the populations back up? I do acknowledge Mr Shaw's point that it is not about the raw population numbers but about the gap between young and old. Nevertheless, the emphasis for all governments and think tanks should be, how do we thrive in lower population economies, and in what ways do we need to think differently about economics and wealth-building to make that happen? If brilliant dedicated people like Mr Shaw can begin to shift the conversation in this way, and wealth grows, populations will return anyways. I don't have a single answer to the questions I propose (what a surprise!), but I believe I know enough to say that the dialogue around economics and the shape of capitalism needs to change drastically. I hope that thought leaders from around the world could shift their incredible talents towards this larger question. I know the brilliant Otto Scharmer has been talking about the need for capitalism and democracy to evolve so that we can thrive in a changing world. What other thought leaders will answer the call?
If it’s TED talk or “thought leader” you can be sure it’s very dodgy. Falling birth rates are very good news. In Philippines for example, women can see clearly that if they have 10 kids like their mum did there’s nowhere for them to go in 20 years time, other than the NHS in UK of course. If I were young in Japan or China I’d be very relieved about the 1.4 or even latest .78. Real opportunities coming.
Ahh, the "Silver Lining of the Back Death" position :)
@@dallassukerkin6878This is the real reason for open borders political moves. The bigshots will do anything not to be like feudal lords after the plague.
it'll only be opportunities when the democratic system is overthrown. under the democratic system the overwhelming number of old people will just vote more and more bourdons on the shrinking working population, while retaining the higher up well paying positions. like they do now, but even more skewed.
Why do you still have female politicians?
You re are the reason women avoid males.
Let's not pretend the male politicians are all that great.
@@Stoddardian females admire great leaders, so when you ask a woman to lead you it should be no surprise when she admires your enemies
The human race will just adapt, as it always has.
Keep dreaming.
But it will hurt the rich people's lifestyle.
By becoming smaller in popularity yes..
Yes, ultraconservatives and ethnonationalists will inherit the Earth.
I don't think these individuals understand how people in their 20s are dating, and the ridiculous unrealistic standards women gave for a lifelong partner. How many women want to settle for an average earning man?
Why was my original comment removed? Mass vaccination needs to be investigated. The childhood campaigns started in the 60s and by the 70s the birthrate plummeted. It's not just economics, education culture, and choice. There has to be something else going on here.
Despite being a single mom, having my children was the best thing I could've ever done. Had I listened to and gone along with cultural expectations I would have been childless too.
NOTHING TO DO WITH VACCINATIONS, WOMEN WANT CAREERS, NICE HOUSES, NICE CARS AND NICE VACATIONS
correlation is not causation. Case closed. Next
@@hyperadapted Indeed, unless there is a correlation of 1, correlation is not causation. So is the correlation .001 or .9?
@@skylinefever wrong. You might want to look into actual causal models and do-calculus and then formulate that thought again.
@@hyperadapted THE CAUSE IS BECUSE WOMEN WANT CAREERS, DONT WANT TO STAY HOME ALL DAY TAKING CARE OF KIDS, SIMPLE
Governments need to do more to support familes, not just importing immigrants.
Your argument seems to be that couples only remain childless because of delays in starting families. Or perhaps medical problems. But nowhere in your presentation did you mention abortion. The discontinuity between the 1960s and the 1970s in the UK at least, seems to me to be due to widely available abortions. I have never seen calculations of what the fertility rate would have been in western countries in recent years if there had been no abortions performed.
texas saw a 2% increase in ferility after their recent restrictions of abortions, but their culture was already anti-abortion.
but if we assumed all abortions would be conceptions if abotion was illegal (ie people were as risky with sex if abortion wasn't an option) the US ferility rate would increase by 25% (from 12 births per 1000 people to 15 births per 1000 people). and thus US fertility would go from 1.66 to 2.1.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 many thanks for this. Our current society's tactic therefore is to abort hundreds of thousands of babies and then import hundreds of thousands of immigrants from third world cultures to compensate. What could possibly go wrong?
Most women in the United States who have abortions already have children.
@@matthiuskoenig3378Texas has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the developed world. And loads of uninsured children.
Doom and gloom sells
Tell that to South Korea.
Every society had the exact same issue - children and society are built on the unpaid labor of women. Men get an education, get a job, make money, get promoted and never worry about carpools and birthday parties and sick kids. Women get jobs who don’t allow time off for doctor’s appointments, can’t promotions if they have kids, are expected to cook and clean and run the errands and plan holidays and take care of the elderly (both their husband’s and their own). It’s only a shock to the men who benefit from this unpaid labor why women would choose to not become mothers or wives.
this is the mindset that is the real problem. people [both men and women] that would rather work for a group who treats them poorly and will replace them at the drop of a hat over working with a family that loves them. the fact you, and those like you, see it in purely materialistic terms and purely in terms of personal material gains shows the corporate consumerist propaganda worked.
and we have seen the results record high depression, especially amongst women, record high suicide rates, especially amongst women.
family is the heart of humanity, and replacing it with materialism is killing our soul, and as a result our societies.
@@matthiuskoenig3378I didn't want my mother's life. My grandmother begged me not to chase hers. My other grandmother died of a stroke, dirt poor on a tobacco farm. She died at 50, after five live births and God knows how many pregnancies.
For women, "working with a family that loves them" has historically meant unending caretaking. And many a husband wasn't all that loving.
Why do you think so many grannies, aunties and mothers have encouraged their daughters to get educated and have a way to have financial independence? It's not so you could have full closets. It was because they weren't as free as they wanted to be.
@@lucindabreedingbut he was 6'5
Thankfully these days men can get pregnant 😄
The earth will be beautiful again after humanz LEAVE.
No, just enough that my fishing spot isn't over crowded then we'll be good. 👍
Apparently this chap doesn't realize that due to industrialized capitalism and consumerist lifestyles coupled with the large populations in wealthy nations, we are currently pushing the Earth toward worsening ecological and societal breakdown. To prevent worsening breakdown, we have to shrink the global economy by about 50%, and smaller populations in wealthy nations, de-industrialization, much simpler lifestyles, much less meat and dairy consumption, and replacing, rationing, or banning thousands of products and services will be necessary to prevent a catastrophic collapse.
Thus, while a shrinking population poses serious challenges, they are far better challenges to wrestle with than is triggering a worsening global extinction event.
He has debunked this idea in detail. Basically, a lower birth rate has a very long time to impact emissions, and only when we have far more renewable energy. So it's a meagre impact to collapse society worse than climate change ever could.
@@noonecaresaboutgoogle3219 Climate change, if left unaddressed, will wipe out most life on Earth. I think that trumps problems with pension funds and people not getting to retire at 65.
The bottom line is that our whole industrialized capitalist consumerist civilization is totally out of whack with Earth's limits, the long-term, needs of life, and the laws on nature, and that is why it is starting to self-destruct.
We will have to go back to much smaller and more agrarian economies coupled with much simpler lifestyles, a return to the use of natural materials, and more manual labor.
@@noonecaresaboutgoogle3219 "Basically, a lower birth rate has a very long time to impact emissions, and only when we have far more renewable energy. " I should have been clearer: We must fundamentally transform our whole civilization--while shrinking the population humanely--to prevent catastrophic ecological and societal collapse. But shrinking the population in wealthy countries that do most of the ecological damage is what is most important.
@karlwheatley1244 The population of the poorer nations depends on industrialized nations producing a surplus of food and machinery. If the industrialised societies collapse, the poorer nations would starve. We could put in place the most pro natalist policies we can imagine, and it would still only mean a slower, more manageable reduction in people.
@@noonecaresaboutgoogle3219 "The population of the poorer nations depends on industrialized nations producing a surplus of food and machinery" Actually, the majority of raw materials in the world comes from the global south--as does most of the labor. The whole of industrialized civilization is heading for a profound breakdown starting this century because we are causing the ecosystems that support us to break down.
So, as that unraveling of this overly-complex and unsustainable happens, and it will, who do you think is better prepared for a reversion to simpler lifestyles and self-sufficiency... people in the global south, many of whom are still in or recently left lifestyles where they worked with their hands to produce their own shelter, food, and clothing... or people in the global north, living in apartment buildings who have never grown any food or built anything with their own hands?
If we want to fix the problem, we need to look at which countries have the highest birth rates and emulate them. Outside of Africa, the highest is Afghanistan, with women having 6-7 children each on average. Perhaps we have something to learn from other cultures?
Wrong. It is because that country is a Muslim country, and they want to spread Islam. Do you have any idea what happens to women and their rights within Sharia courts? Do you have any idea how they think of themselves and think of YOU if you are not Muslim, as compared to how Hindūs, for example think of themselves and others? Study Islamic invasions of India, documented by no other than Muslim scholars.
See, Muslim men are circumcized, and and so have lost sensitivity down there. They're always trying to have that full orgasm experience that they can never have, and they're always striving for that experience, just like they have been mislead to think that they are human beings trying to find that elusive spiritual experience. It's so sad, really. My Mom knew about this and so didn't allow my brother to be circumcized because she knew the difference in response between circumcized and uncircumcized men and explained it to me when the topic of sex came about as a child.
Yes, women have learned from those countries. Which is why they are not having children.
@@chriswatson1698 Then we need to more closely emulate Muslim countries, so they have children. Especially if Muslim countries are the reason why they are not.
@@Morphine242 There is NO problem. Women have little freedom in Muslim countries. We don't want to be like Muslims.
@@Morphine242 Women in Muslim countries are in a difficult position. They have few rights and little freedom. Observe the direction of migration. Who is migrating to Muslim countries permanently?
I have a decent life, but as a mother, I feel like burden to everyone around me including broader family. Its not cool to have kids.
I would say this is a big problem. being a mother is heroic, more so than most positions we give social status to, yet its often made to be seen as a burdon by our short-sighted cultures.
Bingo!
You should feel the contrary, it's good to share the task of raising children with your extended family.
Sounds like the decline of faith in god is the biggest factor, mabye that can also be translated as hope for a better future is declining?
The hope for a better future is declining because the science proves that we are heading toward worsening ecological and societal breakdown. Whether or not people believe in God is a separate issue.
If belief in God was all it took, India would have wiped itself ages ago with faith in Vishnu or Shiva.
Easy solution.
Ban hormonal contraceptives till youve had 2 kids.