ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- With birth rates falling, the worldwide human population is getting older and smaller. According to traditional thinking, this spells a future of labor shortages, bankrupt social security systems and overall economic collapse. Before you panic about the end of life as we know it, political demographer Jennifer D. Sciubba has a thoughtful playbook for managing the new normal - including ideas on the future of work and migration - and a reminder that a resilient future relies on present-day action.
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: ted.com/member...
Follow TED!
Twitter: / tedtalks
Instagram: / ted
Facebook: / ted
LinkedIn: / ted-conferences
TikTok: / tedtoks
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design - plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
Watch more: go.ted.com/jen...
• The Truth About Human ...
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: www.ted.com/ab.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests...
#TED #TEDTalks #population
People are less inclined to have babies when the future is uncertain. This isn't the baby boom era. Houses are way more expensive. Cars are way more expensive. Even groceries are way more expensive.
How do you explain the ridiculously high birthrates of very unstable, poor countries such as Mali, Chad, Somalia, DRC, CAR, Nigeria, Afghanistan etc.?
@@DavidZ4-gg3dm - No access to birth control pills, no education about female health, high death rate of children. Take your choice.
@@DavidZ4-gg3dm free labor and soldier kids, in rich countries we have human rights.
@@TeresitaDelOlvido They're still hungry mouths to feed. Babies & toddlers can't work on farms.
yeah, thats why after ww2 the birth rates rised. Because everyone thought: The future is safe.... Dude if you can say one thing for sure. A stable environment will generate less babies, because people just look for themself and not for kids.
To have people work longer in life, we need better health care. There shouldn't be medical bankruptcies or fulltime jobs that don't pay a livable wage.
It seems like if there are less people to sustain due to a population decline , there should be more resources to go around !
@@celestialcircledance The govt would just destroy more money than it creates. The result is the opposite of inflation. One dollar would buy more. But after the deflationary period, the economy needs to return to expansion.
@@AnuchanToo complicated for me to wrap my head around ..
Working longer in life has very little to do with health care and more to do with diet and exercise. Healthcare can extend life, but generally can't improve the quality of that life outside of people making better lifestyle choices
Of the rich countries that is only a problem in the US, which is far behind the others.
Most animals reduce populations when resources shrink
That’s because they either migrate or die. Not because they intentionally choose to depopulate
@@THEREVOLUTION-0.1 Smaller/fewer litters too. Starving females may not have an oestrous cycle. Some, including rabbits, will eat their young. They don't have to depopulate intentionally in order to have the same result.
@@THEREVOLUTION-0.1 All animals behave likewise by instinct. Maybe not "consciously" intentional, rather a homeostatic mechanism
Coyotes don’t
@@THEREVOLUTION-0.1give it time, the human life span is a bit longer than a squirrel’s
Time to rethink our economies instead of birth rates
@@ConanOG they're currently linked, yes. Are they, or do they have to be, the same thing, no they're not. Otherwise a number of Asian countries would be powerhouse economies and they're not. Shantytowns and poverty is what the fixation on having more children than you can afford so someone can look after your aged-care needs results in.
Instead of the accumulation of the Power Tokens we call "money" as the way that things must be done, homeostatic economic methods are possible
Wrong. No... they are NOT "the same thing". What a stupid statement.
I could say "science" and "economies" are the same thing.
Or "Marxism" and "economies" are the same thing.
Two things interacting with each other does NOT make those two things equal.@@ConanOG
THAT IS WHY PEOPLE MUST WORK LONGER, SOCIAL SECURITY WILL BE GOING DOWN IN THE FUTURE,
That's what the dinosaurs said
Also, everything that deviates from free markets can only crush the population growth further.
This feels like a disconnected HR meeting trying to convince everyone to knuckle down and keep working! "Come on guys, we're in this together!"
Yes, some Hollywood star in their private mansion saying "We are all in this together."
Yes, why are people funding one of the homes of the elites known as Hollywood?@@skylinefever
You think you have a choice; the world's population is shrinking and aging. You can ignore it, but it will not go away.
I think you're missing the point altogether.
@@jenniferh7020 In your comment you're missing a total of one point, coz you failed to make a point, so make one. In other words, tell us what point are we missing, instead of making a vague vacuous comment that includes zero points in it
It's a blessing we don't need more people. What we really need is better and healthier lives
that's the speech of the selfish hedonistic person...the world and civilization cannot stop on you. We need a lot more people...more babies are required URGENTLY.
Good luck having a better and healthy life if less younger people need to care for more elderly
The people who responded to you COMPLETELY missed the point of this Tedtalk.
@@rafaelmtl1198 of course you'd rather have 50 cats in your flat than 2 snoring ones ? and if you cannot reach 50, u will bring some dogs from far away to keep the life hectic in your apartment...
@@itnow my apartment is humongous bro and the cat's don't want to reproduce. Are you suggesting muslims are dogs?
Ick, sounds more like “how can we maintain capitalistic corporate growth at any cost” rather than actually rethinking a more balanced society that shares in the fruits of what our society has produced. E.g. increasing automation and AI.
To be clear, capitalism has done wonders for humanity and is among our greatest inventions. However, unbridled capitalism inherently breaks us and the earth. We need to be able to employ the fruits of humanities ingenuity, recognize the impact of randomness and evolution, and thrive together.
It's the opposite. Even in a super capitalist society the old would just depend on their family. It's in subsidies economies that the more young are needed for the old
@@barranquillarespondetv2512 “just depend on their family” is doing some real heavy lifting there. Trying to be generous and seeing your point of view, yes you are right in that in a conventional socialized system, this would be true. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about sharing the advantages of automation and ai, which may lift the burden from people and instead of all the fruits of that societal structure being laid at the feet of the wealthy few, then society should harvest a significant portion. E.g. creating a basis for a modest UBI system grounding a balance of capitalistic and social enterprise.
That’s all well and good, but what is the alternative. There is not a political or economic model on the planet that has an answer for what to do when there are so many older retirees and so few younger workers to support them. Automation and AI is only a partial solution at best. It helps to address the productivity issues but machines don’t pay taxes and they don’t consume much, at least not much of the things the global economy is based on.
You mean like a socialist world that drives everyone into poverty but where there are no disparities? A world where we can all be miserable together? Perhaps the real problem is jealousy and envy.
9:07 - Paraphrased, 65-74 year old's are a "vast untapped resource" in a resilient world. Our system already has this built in as a feature instead of a bug. Sorry, but I don't want to build a world where our elderly have to continue to work until they die.
But if they do want to work, we should let them In many countries like Japan, Thailand and elsewhere they are forced to retire despite having the health and brains to continue.
IMO ‘work’, should be made less stressful if people need to work late in their lives. The burnout culture that is glorified these days is the reason people dread about having to work in their older years
I am confused about this point about the number of people currently in 65-74 demographic. At best, having this age group work (in a redefined resilient healthy way, she proposes) will be a very short-term solution. Because the whole point of this talk is that every generation or age group under the 65-74 group is dramatically smaller. Or am I missing something.
THEY WILL HAVE NO CHOICE UNLESS THEY SAVED 2 MILLION DOLLARS TO LIVE OUT THEIR LIFE
@@waringrob Yes but many in Japan keep working as taxi drivers or security.
So nice to hear this woman talking about people like resources
That us why the billionaires are crying about birth rates. They use us to gain wealth.
We are just interchangeable production units to these ghouls.
through the eyes of the world leaders, we are all resources.
You notice that the only people freaking out are controlling governments, rich people who exploit slave work, and companies that bleed us dry. No one else is seeing this as a concern. I'm tired of rich people telling me to give birth while simultaneous doing nothing to make birth and raising children easier.
Well she's kinda right.
Edit: hypothetically speaking if everyone stopped working right now at the same time or quit their jobs, that includes police and firemen, how chaotic the world will be? A body is unfortunately a resource.
Also think about this. Why are people or society saying don't k!ll yourself? It's because you (the government) can't make money off of dead bodies.
There are too many people in this world, and very few with humanity
I am overflowing with humanity
@@aligillani7107 well, where is it? Haven't heard a news article about your miraculous humanity
Me too l'm overflowing with humanité, in fact, I even have twin humanities
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
overpopulation is am myth
Humanity has a zero per cent track record for "sensible planning ahead" We will just carry on until all the oil is gone.
lol!
You are stuck in the consumer and resource constrained economy mindset. When we enter the labor constrained economy, We won't have enough uses for oil to make it worth extracting. Net zero will be entirely possible.
Relaity the oil will not go till 500 years@@Pugh.Pugh.BarneyMcGrew
@@Pugh.Pugh.BarneyMcGrewAI is already among us. Most work will need very feel people.
@@AnaSchultz-kx9tq Most non-productive work will require very few people. Essential productive work (blue collar) will require the same amount of people.
All the jobs that were essentially leeching off the production economy will be affected, which will be interesting, because these high paying jobs, mostly performed by the richest people are going to become unnecessary.
Also don't conflate AI with Robots, The advantage humans will have over robots, is that they will be very low cost compared to robots. Even now, a lot of people spend more feeding their car, than themselves.
Unless we invent a source of unlimited power, it is likely robots will be a luxury only the super-rich can afford. And I am not sure how the super-rich will exist once AI eliminates their jobs.
People who work in offices can work until they are in their 70s, but people that do back breaking work ( roof installers, construction works, contractors, factory workers, etc. ) can not. To make matters worse, if a roof installer applies for a job as an office worker, his resume would be tossed out. These workers haven't seen their life expectancy rise as much as the people who sit behind a desk, and often they have less monetary health. Asking them to work longer is a classist endeavor.
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
No one should be allowed to work in an office in their younger years. Office work should only be done by people with prior field / life experience. Many problems of today come from college educated idiots stepping out into the world and thinking they know everything about something...
@@guymontag6382I'm not sure what possible relevance ten years in construction would be to a software developer. Not all "office work" is filing tax returns and drawing up staff rotas.
Who the heck wants to be stuck behind a desk with a manager all of their life?
@@tastyfrzz1 As opposed to what? I'm in my early sixties. Go into work when I choose. There's air-con, on-site gym, I have a fancy chair for my back and I really like my manager and I'm happy to spend time with her. On the way in I walk passed a construction site. I see men in their fifties looking broken. I wouldn't swap.
The stupidest thing about humanity is that it feels it has to always increase everything. Profits are supposed to increase more each and every year. Everybody thinks they’re supposed to have as many babies as they want.
It’s a shame that human beings cannot just live sustainably, but I always have to have more and more and more .
Collectively humans are like a virus or cancer- the main aim is to take over and/or destroy our host. Luckily Elon will save humanity and our descendants will live on Mars and the cycle shall continue- growth at all costs.
❤
Technology evolved insanely fast, and our brains are still stuck in the caveman ages 😂
Humans don't plan more than 10-15 yrs out in most cases--some island peoples like Japan and others definitely make long term plans--for scarcities sake due to finite space and resources.
The unspoken truths about expanding human population--I think the world becomes more violent the more of us there are. There are the obvious consequences but nobody talks about the psychological impacts of the Competition factor and also the value of other humans in our own minds decreasing the more of us there are. We turn off our minds to massive suffering and death world wide as a coping mechanism but secretly we maybe thinking, phew--less pressure on the natural world but more importantly less mouths to feed and resources taken.
The biggest worries should be those at the top and their voracious consumption habits--if the top 400 wealthiest families in the US disappeared--billions of people globally could be much better off in every aspect.
Lastly if we could, we should ask the natural world--hey do you really need more humans? How do humans benefit the natural world? We can easily solve the problem of to few people but we have to resort to some very barbaric solutions to handle the issue of too many people and too few resources.
It’s because theres to many people over competing!
I think the important part of this message is starting around 6:12 accepting the inevitable and planning for it. Economists and other policy makers should stop thinking about infinite growth and start thinking about what is possible with what we know. I also appreciate the blink-and-you-miss-it suggestion that we look at how we consume. Consumerism needs to change in every way.
For those who are interested, Kate Raworth's book, 'Donut Economics' has a lot of ideas that have since been further developed many of which work well. The city of Amsterdam has adopted a donut model, to measure how well each person is looked after, within the donut framework.
It's going to take a lot more than that. Humans are moving into a completely new world that is replacing the tribal world we came from and are still most adapted to. We need to adapt genetically and strategically. That is what my work is about, but curiously the title of my book on it gets filtered out here. If you want, you can find the books from my name.
Yep, but that donut will only work with much less people inhabiting this finite world.
Thank you for the book recommendation.
It's not how many we are, but where are the people who are alive now. No expert, but it is obvious the Indian subcontinent has millions of people more than they can handle. We as Americans, if we want to preserve a good life, need to prevent that fate from happening to us.
@@leomarkaable1 Prevent that from happening? Yikes. Population growth is not a button that can be turned on or off.
The population needs to be reduced! Why? Because the wealthy of the world are not interested in sharing their economic success with the average people who actually enabled them to achieve it!
conspiracy much?
Exactly
@@chrishooge3442just selfish rich people. Obvious facts much
@mike9554. I fail to understand how anyone could watch this Ted Talk and then make a completely false conclusion from it?! It's not that population NEEDS to be reduced, but that it IS being reduced for all reasons given in the talk. Aging population and less incentive to raise children because of the financial burden that adults are living with now that wasn't the case in the past.
So... kill the poor to get better statistics?
I am 63 and disabled, I work nearly 27 years but got incredibly ill 2 years before reaching retirement age, doctors said I was done working and would be lucky to stay alive. Well they where right I died but got better😂, still is funny to say that. But over the next ten years I have got better and can work but not enough to support myself, catch 22 there. I was a project manager for the Transportation Cabinet so knowledge is still there I just can't deal with 60-70 hour weeks, its what got me in the condition I ended up in.
60-70 hour weeks is caused by exploitation on the part of your employer. Such a joke yet many people work like this. Studies have shown that humans are pretty much useless after more than 40 hours work. Not many high stress job types like doctors or CEOs make it to being a centenarian.. not that everyone’s life goal is to live that long, but to me it shows the impact of stressful jobs with long hours- it slowly kills people.
SO, WORK PART TIME, ITS BETTER THEN WATCHING TV OR THE INTERNET OR TIC TOK
It appears that the Economy is the problem?
If we look at that as the cause of the problems of aging,
we get a more clear picture of what is causing our health issues?
We need to consider getting rid of Capital as a measure of Value.
NOT ENOUGH HOUSNG CAUSES HIGH RENTAL PRICES, SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONTROL THE PRICE OF EVERYTING, WOMEN DONT WANT CHILDREN, THEY WANT CARRERS NOW, @@danielhutchinson6604
@sandponics I was born in 1951 and still find the ability to assemble around 20 tons of Hay inthe barn to feed the critters.
We all seem to be capable of enduring for a while, but the kids appear to only be able to twiddle their thumbs on some damn Pooter....
The lack of Farms for humans to grow up on clearly has done some serious damage to the USA.
"in a resilient world we compete for talent"
What? No. This is narrow thinking. In a resilient world people can afford to live where they are and don't have to move to have a good life.
But when you have one country competing with the next, it puts both in a position where they need to provide the best quality of life for their citizens or else they could lose them. Competition isn't a bad thing. It makes everyone better. I'm not sure how that thinking is 'narrow' exactly.
@@sirgerbilmacintosh9101 I agree, though I feel OP is reasoning from the perspective of the citizens competing for a better life and you are reasoning from institutions competing for resources. On the other hand such entities need not implement competitivity in a beneficial way; for instance a tyranny can compete with a democracy. People won't move from a tyranny for other reasons than in a democracy; they simply can't or create peril for their loved ones they left behind.
So where competition is 'narrow' in the sense an oppressive elite using it to keep down the proletariat (where the market is controlled by capital and is not truly 'free'), it could be positive if democratic institutions implement particular elements to improve innovation.
@@MrMichiel1983 Parts of these narratives strike me as incomplete, typically to me stemming from a loss of connection to the basic requirements of life. Almost anyone can, if they want, set up in a random field in the middle of nowhere. If not then of course you have to contend with the people who got there before you, i.e. people with "capital". That isn't about not being "free" that is simply a factual constraint. The idea that we could make it so no one ever has to move is just fantasy. The only reason why many people can even be born where they are is because of inexpensive food imports from more fertile nations who produce more than their population can eat. I find that most people complaining about the way the world is and blaming it on some higher class miss the fact that life has certain tradeoffs regardless of one's situation. Life simply has certain constraints to it. As long as one isn't physically forced into not picking a different trade-off, then we are indeed free.
In a world where the environment is fire tornados and daily floods, maybe some people might have to move...
In a better world, it wouldn't matter where your mommy went to the hospital droid, we would all move all over the world anytime we want. No national borders, cultures, or languages. Just one united earth. 🌎
I would submit, the falling "replacement rate" is quite fortuitous as current foodstuff productions are past peak abilities, world-wide aquifers are quickly falling & the resultant crop yields are doomed to fail in epic proportions....such populations while currently "underfed", will only get worse, at an increasing rate.
I disagree, if you want to reduce the population on any country fully developed, just increase the standard of living gradually and it will happen. It does not make much sense, but it is true, the wealthier the population the less kids they have, the poorer you are and specifically uneducated, the more kids you have. It is just a result of progress. We have to change our economic system to account for this easy to test effect from wealth and progress creation. This is why countries rush to keep inflation high and people poor enough to have more children, look at our educational system, still people feel they do not want kids, even ignorant people are realizing the fact of life is better with more resources for you and less to share with kids, of which our economy depends on, since it hold you down socially and economically by force to work hard for life
Who would bring a kid into this world where you can't even own a house
exactly
You can't own a house where everyone wants to own a house but you can absolutely own a house if you really want it.
Exactly. I started wanting a kid really badly the last 6 years.. but when I actually think about it, it’s not ethical to have a child in this situation.
Is it only worth to live, if you are owning a house?
Trust me, that's not the hardest part of having a kid lol. Children have always been a burden--they can't even walk on their own for a fucking year!--but they're also a great joy, I would argue the most primal, basic, fulfilling experience we can have. Can't own a home? Teach your kids resourcefulness. Can't own a home? Teach them a work ethic. But more importantly, and your parents should have taught you this, stop using that "can't" word, it's a killer. "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right." - Henry Ford.
When all the assets (money) is concentrated into the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us impoverished, why would anyone consider bringing a child into that kind of life?
that is exactly what is happening a few own it all while the masses fight for crumbs
THAT IS WHY YOU VOTE BLUE
@@domcizekvoting blue leads to more concentration of wealth with the 1%.
SORRY, WRONG, TRUMP GAVE 1.7 TRILLION TAX CUT TO ALL THE COMPANIES, AND ALL THEY DID WAS BUY BC THEIR STOCK, AND RAISE THE MARKET, THEN THEY SOLD AT THE PEAK OF THE MARKET AND MADE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS, SO FAR TRUMP HAS INCREASED THE NATIONAL DEBT BY 7 TRILLION DOLLARS, SO CHECK ON THE FACTS, THE ECONOMY ALWAYS DID BETTER UNDER THE DEMOCRATES THE LAST 100 YEARS, CHECK THE FACTS @@girishg414
@@domcizek That has absolutely not helped
Thinking of people as a resource is so messed up.
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
is what the rich and world leaders think about us they know A.I machines are not be enough they need humans poor humans to do their work
We are a resource, just like trees, bees, and seeds.
@@P2B_JC no
@@MarcosSantos-dj6lk then what are we if not resources?
Less people, less pollution; some problems solved ...
less poverty
more food 😋
@@alexrod9271 more energy more housing more everything
There is only a pie the less people the greater is the slice for each.
Do you know what triggered the renaissance? The plague that killed half of the European population. There was no war, food was in abundance and for one century there was significantly less CO2 in the atmosphere so trees grew slower and the wood got denser and that gave Stradivarius violins their unique sound.
I am a Korean in mid-30s.
All politicians and experts see only economic reasons as the cause of low birth rates, but I don't think so.
All living things does not produce offspring unless their safety is guaranteed.
Due to the continued increase in population, we are damaging nature more, raising more animals, and generating carbon dioxide, creating a climate disaster that humanity has never experienced before.
Due to the continued low birth rate and population decline, the government warns that welfare funds will be depleted, but there is bigger issue than the money.
Our economy may collapse, but we want to take action for a better future.
Even amid the dangers of war, climate disaster, energy war, food shortage, water shortage, religious war, and ideological war, we must act for a better future.
I am neither a left-wing activist nor a member of an environmental protection civic group, but I have an uneasy feeling that if we continue like this, the future of our descendants will never be safe.
I am happy to be born as a human, but also I feel guilty for being born as a human.
Because we just realized that humans can not control our own greed and selfishness, I believe that population reduction is the only solution to saving this planet.
Good luck for you and I and us.
I feel like South Korea shouldn't have handed the entire nation's resource and labour base off to a handful of mega-corporations, honestly. That has nothing to do with people not 'working hard'.
People are working harder for less, and more and more wealth is being concentrated in the handfuls of these mega-corporations and the handful of individuals and families who control them. People no longer work for the common good, but for the financial benefit of these mega-corporations and the handful of individuals and families who control them.
yes, population must be reduced to have a brighter future for the next generation...
Soviet have fertility rate . Give south Korea free home
A show of hands for population decrease...
Just remember your also included.
@anormalkorean we need more people like you who talk about the problems that are going on
She works with the Wilson Center. Read between the lines, this is about policy making.
Dear lord. Her solution is we work longer and compete for talent?
Can we please have a non-neoliberal address this?
Thank you, I agree! Her agenda (whatever it may be) runs contrary to what most people in developed countries are thinking, including me. She advocates for more people yet, people in developed countries know better - that's why they're not having children! There are some very, very compelling reasons to not bring children into this world right now. For one, we here in the US have all but lost our middle class and now a sizeable number of people on the right want to kill our democracy. Then, there's global warming which is far from being solved. From all that carbon, we're looking at a future of food shortages, mass migrations, war and God only knows what else. Sounds to me like the uber-wealthy want more workers and I presume she's advocating for them.
Soylent Green?
This is exactly what the Republicans want for "fiscal responsibility "
SORRY, WITH NO YOUNG POPLE TO WORK AND PAY TAXES FOR YOUR RETIREMENT, WHAT CHOICE WILL YOU HAVE,
We will start showing up when the wealth finally trickles on us. The only thing trickling down on us is rich people's piss.
The wolves are upset the sheep aren’t reproducing
so, so true
How about we write The Soylent Green Cookbook, over here we call it Long Pig.
the perfect way of putting it
How many children do YOU have?
I'm sorry but I disagree with some of the subject material this woman is talking about.
I would love to see a declining population. 8-billion humans worldwide & still growing; it's madness, All the effort, time, money being directed into consuming less energy, producing less pollution & CO2, whilst I don't disagree with those objectives at all, we could achieve far more in pursuance of those objectives if we gradually allowed the human population to reduce back to 1-billion or 2-billion worldwide, as it was around the year 1800-ish.
I reside in the UK & it angers me considerably to have experienced mass immigration to increase our population & the wealth of the 0.1%. We are being packed into ever more high density urban ghettos & having to endure the rise of mainly muslim demands for sharia laws. Rises in crime, particularly sexual assaults. The upset & controversy this is causing is becoming 'off the scale'. I certainly have never been given any opportunity to exercise my democratic vote for this; it's being IMPOSED!
I would dearly love the UK population to return back to 40-50 million, & the UK would still be fairly densely populated even then relatively speaking. I'm about to sell my house & flee to what remains of the countryside, flee the crime, flee the imposed diversity, flee the selfish noise of neighbours packed in like sardines.
I'm guessing this comment will be hidden or deleted, because it does not agree with The Agenda, but I dare to say this in good faith.
I listened to the end to find out if the elephant in the room would be addressed: how many people can our ecosystems sustain, our oceans, forests, soil. A pity that wasn't mentioned
Many of us in our 60s are unable to work already, bodies wear out, we’re not machines ! I had to retire early and lost a lot by doing so, I was just beginning my peak earning years and my lifestyle tanked when I had to stop working, as well as losing the huge contributions I would have continued to make to my retirement fund. It’s cruel to expect people to work into their 70s, most won’t be able to anyway. Those who want to, more power to them, I just hope they won’t need to. Social security isn’t enough, who the heck can live on $1,200/month? Even with paid and clear housing, it just isn’t possible.
I believe that is why she discussed better health care. There is a movement of medical doctors and researchers to emphasize longer healthful living rather than just longevity by tracking health proactively and by diagnosing early warning indicators.
Yes. And old people won't be able to help their grandkids. So it's going to decline even more. Greed is killing people. We re all adapting to this high cost of living. It's crazy.
@@blueamenaa749 the whole system needs a balance
There are people who can not afford it buying pickup trucks costing $60, $80, $100 thousand dollars! Not because they need it for work but because everybody else has one (who can’t afford them either). Education is the answer but the current trend, in the US anyways, is for the government to cater to the "poorly educated". These are the people who’ll be working into their seventies.
@@LisaFaissSo-called “better health care” will not necessarily prolong the average working lifetime. It will in a few individuals but not across the board.
Not to mention that “better health care” is something we are getting farther and farther away from in western countries. It’s too expensive and that’s not about to change any time soon.
As a Canadian I have to say our immigration model is a failure, not because of the immigration level, but how its distributed. The population density of Canada is 4 person/Km2,(Underpopulated), but the majority of immigrants settle in Toronto with the denisity of 4334persons/Km2.(Overpopulated). The result is we have the worst of both Under/over population.
failure is a strong word, but yes living in Toronto often means too many people dealing with stress over too few resources
Feel sorry for the Canada brand and many countries who in good conscience encourage immigration but then the divisive application on the ground screws it up massively resulting in ghettoised division and resentment on both sides. It's a timebomb.
@@jonr6680. Nah, not a time bomb. Canada is well situated for the future and our immigration policies are a large part of that. We bring in talent and money (and refugees when needed, often at a much higher rate than our neighbours to the south). We are attractive to immigrants because we are prosperous and peaceful and liberal and progressive and tolerant. Immigrants help our economy so much. I’d say most Canadians are fine with people from other cultures and the younger generation is even more tolerant and accepting. Generally, multiculturalism is working. I’d agree that we need better policies to ensure immigrants are encouraged to move to places other than the big cities, but this is a tough sell because immigrants want to be close to others from their culture. If I moved to India, you can bet that I’d settle in a Canadian enclave, or at least a western community (“little Canada” LOL). But my kids would grow up and move wherever. Just my opinions.
4000/km2 is pretty average for a city, here in Geneva we have the double of that. Migrants or not most people prefer to move to cities
@@learningisfun2108 A Canadian being smug about destroying their country faster than America. Amazing.
Only the rich and powerful worry about this
Wrong
@@SteveMailman-u1v how is that wrong?
The governments want more people as a form of capital, for exploitation. We need more enlightened governments who treat people as human Beings, not as fodder for war and as workers for the small proportion of the incredibly rich.
Indeed. Instead, nobody is more than a number on an accounting ledger to governments and corporate execs.
The wannabe Malthusian dictators at WEF would dispute your first point. They see people as polluting, resource-sucking, crybabies, standing in the way of our Bright Utopian Future.
@@skylinefever ONE EXCEPTION = ELON MUSK !!
The population will decrease back to ~2billion, I hope we do it as humanely and sustainably as possible. And unicorns, lots of unicorns.
it was a transition the world had to go trew as we industrialize
I wish I lived in that world. Advanced technologies but enough space and housing for everyone. And lots of space for nature.
@@MoDa87 that's what the Georgia guidestones are about
I doubt the reindeer on St. Matthew Island were having fun while the population declined from 6000 to 42 over two years, and I doubt humans will enjoy it when the same happens to us. So yeah, unicorns. And rainbows.
@@Caitanyadasa108 its coming tough whether we like it or not things are out balance right now its unsustainable
Increasing the retirement age is a blunt instrument of very little value globally. What do you do with all the people who have only ever done physically demanding work? I’m also surprised that she got through her talk without putting automation and AI at centre stage. Those factors combined with a huge rethink of how corporations contribute back to society and how that contribution is distributed will be vitally important.
The only thing corporations give back to society is share holder profits. The Government lowered taxes on corps to help share holders but only share holders. That's not going to last long.
Not to mention that businesses don't actually want nor seek older employees, creating an increasing gap, or "doughnut hole" between the official retirement age, and the actual age workers are forced out of the workforce. If you notice, that is almost never discussed in the media.
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
She is not on your side. She is on side in huge global corporate owners. They dont care about their own population replacement and suffering. They prefer cheaper immigrant labour to pay them less.
They are the definition of problem they demand to solve by abolishing 90% of their own population, rather than pay them what they deserve for decent living and reproducing conditions.
They dont want to go as low as they were in baby boom times before globalist far right reforms
She is not on your side. She is on side in huge global corporate owners. They dont care about their own population replacement and suffering. They prefer cheaper immigrant labour to pay them less.
They are the definition of problem they demand to solve by abolishing 90% of their own population, rather than pay them what they deserve for decent living and reproducing conditions.
They dont want to go as low as they were in baby boom times before globalist far right reforms
I retired at 65. I'll be damned if I expect anyone to work older than that. Actually, in a decent world, retiring at 50 is about right, maybe earlier.
This type of thinking won’t be applicable in the near future! Most humans will be older than you- and will want/need to work!
Me too, but I'm hoping to be able to buy a humanoid robot or two for home healthcare, housework, lawn care and other labor about 2030. I'd buy one today if I could, but they are not quite ready yet for that. They have to put in a few years on the factory floor, first, before they will be ready to take instructions from cranky old farts like me at home.
If we lived in a system with the right priorities, technology would serve first and foremost to make our lives better, i.e. to free us from work. But new technology now means new ways to exploit workers so as to increase private profits.
We here in the US already work more than any other developed country in the world. There isn't even a federal law to guarantee Americans vacation time and meanwhile, she has the audacity to suggest that we should work longer..? Wow!
@@gmenezesdea Um . . . no, new technology now IS the labor. Just keep your eyes and ears on the news over the next year and you will hear more and more hysterical warnings about robots and AI tools TAKING YOUR JOBS. Don't believe them. All that new technology has the potential to create more and better jobs for any of us, IF we watch carefully and learn how to take advantage when we see opportunities.
And yet from a biological and environmental point of view there is absolutely no question that we desperately need fewer people. One way or another.
Absolutely
Total lie. We have plenty of resources for all ppl on planet. Most of world could fit in our continent comfortably. You are being fed a lie.
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
Overpopulation is a myth.
Agreed!
Too many, we're not the only species that needs space to thrive.
The fairly obvious solution to an aging population is to increase the retirement age; however, this could be made far more palatable by lowering hours worked or only requiring part-time hours for those above the current retirement age. The one immediate benefit I could see coming from this idea is, some seniors who currently lead a solitary, and often lonely, existence would still have some freedom with lower hours but would also have some benefit of getting out into the world a few days of the week for some part of the day. Having too many hours to oneself is not healthy and, for some, is a road to an early and sad end.
I will emphasize that making people work in elder years like they're a fresh-faced kid is cruel and should be avoided by any society that cares even a little about its citizens.
Worth thinking about.
Your are entitled to your opinion, but having retired in my mid-fifties (now 67), I can definitely say that retirement is one of the richest periods of my life and the thought of having to work decades more than I did is truly depressing. Just saying ...
@@meta4101 they dont mean forcing ppl to work. They mean accessing their social sescurity. Most working class people cant afford to fully retire before 70 anyway. Even in the 90s everyones grandparents had a pension and a pt job.
The real problem with the suggestion is despite life getting longer, we are not lengethening productivity yrs...an old time solution would be to offer elders part time work as consultant-advisors...the problem is due to the rate of technological change and its impact, this is the first time in history that our elders knowlege is not in a position to help us. Like young and peak age people cant even look to peri-seniors for any help with anything, not just technically but in terms of how things relate... and the world is being run by such people. Hopefully those ones are adaptable and surrounded by younger thinkers. It used to be your knowlege would be good for generations, now its obsolete within a decade.
Digesting the Boomers was always gonna be rough, because they are a very large postwar generation. But in addition, there is the increasing rate of technical and cultural change.
Seriously, even Gen X is barely able to understand whats coming and theyre the ones that asked for it.
Its not a situation the human race has ever faced before, where the value of elders is virtually useless aside from their value as individual people we love and who cared for us, but I meant economic.
@@rickwrites2612Dude..I'm retired age, I listen to Vini Vici AI music, play disc golf, teach a class on AI and Space Robotics, programming hivemind swarmbot agents.
I driive a Nissan Juke with a big turbo, probably woop your car. Also..my wife is retirement age and still works full time and I work part time. The leader of our church is 99 years old!
Maybe we old folk need to live a bubble..
So i don't think i be able to retier before i turn 70, or even older, if i still have a job of course.
See if you say that after you worked all your life and now you cannot retire because you’ll have no insurance.🤔
It´s been a while since I saw a TED talk and wanted to give this one a chance given the subject. Unfortunately dissapointing. So basically Jennifer is suggesting here to ´import´ people from current high birth rate countries (Africa) to magically solve all issues. Apart from all the societal issues this would bring to those lower birth rate countries (which she dismisses as bein simply ´fearful´ behaviour), it´s just a temporary prolongation trying to maintain GDP, while not at all rethinking the world from a different perspective. If labour shortage is the main concern maybe wages should rise, and industry could refocus on what is really necessary and beneficial to society.
WITH NO YOUNG WORKERS TO CONSUME WHAT OTHER PEOPLE MAKE/BUILD, THEN WHERE WILL EVERYTHING YOUR USED TO COME FROM, IMMAGRATION IS THE ANSWER FOR AMERICA AND IS ALREADY HAPPENING,
Agreed. Jennifer is incredibly short sighted by suggesting further immigration as a solution to population decline. Not to mention, second generation immigrants have birth rates just as low as the host populations as seen in Europe and North America.
JUST ANNOUNCED ON TV NEWS, CHINAS POPULATION HAS DECREASED BY 2 MILLION IN 2023, BY 2050, CHINAS POPULATION WILLL BE ONE HALF OF AMERICAS,, DUE TO MASS IMMAGRATION YOU NOW SEE ON THE TV NEWS, FROM ACCROSS THE BOARDER, @@anthonyvelloza2622
I don't think the planet would appreciate lots of people from developing countries being added to the over-consuming first world.
Those countries in Africa are only growing their population because the world keeps pouring food into them. They can't feed themselves. All attempts at teaching them farming have failed. how are people that can't farm to save their lives supposed to maintain a technological civilization?
Government: We are going to make everything expensive
Also government: Strange, why is no one having kids?
This Is your fault, not government
Too many and too many unthinking, uncaring humans.
Agreed!
politicians
Agreed, peterdollins!
You all fit that description more than you’d like to admit
In the olden days, elderly used to watch the children. Now in U.S. people work during retirement to supplement and we have a teacher and daycare shortage. Problem is its too expensive to live.
Or perhaps we have too many things to spend our money on?
@@captainamerica3493maybe you do. I don’t spend money on anything but the basics.
MoDa87 "In the olden days" we did not pay for internet access, cable tv, cell phones and data plans, bottled water, air travel was a luxury, Starbucks coffee every morning, motorized kitty litter boxes and the millions of other things and services we couldn't live without that didn't even exist 50 years ago. It's true but I'm sorry you are struggling and it's true that I am not.
@@captainamerica3493 How many people don't buy that stuff, and still struggle to rent an apartment with their crap wages?
Boomers
Amirite?
Call me crazy BUT a world with less people sounds like an AWESOME one; less people means LESS traffic, LESS pollution, MORE housing, HIGHER wages because of the "lack" of workers...UNFORTUNATELY nothing will be done to solve this upcoming "crisis", humanity and politicians in particular have a tendency to hide their heads in the sand, I feel so sorry for my nephews and nieces who will be the ones to clean up this mess...
She's saying higher wages means higher costs. But it doesn't have to, if CEOs only earned, say 10 times what their workers earn, instead of 1000 times more - like back in the '50s and '60s when ONE parent working at a modest job (like grocery clerk) could afford a home, a car and even a vacation. Plus help put their kids through college - which cost a smitten of what it does now. I paid my college loan off in a year, back in the '70s - while sharing a nice 3 bdrm house with 4 friends for $250 a month. We paid 50 bucks a month each for rent.
agreed
"a world with less people sounds like an AWESOME one; less people means LESS traffic, LESS pollution, MORE housing, HIGHER wages because of the "lack" of workers." EXACTLY!!
WHY should a CEO be paid A SINGLE DIME MORE than ANY OTHER worker? Socialists and Communists were the heroic revolutionaries who fought for the FREEDOM OF WORKERS TO BE PAID THE SAME AS CEOS! They were revolutionaries just like George Washington and slavery abolitionists.@@gamkal7231
The question is how to get there.
There are too many people on this planet. Hands down! The only people who say we need more people are the 1% who need more workers. In my area alone there are 33% more people than there was 40 years ago. Pollution, loss of arable land, and congestion ate rampant. Worst of all is the decline of our public schools. Too many people, not enough rules.
...and we're sooo much that we can allowed ourself to make wars that kill thousands daily....🙄 We're so much that the human life has no value at all... 🙄
So women, you can give some rest to your tommy 😏
Who's extra? Are you willing to exit?
@@edheldude-
“extra” are all the people yet to be born that governments wants to pay taxes and corporations want to get richer from.
@@edheldude your statement would be a lot better if you change the last line. Too many people, not enough support.
@@mshlehman Support? There's no lack of resources, just lack of resourcefulness. It's up to you to support yourself. So far we're the richest people in existence.
In this TED-talk, a person (Jennifer), whose mind is functioning on a capitalistic-worldview, discusses decreasing birth rates without really discussing it (e.g. causes). She speaks of a "resilient-world" when in fact what she suggests is only one solution for applying shallow-ecology to maintaining business-as-usual economics while offering to see immigration as a slightly more positive prospect, to those that do not.
She speaks with a vibe of anxiety for over 10 minutes but does not offer any content, details, or framework for the simple statistical interpretation of birth rates.
Jennifer does not, in any way, offer more about these numbers - and what to do with them - than an undergrad in mathematics or what the social-scientists would come-up with if given a class assignment to do so - while in their own university programs.
I am starting to lose the point for what the goal of TED-talks are...Are they meant for university professors to come-up with ideas for what to give as class-assignments?!?
Professor-Marty.
I agree, this was an incredibly poorly thought out TED talk. It felt like she spent more time trying to tell me what to do, instead of trying to educate. It's very uncomfortable for TED talks to accept such drivel now.
That is a preposterous assertion. Given the time frame and the complexity she did an excellent job of articulating the problem and showing potential pathways forward.
She could have provided much more facts and figures but that wouldn't have made the talk better, just more complicated and therefore less people would have got the core message.
If the objective was to demonstrate how smart you are then perhaps your way would work. However if you want to reach more people I think she did the best job possible.
Yes, her "solutions" like forcing old people to work are not solutions at all. But there is a solution. Artificial intelligence is expected to bring increasing efficiency and higher corporate profits. We can tax those profits to maintain humane retirement policies.
If the speaker doesn't have a natural science background when talking about population. I don't even bother listening.
@@PoshMurder Yeah, I have not watched that many TED talks in my life, but I did feel cheated out of 10-minutes here!
Good lecture, but one point I would make is that fewer workers might mean higher wages for those workers, but that does not mean higher inflation. Countries like Germany and Switzerland that didn't have a lot of workers had low inflation. And countries like Zimbabwe or Venezuela or Nigeria with lots of workers had high inflation. Inflation has much more to do with how the government backs the money and what faith investors have in the money, not the number of workers.
Is that the right question to ask?
Or should we globally mobilize to remove the corruption in our governments first?
Bribes, insider trading, foreign sabotage, gross incompetence…If we had decent leaders it wouldn’t matter who lead because they would all be focused on finding the best solutions instead of what we have now.
How many wars, crimes against humanity go on due to this issue? How many trillions of dollars a year globally go to waste due to our inability to unseat and clearly define what optimal leadership is?
that's the Forever War, you'll never change human nature of those in power
Science should have authority. And by science I mean, yes, hard sciences like biology or physics, but also psychology, sociology, political science, all those "useless" humanity degrees.
More government is not the solution to issues that all too likely are caused at least in part by government. LESS government is how we fix corruption and many other issues all at once. How we ACHIEVE 'less' government is, however, the most important challenge of the next century. Can we take back SOME of the duties, responsibilities, and work that we handed off to corporations and to government over the previous century?
Take the FDA . . . PLEASE. Can we replace them and a huge chunk of the pharmaceutical industry costs structure with an open AI system that uses automation and robots to perform all the testing that currently happens in proprietary labs behind closed doors? If all that information is made public, can we be responsible for our own health and diet and medication decisions? What a huge difference that could make, if each of us was under the care and continuous monitoring of a suite of AI medical experts aided by our in-house humanoid robot caretaker(s) mentor(s).
How many of the other 'handholding' tasks we have no time to do properly for ourselves can we hand off to a combination of AI specialist, automation and humanoid robots? Lawncare, for sure! Gardening/Orcharding/Ranching and harvesting, preserving and food preparation would be a bigger challenge. Home energy production, storage and sales to generate both robust electricity, heating or cooling and clean hot or cold water plus a steady revenue stream from surplus electricity sales to the local grid would be fantastic and actually happens in a few places around the world today.
This all requires HUGE amounts of change and work and innovation, of course. Plenty to keep us busy for a century or two, spreading it around the planet and off planet, too. Be sure to plan lots of small, achievable short term goals and rewards, like completely shutting down certain government offices as soon as they are certified unnecessary due to having been replaced by something better.
All humans are corruptible. It's what got us here in the first place. Take religion as an example. There are some decent religious teachings, steeped in goodness and morality. Yet somehow even they fail at creating peace on earth.
Systems fail because of human frailty. Eugenics is the way to go here. (Kidding)
You're fighting against human nature. You can't fix or change that. There will always be evil and selfishness.
We have an economic model that is thousands of years old and was created with scarcity in mind. It is a free-for-all deathmatch that requires infinite growth and pits humans into competition. If we don’t switch out of this monetary system we are doomed.
The magic word in your comment is 'scarcity' which is about to END, if current trends in AI, automation and robotics enable us to create a future of near infinite plenty for every human on the planet, or off it. We will probably know in a year or less whether the AI and the robots will be capable enough to make a huge difference. Today we don't know, because they are not on the job, yet. In 2024 there will be mass production of humanoid robots at Tesla . . . or not, if something fails. Watch for Optimus, then watch what Optimus does.
It's awesome, really, how much of our future depends on a pathetic little collection of motors, batteries, gears and parts, which we will see rise to perform absolute marvels over the next few years.
Or not . . .
Scarcity, and I mean true scarcity, stopped being real after the agricultural and Industrial Revolution. Today’s scarcity is artificial, and AI won’t be the answer. What we need is a shift in social values with a new social system that focuses on providing for humanity.
@@colinkeizer7353there will always be scarcity because when the job will be taken by ai , humanoid, and robot then what about human do for living??? Or will human extinct way faster?
@@filmesharrifena865 human work or activity isn't related to scarcity, e.g. basic income generated from A.I. work tax could support human living
@@colinkeizer7353lol teslabots? Really? Musk and Tesla are not the ones disrupting and controlling the game when it comes to AI and robotics. Fully functioning Tesla bots next year!? LMAO I’ll give everyone commenting in this video 10,000 dollars if that happens. I’ll throw a freebie I’ll do it if it’s a thing in 2028.
This trend sounds like a GOOD THING for the planet! Countries will find ways to adapt, some quicker and better than others!
The real fear for countries that have the resources for THEIR POPULATION is allowing others who have over populated their countries and used up their resources to invade other countries and use up those resources too .
Sorry lady I've worked 52 years of hard labor and 8 surgeries later I'm retired early .
When human population has drastically reduced then there will be enough resources for everyone. Humans will have to go back in the old days, back to farming, there will be more land to cultivate and to pasture. There's no need for more work force, every family will work together, the more child you have is better, then the cycle repeats, the population will grow
@bradowen8862 A slight problem with this theory of living in the past of extremely hard times . The computer/robotics age of laziness and lack of knowledge of actually being self sufficient . In other words people would die off at a higher rate than in the 21st century.
@@bradowen8862 A smaller population doesn't mean we have to give up productivity advances and modern technology. My son-in-law once asked my mom who was born in the 1920s, if she didn't wish we were back in the 'GOOD OL DAYS'. She emphatically said NO. They weren't so good. A smaller population means we will still have plenty of free time and our standard of living will be high. But there will be more land for wildlife habitat as well since we won't need to cultivate nearly as much as we do today or strip the seas of all fish and food that we do now.
@@terryfrit3749 Humans are resilient, and with the technological advances that we have, even these lazy people will likely to survive. Humans will adapt. It could even accelerate the development in AI technology to reduce our dependency on labour force
As a 50 something I'd be really happy to see an end to age discrimination in the workplace and hiring process if only by necessity . Of course population decline is not all a bed of roses but that is one aspect that I'd really look forward to and celebrate !
Imagine the impact of ageism in countries like India, where the population of young is higher.
In free nations, like USA, any old person can start their own business and quietly hire old people. There's no particular system in place to prevent it. Where I live, it's only about 500 to get a business license, then you're on your way.
This will fix itself. It will be more and more difficult to find workers.
Old workers expect higher wages than someone just entering the job market. This is the real reason why the elites try to flush out the older workers.
it would be nice but won't happen until 2 or 3 generations down
History lesson, in Europe the Black Death ended serfdom and started the Renaissance and innovation.
Yes, the current elder care is built on a piramid scheme, lets focus on that and innovative. What is really important is per-person GDP, not total GDP.
In short, by having fewer children, the masses can create the same result.
This is the real reason for massive open borders. The rich need a fresh new supply of exploitables.
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
It will only be good for everyone but the rich people
In the US we paid into social security to provide for our old age, and if it would have been invested and left alone the money would be available for retirement. But, the politicians had access to our social security, and used it for their needs not for ours.
Exactly so! The same occurred over here in the UK.
It surprises me that more people don't realise that if the retirement funds available to the government are insufficient then that is mismanagement (at best) rather than a fundamental problem with the system.
Investing the contributions of the potential retirees (after all not all of us make it to retirement) would amply fund the retired population. A consistent 7% return from investments is the norm rather than the exception - so, if a person has £100 taken from their wages each month and placed into such a scheme, by the time retirement rolls around fifty years on, each person would have more than half a million in their 'account'.
Applying even the moderate 4% rule for drawdown (which does not diminish the principle) that would give everyone a minimum of £20k per year in perpetuity.
As Sanders said, someone earning $160K per year pays exactly the same amount into Social Security as someone earning $2 billion. And that could and should be fixed. If everyone paid the same percent, problem solved!
And now, Gen Xers and younger will have to work til we drop.
Thanks a lot, boomers.
People don't even know what money is. Dollar bills are actually unconstitutional.
People don't even know what money is. Dollar bills are actually unconstitutional.
World population NEEDS to shrink. There's already too many people for available resources. Let it happen, the world will be better.
Humans outnumber rabbits buy far
Your source : Thanos from Avengers : Infinity War.
@@kruszewskimikoaj1200 Thank you
The modern world makes it's own problems. Take for example in Southern California around Los Angeles and San Diego. The area was desert and wasn't meant to support so many people, therefore they have to pipe in water from Northern California and the Colorado River, which is now going dry. There is just too many people using the available water. The same thing is happening in many places around the world, like in North Africa. These desert countries were not meant to naturally support such huge populations.
Modernity creates an artificial world, separated from nature in which people constantly chase monetary gain and entertain themselves, 'the good life' as they say (lets face it: the modern world is pretty boring without our toys). In the United States we talked about "the rat race" as a metaphor for the work-a-day world, but it is actually real. Our 'rat maze', so to speak is the concrete we drive around on. It is a big race to nowhere in which we, the participants, have totally lost our connection to the natural world, the earth. That's why I say it should be allowed to fail. The human race is not advancing towards the bright future; it is simply running around in the maze.
I say let it all fail, re-establish a connection with the Earth and maybe, just maybe, find true happiness.
@@GhostViperZ1Praise Jesus my good sir. Im glad some people around here are starting to see sense. We need to let our decadent society fall apart so we truly rebuild the kingdom that god meant for us. Hail the lord🙏
I'm 63, and I took early retirement because I want to enjoy my life not work forever.
1. IMHO, 1 billion is enough. High population puts incredible strain on ecosystem & natural resources (fossil fuels, minerals, arable land, fishing, fresh water & clean air). There's is a limit to which high consuming population can maintain balance with its environment. Even with clean Energy (i.e. fussion) we still need to eat & build stuff.
2. I wonder how this moderately young lady will feel about her concepts when she turns into her retirement age & be asked to still work to 'save the economy'
She will never think about it as she sits in the corporate boardroom, looking to cut even more benefits from the already broken entry level employees.
The population needs to grow at the replacement level, at least, or it will rapidly decline in just two generations. It's the reverse Malthusian effect.
@skatefan9495 needs to replace because of what? What's the rationale for this replacement?
@@krzysztofmiszczuk2089 If the birthrate isn't at least at the replacement level, the population will rapidly decline.
@skatefan9495 yes, it will. It will also decline when natural resources are depleted beyond sustainable level.
Absurd! If you care about children and can think critically about the world, you might know to question Jennifer. Ask her why people in those developed countries are not having children. Also, we here in the US already work longer than people in every other major developed country. It's what the rich want. They also want Jennifer to convince you to bring more children (workers) into the world even as our society continues to collapse. Who didn't know.
You're correct. It just takes to look a economic history and periods of population growth and decline. When population declines, wages go up and in many cases better working conditions. Now we also have the pressure a new person will apply to our already broken planet and she's asking for people to have more children. Ridiculous. People quit their jobs in mass in the US during the pandemic because they had time to actually think and because of the relief checks. Capitalist panicked so they pass laws in some states to allow child labor. Listen to prof Matei for more stuff about labour and how the rich use economics and lawmaking to keep workers down.
This girl needs to get in touch with the harsh reality, maybe her children should be autistic, homeless, jobless, etc. then she will know the world isn't what she expecting for.
"Also, we here in the US already work longer than people in every other major developed country. "
That's just, not correct. China has longer work hours and work weeks than us, Japan also averages longer work hours, India is doing a little better but not by much. Just to name a few
@@aether388 But China and Japan have better public education and health care than the US
@@japiro14 That's not what we're discussing, is it?
Honestly having kids is almost a cruelty to them with how uncomfortable life is. The uncertainty and cons outweighs the good.
that's why the life was made so uncomfortable - to limit the population growth when it. was exponetial
Lol. Im wondering which one is more comfortable to live. During ww or 2024. Thats funny that after having all these convenience, humans complain that everything is uncomfortable to live.
@@sr969 I’d rather live in WW, at least those people in todays world own homes, and live the lives that was promised to my generation if I got good grades and pursued college. At least WW people were fighting for something they believed in. I DONT KNOW what to believe in at this point. People in WW had hopes in the future things would be better. Well we’re all living in the future we’ve been waiting for, yet change didn’t follow suit.
@@christophergonzalez1893 this is the thought of people who live comfortably too lo ng. Living in war is never better. That is what i see from gazans and afghanis.
@@sr969 living comfortably? Idk sounds to me you’re projecting an ideology that holds no weight in reality 🤷🏻♂️ we’re currently in the middle of many wars and many more to come. That’s our future. That’s always been our future.
She just said we can all work longer like that's a good thing.
YES, IT IS A GOOD THING, IF YOUR ABLE TO DO IT, YOU WILL HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE FUTURE UNLESS YOU SAVED 2 MILLION DOLLARS
We might enjoy the ability to still function after the economic structure refuses to allow us to participate.
I know some very sick, barely able to work, 70 yr olds but have to keep going to pay for their meds. It still comes down to the government taking alot of our money, people too sick to work and some that never want to work but live off their parents.
In Sweden everybody's only talking about working LESS, not more. 😂
People wanna retire early. Oh boy it's going to be a rude awakening for many in the near future. ❤
@@sweden_is_xxxx I have spent over 20 years enduring the demands of a couple of women
of Swedish heritage, the experience was enlightening.
I understand that Russian attitudes were forged by being former subjects of Viking Beliefs.
The image of the Swedish Bikini Team seem to fade into some obscurity of advertising lingo......
As the Western Powers attempt to consolidate the Planet into a mindless group of Fiat Dollar Worshipers,
the Asian Unity that stands in their way,
now seem to control around 70% of the available resources on the planet.
BRICS appears to gather all the former Colonies of the G-7 group,
into a Trade Union that seems determined to stop trading their Goods with the West.
The ability to simply take their resources by force,
now appears to be a bluff?
A Mexican Standoff......
Pure chaos: land and jobs for everyone.
The demand will drop, the innovation will drop, housing prices will increase (Because houses dont drop out of the sky, they have to be BUILD)...
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
@@TheRealDionysos We have two problems in modern market economy.
1) Too much free buildings no one can afford to buy, that just serve no one. They are just stay empty.
2) Too much poor people who needs them, but cant get them due to their price.
3) It actually sovable problem, but 10% dont want to be a bit less rich to solve this. They won't cooperate.
@@TheRealDionysos
This is not how the market works. When demand drops the price drops. In this case, there will be FAR too much supply. Massive demand drop + too much supply = massive price drops. Housing prices would tank because there would be far too many existing.
@@Delimon007 Where should the massive supply come from? There will be a massive demand from the old (people aged above 70) an no one to provide this supply.
Yes, there are too many people on Earth. We have limited resources. If there were fewer people, we could meet the needs of everyone. That's ethical.
Too crowded. Home prices tell all. Hope we shrink until everyone can purchase home.
That's not the issue. It was greed and short sightedness.
It depends on how everything balances out. Somebody actually has to _build_ all those homes.
Your government controls prices. If you allow banks and big corporations to own houses what do you think it is going to happen?, look around , there is always way more land than people , high value Real Estate is just a joke on you
My wife and I chose not to have children. We are hoping to retire at 55-60. Someday we will purchase/hire (depending on how sentient it is) an android nurse to take care of us. Working until you are 70-75 is bullishit. Don't fall for it.
It probably works for people like herself. Not for roofers, masons, and other trades who demand a lot of their bodies.
SORRY, WRONG, I WORKED TILL 77 AND ENJOYED IT, SOCIAL SECURITY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD PEOPLE WITH YOUR KIND OF THINKING, UNLESS YOU SAVED SEVER MILLION DOLLARS TO LIVE WHEN YOU RETIRE EARLY
@@domcizek We are not Americans and do believe in a more social society, not a dog eat dog, selfish American attitude one. Where workers exist to be exploited by the big tax evading corporate dictators and Wall Street crooks.Thanks but no thanks. You work till you drop in the US, that's fine by me fella. And writing in capitals doesn't mean that you win the argument nor does it intimidate me Sir. Have a nice day
Mmmmm
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
People are being asked to eat less meat, drive less, fly less, etc so yes we are overpopulated. If innovation cannot catchup with population then population has to reduce. It’s not just about bare sustenance but also about having a comfortable life (not luxurious living but a comfortable life)
A decrease in population is do to overpopulation
The majority of inflation is corporate profit.
incorrect. all inflation is an expansion of the money supply.
@@olivertieden6081 Money printer went brrr, yet most of it ended up in the c suite.
Inflation is man made and baked into the currency cake, that started in 1913 in the US.
@@olivertieden6081 Not in Australia mate. It's pushed to a significant degree by excess profits. Find me a government which will do something about it, rather than jack up interest rates and try to increase unemployment and depress wages.
@@alanwatterson2850Competition will push prices down. That's how markets work. Inflation is different from the prices of some goods going up because of demand. You cannot create more stuff with government policy, but you can't stop it from being created.
An interesting TED Talk. But her entire speech dealt with the economic/political consequences of birth rates and an aging population. What about the impact on our earth of a still growing population? How many more species will go extinct because of us? How many of us will die as a consequence of a toxic level of microplastics or other pollutants? In short, I feel her talk was rather one dimensional.
Robots can play a role in addressing the challenges posed by an aging population in several ways:
Labor shortages: Robots can help to fill labor shortages by automating tasks that are currently performed by humans. This can be particularly helpful in industries that are struggling to find workers, such as healthcare, manufacturing, and agriculture.
Strained social security systems: Robots can help to reduce the strain on social security systems by increasing productivity and reducing the need for government spending on things like healthcare and long-term care.
Economic challenges: Robots can help to boost the economy by creating new jobs, increasing productivity, and driving innovation.
As robotics technology continues to develop, we can expect to see even more innovative ways to use robots to address the challenges of an aging population.
OBVIOUSLY we should build as MANY ROBOTS as possible to take over as MUCH labor from humans as possible.
So why have I endlessly heard idiots OBJECT to automation taking over jobs from humans? If there is TOO MUCH WORK to be done to sustain humans at a modern comfort level, then ANY bit of that labor being taken over by robots, AI, computers, whatever, should be welcomed.
Robots will not replace the consumption roll of missing population. They can be programed to do it, tough, but it won't be a natural thing and so far no one can even predict how this will affect our economy.
Robots don't own property, pay rent, or consume goods. Producing is only half of the equation. An aging and declining population will likely lead to a doom loop. Best case scenario much of the world turns into Detroit. Worst case scenario the world enters the third dark age.
Yes 💯
People are in denial. AI is going to trash Capitalism. Humans are obsolete.
As far as I know, population is declining only in the richest countries - in most of the world it is still rising. And as environmentalist I know that the real problem is not the number of people, but the impact they have on gobal ecosystem as a whole, and that is definitely increasing in worrying degree. The real root of the problem is inequality in income, property and political power - those who sufer the most from current crisis are not the ones who really make the decision - and for many of those who actually make the decision, crisis are actually an opportunity to get even richer and more powerful, so they are not really motivated to solve anything.
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
Why aren't older generations looking at themselves in the mirror and try to understand what did THEY do that made having kids so unappealing to their children?
Isn't It great that we have less and less people? We don't have to compete for resources any more.
Resources have to be produced/gather by somebody. Less people, less slaves.
Is that you Klaus Schwab lol🤑
we have plenty of resources.
then whos going to maintain the infulstructure even less people exist, i guess create for efficient systems so we don't need so many people to maintain the infulstructure
As the video mentioned not all places are undergoing population reduction at the same rate. Places that are going to reduce faster are more vulnerable. In addition what was also mentioned in the video, less places experiencing this are free nations. A likely outcome is that the bigger bad actors will eat the smaller vulnerable nations. You're right, there won't be competition for resources anymore. Instead there will be exploitation.
Lots of good points. Little talk of the destruction of environment with so many people, of how technology might mitigate much of the issues of smaller population, and whether lifespans will continue to grow or reverse. So many unknowns...
Lifespans are already decreasing, mostly due to the obesity epedemic.
People eat themselves into an early grave.
I was going to say, the average life span has already peaked, at least in the US.
A rapidly aging and declining population will almost certainly be catastrophic. It will likely lead to a doom loop of economic contraction. The whole country will look like Detroit. People cheering "yay I'll finally be able to buy a home!" are fools. Yes there will be a crash in property prices, but when you're standing in the bread line and starving, buying a house will be furthest from your mind. It's never going to get better than it is today, the future is bleak!
👍
An abundant workforce is always been a corporations paradise and a governments milk & honey. Because they get to treat you like you’re replaceable, cuz you are now, but not for long. Borrowing from their very own talking points “when supply is low, demand will increase”
What about Maximum Carrying Capacity , Climate change etc?
Maximum carrying capacity is a theoretical limit to human population. Usually based on fertility of plants and animals used as food.
Someone estimated that (placed into coffin sized spaces) all humans on earth would fit on the Isle of Skye. Most of humanity is squeezed together in less than 10 relatively small spaces, less than 100 miles wide each.
But the maximum never gets reached. In the 19th century, some writers suggested the population could never reach 2 billion. Then new farming technology increased productivity.
@@StuJones-gn7te But I feel like all the issues in India either directly or indirectly related to its huge population. Anyway I am not an expert in this field.
Personally, I think increased urbanization has been the biggest problem, pretty much everywhere.
Human beings tend to have two conflicting desires when left to themselves. They want space and they want to be with other humans. On a large scale, you can't really have both.
There have been some issues with over population in some places. China now imports most of its food.
Right now, worldwide, the fertility rate has dropped drastically and barely over the replacement rate of 2.1 per woman. In 1964, it was around 5 or 6. Last I checked, the current rate was 2.4.
The only p!ace with population growth of any note today is sub Saharan Africa. Even there its going down.
In india, the latest figure is 2.122, which is replacement. But its down from last year by .79%, which means population will likely start dropping soon.
As much as I would like to have a second child, I’m not planning on having on getting a second child in the conditions the world is in.
Thank you.
One and done or none.
About 70 percent of the growth to eight billion from seven billion people happened in low- and lower-middle-income countries, most of which are in sub-Saharan Africa
TOO MANY OF US AND NOT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND
tru, but only cuz it's not profitable....there could be enough if we really wanted it
Just like the light bulb...it's called planned obsolescence. You seem to think the government wants happy, healthy, well fed and educated population. If you look into any of our systems for more than 10mins you will come across multiple things that will stop you in your tracks and make you ask why they would do that. How does that help us. Where did that money go. Etc. But most don't and just defend it like it's their loved one.
@@waynealan3067
tell us you don't understand what a government does, without saying you don't understand what a government does.
@@waynealan3067
you made a statement, not me.
...but ok, since you asked:
it's the manager of funding for the military/LE, public works/roads, NASA, medical research, and care of the poor and destitute... let's face it charity won't cover the cost.
is there corruption? sure.
Any organization with people in it can have corruption. Doesn't mean we don't need it, just means it needs better management.
I support Thanos and his depopulation campaign
Around the 1800 the total humans on earth were 1 billion, today we are 9 billion, and the rate of expansion is unsustainable. That is a nine times increase in 200 years. In the history of the human race that is a couple of million years that has never happened before.
Did you even watch the video?
The growth rate has been declining for decades. No matter what is done for the next 50 years, the global population decline is locked in and can't be altered. The world will peak at about 10 billion in the year 2100, then begin a long, inexorable decline.
someone wants to make a profit. this only works if you have enough clients to buy your stuff. if the world is shrinking and nobody is willing to be the feast of someone elses dinner, everyone has to live on their own by little to nothing demand of unnecessary products which have no use at all.
Not a bad start to the talk and presenting the problem statement. Which was well supported by her data points. The ‘in a resilient world’, the adaptations that civilization needs to make were shallow-framed. The idea of a collective effort to provide a soft-landing is hard to fathom. The way it was presented, I don’t even thinks she believes it’s possible.
Sounds like she read some new corporate buzzwords and decided to make a speech with all of them at once.
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
The rich like Jennifer like to say that the solution is to force old people to work and she calls this cruel solution "resilience." The reality is that AI will bring greater efficiencies and corporate profits, and we can tax these profits to sustain retirement at a reasonable age like 65.
Profit shouldn’t be the end goal of our species.
I'm optimistic.
Didn't she also say to utilize technology to maximize efficiency/productivity, and to reimagine *what* working looks like? I feel like there's a difference between working/contributing to an economy vs being forced into grueling, unhealthy, or overly taxing work (which yes, is what I'd argue MOST jobs look like right now -- hence the need for reimagining work). Older individuals still have value and contributions to make, not only to society but also to the workforce -- it doesn't follow that any and all efforts to tap that human capital must be exploitative in nature.
@@ciuuin4098 reimagining is essential, I agree. This thought just came to me but like… a job for elderly should be more aligned with ancient ‘elder’ like purposes like education or training (of skills for example). Some of the best sources of teaching is from those who have lived the most, no? Makes me wonder for wisdom is dead 😔 but like you said there’s value there… labor not so much
@@ciuuin4098 That is true, and many older people happily continue to work in meaningful jobs after age 67 (the current retirement age). But Jennifer is advocating for raising the retirement age, meaning removing retirement benefits altogether from those 67 and older. This would force old people to work whatever jobs they can find to avoid falling into poverty, including grueling taxing work that is absolutely unacceptable for people at that age.
The problem I see here is we are living way too long and we need to start talking about being able to end our existence when it no longer seems to be of quality.
Shrinking populations economically (under capitalism) are a bad thing. Ecologically, shrinking populations are a great thing. Which is truly more important?
Ecosystem is more important
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
The massive human population is bleeding the planet of resources , one billion will keep the plant alive❤
Researching the available data on world resources, population burden, and long term and affluent sustainability, you are almost precisely on target with that number.
agreed
Exactly, user.
We should think about Human efficiency about what rvery society can do good for planet, exology biodiversity and organic farming.
I would be happy if the world less be populated!
I live in Belgium. I work in the public service. Next month I will turn 65; then I am obliged to retire, by law. I would like to continue working, but I am not allowed. This is discrimination based on age. It is outrageous.
people should be allowed to work as long as there body allows them too
THATS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO EMPLOY THE YOUNGER WORKERS TO KEEP THEM WORKING
You should not be allowed to work as they want, unless you understand that this is your life, you decide what you do and other opinions mean nothing really. Move to other place where you can be happy, you are a human being, free to exist anywhere on this planet as you please. Take the money and move out !!! , you are not the property of any city, state or country, you just happen to be convinced you belong there, that is their job to convince you.
If she likes her job, she should keep doing it. But her technocratic attitude of "you will keep working and love it" is simply disgusting.
Here’s what I have trouble with understanding. All these commentators are talking about depopulation being a terrible thing but what about the huge numbers of lost souls that exist in every country on the planet. The drug addicts, those with mental health issues, those with low IQ, the criminal elements, those with debilitating health issues, the lazy, etc. Do we need more people or do we need the numbers we are actually going to have to be more productive with far less squandered human potential?
I think that category of people has existed within every period of human history, and sometimes those undesirables get shipped off to less densely populated parts of the world and become wonderfully productive, and sometimes they die as miserably as they lived. I don't know if they exist as bigger proportions of modern society or if modern society simply has less use for them.
I personally think that the bigger issue is the displacement between productivity and reproductivity. Every happily married couple with decent incomes that doesn't have kids will contribute to taxes, the economy, welfare systems etc. so long as they are in the workforce, but when they retire, they are depending upon the children somebody else had to pay into the system, keep everything running and otherwise maintain the value of the currency and by proxy their savings, until they die.
Too few? That shouldn't even be a question.
Empowering women is the most effective way to reduce fertility rates and achieve a sustainable population size that respects the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime. - Quote from population matters. There are many articles that say the same thing. The important thing is we need to continue marching toward equality. Let's get those numbers to zero people!
I did the math in elementry school and was fortunate to have had the certainty that i didn't want to have children. When you are on a lifeboat and 50% of the people want to sink it, how can anyone have hope? I choose not to bring someone into that situation.
Maybe stop incentivising everyone to hold of on even thinking about starting a family until they are 35. Stop wasting kids time baby sitting them in school until they are 18. Teach kids real skills in elementary and high school so they can get out and start working and start a family sooner. Stop making it hard to afford to buy a house and start a family until your 40+.
Have eight kids and set them to work in the fields and factories at age six or so, then keep them working until they just can't do it anymore. Hey, it worked in the 1830s, why not now?
@@ericlipps9459 Nice logical fallacy dude. 🤡
Another major factor killed the birthrate: the expensive 2 bedroom apartment.
Housing prices are the biggest factor why I am not having children. It has gotten way too high.
Feminism
Yes, why are my forced to live with my parents(which I hate using songs like "Die in a fire", "Enemies", and "Wolf in sheep's clothing" to describe how I feel) instead of friends in an apartment with a bed for everyone?
It’s good to see somebody talk about how to adjust to a world with fewer people. But instead of importing more people, perhaps we should develop a steady state economy and be a good role model for countries that still have high birth rates.
And what country or nation do you patriotically represent?
There are way way way too many people on the planet. Having 8 billion people is madness.
I find it so disturbing. Losing our trees, forests, grasslands, wetlands, woodlands, prairies, etc to build for humans.
Was there any point or something to learn here?
Yes. The capital/corporations are afraid they will have to pay us proper wages in the future.
Health is one part of the equation for keeping seniors in the work force. We also need technology that assists them in doing more physical jobs.
Another thing to consider is a lot of part time work that isn't not too labor intense or stressful.
I'm all in for opening the borders. But I can imagine in 20 30 years, the 1st world countries could give insentive so high that skillfull individuals from lower income countries would move to these 1st wourld countries, and left their countries brain-drained. I mean its already happening, but it can get worst. The disparities between countries would be crazy
Head on the nail there. Every well educated person who leaves his or her country is a loss to that country so if that country is poorer than yours we're not doing anything good for the world. Yes better for that individual maybe, but bad overall.
Also in the near future very few countries will have a surplus of young people where we can get immigrants from.
Simply there is nothing left for a new human being on this destroyed planet not even air to breathe… a child? Noooo way
Most people have had enough of working by 60. People aren't getting healthier, they're getting sicker.
"Invest in healthcare to help older people work longer" - one of the most stupid ideas I recently heard!
Modern healthcare is so expensive and the older person gets the wider the gap between how much he/she pays in taxes to a doctor's bill.
It starts a vicious circle: people are forced to work more, work longer to stay alive longer, and for the sake of working more making more money they have less kids or none. Eventually every human dies anyway. Maybe better to die at 70 surrounded by your family enjoyed last 20 years of hobbies, travel, and grandparenting rather than die at 90, retired at 75, rat racing the whole life and spending last years alone and ill.
Modern healthcare is as expensive as it is because too much emphasis is placed on cure, whether via medicines or surgery or both, and not enough on prevention.