The Population Bomb? | Retro Report | The New York Times
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2015
- In the 1960s, fears of overpopulation sparked campaigns for population control. But whatever became of the population bomb?
Produced by: Retro Report
Read the story here: nyti.ms/1FtMyWt
Visit Retro Report's website: www.RetroReport.org
Subscribe to Retro Report: / retroreportorg
Subscribe to the Times Video newsletter for free and get a handpicked selection of the best videos from The New York Times every week: bit.ly/timesvideonewsletter
Subscribe on TH-cam: bit.ly/U8Ys7n
Watch more videos at: nytimes.com/video
---------------------------------------------------------------
Want more from The New York Times?
Twitter: / nytvideo
Instagram: / nytvideo
Facebook: / nytimes
Google+: plus.google.com/+nytimes
Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch. On TH-cam.
The Population Bomb? | Retro Report | The New York Times
/ thenewyorktimes
I misheard 'a tax on children' as 'attacks on children' and I was like harsh lol
Eh, they're kind of the worst lol
There is a Masterplan ‘‘ YES WE CAN 2016 - 2116 ‘‘ and it is an encouragement for mankind to save a sustainable biosphere on earth as our base of life by a free decision : th-cam.com/video/i48bb22fPdI/w-d-xo.html And a sustainable biosphere is the most important HUMAN RIGHT .
HAHA go home language you are drunk :P
@@berttheace there's a depopulation, totalitarian green wash climate change agenda and it's because the powers that shouldn't be no longer need humans. A human right is not having our weather and climate modified, not being fried with wifi and 5G, not having food crops peverted, not being & not forced vaccinated.
Feels good to know Im not the only one who thought so as well.
I remember clearly in college and late high school hearing over and over again from teachers and professors that the "population explosion" would end in disaster. My father's response was that "extrapolating any trend to infinity will show you disaster." My father was wrong about a lot of things back then. I've got to give him credit when he nailed one.
chris doheny true but our methods of farming and care in many countries has kept pace with that growth. A bigger problem now is a low birth rate.
Well, the jury is still out on that one. The planetary boundaries are well studied system limits, and the world is well past the danger zone on some of them. The timelines for geological changes are very long and feedback loops take a while to manifest.
If we haven't found new means to increase yield of agriculture crops like wheat, and developed better seeds and fertilizers, I think we would have been doomed by now with by the +7 billions population of our planet.
Most environmentalists say the planet is definitely overpopulated & therefore a low birth rate is good. Less people == less pollution & less global warming
.
Population growth anxiety often functions as a dog whistle for eugenics. Notice how some of them say they want "less and better children" better being the keyword there
I definitely noticed that. In addition, he only felt this anxiety upon seeing a crowded Dehli street. Sure, it's not explicitly a racial panic, and I don't think Erlich is a racist, but the undertones are unfortunately still there, and his plans have very racialized impacts.
Sub-Saharan African population has almost doubled in the last ten years from 900 million to 1.5 billion, in the next ten years it will be 3 billion, making up soon after that the majority of the population of the planet. Most of their population growth has depended on outside aid and has completely destroyed the efforts of the western entities such as the US to end poverty in the region, programs that have been in effect for most of the past three decades. Combine this with the failures of local indigenous populations to keep up with the supply of food by agricultural means by confiscating white owned farms and farmlands and handing them over the the indigenous peoples to operate, ie Zimbabwe and white farmers fleeing on mass from South Africa leading to the worst social and economic conditions seen in the region's lifetime. Plus the countries of Africa have been entirely decimated economically and credit-wise as well with massive debts being attributed to the local governments owed to larger entities such as the US, Europe and China, who are using Africa as collateral. And you have a bomb waiting to go off. But some believe that the native population will not just stay in their own countries to starve off until the population returns to a natural sustainable level before any economic or political recovery could occur, but that most of the 3 plus billion will migrate, not to the Middle East or Asia, parts of the world well known for their human rights abuses and general racial attitudes, but they will go up and flood Europe, whom if you have seen recently has been handing out aslyum to anyone and everyone. But these have only been a couple 100,000 or million people every year, imagine half a billion a year. Africa can get itself out of this but it must become self efficient and stop relying on western intervention.
I believe he meant better as in, if people have one child vs 3, they can better provide for the one and produce a more productive future adult.
@@danieldimos123 A lot of Oil and Diamonds come from the poor African Countries.
@@danieldimos123 that only happened in one country though
A good cautionary tale of what can happen when an expert in one field believes that makes them an expert in other fields, and presents an argument only compelling enough to speak to other non-experts. We love the myth of the outsider coming in and shaking up complacent fields, but the majority of the time they have no idea what they are talking about.
u talking about someone specific??
@011011 0110111 Al gore is the reason no one takes climate change as seriously as it is. 1. He over estimated how fast the changes would be. 2. He kept using a term not many scientists used by calling it "Global Warming" which even back then, not many scientific circles called it that as it sounds like the world would just get hot (which the menian temperature of the entire earth is getting hotter but that actually translates out to wilder more unpredictable weather patterns and natural disasters like mass floods and more mass wild fires. It also means that places that once were grass lands will become either deserts or possible rainforests at the Climate shifts world wide, making areas once dry wet and areas once wet dry ect. The reason this is a catasrophe is that in normal timeframes of previous climate changes, these events took millions of years, which we are now seeing happen in decades. Meaning life has no real time to evolve with the changes.)
@@andrefu4166 Yea, Ehrlich. Not sure how much an expert he was in his field of Butterflies, but he's utterly failed at being a Doomsayer. Gotten rich and influential on being wrong but he's still stupid. His research is sketchy and his sources are either wrong, or too simplified. He's lost bets with more intelligent people that proves how wrong he is. He know longer has the courage to put his money where his mouth is.
If the facts contradict the legend,
Print the legend
@@joelwillems4081 If we haven't found new means to increase yield of agriculture crops like wheat, and developed better seeds and fertilizers, I think we would have been doomed by now with by the +7 billions population of our planet.
So basically one man's culture shock started this all?
exactly i dont understand how ignorant people were this guy literally said just trust me and everyone did ahahah
Paul Ehrlich and others are some of the most vile human beings to ever live. The same goes for all the dumb sheep that followed them to a lesser extent.
@@wacktus8507 If we haven't found new means to increase yield of agriculture crops like wheat, and developed better seeds and fertilizers, I think we would have been doomed by now with by the +7 billions population of our planet.
2:48 "the world population is getting out of control"
*looks to see clock at 3.6 billion*
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
8 billion now
Our global population has already been calculated to cap out at about 11 billion when every nation in the world is developed as much as the usa/canada/etc
@@pigio9033 7.9
Thanos that you?
😂😂
Marvel changed original idea and brought back malthusian idea for villain's purpose.
Just less logical
While population is a definite issue the globe over, Ehrlich's prescriptions are so completely unethical it's painful...
and his name is so german it's painful to ignore...
There's nothing wrong with a German name. While he might have been a little overenthusiastic, his message deserved attention.
"Tue Le" Why would Ehrlich's genocidal message deserve any attention other than to be aware that his madness exists in the world?
Are you kidding me? Unethical? What is unethical is there being 7 billion people on this planet sucking it dry. Fortunately due to urbanization, the world population should stabilize at around 11 billion in 2100. However, the earth is only sustainable (>1000 years) for humans at a population of 1 billion or so. SO TELL ME HOW HE IS UNETHICAL
Technology bought us a little more time nothing more. We are not in balance with nature. Instead we are basically sucking the life out of the planet to sustain 7.5B people. We are emitting massive amounts of carbon, ripping down forests, depleting the soil and fishing out the sea all while poisoning the planet. We are a ticking time bomb.
The cost of living is so high now in developed countries that the population is going to plateau
As family size shrinks and education period lengthens across the globe, population will decline in the long term like Japan or China.
Yeah and then we're going to be outnumbered by poor people in Africa and South America. Yippee.
And when Africa develops the population there will plateau
@@logic7374 And those people will be invited into North America and Europe under the guise of altruism. They're cheap labor, more dependent on government, more tribal, and less demanding of civil rights.
Logic That's fine. You know those are other human beings, right? They're not a different species
I was 11 years old when Erlach's book came out and it appeared on the news. I remember crying and crying because the world was going to end before I hardly grew up.
You know... for a lot of people it did. I mean, when a child with several siblings dies from starvation, the world did end for him, before he grew up
It turned out he was wrong.
A person dying prematurely =/= the world ending. Life will continue onward another 500 million years just as it has existed the last 500 million years
@@phoque121 Who are you talking about?
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Back when the NYT did journalism… (6 years ago) pointing out how poorly agencies did journalism 6 decades ago…
"I bet England wont exist in the year 2000. Well it did exist in the year 2000 but that was only 14 years ago." Get a load of this guy. His prediction didnt come true and it's still not true a DECADE AND A HALF LATER and this in his mind is some kind of vindication?
"The idea that every women can have as many babies as she wants ..." Excuse you what about men?!?!
The fact that he knows what he said led to forced sterilization and he doesn't care is a red flag. I get a very misogynistic feeling from him. The fact that he said "The idea that every woman ought to have as many babies as she wants [is crazy]" and not using the word people instead of woman seems like a big red flag.
Meanwhile the US cities are cleaner than they have ever been. I remember driving to Boston with my parents on the weekends and seeing the cloud around it. It’s crystal clear now.
They cleaned up the weather?
Last time I drove through Boston I saw multiple people wearing banana suits in 80 degree weather
yeah, you just export it to China and Vietnam. Happy?
Lol where did you get this info from? Fox news? Have you been to salt lake? During the winter when wet gret inversion, the air is considered worse than Beijing. Have you been to LA lately?
Nikki Píŕáťé Most of LA’s air pollution blows in from China
It's odd to see him feel concerned with the idea that a woman should be allowed as many children as she wants. From what I've read and seen about the subject, the general amount of children wanted doesn't seem to be as high as he probably believes.
It is different now compared to back then due to urbanization
He's not concerned with what anyone wants, he's concerned with acquiring the megalomaniacal power to choose for them.
Ava Masquerade yes indeed, that's exactly what he and his many elite cohorts
want a one world order totalitarianism under the governance of the UN.
Meet Paul Ehrlich, Pseudoscience Charlatan- th-cam.com/video/ZS6EGoTuWNY/w-d-xo.html
Why Big Oil Conquered The World - th-cam.com/video/0wlNey9t7hQ/w-d-xo.html
The only difference is the birth rate is DOWN.
theanimerican Yeah, we already have a natural deterrent: the actual birth process lol. Usually it’s the man who wants to “carry on the family name” or something. Easy for him!
If this guy is so overwhelmed by over population then he can go out first
Lead by example
I have ten siblings and I think that there is no need for more than two children. A few of my siblings have large families because they kept having unplanned pregnancies. Ten more children were brought into the world by three of my siblings. That's not even including my other siblings' children...You have to consider the resources each person that is brought into this world will use. When you fail to do that as a parent you're being incredibly selfish and irresponsible. There should be better access for contraceptives and better sexual education for men and women. But there needs to be a cultural shift so people will use them, too!
Maybe leave everyone's family business up to them? You have your opinions, I respect that. Everyone has the right to have big families. Not everyone is guilty of having a good, happy life. I'm not...you only get one, so enjoy it. People are too worried about what's wrong, instead of what's actually good. If you have 10 siblings, you're probably fine. Stop with the guilt, it doesn't solve a thing. You can't save babies half way around the world. I wish we could...but it's out of our control. It's just the way of the world. Do what YOU can, leave others be. In a world where children get bone cancer, brain cancer, IN AN ONLY CHILD HOME, fair doesn't exist. Some of us are just doomed. Accept that you're going to die, your life will be better. No fear. Sorry for the doom and gloom.
sydIRISH It’s disgusting that people willingly bring children into this world knowing that they can barely afford to take care of their self.
Ugh im sorry. If i were you I'd be slipping birth control in all your siblings food.
@@TheMedicatedArtist right??
People should have to take a common sense test before they're allowed to breed. As well as prove they can financially take care of it.
An iq test would be nice too...
And people should have to adopt a child if they just muuust be selfish and make a little them. It's like theres million of kids with out parents thst would love to have a mom and dad. Why do you NEED to pass down your genetics? People think they're so special and the world needs to have a piece of them in it when they pass on. It's like no, no you don't.
Consider that you are brainwashed fool
That is the dark side of population control. If a country reaches ZPG, they will eventually have a population full of old people. That younger generation then has to pick up the slack by paying more for social programs for the elderly, which is BAD for socialistic societies.
Oh it's still happening. It's just affecting nature and wildlife
Indeed. It would be deeply ironic for humanity to reproduce itself into extinction, wouldn't it?
Overpopulation is 100% fantasy.
The thing is, the people with the highest population growth (developing countries, people in poverty) are not the ones destroying nature and wildlife and are not the ones primarily responsible for climate change.
Laura Athena the fear should be that they will get to that point, following in the path of developed countries.
Tue Le ....interesting thought. Truly.
This information is exactly what I was looking for my essay. Thanks
Thanks for creating this video! It is instructive to see how often the "experts" were wrong.
A lot of people fell for the experts' drivel in the past few years. I hope you didn't 👍
Food prices keep going up, airports Freeways, subways overcrowded , but people still don't get the message an overcrowded planet !
Fantastic documentary, well done
The Indian lady is very wise! Families went to the around two children model by their own choice and available technologies. Most of population growth nowadays hapens due to better health and longer life expectancy.
I understand Ehlrich is passionate but jesus hes straight endorsing eugenics
People complain about eugenics, but they also complain about taxes and paying benifits!
I can’t stop watching these clips..I’ve noticed most of them were fear based and led by the media a lot like today
Tim Tyson Climate change proven over and over again. Take UN warnings seriously. If anything, climate change has been under reported.
@@tdtvegas Climate change is provable by science, so your comparison is false. There are mountains of published evidence in peer reviewed journals that prove the existence of man-made global warming.
Leo Price how do you believe the UN? Bruh
Moe Yagz
We are already suffering from the consequences of overpopulation . maybe you are not affected (yet) but many millions of people are. Don’t be ignorant and don’t call the ability to foresee problems “fear based”. It’s a sign of intelligence not to wait for a foreseeable catastrophe to happen but to do something to prevent it.
Its because stupid people like to latch onto causes, look at the climate hysteria and the people pushing it
Paul Ehlrich got two things wrong. The first was that he underestimated how many people the planet can actually support. The second was that he overlooked advances in technology that would massively increase supplies of food and water. India currently has almost 1.5 billion people and will probably overtake China as the country with the largest population in the world. But like with most things in life, there is no definite answer to the question of how sustainable population growth is. There are just too many variables. Just look at how totally unexpected the Covid disaster was. Obviously, there is a number of people that the planet can support at any given time and we need to be careful not to exceed that.
The third thing he got wrong was the ability of humans to change their behavior when circumstances change. As developing countries urbanized, families were never going to choose to have as many children, because they become a liability instead of the expanded labor they are in agrarian societies.
Love the intro music where can I find it?
0:42 - I kept that issue of LIFE magazine (April 17, 1970) because there was an article in it about the father of one of my friends in high school, who appeared in some photos that were published with the article.
"Look, this house is on fire! It's gonna burn down!"
*starts raining*
"Aha, it didn't burn down! Maybe... fire is good?"
(I admit it's a complex issue, but saying that more people, while certainly not all bad, isn't harming our planet and testing the limits of what we can produce on finite space is just ignorant.)
The truth is that Capitalism causes malnutrition and poverty -_-
Favorite comment
love these retro reports
As for having babies being equivalent to throwing garbage in the neighbours yard....well..bravo Stanford for employing a such a revolutionary philosopher...
How do you suggest we quantify Earth's resources?
People have quantified this and for sustainability (>1000 years) we got enough stuffs for about a population of 1 billion
Mayan Tanshu it would need to be a cross-discipline study to get a rough estimate of how much resources the earth can produce. One factor to study would be the economic side of the equation to figure out roughly how much food and materials the world is currently producing. That would be the easiest by far to quantify but also surveying farmable land across the planet. Thanks to technology though that mapping could probably be at least partially computer-assisted. Another set of numbers to gather would be the rough average of what a person will consume over their lifetime, the housing available in their countries, and what this average person would contribute to food and material production. That would still only be part of the measures to ensure that there is enough rations for everyone however since without government oversight no amount of research will be able to be put into practice across the entire planet.
The global recovery equilibrium date has been established at near 1860. We've got some making up to do.
A lot of people complain about over population but most of the land on earth is still not being used
I remember that stuff, efforts to manage it probably developed more efficiency. The compulsion stuff I regard as anathema, like I regard compulsory health care and compulsory greeness.
This is what happens when scientists fail to connect empirical data with human empathy. His environmental consequence predictions are valid, but his failure to distinguish human rights from insect behavior is inexcusable.
He didn't predict the Green Revolution. Admittedly, without it, we'd be in a very tough spot.
Marebear thank you for saying that. It's a matter of ethics, and empathy, not just data.
@@Twilit601 there is ZERO proof to that
@@danielmayeux2251 What
It's interesting having remembered all sorts of sci-fi movies and TV shows at the time centered on overpopulation anxiety and only realizing much later where it all came from.
Brought to you by Soylent Green.
This is pretty much eugenics. I hope no one will continue to entertain this idea.
Governments, newscasters, religions, university's, even academicians AVOID AND CHOOSE NOT to talk about an overpopulated planet !
I'm childless NO REGRETS
He keeps talking about how Britain's gonna collapse. Wait till he hears about Brexit.
I have a hard time grocking that people think doubling the population since 1970 was a good idea
"And we go round and round and round in the circle game".
Wasn't contraception already available by then (the book was published in 1968). The fact that this video doesn't even mention the term contraception raises a few eyebrows
The 2000's were nothing like they said it would be
It's almost like technology progresses...
1:01 does anyone know the name of the background music?
the forced sterilization efforts are appalling. Also the throwing your garbage in the neighborhood metaphor is devaluing humans. Though people as rational agents ought to think through the consequences of their decisions - including monitoring unreasonable population growth.
Ahmed Medhat Forced sterlization, at some point, will become unavoidable.
when will that point come? "Forced" is never the right world to use, except when enforcing laws on corrupt governments and corporations. You could talk about the requirement for "better educated public instead".GENERICCEREAL67
"Though people as rational agents ought to think through the consequences
of their decisions - including monitoring unreasonable population
growth." Since when are humans completely rational?
the population problem has not gone away
People that espouse such ideas should lead by example.
*FEAR: It's Good For Business.*
I like this video series. It's simply news-- not trying to persuade the viewers. Simply just facts.
Oh puleeze… news reporters are constantly biasing their stories to push their personal beliefs. This series is no different
It’s a fact that Paul Ehrlich’s prediction was as wrong as the people who said the Earth would end in 2012. But this news video tries to make him look like a hero, when in reality he’s almost as buts as the 2012 doomsday people
.
That’s called bias & pushing an agenda
“Fewer children and better ones.” Brand giving the Rockefeller eugenic game away.
Okay we went from 3.6 billion in 1969 to 7.5 billion in 2018......that's doubling in under 50 years.....that is an extrordinary strain on resources....
exactly right.... Erlich was essentially correct about everything!
@@ShivaShaktification still so many deniers in this section
People have brains, not just stomachs.
It takes just a farming season where pesticides fail against a new variety of pests or an Elnino or La Nino to start the adversary of a population Bomb. You never know.
I think this discussion misses an important point: What is the level of quality of life that is available to what percentage of the population? I think the greatest percentage of the population was going to be very stressed by environmental conditions, including the toxic effects on our DNA markers and tags which will cause an inordinate amount of disease that we cannot fix with drugs. There will be a lot of suffering, and not just because of resource depletion. The primary problem is because of the contaminants that we have introduced into the system and how all of life is crashing, not just humanity.
Any decade now, we'll start to see it. I swear
1:46 - That guys sounds exactly like Thanos >_>
And how did his predictions turn out? He was wrong on numerous accounts. Control of population is the message. Not about growth.
A science turned into a religion where the believers still cling to the doctrine, making new predictions to justify the original theory.
He’s right. There are to many people on the planet. Natural or man made corrections will change it and the earth will still suffer as well as the poor
GoT in the background
What is the painting at 6.34 ?
This doesn't factor in countries that a) have little to no access to birth control or b) have cultures which link a woman's ability to have children with her worth.
9:58 That's only 4 min 20 s to perform each surgery!
Geeze, no wonder people died. Not to mention the doctor being tired from performing so many surgeries.
Look at the "cage homes" in Hong Kong & tell me this isn't a real issue. Or the decimation of wildlife, the crisis of climate change, pollution, war, resource plundering & everything else that comes with modern human life. Having 0-2 kids is the single most impactful thing you can EVER do to help the environment.
Hong Kong attracts people who don't want to live in China and don't have the resources to elsewhere. Villages are emptying. The decimation of wildlife is greed. Our birth rates are below replacement levels all over the world. It's our death rates that have fallen causing the "growth". We're living longer all over the world. And we're staying old longer. Our bigger problem is our greed and lifestyle choices. Diets high in meat, disposable fashion, one use plastics, bizarre assumption that if it's recyclable, then it's okay, complete disregard for the other parts of the 3 R's. Recycle *reduce and reuse*. But we sure won't recycle water, no matter how safe it is. It's not a problem of how many children we have. If we everyone lived like the poor in Sierra Leone, the planet could support billions more people. The problem is how wasteful and destructive our lifestyles are. We find out how bad cars are for the environment but only address one part of the damage cars do to our environment, fuel. Instead of discussing our to make our cities more environmentally friendly, we get excited about electric cars. Electric cars are a band aid solution. We don't have ZPG, we have shrinking population but it doesn't matter how much your population shrinks if you are greedy and destructive and disrespectful to the environment.
1:57 "We'd like to see people have fewer children and better ones." Better children, how do you define that? I've found the eugenicist!
8 billion people today … 3 billion people when I was born…. Why disaster was adverted was the use of mechanization of farm equipment allowing record breaking production of food.
War, disaster, pandemics…. If anything disrupts this delicate balance a lot of people will starve.
wrong it was the green revolution and the word is averted genius.
Yes but look where we are now? They had a point!
Yep, climate change has become inevitable and it's gonna cost us all (well almost all anyways).
the way this started cuz some guy was in a crowded city.
(obvi this is an oversimplification)
and today those cities are overcrowded, struggling, all have slums with millions in poverty and are disgusting.
Now many countries have a population bust. Too few children and growing elderly population
Humanity will not listen by merely talking to them. We must push them
I find it funny how ehrlich is the German word for honest/genuine (pronounced air lish as in dish) and even the talk show host introduces him as err lick
It makes sense when you find out that he's j3wish
@@dst1311
Are you actually suggesting, that there might also be a pattern associated with certain Eugenicists, who also just so happen to be promoting the world-wide mass-genocide of the goyim? Hmmm...very interesting.
in german the CH in ehrlich isn't pronounced like the SH in dish at all. there is no equivalent in the english language to pronounce this type of CH (there are two in german). it kind of sounds like a cat hissing instead.
Nixon nailed it. Our planet can tolerate the current population, but look at how miserable most people live, even in the developed world (five hour traffic jams, etc)
4:27 wow!
Having more then 1 child is not a right, and having even a single child before you're ready is a crime against humanity, forced sterilization of people with multiple children is like saying be quite around a deaf man.
Oh, great! Eugenics again!
but actually, easy access to birth control and abortion would solve the problem.
People who have several kids and can't care for them should be offered money to be sterilized
Who else noticed the huge collection of GRR Martin, A Song of Ice & Fire catalog at 8:55 ?
The predictions weren't wrong..Norman Borlaug simply bought a few decades with his "Green Revolution" spreading industrial agriculture, raising agricultural yields at the expense of the long-term sustainability of those fields and wider ecosystems. Borlaug himself did what he did because HE knew that sooner or later we'd start seeing mass famines and social unrest. He himself admitted that the fundamental problem of overpopulation had not been solved, he'd merely bought a couple of decades during which the main problem of overpopulation had to be brought under control.
Female education and empowerment & family planning are great, but they won't solve the problem fast enough. Capitalism still fundamentally relies on continued growth. More people, more consumption, more industrial agriculture, more fertilizers, more pollution, more deforestation, more more more.
It's all gonna fall apart sooner or later. We can either edge ourselves back from the cliff, or blindly walk off, promising ourselves "jusq'ici, tout va bien"...
"but the problem is not the fall, it's the landing."
The water, chemical fertilizers and fossil fuels that enable industrial agriculture are finite. And that's to say nothing of the deplorable state of the climate and ecosystems we seem so set on destroying.
Thank you for this sensible comment!
It’s just a matter of time. Food, water, disease, war, global warming ...
Yes , but some fools deny this !
This report totally ignores the fact that many countries, mostly developing or less developed, are going to double their populations in the next 30-40 years. Look at sub-Saharan Africa as your starting point.
Anybody know the outro song?
Not only was he wrong, he has a track record of *always* being wrong, worse than a stopped clock 😂...
Paul ehrlich believes its okay to lie to people in order to motivate them in the 'correct' direction.
he really said trust me and everyone did
Is this a copy/shortened version of the corbettreport 43 minute video on him? Lol
They were right, just off on how long it would take.
Where u from
I love this videos but I agree that we are so many. Less is more :)
Interestingly population growth had already peaked around the year 1963. Ever since, population growth in terms of percentage has been on the decline
Wow, first realistic thing I ever heard Nixon say. It's happening. In the US it's not much having families as it is being to globe's homeless shelter
Yes those countries in Central America keep having babies, and resolve the problem by dumping them in the US. It’s ridiculous
.
Thanks
@2:25 He's dead on!
50 years later and the population has doubled yet we get along
That isn't exactly a good thing.
@@celieboo What do you mean?
12:25 'in the 2050 we'll be running around, oh my god not enough people.' ~ Of course, that requires imagining nothing else changes, resource availability, clean sweet water, manmade global warming's cascading global and local consequences, civil/political hostility right and left. I myself think those left running around will have very different concerns that we can't even conceive. So glad I'm an old guy. Sorry kids, my generation blew it, Reagan's siren song and political powers and deep money, and massive public apathy, created this already too ugly future unfolding before our numb eyes.
Clearly Paul needs to APLOGIES to world for the panic he has caused, to families that went through inhumane surgery caused his BOGUS report.
Ehrlich understands scare resources, but not the economics of scare resources.
In order to sustain agricultural levels at the rate they are now, we are draining our aquifers and using up the raw materials we need to make fertilizer. And the theory is once we start running out of water and fertilizer we'll wish we had *more* people? Sigh...
Economic development is the best contraception!.!.
We can make more food with Farming Skyscrapers, we dont need lawns we can grow Gardens at home, GMOs can make more food faster and with less water, we have other planets and moons to move to, we have a whole galaxy and Universe to spread out. I think the Earth can Support upwards of 100 Billion people. We can make more food, we just have to want to make more food
Until we havent found an other planet to live on or the transportation to get there, we better not include this into our options. But yes we have now more technology we had back than, which changed a lot of the predictions made and we probably can support more humans on earth.
Thursday is Soylent Green day.
Tastes like people!
Where can I find the picture at 6:27 ?
Benami Ark - It was painted by a retired geologist named John Holden.
If you google image search “population bomb” a picture of that artwork should pop up.
Now we know societies tend toward infertility as they experience progress and lowered child mortality....
Families in Africa may have 10 children, but only because they can expect 8 of those children to not survive. America in the 19th century would typically have 5-6 children for the same reason; now in the 21st century, families average 1.76 children...that's not even enough to maintain population growth.
For this reason, experts believe our population may never reach 10 billion; as countries develop and infant mortality drops, birth rates decline.