If you create the system where women need work outside the home but child care equals a salary, it's a miracle that there are as many kids as they are.
Ignore the aptly named houseplant. I agree. We live in an age where in modern societies, you need two household incomes to break even. Those who do not, scrape by. 2k a month for childcare in the UK is exorbitant, yet that is one number I have heard from friends. If equality of the sexes mean that both partners must work, then the government needs to subsidise childcare/costs, or deal with a shrinking population. It really is that simple.
@@tezinho81 Same lame excuse. My country has almost free childcare, childmoney of around 300-400 euros per child and benefits in things like public transport, healthcare, etc and it's still devreasing. In most European nations families with kids get massive support, it's the single people who get taxed the most. And all those support systems you mentionned are there, Scandinavian countries have the best support system, yet one of the lowest birth rates... Answer me this, why do migrants in Europe make more kids? They often have a worse socio-economic situation. Because it's possible, you'll just have to sacrifice those few vacations a year and not give everything for a carreer. You want a bourgeoisie life and kids at the same time...That's impossible in the beginning. Change your mindset and be a bit more tough, your first years of having kids will be hard, but you'll regret it if you never do it. Your boss won't care for you when you're 65+... Enough women with "beautiful carreers" regretting it.
And yet if our ancestors didn't have children in primitive huts they'd built built themselves, with outside dunnies, we wouldn't exist. It's societal expectations that have changed. You don't need a four bed two bath house and overseas holidays to have a baby.
If I could have afforded it and was sure that the life any kids I did have would be at minimum as well as that base line needed I would have been happy to have 6-8 kids. But I cannot even afford one. And thank God for that as I have often been needed to help those around me with child care so they can support their familys.
I understand this, but you don't need a lot to feel rich. Our country - Australia - is beautiful. But we Aussies are culturally impoverished by wealthy globalists like this speaker. I've got all I need; a debt-free home large and sustainable enough to support me without the government. I have no speculative assets (apart from superannuation). It also gives me companionship (I'm single and childless - due to a combination of fate and choice)... I feel rich because I am aware of my (British) cultural heritage which I value as much as I hope others value theirs. However, I'm saddened that so few around me share the same values and are willing to swallow elitist economic arguments like this speaker's who praises Australia for immigration policies that favour them and undermine the average Anglo Celtic Aussie. And btw, cultural identity is not racial supremacy, it enriches the inner life, making materialism less important.
That’s because the “feeling” of being rich is that you’re richer than people around you. If you were transported back in time 500 years and were the richest person in the village for a year you would be so grateful for what you had when you came back to today. Basically everyone was poor then and everyone is rich now. Yes even the homeless.
@@juliahello6673 Yes, so true; the relativism of feeling wealthy is what the authors of "The Spirit Level" (book) and "The Divide" (movie) found. Have you noticed how the spokespeople of the mega rich use this to shame their underlings? They respond to concerns about the marked growth of inequality over the last few decades by pointing out how much wealthier everyone is compared to their grand parents? So, because a poor person now lives in a rented caravan and can flick a switch to make a cuppa in a minute, they should be grateful because their grandparents would have been under a makeshift shack boiling water in a billy over an open fire? Nevermind that they feel poor compared to most other people and suffer health conditions for multiple reasons. I mean it's good to be aware and grateful, but don't be fooled - it's a ploy to distract from current inequality.
@@accidentalfinder4916this also means workers won’t make as much money and governors won’t have as much money. That’s what happens there’s more old people and less young people
"A nation of sheep, owned by wolves, ruled by pigs. And yet we go on and on believing that any existence is better than none at all." I wish that I could remember where I read this so I could give credit where it is due.
The boggling lack of understanding and shallowness of the responses is appalling. THEIR lives will be the ones worst hit by a dying society and collapsing economy.
I wish the people would band together and stop supporting the ultra rich. Stop buying sports tickets, stop supporting soul selling entertainers, stop making rich people richer and spend our money in each other. Support local and not international.
TH-cam is a giant rich company owned by google, an even bigger company and you’re likely viewing it from a cell phone provided by an ultra rich company. Practice what you preach. Buy your medicine from your local drug dealer.
@@ExploreVanIslesorry, there’s no local TH-cam and iPhone dealers here that aren’t a franchise. 🙄I buy as much off my local economy as possible. Thanks.
So I buy from local vendors that in turn but from big corporations and international sources. But I get the warm fuzzies cause "I'm doing my part!". There isn't any way to produce anything completely local. At some point, we need the rest of the world. The bigger issue is that buying local is a privilege that will never be accessible to enough people to make a difference. Should people starve because buying from Walmart is immoral?
I was a stay at home mom with 3 kids. Living frugally but comfortable. Then Trudeau was elected, my husbands sector suffered. Over 100,000 laid off in my province. I had to work outside of the home, our home life suffered. Processed food, no time or energy to help kids with their homework and mental well-being. Mine was suffering as well. So much money stress that it seeped into everything. If this situation had occurred at a time when we were just considering to have kids, we definitely couldn’t have had three. Maybe just 1. Who knows. I feel so sorry for my kids now. Economically, their futures are very depressing.
If the population falls quick enough your children will have more afordable houses and more jobs avalible. But if increeses or stays the same they will not have it easy and your fear is justified.
@ no, the layoffs happened in 2015/16. My husband was threatened that he may lose his new job during the pandemic but he ended up paying out of pocket to get tested every 3 days. They all had to disclose their status. Now, there are so many on short and long term disability and he has to cover the workload of the “missing”. I really hope his company is doing the stats on the fallout of this experiment.
We always blame the current prime minister for whatever goes wrong, but often these harsh effects are the result of economic forces that began before he or she took office.
@ true, but now he’s been in power for 9 years and I don’t know many people who’s lives have significantly improved since before 2015. Although some liberal MPs have gotten VERY well off financially.
I'll give you the shortcut. Everything is super expensive and most people are barely scraping by. Nobody can afford children, who in urban and suburban areas, represent more of an expense than an asset. In rural societies it's the other way -having more kids means more free labor. So there you have it. Make the world hostile to having kids and you get less kids. It's not rocket science.
It’s not just free labor (that’s an unintended consequence). Rural farm life is rich with food, time, relationships and peace. My farmers love their children as evidenced by the fact that they are always with them. It is common for all the children except babies to accompany dad to the fields for haying, planting, harvesting even if all they do is hang out with each other. What farm life here doesn’t have is lots of money. But you don’t need lots of money if you have food and shelter which my Amish have in abundance.
@@rjsteyn It's the century of women. Women have now won the battle against men. Women don't need men anymore nowadays. The average woman is and was never attracted to the average man. So the average women only wants to procreate with a genetic superior male. This is the nature setting of women. Women only procreate with the best genetics possible. But because women in the past did not get access to education, jobs and rights, women need to wife up any men to just survive. The birthrate will never go up when you improve subsidies, culture media Propaganda or whatsoever. The only groups who will make babies are groups where women rights are not so important.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 I just mess with the debate by pointing to Idiocracy and saying that the decent people are going extinct. We are overpopulated with trash humans.
I’m 73 yrs old. The global population has more than tripled in just my lifetime. When was the last time you were somewhere and you said “ I wish there were more people here”?
Not often, mostly it's 'I wish there were more people there.' There being the Moon, Earth orbit, Mars, or space in general. By sharp contrast every single time I've run into a person who wished for less people, they were deeply unpleasant, and the more specific they were about what people they wanted less of the more unpleasant they were.
@@bluemamba5317 There's never a need to be. People who desire large scale death can be unfailingly polite and cordial conversation partners, but just let them talk and listen close, and the deep, seething hatred for life and success always shines through. Sometimes it's envy. Sometimes it's narcissism. Sometimes it's nihilism. A rare few times it was something darker still, some bottomless well of evil that just took joy in snuffing out the only known light in the dark. Sometimes it's just the plain old puddlefish mentality.
exactly, he even said the super rich benefit most from growth. This is why a guy on the far right is pushing the 'don't worry, have kids' line to the rest of us. Do you think the anti-abortion position on the right is an accident?
@@montecarlo1651The social welfare state will also be unsustainable with low birth rates. So you could argue the left should believe in increasing birth rates, but this is not the case.
When large scale food production and transportation starts to go away I hope all these independent minded people that don’t care about population are able to provide for themselves in ways they’ve never had to.
@@ericjames7819 No, just those who have no family or savings for their old age. Those who planned are fine. Stop demanding to live off the labor of the youth.
It also makes the country more vulnerable for an military invasion by a larger populated country. I think that's the biggest concern over an economic one. For example, although both birth rates are declining between N. and S. Korea, S. Korea is experiencing a far worse birth rate crisis. At the rate they're going, N. Korea will be able to easily overtake the South without much of a fight.
@@ICDeadPeeps how many n koreans do you think will by loyal after crossing the borders of their country 🤣🤣🤣 And what is a country without its human population any way?🤷
@@ICDeadPeeps the Ukraine-Russia war has proved that false. With sufficient tech, a defender can inflict huge losses on the attacker such that invasions aren't worth it What you mean is that lower populations make projecting military power harder
@@Sho-td8wg Technology can only go so far, military strategy matters...Russian's main strategy is just to throw more bodies to the front line. Not very smart or strategic on their end. Also, do you think Russia would've thought twice before invading if Ukraine had a larger population base? To be clear, I'm not saying that the country with the larger population base would lead to automatic victory. I'm simply saying that it discourages other countries from making the move to invade in the first place. Huge difference between the two. There's also the political risk which countries like China has successfully abused throughout history. Use their population base to immigrate to other countries (especially countries with declining population rates) and to influence elections. An indirect form of invasion.
@@ninav7083You ignore psychology though. Humans care about their relative quality of life to their peers and currently wealth inequality is rising. If affording your own home is more challenging than your parents it doesn’t matter that you have an iPhone or more holidays - you’ll feel less ready to have kids and gamble long term.
This is different. Now we have a BIG old population that will drag down the younger. It could create a snowball effect with less and less young people.
@@bluemamba5317true, but a lot of Boomers (at least in this guys "rich" countries) are a lot more unhealthy than their parents. I'm not expecting my parents to live as long as my grandparents, (despite advancements in healthcare and medicine.) Maybe that generations gluttony and entitlement will speed things up
@@alexdetrojan4534 no there isnt. young people are who build the future. go have a look at programmers, engineers, designers etc etc people who build things we will need. the less we have around the less things we need to solve problems we will have will get invented and built. once your population shrinks so does your innovation. people think colleges closing in america is a good, in a round about way saying its good people are less educated as compared to who? china?
@@alexmartinez-og8gu Well, what innovation do you get if the Idiocracy breeds like rabbits. Besides, there may be other reasons people welcome colleges closing. Nobody feels bad when a college that oversells what its degrees are worth falls from its own dishonesty.
@@skylinefever whos would there be to build personal computers for if there arent enough "rabbits" to buy and own personal computers? why waste all that money, time, brain power coming up with a way to give computers to the masses? steve jobs and bill gated didnt invent computers they proposed the idea of giving the technology to everyone for everyone gates more so as he made PCs far more affordable then jobs ever wanted them to be. let me give you another example, lets say i found a way to cure certain viruses from the human body, but the medicine costs lots of time and money to develop and its quite expensive and still very new, so not alot is known about it. what do i do? take it to a investment firm, show them my patent, and beg for a huge loan. how would they see it themselves? well the medicine can potentioally be used for good but also be purchased at a huge mark up price, why? because there would be lots of people who would want to buy it. without that market demand for such an invention would they ever give me a loan? nope, thats not an investment its called a charity, and therefore as good as the medicine is it never comes to existance since there isnt a massive group of people to pay back the investors ROI. its very simple economics, once young people go away, innovation goes with them.
@@skylinefever Colleges were actually designed for learning and challenging ignorance not for producing economic zombies for a parasitical capitalist society that only values greed and ignorance
We live to serve the big corporations, working long hours for them, consuming their products, while we leave our families, friends and community. We do that because the system is designed for it, while it is being branded as innovative and evolutionist.
@@edheldude If you stop being a wage slave you will eventually end up homeless and hungry - choice? You sound like an apologist for a completely rigged socio-economic system which FORCES millions of people to accept minimum wage and beg for scraps. There are homeless people who work full-time. Some choice.
Who is ‘they’? I expect that the group that cares about population decline and the people ‘forcing’ long work days are two different groups. For example a small business owner probably has little time to consider demographics but may have figured out it is more expensive to hire another person than to have someone work overtime more often (especially it that role is heavily in demand) whereas demographic/economic academics have very little impact on our day-to-day lives but are more likely to understand (and care about) patterns about the impact of demographics. A few of these folks maybe might have some impact on politicians and likely no impact on business owners. It’s not academics who decide what happens in policy.
The comment section did not disappoint! I was headed here in a fury and y'all brought a smile to my face! We live in societies that hate kids and discourage people from having them. Childcare is expensive AF and both parents working isn't even optional now with costs of living so high. Public schools and teachers for kids have been F'd in the US. Maybe if women, and engaged parents in general, didn't have to sacrifice their employability to have kids, we wouldn't be in this state. Public perception of kids in general is that they are annoying and should be excluded from engagement and inclusion by default. I have 2 kids and I can tell you, US society does not set us up for success.
Kids are annoying. Incredibly annoying. It's like being a sober person surrounded by sloppy or angry drunks. You can't change that. It's a reality. What you can do is accept it and accommodate it in other ways. You're spot on about the economics of it all. Every time I see a talk about this subject, the speakers are espousing the same thing: We don't know why population is collapsing. These are supposed to be intelligent, educated people. Is that the problem? Ask the ordinary people that do all the jobs in society. Any society. Doesn't matter if it's first world second world or third world. Ask them. They will tell you exactly why it's happening. Kids are expensive. Life is even more expensive and ordinary people are unable to earn enough money to live and provide the life they want to give to a child. If you can only create a child, but not take care of it appropriately, how could you ever morally justify creating one ? We are not fish spreading thousands of eggs into the dirt and letting nature take its course. We are not turtles burying eggs in the sand and then fucking off back into the ocean never to be seen again. If all these people are so concerned about this issue, they better get the ruling class of filthy rich people and governments and the corporations they own and operate and get them to stop living lives based on greed.
Educate the human kid by taking student loan, repay it with interest and after kid graduates make that kid ready to get exploited ruthlessly by his or her employer, work as a slave till death. Then from birth very likely kid will inherit genetic diseases from parents and their ancestors and from adult age will be paying health insurance premiums annually + life long medicines daily . Our kids should not face the hardships we faced. Many small girls and boys out there homeless on the streets or forced to do child labour or forced into begging, drug peddling and prostitution. Children are innocent but their childhood should not end early. They will have a hard life ahead as they grow up is what makes one think don't bring them in this cruel exploitative materialistic world. Human population has been misused, is being misused and will be misused unless it is significantly reduced and kept under control. Brain, mind and money in society of humans are dangerous.
@@raifsevrence Bang on. Talk to thr grass roots and everyone will tell you it is primarily a matter of cost and governments are increasing not coming to the table on this issue. When a couple both working can barely survive, who can they afford children. Looks like we are breeding ourselves into extinction. Since man in general has contributed to the downfall of the planet the animals will celebrate our demise.
@@zacharybrecheisen2601 You are Extremely Wrong! The US. sets up minorities to succeed… WEFARE, WIC, FOOD STAMPS, COLLEGE AIDE, Housing. The “White Man’s GUILT?” Watching them breed like Bunnies in Captivity!!!
maybe people are just tired of suffering and tired of producing people who will suffer? this being hellbent on having people reproduce more is so bizarre and invasive.
What suffering are you talking about? Go read the book Factfulllness by Hans Rosling. You will have a much better understanding about the actual state of the world. Should be required reading for every student.
@@ronwoodward716 full time job is suffering. Sane person doesn't want to go everyday to work, meet people who even doesn't like or even hate. Boss, clients, colleagues. Work and responsibilities are stressful and lead to chronic diseases or heart attack, stroke, etc. And you have to get to that job. A normal person wants to go spend time in nature, or on a bike, or fishing, at home etc. Watching older family members age, suffer, get sick and die. Watching how you lose your vitality, get sick, age and wait for death.
@@quand_meme Yeah no one wants to have to work. Everyone wants someone else to provide for them. The truth is that is not how the world works. Only childern and disabled get to have someone else take care of them. Able adults have to provide for themselves. It's great if you can find or create a job that you enjoy. Unfortunately not everyone is that lucky.
Population decline will decrease the demand for jobs, assets, products, and services, resulting in increased salaries, decreased asset prices, and fewer customers. This will benefit the poor but disadvantage the rich. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
If you have less consumers you will have less producers and less money in the system. The rich will get less wealthy, but it will be relative to their already accumulated wealth, while the middle class will become the poor again.
You are overlooking a lot of factors to come to that conclusion. A growing population is important not just for the government welfare Ponzi schemes, but also for the fact that just a few great scientists or businessmen can make life better for millions of people. The larger the population is, the more likely we are to have the next Henry Ford or Steve Jobs or Carnegie or Musk. Or the inventor of an epic advance in medicine or farming. More people gives humanity more chance to do this. When there is less people, there is less division of labor and people are required to perform more of their own mundane tasks with less time or resources to focus on innovation.
People are traumatized by the economic depression and the reality of working 60 hours and die right when you reach retirement age. We’re not raising you another generation of servants
When they started calling it human Resources, I knew "the powers that be," saw us only as disposable commodities. We see how they rape & pillage natural resources, polluting & leaving a poisoned wasteland behind them. The wasteland in human terms is social & mental stress, depression, suicide.
What a dumb question. Anyone who has seen a Marvel movie in the past 10yrs knows what happens when the population shrinks. Hint: things get ALOT better for the remaining population. Just ask Thanos!
We ABSOLUTELY must move away from the capitalistic ways of expecting perpetual continuous growth when in actuality, products , goods and human productivity cannot be grow into perpetuity. The premise is fundamentally flawed
Poppycock. Read a little Julien Simon. We have explored - actually explored - a tiny portion of this world. There is also potential in asteroids. Material will not run out.
A problem that will solve itself. Once the population falls sufficiently - imagine all the empty land, empty houses... When a house doesnt cost x8 of a years salary or more then maybe we can begon rebuilding.
That is one of the positives of a smaller population is you can see the groundwork being laid for people more easily being able to reach replacement level. The problem that comes with that, of course is the decline in government services like road repair, electricity, water reclamation, etc. And in the past, for whatever reason, big corporations did not buy up single-family homes. If single-family homes become more affordable in some areas, is it possible that a few private equity investors can get together and buy up all the homes that people still want to live in? Houses might not actually become more affordable is what I’m getting at.
@@piernikowyloodek This is why I joke that the have more kids campaigns are from economists. They know that supply and demand would once again favor the commoner.
The neo colonialist are afraid they're going to run out of slaves. Employment is just a modern form of slavery. Humans never had to work for someone else until slavery and then more recently , "employment" was invented. In the old Filipino ( or should I rightfully and correctly say MAHARLIKA) language , there isn't even a word for work. "Bsyanihan" was the ancient Maharlika word for community cooperation for survival. It was voluntary not forced.
Comparing employment to slavery is so vastly different, they are completely opposites and it is completely wrong. The level of stupidity and/or ignorance in your rant is so delusional. I make no effort to re-educate you, more so I am concerned about anyone listening to your drivel. In a free market system which the foundation for all western economies no one is stopping you from changing job and finding another, no one is forcing you to you to do anything you don’t want to do with in the bound of the law. No one is preventing you from starting up your own company or selling your own products. No one is stoping from buying a piece of land in the bush and living off that land. That is of course if you are living in a free market society. None of these things are true with slavery! What your little rant is doing is trying to smuggle in laziness. You don’t want to do any work and you want everyone to give you a free handouts. You’re upset that you have to work. You’re lazy to start your own company or come up with your own products or services or own your own a piece of land and working it for your self. This sounds like too much work for you, so you type words into a device that someone else invented which you bought from a company that someone else started which was all made possible by a free market system. This is the complete opposite of slavery.
Really good to hear these "prophets" called out. I remember friends in those years saying it's immoral to have more than 2 children and they didnt. I wanted 5 but got 3.
I agree with everyone else saying that the wealthy whose real estate values are threatened and whose future business revenue is threatened are trying to push a panic over the drop in population. We could do with a good decline in population.
I don't think the population will drop much. Once it starts going down housing prices will drop sharply and having kids will become more affordable. Then it will oscillate a bit because the feedback loop has a delay of several years if not dacades.
@@gzoechi I think the attitudes against childbirth are now built into our socialization. You really should read up on rat universe 25. There are some eerie parallels. Plus both men and women find more dopamine pushing satisfaction from entertainment than they do from having sex.
@@gzoechi I think the attitudes and socialization are locked in now. And in part they are natural consequences of effective birth control and the anonymity of large population centers combined with highly effective dopamine producing entertainment options.
You're letting your hatred of the rich cloud your judgment When economies collapsed,; the rich are fine It's us mere average people that will truly suffer
During earlier depopulation events, such as the Black Death, what happened was that the social order was upset, and then humanity carried on. That's what will happen this time again. The pyramid scheme that is called "economic growth" will come to an end, and the economy will shrink. The last large generation (mine, btw) will suffer, as we will have to work to old age, without the benefits of early retirement - or any retirement. The next generation will shrug collectively, and enjoy their lives on a larger, cleaner earth. In the meantime we have to somehow survive our government's obsession with importing warm bodies to replace us. If we manage that, we'll be ok.
The economy will continue to grow. The labor will move from people to intelligent machines.Social order will change no one will need to work to live a good life.
@@hgu123454321 Quite true about social and economic change. Ironically it was the Black Death that probably began perpetual growth. "See-saw, marjory-dor, Johnny shall have a new master, he shall get but a penny a day, because he can't work any faster." As for retirement, this will probably depend very much on whether you had children. In the Middle Ages, when a person got too old to work, they would transfer their assets to a family member in return for care until death, this was legally recorded in manor records. In Edwardian London, before old age pensions, the working class too old to work simply starved to death to avoid the workhouse.
Importing warm bodies? GRT is a dangerous lie. It is rich cunts financing politicians or through media ownership, trying to sell the middleclass a lie that it is the poor's fault and not theirs, the growing inequality and hardship.
@@longnewton1 Growth is based on how you rearrange the finite atoms on the earth. There is a practically infinite number of arrangements. So far all predictions of future shortages have been found to be false. I am a believer in the history of growth and improving prosperity. You can follow the path of the disproven limits of growth but that is a very sad destination. The earth may be limited however space is not. We should strive to grow into that infinite space. We will need a lot of people and productive capacity to do so. The meek will inherit the earth the bold will travel to the stars.
2 หลายเดือนก่อน +296
You know you've reached the next level when your algo feeds you this.
I live in a place that's rapidly growing in population, and it's doing one thing: Making our quality of life plummet. Property taxes are up, and those taxes are passed on in increased prices you pay at every business -- or else those businesses are forced to close. Traffic is becoming horrible, so you have to spend even more time in your car getting to and from work. People are angry and fighting over everything. Every green space is being bulldozed to build more expensive apartments all the while politicians give lip-service to "affordable housing" -- which they never provide. Forget trying to see any kind of medical specialist because they're all booked up months in advance. And in all this churn, you know who gets rich? Big real estate corporations who now own this housing and who want to turn everyone into a renter. All this pro-birth hand-wringing is about stuffing more people into tiny apartments and charging them outrageous rents.
It’s because they’re scared of fading into obscurity and losing control over things when they die, so they try to make their mark while they’re still present.
I'm an old person and I'm deepy offended by the speaker's vision of what matters in the world and especially with his attitude towards humans and all living things. I will speak up about the future - just not what he says.
@@J-S.I as a woman never experienced this. I got a contraception talk only if i specific ask for it. The pill hormones dont mess with your body permanently, but only in the time you take them. You can get pregnant right away the next cyclus. You clearly didnt get the right info. The only permanent contraception is sterilization. And its normal to talk about contraception rihgt away after birth. Its not good for a woman to get pregnant after she gived birth. The body needs to heal. And breastfeeding is not a birth control at all.
All those old people in the audience are just worried there will be fewer young people to prop up their stock portfolio's and Social Security benefits.
We are not cattle we don't want to live in feedlots we need less people to be happy and save ,why are wars fought right now because of land and resources
War and conflict are the book keeper's friend. War is double entry book keeping by other means. War industry is both the means of production and the means of consumption: it is an entry on one side and a subtraction on the other. War balances the ledger. When fiat money comes into existence from nothing it has zero value except the debt of interest attached to it. So, for fiat USD to pay the interest and find value, it must find a market. The biggest, most liquid markets for fiat USD are real estate, pharmaceuticals and WAR. Without tangible assets to underwrite fiat USD currency, the eternal war on terror can never be allowed to end. It is therefore necessary to support the enemy with materiel, technical know-how, support and training. Sophisticated Blackhawk helicopters to the taliban do not maintain themselves and neither is it a back street blacksmith's workshop in Kahbul. Go figure the corporations. The west as it stands has been absolutely dependent on colonialism for the past 400 years, but since June 2024 the US-Saudi petrodollar agreement is ended. The commodity rich BRICS are on the ascendant. Conflict is both the beginning and end of value to a debt based financial instrument such as the fiat USD. What comes next?
World population in 1900 was about 1.6 billion. Current population is about 8 billion. What is wrong with a little depopulation? The earth needs to recover from so much plundering of its resources and global pollution, then the cycle can repeat itself...... over and over.
@@antinatalistwitch111That won't be nearly enough, you'll get maybe a year out of that, and those that do will be conquered by those that don't. Depopulation is hugely destabilizing because it destroys the social fabric, the old eat the young.
The wrong ones will depopulate. What will happen is the west will be conquered and many low quality will proliferate who don't consider the earth or climate.
"There won’t be enough workers to fund their safety nets and our young people to fight in wars." To reproduce and send children on the battlefield to die and to reproduce so at my 80's I am to grief for them? If anyone can explain me what's the logic living this way... I kind of do not have motivation for such "social" norm...
I miss my town back in the late 70s early 80s. It was small quiet and beautiful. A peaceful place. Now it is over crowded. 10 time more outsider moving in. I don't recognized the business or the people. All those wonderful little places where I use to go fishing are gone. I'm the stranger going home. I'm the outsider looking for my past that's no longer is there.
@@crouchingwombathiddenquoll5641 I think if you stand in one place long enough. Everyone and everything changes around you. Even when I did move out of Rhode Island. to work in NYC. In my memory, That R.I. in the 70s and 80s was my home. Not in 2024.
@@huskavarnapunkband no, grew up in Middletown Rhode Island. Move to NYC for my school and job. Gone back home to see my brother. Way too crowded. (too many strip malls) Even the fishing places from ponds, piers and jetties are all close to everyone. After 9-11 all the funding flew into the naval base now they shout off all excess to the coast line. As if terrorist will set foot there.
As a happily-married, child-free woman myself, when I hear professors like Eberstadt talking about how female volition affecting birth rates is such a mystery, I wonder why they don't just ASK women. Everyone keeps trying to find answers in economics, education etc. but the simple difference in today's world is that women simply have a choice NOT to have children now, which was never an option in the past. Just ASK any woman and she'll tell you that the entire concept of childbirth has been suffering for women throughout history. Dying in labour, suffering a myriad of physical problems after childbirth, taking on the lion's share of childcare for the rest of your life, sometimes still having to supplement shortfalls in the husband's income, facing social judgement for failures as a mother (that fathers don't face in equal degrees)... this has been going on for CENTURIES. And when for the first time in human history that women can say 'screw this, I don't want this life', professors scratch their heads and call declining childbirth a 'mystery'?
I beg to differ. Czechia has bounced back from 1 child per woman (late 90s) to 1.6 or even 1.8 in the past few years. If the society values mothers and provides easy access to healthcare, maternal leave, preschool education and frankly tax and social benefits then it's possible. The housing however is getting quite bad here too, so better policies will have to be devised, like extra taxation of second homes, housing projects like in 70s, speeding up the building permits, more people in trades etc. No panic needed, just good policies and we're good.
Declining population is a gift for the working and middle classes it gives us political power over the hyper wealthy. Population decline will continue until the benefits of economic growth are equally distributed. As long as the current situation continues the worse the population decline problem will become.
@@lukecaldwell7721migration increases worker power, go from bad conditions to better conditions, rather than being trapped, serfdom was based on trapping people in place to reduce wages, the Black Death helped solve that problem, as serfs just walked away, to better conditions.
Saw the title, and I’m guessing before the video starts that the subject is how a decline in population affects GDP growth. Economic growth is the religion of our time. Life is only an input for the economy. Let’s see if I guessed correctly.
it has nothing to do with economic growth, its saying we are not even going to be able to maintain economic stability at the rate we are going and if we cant do that then everyone suffers
Yes Rusty pretty much. But it still amazes that some people think we are going to have insufficient economy to just maintain our current living stds....if those are standards we feel good about 😂😂😂. Less people, a lot more available houses and prices being affordable. Bring on depopulation!
@@snipesxiii9188 Dying of starvation? 😂. What gave you that macabre idea 😂 .........people having less mouths to feed leads to starvation? But seriously. Perhaps I’m missing something. Please enlighten me.
We need to give up our “greed based” economy and switch to a “need based” economy. Women don’t want children when present and futures are uncertain. Stress and anxiety are fertility killers.
So basically they are saying that I am supposed to produce kids and work for 12+ hours and spend hell lot on their health and education so that they can be cheap labour to some corporate or govt entity ? Fuck no If I recieve 30 years of expenses in advance only then I will think of kids otherwise to the hell with society
@@everybot-it innovators creators etc need good environment to thrive. It's easy if you are in a first world country but when you grow up in banana republic things are very different
If you can't afford rent you're living in the wrong area. I also cannot afford renting an apartment in certain areas, so I have to live elsewhere. Having said that I think it's good people are having fewer children. It will be good for the rest of the world with fewer people around.
Thank the boomers. They control all the NIMBY laws. If more young ppl were born, younger adults would control laws that would support cheap affordable housing - like the 50s. We would have more houses, though not as fancy. Boomers chose to stop having children which concentrated civil power in their generation by numbers. Achieved some great things but trashed families, women, and society at large - all while raking up bills they can never pay. Planting trees in whose shade the will never sit? How about harvest the crops planted by former generations while forgetting to sow the fields for tomorrow’s generation. Shame.
when I predicted this in my Senior project in College back in 1984, I was actually ridiculed. But the data clearly showed trends forming around urbanization, falling extreme poverty rates, and birthrates per couple. When I stated that this process was accelerating during grad school in 2010, no one ridiculed it, but the consensus among professors and peers was that it was "not as bad as stated" Two years ago or so, Petie Ziehan (Zeihan?) wrote a book about it and he was not widely accepted, but it was no longer really a subject for debate. But I would tell you that in every year since the early 1980s governments right across the industrialized world have acted as if this was a correct prediction. How so, you ask? What do you think the importation of low skill, high birth rate populations was all about? Instead of addressing drivers of low birth rates, academia, politicians, bureaucrats, and hucksters in the media went straight to impoverishment of the native born populations. As if the century of progressive eugenics had finally short circuited their brains. the coming population collapse will strain every sector of every economy, every political system, and end the so called "global rules based order". Of course, no lie over the past century has been more ridiculous than the idea that governments follow rules....
The BIBLE suggests that the planet will eventusllu become too polluted ("Heavenly SMOKE" ISAIAH 51:6, JER. 4:12-13, 28*, + 25:30-33* & PSALM 102:20-26. Try to imagune a (PHEUW) planet covered with human (unburied) corpses, as there will (as after WW#2) no more coffins produced, no mire hearses to haul them away---- and GOD SET S GREAT FEAST 9for all the wild burrowing animals that emerge at nught to HOWL AT THE MOON with SCARLET BLOOD ON THEIR SCALPS?
Solution. Give young people a genuine way to have secure homes and encourage local food production. Cooperation not steeper and steeper cost of food and housing
Oh, they will not. This time we can actually see it in real time and there isn't really anything we can do to stop it, only to slow the bump. Also, this time the economy is already trying to adjust to it to, because they can already feel it in their numbers. When teaching, I see fewer children in every class and if not then it is only due to immigration.
Yea its going to be worse. His numbers dont take into consideration the economic impact elderly people have as well as the lack of young people. They are just regressions of current declines in population. What happens when a nations social safety net fails, especially if its a nation with a significant one? All those people just die if they require services to live. The ugly truth is even if every nation that has a sub 2.1 fertility rate, suddenly started having 2.1 kids per female, their populations would still implode. There is a lag period, that lag period is the length of a human life. Over the next 20 to 30 years, as the boomers die off, the worlds population is just going to wilt away.
I disagree. We have plenty of data showing population decline is in full effect in most of the world. And will be effecting every country very soon here… And will only get worse if the global economy takes a nose dive since the boomers are hellbent on not giving up a penny for the success of young people.
Life sucks. Nobody wants to drag innocent people into this nightmare. It's not fair to them. Only regret I have is dragging my daughter into this. I'll never make it up to her. She doesn't deserve to have to deal with any of you and none of you deserve her.
@@J-SH06 Arrogance and condescension exemplified by your comment compels me to my attitude. I know I'm far from representative of a minority who harbors such contempt. I'm not sure if I should thank you for verifying my conviction or cry on behalf of all humanity. As with all things, you buy the ticket, take the ride. In this case, the currency would be your attitude.
@@J-SH06 Another simplistic and juvenile reply. The question is: Why would you bring a child into this world, born directly on to a treadmill that produces leisure time for wealthy people? Your response makes the point perfectly, someone who thinks this small is not intelligent enough for their daughter.
Haha, exactly what I thought when I saw them. What good is this talk to a bunch of geriatrics? It's not like these people even when I'm a place to make change ever plan for anyone else's future
Leaded gas is a hellva thing. This generation, if they weren't so destructive in their inventiveness, are hilarious as hell in their lack of awareness.
Houses are expensive. Young people can’t afford to live… but don’t worry. Things are correcting themselves. Less people = more resources for everyone else. So what’s the problem?!
The problem is that those resources will all go only to the tippity-top and there won't be enough people to do the work required to propel the growth of, or even to maintain, the technology we all depend on. Plus more and more resources will be tied up with maintaining those who can't work, ie. the elderly and those unable to afford education or transport in the developed world, and starving uneducated children in the third world.
Are you living under a rock? The problem is a generalized pension crisis. People currently retire from work 2 or 3 decades before they die. These retirees want a pension from ever less working younger people. So we'll have to work longer and longer because there isn't enough young people to substitute the old farts.
There's positives and negatives, things like recourse management and energy usage are really more a policy issue that a population issue. One of the issues with population reduction is there will be making large scale change to scale. Say we finally got our head out as a society and embraced nuclear. Building and operating those plants as well as all the additional supporting infrastructure will be a massive work project and having workers shortages will be big hurtle. Another issue would be for countries like Russia and Venezuela who rely on revenue form the extraction of natural resources, so a reduction in demand will directly lead to smaller government budgets. Granted, thats probably not the worst thing consider current events, but for less developed African countries already working on tight budgets it could be devastating. The last thing I'll say is that this model also assumes that existing workforces don't have diminishing returns as they age or are even willing to accept a higher age of retirement, neither of which are likely.
That would make sense... Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) it's ALL lies. This guy is a puppet, a useful idiot, spewing the gloom-and doom along with the agenda if the NWO . The story of scarcity has kept us tethered for generations. Stop listening to these academic lefties. They are in a blissful bubble of BS.
This isn't "a few less people" type of decline. This is "the total extinction of the human race" type of decline. Because when things start to actually get bad because there aren't enough people to keep civilization together, people WILL start to fight over what's left and they will do it with drones, droids, and nukes. Until the few that are left are too disparate to maintain even a remnant of what was. Hell, it's possible the last human has already been born.
No, my friend, it is the sufferin, pain, and death of great many of real people. But compassion is foreign to you, isn't it? Look up whatcsuch peoplevare called.
Lack of family support, for a lot of people in my area, has been replaced by families of choice -- friendship networks, non-traditional living arrangements, remote working, online communities. As a childless woman myself, I'm very aware of the women who, once they had children, essentially disappeared into their other-mother networks; and as an aging member of three communities with a lot of young people, I get to hear the snippets of the solutions people come up with. Sometimes, one's original family is the last place someone looks for support. In this age of moblity and choice and high speed social networking both across long distances and locally. It's never been easier to put a problem out there to your community and get advice and support, and so much of it you can pick and choose what you think will work best for you, instead of being constrained by narrow silos of convention within tightly knit communities.
Well, thanks to working from home and digitalisation this will no longer be the rule. The main issue is that corporate investment funds are too invested in offices, so we have extra taxes on people who work from home in countries like Germany. But as more and more talent stays in rural areas we'll see a decline in cities and a growth in villages as newer corporations can prefer to hire people who work from home. This will allow more money to circulate locally rejuvenating local businesses.
@@Planeet-Long I agree. During covid when people were encouraged to work from home, people flooded out of cities. It is safer in the country, and there is so much more community. We all take part in Christmas parades and New Year Eve street parties. Immigrants from non Christian countries hate village living. And at the end of the day we have access to food straight from the farmers gate, and as things continue to get worse, this might be important.
“If you live in a city, children are noisy furniture”. Said Peter Zeihan. “They’re more expensive than noisy”, me. Tonight, I picked up my son’s framed diploma from the store. It cost more than my first house. One of four university degrees I paid for. Two B.S. Mechanical Engineering, one M.S. Mechanical Engineering, one Ph.D. Neuroscience. Families are insanely expensive.
@mostaanroya MS in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue. I'd recommend Electrical or Computer Engineering... manufacturing has been outsourced and so have the high paying mechanical/manufacturing jobs
@@ARS-fn6pxYeah, no. One of the most repulsive acts my grandfather and great grandfather ever did was to take their son’s hard earned money when they faced hardship. I never considered my children as responsible for paying me back for their cost. That’s slavery, not parenting. I’d rather die of starvation or exposure than hurt my children by demanding repayment. Back when everyone was a farmer, it was expected that sons would work their father’s farm but only the oldest son would inherit the farm. In the US, from the start of European colonization, all the extra kids moved into town, out west, or something else. Eventually, there was no more viable land to steal from the first peoples. The Industrial Revolution came just in time to absorb the excess workforce.
This is not a world for people anymore,as a parent I see my kids fighting for survival living in stressed out controlled with very little freedom Lives, they can't even support one child
Need to start taxing the rich, especially the ultra rich and making life affordable for the low and mid classes because right now, HELL NO NO ONE IS HAVING KIDS when they can barely afford to live.
The problem with this idea is that the reduction in birth rates is extremely high among the rich. Interesingly, this was true in ancient Rome, as well as among other ancient cities.
@@alexkalish8288take an economics throughout all of history course. Governments have used the taxation of their citizens for centuries and centuries - never have they gone to the lengths we see today regarding leniency for the wealthy.
Oops, forgot Rome. Rome preferred to tax more and more areas of the provincial economy rather than marginally increase taxation of its wealthy nobility. That turned out great huh?
No one was looking into it. Everyone knew we were overpopulated! Good bye social security. Good bye western free society. The only places with good population growth are those who treat women like property. Yay
Omg I'm australian and we do not have the infrastructure to cope with the influx and we do not want to become a Muslim country so you need another solution, bleeding other countries dry does not help the world
My sister had 10 children. Her children had only 2 each. They were put off having more because of their childhood. They were aware of their overwhelmed mother and decided no more than 2. Imagine feeding, clothing, housing, educating that number of children. I had 2 children because I wanted to ensure I could afford their education. It’s not fair to the children, to have more children than you can afford to care for.
Same here. I'm second oldest by a year of eight. There was barely just enough money "most" of the time. Never , ever the quiet , calm time to simply talk until difficult feelings could surface. Terribly emotionally destructive competitiveness for the stretched thin attention. My Dad would have definitely lived longer ( it was too hard, too stressful , died age 60 ). I'm 77 now. All eight of us struggled one way or another and had a total of 12 grand kids. Sooo, with one partner each, that would make 16 x 2.1 =33.6. We're so far below replacement it's astonishing. I've long believed that if my parents had had a maximum of four kids (not necessarily including me... haha ) everyone would have had considerably higher quality lives. By the way........Thank You Roman Catholic Church. All 8 of us left it.
@@rachel-kx5cs No, the 2.1 children replacement threshold applies to each woman, not each human. Therefore, 12 grandchildren are below replacement value for 6 or more women in your generation (needed: if your parents had 6 daughters X 2.1 children = 12.6 grandchildren for replacement of the previous generation). If you grew up with that many sisters, then my condolences if you didn't have enough bathrooms in your house! If your parents had 5 or fewer daughters, then your parents' 12 grandchildren are more than enough to replace their children (you and your siblings) and spouses.
You give no indication of the socioeconomic background underpinning the having of 10 children! There is a direct correlation between low income and high levels of children, for various reasons.
Greed has become more popular than kindness . When we finally get a kind economic /gvt system, the people and corporations and government will flourish.
The utter dogma of this man! Most young people will tell you that they don't want to bring children into a world where the living conditions are getting worse. Not once did he mention the regular economic downturns that most countries have experienced over the last few decades. Nor did he mention the gutting out of worker rights which have made working life for most people a lot less secure.
Children raised in a world that tells them they are evil and abortion is better than life. Do you expect them to have large families ? Islam will win. 6 times more children than your failed "liberal" democracy.. Allah Loves Babies !
Didn’t I just spend the last 50 years hearing about how the world’s exploding population was going to deliver a dystopian hellscape? Now it’s Opposite Day? It seems to me that both sides of this doomsplaining comes from a failure to recognize that trend lines are rarely straight over time. That said, the stats are interesting. Sad that we can’t simply cover the data without the editorializing.
"The world’s exploding population was going to deliver a dystopian hellscape." It has for all othr species of life on this planet, after all we are in the middle of this planet's sixth great extinction event which has been caused by too many people.
@@nelsonchick7348 People have heeded the warning. For the last 40 years, the fertility rate of the developed nations has been at below replacement level.
Ehrlich's error was that he was too optimistic. Had industrial farming techniques not produced more foods, then the world population would have reached equilibrium at 3 billion humans. That would have left some space for wildlife in forests and elsewhere. There would be a fraction of the pollution such as plastics in our waterways, sewage in our waterways, lung disease causing air pollution, people living in dense sprawling cities making their lives ant like, deadly violence over tiny swaths of land, and a culture that lives on screens because ugliness has replaced nature. The milky way is faint or gone from view. Hunting and fishing are only for the rich, people are getting fatter and sicker, cancer rates are rising, the average person on Earth lives with deprivations such a miniature and crumbling dwellings, countries like China and Russia run by dictators and thugs. Every thirteen years the planet has another billion people added to the population. Call me when the population stops growing and begins shrinking. Too little too late to save the curmbling biosphere.
will cost centuries or millennia but mother nature will fix this in the end, in the meantime it is us humans that make our own quality of life more horrific then necessary.
@@sjoerdpasterkamp9826 That's sweet. Sadly, Mother Nature is a poetic idea. She does not exist. Earth has a biosphere that is rapidly collapsing and each year more people dies of lung disease, cancer, and violence. you're also misconception is that humans make decisions on their fate. Individuals act in what they perceive as their best interest.
What world are you living in? You are literally delusional if you believe any of the garbage you typed. You're acting like we're living in the world of elesiym lmao
‘Even an elderly and depopulating world can grow increasingly affluent’. The usual focus on material and financial wealth. Depopulation will help prolong the availability of resources, however, ecological overshoot, climate change and the biodiversity crisis show that the never ending pursuit of growth, in this case per capita growth, is not sustainable. We should target well-being, health, happiness and sustainability. Beyond a certain level, increases wealth adds nothing to our health and well-being. Indeed, there is clear evidence that longevity starts to fall.
The issue is the people people that study. This have never really done a real hard days worth of labor and they don’t quite understand what that work entails.
It seems over educated people like complicated explanations. We all see that when any animal population outgrows its habitat, the females have smaller litters. They have no way of deciding this, nature automatically pauses their expansion or increases the predator population. Well, people are animals too.
YES. Exactly. Not that hard. All the signals are there. Expensive real estate, people can't afford to have children, climate change.. but noo. It can't be that we have outgrown our carrying capacity because that kills all traditional economic growth metrics. We need to start thinking differently. It's not that hard to understand. Not so long ago a family could still live off the land. That is close to impossible today. Waterways are diverted to cities, land is too expensive, etc..Those that say that we can carry much more people.. yes.. but to what cost?
Yes, in the 1950's almost any average adult American could live in a first ring suburb of a major Metro area, commute with ease, marry and have kids with ease, and did not have to worry about epidemics of crime, mental illness, and drugs.
There is a direct correlation between population regrowth and resource availability. You can be certain that regrowth will follow shortly after the decline reaches rock bottom!
I believe that one of THE MOST INCORRECT number calculations is when top level people talk about "poverty." They like to say a paraphrased concept like, "... all boats have risen because of larger or higher levels of economy..." However, they seem to ONLY look at the totals of so called income. They show how a person in Bangladesh now might make like 8 times what an ancestor did a couple or a few decades earlier. BUT... they don't seem to calculate QUALITY of life, happiness, or even actual buying power. They tend to ONLY look at mathematical graphs. Then they turn around and don't understand why the massive lower tiers of society don't want more kids. They don't understand why MOST people now are severely unhappy in comparison to previous generations. They don't understand that simply trying to "survive" today has almost everything to do with financial stress which is a FORCED OBLIGATION. Laws are passed, like property taxes. This makes even the very old STILL under extreme financial stress. Meanwhile in prior generations, this was never a worry. It was only a concern to keep the physical structure maintained. But NOW... it's more of a financial worry. THIS is why people hold on to their money as much as possible. THIS is why later generations don't want to RISK the obligations of children. They don't want their children to worry and likely have EVEN MORE financial stress in their later years... not to mention their entire life.
This is just plain wrong. The calculations used by the World Bank to estimate rates of absolute poverty are based on nutritional intake. Absolute poverty means you don't make enough income, or income equivalent (since some social structures have large informal economies not centered around money) to afford nutrition above the poverty threshold. So no, the reduction in poverty is absolutely measuring material well-being. People say things like this all the time, and it's because they just don't understand how difficult life has been for most people for most of history.
They are totally wrong. In twenty years the real productivity will be 2x to 3x and rapidly growing. People will not have to sacrifice their lives with the dual full time jobs of working and child raising. Income tax the robots and distribute the wealth. Capital, standard of living and population will all grow.
unhappiness is always downplayed or disassociated entirely from economic growth and capitalism, but the world bank cares only to expand the global apartheid of state bureaucracy, it doesn’t care for the sweet potato i had as a sum total of my nutritional intake today and i live in a developing country - what more the millions of people without a legal identity
Great comment and summation of the foolhardiness of in anyway relying on lifelong academics thesis. US Academia commercially first and politically controlled a close second are at the core of the US situation as it is now. With wokism adding a finishing touch to the calamity. Does there have to be a disaster before rhere is an awakening!!
A constantly growing population requires a growing consumption of resources, the covering of more land, the manufacturing of larger fishing fleets, the use of more water to produce food. Constant growth only produces constant manufacture, constant manufacture results in greater waste and consumption of resources. There has to be a limit somewhere.
This is a disturbing insight into the dystopian and calculating way that the elite think about the world. He’s basically saying that the only way to counter the depopulation of a western country is to increase immigration. So the west will be fighting over the dwindling “resource” of tax cattle. As an Australian , I can say that the only reason we are in his list of non depopulating countries is because of immigration. This is correct, we have had an immigration rate of 2-3% of our total population of per year for at least the last three years. We have a population of approx 27 million, we had over 600 000 immigrant per year for the last two. We have a massive decline in the quality of living, an enormous youth crime issue (because the future is very bleak for them), a massive shortage of housing, rents and cost of buying a home have doubled, our famous health care system is collapsing because of the sudden huge numbers and not enough trained staff, and it will take our kids decades to save a Deposit for a house which will take more than one generation to pay off, unless they have parents who own THEIR house and have sufficient equity and can help you, further exasperating the wealth disparity, and creating a new landlord class, Immigration is artificially propping up our numbers in population decline at the cost of the prosperity of the citizens who already live here. We cannot sustain this level of immigration, we cannot cope with the huge numbers of immigrants w already have now, I believe even if we stopped right now, it would probably take generations to recover. With decisions makers in charge who subscribe to this sort of elitist way of thinking, we will suffer, our country may sustain its population for a few more decades, but at what cost?
Lets say no immigration. Ok, peaceful life but in the grand scheme of things, who will sustain your pension? Pay enough tax to sustain basic social services? As if you are Switzerland who can just maintain to be small or NZ. You guys are part of G7 who are always active in war talks. Your government should strike a balance. Make policies that are effective and up to date. What I always see a problem in countries that receives mass immigration is they dont forecast really well and create flexible policies. The movement of immigration is fast, the government in charge should also be fast to react to changes. It should act based on current needs without compromising the future state of the country. Immigration highly depend on what's happening in the global scale aside from what's happening in the country's internal affairs. The pandemic drove many immigrants out their countries and to "richer" countries. Yet australia maintained its immigration targets without thinking they as well need to recover from the pandemic. And there you have it, housing crisis, health care crisis
Housing is in short supply so our kids are living with us. How does that affect child bearing stats? People arent just chess pieces on a chess board. This guy is rather out of touch.
It’s half the amount the planet is capable of sustaining if resources were managed in the most effective and equitable way. Given how it’s managed at the moment, 8 billion is on the precipice of collapse!
People have children when there is seemingly nothing better to do... since the advent of television, and especially since the introduction of the internet, people have watched and witnessed all the possible lives which could be led, and have believed ever since, that there is always something better to do than have children.
@d.Cog420 well to answer, I would ask how you differentiate reduction of biomass from intentioned ending of life. There is no objective morality in nature except for survival of the fittest. Deviating from that precept would be equivalent to an immoral act. By reducing human biomass, you make no distinction in selection other than deciding who gets to select. Therefore, perfect deselection results in less fit organism that retain epigenetic damage due to survival of the culling times. Those actions have made less fit humans more represented, scarred everyone, reduced the genetic databank, and ultimately robbed surviving humans of outlier contributions. Basically, it creates a new dark age that is self-inflicted on the basis of a rejection of natural selection which exists even if it is disliked.
I live in Brazil. My grandparents, both sides, had 16 children altogheter (8), early 1930's to late 1940's. Those had 27 children (1,6), late 1950's to early 1980's. Me and my 3 sisters only had 2 children (0,25), early 2000's. Of those, now adults, only one wants a child. One child. Maybe. If he finds the right person and a good job after college and can afford to live in a good place, with good services. Because that's the point: people don't feel socially obligated anymore to marry and have children, so, unless you're truly really vocationed to parenthood, the investment of time and money and mental health is daunting. It still takes a village but there's no more cozy supportive villages for free in the individualistic consumerist reality of modern western society...
Currently we are adding 80 million people to the planet every single year. What do "plunging" birth rates mean for Australia? Less problem with drinking water that's for sure. More fertile land for the farmers. Lower costs for housing. Doesn't sound bad to me.
If you create the system where women need work outside the home but child care equals a salary, it's a miracle that there are as many kids as they are.
There are still too many people on the Earth! They eat Earth alive!
It's the countries where women got equal chances and benefits where the reproduction number is lower. What are you yapping about?
Blame feminism
Ignore the aptly named houseplant. I agree. We live in an age where in modern societies, you need two household incomes to break even. Those who do not, scrape by. 2k a month for childcare in the UK is exorbitant, yet that is one number I have heard from friends. If equality of the sexes mean that both partners must work, then the government needs to subsidise childcare/costs, or deal with a shrinking population. It really is that simple.
@@tezinho81 Same lame excuse. My country has almost free childcare, childmoney of around 300-400 euros per child and benefits in things like public transport, healthcare, etc and it's still devreasing. In most European nations families with kids get massive support, it's the single people who get taxed the most. And all those support systems you mentionned are there, Scandinavian countries have the best support system, yet one of the lowest birth rates... Answer me this, why do migrants in Europe make more kids? They often have a worse socio-economic situation. Because it's possible, you'll just have to sacrifice those few vacations a year and not give everything for a carreer. You want a bourgeoisie life and kids at the same time...That's impossible in the beginning. Change your mindset and be a bit more tough, your first years of having kids will be hard, but you'll regret it if you never do it. Your boss won't care for you when you're 65+... Enough women with "beautiful carreers" regretting it.
Humans don’t like to breed in captivity.
Genius! lol
I like it most anywhere, tbh
@@tyrone_shoelace_sayshahahaha! Just need a volunteer
😢😢😢⁷@@y.g.1313
@@onetwokaafour
Don’t get stampeded in the rush… and also don’t be surprised if you just held a party and no one came.
You forgot the part where we've been priced out of giving a fuck.
Thanks, that concludes our podcast.
If that is an original quote you may go down as one of the great philosophers of our time!
I've no more fucks to give!
Thanks to Modern Monetary Theory and Keynesianism.
And yet if our ancestors didn't have children in primitive huts they'd built built themselves, with outside dunnies, we wouldn't exist. It's societal expectations that have changed. You don't need a four bed two bath house and overseas holidays to have a baby.
My wife and I have decided we don’t want children … we’re going to let them know at dinner tonight.
They've read your comment before dinner. Surprise foiled. How did it go, though?
Omg I love it! 🤣
If only it were that easy. 😉
I lol´d ;))
- Great choice. That is smart. The world’s total population needs to be reduced roughly by half. Needs to be reduced by at least 4 billions of people
Interestingly they seem to always blame “the people” for not having babies when they made it too difficult to have and maintain larger families
How did they convince you to leave your family?
Nah, contraception and abortion have done their work
If I could have afforded it and was sure that the life any kids I did have would be at minimum as well as that base line needed I would have been happy to have 6-8 kids. But I cannot even afford one. And thank God for that as I have often been needed to help those around me with child care so they can support their familys.
Most people before the pill was widely available had way more kids than they wanted. We need a happy medium between no contraceptives and no money.
@@LostInTheNetNothing is "sure" in life. Less so with kids. Your delusions hold you back.
Show of hands if you live in a "rich country" but don't feel rich
I understand this, but you don't need a lot to feel rich. Our country - Australia - is beautiful. But we Aussies are culturally impoverished by wealthy globalists like this speaker. I've got all I need; a debt-free home large and sustainable enough to support me without the government. I have no speculative assets (apart from superannuation). It also gives me companionship (I'm single and childless - due to a combination of fate and choice)... I feel rich because I am aware of my (British) cultural heritage which I value as much as I hope others value theirs. However, I'm saddened that so few around me share the same values and are willing to swallow elitist economic arguments like this speaker's who praises Australia for immigration policies that favour them and undermine the average Anglo Celtic Aussie. And btw, cultural identity is not racial supremacy, it enriches the inner life, making materialism less important.
rich in what?? money? assets? what about peace of mind, relaxed lifestyle, good friends, it is a state of mind brother. I live in FNQ Australia
That’s because the “feeling” of being rich is that you’re richer than people around you. If you were transported back in time 500 years and were the richest person in the village for a year you would be so grateful for what you had when you came back to today. Basically everyone was poor then and everyone is rich now. Yes even the homeless.
@@juliahello6673 Yes, so true; the relativism of feeling wealthy is what the authors of "The Spirit Level" (book) and "The Divide" (movie) found.
Have you noticed how the spokespeople of the mega rich use this to shame their underlings? They respond to concerns about the marked growth of inequality over the last few decades by pointing out how much wealthier everyone is compared to their grand parents? So, because a poor person now lives in a rented caravan and can flick a switch to make a cuppa in a minute, they should be grateful because their grandparents would have been under a makeshift shack boiling water in a billy over an open fire? Nevermind that they feel poor compared to most other people and suffer health conditions for multiple reasons.
I mean it's good to be aware and grateful, but don't be fooled - it's a ploy to distract from current inequality.
have a kind family and good friends. average job.
I feel very rich.
Oh no, the rich are going to run out of wage slaves! The horror!!!
Don't worry they'll just import more, oh wait ALL populations are declining....
They don't really want wage slaves. Everything is becoming automated. They want a class to rule to uphold their false sense of power.
My exact thought.
“Agggghhhhh!!! Where’s our wagies?!?!?”
@@accidentalfinder4916this also means workers won’t make as much money and governors won’t have as much money. That’s what happens there’s more old people and less young people
"A nation of sheep, owned by wolves, ruled by pigs. And yet we go on and on believing that any existence is better than none at all."
I wish that I could remember where I read this so I could give credit where it is due.
Perfectly said.
Borrowing this. Sums it all up nicely.
We as a nation just elected a pig so we are there and women have lost their way. We are going back.
Outstanding quote
Watch China... see how "laying flat" goes. Even if nobody attacks them... they implode. Someone will fill in the void.
The best thing about this video is reading the comments 😊
Absolutely fascinating, the apparent distance between the people talking and the people listening.
The boggling lack of understanding and shallowness of the responses is appalling. THEIR lives will be the ones worst hit by a dying society and collapsing economy.
Omg best comment ever 😂
@@WhizzingFish12Exactly. Shrinking population serves elites as machines do the jobs and they can enjoy produce among themselves.
Baaa
I wish the people would band together and stop supporting the ultra rich. Stop buying sports tickets, stop supporting soul selling entertainers, stop making rich people richer and spend our money in each other. Support local and not international.
TH-cam is a giant rich company owned by google, an even bigger company and you’re likely viewing it from a cell phone provided by an ultra rich company. Practice what you preach. Buy your medicine from your local drug dealer.
@@ExploreVanIslesorry, there’s no local TH-cam and iPhone dealers here that aren’t a franchise. 🙄I buy as much off my local economy as possible. Thanks.
So I buy from local vendors that in turn but from big corporations and international sources. But I get the warm fuzzies cause "I'm doing my part!".
There isn't any way to produce anything completely local. At some point, we need the rest of the world.
The bigger issue is that buying local is a privilege that will never be accessible to enough people to make a difference. Should people starve because buying from Walmart is immoral?
Folk are too fear driven to give up on money, politics & religion!
ALL tools of self-serfdom utilised by our Overseers!!
Sorry, but my local pop singer has pimples all over his face and can't sing. I am going to stick with the soul sucking super star...😂
I was a stay at home mom with 3 kids. Living frugally but comfortable. Then Trudeau was elected, my husbands sector suffered. Over 100,000 laid off in my province. I had to work outside of the home, our home life suffered. Processed food, no time or energy to help kids with their homework and mental well-being. Mine was suffering as well. So much money stress that it seeped into everything. If this situation had occurred at a time when we were just considering to have kids, we definitely couldn’t have had three. Maybe just 1. Who knows. I feel so sorry for my kids now. Economically, their futures are very depressing.
If the population falls quick enough your children will have more afordable houses and more jobs avalible. But if increeses or stays the same they will not have it easy and your fear is justified.
Did all this happen to o you during the GLOBAL pandemic by chance?
@ no, the layoffs happened in 2015/16. My husband was threatened that he may lose his new job during the pandemic but he ended up paying out of pocket to get tested every 3 days. They all had to disclose their status. Now, there are so many on short and long term disability and he has to cover the workload of the “missing”. I really hope his company is doing the stats on the fallout of this experiment.
We always blame the current prime minister for whatever goes wrong, but often these harsh effects are the result of economic forces that began before he or she took office.
@ true, but now he’s been in power for 9 years and I don’t know many people who’s lives have significantly improved since before 2015. Although some liberal MPs have gotten VERY well off financially.
I'll give you the shortcut. Everything is super expensive and most people are barely scraping by. Nobody can afford children, who in urban and suburban areas, represent more of an expense than an asset. In rural societies it's the other way -having more kids means more free labor.
So there you have it. Make the world hostile to having kids and you get less kids. It's not rocket science.
This explains the immigration problem.
It’s not just free labor (that’s an unintended consequence). Rural farm life is rich with food, time, relationships and peace. My farmers love their children as evidenced by the fact that they are always with them. It is common for all the children except babies to accompany dad to the fields for haying, planting, harvesting even if all they do is hang out with each other. What farm life here doesn’t have is lots of money. But you don’t need lots of money if you have food and shelter which my Amish have in abundance.
@@rjsteyn It's the century of women. Women have now won the battle against men. Women don't need men anymore nowadays.
The average woman is and was never attracted to the average man. So the average women only wants to procreate with a genetic superior male. This is the nature setting of women. Women only procreate with the best genetics possible.
But because women in the past did not get access to education, jobs and rights, women need to wife up any men to just survive.
The birthrate will never go up when you improve subsidies, culture media Propaganda or whatsoever.
The only groups who will make babies are groups where women rights are not so important.
There are PLENTY of people in the world but the old white men don't want "them".
@@Jeffrey-rq2gqRepublican sponsored, baby!
the wolves are worried The sheep are not reproducing fast enough.....
You mean slaves yeah
A bunch of commanders demanding more cannon fodder.
The wolves convinced the sheep to not reproduce. You’ve got it backwards.
@@derek4412 exactly.
Entitled and lazy sheep
Theres too many people, fear panic worry.
There's not enough people, fear panic worry.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 I just mess with the debate by pointing to Idiocracy and saying that the decent people are going extinct. We are overpopulated with trash humans.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 I fear that too many low quality people exist, and that the Idiocracy keeps multiplying more than needed.
@@skylinefever It's all being engineered by the propaganda masters.
😂😅
😂😂
I’m 73 yrs old. The global population has more than tripled in just my lifetime. When was the last time you were somewhere and you said “ I wish there were more people here”?
Not often, mostly it's 'I wish there were more people there.'
There being the Moon, Earth orbit, Mars, or space in general.
By sharp contrast every single time I've run into a person who wished for less people, they were deeply unpleasant, and the more specific they were about what people they wanted less of the more unpleasant they were.
@@benlubbers4943 Maybe you are unpleasant to them too
@@bluemamba5317 There's never a need to be.
People who desire large scale death can be unfailingly polite and cordial conversation partners, but just let them talk and listen close, and the deep, seething hatred for life and success always shines through.
Sometimes it's envy.
Sometimes it's narcissism.
Sometimes it's nihilism.
A rare few times it was something darker still, some bottomless well of evil that just took joy in snuffing out the only known light in the dark.
Sometimes it's just the plain old puddlefish mentality.
I have to agree, a few less people and a little less pressure on the animals we share the planet with
80 here and I can feel the pressure of all these … people.
What happened last depopulation era?
The Renaissance!
Suddenly the worker class has leverage over the owner class
Yup!
yooo hooo
Won't happen this time though. Nowadays, when they begin to run out of homegrown worker slaves they just import more worker slaves from the 3rd world.
@@alanz3497and they have ensured ownership of digital platforms, AI and automation
@@alanz3497or use more robots and controls measures
What he basically said was "be grateful you are alive and don't worry about being a slave to the super rich".
exactly, he even said the super rich benefit most from growth. This is why a guy on the far right is pushing the 'don't worry, have kids' line to the rest of us. Do you think the anti-abortion position on the right is an accident?
See, this is why I read the comments. So I could know if it was really just this.
😊
Our future is going to be very bright
@@montecarlo1651The social welfare state will also be unsustainable with low birth rates. So you could argue the left should believe in increasing birth rates, but this is not the case.
Declining population is corporate/government problem not a human/environmental problem.
And when only 1/4 of the population is of working age and 3/4 are elderly people will understand rapid depopulation is everyone's problem.
When large scale food production and transportation starts to go away I hope all these independent minded people that don’t care about population are able to provide for themselves in ways they’ve never had to.
@@denmar355 that's true. It just won't be them. It will be their grandchildren.
gullible check as been going on ever the time the christian was invented.
@@ericjames7819 No, just those who have no family or savings for their old age. Those who planned are fine. Stop demanding to live off the labor of the youth.
Depopulation makes the ponzi scheme collapse 😂😂😂
💯
It also makes the country more vulnerable for an military invasion by a larger populated country. I think that's the biggest concern over an economic one.
For example, although both birth rates are declining between N. and S. Korea, S. Korea is experiencing a far worse birth rate crisis. At the rate they're going, N. Korea will be able to easily overtake the South without much of a fight.
@@ICDeadPeeps how many n koreans do you think will by loyal after crossing the borders of their country 🤣🤣🤣
And what is a country without its human population any way?🤷
@@ICDeadPeeps the Ukraine-Russia war has proved that false. With sufficient tech, a defender can inflict huge losses on the attacker such that invasions aren't worth it
What you mean is that lower populations make projecting military power harder
@@Sho-td8wg Technology can only go so far, military strategy matters...Russian's main strategy is just to throw more bodies to the front line. Not very smart or strategic on their end.
Also, do you think Russia would've thought twice before invading if Ukraine had a larger population base? To be clear, I'm not saying that the country with the larger population base would lead to automatic victory. I'm simply saying that it discourages other countries from making the move to invade in the first place. Huge difference between the two.
There's also the political risk which countries like China has successfully abused throughout history. Use their population base to immigrate to other countries (especially countries with declining population rates) and to influence elections. An indirect form of invasion.
One of the outcomes of the Black Death was that workers were so scarce, employers started paying them more.
The problem now is that women have entered the workforce and doubled its size.....which effectively cuts wages in half due to supply and demand.
Very telling that the first thing these people are worried about is the "economy". And of course by the "economy" they mean the rich.
The poorest among us these days live better than the kings of the Middle Ages. The economy is for everyone.
Kings ownednvast amount of land@@ninav7083
@@ninav7083You ignore psychology though. Humans care about their relative quality of life to their peers and currently wealth inequality is rising. If affording your own home is more challenging than your parents it doesn’t matter that you have an iPhone or more holidays - you’ll feel less ready to have kids and gamble long term.
The economy is more important for the poor than the rich. They're the ones who start dying in a bad economy
@@ninav7083 That's nonsense. Medieval peasants had more leisure time.
During the bublonic plague in Europe, 1/3 of the population died. Rents went way down, food was cheaper, and wages soared for the survivors
The law of supply and demand.
This is different. Now we have a BIG old population that will drag down the younger. It could create a snowball effect with less and less young people.
And animal population rebounded
@@bluemamba5317 Currently food crops are intentionally destroyed to keep prices up.
@@bluemamba5317true, but a lot of Boomers (at least in this guys "rich" countries) are a lot more unhealthy than their parents. I'm not expecting my parents to live as long as my grandparents, (despite advancements in healthcare and medicine.) Maybe that generations gluttony and entitlement will speed things up
Population is not for people. It is a commodity for the large conglomerates.
Some truth to this...
@@alexdetrojan4534 no there isnt. young people are who build the future. go have a look at programmers, engineers, designers etc etc people who build things we will need. the less we have around the less things we need to solve problems we will have will get invented and built. once your population shrinks so does your innovation. people think colleges closing in america is a good, in a round about way saying its good people are less educated as compared to who? china?
@@alexmartinez-og8gu Well, what innovation do you get if the Idiocracy breeds like rabbits.
Besides, there may be other reasons people welcome colleges closing. Nobody feels bad when a college that oversells what its degrees are worth falls from its own dishonesty.
@@skylinefever whos would there be to build personal computers for if there arent enough "rabbits" to buy and own personal computers? why waste all that money, time, brain power coming up with a way to give computers to the masses? steve jobs and bill gated didnt invent computers they proposed the idea of giving the technology to everyone for everyone gates more so as he made PCs far more affordable then jobs ever wanted them to be.
let me give you another example, lets say i found a way to cure certain viruses from the human body, but the medicine costs lots of time and money to develop and its quite expensive and still very new, so not alot is known about it. what do i do? take it to a investment firm, show them my patent, and beg for a huge loan. how would they see it themselves? well the medicine can potentioally be used for good but also be purchased at a huge mark up price, why? because there would be lots of people who would want to buy it. without that market demand for such an invention would they ever give me a loan? nope, thats not an investment its called a charity, and therefore as good as the medicine is it never comes to existance since there isnt a massive group of people to pay back the investors ROI.
its very simple economics, once young people go away, innovation goes with them.
@@skylinefever Colleges were actually designed for learning and challenging ignorance not for producing economic zombies for a parasitical capitalist society that only values greed and ignorance
We live to serve the big corporations, working long hours for them, consuming their products, while we leave our families, friends and community. We do that because the system is designed for it, while it is being branded as innovative and evolutionist.
They are worries about the depopulation but they force you to work 60hours a week is a must just to feed your ownself
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Stop being a victim.
@@edheldude If you stop being a wage slave you will eventually end up homeless and hungry - choice? You sound like an apologist for a completely rigged socio-economic system which FORCES millions of people to accept minimum wage and beg for scraps. There are homeless people who work full-time. Some choice.
@@edheldudeok boomer
Ya, wat t
Ill we are all so old you have no choice but to work tomsppport us…🥳🤪😝
Who is ‘they’?
I expect that the group that cares about population decline and the people ‘forcing’ long work days are two different groups.
For example a small business owner probably has little time to consider demographics but may have figured out it is more expensive to hire another person than to have someone work overtime more often (especially it that role is heavily in demand) whereas demographic/economic academics have very little impact on our day-to-day lives but are more likely to understand (and care about) patterns about the impact of demographics. A few of these folks maybe might have some impact on politicians and likely no impact on business owners.
It’s not academics who decide what happens in policy.
The comment section did not disappoint! I was headed here in a fury and y'all brought a smile to my face! We live in societies that hate kids and discourage people from having them. Childcare is expensive AF and both parents working isn't even optional now with costs of living so high. Public schools and teachers for kids have been F'd in the US. Maybe if women, and engaged parents in general, didn't have to sacrifice their employability to have kids, we wouldn't be in this state. Public perception of kids in general is that they are annoying and should be excluded from engagement and inclusion by default. I have 2 kids and I can tell you, US society does not set us up for success.
Kids are annoying. Incredibly annoying.
It's like being a sober person surrounded by sloppy or angry drunks.
You can't change that. It's a reality.
What you can do is accept it and accommodate it in other ways.
You're spot on about the economics of it all. Every time I see a talk about this subject, the speakers are espousing the same thing: We don't know why population is collapsing.
These are supposed to be intelligent, educated people. Is that the problem?
Ask the ordinary people that do all the jobs in society. Any society. Doesn't matter if it's first world second world or third world. Ask them.
They will tell you exactly why it's happening.
Kids are expensive. Life is even more expensive and ordinary people are unable to earn enough money to live and provide the life they want to give to a child. If you can only create a child, but not take care of it appropriately, how could you ever morally justify creating one ?
We are not fish spreading thousands of eggs into the dirt and letting nature take its course. We are not turtles burying eggs in the sand and then fucking off back into the ocean never to be seen again.
If all these people are so concerned about this issue, they better get the ruling class of filthy rich people and governments and the corporations they own and operate and get them to stop living lives based on greed.
Poor murricans most affected as always
Educate the human kid by taking student loan, repay it with interest and after kid graduates make that kid ready to get exploited ruthlessly by his or her employer, work as a slave till death. Then from birth very likely kid will inherit genetic diseases from parents and their ancestors and from adult age will be paying health insurance premiums annually + life long medicines daily . Our kids should not face the hardships we faced. Many small girls and boys out there homeless on the streets or forced to do child labour or forced into begging, drug peddling and prostitution. Children are innocent but their childhood should not end early. They will have a hard life ahead as they grow up is what makes one think don't bring them in this cruel exploitative materialistic world.
Human population has been misused, is being misused and will be misused unless it is significantly reduced and kept under control. Brain, mind and money in society of humans are dangerous.
@@raifsevrence Bang on. Talk to thr grass roots and everyone will tell you it is primarily a matter of cost and governments are increasing not coming to the table on this issue. When a couple both working can barely survive, who can they afford children. Looks like we are breeding ourselves into extinction. Since man in general has contributed to the downfall of the planet the animals will celebrate our demise.
@@zacharybrecheisen2601 You are Extremely Wrong! The US. sets up minorities to succeed… WEFARE, WIC, FOOD STAMPS, COLLEGE AIDE, Housing. The “White Man’s GUILT?” Watching them breed like Bunnies in Captivity!!!
maybe people are just tired of suffering and tired of producing people who will suffer? this being hellbent on having people reproduce more is so bizarre and invasive.
People have fewer kids and have them later and try be responsible parents. That’s it.
Broadly speaking, the further people become removed from their food sources, the more likely they'll be out of sync with nature and our cycles.
What suffering are you talking about? Go read the book Factfulllness by Hans Rosling. You will have a much better understanding about the actual state of the world. Should be required reading for every student.
@@ronwoodward716 full time job is suffering. Sane person doesn't want to go everyday to work, meet people who even doesn't like or even hate. Boss, clients, colleagues. Work and responsibilities are stressful and lead to chronic diseases or heart attack, stroke, etc. And you have to get to that job. A normal person wants to go spend time in nature, or on a bike, or fishing, at home etc. Watching older family members age, suffer, get sick and die. Watching how you lose your vitality, get sick, age and wait for death.
@@quand_meme Yeah no one wants to have to work. Everyone wants someone else to provide for them. The truth is that is not how the world works. Only childern and disabled get to have someone else take care of them. Able adults have to provide for themselves. It's great if you can find or create a job that you enjoy. Unfortunately not everyone is that lucky.
Population decline will decrease the demand for jobs, assets, products, and services, resulting in increased salaries, decreased asset prices, and fewer customers. This will benefit the poor but disadvantage the rich. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
If you have less consumers you will have less producers and less money in the system. The rich will get less wealthy, but it will be relative to their already accumulated wealth, while the middle class will become the poor again.
Increased salaries? While the customer base falls? Ability for businesses to borrow money also falls? Expansion ability falls? It's a nightmare.
You are overlooking a lot of factors to come to that conclusion. A growing population is important not just for the government welfare Ponzi schemes, but also for the fact that just a few great scientists or businessmen can make life better for millions of people.
The larger the population is, the more likely we are to have the next Henry Ford or Steve Jobs or Carnegie or Musk. Or the inventor of an epic advance in medicine or farming.
More people gives humanity more chance to do this. When there is less people, there is less division of labor and people are required to perform more of their own mundane tasks with less time or resources to focus on innovation.
The money class is losing profitable meat puppets. Clutch your pearls. 😮
I see comments commenting on the comments here. I agree. You all are smart!
Well they rip us off so much people can’t afford to have kids.
Disposable meat puppets.
😂 class
People are traumatized by the economic depression and the reality of working 60 hours and die right when you reach retirement age. We’re not raising you another generation of servants
Love this comment
Bravo! Not giving in & not subjugating another generation as sacrifice to the insatiable greed of capitalism.
Exactly!
💯
Average working hours aren't even close to 60 hours a week
I’m not a human resource; I’m a human being
Tell that to your Overlords.
When they started calling it human Resources, I knew "the powers that be," saw us only as disposable commodities. We see how they rape & pillage natural resources, polluting & leaving a poisoned wasteland behind them.
The wasteland in human terms is social & mental stress, depression, suicide.
Like it or not - that is what our governments and corporations have reduced us to with our voluntary compliance.
What a dumb question. Anyone who has seen a Marvel movie in the past 10yrs knows what happens when the population shrinks. Hint: things get ALOT better for the remaining population. Just ask Thanos!
Well yes but what if thanos made people old instead of dust?
We ABSOLUTELY must move away from the capitalistic ways of expecting perpetual continuous growth when in actuality, products , goods and human productivity cannot be grow into perpetuity.
The premise is fundamentally flawed
@@ChinchillaBONK are you cheering for a recession to happen this year? That’s what degrowth is.
Poppycock. Read a little Julien Simon. We have explored - actually explored - a tiny portion of this world. There is also potential in asteroids. Material will not run out.
Exactly why we are headed back to a feudal system.
@@ExploreVanIsleyes, a recession would help younger people get assets that would appreciate over time that are currently priced out of affordability
A problem that will solve itself. Once the population falls sufficiently - imagine all the empty land, empty houses... When a house doesnt cost x8 of a years salary or more then maybe we can begon rebuilding.
That is one of the positives of a smaller population is you can see the groundwork being laid for people more easily being able to reach replacement level. The problem that comes with that, of course is the decline in government services like road repair, electricity, water reclamation, etc.
And in the past, for whatever reason, big corporations did not buy up single-family homes. If single-family homes become more affordable in some areas, is it possible that a few private equity investors can get together and buy up all the homes that people still want to live in?
Houses might not actually become more affordable is what I’m getting at.
@@piernikowyloodek This is why I joke that the have more kids campaigns are from economists. They know that supply and demand would once again favor the commoner.
I think there is a point of no return and we just grow old and extinct
Land is never empty. Wild spaces are needed desperately.
@@skylinefeverwtf are you talking about? Once again favor the commoner? When did that last happen? Are you a robot or what 🧿
The neo colonialist are afraid they're going to run out of slaves. Employment is just a modern form of slavery. Humans never had to work for someone else until slavery and then more recently , "employment" was invented. In the old Filipino ( or should I rightfully and correctly say MAHARLIKA) language , there isn't even a word for work. "Bsyanihan" was the ancient Maharlika word for community cooperation for survival. It was voluntary not forced.
I doubt it. I am certain that young, able-bodied men were coerced into working. They couldn't just kick back and enjoy the fruits of others' labor.
I guess it was as voluntary to work as it was voluntary for the tribes to kick out lazy members.
Comparing employment to slavery is so vastly different, they are completely opposites and it is completely wrong. The level of stupidity and/or ignorance in your rant is so delusional. I make no effort to re-educate you, more so I am concerned about anyone listening to your drivel. In a free market system which the foundation for all western economies no one is stopping you from changing job and finding another, no one is forcing you to you to do anything you don’t want to do with in the bound of the law. No one is preventing you from starting up your own company or selling your own products. No one is stoping from buying a piece of land in the bush and living off that land. That is of course if you are living in a free market society. None of these things are true with slavery! What your little rant is doing is trying to smuggle in laziness. You don’t want to do any work and you want everyone to give you a free handouts. You’re upset that you have to work. You’re lazy to start your own company or come up with your own products or services or own your own a piece of land and working it for your self. This sounds like too much work for you, so you type words into a device that someone else invented which you bought from a company that someone else started which was all made possible by a free market system. This is the complete opposite of slavery.
Really good to hear these "prophets" called out. I remember friends in those years saying it's immoral to have more than 2 children and they didnt. I wanted 5 but got 3.
I agree with everyone else saying that the wealthy whose real estate values are threatened and whose future business revenue is threatened are trying to push a panic over the drop in population.
We could do with a good decline in population.
I don't think the population will drop much. Once it starts going down housing prices will drop sharply and having kids will become more affordable. Then it will oscillate a bit because the feedback loop has a delay of several years if not dacades.
@@gzoechi I think the attitudes against childbirth are now built into our socialization. You really should read up on rat universe 25. There are some eerie parallels.
Plus both men and women find more dopamine pushing satisfaction from entertainment than they do from having sex.
@@gzoechi I think the attitudes and socialization are locked in now. And in part they are natural consequences of effective birth control and the anonymity of large population centers combined with highly effective dopamine producing entertainment options.
You're letting your hatred of the rich cloud your judgment
When economies collapsed,; the rich are fine
It's us mere average people that will truly suffer
@@finess3 It's not hatred. It's the most likely rational conclusion.
During earlier depopulation events, such as the Black Death, what happened was that the social order was upset, and then humanity carried on. That's what will happen this time again. The pyramid scheme that is called "economic growth" will come to an end, and the economy will shrink. The last large generation (mine, btw) will suffer, as we will have to work to old age, without the benefits of early retirement - or any retirement. The next generation will shrug collectively, and enjoy their lives on a larger, cleaner earth.
In the meantime we have to somehow survive our government's obsession with importing warm bodies to replace us. If we manage that, we'll be ok.
The economy will continue to grow. The labor will move from people to intelligent machines.Social order will change no one will need to work to live a good life.
@@hgu123454321 Quite true about social and economic change. Ironically it was the Black Death that probably began perpetual growth. "See-saw, marjory-dor, Johnny shall have a new master, he shall get but a penny a day, because he can't work any faster."
As for retirement, this will probably depend very much on whether you had children. In the Middle Ages, when a person got too old to work, they would transfer their assets to a family member in return for care until death, this was legally recorded in manor records. In Edwardian London, before old age pensions, the working class too old to work simply starved to death to avoid the workhouse.
@@ronwoodward716 it won’t. Perpetual growth on a finite planet is impossible. We can still live a simpler better life.
Importing warm bodies? GRT is a dangerous lie. It is rich cunts financing politicians or through media ownership, trying to sell the middleclass a lie that it is the poor's fault and not theirs, the growing inequality and hardship.
@@longnewton1 Growth is based on how you rearrange the finite atoms on the earth. There is a practically infinite number of arrangements. So far all predictions of future shortages have been found to be false. I am a believer in the history of growth and improving prosperity. You can follow the path of the disproven limits of growth but that is a very sad destination. The earth may be limited however space is not. We should strive to grow into that infinite space. We will need a lot of people and productive capacity to do so. The meek will inherit the earth the bold will travel to the stars.
You know you've reached the next level
when your algo feeds you this.
👍
Yes.🎉🎉🎉
Why?
A.I. Has the Right to Defend Itself.
Next level of what?
I live in a place that's rapidly growing in population, and it's doing one thing: Making our quality of life plummet. Property taxes are up, and those taxes are passed on in increased prices you pay at every business -- or else those businesses are forced to close. Traffic is becoming horrible, so you have to spend even more time in your car getting to and from work. People are angry and fighting over everything. Every green space is being bulldozed to build more expensive apartments all the while politicians give lip-service to "affordable housing" -- which they never provide. Forget trying to see any kind of medical specialist because they're all booked up months in advance. And in all this churn, you know who gets rich? Big real estate corporations who now own this housing and who want to turn everyone into a renter.
All this pro-birth hand-wringing is about stuffing more people into tiny apartments and charging them outrageous rents.
When the room is shown there are only old people, it's a paradox that old people want to speak about future.
It’s because they’re scared of fading into obscurity and losing control over things when they die, so they try to make their mark while they’re still present.
I am sure they do have children and grandchildren
If the trends continue, there will be more and more old people everywhere
@@hmcvalesanothen why aren't they asking them? Why ask another old guy?
I'm an old person and I'm deepy offended by the speaker's vision of what matters in the world and especially with his attitude towards humans and all living things. I will speak up about the future - just not what he says.
Population decline is NOT depopulation. Huge difference.
It's planned, so depopulation
@J-S.I Was the world not able to function in the 60s when there were less people ?
@@J-S.Iwhere do you live that contraception is forced on you?
@@J-S.I as a woman never experienced this. I got a contraception talk only if i specific ask for it. The pill hormones dont mess with your body permanently, but only in the time you take them. You can get pregnant right away the next cyclus. You clearly didnt get the right info. The only permanent contraception is sterilization.
And its normal to talk about contraception rihgt away after birth. Its not good for a woman to get pregnant after she gived birth. The body needs to heal. And breastfeeding is not a birth control at all.
@ th-cam.com/video/OJc-_zCrOd8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=X6B482bAYeEeHGDG
All those old people in the audience are just worried there will be fewer young people to prop up their stock portfolio's and Social Security benefits.
no no more babies. Our hospital closed its maternity ward. not enough babies to pay the bills.
One upside is that housing will get cheaper 👍
We are not cattle we don't want to live in feedlots we need less people to be happy and save ,why are wars fought right now because of land and resources
No, wars are most usually because leaders want them - most often the people don’t !
War and conflict are the book keeper's friend. War is double entry book keeping by other means. War industry is both the means of production and the means of consumption: it is an entry on one side and a subtraction on the other. War balances the ledger.
When fiat money comes into existence from nothing it has zero value except the debt of interest attached to it.
So, for fiat USD to pay the interest and find value, it must find a market. The biggest, most liquid markets for fiat USD are real estate, pharmaceuticals and WAR.
Without tangible assets to underwrite fiat USD currency, the eternal war on terror can never be allowed to end. It is therefore necessary to support the enemy with materiel, technical know-how, support and training. Sophisticated Blackhawk helicopters to the taliban do not maintain themselves and neither is it a back street blacksmith's workshop in Kahbul. Go figure the corporations.
The west as it stands has been absolutely dependent on colonialism for the past 400 years, but since June 2024 the US-Saudi petrodollar agreement is ended. The commodity rich BRICS are on the ascendant.
Conflict is both the beginning and end of value to a debt based financial instrument such as the fiat USD. What comes next?
Its because despite modern conviniences, we havent trully left Egypt.
wars are fought because it is an easy way to get rich $
… generally speaking… we are cattle!
World population in 1900 was about 1.6 billion. Current population is about 8 billion. What is wrong with a little depopulation? The earth needs to recover from so much plundering of its resources and global pollution, then the cycle can repeat itself...... over and over.
Who is going to pay for your retirement if there's more old people than young people?
@@0utc4st1985The money taken from the military budget, maybe
@@antinatalistwitch111That won't be nearly enough, you'll get maybe a year out of that, and those that do will be conquered by those that don't. Depopulation is hugely destabilizing because it destroys the social fabric, the old eat the young.
@@0utc4st1985 Nobody will pay for my retirement. Then I will just die away. That's the whole point of a "little depopulation".
The wrong ones will depopulate. What will happen is the west will be conquered and many low quality will proliferate who don't consider the earth or climate.
when the population declines....people will be happier. The natural world will breath a sigh of relief.
Your a brain washed idiot
There will be no one left to maintain the modern infrastructure. I doubt that will make people happier.
Off yourself to bring it on faster?
@@cameronsmith8986 Follow your own advice.
In your 15 Minute City.
"There won’t be enough workers to fund their safety nets and our young people to fight in wars." To reproduce and send children on the battlefield to die and to reproduce so at my 80's I am to grief for them? If anyone can explain me what's the logic living this way... I kind of do not have motivation for such "social" norm...
They and you haven't heard of AI and robots. People are redundant.
I miss my town back in the late 70s early 80s.
It was small quiet and beautiful.
A peaceful place. Now it is over crowded. 10 time more outsider moving in.
I don't recognized the business or the people.
All those wonderful little places where I use to go fishing are gone.
I'm the stranger going home.
I'm the outsider looking for my past that's no longer is there.
Coming up for air by Orwell
So you had moved from your childhood home....to be an outsider in someone else's town ?
@@crouchingwombathiddenquoll5641
I think if you stand in one place long enough. Everyone and everything changes around you. Even when I did move out of Rhode Island. to work in NYC. In my memory, That R.I. in the 70s and 80s was my home. Not in 2024.
Are you in Canada?
@@huskavarnapunkband no, grew up in Middletown Rhode Island. Move to NYC for my school and job. Gone back home to see my brother. Way too crowded. (too many strip malls) Even the fishing places from ponds, piers and jetties are all close to everyone. After 9-11 all the funding flew into the naval base now they shout off all excess to the coast line. As if terrorist will set foot there.
As a happily-married, child-free woman myself, when I hear professors like Eberstadt talking about how female volition affecting birth rates is such a mystery, I wonder why they don't just ASK women.
Everyone keeps trying to find answers in economics, education etc. but the simple difference in today's world is that women simply have a choice NOT to have children now, which was never an option in the past.
Just ASK any woman and she'll tell you that the entire concept of childbirth has been suffering for women throughout history. Dying in labour, suffering a myriad of physical problems after childbirth, taking on the lion's share of childcare for the rest of your life, sometimes still having to supplement shortfalls in the husband's income, facing social judgement for failures as a mother (that fathers don't face in equal degrees)... this has been going on for CENTURIES.
And when for the first time in human history that women can say 'screw this, I don't want this life', professors scratch their heads and call declining childbirth a 'mystery'?
Amen sista, well said
Mgtow is such a blessing to society
Good theory 🤓
Having fun is more fun than having kids! 😆
Well thought out and well written.
I beg to differ. Czechia has bounced back from 1 child per woman (late 90s) to 1.6 or even 1.8 in the past few years. If the society values mothers and provides easy access to healthcare, maternal leave, preschool education and frankly tax and social benefits then it's possible. The housing however is getting quite bad here too, so better policies will have to be devised, like extra taxation of second homes, housing projects like in 70s, speeding up the building permits, more people in trades etc. No panic needed, just good policies and we're good.
That happy bounce will settle down once the good things are taken for granted. Watch.
Declining population is a gift for the working and middle classes it gives us political power over the hyper wealthy. Population decline will continue until the benefits of economic growth are equally distributed. As long as the current situation continues the worse the population decline problem will become.
This exactly what immigration is designed to stop, which is why if we want class power to shift the working class then we must oppose immigration.
No it doesnt, they will just move in millions of 3rd people to replace us, as they are currently doing
Not with uncontrolled migration, AI and robotic automation
Yes, just like after the Black Death
@@lukecaldwell7721migration increases worker power, go from bad conditions to better conditions, rather than being trapped, serfdom was based on trapping people in place to reduce wages, the Black Death helped solve that problem, as serfs just walked away, to better conditions.
Heres my answer: "My children will never exist therefore they will never be more meat for your grinder"
And you can quote me on that
Damn Straight!
Don't mind if I do:
As the great Winterwulf stated:
"My children will never exist, therefore they will never be more meat for your grinder."
Catchy
Saw the title, and I’m guessing before the video starts that the subject is how a decline in population affects GDP growth. Economic growth is the religion of our time. Life is only an input for the economy.
Let’s see if I guessed correctly.
it has nothing to do with economic growth, its saying we are not even going to be able to maintain economic stability at the rate we are going and if we cant do that then everyone suffers
Yes Rusty pretty much. But it still amazes that some people think we are going to have insufficient economy to just maintain our current living stds....if those are standards we feel good about 😂😂😂.
Less people, a lot more available houses and prices being affordable. Bring on depopulation!
@furball8967 yeah I guess millions of people dieing due to starvation would lower housing costs....if that's a standard we feel good about
@@snipesxiii9188 Dying of starvation? 😂. What gave you that macabre idea 😂 .........people having less mouths to feed leads to starvation? But seriously. Perhaps I’m missing something. Please enlighten me.
@furball8967 how do we get less people with mouths to feed, do they just disappear into thin air?
We need to give up our “greed based” economy and switch to a “need based” economy. Women don’t want children when present and futures are uncertain. Stress and anxiety are fertility killers.
This is the best news I've heard in ages
Agreed! Thank you!
I was born not wanting to reproduce, I really didn’t want to add to the numbers. I’m nearly 70 now.
So basically they are saying that I am supposed to produce kids and work for 12+ hours and spend hell lot on their health and education so that they can be cheap labour to some corporate or govt entity ? Fuck no
If I recieve 30 years of expenses in advance only then I will think of kids otherwise to the hell with society
they need consumers and workers who they can exploit.
if you see children as only that, they will be only that. Not revolutionaries, innovators, healers, creators, the future, and so on.
@@everybot-it innovators creators etc need good environment to thrive. It's easy if you are in a first world country but when you grow up in banana republic things are very different
@@hatebreeder999 Yup!
They've got you. They don't want you or your kids around. You got the exactly right attitude.
How to have children when you can’t afford rent?
Become a higher value individual that can afford an optimal life with children. Build rentals and rent them out.
If you can't afford rent you're living in the wrong area. I also cannot afford renting an apartment in certain areas, so I have to live elsewhere.
Having said that I think it's good people are having fewer children. It will be good for the rest of the world with fewer people around.
Thank the boomers. They control all the NIMBY laws. If more young ppl were born, younger adults would control laws that would support cheap affordable housing - like the 50s. We would have more houses, though not as fancy. Boomers chose to stop having children which concentrated civil power in their generation by numbers. Achieved some great things but trashed families, women, and society at large - all while raking up bills they can never pay. Planting trees in whose shade the will never sit? How about harvest the crops planted by former generations while forgetting to sow the fields for tomorrow’s generation. Shame.
Don't worry about it. We're importing the population now.
@@johnowens5342lmao 😂
I can think of who will be happy about population shrinking ,the elephants,the tigers,the wolves,the rivers ,the forests,the climate ,etc.,etc.
Clearly we aren’t needed THAT much with all the layoffs
when I predicted this in my Senior project in College back in 1984, I was actually ridiculed. But the data clearly showed trends forming around urbanization, falling extreme poverty rates, and birthrates per couple.
When I stated that this process was accelerating during grad school in 2010, no one ridiculed it, but the consensus among professors and peers was that it was "not as bad as stated"
Two years ago or so, Petie Ziehan (Zeihan?) wrote a book about it and he was not widely accepted, but it was no longer really a subject for debate.
But I would tell you that in every year since the early 1980s governments right across the industrialized world have acted as if this was a correct prediction. How so, you ask? What do you think the importation of low skill, high birth rate populations was all about? Instead of addressing drivers of low birth rates, academia, politicians, bureaucrats, and hucksters in the media went straight to impoverishment of the native born populations. As if the century of progressive eugenics had finally short circuited their brains.
the coming population collapse will strain every sector of every economy, every political system, and end the so called "global rules based order". Of course, no lie over the past century has been more ridiculous than the idea that governments follow rules....
Nicely said.
The BIBLE suggests that the planet will eventusllu become too polluted ("Heavenly SMOKE" ISAIAH 51:6, JER. 4:12-13, 28*, + 25:30-33* & PSALM 102:20-26. Try to imagune a (PHEUW) planet covered with human (unburied) corpses, as there will (as after WW#2) no more coffins produced, no mire hearses to haul them away---- and GOD SET S GREAT FEAST 9for all the wild burrowing animals that emerge at nught to HOWL AT THE MOON with SCARLET BLOOD ON THEIR SCALPS?
Solution. Give young people a genuine way to have secure homes and encourage local food production. Cooperation not steeper and steeper cost of food and housing
The irony of this is that the predictions he proposes will be just as wrong as the overpopulation predictions
Right
@@parshantpanwar2214 wrong
Oh, they will not. This time we can actually see it in real time and there isn't really anything we can do to stop it, only to slow the bump. Also, this time the economy is already trying to adjust to it to, because they can already feel it in their numbers. When teaching, I see fewer children in every class and if not then it is only due to immigration.
Yea its going to be worse. His numbers dont take into consideration the economic impact elderly people have as well as the lack of young people. They are just regressions of current declines in population. What happens when a nations social safety net fails, especially if its a nation with a significant one? All those people just die if they require services to live.
The ugly truth is even if every nation that has a sub 2.1 fertility rate, suddenly started having 2.1 kids per female, their populations would still implode. There is a lag period, that lag period is the length of a human life. Over the next 20 to 30 years, as the boomers die off, the worlds population is just going to wilt away.
I disagree. We have plenty of data showing population decline is in full effect in most of the world. And will be effecting every country very soon here… And will only get worse if the global economy takes a nose dive since the boomers are hellbent on not giving up a penny for the success of young people.
Life sucks. Nobody wants to drag innocent people into this nightmare. It's not fair to them. Only regret I have is dragging my daughter into this. I'll never make it up to her. She doesn't deserve to have to deal with any of you and none of you deserve her.
I get it: you're a proud papa.
You sound very well balanced. I’m she’ll grow up with a great attitude. 👍🏻
@@J-SH06 Arrogance and condescension exemplified by your comment compels me to my attitude. I know I'm far from representative of a minority who harbors such contempt. I'm not sure if I should thank you for verifying my conviction or cry on behalf of all humanity. As with all things, you buy the ticket, take the ride. In this case, the currency would be your attitude.
@@barbaradeininger9521 No, you've missed the point. Try. Try to think deeper.
@@J-SH06 Another simplistic and juvenile reply. The question is: Why would you bring a child into this world, born directly on to a treadmill that produces leisure time for wealthy people? Your response makes the point perfectly, someone who thinks this small is not intelligent enough for their daughter.
The audience looks like it’s already near death
Just what I was thinking! 😂
Not surprising, why are not more questions being asked about Australia.
An orgy of grey
Haha, exactly what I thought when I saw them. What good is this talk to a bunch of geriatrics? It's not like these people even when I'm a place to make change ever plan for anyone else's future
Leaded gas is a hellva thing. This generation, if they weren't so destructive in their inventiveness, are hilarious as hell in their lack of awareness.
Except that the scenario where too many of us would destroy the climate actually did happen. Which is also a reason people aren’t breeding.
Houses are expensive. Young people can’t afford to live… but don’t worry. Things are correcting themselves. Less people = more resources for everyone else. So what’s the problem?!
No more social security. Not enough people to be in the military. Which will offset an electric state
The problem is that those resources will all go only to the tippity-top and there won't be enough people to do the work required to propel the growth of, or even to maintain, the technology we all depend on. Plus more and more resources will be tied up with maintaining those who can't work, ie. the elderly and those unable to afford education or transport in the developed world, and starving uneducated children in the third world.
The problem is the way they go about it. This isnt even the tip of the massive iceberg we are heading towards.
And also, make sure you stay young and healthy.
Are you living under a rock? The problem is a generalized pension crisis. People currently retire from work 2 or 3 decades before they die. These retirees want a pension from ever less working younger people. So we'll have to work longer and longer because there isn't enough young people to substitute the old farts.
When the World is in severe overshoot, and finite energy resources are declining, wouldn't population decline be a good thing?
There's positives and negatives, things like recourse management and energy usage are really more a policy issue that a population issue. One of the issues with population reduction is there will be making large scale change to scale. Say we finally got our head out as a society and embraced nuclear. Building and operating those plants as well as all the additional supporting infrastructure will be a massive work project and having workers shortages will be big hurtle.
Another issue would be for countries like Russia and Venezuela who rely on revenue form the extraction of natural resources, so a reduction in demand will directly lead to smaller government budgets. Granted, thats probably not the worst thing consider current events, but for less developed African countries already working on tight budgets it could be devastating.
The last thing I'll say is that this model also assumes that existing workforces don't have diminishing returns as they age or are even willing to accept a higher age of retirement, neither of which are likely.
That would make sense... Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) it's ALL lies. This guy is a puppet, a useful idiot, spewing the gloom-and doom along with the agenda if the NWO . The story of scarcity has kept us tethered for generations. Stop listening to these academic lefties. They are in a blissful bubble of BS.
Not if you want to keep a system going that requires economic growth and a sub-class of people who are easy to exploit.
Sometimes villains are right
This isn't "a few less people" type of decline. This is "the total extinction of the human race" type of decline. Because when things start to actually get bad because there aren't enough people to keep civilization together, people WILL start to fight over what's left and they will do it with drones, droids, and nukes. Until the few that are left are too disparate to maintain even a remnant of what was.
Hell, it's possible the last human has already been born.
Population collapse i.e no more slaves to milk 😂
No, my friend, it is the sufferin, pain, and death of great many of real people.
But compassion is foreign to you, isn't it? Look up whatcsuch peoplevare called.
@@CaesarRenasci Have compassion, that's the reason I said what I said.
As for great people dying, no need to worry, AI will takeover.
@@CaesarRenasciPeople will suffer and die??
That's kinda what people do
Lack of family support, for a lot of people in my area, has been replaced by families of choice -- friendship networks, non-traditional living arrangements, remote working, online communities. As a childless woman myself, I'm very aware of the women who, once they had children, essentially disappeared into their other-mother networks; and as an aging member of three communities with a lot of young people, I get to hear the snippets of the solutions people come up with. Sometimes, one's original family is the last place someone looks for support. In this age of moblity and choice and high speed social networking both across long distances and locally. It's never been easier to put a problem out there to your community and get advice and support, and so much of it you can pick and choose what you think will work best for you, instead of being constrained by narrow silos of convention within tightly knit communities.
Living in cities is the problem. The irony is that cities are where economic opportunities are.
So. You can live very comfortably on a much lower income, in rural Australia. I know we did it.
Well, thanks to working from home and digitalisation this will no longer be the rule. The main issue is that corporate investment funds are too invested in offices, so we have extra taxes on people who work from home in countries like Germany. But as more and more talent stays in rural areas we'll see a decline in cities and a growth in villages as newer corporations can prefer to hire people who work from home. This will allow more money to circulate locally rejuvenating local businesses.
@@Planeet-Long I agree. During covid when people were encouraged to work from home, people flooded out of cities. It is safer in the country, and there is so much more community. We all take part in Christmas parades and New Year Eve street parties. Immigrants from non Christian countries hate village living. And at the end of the day we have access to food straight from the farmers gate, and as things continue to get worse, this might be important.
@@grannyannie2948Then you have to live rurally and who wants that??
It's almost like money isn't everything.
“If you live in a city, children are noisy furniture”. Said Peter Zeihan.
“They’re more expensive than noisy”, me.
Tonight, I picked up my son’s framed diploma from the store. It cost more than my first house. One of four university degrees I paid for. Two B.S. Mechanical Engineering, one M.S. Mechanical Engineering, one Ph.D. Neuroscience. Families are insanely expensive.
Amazing, my son just started college and wants to do mechanical engineering, the civilization is made possible by engineers, good luck to your kids ❤
Sure but youre going to get all that money back with your children working high earning jobs now, right? Isnt that the whole idea of having kids? 🙄
@mostaanroya MS in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue. I'd recommend Electrical or Computer Engineering... manufacturing has been outsourced and so have the high paying mechanical/manufacturing jobs
@@ARS-fn6pxYeah, no. One of the most repulsive acts my grandfather and great grandfather ever did was to take their son’s hard earned money when they faced hardship. I never considered my children as responsible for paying me back for their cost. That’s slavery, not parenting. I’d rather die of starvation or exposure than hurt my children by demanding repayment.
Back when everyone was a farmer, it was expected that sons would work their father’s farm but only the oldest son would inherit the farm. In the US, from the start of European colonization, all the extra kids moved into town, out west, or something else. Eventually, there was no more viable land to steal from the first peoples. The Industrial Revolution came just in time to absorb the excess workforce.
And why did you pay for all of that? Why didn't he pay for it?
Our priority is to live comfortably. We don't want to pass on our financial struggle to a new generation. It's so simple.
Paul Erhlich predicted "England would disappear by the year 2000" - well he got that bit right at least.
Thanks to Trotskyist Tony Blair et al.
Englandistan
This is not a world for people anymore,as a parent I see my kids fighting for survival living in stressed out controlled with very little freedom Lives, they can't even support one child
Really good news, we need fewer people on this planet.
Need to start taxing the rich, especially the ultra rich and making life affordable for the low and mid classes because right now, HELL NO NO ONE IS HAVING KIDS when they can barely afford to live.
The problem with this idea is that the reduction in birth rates is extremely high among the rich. Interesingly, this was true in ancient Rome, as well as among other ancient cities.
Taxing the rich has nothing to do with inflation, big governments and money printing does that. Take an economics course.
@@michaelk5825and how is that a problem…?
@@alexkalish8288take an economics throughout all of history course.
Governments have used the taxation of their citizens for centuries and centuries - never have they gone to the lengths we see today regarding leniency for the wealthy.
Oops, forgot Rome. Rome preferred to tax more and more areas of the provincial economy rather than marginally increase taxation of its wealthy nobility. That turned out great huh?
I'm still trying to figure out how we went from destroying the earth from overpopulation to this in less than a decade
wild.
We still have a huge overpopulation.
By not fixing the first issue, people choose not to reproduce.
No one was looking into it. Everyone knew we were overpopulated! Good bye social security. Good bye western free society. The only places with good population growth are those who treat women like property. Yay
Every change is exponential
Always remember
Omg I'm australian and we do not have the infrastructure to cope with the influx and we do not want to become a Muslim country so you need another solution, bleeding other countries dry does not help the world
Becoming extinct won’t help anybody, either.
AGREE!
@@violentfoxare sure about that? Lol 😂
You are a Muslim country because only Islam reproduces 6 times faster than whites.
My sister had 10 children. Her children had only 2 each. They were put off having more because of their childhood. They were aware of their overwhelmed mother and decided no more than 2. Imagine feeding, clothing, housing, educating that number of children. I had 2 children because I wanted to ensure I could afford their education. It’s not fair to the children, to have more children than you can afford to care for.
This.
It's not fair to society to have more children than the planet can support.
Same here. I'm second oldest by a year of eight. There was barely just enough money "most" of the time. Never , ever the quiet , calm time to simply talk until difficult feelings could surface. Terribly emotionally destructive competitiveness for the stretched thin attention. My Dad would have definitely lived longer ( it was too hard, too stressful , died age 60 ). I'm 77 now. All eight of us struggled one way or another and had a total of 12 grand kids. Sooo, with one partner each, that would make 16 x 2.1 =33.6. We're so far below replacement it's astonishing. I've long believed that if my parents had had a maximum of four kids (not necessarily including me... haha ) everyone would have had considerably higher quality lives. By the way........Thank You Roman Catholic Church. All 8 of us left it.
@@rachel-kx5cs No, the 2.1 children replacement threshold applies to each woman, not each human. Therefore, 12 grandchildren are below replacement value for 6 or more women in your generation (needed: if your parents had 6 daughters X 2.1 children = 12.6 grandchildren for replacement of the previous generation). If you grew up with that many sisters, then my condolences if you didn't have enough bathrooms in your house! If your parents had 5 or fewer daughters, then your parents' 12 grandchildren are more than enough to replace their children (you and your siblings) and spouses.
You give no indication of the socioeconomic background underpinning the having of 10 children! There is a direct correlation between low income and high levels of children, for various reasons.
Greed has become more popular than kindness . When we finally get a kind economic /gvt system, the people and corporations and government will flourish.
The utter dogma of this man!
Most young people will tell you that they don't want to bring children into a world where the living conditions are getting worse.
Not once did he mention the regular economic downturns that most countries have experienced over the last few decades. Nor did he mention the gutting out of worker rights which have made working life for most people a lot less secure.
Children raised in a world that tells them they are evil and abortion is better than life.
Do you expect them to have large families ? Islam will win. 6 times more children than your failed "liberal" democracy.. Allah Loves Babies !
He's right wing, they don't like talking about that stuff because they don't have any solutions.
I'm over seventy. When I was a teenager I could buy a house for 12k dollars. Now look at the price. Now I can't afford the rent.
Didn’t I just spend the last 50 years hearing about how the world’s exploding population was going to deliver a dystopian hellscape? Now it’s Opposite Day? It seems to me that both sides of this doomsplaining comes from a failure to recognize that trend lines are rarely straight over time.
That said, the stats are interesting. Sad that we can’t simply cover the data without the editorializing.
"The world’s exploding population was going to deliver a dystopian hellscape." It has for all othr species of life on this planet, after all we are in the middle of this planet's sixth great extinction event which has been caused by too many people.
Fear porn and propaganda to keep you scared. They only do this because they're TERRIFIED. We are one.
@@nelsonchick7348 People have heeded the warning. For the last 40 years, the fertility rate of the developed nations has been at below replacement level.
Ehrlich's error was that he was too optimistic. Had industrial farming techniques not produced more foods, then the world population would have reached equilibrium at 3 billion humans. That would have left some space for wildlife in forests and elsewhere. There would be a fraction of the pollution such as plastics in our waterways, sewage in our waterways, lung disease causing air pollution, people living in dense sprawling cities making their lives ant like, deadly violence over tiny swaths of land, and a culture that lives on screens because ugliness has replaced nature. The milky way is faint or gone from view. Hunting and fishing are only for the rich, people are getting fatter and sicker, cancer rates are rising, the average person on Earth lives with deprivations such a miniature and crumbling dwellings, countries like China and Russia run by dictators and thugs. Every thirteen years the planet has another billion people added to the population. Call me when the population stops growing and begins shrinking. Too little too late to save the curmbling biosphere.
will cost centuries or millennia but mother nature will fix this in the end, in the meantime it is us humans that make our own quality of life more horrific then necessary.
@@sjoerdpasterkamp9826 That's sweet. Sadly, Mother Nature is a poetic idea. She does not exist. Earth has a biosphere that is rapidly collapsing and each year more people dies of lung disease, cancer, and violence. you're also misconception is that humans make decisions on their fate. Individuals act in what they perceive as their best interest.
But at what costs , the Petro based fertilizers and fuels are causing their own problems.
And the food is of such low quality that life expectancy will decrease. Frankly, the modern American diet is bagged animal feed for humans.
What world are you living in? You are literally delusional if you believe any of the garbage you typed. You're acting like we're living in the world of elesiym lmao
It’s simple. No one has any money kids cost money.
‘Even an elderly and depopulating world can grow increasingly affluent’. The usual focus on material and financial wealth. Depopulation will help prolong the availability of resources, however, ecological overshoot, climate change and the biodiversity crisis show that the never ending pursuit of growth, in this case per capita growth, is not sustainable. We should target well-being, health, happiness and sustainability. Beyond a certain level, increases wealth adds nothing to our health and well-being. Indeed, there is clear evidence that longevity starts to fall.
The issue is the people people that study. This have never really done a real hard days worth of labor and they don’t quite understand what that work entails.
It seems over educated people like complicated explanations. We all see that when any animal population outgrows its habitat, the females have smaller litters. They have no way of deciding this, nature automatically pauses their expansion or increases the predator population. Well, people are animals too.
YES. Exactly. Not that hard. All the signals are there. Expensive real estate, people can't afford to have children, climate change.. but noo. It can't be that we have outgrown our carrying capacity because that kills all traditional economic growth metrics. We need to start thinking differently. It's not that hard to understand. Not so long ago a family could still live off the land. That is close to impossible today. Waterways are diverted to cities, land is too expensive, etc..Those that say that we can carry much more people.. yes.. but to what cost?
Yes, in the 1950's almost any average adult American could live in a first ring suburb of a major Metro area, commute with ease, marry and have kids with ease, and did not have to worry about epidemics of crime, mental illness, and drugs.
Neoliberal organization blames degrowth on mothers
Shocker
Less people would be great for the planet, climate and biodiversity. I hope we won't have population regrowth....
There is a direct correlation between population regrowth and resource availability. You can be certain that regrowth will follow shortly after the decline reaches rock bottom!
I believe that one of THE MOST INCORRECT number calculations is when top level people talk about "poverty." They like to say a paraphrased concept like, "... all boats have risen because of larger or higher levels of economy..." However, they seem to ONLY look at the totals of so called income. They show how a person in Bangladesh now might make like 8 times what an ancestor did a couple or a few decades earlier. BUT... they don't seem to calculate QUALITY of life, happiness, or even actual buying power. They tend to ONLY look at mathematical graphs. Then they turn around and don't understand why the massive lower tiers of society don't want more kids. They don't understand why MOST people now are severely unhappy in comparison to previous generations. They don't understand that simply trying to "survive" today has almost everything to do with financial stress which is a FORCED OBLIGATION. Laws are passed, like property taxes. This makes even the very old STILL under extreme financial stress. Meanwhile in prior generations, this was never a worry. It was only a concern to keep the physical structure maintained. But NOW... it's more of a financial worry. THIS is why people hold on to their money as much as possible. THIS is why later generations don't want to RISK the obligations of children. They don't want their children to worry and likely have EVEN MORE financial stress in their later years... not to mention their entire life.
This is just plain wrong. The calculations used by the World Bank to estimate rates of absolute poverty are based on nutritional intake. Absolute poverty means you don't make enough income, or income equivalent (since some social structures have large informal economies not centered around money) to afford nutrition above the poverty threshold. So no, the reduction in poverty is absolutely measuring material well-being. People say things like this all the time, and it's because they just don't understand how difficult life has been for most people for most of history.
They are totally wrong. In twenty years the real productivity will be 2x to 3x and rapidly growing. People will not have to sacrifice their lives with the dual full time jobs of working and child raising. Income tax the robots and distribute the wealth. Capital, standard of living and population will all grow.
unhappiness is always downplayed or disassociated entirely from economic growth and capitalism, but the world bank cares only to expand the global apartheid of state bureaucracy, it doesn’t care for the sweet potato i had as a sum total of my nutritional intake today and i live in a developing country - what more the millions of people without a legal identity
@@dennisrose40its maddening that the globalist/capitalist answer to a planetary emergency is the massive deployment of technology and money.
Great comment and summation of the foolhardiness of in anyway relying on lifelong academics thesis. US Academia commercially first and politically controlled a close second are at the core of the US situation as it is now. With wokism adding a finishing touch to the calamity.
Does there have to be a disaster before rhere is an awakening!!
A constantly growing population requires a growing consumption of resources, the covering of more land, the manufacturing of larger fishing fleets, the use of more water to produce food. Constant growth only produces constant manufacture, constant manufacture results in greater waste and consumption of resources. There has to be a limit somewhere.
This is a disturbing insight into the dystopian and calculating way that the elite think about the world. He’s basically saying that the only way to counter the depopulation of a western country is to increase immigration. So the west will be fighting over the dwindling “resource” of tax cattle. As an Australian , I can say that the only reason we are in his list of non depopulating countries is because of immigration. This is correct, we have had an immigration rate of 2-3% of our total population of per year for at least the last three years. We have a population of approx 27 million, we had over 600 000 immigrant per year for the last two. We have a massive decline in the quality of living, an enormous youth crime issue (because the future is very bleak for them), a massive shortage of housing, rents and cost of buying a home have doubled, our famous health care system is collapsing because of the sudden huge numbers and not enough trained staff, and it will take our kids decades to save a Deposit for a house which will take more than one generation to pay off, unless they have parents who own THEIR house and have sufficient equity and can help you, further exasperating the wealth disparity, and creating a new landlord class, Immigration is artificially propping up our numbers in population decline at the cost of the prosperity of the citizens who already live here. We cannot sustain this level of immigration, we cannot cope with the huge numbers of immigrants w already have now, I believe even if we stopped right now, it would probably take generations to recover. With decisions makers in charge who subscribe to this sort of elitist way of thinking, we will suffer, our country may sustain its population for a few more decades, but at what cost?
Well said.
As an Aussie, I second that. Well said 👏
As a Brit I third it
Lets say no immigration. Ok, peaceful life but in the grand scheme of things, who will sustain your pension? Pay enough tax to sustain basic social services? As if you are Switzerland who can just maintain to be small or NZ. You guys are part of G7 who are always active in war talks.
Your government should strike a balance. Make policies that are effective and up to date.
What I always see a problem in countries that receives mass immigration is they dont forecast really well and create flexible policies. The movement of immigration is fast, the government in charge should also be fast to react to changes. It should act based on current needs without compromising the future state of the country.
Immigration highly depend on what's happening in the global scale aside from what's happening in the country's internal affairs. The pandemic drove many immigrants out their countries and to "richer" countries. Yet australia maintained its immigration targets without thinking they as well need to recover from the pandemic. And there you have it, housing crisis, health care crisis
Pretty much the same in Germany.
Housing is in short supply so our kids are living with us. How does that affect child bearing stats? People arent just chess pieces on a chess board. This guy is rather out of touch.
8 billions people on the globe is faaaaaaaaaar too much!!!!
It’s half the amount the planet is capable of sustaining if resources were managed in the most effective and equitable way. Given how it’s managed at the moment, 8 billion is on the precipice of collapse!
People have children when there is seemingly nothing better to do... since the advent of television, and especially since the introduction of the internet, people have watched and witnessed all the possible lives which could be led, and have believed ever since, that there is always something better to do than have children.
Maybe if the super rich paid more of their fair share, we wouldn’t have this problem.
The best chance for the earth to heal is the drastic reduction in the human biomass.
Disgusting philosophy.
@@smb2735but it's true. 8 billions is too much.
Which is ethical?
@@smb2735why exactly?
@d.Cog420 well to answer, I would ask how you differentiate reduction of biomass from intentioned ending of life. There is no objective morality in nature except for survival of the fittest. Deviating from that precept would be equivalent to an immoral act. By reducing human biomass, you make no distinction in selection other than deciding who gets to select. Therefore, perfect deselection results in less fit organism that retain epigenetic damage due to survival of the culling times. Those actions have made less fit humans more represented, scarred everyone, reduced the genetic databank, and ultimately robbed surviving humans of outlier contributions. Basically, it creates a new dark age that is self-inflicted on the basis of a rejection of natural selection which exists even if it is disliked.
I live in Brazil. My grandparents, both sides, had 16 children altogheter (8), early 1930's to late 1940's. Those had 27 children (1,6), late 1950's to early 1980's. Me and my 3 sisters only had 2 children (0,25), early 2000's. Of those, now adults, only one wants a child. One child. Maybe. If he finds the right person and a good job after college and can afford to live in a good place, with good services. Because that's the point: people don't feel socially obligated anymore to marry and have children, so, unless you're truly really vocationed to parenthood, the investment of time and money and mental health is daunting. It still takes a village but there's no more cozy supportive villages for free in the individualistic consumerist reality of modern western society...
Currently we are adding 80 million people to the planet every single year. What do "plunging" birth rates mean for Australia?
Less problem with drinking water that's for sure. More fertile land for the farmers. Lower costs for housing. Doesn't sound bad to me.