or, its the final solution engaged by oligarchs to control the population and eventually create a new human 2.0, while simultaneously killing off all natural humans. this is the beginning of the end of our species. period. sperm and eggs have been under attack for many decades. and now people act shocked.
Have a stay at home wife. Breastfeed and use cloth diapers. Get a small flock of chickens and shop at the flea markets that sell veggies ( and anything else you might need). Then no diaper bill, no daycare, no formula . Mom could likely have a side gig at home too. Heck, you could probably have 2-4. One thing for sure, babies never needed money or the human race would be extinct. As long as they have both mother and father, they're good.
Economy can't be doing bad, housing prices is through the roof. There no need for more people, there isn't housing for everyone and there aren't jobs for those becoming adults.
Dont confuse speculation and real economy, we can build houses stupidly cheap and fast. Even during soviet times they could build a prefabricated 5story building with all utilities in 2weeks.
It's not really about the number of people, but the number of people under 40. The next most important population is children to adulthood, and over 40s really arent that important to survival. So in terms of population and its effects on making the world go around, its only the under 40s who count. Subtract the over 40 people from the population numbers and you'll have a better idea of the real numbers
However, Idiocracy is satirical and would not work in practice. In actuality, should such a scenario occur, it would lead to anarchy. Also, while intelligence is genetic, it is only 50% genetic while the rest is influenced by the environment the kid is raised in. So, if we focus on making society far more constructive and nurturing than it has been, we can offset the intelligence concerns by raising overall intelligence through constructive environments - and then, generations will increase gradually in intelligence as the average intelligence of the population is raised each time.
2.1 is the replacement rate in developed countries. It is higher in undeveloped countries because they have higher child mortality. The world median replacement rate is a bit over 2.3 children per woman
By not buying the tablet? Parents have always had to work in some families. We all grew up without screens. Yes, it's a copout, but children can still be brought up to read,play,make things with their own hands. Just takes some forethought and being prepared to be the adult not trying to be the friend.
Given resource overshoot, the speed of climate change, as well as climate migration and mass migration from still overpopulated countries, populations are still rising. Also, clean water availability, soil fertility and agricultural production, and fisheries are all declining. It’ll be interesting to see if the human population drops to a sustained one or two billion before food shortages force a similar population drop.
@@nokotshehla2616 higher fertility, higher populations, higher economic growth, greater economy of scale, cheaper high level technologies. We can terraform and control ecosystems more efficiently, and lastly we can become interplanetary species. We have more than enough food to 10x our population.
@@Cortesevasive I hear that , but if we use extraction as our main lever for growth doesn't that defeat the purpose. Like how pgm and electric for renewables requirs extraction of base metals and toxic refining processes. Or how increasing population with a consumption based economy yield environmental degregation. All I'm saying is that Infinite growth in a finite world is ridiculous. And if we want a better world, why focus on creating more stuff ( 5% yield from a ton of rock) rather than redistribute wealth so when we need to create more, we do so knowing that mankind needs more, not a social class. Well that's my opinion. And I appreciate that you expanded on your point. Maybe there's space for both
It will, trust me, just look at South Korea, they’re headed for extinction if the birthrate doesn’t go up. As countries become richer, children will become a burden
However, if the poor can not get any poorer, the rich can not get any richer - and in a system reliant on growth, it creates a situation where the rich get poorer and the poor get poorer. So, the rich can only get so rich before they have nobody to make money off of because the poor are too poor to engage in consumerism or work jobs if their basic needs are not met by working said jobs. The fewer people that can work, the more expensive labour gets.
These are the results of materialism, hedonism, individualism, athiesm and moral decay.
lol - what a dumb comment. Nah - the capitalist just done want to PAY PEOPLE
or, its the final solution engaged by oligarchs to control the population and eventually create a new human 2.0, while simultaneously killing off all natural humans.
this is the beginning of the end of our species. period.
sperm and eggs have been under attack for many decades. and now people act shocked.
So what? You think you can insult people into having children? Not happening
@@julianskinner3697 notice how he didn’t say anything about gainful employment cost-of-living, and no affordable housing.
My paycheck is barely covering me how can I have children?
Have a stay at home wife. Breastfeed and use cloth diapers. Get a small flock of chickens and shop at the flea markets that sell veggies ( and anything else you might need). Then no diaper bill, no daycare, no formula . Mom could likely have a side gig at home too. Heck, you could probably have 2-4. One thing for sure, babies never needed money or the human race would be extinct. As long as they have both mother and father, they're good.
Ask that to gazan
. U will have an different answar
Selfish, over calculation and lack of hope mentality.
Economy can't be doing bad, housing prices is through the roof. There no need for more people, there isn't housing for everyone and there aren't jobs for those becoming adults.
Dont confuse speculation and real economy, we can build houses stupidly cheap and fast. Even during soviet times they could build a prefabricated 5story building with all utilities in 2weeks.
@@Cortesevasive You didn't get the sarcasm lol.
@@gteixeira lol
This is natural.
Better for ecology
Better for planet
Gdp growth is not sustainable
Yes it will have a negative on the worlds economy, we can live with it. Maybe we should discuss the positive side of a world with less people.
It's not really about the number of people, but the number of people under 40. The next most important population is children to adulthood, and over 40s really arent that important to survival. So in terms of population and its effects on making the world go around, its only the under 40s who count. Subtract the over 40 people from the population numbers and you'll have a better idea of the real numbers
Children are the future.
@@TheRachag a future with less people is not that bad.
@@TheRachag amen! Actually, tje world belongs to them, not us, and look at the mess were leaving .
Yeah we can decline and suffer for a time. Technology will eventually make the avagre human life really good
Raising a family is so expensive that people stopped having kids.
"Idiocracy" (2005) is about that. Humanity is doomed because the # of children people have is inversely proporcional to their intelligence level 🙁
However, Idiocracy is satirical and would not work in practice. In actuality, should such a scenario occur, it would lead to anarchy. Also, while intelligence is genetic, it is only 50% genetic while the rest is influenced by the environment the kid is raised in. So, if we focus on making society far more constructive and nurturing than it has been, we can offset the intelligence concerns by raising overall intelligence through constructive environments - and then, generations will increase gradually in intelligence as the average intelligence of the population is raised each time.
2.1 is the replacement rate in developed countries. It is higher in undeveloped countries because they have higher child mortality. The world median replacement rate is a bit over 2.3 children per woman
I gotta work 40hrs a week. When am I gonna find the time to make sure my kid isn’t some brainwashed drone raised by a tablet.
By not buying the tablet? Parents have always had to work in some families. We all grew up without screens. Yes, it's a copout, but children can still be brought up to read,play,make things with their own hands. Just takes some forethought and being prepared to be the adult not trying to be the friend.
21:50 would you care to explain just what “Gamergate” is?
If you can't afford an iPhone buy another phone. But don't say that it is something that people need. Ridiculous
Finally some good news.
Can we speed this up
We need less people, not more. This is wonderful news !!
Given resource overshoot, the speed of climate change, as well as climate migration and mass migration from still overpopulated countries, populations are still rising. Also, clean water availability, soil fertility and agricultural production, and fisheries are all declining. It’ll be interesting to see if the human population drops to a sustained one or two billion before food shortages force a similar population drop.
Environmental benefits of lower fertility rates is significant as well
no
@@Cortesevasive please expand on this. I'm interested on hearing your perspective
@@nokotshehla2616 higher fertility, higher populations, higher economic growth, greater economy of scale, cheaper high level technologies. We can terraform and control ecosystems more efficiently, and lastly we can become interplanetary species. We have more than enough food to 10x our population.
@@Cortesevasive I hear that , but if we use extraction as our main lever for growth doesn't that defeat the purpose. Like how pgm and electric for renewables requirs extraction of base metals and toxic refining processes. Or how increasing population with a consumption based economy yield environmental degregation. All I'm saying is that Infinite growth in a finite world is ridiculous. And if we want a better world, why focus on creating more stuff ( 5% yield from a ton of rock) rather than redistribute wealth so when we need to create more, we do so knowing that mankind needs more, not a social class. Well that's my opinion. And I appreciate that you expanded on your point. Maybe there's space for both
It is only a catastrophe for Europeans and some Asians not everyone else.
The birth rate is shrinking everywhere except some african countries
don't breed lies
Shrinking ?
Great news
All u care about economy ?
🤮
Because we need young people paying taxes to fund the health care and pensions we're all going to need!
We need protection of all humans life from moment of conception.
- What is your age?
- I am 35 years old
- And why is that?
- Because I *was born* 35 years ago
I doubt human population will shrink thanx to mouse slims who b;reed like mice! 😅
It will, trust me, just look at South Korea, they’re headed for extinction if the birthrate doesn’t go up. As countries become richer, children will become a burden
Watch out. Akhmaad next door is aiming for your sister. 😂😂
Fear 😂😂😂😂
You’re right being your mom around I’ll give u a brotha or sista
@@lulilulu8172 that's what IDF is doing to your mother 😁
The rich will get richer and the poor poorer
However, if the poor can not get any poorer, the rich can not get any richer - and in a system reliant on growth, it creates a situation where the rich get poorer and the poor get poorer. So, the rich can only get so rich before they have nobody to make money off of because the poor are too poor to engage in consumerism or work jobs if their basic needs are not met by working said jobs. The fewer people that can work, the more expensive labour gets.