🌱🌰 Check out "The Walnut Fund", the world's first online investment platform that allows you to invest in fully managed walnut plantations: www.thewalnutfund.com 📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT ➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes
Yeah, but you need to live in province, build your houses from cheapest materials, your consumer level must be really limited and % of any births would be from teenage pregnancies.
You did a good job of presenting all the facts. The problem is governments and their socialist "cradle to grave" policies that take wealth from producers and waste it on non-producers. Also, women need to not work and stay home to raise children. This would reduce the total labor force and raise wages for men. Most college degrees are useless and only STEM should be focused upon. Housing needs to be single family and pensions need to be private, not government run. Corporate, Income, energy and capital gains taxes need to be eliminated and the state should tax non-food, tax purchases at 10% at point of sale. Food, medicine and clothing should never be taxed as it's immoral. It doesn't pay for a man to get married, as in divorce a woman will take have your assets, your children and the state sides with them. Older woman who have careers can't find men equal or superior in income to them, whom they will marry, as these men would rather have younger, fertile woman with no relationship or emotional baggage. These problems are all government produced in the West buy liberal, socialist, progressives. The poor countries don't matter, as they produce little except resources they dig out of the dirt. Europe can easily save itself, but has chosen not to do so.
Exactly, something I been telling people for years, that every population decline is always followed by growth, this is first time we are experiencing just extremely slow decline in comparison to war or disease. Humanity will not die out, those preditions are just stupid. What the rise will look like? That's unpredictable but it will happen, we can only help it out by changing how our economies work, how humans are born etc.
@@felisenpai9625 I agree, but back then our societies were much simpler than today, the system that we've created now relies on constant growth and our solutions are often band aid solutions and if the birthrate declines further, the system is going to collapse. Obviously, humans could rebound from this, but it's going to get bad first before it gets better.
@@felisenpai9625 Because they maintained above replacement birth rates. We are pretty much in unchartered territory with our current demographic crisis.
@@neptunianman Exactly. How to save S Korea? Probably not possible. Same with most of the rest of East Asia plus Europe. Anyone who says population will automatically start to grow again is ignoring reality. Out of the blue women in Europe and Asia will on average start having way more than 2 children per woman. Possibly 3 or even 4. Not likely unless the society transforms completely. However if society transforms completely (read collapses!) then I think it will affect fertility rates in the other direction. It will go down even further.
@@DerDop Russia had 14 million soldiers at the start of WW2 and lost 14 million men, ending with an army of 14 million men. 16 million other Russians lost their lives in WW2 as well. After the War, Russia had no "Baby Boom" and these children not born, had no children in the 1970's. Russia is collapsing and it can't be saved. same for Ukraine.
People had a lot of kids when it was economically rational for them to do so. That is, when your children were your workforce, people were economically incentivized to have large families. But industrialization, of agriculture especially, meant that large families no longer make economic sense. They are now a cost, not revenue driver. So people make rational choices and have smaller families. Now instead of revenue being driven by many children, revenue is driven by all adults entering the workforce. It's all people making rational economic choices for themselves.
in poor households in the UK, they tend to kick children out of the household once the child benefit money stops coming in, often out of the same (subsidised for life) house, that they were able to get in the first place, due to having children, years ago
@@CR-rm4iy Just cuz they aren't raising kids anymore doesn't mean they don't deserve housing. The problem is that new houses aren't being built, not that the last generations aren't dying off fast enough.
No, but they had what was in atleast in their minds a good enough world in terms of Quality of life and future prospects to bring more children into. They don't have the frame of reference of modern conveniences we take for granted now. As far as they are concerned, what we would now call absolute poverty conditions were good enough for them.
Yes, actually making the conditions for raising children affordable again, and bringing back the societal incentives and communities back. Edit: Yes, my previous comment was incomplete.
This is exactly correct. Systems have slowly been designed to "customer trap" you, and suck wealth out. A huge industry has evolved around children. The black hole of energy consumption aimed at the people who are trying to make more people for making more people makes it so there can be less people. Not to mention that theres a hilarious shift where you have to pay for childcare while you both work that is the equivalent of one of the jobs. Such a trap. Not everyone needs the good life. But affordable food staples, decent education, and acceptable housing costs in NON-DYSTOPIAN HOUSING (Like theres a tree nearby, and the park isnt made of needles) is all it takes. Family is enough for alot of people.
Again, the poorest areas have the highest birth rates, and countries with tons of childcare subsidies still have terrible birthrates. Its a cultural thing, not an economic one. But long term, the culture will change, as those who value children and legacy actually HAVE that legacy, and typically spread it to their children (who are also the only children around).
when i was a kid the world was 4 billion people. it's now 8 billion. back then the usa was 200 million. now its 340 million. back then everyone was worried about overpopulation. now everyone's worried about "population collapse". i wasn't worried then, and am not worried now.
@@bodaciouschad Population collapse is just fear of a disappearing underclass thats exploitable for labor. Places without poor people are successful and peaceful, importing migrants from poverty and warzones brings with it obviously poverty and crime. Back to normality. Nothing ever happens.
To be fair underpopulation is a lesser issue than overpopulation. A wave of conservatism & women popping 3 children will end it. Probably won’t happen in this generation but people will definitely not go extinct in the next 200 years.
It's not that they want the "good life". Simply many people have realized that there is no rational reason to create another human. As long as life is fundamentally meaningless, they see no reason why you would put another human in this situation. PS: yes, yes, you make your own purpose, bla bla bla... if it makes you sleep better, tell yourself whatever story you like :)
Don’t write yourself off. You have accomplished a lot more than most, and you are at an age where you still have a few years left to have kids and the energy needed for them. God bless you!
What happened to all the increased productivity since the baby boom? Did the working families get any real support to raising children? No. Women's liberation doubled the work force and more increases in productivity followed. For whom was all this production? It didn't really go into keeping families, but wealthy people, luxury goods/services. Today a family needs two incomes to survive, raise a child without help and then suffer poverty in retirement. Housing, living wage and/or strong social security. Additionally you need to somehow convince families to go back to 2-3 children instead of 1-2. Culture is as important as economic factors. Good luck with that.
@@trillionbones89 Finally somebody who tinks a little bit deeper. Its not just that simple that ohh females entered the workforce. Nowadays most of the population in develop countries work in mostly bullshit jobs(services) so that they get scraps from the wealthy. Most people want kids and most people don't want to fall a class or two. Oh you're two kids who finally made it out of poverty and are middle class? Oh well we actually need more factory workers and soldiers not doctors and engineers so you should have 3 4 kids. Back to poverty. As technology develops we will need less and less people in the workforce. My biggest fear is really that the majority of population will "become useless " for capitalist gain, so jobless and in poverty. However till then, they need basically slaves...
@@trillionbones89 and to add to that if a single salary could support a decent lifestyle for a family of 3, 4 all would choose to have more kids. All the families i have actually met in real life of people who don't live in lucid poverty and can plan a little more thei feature i have seen a trend. Wealthier families have more kids(3 4) not so wealthy limit to 1 or 2.
If the population is dropping, seems rather odd that the cost of housing is skyrocketing. One would think that all of those houses (which, it turns out, you can't take with you after all) are now emptying out as the homeowners downsize off this mortal coil. Why is the price not dropping?
It’s because the population of home owners is becoming smaller due to the craze to buy property to make it a rental. This is compounded by corporations buying up a lot of houses. Less owners means less competition and more control on the housing availability. It is being held up high due to intentional artificial influence.
Reading for comprehension is necessary to make an intelligent point. You are failing. Clearly this video and many others like it are saying the population is still increasing but at a slower rate and will reach a point where it begins to decline in 20 to 60 years. I think it will be near 20 years because of the acceleration of the decline. We are producing millions of INCELs - that is a brand new problem the statisticians have yet to incorporate into their models.
The population will start dropping within 10-30 years (in Europe) depending on the country. It hasn't been dropping in most places (partially because immigration). Population decline lags behind fertility rate decline for very obvious reasons.
so many in the comments not only completely miss this, they actually think its going to be a good thing because "less traffic" and "more houses". the last time we had such impactful demographic shifts, we ended up having two world wars.
Exactly. Those same tossers complaining about house prices and equality are going be the first moaning when energy is rationed and supermarkets are empty. They seem to think that supply chains spring up from thin air.
@@Qnexus7 It will destroy economies. What will happen to your savings account and the stock market when global population goes down? A market crash we can't recover from? Sounds like a civilizational collapse to me...
In pre-modern times if a young man or woman wanted to have fun they were forced to leave their homes, go to gatherings, socialise and intermingle. Now people spend their lives entertained alone in their homes and even on their work breaks they stare at their phones with little conversation. Electronic entertainment and by extension the internet are a massive contraceptive, all other social and medical changes are secondary to the reality that conception can't happen when people aren't going outside.
Exactly. Don't know why people think it is "money", since in middle east, Africa, and South America, people today are extremely poor, with lots of kids. In those places internet is almost non-existent, and the only option to have fun is to get out and socialize, as humanity has done since ancient times.
As someone who moved across the U.S. to cohabitate with and then marry someone I met online, I find this concern overblown. We’re hardly the only people in our social circle who’ve done this kind of thing. (Note: We didn’t meet through a dating app, just general socializing.)
@@laurenzkahlenberg552 or are just familiar with his work his mouse utopia video was a while ago it is quite compelling though and makes you wonder is he right? Are we really just rationalizing what is actually a hormonal mechanism for reducing population size in the face of over crowding? As he pointed out these are mainly issues people in cities face the rual don't have alot of these problems
@@andrew9371There's nothing hormonal about this, at least in America. It's an economic issue in America, young men don't earn enough to live on their own, much less have a family.
Thank you for just posting how the numbers ACTUALLY work. Everyones treating it like you can take any arbitrary amount of humans and squash them together to get more. Also, things that have not been tried: Easy affordable Housing in non-dystopian settings.
I think short of a nuclear war or an asteroid strike it will be highly unlikely humanity as a whole would go extinct because small and conservative pockets across the globe will keep doing what they've always done. But before that I would expect a widespread economic collapse at some stage. And because older generations are larger than younger ones there may eventually be some kind of populist movement to 'cull' older people who will by then be seen as an economic drain. I hope not, but we can already see mass online hate towards "the boomers." Anyway, if the economic collapse drastically alters the structure of society and if contraception is no longer available maybe then we'll finally see a reversal of the depopulation trend, as after all, humanity historically had more children during poorer times. If not, there will just be even further collapse, 90s post-Soviet style or worse.
The problem stems from a problem as old as civilization itself: rural vs urban. Cities cannot generate population surpluses due to the confined nature of how people live, but they gather people to meld minds and produce major breakthroughs. Rural locations are the source of population growth but they don’t produce many innovations due to rural populaces being more conservative and risk averse. This cycle of urbanization and de urbanization has been seen for as long as people have been seen for as long as there have been people. What’s different about today is that urbanization is happening at the same time globally. Just over half of everyone alive today live in urban areas with that percentage changing depending on country. What I believe is going to happen is that cities and heavily urbanized nations will see major population declines while rural countries will see less of a population shrinkage. A major indicator of this being the case will be a global swing towards right wing politics as is the case in the U.S. At current projections the nation is looking at a permanent Republican majority within 20 years
That's just a lie people tell themselves. The wealthier people get the less they have children. That's why the faster a country develops, the faster their birth rates will collapse. That's the truth you are avoiding. A country could increase the wages of everyone tomorrow and it wouldn't improve birthrates, in fact, it would do the opposite.
At one point in human history there was a genetic bottleneck, and it is estimated there were only a few thousand humans in the world at that time. To think that being at an all-time high of 8,000,000,000 a SLOWING of population increase is the beginning of the end of humanity is insane. I view it more as a maybe painful, but necessary adjustment. There was an experiment where they let rats freely breed in a confined space with plenty of food and water. Eventually the rats were absolutely packed and started showing erratic behaviors, such as males isolating themselves and refusing to court females and females abandoning their young. Sound familiar? The population eventually collapsed. We live in a finite universe, expecting endless exponential population growth is simply unrealistic.
It was around 20000 people in north east africa and a few hundred neaderthals. The bottle neck was the ice age and that those specific humans figured out how to use a bow. All other species of humans and other tribes of homo sapiens died. The rat experiment was a designed dystopia and not a model for our society. Every animal would collapse under the conditions in that model. There was an identical experiment done where the rats were given fufilling lives and things to do, and that model did not end remotely the same, even though they were packed. The human breeding cycle is not a numbers multiplying game. There is a specific age of breeding population and they specifically determin what is possible in the future. If your using total numbers, your going to look back one day with massive alarm when you realize thats not how it works.
1st the universe is infinite. 2nd earth is in a close system with the sun. At human scale the energy we received from the sun if infinite, or way more then we need at least. 3rd Energy is the universal value. Anything is possible given enough energy. That said, a decline in population is not a catastrophe.
Many people are really just complaining about the decline of specific cultures. Smaller populations with higher standards of living and less congestion is definitely preferable over endless growth.
As a 20 year old indian I can tell you that india is heading for a china like population collapse in the next couple of decades. The tfr will drop faster than anyone is predicting (I know we are already below 2.1),honestly I wouldn't be surprised if india's tfr dips below 1.5 by 2040 because most of the people in my age group are not at all planning to start a family also because we are a developing country with fast urbanization still happening you can naturally see why tfr would collapse even further.
Please tell me why. Is feminism taking over India? If so, PLEASE learn from Europe, North America and your East Asian neighbors in South Korea and Japan. Do NOT do what we did.
@@TheDragonofRevelation Tbh toxic feminism is a problem in major cities like new delhi,mumbai etc and it is slowly spreading to other parts of the country but it's not the main reason for the tfr decline (for now). The main reason currently is just the fact that india is not as urbanized as china but we are fast approaching it as we are a rapidly growing country and as people urbanize the trf drops naturally.
@@TheDragonofRevelation It's a commonly known fact that urbanization causes trf to drop because the living spaces are small, parents have less time, everything is more expensive, and there is no tangible benefit of having a kid just extra costs.
I gave up on the idea of children the day I hit 30. I now have zero interest in it. My parents disowned me over this decision and signed away any rights I had to the farm to my drug dealing cousin they love so much. That really was a hell of a thing to say to your child, "You were never one of us in this family anyway and if your never going to give us grandkids, then what's the point of giving you a damn thing when we die." This was after years of them always making snide remarks that I must have been switched at birth. So yea, given all that and all the problems with the world, I tell every partner I have, up front that I will never have kids and you will never change my mind on that. I'm a biological dead end by choice.
Ooooof, you really spoke to me when you shared that job instability is fucking over so many young adults. I recently got married to my long-term boyfriend, but the job instability on my side is holding back our long-term plans. Fuck corporate greed
I can tell you something that you don't want to hear - you have two options. Accept living a life just above the poverty line without kids or live in poverty with kids. Your kids are going to go through absolute Hell in school for being poor but your only other option is to not have kids and that's the end of your family line on this planet. Sorry, corporate greed matters more to the people with money than you do. This applies to you and me both because I earn the median wage ($42,200 a year) and I can't even afford to rent on my own.
400 years ago, Europe began to export its excess population to new settler colonies in the Americas, Asia, and Africa. This increased their HDI and wealth. now that "excess population" is moving back to Europe.
@@Nopee395 what resources, you can grow your economy without extraction. That's what industrial revolution did. All those european settled nations are now developed. Do you think aboriginals developed australia.? You're just jealous you couldn't achieve much
People in the past lived lives of pure poverty and had more kids than we do today by a long shot across the globe. Perhaps the issue is the culture, the elites and the economic conditions that allows people to marry and have kids. Most young people today can't even buy a house.
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 "People in the past lived lives of pure poverty and had more kids than we do today by a long shot across the globe." Yes and a) they were dumb by todays standards b) did it because the chance of a kid not making to adulthood was much higher.
Only economists used to capitalism would think population collapse is bad. But have they ever thought about the fact that infinite population growth feeding the economy is inherently a flawed notion as the world has finite resources? We must quickly change and revolutionise the systems around the world and move away from capitalism before we destroy our only home amongst the stars.
having the whole society all in on rampant growth alone is a mistake. at the center of society should be the people, not pure profit. but shrinking populations come with sociopolitical and geopolitical shifts. the last time we had such significantly impactful demographic shifts, we ended up with two world wars.
It _is_ bad, but only for the top fraction of a percent who thrive off of the exploitation inherent to an overpopulated world. For the average person, some studies have shown that things will actually _improve_ as population decreases.
@@StuffandThings_ Only if the population stabilises eventually otherwise you're talking about extinction. Fertility rates can't stay below replacement forever.
@@XDF745 Yeah but we have a looooong way to decline yet before that is a worry. Earth can sustainably handle about 1 billion people living with a middle class Western standard of living, so we'll realistically be best off around that. That won't happen for quite a few generations even with current trends. But yeah eventually we will have to stabilize things, but once life improves enough for the majority people will start reproducing again and it will self correct.
I had my bachelor degree in 2012, after 3 years working i got my permanent contract. A house? Nope maybe an appartment, decides to upgrade my job, earning slightly above average of the country. Still no house. Decided 3 years back to build my own home. At 37 i have finally a family home. Now i have to find a wife and thinking dating apps would make it easier. Think again... and then wonder why the popilation is crashing..
India's fertility rate is 1.9 and median age is 28. According to pew research centre indias population will start decling from 2047. In one state Nagaland it has already started declining.
The global population is going through the largest change in human history. Generations of population growth were slower than the imminent population decline that we are experiencing. With all of that said, humanity is not facing extinction but rather a far more extreme version of historical norms. The rule of thumb throughout history is that cities need a constant influx of people from the countryside to sustain population. It’s a lot harder to have a lot of children in an apartment than it is to have them on a farm or a more rural area. This has happened in China many times, in Rome, and countless other empires throughout time. What does all of this mean? It means that the world population will be smaller, more conservative, and more religious. This is already playing out in the United States and Israel
@ The more fundamentalist faction are outbreeding the secularists in Israel. It’s already at a point where they’re already 25% of the population and will be at 35% within a decade.
This is not a selection pressure for humans or civilization. It's a selection pressure for capitalism. If anything, it makes it easier to meet resource scarcity and sustainability.
There is no demographic crisis, there is only demographic normalization. The current number of humans is already too much to be sustainable. Sustaining population growth at the same exponential rate of the past decades would mean certain extinction through overpopulation. I say there is no 'crisis' because this is a self-solving issue. Post-industrial societies are simply naturally reacting to the changed circumstances of automation technology, modern medicine and cognitive labor economy. There is zero evidence to believe that the current downward trend will simply continue until extinction. It is much more likely that the population growth rate will plateau again at a lower level, which would be better for every person and the environment. The main crisis is that the current generation will have to carry a huge burden, paying for care of the elderly.
"The main crisis is that the current generation will have to carry a huge burden, paying for care of the elderly." Yes and that crisis will truly be a crisis, we aren't bacteria on a petri dish, when a part of the population becomes extremely overburdened we don't just die off and start breeding again once there is enough foodstuffs around us, there will be extremely tough decisions made to navigate this issue.
How do you run a modern society when 60% of the population is over 60, that's where we're headed. I don't know how we'll keep the lights on, let alone go green. It takes young brillant minds to figure out new tech and young hands to build it, that's not going to happen when the youth is trying and failing to maintain current infrastructure while taking care of 1.5 times their number in old folks.
That huge burden is only if we allow a minority to horde all the massive gains in productivity. In the 50s, sure 7 ppl supported 1 on social security. Now in the 2020 it's 3-1, but we are waaaaaaaaaaaay more productive. Which means, we have the resources. No one NEEDS to suffer. Except were orientated around a economic system that has suffering as foundational, a selling point even. Population decline is only an extinction level event to capitalists.
It's commonly said that "hunter-gatherers died out because of starvation or disease." This is incorrect, however. The evidence of hunter-gatherer groups dying out says that "other groups destroy them, through warfare or diseases created and spread by agriculturists." We see this repeatedly in human history. There are very, very few actual "hunter-gatherer" groups in the pop culture concept of the term, as misfit bands of Amazonians half mumming it up for the camera. The evidence shows that many groups practiced sustainable farming, with evidence of farming or human-aquaculture sites lasting for thousands of years. As for hunting, Most North American tribes engineered the environment to attract prey. They didn't hunt beaver, for example, because beaver dams create environments that attract deer and moose. If they were starving, they would have killed the beavers.
There's also the fact that hunter-gatherers rely on a vast array of different food sources. If game is scarce, you can still go fishing. If the fish aren't biting, you can still pick berries. If the berries failed, there are still tubers, etc. Agriculturalists, by contrast, almost always rely on one main staple like rice, wheat, or potatoes. If that crop fails, there will be starvation (this isn't as big a problem in modern times, since we've collected all the domesticated crops from around the world and now rely on a much wider array of them than people did in the past).
Its an overblown problem. The worst thing that will happen as a consequence is postponement of retirement and in an absolute worst case a change in attitude towards euthanasia of the most dependent. After the population bubble passes through the system, you start seeing the positive effects of population shinkage: extremely cheap real eatate, lower traffic, cleaner air and water, abundance of available work. Under such condition people start having children again.
Strategic degrowth policies must be implemented to incentivize later retirement, and multigenerational habitation options. If all pro-natal incentives, widely proven to be wasteful expenditures, are cancelled critical funds can be diverted to child and pediatric care. We will be more likely handle serious ecological problems with a population that stabilizes at the 5B 1987 number, or better yet the 1974 4B number.
The worst thing that will happen is a postponement of retirement? It can and probably will get a lot worse than that. I don't think anyone is concerned about what the world will be like when the population stops collapsing; it is the collapse that everyone is concerned about.
The thing is that we won’t experience the benefits of that for at least a couple of decades Because we need to economically decline so hard to the point that having kids is beneficial
Religiosity is supposed to be conducive to fertility, meanwhile the most religious country in Europe, Poland, has the lowest fertility rate, while the least religious country of Europe, France, is doing much better...I simply don't get it...
France has better social policies that are conductive to starting a family and not worry about sacrificing a lot of personal funds/ prospects in your career. Especially for women. Poland tried to pay a lump sum for every kid but it was simply not enough to make up for all the other factors involved when raising a child. Israel seems to be doing the best when it comes to a developed nation. Even among the non religious the fertility rate is at 3 per woman. It comes down to social policies there too
Iranian population decline is crazy the main reason is change of culture from religious one to secular one, it’s crazy how secularization caused by Islamic regime happened also 4 decades lf high inflation and economical decline destroyed Iranians population
Can you imagine the bost in income when both parents have a living wage as opposed to one being the provider I can imagine them going traveling more or have more kids and they just hire a babysitter or leave the kids to grandparents occasionally when one parent can’t be available tho it’ll be less often
@@USSAnimeNCC- Personally, I am agnostic about the composition of a household. If both parents make a family wage, the surplus would create the opportunity for increased household income and consumption or increase time spent away from work.
The problem with large payouts for parental leave is that money has to come from other employees in the business. Any single men in that business are effectively taxed for a child that is not theirs. This reduction in their resources means it's less likely they are attractive to a mate.
The world did fine with fewer people. Before the population even stops growing, we are sounding the alarm of permanent decline leading to extinction. Please!
Not that the presenter is graphing rates of increase of population, not population as a whole. The rates of increase he shows, even if small, are an increase none the less. Nowhere on earth does he show a decrease in population. Only a decrease in the rate ate which population is increasing. An increase is an increase, and that's something that the presenter seems to have wrong all the way through this video. I'm sorry, but growing walnuts isn't going to fix that.
The decrease in the number of young people in societies will lead to a decrease in the level of education, economy, progress, medicine, technology. There will be unwanted migrations, more numerous societies will come from other continents and take over Europe and North America. Societies will become more primitive and therefore the biological reason for procreation, so that the family/tribe/clan has the strength to survive, will return.
There's no need. At all. AT ALL. There's no issue with overpopulation. And there's no issue with population collapse. I say this as one of the very few people in the US who actually got a degree in Demography (there's only 2 master's programs in the whole nation, and I was the only person taking it in my year, usually there are 3-5 per class). Population rises and falls. Automation replaces some jobs, other jobs are created. Economic growth will slow, but that doesn't mean quality of life will decrease. It doesn't mean that happiness index scores will go down. Population collapse is a silly term. Because the population is not actually collapsing. It's moving, migrating, shrinking, but the society continues to function even as people are lost. In 5-10 years, tens of millions of jobs will be replaced by AI. 10 years after that, maybe 100 million jobs gone. This isn't some far-fetched idea, it's the natural progression of things. It's how things have been going for decades. It's how they'll continue to go. And some sort of social programs will have to emerge to better support a growing chunk of the population who don't work... but those programs won't have to be created as quickly as they would have had to be, if the population was still growing at a fast rate. We have a lot of incoming problems that a shrinking population actually helps with. Of course, there are negatives that come with it as well, but this idea that we need to stop population collapse is silly. We don't know where the sustainable level is for human population. All we've done is grow for all of human history. We're finally nearing a point of shrinking, and it'll probably drop to a point before bouncing back up and then stabilizing around a number like... 9 or 10 billion. Having that many more people than that would be a huge issue. We already are lacking in housing. And without the need to live in cities (because with online work, there's no real need for everyone to have to live in cities anymore), people will spread out to own more land, which means there'll be even less land to go around. Even if we tamed all the land on Earth and made the Antarctic and Sahara habitable, the world wouldn't be comfortable and nice for most people on it if we got up to 15-20billion. Of course we could go colonize Mars and the various moons of our solar system, or create ocean cities or space station colonies to keep expanding, and that would be cool too. But just cool. Not imperative. Not vital to our survival. A stable population that fixes a bunch of the world's problems like hunger, illiteracy, war, etc., is more important in the short term than making sure that our population continues to skyrocket.
Your overlooking that the energy systems most people are subjected too are designed like company towns used to be designed. They will only ever be given enough to survive, but not enough to escape. The population rise and fall will not affect that deliberate trap, and so the population will just continue to collapse in reaction to what seem to be overstressed conditions that are actually artificial. We are in a new age that has different more terrifying pressures than have ever existed. Globalization is a new phenomenon that has not existed in previous models, and instantaneous gathering and processing of global information changes a great deal. Hunger and illiteracy is by design at the point (Not total design, but its easier for bad actors to take away than good actors to create). Ive studied the economic model for how farming works. Im not saying its entirely by malicious design, I just mean the pressures its subject to are complex and more food could be made its just not being made because of those pressures. (however at this moment there is a corporate takeover of farmland happening that will make it a malicious design in about a decade). Education is being deliberately deprived from the populations in first world countries as a form of voting control. These problems will never be fixed. They are political ones, not progress ones. I personally agree with the god king emperor: "Technology is a constant race between progress and disaster. Education helps but its never enough. *You must also run.* "
Ah demographics... cute. But obv you dont know anything about the econmics of it. You just babble. It's wishful thinking. I can make you an endless list with economic issues of population collapse (called that, accurately, because of the precipitous fall over a short period, say until 2100, you should know that). Whats going to happen is something akin to what we already see in Japan and to a lesser degree in Southern European nations. Large and growing debts, slowing consumption, stagnating wages, eventually deflation, asset price collapse and all sorts of 2nd order effects, but what is essentially a slow but persistent impoverishment of both states and working individuals which is further aggravating the circumstances that led to the issue in the first place. If you think this will magically pass you're deluded. While it may not matter much in the grand scheme of things I guarantee you that the rest of your life will be dominated by this issue.
"We don't know where the sustainable level is for human population" About 1 billion people. With that, everyone can sustainably live with Western standards of living (which, say what you will about the _lifestyle_ but the standards are pretty aspirational). We still are a looong ways off from that.
@ in a world this globalized, farmland within your border isn’t necessary a reason to not grow. We have seen many desert countries reach high population. If only China grew (or balanced at 2-2-1) and everyone else disappeared yes their growth is a problem since even their imports would struggle, but in a world where there is worldwide demographic stability then they will always have a market to sell stuff to and money to buy from abroad. Keep in mind China is the second biggest farmland owner in the US. Maybe other places too.
The real question is, will it matter in an age where robots and AI take most jobs? People are extrapolating a version of capitalism that may not exist 10 years from now
Yeah good luck with that... will the robots buy the s that the other robots make too? Or how do yiu think that will happen? Do you think they'll just give you Ai personal slave robot for free? They already have you, why should you have one too? Naw... not happening.
The demographic collapse, largely a result of urbanization, might be seen as yet another possible "Great Barrier" to interstellar expansion in Drake's Equation.
My father told me that he had enough to build a house and buy a car when he was done with high school in the 70's just by working normal jobs. By the time i finished my master's degree in 2019, i didn't even have enough to buy a car. Why would i think of having a child?
I don't see how. With the rise of the internet and instant communications plus the availability of modern medical care, the desire or need of having extra children decreases daily. We have to ask ourselves "what is in it for the women to have that third child?" I don't see the answer there. My gut feeling is that ideally most people would say they would want to reproduce themselves i.e. having one male and one female child but then there is a large segment of couples that would say either they can't afford more than one child or are not interested in having any children. Nothing we do can get that average of 2.1 back - nothing.
We just need to redefine, reshape & repurpose our personal, societal, cultural & psychological attitudes and views of relationships, intimacy, institution of marriage, community, social bonds, connections & interactions, love & romanticism and nuclear-core unit, immediate, extended family relationships. The most important part is the religious promotion & societal cultivation & encouragement of Family Values and Procreation on all levels of society & in all areas of everyday life that is the cultural cornerstone per se or the foundational pillar of any new society going forward. We have so many things to fix first before that. But we also need a more nature-friendly Socioeconomic system that starts to transition away from our current economic-culture of mass consumption/consumer culture, materialism, monetary obsession, carbon emissions & general pollution. Soil degradation, nuclear, chemical, plastic, garbage and other destructive waste disposal practices..inequality, concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a few ,wastefulness etc….Our/the economic, social, energy & environmentally sustainable development is contingent upon our ability to create adaptive self sufficient living conditions that is more pro-naturalist, frugal, homesteader-like lifestyle based on a free market anarchism, trade and barter systems, social egalitarianism, collective responsibility, technological innovations, advanced agricultural techniques, both big & small scale farming and horticulture etc So when that’s all said and done you have 3-10 kids each family
@@robvett8584 i think this is the right track. surpassing the hyper-individualism and glorified hedonism, driven by a decaying system of values and virtues. we in our societies need to reset the priorities in our cultures.
The deep past is not that relevant. Before 1970 there were few reliable methods of birth control or at least no methods that don't require a specialized lifestyle built around them. Even with full control enough pregnancies slipped through to prevent sub-replacement fertility. Many didn't attempt to control fertility so naturally they had around 7 kids each with the privileged frequently having double digits as they were healthier then the masses. In our days the methods to prevent pregnancies are very easy so children are born purely by choice and for the majority there are too few reasons to choose that.
Great video, can it be that the population growth after the industrial revolution is an anomaly and the world is correcting itself, going back to preindustrial levels?
The answer is a resounding YES. Actually, there is a clear distinction between the sustainability of the population of any country or the whole world and the "population decline" of both. What matters is not the "population decline" per se but rather the sustainability of the population of both. If any country or the whole world are experiencing the "population decline" you are talking about, while consistently maintaining the normal replacement fertility rate of 2 or more children per couple in perpetuity, then both of them are not in danger of a "population collapse" at all, for they are abiding by the natural law of HUMAN REPRODUCTION. However, the danger lies in human interference with the natural law of HUMAN REPRODUCTION by failure to abide by it or disregarding it altogether. It holds that failure to pass on our genes to our offspring, they die a natural death, which is also known as extinction. It is the only means at our disposal and upon which the survival of the human species on this planet depends. Hence, one of the unintended consequences of human interference with HUMAN REPRODUCTION, often with good intentions, is the abnormal sub-replacement fertility rate of 0 to 1 child per couple, with serious economic and social repercussions, which has occurred in over 50% of the world population in over 90 countries, where such human interference is most prevalent. The end result is that these countries cannot sustain their population normally and that their "population decline" is an ever-present danger. Yet the abnormal sub-replacement fertility rate once it has occurred is a rollercoaster extremely difficult to reverse as these countries have found out the hard way. On the other hand, in countries where human interference with HUMAN REPRODUCTION is least prevalent, these countries are sustaining their population normally, by consistently maintaining the normal replacement fertility rate in perpetuity as can the whole world. Therefore, the "population decline" is not an alarming issue at all in these countries since they are not in danger of a "population collapse" at all, being capable of sustaining their population, as long as they are consistently maintaining the replacement fertility rate in perpetuity and, so can the whole world. We violate the natural laws of our planet at our peril.
US population =330,000,000 1 child per person. -1/2x growth per generation. Gen 0: 330,000,000 Gen 1: 165,000,000 Gen 2: 82,500,000 Gen3: 41,025,000 Gen 4: 20, 625,000 Gen 5: 10,312,500 Gen 6; 5, 156, 250 Gen 7 2,578,125 Gen 8 1, 289,063 Gen 9: 644, 531 Gen 10 322,265
@ This was less a projection than an illustration of a principle of compounding population loss. Notice how it only take 3 generations to get a population less than 100 million. The more likely scenario is subfertility combines with a population bottleneck scenario such as a major pandemic. Smaller populations are more sensitive to such events and nore likely to be wiped out. 10 generations also is not a lot in terms of a geologic time
One of the better video’s on this topic, thank you. About Israel it is also a historical repopulation of the Jewish people, that have suffered a decline from 18 to 12 milion during the holocaust and have yet to recover from this loss (now about 15 milion world wide)
Yeah, but now almost everyone else is dying out. Just because something bad happened to Jewish people does NOT mean that bad things need to happen to everyone else.
Population decline is fine. Sure, it's not what the economy is built around, so it will require a painful series of adjustments, but there's no inherent reason why a planet with a falling population cannot thrive for its people. Nature will be better off with fewer of us, and people will have more room and space. Eight billion is far too many people to begin with. Let humanity decrease and nature rebound.
Yep remove passive, inane entertainment. Poor people had plenty of kids before tv, recreational shopping, internet, streaming, world-wide recreational tourism, etc etc. Nothing else will work so an EMP from the sun is probably our only hope.
this reminds me of the tv show the expanse. it takes place in 2350 and in that timeline population was decreasing too, but when all the jobs started becoming automated, most people didnt have to work anymore and so universal incom was made and since most people didnt have anything to do or worry about money they just had babies and the population exploded.. I know this is fiction but its sci-fi and sci-fi usually end up becoming true. Its too expensive to have kids and there is not enough time to take care of them. Its really that simple. Its easy for countries to fix but they dont want to.
Some guesses on how to increase birth rates: 1. Change culture around when it’s ok and normal to have kids. Right now the mindset for many is college - job - get promoted / save for a house - get house - have kids. Have it seem fine to have kids while in college or the early stages of your career. The media can play a big role here. The suggestions below will, I think, make this more practical 2. If #1 fails, reduce the number of years on average it takes for a person to feel established enough to have kids. A big thing that can be done in deemphasizing the need for college for a lot of careers outside of STEM, medicine, and law. Many jobs use college degrees as nothing more than a candidate filtering mechanism and the results is degree inflation and tons of college debt (which also impedes having kids). Reducing the years to become established would give couples a larger fertility window 3. Legal paternally leave for all jobs if the employee has been with the company for at least a year or two. However, for office jobs, the emphasis should be on telework instead of paternity leave. Maybe 2 days a week of telework. If couples have alternating telework days, that covers most of the days kids would need to be cared for. 4. Perhaps tax breaks if a family of the live near the grandparents (who can watch the kids some days) or maybe parents can designate one or two people who are family or friends to be daytime guardians for their kids and those people get tax breaks 5. Subsidized or free daycare. Big university (with huge endowments) and large companies could be legally obligated to have a daycare site. However, I’m skeptical that this could be a major solution (a piece of the solution at best) because it seems you have the issue of either not staff or not enough daycare facilities (which results in waitlist). Kids watched by a combination of teleworking parents and family/friends seems much more sustainable to me 6. Free child birth and free/subsidized IVF
Children will be common again when they will be seen as necessary. They are not needed nowadays. We´ve lost the religious (primitive orthodoxy) and animal (poverty and lack of education or technology) factors, the only that is left is the financial stimulous. Pensions should be given to those parents who are able to have more than 3 kids, increase payments for each new kid. Women should have their retirment anticipated in 1 year for each child. Priviliages for parents with kids for job opportunities, discounts for houses and cars, telework, leaves, etc. Single people would need to pay higher taxes. Definitely not liberal. It´s unfair and costly but the issue is real. Perhaps science will be able to prolong life in 50 or 100 years, perhaps robots will be able to raise our kids.
@@johnhalatthe expected retirement part has the opposite effect, discouraging women from having kids since that would mean the cessation of their careers
add basic housing built by the state to force a drop in commercial and second hand housing pricing. Penalise keeping empty housing and commercial properties with unrealistic rents that sit vacant for years.
All of these issues can all be solved with just 1 solution: give people money. Either raise wages or implement UBI (even if it's just for parents) and people will suddenly be able to afford children.
Yes there is!!! Give all of our excess, low quality land to families at a low cost so that they can build or have built their own homes which are large enough for a family - I suggest 1000 ft sq - the size of wartime housing. Our houses are way too big and cost too much. This only keep developers and municipalities happy. There is soooo much substandard land in North America that should be real cheap! Reign in these severance laws. In addition, we must have governments for the people which force businesses and government out of cities over one million to much smaller cities which are cheaper for the people to commute to or live in! Also, we must have governments that make it illegal for corporations to buy up any human accommodation from trailer parks to condos.
We’ve also really denigrated having families for several generations now through supercharged individualism. People see having kids as an imposition that they “cannot live their own lives” and truly “discover themselves”
Well are those who think so mistaken? If so why? The bottom line is that raising children properly takes much time out of your day and limits your life in many ways because of additional responsibilities. It's similar to a possibly very rewarding career only possible with a huge time investment but you have the duty to stick with it for at least two decades. And we're not talking about people being increasingly aware of what would make a good parent and not feeling up to the task. Of course most people are happy with this choice nonetheless, it's not a bad option. However for those who are fortunate enough life has become more living than surviving. I personally see endless of options as to what I could want my life to be like. Once you get children, many of these options become locked forever. It's a huge decision, I understand why people postpone it indefinetly. Of course one has to remember that not deciding for is equal to deciding against it. And one might regret this decision as well. But I feel like making the jump is harder than just staying where you are and going with the default.
I think we have this is all hype based on the fallacious idea that current trends will continue indefinitely. Just a few decades ago, we assumed that population growth will go on forever, and that it would cause a massive problem. However, market forces made having children more expensive, causing a reduction in child births. So too, I believe as the human population shrinks, it will make housing and other critical resources cheaper, and in turn, it will become more affordable to have children again. Simple economics, if nothing else, will regulate the human population.
I find it funny how hard this idea is for people to grasp, when this is literally a resource problem and economics at the end of the day is just an attempt at a quantitative description of how resources are/should be managed. Of _course_ the economics are driving this, and of _course_ the economy will naturally gravitate towards a more sustainable population size. People need to stop seeing money as a number on a screen and start seeing it as a very real, albeit sometimes inconsistent, measure of the level of resources available to humanity.
Population growth stopping is only a problem if you're ideologically partisan about maintaining a welfare state Ponzi scheme requiring infinite economic, population, and bureaucratic growth. Whereas Peter Turchin's work and The Great Wave by David Hackett points out that golden ages like the High Medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Victorian ages were always periods of low population growth because low population growth ensured high real wages and low inflation and high property ownership due to not having to compete with infinity migrants for jobs and resources, which led to widespread prosperity, and eras of intense war and instability always follow baby booms causing high inflation and overcompetition for resources.
There's no historical evidence of any country coming back from major population decline. An absence of young people will be terrible across all areas. Especially in democracy where the elderly will outvote the young consistently.
@jgw9990 there's ample evidence for that throughout history. The most significant perhaps being the black plague in europe that killed approximately one third of the population. But there's plenty more... The economic aspects however are real (as are voting patterns ofc). Thats going to be a major problem.
It will be a funny democracy where the old will continue to vote pensions for themselves funded by the work of the young. Funny in a way, that it will not continue to exist.
@@jgw9990 France historically had some pretty rough population declines, yet today they are doing just fine as a very wealthy country with high standards of living. Countries can absolutely weather the storm, and have done so for generations.
The world is VASTLY overpopulated. Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be able to support a population of 8, or even 10 billion people for an indefinite period of time at a standard of living superior to the present are not only cruelly misleading but almost certainly false. Notwithstanding our current addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, humanity must recognize that there are finite physical, biological, and ecological limits to the Earth's long-term sustainable carrying capacity. And to judge by the growing concerns about maintaining the quality, stability, and/or sustainability of the Earth's atmosphere, water, forests, croplands, fisheries, and so on, there is little if any doubt that many of these limits will soon be reached, if they haven't already been surpassed. Since at some point the damage stemming from the mutually reinforcing effects of excessive human reproduction and over-consumption of resources could well become irreversible.
Absolutely malthusian argument debunked time and time again. Technological development have produce changes and will produce changes that renders that natural limits completely irrelevant. OFC, earth have its limits we cant fit 20 billion humans on earth with our current technological development. But humans are not a group of cows inside a cage, where limit food and space are stated. We can adjust.
While mantaining Capitalism?No chance. And without capitalism which demands constant growth, depopulation is not a bad thing. The evolution process of systems is working as intended.
Capitalism is the most successfull thing the human race have ever done. If something is gonna fix this, capitalism will. All other forms do not work. Take your communism with you and go away
And the most important phrase was "if nothing changes"..... The population doomsayers remind me of Malthus & Ehrlich, and appear to have learned nothing from them about making grandiose predictions of future catastrophes.
45:00 the contrast between reasons to have a child nowadays vs in the before times is such a superb point it's amazing how many articles on the birth rate collapse don't mention this. You have a child at great personal cost and the economic value of that child is largely owned by the state, he/she can look forward to a lifetime of deteriorating dependancy ratios. This is such a superb point. Great piece.
I realized very early on that there is a very SICK, DIABOLICAL, EVIL and MANIPULATIVE game being played here on this earth, and I DENY all SEXUAL, EMOTIONAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, and BIOLOGICAL needs to IMPOSE this existence on more humans onto this floating rock/prison/soul trap/loosh farm to be PLAYED with, PUNISHED or TESTED by any: 1. God's 2. Demons 3. Planets/astrology 4. Nature 5. Reincarnation 6. Energy extraction 7. Angels 8. Nature 9. Ancestors 10.Governments 11. Reptilians 12. Ghosts 13. Other humans 14. Law of attraction 15. MYSELF😊 16. Karma 17. Aliens 18. Diseases 19. Illnesses 20. Toxicity
There are scholarships and programs for securing internships for young women that don't exist for young men. Less debt increases graduation rates, internships increase hirability and kickstart careers. Women prefer men more successful than themselves, but are by the numbers more likely to be better off. Shockingly, this has coincided with a collapse in the rate at which marridges are formed. The average age of those having their first marridge in the US has risen by 8 years since 1950 (US Census Bureau) marridge rates (i.e. the odds of an unmarried 15+ year old to marry. Idk why the census used 15+ as the age threshold either.) have declined from 8% to 3% in the same time.
this is inaccurate: internships for women exist because women found it harder to get one, while men did not. Women also don't prefer men more successful than themselves. It's mostly men who want women who are less successful due to social pressure to be a caretaker and 'manly'. Marriage also isn't relevant to having children as you can have a long-term stable relationship without marriage. So none of this is really relevant to the discussion of population.
The reason why some people want to go to Mars as a permanent home is because we are destroying our own planet, and if we stay on the current track, the planet will become unliveable before the century is out. It's a stupid idea because it will take more time and money to make Mars habitable than it will cost just to stabilize our own planet. It's just that we don't want to give up the things which will make for a habitable planet either here, or on Mars. You find understaffing primarily in the First World. In the third world, just about everyone has a job or a hustle. The problem in the Third World is largely one of economics, in that money is too scarce for everyone to have what they need. People in the first world aren't willing to give up things they want so that people in the third world can have something they need. In part this is a problem of economics, and in part this is a problem of human behaviour. Further, I'm not sure how the people who made this video got their statistics, but they surely don't match up with what the numbers which any legitimate body have come up with. I think that part of the problem might be that they are talking about the rate at which populations are increasing. A positive rate is still an increase in population even if it's a low increase. It would help if the increase were brought into negative numbers. Otherwise we will continue to overpopulate the planet. Climate change, and our inability to feed all the people on the planet are both indicators of overpopulation. We need to bring our population down if our species is going to last another century. If we don't take the initiative to do that ourselves, Nature will do it for us. It will be sad if we breed ourselves into extinction, but it may well be that we are not evolved sufficiently to curb our own wants and desires in order to avoid brining ourselves to extinction.
Lovely dreams those might be for some, that colonizing is not going to happen, space is a very hostile place where traveling fast is problematic and the distances are gigantic. Our best bet against going extinct is keeping earth viable for humans.
@@hillockfarm8404Earth will be for a long long time the place where most of humans live. But space can be inhabitated with big dpace stations (tech we dont have now) So, yes, we need to take care of earth. But we should also aim to establish ourself in other planets and in space. That isnt something impossible to do, and i think it will happen seriously in the long term (not this century)
Very interesting topic, you should do a collab with KaiserBauch, who specializes in demographics. I think that the current legal system (to manage relationship) is an addiitonal burden on demographics, in addition to economic uncertainties, lack of relationships, etc
I actually want to move to a country that is depopulating for this exact reason. I’m tired of there always being massive traffic and pollution, long waiting times in hospitals and huge class sizes for kids in school. I want open space, clean air and small classes with better education for each child. All that is gained from a smaller population
The author forgets the biggest, and most dangerous thing to mention due to censorship, partners seek in a relationship is it “socio-economic” status, but biological similarities. What that means, the reader understands, and TH-cam will shutdown
38:41 "But these are the facts" I really like this channel, and I will continue to. But geez, this was a blunder, you can't just drop some new bold claim and not support it with arguments and data. Should at the very least elaborate with the book's data.
Not that simple, there are not enough fertile women to turn things around so easily. And the value of girls is low, so their chances of being born (ultrasounds to determine sex and abort girls happens plenty in some areas), or survive to adult (or more honestly fertile) age is not that great. Add problems with nutrition and healthcare around pregnancy to that and you have a long way to go to turn this around. First question though is if you should. Population wise we are in overshoot only fed through fossil fuel and destructive agriculture, shrinking to somewhere between 2 billion and 500 million people would do our only viable habitat a lot of good. All dreaming of going to the stars doesn't apply to 99.99+% of the population and that is if we even can (seriously doubtfull). So we are "stuck" here, lets please keep it a livable human habitat.
I don't see world population decline as being a bad thing as evidently the person behind this video does. It may cause some hardship in the beginning, but as economies adjust, the decrease in population may slow, or even reverse climate change, among other ecological problems which our species has wrought upon this planet. As long as we don't destroy the entire ecology of the planet, there will always be people. We need fewer people, not more people, especially if we want to avoid food shortages. Also, if we want to look at the potential of land to support people, growing low calorie per acre crops such as walnuts over high density nutritional value crops is going to be exactly the wrong move.
More population, and a younger population, means more productivity, more consumption, higher salaries, more taxes to use for welfare state, more innovation, more scientific breakthroughs, better infrastructure and more goodies.
This is potentially controversial, but the 'next stage' of the demographic transition will be driven by medical advancement around anti-aging. Fertility rates show no signs of coming back up again - the only way I think they could would either some kind of mass-wave of religiosity (i.e. everyone becoming Mormon, Amish or Hasidic Jewish...etc) or radical probably-dystopian medical breakthrough around ex-vivo gestation (which we are soooo far from technologically or socio-economically). But much more likely than either of those are the development and widespread dispersal of medical treatments (mostly drugs) that dramatically slow down human senescence and are given preventatively to a majority of the population. It's really only a matter of time at this point - plenty of drug candidates and target mechanisms already exist, and anti-aging is implicated in almost all preventative medicine. It might take 20 years, it might take 50, but eventually we'll get to the point where humans can live hundreds of years, with chronic illness and infectious disease removed as causes of death. People will still die eventually, just at a more random interval from things like violence, accidents, mental health or natural disasters. I think people think this outcome is a lot more sci-fi than it actually is, especially in the context of massive advances in recent years around things like gene sequencing and AI to solve protein structures. It's waiting more on funding and long-term studies than it is scientific feasibility.
Do remember that 2030 is the first year that the average human male will be at best ,subfertile. This is according to scientists researching human fertility. The lack of interest reminds me of the response to the idea of climate change.First societal infertility, then biological infertility. What could go wrong?
These ideas will not work. In nations where there is equal pay and equal access to education they see no change in their fertility rate. It is the lack of traditional family values which is the cause for the low fertility rates. In the Scandinavian nations two children per woman is considered a lot and there women often wait until they are 30 to even consider having children. It turns out that when people are free to make their own decisions they just do not want a lot of kids. - Solution: Societies need to start valuing females' social status by the number of kids they have. Do that and a lot of women will become very motivated to having a lot of kids.
Well, there's also a pragmatic function of having children too. Back in the day, when most people were farmers, children were relatively "free labor" compared to the expense of hiring farm-hands. And child mortality was much higher too, so you tended to have a lot of them. Also no much entertainment to keep people occupied, so sex was one of the few "fun" activities to do with free time, and there's virtually no form of contraceptives, aside from the ol' pull-out method. With industrialization, people working/living in cities and sub-urban locations, the expenses of children quickly outweighed the productivity benefits, so people had less of them.
Imagine a future where population is dramatically lower, yet individual productivity is higher due to technology and automation. People of the future may live much better lives than we do as a result of this demographic change. Just look at the world. It’s too crowded as it is, and we are definitely damaging the ecology with these huge number of people we have.
I think the nature of the financial "incentives" isn't enough. People want stability and self sufficiency. That means higher wages over cash up front. That means more collective bargaining over tax breaks. We to offer companies tax breaks based on how many salaried positions with benefits and severely punish union busting. The gig economy is killing us
@@everything373-z3b There will be no collapse... people don't just die all at once, stop the sensationalisation! The population decline will usher in a new era of sustainable economic reformation (utopia).
This depopulation event always occurs as society industrializes. We can survive with fewer people that can reach the planets carrying capacity while raising productivity with artificial intelligence assisting the aging population. It could be a win-win, protecting the natural habitats while supporting a high quality of life.
Once the third world industrializes and the people there are more educated and start demanding more pay and better conditions, then the first world regains it's advantages in production capabilities due to technology, and likely becomes less friendly to oligarchic billionaires.
I've watched this story of demographic collapse for years now and watched people analyse and study it to work out why ...but ... It seems to me people miss the most obvious things of all. The religious whether they be orthodox Jews or traditional catholics , the Amish, or those that follow the Taliban in Afghanistan have tons of kids. The reasons are very simple, people like having sex and will try create conditions in which that is more likely than not in different ways. Lots of our ancestors actually didn't think a whole lot about having Children, those just showed up inevitably after sex and people just accepted it like the sky over their heads. Then came contraception, abortion and easy divorce ( steady on , I'm not making a religious argument here anyone, just pointing out the facts ) and suddenly having sex didn't necessarily mean babies and long relationships could end so obviously the birth rates plummeted. I grew up in a country in which contraceptive, abortion and divorce were illegal and babies were everywhere. Now we hay those things and the birthrate is below replacement for some time. You want kids .... Simple ban those things and people will still want sex and kids will follow. Maybe that not what people want but it should at least be mentioned because without it , only the religious will enherit the earth ( and they will prohibit them anyway when they are the majority ) just saying 🤔...
I think that will happen once the religious take over since they’re the only ones having children right now. As time marches on you will see a rightward shift in national politics as secular voters will be increasingly outnumbered by religious voters. This process is taking place in Israel and is beginning in the United States
@mooode841 no I said "those that follow the Taliban " I never mentioned Muslim, but the inference s that some Muslims obviously do follow them. I'm careful with what I say
@spasik_m not really , it just means those that do will become a smaller and smaller part of the remaining population. The data is in, most people from such communities don't leave ( some do but a minority ) and they are becoming a larger part of humanity ever year
We would have had at the very least 2 more kids if it wasn’t for living wages and how expensive everything is now. Nobody just wants to have kids and have to struggle with the lack financial stability for vacation experiences and additional school programs. We decided to stop and make the best of the family we have. It’s unfortunate for all those couples who decided to not join parenthood simply because of the inability to live comfortably.
This is the right take. Economic incentives do actually help, but not enough on their own. There is a lot of things that need to work together, but most importantly is the cultural institutions.
🌱🌰 Check out "The Walnut Fund", the world's first online investment platform that allows you to invest in fully managed walnut plantations: www.thewalnutfund.com
📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT
➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes
Yeah, but you need to live in province, build your houses from cheapest materials, your consumer level must be really limited and % of any births would be from teenage pregnancies.
First it was souvenir plots in Scotland, then it was blue chip art and now it's walnuts. These scams are getting nuttier and nuttier.
You did a good job of presenting all the facts. The problem is governments and their socialist "cradle to grave" policies that take wealth from producers and waste it on non-producers. Also, women need to not work and stay home to raise children. This would reduce the total labor force and raise wages for men. Most college degrees are useless and only STEM should be focused upon. Housing needs to be single family and pensions need to be private, not government run. Corporate, Income, energy and capital gains taxes need to be eliminated and the state should tax non-food, tax purchases at 10% at point of sale. Food, medicine and clothing should never be taxed as it's immoral. It doesn't pay for a man to get married, as in divorce a woman will take have your assets, your children and the state sides with them. Older woman who have careers can't find men equal or superior in income to them, whom they will marry, as these men would rather have younger, fertile woman with no relationship or emotional baggage. These problems are all government produced in the West buy liberal, socialist, progressives. The poor countries don't matter, as they produce little except resources they dig out of the dirt. Europe can easily save itself, but has chosen not to do so.
Where tax on chillidness in Soviets union. And dekrit 770 in comunis rumania
Where tax on chillidness in Soviets union. And dekrit 770 in comunis rumania
If i learnt anything from this video: long term predictions can be astonishingly wrong.
Exactly, something I been telling people for years, that every population decline is always followed by growth, this is first time we are experiencing just extremely slow decline in comparison to war or disease. Humanity will not die out, those preditions are just stupid. What the rise will look like? That's unpredictable but it will happen, we can only help it out by changing how our economies work, how humans are born etc.
@felisenpai9625 well yeah, there are more young fertile people today than they were people 1000 years ago.
@@felisenpai9625 I agree, but back then our societies were much simpler than today, the system that we've created now relies on constant growth and our solutions are often band aid solutions and if the birthrate declines further, the system is going to collapse. Obviously, humans could rebound from this, but it's going to get bad first before it gets better.
@@felisenpai9625 Because they maintained above replacement birth rates. We are pretty much in unchartered territory with our current demographic crisis.
@@neptunianman Exactly. How to save S Korea? Probably not possible. Same with most of the rest of East Asia plus Europe. Anyone who says population will automatically start to grow again is ignoring reality. Out of the blue women in Europe and Asia will on average start having way more than 2 children per woman. Possibly 3 or even 4. Not likely unless the society transforms completely. However if society transforms completely (read collapses!) then I think it will affect fertility rates in the other direction. It will go down even further.
Before the start of the French revolution France actually had more people than Russia.
True, France was dubbed the China of Europe...
Russia won World War two because they were the 2nd most populous country back then... won is a big word tho
Now compare the living standards of France and Russia
@@DerDop Russia had 14 million soldiers at the start of WW2 and lost 14 million men, ending with an army of 14 million men. 16 million other Russians lost their lives in WW2 as well. After the War, Russia had no "Baby Boom" and these children not born, had no children in the 1970's. Russia is collapsing and it can't be saved. same for Ukraine.
@@DerDop "won"
That Walnut Fund is almost certainly a scam. Promising 20% a year. Yeah, good luck with that.
Anything over 10 is always a scam. Anything over 5 is frequently.
Yeah i thought the same thing. I'm not much smarter than the walnuts they're planting but even i could tell that was a sham
Whats the S&P then? 😂 just invest in the broad market.@personzorz
What amuses me is YT's continued propagation of highly suspect adds while it tries to hold the position of integrity and morality on comments.
Most certainly...
People had a lot of kids when it was economically rational for them to do so. That is, when your children were your workforce, people were economically incentivized to have large families. But industrialization, of agriculture especially, meant that large families no longer make economic sense. They are now a cost, not revenue driver. So people make rational choices and have smaller families. Now instead of revenue being driven by many children, revenue is driven by all adults entering the workforce. It's all people making rational economic choices for themselves.
The children yearn for the mines
@@razvancampan9465The popularity of Minecraft shows it
The solution is to re-legalize Child-Labour.
in poor households in the UK, they tend to kick children out of the household once the child benefit money stops coming in, often out of the same (subsidised for life) house, that they were able to get in the first place, due to having children, years ago
@@CR-rm4iy
Just cuz they aren't raising kids anymore doesn't mean they don't deserve housing. The problem is that new houses aren't being built, not that the last generations aren't dying off fast enough.
Population isn't growing because people need to a world to "live" in, not just "survive" in.
Spot on
So in the 19-20th centuries people had peaceful prosperous lives? 😅
No it’s educated women who have always had less kids.
No, but they had what was in atleast in their minds a good enough world in terms of Quality of life and future prospects to bring more children into. They don't have the frame of reference of modern conveniences we take for granted now. As far as they are concerned, what we would now call absolute poverty conditions were good enough for them.
Hard pill to swallow, but we have it easier nowadays than any time in history.
Yes, actually making the conditions for raising children affordable again, and bringing back the societal incentives and communities back.
Edit: Yes, my previous comment was incomplete.
Won't happen until the negative effects of population decline have become too great.
This is exactly correct.
Systems have slowly been designed to "customer trap" you, and suck wealth out. A huge industry has evolved around children. The black hole of energy consumption aimed at the people who are trying to make more people for making more people makes it so there can be less people. Not to mention that theres a hilarious shift where you have to pay for childcare while you both work that is the equivalent of one of the jobs. Such a trap.
Not everyone needs the good life. But affordable food staples, decent education, and acceptable housing costs in NON-DYSTOPIAN HOUSING (Like theres a tree nearby, and the park isnt made of needles) is all it takes. Family is enough for alot of people.
Again, the poorest areas have the highest birth rates, and countries with tons of childcare subsidies still have terrible birthrates.
Its a cultural thing, not an economic one. But long term, the culture will change, as those who value children and legacy actually HAVE that legacy, and typically spread it to their children (who are also the only children around).
But that has already been tried, including no taxes for life, subsidized housing, additional stipends, etc. It hasn't worked.
Thank you
when i was a kid the world was 4 billion people. it's now 8 billion. back then the usa was 200 million. now its 340 million. back then everyone was worried about overpopulation. now everyone's worried about "population collapse". i wasn't worried then, and am not worried now.
"As a tadpole, the water in this pot was tap cold. As a frog it's boiling. I wasn't worried then and I'm not worried now"- you.
Good point
@@bodaciouschad Population collapse is just fear of a disappearing underclass thats exploitable for labor.
Places without poor people are successful and peaceful, importing migrants from poverty and warzones brings with it obviously poverty and crime.
Back to normality.
Nothing ever happens.
@@bodaciouschad yah of course i spent 50 years in ignorance as opposed to reading and publishing voraciously stupid
To be fair underpopulation is a lesser issue than overpopulation. A wave of conservatism & women popping 3 children will end it. Probably won’t happen in this generation but people will definitely not go extinct in the next 200 years.
Short answer: no
Long answer: people want the good life these days. I’m 38 and I’ve got a dog, I’m a failure to Christian society…
lmfao same
Hello there fellow single dog man club members. Can't be all single cat ladies anyways.
We are doing our part!
I’m 21, single and autistic with a cat. I don’t intend on ever having children
It's not that they want the "good life". Simply many people have realized that there is no rational reason to create another human. As long as life is fundamentally meaningless, they see no reason why you would put another human in this situation.
PS: yes, yes, you make your own purpose, bla bla bla... if it makes you sleep better, tell yourself whatever story you like :)
Don’t write yourself off. You have accomplished a lot more than most, and you are at an age where you still have a few years left to have kids and the energy needed for them.
God bless you!
What happened to all the increased productivity since the baby boom? Did the working families get any real support to raising children? No. Women's liberation doubled the work force and more increases in productivity followed. For whom was all this production? It didn't really go into keeping families, but wealthy people, luxury goods/services. Today a family needs two incomes to survive, raise a child without help and then suffer poverty in retirement.
Housing, living wage and/or strong social security. Additionally you need to somehow convince families to go back to 2-3 children instead of 1-2. Culture is as important as economic factors. Good luck with that.
@@trillionbones89 Finally somebody who tinks a little bit deeper. Its not just that simple that ohh females entered the workforce. Nowadays most of the population in develop countries work in mostly bullshit jobs(services) so that they get scraps from the wealthy. Most people want kids and most people don't want to fall a class or two. Oh you're two kids who finally made it out of poverty and are middle class? Oh well we actually need more factory workers and soldiers not doctors and engineers so you should have 3 4 kids. Back to poverty. As technology develops we will need less and less people in the workforce. My biggest fear is really that the majority of population will "become useless " for capitalist gain, so jobless and in poverty. However till then, they need basically slaves...
@@trillionbones89 and to add to that if a single salary could support a decent lifestyle for a family of 3, 4 all would choose to have more kids. All the families i have actually met in real life of people who don't live in lucid poverty and can plan a little more thei feature i have seen a trend. Wealthier families have more kids(3 4) not so wealthy limit to 1 or 2.
If the population is dropping, seems rather odd that the cost of housing is skyrocketing. One would think that all of those houses (which, it turns out, you can't take with you after all) are now emptying out as the homeowners downsize off this mortal coil. Why is the price not dropping?
Depopulation start in the interior and in fact pushes people to the populated zones.
Mass immigration is the obvious answer.
It’s because the population of home owners is becoming smaller due to the craze to buy property to make it a rental. This is compounded by corporations buying up a lot of houses. Less owners means less competition and more control on the housing availability. It is being held up high due to intentional artificial influence.
Reading for comprehension is necessary to make an intelligent point. You are failing. Clearly this video and many others like it are saying the population is still increasing but at a slower rate and will reach a point where it begins to decline in 20 to 60 years. I think it will be near 20 years because of the acceleration of the decline. We are producing millions of INCELs - that is a brand new problem the statisticians have yet to incorporate into their models.
The population will start dropping within 10-30 years (in Europe) depending on the country. It hasn't been dropping in most places (partially because immigration).
Population decline lags behind fertility rate decline for very obvious reasons.
The problem is not the poupulation colapse the problem is the poupulation colapse triggering a societal colapse.
so many in the comments not only completely miss this, they actually think its going to be a good thing because "less traffic" and "more houses". the last time we had such impactful demographic shifts, we ended up having two world wars.
Exactly. Those same tossers complaining about house prices and equality are going be the first moaning when energy is rationed and supermarkets are empty. They seem to think that supply chains spring up from thin air.
@@Qnexus7 It will destroy economies. What will happen to your savings account and the stock market when global population goes down? A market crash we can't recover from? Sounds like a civilizational collapse to me...
In pre-modern times if a young man or woman wanted to have fun they were forced to leave their homes, go to gatherings, socialise and intermingle. Now people spend their lives entertained alone in their homes and even on their work breaks they stare at their phones with little conversation. Electronic entertainment and by extension the internet are a massive contraceptive, all other social and medical changes are secondary to the reality that conception can't happen when people aren't going outside.
Exactly.
Don't know why people think it is "money", since in middle east, Africa, and South America, people today are extremely poor, with lots of kids.
In those places internet is almost non-existent, and the only option to have fun is to get out and socialize, as humanity has done since ancient times.
As someone who moved across the U.S. to cohabitate with and then marry someone I met online, I find this concern overblown. We’re hardly the only people in our social circle who’ve done this kind of thing. (Note: We didn’t meet through a dating app, just general socializing.)
I'm going outside but not to meet people. 😂
Like watching porn or buying sex dolls will be sufficient for men?
Right on! I strongly believe that fertility decline is in large part due to people spending more and more time watching screens. I include myself.
The breakthrough discovery of synthetic fertilizer wasn't mentioned here... The world's population doubled as a direct result of this
It would fall under "new more advanced methods of agriculture". But yes you are right. Ironically the same guy also designed chemical weapons.
Yes, Haber - Bosch method of fixating nitrogen.
The Mouse Experiment is a better guide than Malthus
Mouse utopia
You came here from Whatifalthist haha
@@laurenzkahlenberg552 or are just familiar with his work his mouse utopia video was a while ago it is quite compelling though and makes you wonder is he right? Are we really just rationalizing what is actually a hormonal mechanism for reducing population size in the face of over crowding? As he pointed out these are mainly issues people in cities face the rual don't have alot of these problems
Hes a quack. Any half sane serious historian wont take him seriously.
@@andrew9371There's nothing hormonal about this, at least in America. It's an economic issue in America, young men don't earn enough to live on their own, much less have a family.
Core Issue: Advanced civilization creates **sub-replacement fertility**.
Key Numbers:
- Need: **2.1** children/woman
- Reality: **1.5** Europe, heading below **2.1** globally
- Result: **73%** population loss (S.Korea), **72%** (China), **62%** (Poland) by 2100
Primary Barriers:
1. **Female education > Male education**
2. **Job/housing instability**
3. **Relationship instability**
Solutions Tried:
- Money: **Failed**
- Migration: **Inadequate**
- Family policy: **Insufficient**
Only Success:
**Israel (3.0)** via **security pressure + religion**
Trajectory:
Peak **10.3B** → Universal decline → **Potential extinction**
Thank you for just posting how the numbers ACTUALLY work. Everyones treating it like you can take any arbitrary amount of humans and squash them together to get more.
Also, things that have not been tried: Easy affordable Housing in non-dystopian settings.
Just live in province instead of city. Cheaper house, energy and food.
It's unfixable.
I think short of a nuclear war or an asteroid strike it will be highly unlikely humanity as a whole would go extinct because small and conservative pockets across the globe will keep doing what they've always done. But before that I would expect a widespread economic collapse at some stage. And because older generations are larger than younger ones there may eventually be some kind of populist movement to 'cull' older people who will by then be seen as an economic drain. I hope not, but we can already see mass online hate towards "the boomers." Anyway, if the economic collapse drastically alters the structure of society and if contraception is no longer available maybe then we'll finally see a reversal of the depopulation trend, as after all, humanity historically had more children during poorer times. If not, there will just be even further collapse, 90s post-Soviet style or worse.
The problem stems from a problem as old as civilization itself: rural vs urban. Cities cannot generate population surpluses due to the confined nature of how people live, but they gather people to meld minds and produce major breakthroughs. Rural locations are the source of population growth but they don’t produce many innovations due to rural populaces being more conservative and risk averse.
This cycle of urbanization and de urbanization has been seen for as long as people have been seen for as long as there have been people. What’s different about today is that urbanization is happening at the same time globally. Just over half of everyone alive today live in urban areas with that percentage changing depending on country.
What I believe is going to happen is that cities and heavily urbanized nations will see major population declines while rural countries will see less of a population shrinkage. A major indicator of this being the case will be a global swing towards right wing politics as is the case in the U.S. At current projections the nation is looking at a permanent Republican majority within 20 years
it's called paying a living wage
The Catholics were a big promotor of the "Family Wage".
A Wage large enough to support a partner and children.
That's just a lie people tell themselves. The wealthier people get the less they have children. That's why the faster a country develops, the faster their birth rates will collapse. That's the truth you are avoiding. A country could increase the wages of everyone tomorrow and it wouldn't improve birthrates, in fact, it would do the opposite.
Funny how poor people have more children then.
@@everything373-z3b People are getting smarter.
Income is inversely correlated with fertility rates
At one point in human history there was a genetic bottleneck, and it is estimated there were only a few thousand humans in the world at that time.
To think that being at an all-time high of 8,000,000,000 a SLOWING of population increase is the beginning of the end of humanity is insane.
I view it more as a maybe painful, but necessary adjustment. There was an experiment where they let rats freely breed in a confined space with plenty of food and water. Eventually the rats were absolutely packed and started showing erratic behaviors, such as males isolating themselves and refusing to court females and females abandoning their young. Sound familiar? The population eventually collapsed.
We live in a finite universe, expecting endless exponential population growth is simply unrealistic.
It was around 20000 people in north east africa and a few hundred neaderthals. The bottle neck was the ice age and that those specific humans figured out how to use a bow. All other species of humans and other tribes of homo sapiens died.
The rat experiment was a designed dystopia and not a model for our society. Every animal would collapse under the conditions in that model. There was an identical experiment done where the rats were given fufilling lives and things to do, and that model did not end remotely the same, even though they were packed.
The human breeding cycle is not a numbers multiplying game. There is a specific age of breeding population and they specifically determin what is possible in the future. If your using total numbers, your going to look back one day with massive alarm when you realize thats not how it works.
It's called 'functional extinction'.
1st the universe is infinite.
2nd earth is in a close system with the sun. At human scale the energy we received from the sun if infinite, or way more then we need at least.
3rd Energy is the universal value. Anything is possible given enough energy.
That said, a decline in population is not a catastrophe.
It's not about population s8ze per se but that the economic system is built on perpetual growth. Humanity will be fine but the economy 100% won't.
Many people are really just complaining about the decline of specific cultures.
Smaller populations with higher standards of living and less congestion is definitely preferable over endless growth.
As a 20 year old indian I can tell you that india is heading for a china like population collapse in the next couple of decades. The tfr will drop faster than anyone is predicting (I know we are already below 2.1),honestly I wouldn't be surprised if india's tfr dips below 1.5 by 2040 because most of the people in my age group are not at all planning to start a family also because we are a developing country with fast urbanization still happening you can naturally see why tfr would collapse even further.
Please tell me why. Is feminism taking over India? If so, PLEASE learn from Europe, North America and your East Asian neighbors in South Korea and Japan. Do NOT do what we did.
@@TheDragonofRevelation Tbh toxic feminism is a problem in major cities like new delhi,mumbai etc and it is slowly spreading to other parts of the country but it's not the main reason for the tfr decline (for now). The main reason currently is just the fact that india is not as urbanized as china but we are fast approaching it as we are a rapidly growing country and as people urbanize the trf drops naturally.
@@AnandBhadouriya3 Why would urbanization cause the fertility rate to drop?
@@TheDragonofRevelation It's a commonly known fact that urbanization causes trf to drop because the living spaces are small, parents have less time, everything is more expensive, and there is no tangible benefit of having a kid just extra costs.
@@TheDragonofRevelation btw where are you from?
I gave up on the idea of children the day I hit 30. I now have zero interest in it. My parents disowned me over this decision and signed away any rights I had to the farm to my drug dealing cousin they love so much. That really was a hell of a thing to say to your child, "You were never one of us in this family anyway and if your never going to give us grandkids, then what's the point of giving you a damn thing when we die." This was after years of them always making snide remarks that I must have been switched at birth.
So yea, given all that and all the problems with the world, I tell every partner I have, up front that I will never have kids and you will never change my mind on that. I'm a biological dead end by choice.
Ooooof, you really spoke to me when you shared that job instability is fucking over so many young adults. I recently got married to my long-term boyfriend, but the job instability on my side is holding back our long-term plans. Fuck corporate greed
I can tell you something that you don't want to hear - you have two options. Accept living a life just above the poverty line without kids or live in poverty with kids. Your kids are going to go through absolute Hell in school for being poor but your only other option is to not have kids and that's the end of your family line on this planet. Sorry, corporate greed matters more to the people with money than you do. This applies to you and me both because I earn the median wage ($42,200 a year) and I can't even afford to rent on my own.
400 years ago, Europe began to export its excess population to new settler colonies in the Americas, Asia, and Africa. This increased their HDI and wealth. now that "excess population" is moving back to Europe.
Yeah to extract those countries resources now people of those countries coming to get their resources back from them.
@Nopee395 for real they are such a hypocrites...
@@Nopee395 what resources, you can grow your economy without extraction. That's what industrial revolution did. All those european settled nations are now developed.
Do you think aboriginals developed australia.? You're just jealous you couldn't achieve much
@@Nubialady32 why did Africans sell their people
Any reasonably responsible person who cannot afford a good, prosperous life. Will not condemn his children to it.
People in the past lived lives of pure poverty and had more kids than we do today by a long shot across the globe.
Perhaps the issue is the culture, the elites and the economic conditions that allows people to marry and have kids.
Most young people today can't even buy a house.
I can't afford to have kids, anyway I'll not contribute to this so called breeding phase
I assume you are a westener or Japanese/Korean? The rest of the world doesn't really share that sentiment..
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 "People in the past lived lives of pure poverty and had more kids than we do today by a long shot across the globe."
Yes and a) they were dumb by todays standards b) did it because the chance of a kid not making to adulthood was much higher.
So, if you have a good life, have kids, and suddenly everything goes down, what should you do?
Only economists used to capitalism would think population collapse is bad. But have they ever thought about the fact that infinite population growth feeding the economy is inherently a flawed notion as the world has finite resources?
We must quickly change and revolutionise the systems around the world and move away from capitalism before we destroy our only home amongst the stars.
having the whole society all in on rampant growth alone is a mistake. at the center of society should be the people, not pure profit. but shrinking populations come with sociopolitical and geopolitical shifts. the last time we had such significantly impactful demographic shifts, we ended up with two world wars.
It _is_ bad, but only for the top fraction of a percent who thrive off of the exploitation inherent to an overpopulated world. For the average person, some studies have shown that things will actually _improve_ as population decreases.
@@StuffandThings_ Only if the population stabilises eventually otherwise you're talking about extinction. Fertility rates can't stay below replacement forever.
@@XDF745 Yeah but we have a looooong way to decline yet before that is a worry. Earth can sustainably handle about 1 billion people living with a middle class Western standard of living, so we'll realistically be best off around that. That won't happen for quite a few generations even with current trends. But yeah eventually we will have to stabilize things, but once life improves enough for the majority people will start reproducing again and it will self correct.
I had my bachelor degree in 2012, after 3 years working i got my permanent contract. A house? Nope maybe an appartment, decides to upgrade my job, earning slightly above average of the country. Still no house. Decided 3 years back to build my own home. At 37 i have finally a family home. Now i have to find a wife and thinking dating apps would make it easier. Think again... and then wonder why the popilation is crashing..
Dating apps? Dude, just hire a surrogate. The divorce industry in America is a business with no mercy to the men who become its victims.
India's fertility rate is 1.9 and median age is 28.
According to pew research centre indias population will start decling from 2047.
In one state Nagaland it has already started declining.
Is it good or bad for India in the long term? Tell me
Median age is 29
@@Nopee395 bad , because india will get old before rich. But indian immigrants in the west will be successful
The global population is going through the largest change in human history. Generations of population growth were slower than the imminent population decline that we are experiencing. With all of that said, humanity is not facing extinction but rather a far more extreme version of historical norms.
The rule of thumb throughout history is that cities need a constant influx of people from the countryside to sustain population. It’s a lot harder to have a lot of children in an apartment than it is to have them on a farm or a more rural area. This has happened in China many times, in Rome, and countless other empires throughout time.
What does all of this mean? It means that the world population will be smaller, more conservative, and more religious. This is already playing out in the United States and Israel
I don't see why we just don't take the countryside, and push it somewhere else
How it can already happening in Israel when Israeli population is growing😂😂
@ The more fundamentalist faction are outbreeding the secularists in Israel. It’s already at a point where they’re already 25% of the population and will be at 35% within a decade.
This is not a selection pressure for humans or civilization. It's a selection pressure for capitalism. If anything, it makes it easier to meet resource scarcity and sustainability.
This goes beyond your false claims against capitalism, buddy. China is as communist as it gets and they have a lower birth rate than almost everyone.
There is no demographic crisis, there is only demographic normalization.
The current number of humans is already too much to be sustainable. Sustaining population growth at the same exponential rate of the past decades would mean certain extinction through overpopulation.
I say there is no 'crisis' because this is a self-solving issue. Post-industrial societies are simply naturally reacting to the changed circumstances of automation technology, modern medicine and cognitive labor economy. There is zero evidence to believe that the current downward trend will simply continue until extinction. It is much more likely that the population growth rate will plateau again at a lower level, which would be better for every person and the environment.
The main crisis is that the current generation will have to carry a huge burden, paying for care of the elderly.
"The main crisis is that the current generation will have to carry a huge burden, paying for care of the elderly."
Yes and that crisis will truly be a crisis, we aren't bacteria on a petri dish, when a part of the population becomes extremely overburdened we don't just die off and start breeding again once there is enough foodstuffs around us, there will be extremely tough decisions made to navigate this issue.
How do you run a modern society when 60% of the population is over 60, that's where we're headed. I don't know how we'll keep the lights on, let alone go green. It takes young brillant minds to figure out new tech and young hands to build it, that's not going to happen when the youth is trying and failing to maintain current infrastructure while taking care of 1.5 times their number in old folks.
Let's just build our own pension. W/o relying on youth
Androids are the answer to the problem
That huge burden is only if we allow a minority to horde all the massive gains in productivity.
In the 50s, sure 7 ppl supported 1 on social security. Now in the 2020 it's 3-1, but we are waaaaaaaaaaaay more productive.
Which means, we have the resources. No one NEEDS to suffer.
Except were orientated around a economic system that has suffering as foundational, a selling point even.
Population decline is only an extinction level event to capitalists.
It's commonly said that "hunter-gatherers died out because of starvation or disease." This is incorrect, however. The evidence of hunter-gatherer groups dying out says that "other groups destroy them, through warfare or diseases created and spread by agriculturists." We see this repeatedly in human history. There are very, very few actual "hunter-gatherer" groups in the pop culture concept of the term, as misfit bands of Amazonians half mumming it up for the camera. The evidence shows that many groups practiced sustainable farming, with evidence of farming or human-aquaculture sites lasting for thousands of years. As for hunting, Most North American tribes engineered the environment to attract prey. They didn't hunt beaver, for example, because beaver dams create environments that attract deer and moose. If they were starving, they would have killed the beavers.
There's also the fact that hunter-gatherers rely on a vast array of different food sources. If game is scarce, you can still go fishing. If the fish aren't biting, you can still pick berries. If the berries failed, there are still tubers, etc. Agriculturalists, by contrast, almost always rely on one main staple like rice, wheat, or potatoes. If that crop fails, there will be starvation (this isn't as big a problem in modern times, since we've collected all the domesticated crops from around the world and now rely on a much wider array of them than people did in the past).
Its an overblown problem. The worst thing that will happen as a consequence is postponement of retirement and in an absolute worst case a change in attitude towards euthanasia of the most dependent. After the population bubble passes through the system, you start seeing the positive effects of population shinkage: extremely cheap real eatate, lower traffic, cleaner air and water, abundance of available work. Under such condition people start having children again.
Strategic degrowth policies must be implemented to incentivize later retirement, and multigenerational habitation options. If all pro-natal incentives, widely proven to be wasteful expenditures, are cancelled critical funds can be diverted to child and pediatric care. We will be more likely handle serious ecological problems with a population that stabilizes at the 5B 1987 number, or better yet the 1974 4B number.
The worst thing that will happen is a postponement of retirement? It can and probably will get a lot worse than that. I don't think anyone is concerned about what the world will be like when the population stops collapsing; it is the collapse that everyone is concerned about.
The thing is that we won’t experience the benefits of that for at least a couple of decades
Because we need to economically decline so hard to the point that having kids is beneficial
last time we had such significant demographic shifts, we ended up having two world wars.
Religiosity is supposed to be conducive to fertility, meanwhile the most religious country in Europe, Poland, has the lowest fertility rate, while the least religious country of Europe, France, is doing much better...I simply don't get it...
It's not the ethnic French that are having kids bro.
Immigration. I'm neither pro or anti. But the reason for this is immigration.
@@redshanks2438 I do not think it is the sole factor, and it doesn't explain Poland...
France has better social policies that are conductive to starting a family and not worry about sacrificing a lot of personal funds/ prospects in your career. Especially for women.
Poland tried to pay a lump sum for every kid but it was simply not enough to make up for all the other factors involved when raising a child.
Israel seems to be doing the best when it comes to a developed nation. Even among the non religious the fertility rate is at 3 per woman. It comes down to social policies there too
@@R3L4X97 Yes, that sounds more like the beginning of an explanation.
Millions must breed
No, Billions
Or not.
Nothing ever happens.
Me and your mom are working on it
Yes, let ne breed right now! I'm single tho
Iranian population decline is crazy the main reason is change of culture from religious one to secular one, it’s crazy how secularization caused by Islamic regime happened also 4 decades lf high inflation and economical decline destroyed Iranians population
The Catholics were a big promotor of the "Family Wage".
A Wage large enough to support a partner and children.
"Sounds like communism to me" - Americans
@@AirShark95 Lol, other fellow American communist like Henry Ford also promoted ideas like the 40 hr. Work Week and the Weekend.
Can you imagine the bost in income when both parents have a living wage as opposed to one being the provider I can imagine them going traveling more or have more kids and they just hire a babysitter or leave the kids to grandparents occasionally when one parent can’t be available tho it’ll be less often
@@USSAnimeNCC- Personally, I am agnostic about the composition of a household.
If both parents make a family wage, the surplus would create the opportunity for increased household income and consumption or increase time spent away from work.
@@Tullochr105 that's because Ford was an engineer and not an MBA parasite.
Give me all European women, I will populate Europe in 20 years
The problem with large payouts for parental leave is that money has to come from other employees in the business. Any single men in that business are effectively taxed for a child that is not theirs. This reduction in their resources means it's less likely they are attractive to a mate.
The world did fine with fewer people. Before the population even stops growing, we are sounding the alarm of permanent decline leading to extinction. Please!
Not that the presenter is graphing rates of increase of population, not population as a whole. The rates of increase he shows, even if small, are an increase none the less. Nowhere on earth does he show a decrease in population. Only a decrease in the rate ate which population is increasing. An increase is an increase, and that's something that the presenter seems to have wrong all the way through this video. I'm sorry, but growing walnuts isn't going to fix that.
@@Chompchompyerded i think he shows birthrates per woman, and you need atleast 2.1 births per woman to sustain the population level
@@Chompchompyerded did you miss the below replacement fertility rate?
The decrease in the number of young people in societies will lead to a decrease in the level of education, economy, progress, medicine, technology. There will be unwanted migrations, more numerous societies will come from other continents and take over Europe and North America. Societies will become more primitive and therefore the biological reason for procreation, so that the family/tribe/clan has the strength to survive, will return.
Europeans were the last on the scene and stole most of what you think sets them apart. Mother nature has spoken.
There's no need. At all. AT ALL. There's no issue with overpopulation. And there's no issue with population collapse. I say this as one of the very few people in the US who actually got a degree in Demography (there's only 2 master's programs in the whole nation, and I was the only person taking it in my year, usually there are 3-5 per class). Population rises and falls. Automation replaces some jobs, other jobs are created. Economic growth will slow, but that doesn't mean quality of life will decrease. It doesn't mean that happiness index scores will go down. Population collapse is a silly term. Because the population is not actually collapsing. It's moving, migrating, shrinking, but the society continues to function even as people are lost. In 5-10 years, tens of millions of jobs will be replaced by AI. 10 years after that, maybe 100 million jobs gone. This isn't some far-fetched idea, it's the natural progression of things. It's how things have been going for decades. It's how they'll continue to go. And some sort of social programs will have to emerge to better support a growing chunk of the population who don't work... but those programs won't have to be created as quickly as they would have had to be, if the population was still growing at a fast rate. We have a lot of incoming problems that a shrinking population actually helps with. Of course, there are negatives that come with it as well, but this idea that we need to stop population collapse is silly. We don't know where the sustainable level is for human population. All we've done is grow for all of human history. We're finally nearing a point of shrinking, and it'll probably drop to a point before bouncing back up and then stabilizing around a number like... 9 or 10 billion. Having that many more people than that would be a huge issue. We already are lacking in housing. And without the need to live in cities (because with online work, there's no real need for everyone to have to live in cities anymore), people will spread out to own more land, which means there'll be even less land to go around. Even if we tamed all the land on Earth and made the Antarctic and Sahara habitable, the world wouldn't be comfortable and nice for most people on it if we got up to 15-20billion. Of course we could go colonize Mars and the various moons of our solar system, or create ocean cities or space station colonies to keep expanding, and that would be cool too. But just cool. Not imperative. Not vital to our survival. A stable population that fixes a bunch of the world's problems like hunger, illiteracy, war, etc., is more important in the short term than making sure that our population continues to skyrocket.
Your overlooking that the energy systems most people are subjected too are designed like company towns used to be designed. They will only ever be given enough to survive, but not enough to escape. The population rise and fall will not affect that deliberate trap, and so the population will just continue to collapse in reaction to what seem to be overstressed conditions that are actually artificial. We are in a new age that has different more terrifying pressures than have ever existed. Globalization is a new phenomenon that has not existed in previous models, and instantaneous gathering and processing of global information changes a great deal.
Hunger and illiteracy is by design at the point (Not total design, but its easier for bad actors to take away than good actors to create). Ive studied the economic model for how farming works. Im not saying its entirely by malicious design, I just mean the pressures its subject to are complex and more food could be made its just not being made because of those pressures. (however at this moment there is a corporate takeover of farmland happening that will make it a malicious design in about a decade). Education is being deliberately deprived from the populations in first world countries as a form of voting control. These problems will never be fixed. They are political ones, not progress ones. I personally agree with the god king emperor:
"Technology is a constant race between progress and disaster. Education helps but its never enough. *You must also run.* "
There is.
Ah demographics... cute. But obv you dont know anything about the econmics of it. You just babble. It's wishful thinking.
I can make you an endless list with economic issues of population collapse (called that, accurately, because of the precipitous fall over a short period, say until 2100, you should know that).
Whats going to happen is something akin to what we already see in Japan and to a lesser degree in Southern European nations. Large and growing debts, slowing consumption, stagnating wages, eventually deflation, asset price collapse and all sorts of 2nd order effects, but what is essentially a slow but persistent impoverishment of both states and working individuals which is further aggravating the circumstances that led to the issue in the first place.
If you think this will magically pass you're deluded. While it may not matter much in the grand scheme of things I guarantee you that the rest of your life will be dominated by this issue.
There's no objective correct answer to the question, which you make it sound like, backed by your demography degree. Humble yourself.
"We don't know where the sustainable level is for human population"
About 1 billion people. With that, everyone can sustainably live with Western standards of living (which, say what you will about the _lifestyle_ but the standards are pretty aspirational). We still are a looong ways off from that.
There's an imbalance, not overpopulation like some think. Europe and America do not have enough people, China and India have too many.
China does not have too many, their infrastructure could easily fit like 200 million more.
@Mooardiii Infrastructure is not what I'm talking about
@@gamer228r then what is?
@@Mooardiii China is said to have twice as much people as they have agricultural lands to feed. So yes there is a case to be made for to many people.
@ in a world this globalized, farmland within your border isn’t necessary a reason to not grow. We have seen many desert countries reach high population. If only China grew (or balanced at 2-2-1) and everyone else disappeared yes their growth is a problem since even their imports would struggle, but in a world where there is worldwide demographic stability then they will always have a market to sell stuff to and money to buy from abroad. Keep in mind China is the second biggest farmland owner in the US. Maybe other places too.
The real question is, will it matter in an age where robots and AI take most jobs? People are extrapolating a version of capitalism that may not exist 10 years from now
Itll take 30 years.
@ not necessarily
They are too basic now, and the problems is here.
@ wrong
Yeah good luck with that... will the robots buy the s that the other robots make too? Or how do yiu think that will happen? Do you think they'll just give you Ai personal slave robot for free? They already have you, why should you have one too? Naw... not happening.
The demographic collapse, largely a result of urbanization, might be seen as yet another possible "Great Barrier" to interstellar expansion in Drake's Equation.
My father told me that he had enough to build a house and buy a car when he was done with high school in the 70's just by working normal jobs. By the time i finished my master's degree in 2019, i didn't even have enough to buy a car. Why would i think of having a child?
Humans: "Oh noes, we're going extinct!"
Nature: "Yay!"
I don't see how. With the rise of the internet and instant communications plus the availability of modern medical care, the desire or need of having extra children decreases daily. We have to ask ourselves "what is in it for the women to have that third child?" I don't see the answer there. My gut feeling is that ideally most people would say they would want to reproduce themselves i.e. having one male and one female child but then there is a large segment of couples that would say either they can't afford more than one child or are not interested in having any children. Nothing we do can get that average of 2.1 back - nothing.
We just need to redefine, reshape & repurpose our personal, societal, cultural & psychological attitudes and views of relationships, intimacy, institution of marriage, community, social bonds, connections & interactions, love & romanticism and nuclear-core unit, immediate, extended family relationships. The most important part is the religious promotion & societal cultivation & encouragement of Family Values and Procreation on all levels of society & in all areas of everyday life that is the cultural cornerstone per se or the foundational pillar of any new society going forward. We have so many things to fix first before that.
But we also need a more nature-friendly Socioeconomic system that starts to transition away from our current economic-culture of mass consumption/consumer culture, materialism, monetary obsession, carbon emissions & general pollution. Soil degradation, nuclear, chemical, plastic, garbage and other destructive waste disposal practices..inequality, concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a few ,wastefulness etc….Our/the economic, social, energy & environmentally sustainable development is contingent upon our ability to create adaptive self sufficient living conditions that is more pro-naturalist, frugal, homesteader-like lifestyle based on a free market anarchism, trade and barter systems, social egalitarianism, collective responsibility, technological innovations, advanced agricultural techniques, both big & small scale farming and horticulture etc
So when that’s all said and done you have 3-10 kids each family
@@robvett8584 i think this is the right track. surpassing the hyper-individualism and glorified hedonism, driven by a decaying system of values and virtues.
we in our societies need to reset the priorities in our cultures.
The deep past is not that relevant. Before 1970 there were few reliable methods of birth control or at least no methods that don't require a specialized lifestyle built around them. Even with full control enough pregnancies slipped through to prevent sub-replacement fertility. Many didn't attempt to control fertility so naturally they had around 7 kids each with the privileged frequently having double digits as they were healthier then the masses.
In our days the methods to prevent pregnancies are very easy so children are born purely by choice and for the majority there are too few reasons to choose that.
Great video, can it be that the population growth after the industrial revolution is an anomaly and the world is correcting itself, going back to preindustrial levels?
The answer is a resounding YES. Actually, there is a clear distinction between the sustainability of the population of any country or the whole world and the "population decline" of both. What matters is not the "population decline" per se but rather the sustainability of the population of both. If any country or the whole world are experiencing the "population decline" you are talking about, while consistently maintaining the normal replacement fertility rate of 2 or more children per couple in perpetuity, then both of them are not in danger of a "population collapse" at all, for they are abiding by the natural law of HUMAN REPRODUCTION. However, the danger lies in human interference with the natural law of HUMAN REPRODUCTION by failure to abide by it or disregarding it altogether. It holds that failure to pass on our genes to our offspring, they die a natural death, which is also known as extinction. It is the only means at our disposal and upon which the survival of the human species on this planet depends.
Hence, one of the unintended consequences of human interference with HUMAN REPRODUCTION, often with good intentions, is the abnormal sub-replacement fertility rate of 0 to 1 child per couple, with serious economic and social repercussions, which has occurred in over 50% of the world population in over 90 countries, where such human interference is most prevalent. The end result is that these countries cannot sustain their population normally and that their "population decline" is an ever-present danger. Yet the abnormal sub-replacement fertility rate once it has occurred is a rollercoaster extremely difficult to reverse as these countries have found out the hard way.
On the other hand, in countries where human interference with HUMAN REPRODUCTION is least prevalent, these countries are sustaining their population normally, by consistently maintaining the normal replacement fertility rate in perpetuity as can the whole world. Therefore, the "population decline" is not an alarming issue at all in these countries since they are not in danger of a "population collapse" at all, being capable of sustaining their population, as long as they are consistently maintaining the replacement fertility rate in perpetuity and, so can the whole world. We violate the natural laws of our planet at our peril.
Our peril? I'm on my way out best 70 years. No kids sipping on kombucha at the beach and getting all the hoes. Seems like a you problem.
US population =330,000,000
1 child per person. -1/2x growth per generation.
Gen 0: 330,000,000
Gen 1: 165,000,000
Gen 2: 82,500,000
Gen3: 41,025,000
Gen 4: 20, 625,000
Gen 5: 10,312,500
Gen 6; 5, 156, 250
Gen 7 2,578,125
Gen 8 1, 289,063
Gen 9: 644, 531
Gen 10 322,265
250 years is 10 generations
No projection is likely to apply over that length of time
@ This was less a projection than an illustration of a principle of compounding population loss. Notice how it only take 3 generations to get a population less than 100 million.
The more likely scenario is subfertility combines with a population bottleneck scenario such as a major pandemic. Smaller populations are more sensitive to such events and nore likely to be wiped out.
10 generations also is not a lot in terms of a geologic time
One of the better video’s on this topic, thank you.
About Israel it is also a historical repopulation of the Jewish people, that have suffered a decline from 18 to 12 milion during the holocaust and have yet to recover from this loss (now about 15 milion world wide)
Yeah, but now almost everyone else is dying out. Just because something bad happened to Jewish people does NOT mean that bad things need to happen to everyone else.
Population decline is fine. Sure, it's not what the economy is built around, so it will require a painful series of adjustments, but there's no inherent reason why a planet with a falling population cannot thrive for its people. Nature will be better off with fewer of us, and people will have more room and space. Eight billion is far too many people to begin with. Let humanity decrease and nature rebound.
This is good the planet is overpopulated.
Yep remove passive, inane entertainment. Poor people had plenty of kids before tv, recreational shopping, internet, streaming, world-wide recreational tourism, etc etc.
Nothing else will work so an EMP from the sun is probably our only hope.
That's not going to fix anything. Televisions existed back in the 1950s and that didn't stop the Baby Boom.
this reminds me of the tv show the expanse. it takes place in 2350 and in that timeline population was decreasing too, but when all the jobs started becoming automated, most people didnt have to work anymore and so universal incom was made and since most people didnt have anything to do or worry about money they just had babies and the population exploded.. I know this is fiction but its sci-fi and sci-fi usually end up becoming true. Its too expensive to have kids and there is not enough time to take care of them. Its really that simple. Its easy for countries to fix but they dont want to.
Some guesses on how to increase birth rates:
1. Change culture around when it’s ok and normal to have kids. Right now the mindset for many is college - job - get promoted / save for a house - get house - have kids. Have it seem fine to have kids while in college or the early stages of your career. The media can play a big role here. The suggestions below will, I think, make this more practical
2. If #1 fails, reduce the number of years on average it takes for a person to feel established enough to have kids. A big thing that can be done in deemphasizing the need for college for a lot of careers outside of STEM, medicine, and law. Many jobs use college degrees as nothing more than a candidate filtering mechanism and the results is degree inflation and tons of college debt (which also impedes having kids). Reducing the years to become established would give couples a larger fertility window
3. Legal paternally leave for all jobs if the employee has been with the company for at least a year or two. However, for office jobs, the emphasis should be on telework instead of paternity leave. Maybe 2 days a week of telework. If couples have alternating telework days, that covers most of the days kids would need to be cared for.
4. Perhaps tax breaks if a family of the live near the grandparents (who can watch the kids some days) or maybe parents can designate one or two people who are family or friends to be daytime guardians for their kids and those people get tax breaks
5. Subsidized or free daycare. Big university (with huge endowments) and large companies could be legally obligated to have a daycare site. However, I’m skeptical that this could be a major solution (a piece of the solution at best) because it seems you have the issue of either not staff or not enough daycare facilities (which results in waitlist). Kids watched by a combination of teleworking parents and family/friends seems much more sustainable to me
6. Free child birth and free/subsidized IVF
Children will be common again when they will be seen as necessary. They are not needed nowadays. We´ve lost the religious (primitive orthodoxy) and animal (poverty and lack of education or technology) factors, the only that is left is the financial stimulous. Pensions should be given to those parents who are able to have more than 3 kids, increase payments for each new kid. Women should have their retirment anticipated in 1 year for each child. Priviliages for parents with kids for job opportunities, discounts for houses and cars, telework, leaves, etc. Single people would need to pay higher taxes. Definitely not liberal. It´s unfair and costly but the issue is real. Perhaps science will be able to prolong life in 50 or 100 years, perhaps robots will be able to raise our kids.
@@johnhalatthe expected retirement part has the opposite effect, discouraging women from having kids since that would mean the cessation of their careers
add basic housing built by the state to force a drop in commercial and second hand housing pricing. Penalise keeping empty housing and commercial properties with unrealistic rents that sit vacant for years.
All of these issues can all be solved with just 1 solution: give people money.
Either raise wages or implement UBI (even if it's just for parents) and people will suddenly be able to afford children.
Having kids isn't definitely an option for most people
Yes there is!!! Give all of our excess, low quality land to families at a low cost so that they can build or have built their own homes which are large enough for a family - I suggest 1000 ft sq - the size of wartime housing. Our houses are way too big and cost too much. This only keep developers and municipalities happy. There is soooo much substandard land in North America that should be real cheap! Reign in these severance laws. In addition, we must have governments for the people which force businesses and government out of cities over one million to much smaller cities which are cheaper for the people to commute to or live in! Also, we must have governments that make it illegal for corporations to buy up any human accommodation from trailer parks to condos.
We’ve also really denigrated having families for several generations now through supercharged individualism. People see having kids as an imposition that they “cannot live their own lives” and truly “discover themselves”
Well are those who think so mistaken? If so why?
The bottom line is that raising children properly takes much time out of your day and limits your life in many ways because of additional responsibilities.
It's similar to a possibly very rewarding career only possible with a huge time investment but you have the duty to stick with it for at least two decades. And we're not talking about people being increasingly aware of what would make a good parent and not feeling up to the task.
Of course most people are happy with this choice nonetheless, it's not a bad option.
However for those who are fortunate enough life has become more living than surviving. I personally see endless of options as to what I could want my life to be like.
Once you get children, many of these options become locked forever. It's a huge decision, I understand why people postpone it indefinetly.
Of course one has to remember that not deciding for is equal to deciding against it. And one might regret this decision as well. But I feel like making the jump is harder than just staying where you are and going with the default.
I think we have this is all hype based on the fallacious idea that current trends will continue indefinitely. Just a few decades ago, we assumed that population growth will go on forever, and that it would cause a massive problem. However, market forces made having children more expensive, causing a reduction in child births. So too, I believe as the human population shrinks, it will make housing and other critical resources cheaper, and in turn, it will become more affordable to have children again. Simple economics, if nothing else, will regulate the human population.
I find it funny how hard this idea is for people to grasp, when this is literally a resource problem and economics at the end of the day is just an attempt at a quantitative description of how resources are/should be managed. Of _course_ the economics are driving this, and of _course_ the economy will naturally gravitate towards a more sustainable population size. People need to stop seeing money as a number on a screen and start seeing it as a very real, albeit sometimes inconsistent, measure of the level of resources available to humanity.
Population growth stopping is only a problem if you're ideologically partisan about maintaining a welfare state Ponzi scheme requiring infinite economic, population, and bureaucratic growth.
Whereas Peter Turchin's work and The Great Wave by David Hackett points out that golden ages like the High Medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Victorian ages were always periods of low population growth because low population growth ensured high real wages and low inflation and high property ownership due to not having to compete with infinity migrants for jobs and resources, which led to widespread prosperity, and eras of intense war and instability always follow baby booms causing high inflation and overcompetition for resources.
That's the only hope...
There's no historical evidence of any country coming back from major population decline. An absence of young people will be terrible across all areas. Especially in democracy where the elderly will outvote the young consistently.
@jgw9990 there's ample evidence for that throughout history. The most significant perhaps being the black plague in europe that killed approximately one third of the population. But there's plenty more...
The economic aspects however are real (as are voting patterns ofc). Thats going to be a major problem.
It will be a funny democracy where the old will continue to vote pensions for themselves funded by the work of the young. Funny in a way, that it will not continue to exist.
@@jgw9990 France historically had some pretty rough population declines, yet today they are doing just fine as a very wealthy country with high standards of living. Countries can absolutely weather the storm, and have done so for generations.
The world is VASTLY overpopulated.
Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be able to support a population of 8, or even 10 billion people for an indefinite period of time at a standard of living superior to the present are not only cruelly misleading but almost certainly false. Notwithstanding our current addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, humanity must recognize that there are finite physical, biological, and ecological limits to the Earth's long-term sustainable carrying capacity. And to judge by the growing concerns about maintaining the quality, stability, and/or sustainability of the Earth's atmosphere, water, forests, croplands, fisheries, and so on, there is little if any doubt that many of these limits will soon be reached, if they haven't already been surpassed. Since at some point the damage stemming from the mutually reinforcing effects of excessive human reproduction and over-consumption of resources could well become irreversible.
Absolutely malthusian argument debunked time and time again. Technological development have produce changes and will produce changes that renders that natural limits completely irrelevant.
OFC, earth have its limits we cant fit 20 billion humans on earth with our current technological development.
But humans are not a group of cows inside a cage, where limit food and space are stated. We can adjust.
0:59 "is this a new challenge that men can rise to?" Er .............................................................. men would probably be willing.
If men stayed in charge this wouldn't be happening at all this is all a result of "equality"
While mantaining Capitalism?No chance. And without capitalism which demands constant growth, depopulation is not a bad thing. The evolution process of systems is working as intended.
Capitalism is the most successfull thing the human race have ever done. If something is gonna fix this, capitalism will. All other forms do not work. Take your communism with you and go away
Wrong. Capitalism doesn't need constant growth, that's corporatist.
And the most important phrase was "if nothing changes"..... The population doomsayers remind me of Malthus & Ehrlich, and appear to have learned nothing from them about making grandiose predictions of future catastrophes.
True, but to their credit, people have also been predicting for a while that fertility rates will stop dropping but they keep going lower.
105 years after 1880 is 1985. The world population then wasn't 2 billion, it was almost 5 billion. Your own chart shows this!
45:00 the contrast between reasons to have a child nowadays vs in the before times is such a superb point it's amazing how many articles on the birth rate collapse don't mention this. You have a child at great personal cost and the economic value of that child is largely owned by the state, he/she can look forward to a lifetime of deteriorating dependancy ratios. This is such a superb point. Great piece.
Nop, some people will not have kids even if you fix all their problems, and others will have despite everything against them.
I realized very early on that there is a very SICK, DIABOLICAL, EVIL and MANIPULATIVE game being played here on this earth, and I DENY all SEXUAL, EMOTIONAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, and BIOLOGICAL needs to IMPOSE this existence on more humans onto this floating rock/prison/soul trap/loosh farm to be PLAYED with, PUNISHED or TESTED by any:
1. God's
2. Demons
3. Planets/astrology
4. Nature
5. Reincarnation
6. Energy extraction
7. Angels
8. Nature
9. Ancestors
10.Governments
11. Reptilians
12. Ghosts
13. Other humans
14. Law of attraction
15. MYSELF😊
16. Karma
17. Aliens
18. Diseases
19. Illnesses
20. Toxicity
Hopefully not. Way to many people on the road.
There is a popullation collapse.
There are scholarships and programs for securing internships for young women that don't exist for young men. Less debt increases graduation rates, internships increase hirability and kickstart careers. Women prefer men more successful than themselves, but are by the numbers more likely to be better off. Shockingly, this has coincided with a collapse in the rate at which marridges are formed. The average age of those having their first marridge in the US has risen by 8 years since 1950 (US Census Bureau) marridge rates (i.e. the odds of an unmarried 15+ year old to marry. Idk why the census used 15+ as the age threshold either.) have declined from 8% to 3% in the same time.
You should Google the term "delayed adulthood". Thats what you're talking about.
this is inaccurate:
internships for women exist because women found it harder to get one, while men did not.
Women also don't prefer men more successful than themselves. It's mostly men who want women who are less successful due to social pressure to be a caretaker and 'manly'.
Marriage also isn't relevant to having children as you can have a long-term stable relationship without marriage.
So none of this is really relevant to the discussion of population.
We are planning to colonize Mars, yet on Earth alone we are already understaffed and underpopulated.
The reason why some people want to go to Mars as a permanent home is because we are destroying our own planet, and if we stay on the current track, the planet will become unliveable before the century is out. It's a stupid idea because it will take more time and money to make Mars habitable than it will cost just to stabilize our own planet. It's just that we don't want to give up the things which will make for a habitable planet either here, or on Mars.
You find understaffing primarily in the First World. In the third world, just about everyone has a job or a hustle. The problem in the Third World is largely one of economics, in that money is too scarce for everyone to have what they need. People in the first world aren't willing to give up things they want so that people in the third world can have something they need. In part this is a problem of economics, and in part this is a problem of human behaviour.
Further, I'm not sure how the people who made this video got their statistics, but they surely don't match up with what the numbers which any legitimate body have come up with. I think that part of the problem might be that they are talking about the rate at which populations are increasing. A positive rate is still an increase in population even if it's a low increase. It would help if the increase were brought into negative numbers. Otherwise we will continue to overpopulate the planet. Climate change, and our inability to feed all the people on the planet are both indicators of overpopulation. We need to bring our population down if our species is going to last another century. If we don't take the initiative to do that ourselves, Nature will do it for us. It will be sad if we breed ourselves into extinction, but it may well be that we are not evolved sufficiently to curb our own wants and desires in order to avoid brining ourselves to extinction.
Lovely dreams those might be for some, that colonizing is not going to happen, space is a very hostile place where traveling fast is problematic and the distances are gigantic. Our best bet against going extinct is keeping earth viable for humans.
@@hillockfarm8404Earth will be for a long long time the place where most of humans live. But space can be inhabitated with big dpace stations (tech we dont have now)
So, yes, we need to take care of earth. But we should also aim to establish ourself in other planets and in space.
That isnt something impossible to do, and i think it will happen seriously in the long term (not this century)
Very interesting topic, you should do a collab with KaiserBauch, who specializes in demographics.
I think that the current legal system (to manage relationship) is an addiitonal burden on demographics, in addition to economic uncertainties, lack of relationships, etc
Let the world become emptier and quieter. That sounds wonderful.
finally someone with sense.
@@santiagomendozaariza2790 Thank you. I was bracing myself for a lot of pushback.
I actually want to move to a country that is depopulating for this exact reason. I’m tired of there always being massive traffic and pollution, long waiting times in hospitals and huge class sizes for kids in school. I want open space, clean air and small classes with better education for each child. All that is gained from a smaller population
Agree!
Exactly! @@howtoappearincompletely9739
The author forgets the biggest, and most dangerous thing to mention due to censorship, partners seek in a relationship is it “socio-economic” status, but biological similarities. What that means, the reader understands, and TH-cam will shutdown
I am not convinced the Earth needs more humans.
Yes there is its called finding a cure for aging and putting an end to the pointless cycle.
Failed capitalism. 😂 When the richest need their yachts there is no place for the paupers.
Crony capitalism isn't failed capitalism, it's corrupted capitalism. And communism is far worse, under communism you get NOTHING.
38:41 "But these are the facts"
I really like this channel, and I will continue to. But geez, this was a blunder, you can't just drop some new bold claim and not support it with arguments and data. Should at the very least elaborate with the book's data.
There is but, *certain people arent going to like it.*
Feminists. 😂
Not that simple, there are not enough fertile women to turn things around so easily. And the value of girls is low, so their chances of being born (ultrasounds to determine sex and abort girls happens plenty in some areas), or survive to adult (or more honestly fertile) age is not that great. Add problems with nutrition and healthcare around pregnancy to that and you have a long way to go to turn this around. First question though is if you should. Population wise we are in overshoot only fed through fossil fuel and destructive agriculture, shrinking to somewhere between 2 billion and 500 million people would do our only viable habitat a lot of good. All dreaming of going to the stars doesn't apply to 99.99+% of the population and that is if we even can (seriously doubtfull). So we are "stuck" here, lets please keep it a livable human habitat.
Ww3 then it will boom
I don't see world population decline as being a bad thing as evidently the person behind this video does. It may cause some hardship in the beginning, but as economies adjust, the decrease in population may slow, or even reverse climate change, among other ecological problems which our species has wrought upon this planet. As long as we don't destroy the entire ecology of the planet, there will always be people. We need fewer people, not more people, especially if we want to avoid food shortages. Also, if we want to look at the potential of land to support people, growing low calorie per acre crops such as walnuts over high density nutritional value crops is going to be exactly the wrong move.
Why do we need large populations?
we dont, all it does is help corporation and its shown that crowding leads to more violence and distrust amongst people
Large population means low wages, which in turn makes corporations and rich more richer....
@@ambition4195 and house prices going up with enriches the rich more
More population, and a younger population, means more productivity, more consumption, higher salaries, more taxes to use for welfare state, more innovation, more scientific breakthroughs, better infrastructure and more goodies.
To fund wars
This is potentially controversial, but the 'next stage' of the demographic transition will be driven by medical advancement around anti-aging. Fertility rates show no signs of coming back up again - the only way I think they could would either some kind of mass-wave of religiosity (i.e. everyone becoming Mormon, Amish or Hasidic Jewish...etc) or radical probably-dystopian medical breakthrough around ex-vivo gestation (which we are soooo far from technologically or socio-economically).
But much more likely than either of those are the development and widespread dispersal of medical treatments (mostly drugs) that dramatically slow down human senescence and are given preventatively to a majority of the population. It's really only a matter of time at this point - plenty of drug candidates and target mechanisms already exist, and anti-aging is implicated in almost all preventative medicine. It might take 20 years, it might take 50, but eventually we'll get to the point where humans can live hundreds of years, with chronic illness and infectious disease removed as causes of death. People will still die eventually, just at a more random interval from things like violence, accidents, mental health or natural disasters.
I think people think this outcome is a lot more sci-fi than it actually is, especially in the context of massive advances in recent years around things like gene sequencing and AI to solve protein structures. It's waiting more on funding and long-term studies than it is scientific feasibility.
My bets are on a manhattan project for anti aging
Hope this is the solution. I don’t want to get old and decrepit, that sounds like hell on earth. Anti aging technology is the future
Mormon, amish, or hasidic Jews? Bro everyone about to be mulism. I'm sorry the west will fall.
This is only a problem for neoliberal capitalism
Do remember that 2030 is the first year that the average human male will be at best ,subfertile. This is according to scientists researching human fertility. The lack of interest reminds me of the response to the idea of climate change.First societal infertility, then biological infertility. What could go wrong?
These ideas will not work. In nations where there is equal pay and equal access to education they see no change in their fertility rate. It is the lack of traditional family values which is the cause for the low fertility rates. In the Scandinavian nations two children per woman is considered a lot and there women often wait until they are 30 to even consider having children. It turns out that when people are free to make their own decisions they just do not want a lot of kids.
- Solution: Societies need to start valuing females' social status by the number of kids they have. Do that and a lot of women will become very motivated to having a lot of kids.
Feminism has caused this.
Well, there's also a pragmatic function of having children too. Back in the day, when most people were farmers, children were relatively "free labor" compared to the expense of hiring farm-hands. And child mortality was much higher too, so you tended to have a lot of them. Also no much entertainment to keep people occupied, so sex was one of the few "fun" activities to do with free time, and there's virtually no form of contraceptives, aside from the ol' pull-out method.
With industrialization, people working/living in cities and sub-urban locations, the expenses of children quickly outweighed the productivity benefits, so people had less of them.
Imagine a future where population is dramatically lower, yet individual productivity is higher due to technology and automation. People of the future may live much better lives than we do as a result of this demographic change. Just look at the world. It’s too crowded as it is, and we are definitely damaging the ecology with these huge number of people we have.
amazing report! one of your best ones so far :) thank you.
My dad had 7 children, I pray for 8.
Why? It's a hassle to take care of just three. You're a taking on a life-long commitment.
Prayer isn’t how babies are made.
@@The88Cheat what then? Kegels??
Commitment?!?! OH NO@@petterbirgersson4489
@@Omer1996E.C Storks, duh.
I think the nature of the financial "incentives" isn't enough. People want stability and self sufficiency. That means higher wages over cash up front. That means more collective bargaining over tax breaks. We to offer companies tax breaks based on how many salaried positions with benefits and severely punish union busting. The gig economy is killing us
The world's population was unnaturaly high. It makes sense it will start dropping.
And then it will collapse.
@ I don’t see why it would
@@filippos13 You don't need a why, you will live enough to see it.
@@everything373-z3b There will be no collapse... people don't just die all at once, stop the sensationalisation! The population decline will usher in a new era of sustainable economic reformation (utopia).
That was excellent! Thank you for your work! 👍
Nature will not miss us 😉
Soon, humanity will die, drowning in electric dreams.
This depopulation event always occurs as society industrializes. We can survive with fewer people that can reach the planets carrying capacity while raising productivity with artificial intelligence assisting the aging population. It could be a win-win, protecting the natural habitats while supporting a high quality of life.
Once the third world industrializes and the people there are more educated and start demanding more pay and better conditions, then the first world regains it's advantages in production capabilities due to technology, and likely becomes less friendly to oligarchic billionaires.
I've watched this story of demographic collapse for years now and watched people analyse and study it to work out why ...but ... It seems to me people miss the most obvious things of all. The religious whether they be orthodox Jews or traditional catholics , the Amish, or those that follow the Taliban in Afghanistan have tons of kids. The reasons are very simple, people like having sex and will try create conditions in which that is more likely than not in different ways. Lots of our ancestors actually didn't think a whole lot about having Children, those just showed up inevitably after sex and people just accepted it like the sky over their heads. Then came contraception, abortion and easy divorce ( steady on , I'm not making a religious argument here anyone, just pointing out the facts ) and suddenly having sex didn't necessarily mean babies and long relationships could end so obviously the birth rates plummeted. I grew up in a country in which contraceptive, abortion and divorce were illegal and babies were everywhere. Now we hay those things and the birthrate is below replacement for some time. You want kids .... Simple ban those things and people will still want sex and kids will follow. Maybe that not what people want but it should at least be mentioned because without it , only the religious will enherit the earth ( and they will prohibit them anyway when they are the majority ) just saying 🤔...
So you think muslims follow the taliban?😂
I don't know what you were drinking when you wrote that last line. Nice yapping
I think that will happen once the religious take over since they’re the only ones having children right now. As time marches on you will see a rightward shift in national politics as secular voters will be increasingly outnumbered by religious voters. This process is taking place in Israel and is beginning in the United States
The problem is that people will still be smart enough to abandon religions :))
@mooode841 no I said "those that follow the Taliban " I never mentioned Muslim, but the inference s that some Muslims obviously do follow them. I'm careful with what I say
@spasik_m not really , it just means those that do will become a smaller and smaller part of the remaining population. The data is in, most people from such communities don't leave ( some do but a minority ) and they are becoming a larger part of humanity ever year
AI robots will make the existence of humans superfluous.
Reddit logic.
@wowjack8944 AI girlfriends are just a passing fancy, right?
Yeah, maybe in two hundreds years, the problem is now.
@everything373-z3b More like ten years
@@Chuck_Hooksno one believes in it.
We would have had at the very least 2 more kids if it wasn’t for living wages and how expensive everything is now. Nobody just wants to have kids and have to struggle with the lack financial stability for vacation experiences and additional school programs. We decided to stop and make the best of the family we have. It’s unfortunate for all those couples who decided to not join parenthood simply because of the inability to live comfortably.
The problem is far more cultural than economic
This is the right take. Economic incentives do actually help, but not enough on their own. There is a lot of things that need to work together, but most importantly is the cultural institutions.
What realistic cultural changes do you propose then?
your're getting there, but not quite...ideological, not cultural.
I don't see any issue with population decline. The benefits far outweigh the cons.