Is the World’s Demographic Crisis Getting Worse?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2023
- Sign up to Brilliant (the first 200 sign ups get 20% off an annual premium subscription): brilliant.org/tldrglobal/
The world population continues to grow and shows no signs of stopping for at least a few more decades. But despite this, there has been a worrying trend of falling birth rates and shrinking populations worldwide, and countries such as China and Japan are already experiencing significant declines. In this video, we analyse the trends behind the decline, delve into potential solutions, and their implications for the future.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
1 - www.un.org/development/desa/p...
2 - edition.cnn.com/2023/01/16/ec...
3 - www.euronews.com/2023/01/17/t...
4 - www.reuters.com/world/asia-pa...
5 - www.un.org/en/global-issues/p...
6 - www.economist.com/leaders/202...
7 - www.un.org/en/global-issues/p...
8 - www.economist.com/middle-east...
8 - www.economist.com/leaders/202...
9 - www.unfpa.org/swp2023/too-few
10 - www.euronews.com/2023/01/17/t...
11 - www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/gl...
12 - www.economist.com/leaders/202...
13 - www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
14 - www.ft.com/content/7a558711-c...
You know, the fact that people are worried of both overpopulation and a declining population is, in my opinion, very wierd
Overpopulation is a myth though
Welcome to economics!
As a rule, I think a reduction in population is something everyone wants to prevent overconsumption of our resources. People however do not want it happening in their backyard.
The overpopulation scare and craze that started in the 60s or so simply ended up being wrong i think. Seems we've underestimated the effects that urbanization, the pill and bringing women into the workforce would have on birthrates and people largely just haven't recalibrated yet.
its the decline in youth, which poses a problem to most pension-systems. retirement age was once not far from life expectancy. now life expectancy in developped countries is about 20 years more. To me the bigger contradiction is having an ongoing automatisation in the economy, which supposedly threatens jobs, and having said demographic crisis of to few people to work.
South Korea's birth rate is 0.78? Who'd figure requiring your children to go to school so early, force them to study at home till 1am at night, sleep on average 4-5 hours and make their entire lives a competition "or else..." would result in stress levels so high they wouldn't wish the same for their children? Who'd figure...
0.78 on a national level but in Seoul area its 0.58
Asia essentially
That's not the reason. US has more than 50 million as foreign born population, look at Western Europe filled with Immigrants. Texas, the so called golden state of the US has more than 45% Latinas of its population.
Its more a migration thing Japan, Korea and China have low birth rates cause in their eyes they dont want too sacrifice national security and Cultural identity for Economic Growth.
@@azumishimizu1880but who would migrate to those parts anyway, and why, and it certainly seems those 3 nations don't like each other particularly, ie they don't miigrate much among themselves.
The birth rate for Hong Kong is negative
More died than were born
One factor I don't hear discussed much is that even if a woman has, say, 3 children to meet replacement rate, generations are getting further apart with people starting families in their 30s instead of 20s. This means instead of each family making up 2 generations of working age (one in their early 20's & one in their late 40's/early 50's) to support the elderly population at a given time, it is only one generation supporting both the children who aren't old enough to work _and_ the elderly
why would 10 years of difference mean that, instead of just meaning people at 50 having kids of 20 years of age instead of people at 40 having such kids?
you know, seeing young parents, i would rather let them wait 10 more years, seems they're doing a better job when they're not teens.
should be about quality, not just numbers, right?
Harry Dent has commented on this in that it's going to cause massive economic issues, specifically discretionary spending.
Boomers (who had kids in their 20s) saw their kids generally move out when the boomers were in their 40s. This gave them about 10 years of peak spending before people start saving for retirement in their mid 50s.
Having kids in your 30s means your kids won't move out until you're in your 50s, meaning very little time for empty-nesting before cutting back leading up to retirement.
This is a very good point. It'll keep on being these 30 years per generation in the modern world too
Thats a good insight
@@ivok984665 is retirement age. 1 generation has kids at 20, their kids have generation 2 at 20, their kids have generation 3 at 20. Now Gen 1 retires and has Gen 2 in their 40s and Gen 3 in their 20s to look after them. What we’ve done is say Gen 1 has kids at 20, Gen 2 has kids at 30, Gen 3 has kids at 30, now there are only 1 generation that is able to take care of the 60 year olds for like a decade or two
When real wages have been going backward for decades, owning your own home (or even having housing security) is out of reach for most and everyone getting shoved into cities that discourage people from having children, is it any wonder we aren't having kids anymore?
Add to it the fun fact that since banks only need to provide liquidity on 10% of their assets they can lend out 10x more money than they have...
There's about 30x more debt than actual money on the entire planet to repay it. Meaning debt has essentially become the same type of asset as money. We started using debt as money, so the more debt we create, the more the economy grows, but also the value of that debt is diluted (and so is the value of our "money" that is essentially just become debt)
In short - Inflation.
@@shapelessed debt is good though it always was it means we have more money to work with as a society, the problem is with stuff like us student debt that is basically forced onto you to be able to get a good job and then crushes the live out of you. The housing market will also crash more and more with time as old people die and you can buy your own house again and rent will fall with time, at least I read more Ethan enough predictions and it kinda makes sense.
@@shapelessedin short. Capitalism is the problem
Most people would like to have kids though... governments think the only thing that will boost fertility rates is childcare when in reality there are far better things they could do
100% this is the main problem.
The baby boom ocurred because it was afordable to have kids. People didn't cared if they had kids, in fact, it was mostly unplaned, but the reason why there wasn't much of a problem is exactly because of this, it was afordable to do it.
People have abortions, even if they "eventually" want a child, because they cannot afford it at the moment. In fact, financial reasons is one of the biggests factors for an abortion.
But no, it must be, like bureaucrats who created the "fertility policies" here in japan say, because "young people are no longer interested in sex"...
After graduating high school, I started out full-time at Amazon. I worked all the overtime that was offered to me. I didn't even qualify for a studio bedroom apartment lmao. I'm not saying things can't get better on an individual level, but the average kid is NOT entering this world with the same way their parents or grandparents had when they graduated high school. You can get into the weeds of "Oh you just gotta do 'x' right, 'y' better'" but it's no coincidence men en masse are choosing not to date and women not to have children. The average worker has less buying power and a lower standard of living. If you want a big-picture take on this, wealth disparity is as high as it's been since the Gilded Age, and It's only going to get worse as the population increases. This means less available housing for the low-paid but essential workforce. We will have to suffer the consequences of forcing more people onto the streets. Who the fuck wants to bring kids into this?
The average person's entire income these days goes in and out on just monthly living expenses. Saving money is a massive burden, buying a home is a pipe dream, and raising a child would be horrifyingly irresponsible.
That's just the dystopian future we've found ourselves in... And it doesn't look to be going anywhere in any of our life times.
Both of you are completely correct.
I will never be able to afford a home, anything I could do in my area just doesn't make enough money, and with food being more expensive that makes it even more difficult.
No way in hell i'm ever having kids especially with all the shit that got worse after my own childhood.
Suggest to you save 10000
Deposits is some indian bank got 600 $ as monthly intrest
dollar come to Himalayas live
Comfortably
If you want to live city you got
200 $ a maid
That cook food
Wash cloths and clean all stuff
If you want restaurant food
Try 10 mins delivery of all stuff
Data is cheap around 10$
Grocery all other stuff 100$
Complete health insurance
90 $ month
Transport don't going to around 150$
For 1500 km per month
5g or lan all around country
Still you save
50$
If I am lying check it out
Same here, I'm just lucky to be the only grandchild. But that's still decades away, so I'm not going anywhere soon.
Utter Utter Utter nonsense. This generation has the fruits of the entire 20th Century of technological progress. The car you drive is ten times better than the one your parents had 30 years ago. The electronics you have in your home, your mobile phone - portable computer really - was unimaginable in 1980. There is no one filing bits of paper for a living, no one is employed as a secretary, there is no one connecting phone calls in the office with a plug-board telephone exchange. All these jobs no longer need people to do them and the savings have manifested themselves as huge increases in production efficiency and wealth creation. Today we enjoy a lifestyle with out robot slaves (Cars, highways, aircraft, washing machines, dishwashers, air-conditioning and heating systems) that a king didn't enjoy a couple of hundred years ago. BUT we all try to outbid eachother to get the home in the place we want..... there are plenty of cheap homes in places further away than you want to travel from each day - but they are there it's just that you want to be in place A at price B.... well, tough.
I love how “I will die in the gutter if I have to support a child financially” is treated as a “fertility” problem.
Exactly.
As someone who grew up in the Welfare State (For non-americans that means my family was taken care of by the government because my mother/legal guardian was disabled) I applaud anything and everything we can do to dissuade people who aren't well off financially from having children. If you can't afford children, if you can't afford to buy them a new car, pay their college outright, and a new home after they graduate; please do not have kids.
I'm not anti-poor or middle class, I've finally made my way up to middle class and am finally comfortable but nowhere near able to do the things I listed above. However millions of Americans can, a minority for sure but.. Why are you going to bring someone into this world if you can't actually provide a good life for them? More to my point why would you bring someone into the world knowing there's not enough resources, room and the environment is collapsing?
We can address man made climate change by slashing our population (ethically) back down to 100M and going carbon negative in the process. However with 8, eventually ten billion people the issue will get worse. The financial disparity will get worse. Resource wars will get worse.
I think (but know it'll never happen) we as a species should come together and based off the amount of usable land we have we all agree to slash our populations through adults CHOOSING to reduce the number of children they have. Obviously this is an insane pipe dream if we had it in us as a species to be responsible without needing moronic heavy handed government policy's we'd have already done so. So basically, we're fucked and I see this thing you see as a problem as our best solution to save the planet and species.
I'm doing my part by not reproducing. I might adopt if I get financially secure enough but I'll never bring someone into this hell hole ans shit show.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket but in the current landscape, nobody lower class can afford to have children.
How exactly is slashing the population going to help when the richest 1% already more than undo the combined efforts of the rest of the population because dumping waste in a river is cheaper or because they want to visit their soul-mate and that necessitates a private jet flight.
More than 50% of the population not being able to afford kids is not a magic bullet for climate change when the lowest earning people are having such minimal impacts.
It's not saying people are "unfertile" like genetically or something.
If they were smart they would not have a child then.
I bang on about this all the time - the issue isn't that the population is declining, the issue is that population in going to decline _really_ _reeeeeallly_ fast, especially in some parts of the world, in a way that's completely unprecedented in human history.
Countries are going to see their populations halve in a century, and _wildly_ out of balance population pyramids - if you had the same declines over 500 years, a lot fewer issues would be created - you wouldn't have the same generational imbalances and society and infrastructure would have time to adjust. Focusing on 'Population Decline' as opposed to 'Rapid Population Decline' or 'Population Crash' misses the issue. Fewer people are good - fewer people suddenly are bad.
Migration also won't save countries forever. The global pool of ideal migrators (people in their 20s) is shrinking as well, at the same time more countries are becoming reliant on migration. Soon, we'll have a major issue of developed countries fighting to get migrants _in_ as opposed to keeping migrants _out_ , and some countries having to deal with the double-whammy of below-replacement fertility _and_ net emigration.
Here in Brazil we already face two problems: we are a country with a rapidly declining birth rate, but we do not have the capacity to attract immigrants, because we are still a relatively poor country. There are even immigrants, but they do not replace emigration. The last sense now showed a very strong slowdown in population growth, which indicates that the peak will be in this decade, around 215 million. Then it will start to decline.
Fewer people?period bad
@@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031 We are fucked. The social security was not designed to support this kind of demographic, Brazilians are extremely addicted to populism, so to change social programs is the same as political suicide. Brazil is doomed to slowly die without ever realizing its potential.
Sue the Catholic Church for Trillions THEN go for Space Colonization ASAP!!!
@@ladymorwendaebrethil-feani4031 Yeah, I suspect there's also going to be a nasty feedback loop in some middle-income countries, where a declining/aging population harms the economy, which leads more young people to emigrate, which harms the economy further, leading more people to migrate.
At a global scale, migration also probably makes population decline happen faster, because migrants tend to have fewer children in destination countries than they would've done at home.
Breaking out of that is going to be difficult, especially given the way middle-income countries have gotten rich in the past has been to relay on a large, young labour force. I imagine countries are going to start trying to enforce emigration controls, and it'll become an international relations issue.
As someone whos starting their career as a gardener, an ageing population is music to my ears.
This guy gets it Old People = Cash Registers
@@southcoastinventors6583 Haha I adore my clients and they often tell me to charge more! But yeah a steady reliable income stream from a job you love is pretty great :) Free exercise is a bonus too.
Don't tell everyone 😂
funeral directors, wheelchair makers too. :-)
yeah, but good luck finding (good) employees in the future. Workers will probably be paid very good because of the massive worker shortages and high demands. In Germany a lot of business are already struggling to find employees, nobody wants to do manual labour. This problem and other factors will 10x the shortages.
I’m a Canadian who’s worked full-time at a truss-building plant busting my butt to make $600 a week after taxes…
Only to face the reality that rent and the necessary car costs to get to work require the vast majority of my monthly pay check…
Average rent for a one bedroom in Ontario is $1500.
Average monthly cost of a car is $500.
That leaves $400 aside for food, utilities, and savings…
Utilities takes up $200-300 no problem.
So… $100-200 for food and savings…?
So working full-time at a truss-building factory makes me working poor and makes me require food stamps…?!
No freaking way I’m starting a family or risking getting anyone pregnant!
It's far too expensive to have kids these days, so lots of us have just decided not to.
Why do poor people have more children?
@@saint-0429Because for poor people extra hands means extra manpower to leverage. A rich person is expected to take care of their kid, give them education and hobbies, support them until they go through university and then get a job. A poor person just needs to keep the kid alive long enough for them to become extra hands that can do chores, tasks, sometimes outright work disguised as not work or even beg. Kids always are better beggars than adults.
@@goncalocarneiro3043 That and also I think that rich people have also more children than middle class. I think most people are middle class, and you just work a lot and don't have time and money or energy to have many kids these days.
@@saint-0429less access to education = less sexual education = more children one cannot afford
Com'on, you're asking a question that have been answered a billion times over
We’ll it’s a good bloody job us poor folks are pushing out the babies
A lot of young people avoid starting a family because of the massive cost. So much of the money that would have gone to young people that would be starting families now was soaked up byu conglomerates and older generations refusing to pass on the economic benefits to those younger than themselves. If you want to up fertility rates, start by removing cost barriers.
Cost and stress
Naw... Poor people already have more kids so go figure... I say if you gave people more money they'd have even less kids. Kids don't cost nearly as much as people say with the exception of daycare and college, but only if you're in the US.
That isnt an excuse for the people of Arabia, Israel and Oman. Wealthy countries with high birthrares
@@mysterioanonymous3206do you hear yourself ?
@@JC-ld2uothose are exceptions, not the rule
Young people should use this as leverage to get as much out of their governments as they can.
"Oh you want me to have children? Make it worth my while."
Europeans and White Americans did this and guess what happened, the goverment started to import millions of cheap workers from Africa and Asia that dont complain
Yup, they want more human souls to keep the grind spinning, but they won't put money on it
Capitalist economies are literally asking for free lunch
In the Uk they do well off the government if out of work you’ll get child tax credits & child benefit & a council house rent free
im not young anymore but i very much agree with this
Based as hell.
Even India's population is on the brink of a decline. India's fertility rate is already near replacement level and it is expected to decrease further.
it won't decline for a long time.
The US hit that point in 1974 and hovered around replacement from the late 1980s to 2010. We still had population growth. Both natural and 50 million immigrants. But the population went from 180 mil to 280 mil by just replacing ourselves for 3 generations post boomers. India will have a long time of growth unless the birthrate drops SHARPLY
It's actually 1.9 already & some states have 1.1 & then have introduced policy to increase fertility rate.
@@strugglinggamerzone3399 the poorer states will have a higher birthrate since most of rural india is still agriculture based....hence more kids = more farmhands. On the flipside, population in metropolitan cities is decreasing due to high costs and lack of high paying jobs
thank god, its overpopulated as hell.
Living in the UK, for me, the biggest problem preventing me from having a child is real estate.
housing needs to be deregulated, also ban landlords from banning pets (except maybe actually dangerous ones) and deregulate the amount of people per square foot. Also we really need to stop giving old people that arent contributing anything to the economy more money
I have mixed feelings about having children (currently in my mind 30s).. but if I imagine a world where I had housing security, and adequate financial and social help to raise a child-as well as a secure partnership then most of my concern subsides and it sounds like a nice idea..but that is not the world we live in! 😅
I honestly think having a child unless you are VERY well off and have good family support in the western world is a bit bonkers.
If you want people to want to have children you need to look at how we treat being a parent in society, and how the burden relies so heavily on women. Please don't imagine that being in a relationship now guarantees the potential mother future security, because that's just not true. This is as much a social issue as an economic one.
@@erint5373to be fair it’s women’s own fault if they divorce their husband and get rid of their financial security. Most divorces are frivolous crap. Look at gay and lesbian divorce rates, lesbians it’s 1/3 of straight women’s divorce rates, and gay men are half the lesbian divorce rate. Most divorces are straight womens faults 🤷♂️. If the men, and the lesbians can get it together I’m sure the straight women can learn from them how to make a relationship functional instead of starting a divorce filing immediately
@neocortex8198 i see houses with 3 or 4 bedrooms to rent and with a decent backyard.
"No children, no pets"
This is ridiculous. The attrocious zoning laws, NIMBYism are causing a lack of competition on the housing markets and landlords feel entitled to insane conditions.
@@LucasFernandez-fk8se To be fair to women, kids (both having and raising them) is a disproportionate burden on women than on men. Unless that burden becomes more equitable within marriages, I suppose we'll continue to see decline in marriage and childbirth. In the meantime, women increasingly focus on their careers and/or forego motherhood so that financial security doesn't have to come from men if/when they do have kids.
That's cute.
When the CEOs are running out of workers, they start to panic.
CEOs are the ones that have to worry the least. They can just move their companies to places where workers are abundant (and cheaper). The ones who have to worry are the people that will have an unsustainable social security system in the future.
@@filipe5722with the worldwide population decline workforce will be getting more and more expensive even in the poor countries.
That’s why our overlords want us to have more kids - when they have a lot of desperate potential workers, they can exploit them for cheap. This is literally why China and India hold most of the manufacturing and productions.
@@kjkj4725 Lol. By that time, they will have machines to serve them. The very rich have zero reasons to be worried about lack of manpower. It's the regular people who depend on the existant social system or the owners of small companies that suffer and will heavily suffer with the decreasing demographics.
@@kjkj4725 I'm glad to see more see this sham they've been telling us for decades. Perpetuated by these parasites getting rich off this pyramid scheme. They need more cheap workers and consumers to live off of.
@@filipe5722 In fact, they're the ones encouraging a smaller birth rate. Look no further then Bill Gates.
Do me a favour.
My entire life overpopulation and the population essentially cannibalising itself was drummed into me over and over and over.
Now you want me to care their won’t be enough?
I don’t care.
Policies to encourage having children don't work because a lot of the reason people are reluctant to have kids these days are tied to existing socioeconomic conditions that are large and complex beyond the capability of any government to solve
Nope there not it's just that government has become part of the problem.
ban retirement for anyone with under 3 kids RETROACTIVELY
implement student, enterprise and home loan forgiveness per child, ideally 50k but id even do 100k or even 200k if things look bleak enough.
ban retirement plans both public and private, require the profits that would of went to investment payouts for retirees to go to wages instead. perhaps with a 50-75% tax on investment earnings for anyone without a job.
make firing or discriminating against someone for taking care of their kids instead of working when they have to an executable offense
birth rates will skyrocket
One thing that can help,,,,,,, is stop the excessive taxation.
@@johnhazlett3711on the young, childless retiree taxes must be hiked
So much of our financial structure is premised on an infinite ability to grow, and that just fundamentally isn't possible. We should be reworking financial systems to prioritize stability, but I'm sure that won't happen without some sort of climate or population catastrophe.
Exactly right, & it isn't even being talked about, let alone addressed. Infinite growth on a finite planet will not end well. We are being reckless & cruel for future generation/ s in not addressing it.
Sounds like quitter talk to me when we have robots and life extension
Yes. Unfortunately its looking like it will take something catastrophic to force the change.
@@southcoastinventors6583 "when" is doing the heavy lifting in that statement lol
+
I’m 32 and live in southern europe. Most of my colleagues/friends struggle with paying rent and make ends meet.
Most people on their 30s don’t seem have the available income to have one child (nevermind 2 or 3).
Perhaps we should have economic model aiming prosperity and not never-ending economic growth, accept declining fertility rates as a reality and implement economic policies to take advantage of that fact, and level the immediate economic disadvantages by allowing increased immigration rates
Let it drop faster please
Yes!
I’m a woman in my late twenties, earn above average in my country for my age, but I live with my parents because I can’t afford a home. Many others exactly like me in my country. Why would we have children? I remember being a teenager and looking at houses for fun. The prices for a nice two bedroom apartment at the time were what I would have to pay for a private parking spot now. Our wages did not increase though
Just sit back and enjoy the decline i say
What country ?
Bad news for economic growth.
Good news for:
Water supply/rivers/seas
Forests/wild spaces
Bird life
Wild mammals
Insects
All aquatic life
If we go back to 1960-70s level populations, is that so bad? Consumption will be far less of a threat to all other species
We do next to nothing to promote the family, encourage people to put careers above relationships and lie to women about their future fertility, happiness, mental health and wellbeing.
A toxic combination.
There are people that WANT to have families but simply can not afford another mouth to feed
It shouldn't take two adults with high education working two jobs each to barely scrape by
As long as society continues to fail young people, young people will not raise birth rates
It be that simple
@@matheussanthiago9685 I understand the sentiment behind that, there's obviously something to it but I think it's a common fallacy to say that is the main reason. Truth is, people far poorer than us have been having kids for centuries.
What's changed in the main are the things I listed.
@@aituk "Truth is, people far poorer than us have been having kids for centuries."
Because they saw them as disposable child labour farm hands and did not give a shit about their life quality. What's changed is you actually love your kids enough for them to have a good quality of life
@@harsh3948 That's just not true, go back to just my grandparents or parents generation and they had more kids with no thought of labour or farms.
They also had less choice in the amount they had and more diseases like polio.
Falling birth rates aren't really a problem, the problem is an economic system that relies on infinite growth faced with a declining population. As resources are becoming more scarce indicated by higher prices & living cost but living standards are declining at the same time, the pressure to have less children is what naturally follows
There you go. But the globalists are still pushing the agenda, but because the rich want to live off of this pyramid scheme. More cheap workers and consumers! The masses don't get it. Fewer workers means higher wages!
Sensible countries require everyone to pay for their own retirement. This younger generation must pay older is rubbish. We pay for ourselves now.
If governments still want folks to have more babies, then pay for it. Subsidize it. 3% of each kids adult taxes goes directly to their parents. problem fixed! Don't want to pay for it? Then be quiet.
This depends on what aspects of society you want. You can't have retired people in a shrinking economy for example, every who can work, must work. You also need to figure out a way to motivate the more able to work to their ability if you are not going to compensate them.
Falling birthrates are a problem when you think longer than 2 seconds about it. With fewer young people and more old people, the young will be taxed more to keep the old ones alive. This leads to young people not being able to afford children themselves which is a silent but vicious circle.
@@sebastiangruenfeld141 When old people retire, there should be enough young people to replace them and keep the economy running. Yet people are freaking out about the proliferation of AI taking people's jobs when it might be key to addressing this problem at hand
@@-o-6100 You know, I keep on hearing how automation will actually create more jobs not less, but I just gotta wonder how. What exactly are the jobs they create?
Like, if I were to try to look up these hypothetical jobs on a Job board like LinkedIn, what would the job title be? What education would I need to get to be qualified for such a job? Who's gonna pay for that education?
Why would I want children when I have all this delicious microplastics.
Lmao
Interesting Fact: Much of the microplastic comes from car tires, which generate microplastics as they wear out
Cos children are amazing in spite of microplastics.
I'm having my 4th kid I'm doing my part.
Dr. Shanna Swan addresses several key environmental issues impacting significantly on global fertility.
@@MyAnimeTLand fishing nets
Like 90% or something of maritime plastic pollution is solely from fishing nets
I think the key will be even more automation and a better distribution of the product of said automations so not just the top 1% benefit.
You mean so the top 1% can cut costs for greater benefits to themselves right
Automation to replace millions of jobs seems like a pipe dream. That's decades away
You are wrong, especially the poor are profiting from more automation today. But it's the global poor that are profiting. Look at China, look at India.
Globally, you are probably part of the top 1 %.
@@baronvonjo1929 population decline is also decades away so it should be fine
There is a lot of research on health extension and robotic aid or augmentation for the elderly in both Japan and China. GDP may fall but the quality of life in most developed countries would be stable. Robots, AI and automation will replace most menial and mundane jobs, it is already happening. Unemployment of youths in China is already climbing.
I studied demograhpy for like 3 years, if I learned one thing it's that messing with birth rates is a really bad idea. Declining birth rates aren't a bad thing per say and instead of artificially bumping them up (or down) it's better to focus on outside factors like cost of living, happiness, housing expenses etc. Japan and Korea might have horrible birth rates but there is no country quite as f*cked as China is due to their 4-2-1 family structure, a result of one child policy....
US has been declining for decades. Immigrants are the only thing that keeps us afloat. China in 100 years will still be China. USA will be ?
The gender gap as well
Nah, Korea is even more fucked than China. The one child policy was horrible but their fertility rate has consistently been higher than that of Japan or Korea and it never went below one unlike Korea. In the 80s when the one child policy was already in place the average was 2.5 kids and after that it was 1.5 until 2020 when it dropped due to the lockdown. So the average family is closer to 4-3-2 than 4-2-1, which is still bad but better than Korea.
Though at least Korea and Japan have a better chance of fixing their problems through migration.
But China is a totalitarian state. Nazi Germany basically made their women baby making machines. I wouldn't be surprised if China tried something that onerous.
Erm, no.
South Korea's birth rate is lower than China's. Their demographic situation is worse than China's and they had no one child policy.
You didn't study demography for 3 years did you 😂
"Drink Beer, have sex, build aircraft carriers" - Shinzo Abe
Aside from the number of babies being born, there's also a rapid decline in men's fertility rates. Watching Dr. Shaw on Tom Bilyeu's channel, she pretty much points the finger at plasticisers used in pretty much anything and everything and the correlation between plastic particles in the human body and the decline in fertility health.
There is also an interesting tidbit that the more sex a man has, the higher his levels of testosterone reach.
But more and more young men are straight up not having any sex whatsoever.
Now is this because they just not getting access to sex or is this because they have low testosterone in the first place itself, so they feel even less urge to have sex?
Its gonna get very interesting in the coming decades
@@savioblanc They prefer w anking to their screens instead of having real relationships.
Who can blame them? It is probably way easier to not look for a relationship.
@@user-od5fh3gn4d true but look at it from their viewpoint - it's the easier, cheaper and quite frankly, the safer option to do that. The men are being logical with their decision.
@@savioblanc I don't think it's necessarily "safer", I think excessive reliance on screens for emotional support of any type contributes to mental illness over time, interpersonal problems, and long term health issues. This goes for anyone.
If one thinks of this as a non-issue, don't blame women for refusing to have relationships with men and refusing to have children. No one wants to have a relationship with someone who is only in love with their screen. No one wants to be replaced with a robot. A human being can't compete with tech if the other individual can only get sexual satisfaction FROM tech. Even p0rn addicted men who HAVE children and partners will hide in their bathrooms for hours masturbating to p0rn. So, even if they DO have a human being available-- whether for intimacy or social interaction-- they'll often choose their screens.
People had children even after the bubonic plague
People do not want to start families
Nothing more
life sucks everywhere so people wont bring others into this mess.
Also, because bringing more people into this mess will make their lives suck even more - so it makes no sense to multiply their own misery.
3 reasons.
1) Increase in cost of living in general. 50k in London will just about get you a 1 bedroom flat rent. 50% of your salary will go to rent if your single.
2) Discrimination against single people of all races and gender in general.
3) More disempowering of men (the demographic that is always the most depressed and abused by not even a close margin). Men lose confidence in themselves, thus they're less likely to approach women.
You have to solve all 3 at the same time to fix this issue.
All true, specially the third.
oh no we're running out of slaves :(
There is a third option how about we tax our parasite class more (aka all of those Billionairs that just sit on their money)
They have enough money to keep us and especially the elderly feed
Taxing the billionaires doesn't make the economy more productive which is the chief problem of an aging population.
They will just move elsewhere.
@@earthone4939 You technically make the economy more productive when you reduce consumption when populations fall. Although, the elderly population may increase consumption because they will no longer be productive. So, basically, society failed to consider the long-term trends that would fundamentally reduce productivity, and it will not be reversed for quite some time. Most likely until the elderly population dies out.
@@Grason20 Then we need everywhere to tax them so there is nowhere for them to escape.
@@evilds3261 but there’s still less to go around for everyone. Taxing billionaires will make sure less goes to the super rich but I don’t think it’s enough to push back on the higher strain on the workforce.
_No-one's gonna argue that the solution to an aging population is to reduce life expectancy_
*Tories:* Hold my glass of port...
Some people are full of irrational hate. All parties wasted NI contributions instead of investing them. Hint in one country it is common for people to have pensions higher than their final salary. Hint. Companies are obliged to provide mixed contributory and non contributory pension schemes. Employees receive good low tax or no tax incentives to save for themselves. Finally the Government invests the equivalent of NI. Result are very comfortable pensioners. This is by UK standards quite a conservative country.
Tories? It's the social democracies of the world that supply euthanasia services buddy. Try to think through your bigotry.
Honestly, this is a self-regulating system.
If the population grows too small - those who are left will enjoy massive advantages and will as a result breed more.
If it grows too large, then you get high housing prices, high interest rates on credits, low salaries (because there are 5 guys dreaming to get your job), unemployment, and in the worst case scenario even wars. This discourages people from making babies and brings the population down.
It will never go to 0 because at some point there is more resources than demand, living becomes cheap, and people start breeding again in the age of surplus.
You don't really want that. Say your fertility drops bellow 2.1, then the young population has to work extra hard to sustain the ever aging population. This could lead to social unrest and even to societal collapse before things balance out.
It would be best if we increased automation. Even in China, the country is too over qualified for manual labor, this is the same in the EU, US, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea, and will soon become the reality in India and other countries.
High housing prices might as well result from financial sector and property developer sector policies, as well as absence of regulation by the state. Do we know of any instance of reversing the decline just through economy? Israel succeeded, but they also do have some ideological factors in their society. Which makes the future less then ideal, if the rest of the world starts emulating them.
@@user-uf4rx5ih3vhe literally mentioned war... Did you read his comment
@@user-uf4rx5ih3v Paying pensions from working population taxes is not the only possible solution.
It does not necessarily need to com3 at the expense of working young population.
Also, you forget that in 50 years most jobs we have today will be made obsolete by robots and AI. And if you think that's not true - just look back at the last 30 years and realize how many jobs were already removed.
This actually a far worse brewing crisis that humanity has to face. Our goods-for-money-for-work economy simply can't deal with the soon coming world of there being only enough jobs in the world for 30% of Earth population. Then we'll all need pensions, not just old people. Something tells me that many Capitalism-driven countries will struggle with the idea of reducing work hours to 12h weeks or just giving away resources through UBI.
The arrogance of humankind.....we should go extinct. Why is it when we discuss the population crisis we always seem to exclude animals and the ecosystem. We share this planet with over 14 million other species. We are in the middle of a sixth mass extinction as a result of human activity....If humans continue to exist, we will cause the extinction of animals and the ecosystem will eventually collapse resulting in our extinction anyway.
If we voluntarily go extinct, animal and plant life will survive. If humans continue to live, we will destroy all living beings including ourselves. Either way we are going extinct because of our arrogance and thinking we are god's gift to the universe. We are more like a gift from satan.
These kids aren't taking care of old people! Most young people in Western countries don't even speak to their family or have relationships anymore. And why should they be saddled with needy old people when they're just trying to live their life?
Seems like most of the issues with a declining pop is tied to how economic systems are designed. Economic growth at all cost is unsustainable
Here in Central Florida, we literally can't take any more new people. It's beyond packed. The roads, the schools, the hospitals, the parks, the beaches, the grocery stores. Over the last 10 years here, it's not the same place I grew up in. Way too many people in one spot, and we saw what happens when hurricanes hit. All roads heading north are bumper to bumper dead stopped w traffic. So I believe this YT clip
And lemme guess, most of your housing is less than 5 storeys/floors, there is no room to expand roads and you have no adequate public transportation?
@@noneofyourbusiness4830 Shocking that single story ranch, strip mall, and highway-based development quickly runs out of space
I think the problem is precisely that we see relationships and children increasingly as economic assets like much of everything else nowadays.
Good video - Thank you.
Just picking up on one issue.
Migrants often send money back to relatives in their parent countries. To that degree someone emigrating is not a net loss to the donor country. For some smaller countries this money is a substantial part of their GDP.
Too many people. Not worried about this
Corporations learned long ago: 1 more people = more customers 2 more people for the job market = more demand for jobs = we can pay less 3 they figure the planet will keep = make more money who cares about anything else. Etc. Imagine there was only one Plumber in the world every company would offer him millions to work for them
This Makes no Sense
It will benefit the workers in the short run but then the economy would collapse as other companies don’t find labor so supply would decrease and Inflation would rise so his millions will be worth nothing
mate, you got the wrong mushrooms 😂😂😂😂
It is not possible you believe such a thing.
I don't think there's such a thing as an ideal population size. Overpopulation has proven to be overreaction. Underpopulation is something we haven't experienced yet but will. The yhing is this clashes with our underlying idea that things grow indefinitley. A new economic paradigm will be needed to deal with the reality od declining populations. How we generate value, as younger populations will conti ue to delcine. Maybe AI steps in as a solution onstead of a problem. Don't know.
It happend after the black death poor people got ritcher.
Yeah, I don't think "underpopulation" is really a thing either. Fewer people around means fewer people to take care of, so you _need_ fewer people. Norway is extremely "underpopulated" compared to, say, Germany, but they're doing fine.
The problem is an actively _shrinking_ population, because that reduces the ratio of working-age people to seniors. If we can get to a stable state, I don't think it matters very much how many people there are in total.
I think that South korea in the end of the century will be demolishing old buildings more than building New buildings
Terrifying lol
@@foxen1914After black death all population was young and healthy. After low fertility rate all population will be old and ill.
@@foxen1914 it isn't just about the size or the shrinking, its about its impact on the population distribution across age groups. Diseases tend to kill off the old and infirm which tends to increase the average wealth of survivors because the productive bands in the population are supporting fewer people who are not productive. In the current crisis, the problem becomes a shortage of workers to support the growing ranks of non-productive people, which will make people a lot poorer on average. None of our current economic models except totalitarian communism and facism are really able to cope with this. Even the European model depends upon an ever-growing pie. It becomes rapidly unsustainable once the pie starts to consistently shrink and that is what we are facing.
Governments need to commit themselves to the root of the problem. Long work hours incompatible with child raising + the unbelievable cost for one child alone.
Nah robots and life extension will solve the problems the graph like these are not relevant in the least due to the rapid change technology
This is a false narrative, work hours have been the shortest they've ever been yet fertility rates are falling even faster.
@@franknwogu4911more and more households have both parents working now though. It's a bit different than 60 years ago when one parent worked and the other stayed at home taking care of the kids. Rising costs make it very challenging to actually have one parent stay home.
@@jerrymathew6619 I believe it is culture, people just don't want kids. Even upper middle class and above families aren't meeting 2.1 kids per woman. It is more to do with culture than it does with economics. Not that economics has nothing to do with it.
@@franknwogu4911 it's always a mixture of multiple reasons, no point in speculating on specific things. I was just replying to your comment about the shorter working hours. Total working hours in a household have definitely increased since the mid 1900s
Personally I think this is just a reaction to unprecedented growth we had in world population in the last century. Over the past 100 years or so we have had a HUGE increase in population that has never happened before in history as well. I think this was due to a few things happening in that time such as mechanized farming drastically increasing the amount of available food and vast numbers of new medical procedures, medicines, and medical devices increasing the survival rates of people as well.
With that we must expect that a decline would eventually happen as people naturally reacted to this. The status quo has been changed dramatically. We will see a decline in overall world population as population growth goes back to the rate previously seen in world history. In other words, last century and this century were the outliers and abberations of the norm; and we will probably go back to the norm.
I mean the Haber-Bosch Process was a huge breakthrough in fertilizer production and thus starting the population explosion. From the early 20th century there was an increase in population, since more food was avaialable. there are some dips due to WW1 and WW2 in the 1920s and 1940s, but generally since ~1900 the population grew a lot faster. After WW2 we had the "Wirtschaftswunder" in germany which also brought wealth to the people and this aligned with the baby boom. We now had decades of economical crisis and a war at our doorstep. These are all influential factors. If people are barely able to afford their own life, how can they support a child?
RUclips commenter disagrees with all the statistics, demographers and experts that say populations will shrink. Ok pal.
yeah the world needs a break from us
the planet can not handle 10 billion people
Agreed, planet hasn’t been able to handle the overpopulation crisis for decades now.
I think the rate of increasing automation and technology will increase the amount of care for elderly faster then the decreasing ratio of caregivers will reduce care, the standard of care per person might drop, but more will have access than ever before
Lowering economic inequality, primarily through increased wages and / or a UBI is would improve birthrates it more than most anything else
Do old people really want robots looking after them? Surely there is something better than that
My good friend economics has almost nothing to do with the falling birthrate, it's a cultural issue link to meaningless secular modernity.
The only people still having children are the religious and they are often more poor yet they still reproduce at above replacement levels while the secular have one or no children apiece.
I agree on the automation part. Automation alongside offshoring has in the past displaced jobs faster than the demand for them has come down resulting in fewer economic opportunity for the population as a whole. Yet in aging countries, automation and offshoring will be a benefit since there may be insufficient manpower anyways.
@@llanieliowe794 well they should've had 2.1 kids then. Tough titties
@@llanieliowe794
It's not an all or nothing thing, some care should be and some shouldn't.
lonely old people would want a person just for that social interaction,
But technology could in some areas be cheaper, more precise / accurate and be available 24/7 heck yes, then there's things like bathing and more personal matters yes I would prefer automation at least
0.78! WTF South Korea
Unhealthy work and academic culture, corporate kleptocracy, high wealth inequality, and as a consequence, terrible mental health. Seriously, their suicide rates are horrifying.
Its 0.58 in Seoul area 💀
@@ShadowBlitz776why ??
@@blazer9547 everything I mentioned is far worse in big cities.
If you want to see what future could hold for you there are two very good examples right now. One is Japan and another is France.
so giving half your GDP to old people while young people work 80-90 hours a week to barely survive. Why do we have to take care of old folks again?
Both seem okay to me, plenty of countries in worse situations.
@@elio7610 I take it you do not have children?
@@lampar20 You are correct but whatever you are implying is lost on me.
@@elio7610 young people working 80 hours a week while people retire at like 50 or 60, shouldnt freedom from being tied down to a job be better off for people whom are at the age they can have kids rather then boomers?
Given the concerns over birth rate, it seems that the homeless problem in the US would be one counter argument. In other words, the country is incapable of looking after its current population.
So the solution is to give up on the future because we haven't perfectly nailed the present just yet?
@@alex29443 Fertility rate going to 1.6 instead of 2 isn't giving up on the future, it's just giving our future a bit of breathing room.
@Cocodoxi That is deeply stupid. You know who care about people; parents. Just because some people, in some places, fall through the cracks, doesn't mean the whole project is a failure. All it means is there is still potential to improve. Are you the sort of person who would write a list of 100 criteria for renting a house, and if even 1 isn't met, says the place is intolerable and the letting agent is insulting you?
@calvinm7330 In no other country has it stopped at 1.6, there is something rotten that is causing this decline in children and we need to grapple with it forcefully before we all go the way south korea is going. Anything below replacement is just slow suicide of the human race. I think this will become painfully clear as societies around the world start to collapse. I would be very surprised if public shaming for people who haven't had kids by the time they are 28 isn't standard practice by the end of the century, at the very least.
People are fundamentally reactive, I think the horrific consequences of low fertility may need to be actually seen and felt before something is done at a societal level to fix it.
@@xunqianbaidu6917Just build houses? No. We need whole apartment blocks, economy-class, with enough room for public transportation, to "where the jobs are". Reasonably close.
Why is a reducing population being described as a crisis?
Why has the earlier worries of overpopulation been on the back burner for years now?
Why is the impossibility of maintaining an exponentially increasing demand on the worlds limited resources not being addressed?
Who genuinely believes there is a shortage of human beings per se?
How we live our lives in the widest sense, is the issue not being addressed. 😢
Because a lower birthrate means the next generation will be smaller, 1 person under 40 to 3 people over 40 isn’t very sustainable (since the older crowd needs more resources). It isn’t that it’s declining, it’s the rate is fast enough to destabilize things.
@@nicholaslewis8594 That's not how this video, and others like it, are presenting the issue though. They almost universally see a fertility rate lower than replacement as a bad thing, and the issue is always framed as "population declining" and not "population declining too quickly". And this means solutions focused on making this (perhaps necessary) population decline smoother are not discussed. Options like automation and migration.
Universe 25 comes to mind when I hear about population collapse. In places like South Korea if the fertility rate declines at the current rate within about 20 to 30 it could drop to virtually zero. No babies born at all. The population is not simply declining it's collapsing.
Population collapse could lead to a lot of chaos and pain. As population gets older the health care most likely will become more expensive. Industries will suffer because of lower workforce, lower demand and consumption. As population collapses national debt will increase and it will be spread among less people. Some coutries will collapse under financial burden and with today's interconnected world it will ripple across the world. For example War in Ukraine had the possibility to create food shortages in many countries. Now imagine many countries collapsing at once.
Also, there is a MIT program that predicts civilization collapse by about 2040 and apparently we are ahead of schedule.
It's not the decrease of population, it's the rapid drop off a cliff of a population that's the problem.
My needs not being addressed by people, that is the issue.
If there's less people, why would we need to increase our labor demands? Especially with how much automation has been coming along. Me thinks this is more about hedge fund managers worried their portfolios won't show any grow due to lack of demand.
The problem isn’t less people it’s too many old people that won’t be working
"Life spans continue to grow" Not in the US, life spans are decreasing.
People have babies when they feel they are in a good enough situation to raise them. People in poor countries think they want less children? That's because they live in poor circumstances.
I read an article some years ago about how Mexican immigrants to the US had a higher birthrate than their compatriots back in Mexico. Simply, they felt more secure, relatively speaking, to have more children.
Not true. A lot of people don't care as long as state social support will flow. Ten they can have 5 or more children who will become unproductive like their parents in their adult hood. We call them parasites, and a lot of African migrants do this
This isn't the case at all amongst much of Africa & in the Caribbean Haiti has the fastest birthrate
While there is some truth to having children, when you're secure, it is not all of it. I for one subscribe to Peter Zeihan's ideas, that in agricultural economy, children are "free" labor, whereas in an industrialized one, they are a very expansive mouthpieces, economically speaking. In only one economy, it makes economic sense to have many children above the replacement rate.
@@Lando-kx6so Different situations, different reasons. In super poor places they have nothing to do but to have sex. In agrarian societies, they have kids because kids make them rich. Kids work, send money back and pay for their parents retirement. Developed countries should follow this model. Adult children pay 3% of their tax income directly to their parents. Problem solved.
@@TheBooban The adult children living paycheck to paycheck may then be unable to feed themselves and, thus, unable to gain the energy and vitality needed to continue working. Also, young adults can cheat that tax system by living with their parents and then a 3% tax goes to buying the young adult's essentials needed to keep going to work - AND THAT IS IF THEY CAN GET A JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH ALL THE LAYOFFS AND PICKY EMPLOYERS. Also, taxing young adults who can barely afford to live is NOT going to make them produce babies because babies are financial liabilities. The taxes will be cheaper than raising children, even if one gets tax breaks or other benefits. And we're not only talking financially expensive, either.
I know a new friend called ChatGPT who might have a word on the importance of humans from now on in productivity...
Apart from the adjustments needed through the population decline, why is it so rarely mentioned that an earth with "only" 4 billion people on it, might actually make it easier for us (humans) to have a sustainable future? As a species we have only been around a couple of hundred thousand years. As a species that has settled, agriculture and technology, less than 20,000. If we wish to stick around for the remainder of the couple of million of years that most species seem to stick around, something needs to happen. And it might just be this.
Because population decline is a form of social change that past societies have never survived. The unknown unknowns are manifold. It's pure speculation that societies would be more cohesive if population trends are literally reversed.
I agree. 4 billion is probably max carrying capacity and even that requires us to live more sustainable lifestyles. We are the lemmings.
This is just wrong. There are 0 threats to the species beyond population decline right now.
.You are also neglecting this ironclad fact. Fewer people means less specialization, less scale, and less human capital. This holds true regardless of the economic system. One human comes up with an idea, we can all benefit.
Detroit lost 50% of it population in 60 years. Here is the good news about Detroit ruclips.net/video/-gq2bezL7Og/видео.html . Make up your mind both are real.
Where are you getting 4 billion as the number from?
monetary issues plays a big factor in such a decline.
Minor correction... China is no longer the world's most populous country. It was surpassed by India this year. Should have said, "China, at the time, the world's most populous country..."
I figure the worst part of countries shrinking will be felt for about 1 generation, where there is a disproportionate amount of elderly vs the workforce. This can be mediated through smart immigration policy, removing economic barriers and automation of some jobs.
Eventually the birth rate would stabilize and a new equilibrium would be reached.
TLDR:
More Population on a Country Level
Less Population on a Global Level
Yeah, I am confused as well.
As a teacher, I find it helpful to think of it as:
Each classroom is an individual “country” so some can have a population of 10 others 30.
The entire school is the “global” overall population of students making up the total of special education classrooms with lower numbers of student with increasing numbers of students relative to grade level; 20/ lower grades and 30+ in upper grade which works out perfectly when looking at classrooms with children and then entire “lecture hall 101” first year university students 😉
Less is definitely more 🌈
@@Agapimo aah, now it makes sense. Thanks /\
The UN predicts that most developed countries which have declining fertility rates will have their TFR stay stable in the next 10 years and then slowly rise in the future, in reality, this is very wrong. For instance, back in 2018 they thought that South Korea's fertility rate would stay stable when at the time it was at 1.1 and plummeting, in just 5 years we've seen their predictions were wrong and South Korea's fertility rate continued to plummet and is now just 0.75. They said this about nearly all Weston countries and were very wrong, and they still think that fertility rates will stabilise when in reality they will drop down far more.
This should be seen as a good thing, with people not being able to afford the things previous generations could I don't understand why we should be worrying about a declining birthrate this early on as less people would give the average person more. This will only become an issue if we have a rapid decrease in birth rates and a rise in infertility(due to outside causes like microplastics).
The problem is the population is also aging so while governments get less money they will also have to spend more money. It also likely make the cost of living more expensive. As less people to sell too means companies will have to raise prices.
The issue with aging populations is, who’s going to support you in your retirement years if there are fewer working-age people? Most industrialized nations depend on some kind of pension or social security fund to provide for retirees, but if the number of retirees increases while the number of working-age people decreases, then there’s going to be a financial crunch. One possible solution as the video mentioned would be for governments to increase taxes on working-age people to support larger numbers of elderly, but then the question is, How much will governments raise taxes, and at what level of taxation will working-age people begin to push back, and at what level of taxation will economies begin to suffer?
@@iprojack8319But if they raise prices, won’t that exasperate the problem even further? The problem seems to be self perpetuating
@@user-yf2om3ms3f yeah that’s exactly the point. Our economic system will collapse, therefore we need a new one (easier said then done).
You cry about current generations not being able to afford things previous generations bought yet you cheer for a phenomenon that will tax current and future working age generations even more making it less likely for them to be able to afford things of previous generations.
Why is this a problem? The world is facing so many crises now.
You may probably be aware already, but the Dutch sitting government resigned last friday and today Mark Rutte announced he'll not be making himself available for re-election. The Netherlands is going into a new era, might be worth a video on the EU channel?
Will be interesting. Immigration issue will determine the government.
@@TheBooban A right-wing coalition seems likely at this stage. The last few years we've had a central coalition, and it only ended up frustrating just about everyone. Plus, with Rutte gone it re-opens doors for parties like PVV and the Farmers to cooperate with VVD. If i were to guess now, my money would be on something like a VVD-PVV-BBB-JA21 coalition.
@@DenDave_ Gone for now. I presume he intends to come back supported by the right.
@@TheBooban I dont think Rutte will return as a PM candidate, theres too many scandals hanging to his name and leadership. Perhaps he could make a comeback as a minister of something, probably education, but he hasn't stated any intentions for that so far.
The 3rd option is for those governments to attract the diaspora (especially the ones in the Americas) back with good PR and offer better living conditions and opportunities.
Or just realize that migration is not a legitimate export industry. The 3rd world need capitalism, industry, production and proper export. Not migration.
3:05 the actual fertility rate is very diffrent in diffrent parts of Israel, while among secular people the rate is 2.05, among religious people the number can reach up to an avarge of 3.4 and 6.4 among ultra religious people, really pulling up the average although not really that high in population percentage
The latest population census showed that fertility rate in Israel are 2,90 children per woman
@alessandrojr3373 ya On avg
Ultra ordthox jews and Iaareli arab birthrate are closer to 5-6 children per woman, then 2-1 per woman
2.05 is still replacement rate which is all things considered, really good
@@_Sami_HI think you're mistaken, Arab Israelis have a lower birthrate than Jews actually.
A birthrate of around 6 is common anywhere birth control is not readily available regardless of whether the reason is cultural or logistical.
Population decline is not the catastrophe that economists would have you believe it is.
Kids are expensive anyway and you need to take the time off to care for them so you also loose income from one parent.
Couple's cant even afford a house these days so its not surprising they aren't having lots of kids even if they want them.
Give them a better work life balance and financial stability and they will have more children
I actually met someone who proposed declining lifr expectancy lol
That's not going to be a controversial opinion soon😂. Aged people are a net negative, we have to see what china does to them
Just not their own, right?
@@sogerc1 he proposed making smoking mandatory
@@theranredguardist1949 🤣
Just invest in automating fundamental tasks. It doesn't matter if there's fewer 'productive' people if productivity increases. There's also an antidote in anti-aging advancements.
This will end up being a nothing burger.
Probably. Seems like the overpopulation scare that was made so much of for so long was also a nothingburger though
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I'm not so sure. The cost of raising a child as well as cost of living in general are far outpacing wage growth. As someone who wants to be a parent someday, that's something I have to take into account if I want to raise my children well.
@me0101001000 yeah? I don't dispute that it's financially harder to have a family. But birthrates are also down even among people with plenty of money to have kids.
It's not a crisis, it's the natural progression of a maturing global society and a sorely needed respite to a natural world starining under growing human populations.
The only crisis is in trying to resist and not beginning to adapt to the new reality.
I'm with you man. Like 35% of the world's avian populations have declined and 60% of insect populations have declined in the last 30 years but to some this small down tick in the human population is cause for concern.....this is a gift.
good point
yup there has to be a balance
This is fantastic news! Japan has been going pretty well, or extremely well if you include housing.
(Edit: i don't know if there are enough workers. But higher pop growth needs a lot more workers too.
Would a stable pop need so much more workers?
Here in Australia, a lot of worker shortages are bc of population growth, and more so where there is a housing shortage).
Really? By what metric? Mental health? Young people engaging in meaningful relationships? I dont think entire generations of people failing to at least have as many kids to replace themselves can ever be seen as a success. Humans are getting consumed by work and stuff and forgetting what makes life most meaningful. That has long term consequences
retirees will just sell it all to big investment firms to pay medical fees. We need a revolution
Japan has one of the highest rates of elderly people or retirees still working, because the state can't afford to take care of them. And it's only going to get worse.
And that's not even including the unprecedented loneliness epidemic in Japan.
@@only_fair23i think the only way forward is to ban retirement/unemployment for anyone with under 3 kids the unemployment part id allow people to be unemployed for up to five years (no benefits after first year) for maternity/paternity leave, i wouldnt really mind working the elderly to the bone if it meant young people could actually afford to have families. Honestly coming to the conclusion that the state cant afford to take care of them is something every society needs to accept. In the states we spend 3x more money per retiree then on students and even then that really only includes the "free school lunch and education" it doesnt include most of the other expenses. The reason workers arent paid the "living wage" everyone always complains about is really simple for big companies it older workers having their inflation adjusted pensions/ for smaller enterprises the managers whom are often family often using the money made for their retirement. Our politicians are on average 60-70 and a lot of the young ones (people like AOC embody the idea of childlessness and embolden retirees because she doesnt think retirees receive enough benefits as it is.)
we need a true "Young Revolution" i support the abolition of the modern pension system which put population growth into freefall. Retirement except for those with 3 or more kids over the age of 75 should be immediately banned as treason for anyone 50-75 if theres an active war and someone isnt working a substantive number of hours i think the draft would be applicable, im sick of seeing young mothers and father dying on the battlefield in Ukraine while their own parents and grandparents are at home enjoying their retirement. The solution is a global revolution against retirees
@@only_fair23
Yeah Japan is an extreme example maybe that isnt so good & isnt what i am advocating, , but probably a lot better for a young person starting a family & buying a house, than large population growth.
Japan also has a fiat currency so money is created by keystrokes, not borrowed externaly.
But could u name any actual problem CURRENTLY faced by a normal working person, rather than one that is expected based economic guesses?
Maybe not enough workers for economic growth (which doesnt necessarily help ppl, it depends)?
Or not enough workers for services, if extreme pop decline?
Sure, then i would agree.
But that's not a problem if with robotics & enough workers u can still get the same services.
10bn in 2083. That was Julian May's prediction in her fantastic 8 book series', The Saga of the Exiles, Intervention, and The Galactic Milieu.
So... whom is this really a crisis to?
The general population or the the financial overlords who rely on cheap and readily available labour?
Is there an ideal population size? No, but eventually, at the rate of consumption & ongoing changes in the environment, a global population decline will be necessary. Also, the costs for raising children today is very high. Not many younger generation couples can handle it.
The real issue is many countries pay for their old from the incomes of the young, basically a type of Ponzi scheme. Instead of worrying about the impact of an aging population they need to modify their welfare system so people are actually saving for their retirement, similar to the German social security system.
The world had a population of about 2 billion during WW2, so when the globes population drops below than number we can concern ourselves with a lack of people. As this will never occur I feel the issue is not a lack of people. Japan manages very well through the use of automation, which is exactly what people are worried about in the rest of the developed world.
The only real risk of a declining population, as is occurring in japan, is the lack of population pressure will reduce innovation. Basically people are generally happy with the status quo and have little incentive for change, which could be an issue in several generations from now.
Of course if you depend on your wealth on cheap labour and a large population to purchase your products, then you may be more worried about a declining population. As these are the people who control the Main Stream media I think you can work out why the MSM is pushing this type of fear porn.
Strange use of words - "crisis getting worse". Hopefully populations around the world will fall rapidly. This is called "recovery" or "repair".
A lot of this doesn't account for further automation in the future. With more automation you don't need as large a workforce.
I think we may have overestimated how many people our current infrustructures can sustain. There is no question it can be improved in a perfect world but that doesn't take into account the chaos that instability will cause with 3-4 times the population as past events. Hoping we don't find out!
I've looked at the world population projections (admittedly on Google) and the low birthrate in these countries will potentially be the saving of the human race.
But it's a low standard/ quality of life. In my 40 years the quality of life has descended massively. No space, want a bit of peace & quiet/ privacy; forget it!
@@occamraiser We need a stable birth rate. Not investing into the next generation will cause significant problems. Plus, people in the west just use way too much stuff. Well some of us more than others *cough US cough*. Big suburban homes with two car garages is not sustainable for everyone so the average person really probably shouldn't be able to afford it. Part of what we're seeing is a natural rebalancing based on the actual cost of materials if everyone in the world wanted to use those same materials instead of just a small number of countries using them. That isn't a population problem, that's a how we live and what we chose to eat problem
Corporations and governments want more people for cheap labor. Excess numbers of people driving labor rates down.
There is no population crisis. Less people means less destruction of the environment that we all need to survive.
And what matters: Population decline means fewer mouths to feed, less unemployment, less homelessness and less poverty. Which is only good.
My wife and I are all set with having kids. Creating more Americans is the least climate friendly thing we could do
This whole things been happening since the industrial revolution, it was just so slow that no one noticed until now. Many of the place that are experiencing population shrinkages don’t have enough people in there 20’s and 30’s to have the kids to replace the retirees coming in
Taxing the rich properly would resolve most of the economic issues with the demographic shift.
Yup
The problem is that they tend to leave countries that try to tax them. So, the only way to make this work is to have the entire world taxing them so they are not able to escape. Although, then they may opt for living in the country that taxes them the least. So, this will eventually lead to a one-world country.
"Taxing the rich properly" is taxing the jobs out of existence. Creating unemployment and poverty. The people will adapt. By not making children.
Unemployment and poverty is the nuclear bomb of counterceptives.
Less people in the long run is good. How we adapt to that world is the key. The constant economic growth and the obscene profits need to be addressed, and perhaps a better system put into place. As a species we need to find a better way. What we are doing now is just killing the planet and by extension us.
Pay everyone who isn't "wealthy" more money, or suffer demographic collapse. There is no other option. Nobody gives a shit that people had families in their 20's in 1950. It cost too much to live now. Less, money, no room for kids for most people.
no, thats a myth, there is pleanty of resources, and land, it the govemetns wanting control slaves
Italy has never had natalist state policies.
Well we left the UK because we couldn't afford a second child. At two or more children it was going to be more cost effective for one parent to stay at home and care for the kids which I wouldn't mind but we also couldn't afford to lose the second income.
If there was at least some sort of childcare tax relief it would help somewhat as paying 3000 a month for fulltime childcare for two kids from net salary would require someone earning 47k gross per year.
Can you imagine working and earning 47k a year just to break even not spending enough time with your child??
There are things called baby groups, or co-ops, basically you get together with other parents and rotate babysitting.
@@alex29443 that would meant he parents have to be working part time.
If there's the need for tax breaks, that indirectly implies excessive taxation. Also, the need for better fiscal responsibility balancing a govt budget.
@hockysa Sure, but can be a good way to spread the days out, 5 families, mum and dad alternating, 1 day off every two weeks is within the realm of reason, especially if you can make up with an extra hour a day or a little weekend work. Bit of a pain to organise but doable.
@@alex29443 that's assuming an employer is flexible enough to accommodate for that.
In the Philippines, we need to control our population. Despite the growing trend of depopulation, we're still getting bigger. It's mostly the poor that's been populating like rabbits, as the middle class and above choose to have less children because having more children means more mouths to feed.
Is your country trying to create more jobs?
Similar condition in my country 😀🇵🇰
@@k.umquat8604 demand for jobs greatly exceeds supply. That's why a lot of people choose to work abroad, despite the poor working conditions.
Plus, we have an extremely corrupt government, and people choose to vote politicians that can give short term financial aid (aka bribes) rather than long term solutions. We did invest in the call center/BPO industry, but we haven't invested much beyond that.
We in Australia need to have more immigration from the Phillipines. I can’t understand why our politicians aren’t doing the sensible think.
Why has there not been a video about Iceland postponing whaling this summer?
Good for the planet, bad for social systems.
maybe giving half our money to retirees as a society is the reason young people are struggling
Well an infinite economic growth was not possible to begin with so...
There are inequalities in life expectancy raise so it's always important to remember it. Labourers have seen a lower increase than service-class workers. And the healthy life expectancy has also a lot of inequalities.
Honestly, as someone becoming an adult, I barely have enough money to cover expenses and rent. I am able to get wants and splurge here and there, but that’s completely different than committing to having an entire child, which can cost (in terms of medical costs alone) thousands of dollars.
Then there’s the lack of support to continue raising a child. A lot of jobs simply don’t offer maternal leave, and if they do, for a significant amount of time. Not to mention, fewer jobs offer paternal leave as well. I saw it mentioned before, but there was a service to essentially aid you in the process after childbirth, getting used to a life with a child, while still ensuring you have quality sleep and such. That would be such a treat, but comes at a price people likely couldn’t afford. And that’s on top of all the other expenses.
So all in all, it comes to cost and societal acceptance.
The forecast peak of World population seems to be falling, too. Not so long ago, the forecast peak was 11billion before the end of the century, before slowly beginning to decline.
There is a third option that gets almost no visibility in discussion because the elite does not want to talk about it; Revising the economic system to work under different principles than sustained and perpetual growth! This is also driving the world into ruin btw, while maintaining wealth inequality!
I think a lot of people are also more hesitant now that we gave access to more knowledge. "Oh, but it's so rewarding" after you've read about sleep deprivation to the point of hallcinating, postpartum depression, fourth degree tears, incontinence, mastitis, the monotony and isolation of housework, the dreaded sexual deprivation, oh no he's looking elsewhere now that I'm fat and exhausted and my teenager is eeeeevil
That's quite the exaggeration 🙄
@@georgekontogiannis4091not the lack of sex bit.
Once we had two kids my ex wife would give me something once a month. And that was during the good times.
I used to wonder who she was getting it from behind my back, but I was in it for the kids, so it was not really important.
We’re divorced now though and now that there is a risk of commitment and she is a single mum over 40 nobody is gonna touch her.
Me included.
Lmao
Having reproductive freedom is a gift I will never take for granted. Mid thirties, no plan to have children and couldn’t be happier spoiling my family’s kids instead.
ban childless retirement, or retirement without more than 3 kids. You are the reason society is collapsing
That's not a brag bahahaha
It takes a village
Let's be the best village
You are a coward
@@neocortex8198you want babies, pay for it
Society was already collapsing before we were born
The biggest story here, even more important than absolute numbers, is the workforce headcounts, which is historically the economic engines of all other countries than resource exporter countries. Not just shrinking workforce but also shrinking fraction of population in the workforce puts a heavier burden on the reproductive age population, giving them less opportunity to raise kids which DOES cost a lot even with a decently good job in wealthy countries (speaking as a preschool dad myself this is very significant). Scandinavian countries have generous parental leave and some childcare support money, but it barely even covers healthy food for the kid, let alone clothes and accessories for young kids (strollers, car chair, bed, more housing area required etc). The investment needed to raise kids in the west with the expected quality of life of the present middle class required large sacrifices of parents for years in both economy, time and career. The state provided incentives makes this more of an expensive hobby than something young people obviously want.
good video, slight problem, you put the dutch flag for thailand