Urbanization plays an important role in shifting population rates - Darrell Bricker & John Ibbitson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 фев 2019
- This week on Perspective with Alison Smith: Demographic Disruption Ahead - The Challenge of a Declining Global Population
Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson discuss their new book "Empty Planet: The Shock of Population Decline."
Like this video? Subscribe to CPAC on RUclips: / cpac
Connect with us on…
Twitter: / perspectivecpac
Facebook: / cpactv
Instagram: / cpac_tv
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
We talk about how the tax burden will fall more and more on fewer and fewer earners and that is clearly so but we ignore that big multi-national corporations are not paying their fair portion of taxes. With a declining population, housing prices will decline, removing one of the greatest expenses to a family and a person can live on a universal pension, paid out of fair taxation of everyone including companies and work or pursue his hobbies if he desires. People with lots of leisure and more space available may decide to grow their own vegetables and even animals in some cases. It may become easier to be independent of 'The Man'. That all depends on us not kicking ourselves back into the dark ages or even a new stone age.
Pollution, loss of biodiversity, loss of land fertility are already the result of our current population increase, even though the developed world stopped breeding 30 to 40 years ago.
If the rest of the world had kept its reproduction down to fewer than two children per woman, as the developed countries have done, there would be NO world refugee crisis and far less cause for conflict.
I think we underestimate the psychological effect of this on society.
Its too expensive to have children and families do not have enough financial security to establish families.Health insurance is too expensive. Public school education is shameful.
all excuses
All excuses, bro. You need generational homes where multiple families and plenty of children can live.
@@DanielSanchez-ew1js Doesnt work when your hometown has no jobs for you and you have to leave.
Their title "Empty planet" is exaggeration given even their prediction is 7 billion in 2100. But its true our economic system is designed for growth, so even slow growth is economic death, but that's a systemic problem. It's like locust swarm saying they have to keep growing to keep the wind of their swarm going, but totally neglects the food bottle neck. Our food production is based on cheap fossil fuels which won't be there in 2100, or shouldn't if climate change is real. So we're a confused species. I'm with James Howard Kunstler's Long Emergency - our debt economy fails first, resource depletion second as it costs ever more to extract one-time resources we need, and then climate change gets us in the end.
aresmars2003 why and how would debt economy fail first?
@@ElectricQualia It gets harder and harder to generate economic growth when there really isn't any in the underlying fundamentals. Without the driver of ever-growing population and especially when people have the stuff they need, and realise that more stuff doesn't really help them, the growth is largely in fake financial schemes and property bubbles. It's not real. Eventually the economy has to adjust to some kind of steady state, not perpetual growth, but it's not set up for that and we're not sure how it works. It'll be a huge step forward in the long term, but the transition could be painful.
All Lies , there is/no shortage of fuel - see abiotic oil
Padlocked dreamy escapes - lack of consumers. If there are fewer babies being born. There will be fewer future consumers.
Growth can occur in emerging markets. Globalization and the internet have made irrelevant local communities for economic growth.
It would be interesting to see countries in terms of when they reached peak child and which countries still (if any) have yet to 'peak'
Some thoughts: 1) It would be instructive to look at the growth/deline of the 0-20 and 21-40 age cohorts; that is, how many of the 7 billion or so people in 2100 are geriatric; 2) Apparently male sperm production has been steadily declining though, thanks to Nature's margin of safety, it has not yet, in and of itself, resulted in fewer babies; 3) An education system that allows responsible adulthood and family formation by age 16 is achievable if all that we know about child/teenage development were to be put into practice; 4) The years of geriatric frailty can be postponed by a decade or more, making the ratio of oldsters to youngsters less problematic.
How can we help people have as many children as they want? Most women in these low birth rate countries wish they had more children.
@6:56 one kind of technology is contraception (and shipping contraception cheaply and widely to local clinics/markets), as well as information technology about contraception and other health matters.
In order to solve the problem the oligarchy have to return some of the wealth and assets to the the rest of the population I.e. share. This is not going to happen! So buckle up your seat belts.
Yes! Until we are no longer treated as serfs, we will not be giving the overlords more future cannon fodder and wage slaves. We have gone on strike.
Exactly what needs to happen but won’t!
These people never mention Africa with a young population that were the 4 billion coming from
Good. There are too many people in the world, by perhaps a factor of 100.
Nothing somebody with power of observation can't guess at. However, the presence of "um" reveals lack of confidence.
From the future: we already hit 8B.
Interesantísimo. El caso mexicano seria buen ejemplo.
Is anybody questioning what is going to cause the decline?
Decline is already happening. Fertility rate below replacement rate in many countries, once old people start dying, populations start to shrink, meaning economies start to shrink.
There's no bad implications outside of an epidemic of loneliness. Grand scheme for the Earth and sustainability of humans living on it this is great news.
Perhaps we should be valuing family life more? Perhaps a social support system to support families (and not just babies) is needed.
Women are being encouraged to chose - work or family.
With extended lifespan and health perhaps women can have babies and then find meaning in work?
Babies are viewed as a threat to personal fulfillment.
It is ancient Rome all over again. Women empowerment and freedom leads to downfall of the empires
So it's the men who want babies? I guess you guys do not have a stepmother.
the women want less kids and they are better at standing up to their stepmother!! Plus soon enough step mom will feel the same
@@jameslawrence3666 And?
Plenty of Nigerians why don’t you invite them into your country ?
Mostly blacks
I understand the urbanization factor to populations decline, but there is one factor that they are not included: birth control and sex. People like having sex and that’s how all the babies are made. But now that there are reliable ways to have sex without making baby, people would just rather do that. Coitus without procreation 👍🏾!
Knowledge about birth control is a direct consequence of the education of women which in turn is a direct consequence of urbanization. Setting up a school in a city is far cheaper and efficient than setting up schools in rural areas... Just saying....
@@robertmcgrory3464 Very well said!
The most common newborn boy's name in the UK last year was Mohammed. That's what relying on immigration does.
classic xenophobic propaganda - listen to the video or read the book!! immigrant families take up the fertility rate of the country straight away!!
12:05 yes but don't underestimete the chinese guverment power over the population.
If the chinese guvernment wants to grow it's population it will find a way to "incourage" people to make babies.
I sometimes say that China will become The People's Republic of Gilead to have the number of babies it wants.
Disaster, the planet can carry about a billion and there are 7 billion of us! So this chat seems a little pointless?
mike tomlin according to who?
@@ElectricQualia Scientists. Or Science. Although a number of whom think we can move away from fossil fuel energy and carry more than a billion or two, one day.
That's 1 billion in a sustainable fashion without significant damage to ecosystems. It can carry quite a lot more than that at the expense of other species and with efficient resource recycling and low pollution emissions. Exactly what that number might be is hard to say, but less than 7 billion seems a safe bet. We should get back there eventually but it's going to take at least 100 years so we have to work out how to not completely screw things up in the meantime during the overshoot period.
@@Wookey. Yes, of course it is all inter-dependent on the who, what, how, etc . Hard to say what might happen, looks like mass migration leading to increased conflict and fighting over resources. Going to be nasty one assumes. A 'good' time to be over 50-60 perhaps
Its not about the numbers. Our planet can carry more than 10 billion but its ecosystem can be ruined even by half a billion. Its about consumption.
You guys are pretty impressive because you look at the data. So what went wrong with your assumption of settled science on global warming. It’s not settled at all 😢
if you can't explain the climate in the last 20,000 years with any certainty then it's fair to say it's not settled - one battle at a time is a good policy.... they took a lot of heat from the climate change lobby.
Climate change has been settled science since 70s fucking dumbass.
It is strange that they did not mention the only region that has a fertility rate more than 3.5,
which is the region from :
(Morocco to Pakistan)
probably because you all are terrified and you shulld by of
You have done a lot of evil in this world
totally untrue assertion - they have spoken about Pakistan at length as well as India - what a terrible misrepresentation
This woman Narrator/ Questioner in whiney and insulting to her guests and to her audience. Please fire her.
Agreed. You can tell she has contempt for her "guests" from the beginning.
Contempt? Did I watch the same video as you?
Some thoughts: 1) It would be instructive to look at the growth/deline of the 0-20 and 21-40 age cohorts; that is, how many of the 7 billion or so people in 2100 are geriatric; 2) Apparently male sperm production has been steadily declining though, thanks to Nature's margin of safety, it has not yet, in and of itself, resulted in fewer babies; 3) An education system that allows responsible adulthood and family formation by age 16 is achievable if all that we know about child/teenage development were to be put into practice; 4) The years of geriatric frailty can be postponed by a decade or more, making the ratio of oldsters to youngsters less problematic.