Thanks Jaypea. Much appreciated. Welcome to the channel.There's a few of you watching over there now. Good luck with your elections mate. I hope you get a new bunch with a slightly more amenable attitude towards renewables!
@@JustHaveaThink thanks mate, we need it, most of them have their heads in the sand but I just joined ACF Australian Conservation Foundation and talk is that we're going to make this a Climate Election, keep up the good work, cheers mate...
When my grandmother was born in 1927, population was 2 bln. When my dad was born in 1949, it was 2.5 bln. My mom in 1952 - 2.6 bln. (only 0.6 bln. rise since grandma's - in 25 years, which means 0.024 bln per year). When I was born in 1993, it was 5.6 bln. (3 bln. since mom's - in 41 years, so 0.073 bln. per year). Now it is 7.7 bln. (2.1 bln in 25 years, so 0.084 bln per year).
And in the next 25 years it's expected to rise by 1.7bn, or 67m a year. In the 25 years after that it's projected to rise by under 1.1bn, or around 42m a year. Past increases are a poor guide to future trends. The population explosion already happened.
I m a 91 you have a. Pretty Life i Say you politica of so happens will do of US soylent green with this all problems ti solve we are too much manu blind insider some ignorino they aldready are killing us
What's little realised is that until the 1950s those famously carnivorous French were relatively modest meat-eaters by today's developed-country standards, averaging barely 40 kg annually between the wars against 100 kg today: a century earlier the European average intake was barely 20 kg a year, only Britain exceeding 40 kg along with North America. Modern levels of meat consumption aren't a traditional part of our way of life, they're unprecedented and unsustainable.
A few points. Leaving aside the totally ridiculous practice of growing cereal crops to feed livestock, it is often assumed by people who have zero experience in farming, that if only we would not raise livestock, that something like 10 times as much vegetables/grains could be raised on this land. This is total bullshit. Much grazing land is either marginal or unsuitable for farming, the limiting factor being water. Also, cropping tends to be much harder on the land itself than grazing. Secondly, the social justice arguments, which can only set ever decreasing limits on anything and everything which may be consumed, need only be invoked where population growth is accepted as inevitable. How about we start planning for a drastic decrease instead? This is the real elephant in the room. It's either that or Soylent green. Take your pick.
Could happen. Won't happen. Biggest two problems: livestock destroys soil, natural plant growth; undeveloped (sorry: 'developing') peoples cut down trees for fire wood - and as these are the people most likely to have population growth, this is just going to get worse in Africa, Middle east and India.
Great with the statistics, but not so on the diet issues. The idea that a plant based diet is the best and most healthy diet is a myth. Humans would never have been able to develop our advanced brain and intellect on a purely plant based diet. Humans are omnivores, so we are designed to primarily eat animal products as well as plant products. Plants in fact have many naturally toxic chemicals as defense mechanisms to reduce animals grazing on them, as well as man-made chemicals used in modern agriculture. In the future, technologies like aquaponics and aeroponics in vertical farms and advanced animal production techniques will solve the land use problem.
This is pretty much the reason I gave up eating meat 2 years ago - it was the single biggest thing I could do for the environment and the easiest to achieve. Not once have I ever badgered my meat eating family and friends about it. What it did do, was to highlight how staggeringly tilted our diets are - the hardest part of doing this lifestyle change, was eating out. 90% of food in hospitality in the UK contains at least some meat, pushing the vegetarian options in the worst cases, to a cheese sandwich. Good luck if you are vegan - not even worth trying to eat out in 99.9% of venues. But there's hope in sight - in most large towns and cities, there's enough choice for vegetarians and slowly, for vegans too. In less sophisticated and less populated areas, well, there's always roast potatoes, chips, bread, beans and other vegetables - good venues will always try to help you out. Bad ones will offer you a cheese sandwich.
Of course Earth can sustain even 12 billions with a bit of tweaking. Question is, what about the rest of living beings in the Universe, i.e here on earth ? Human isn't going to extinct...it's really not a problem. The problem is that we are a parasite killing our host (not the physical earth itself, but the balanced biosphere that make life easy and enjoyable, not a living hell like Madmax).
Hans Rosling was amazing . I was watching him and thinking wow we could use him now. I have chosen to be childless. I made that decision a long time ago when i saw the track the human race was taking, and how it would eat up the planets resources. I dont advocate it for everyone, but im happy with my choice.
@@Elviloh The only 'survivors' are dormant spores, waiting around for the environment to return to normal. We are on track to breed ourselves into extinction.
Yes we are. We are just like all other living things. If we can get the food our population will grow. When we can't, it will shrink. So let's stop whining about it and let nature run it's course. Hey it looks like our population can grow quite a bit... all we have to do is eat less meat and more veg.
Excellent analysis! Here are some of my thoughts. As you point out, the idea of concentrating large numbers of humans to live in one area started with the agricultural revolution and accelerated with the industrial revolution. This along with the ideas and thinking that the economy (human activity) always has to grow for us to progress and the idea that money and the financial systems always need to increase for us to be successful is why we are starting to hit the wall. The key is to operate in balanced cycles just like nature does. The economy (human activity) and the financial systems need to be about sustainability not about growth. Presently, if the economy or the financial system are not growing, it is considered a failure. This thinking is wrong and cannot go on uninterrupted on a finite planet. Whether its the planet's population or the amount of US dollars, they cannot continue to increase forever. There needs to be some new models developed based on sustainability. Everything in moderation can be made to work with the natural cycles of the planet. Pollution is also part of the natural cycles. If the fish use the lake as their toilet, it is not a problem unless you start getting too many fish. If we start a few camp fires to cook some meat, it is not a problem. If we burn some coal to generate some electricity it is not a problem, if we burn some gasoline to move some vehicles around, it is not a problem. When everybody starts doing this and we say that we have to keep doing more of it every year because if we don't we are not growing and that is bad thing then it becomes a problem.
If people eat less meat, then we will be able to produce more food, and the population will just go up even more. As another commenter said, we are just like bacteria on a petri dish... if food is available population will increase
@@seanhurley4003 There is a negative correlation of fertility rates with politcal stability, equal rights, womens education and health care. Food plentitude on the other hand doesn't lead to higher fertility rates or at least is not a dominating factor, or do you want to tell me, that the blue countries here @3:21 are suffering from food shortages.
My entire household is completely plant based. We practice no-till self-sustaining gardening. Fruit trees and native edible plants. We live in northern Florida, so I’m concerned about sea level rise. Contemplating moving before the housing market crashes near the coasts.
By scientific scales of performance we have all of the resources today to solve the issues of overpopulation. It is not a lack of resources, it is the manner in which we are allocating those resources. Lets start with food. We already throw out almost 60% of the food produced in the world today because we are not allowing needs to determine where these resources are going. It is resulting in an over supply in wealthy markets that gets thrown out before it is used. We can grow food anywhere today with our regenerative agriculture, hydroponic, aquaponic and vertical farms. Fresh water? We have several desalinization technologies at our disposal today that are capable of creating millions of gallons of fresh water a day. We can build pipelines and canals anywhere we want almost. Healthcare? Again being limited by profit interests, not a lack of science or personal. Education? Same issue. Housing space? 84% of the earths land mass is sparsely populated. The truth is we possess ALL of the technology and the resources to end scarcity today. We can solve all the issues. The only reason it is not happening is this anitquated religious belief in our own man made creation. Money
Hi Buffalo Chips. I agree 100% with every word. It sounds so clear and obvious when it's written down in black and white, and yet as you say, the demented and delusional pursuit of money is apparently more important to the narcissistic megolomaniacs than the survival of our species and all the species around us as well. Major change is urgently needed.
I've been told by many dieticians, that for an average male, 0.5g of protein per lb of body mass. "Mind you" -couldn't resist - I'm a little over weight and slightly larger than the average male, but even if I were my athletic weight in University days that's 90 grams of protein per day. Which is about 15-20% of my daily calories. So, I don't know where you get 50g; that just seems low to me.
In the society of monetary psychopaths and culture based on consumerism, the answer is 'no'. Thanks for the informative graphs. Can you please cite your source of the global calories at 8:20? I can't find that.
I don't know his original source for the calorie numbers, but this talk by Joseph Poore is full of top-quality info along those lines: climateseries.com/lectures/34-joseph-poore-climatechange-food-impact
whenever I meet a friend who doesn't have children I always tell them they are Eco Warriors and doing more good for the planet than anyone else. Love your program and would love it even more without the background music....your voice is enough.
Trigger Troll It's not when the planet is overpopulated and your future children and grandchildren are fighting and possibly killing for enough food and water to survive along with the other 11 billion people because the planet can't support that many humans
Been a nonbreeding tree hugger since 1970. Hate the fact that the behavior that would lead us to extinction was never respected or heeded. Enjoy every day for it could be be your last. And sooner than you would ever want.
It’s not that the world can’t support 11 billion people. We just expect too much of everything as we advance further in the future. Humans are too complicated
One thing is for sure, the Earth can’t sustain the current 10 BILLION animals bred for eating, we currently grow enough food for 10 billion people but 80% of it is fed to animals bred for eating!. So PLS stop talking about ‘over population’ and talk about the real problem of the real population explosion!
good program as per usual! thanks! BUT! I think f.ex. the chart showing animal-produce consumption per capita in the world is highly misleading. yes, these countries are probably consuming more animal-based products but also, even more importantly they produce more per capita than other countries as a result of intensive animal husbandry practices. see holland, denmark, sweden etc as examples or even new zealand or australia. A lot of these products then are exported to other countries f.ex. China or arabic countries, Russia etc.This in turn makes the chart misleading and your conclusion just the same... Another thing. I am rather sick of this one sided standpoint in the animal production debate concerning water use or even protein/carbohydrate per sq km land... As an agricultural engineer and farmer I know the DIFFERENCE between different types of agricultural production. Land or water use can't be blindly compmared like this... stock-yard intensive maize based animal husbandry (fattening) of cattle so very common f.ex. in the US is rightly said draining on resources BUT grazing based extensive or low intensive systems such as you've shown regenerative agricultural practices where animal husbandry is coupled and integrated with cropping is highly advantagesous for both the environment and food production. this is further supported by the fact that we have more land available to graze than to crop on and grazing doesn't compete with other food or human rsource producing practices. a more nouanced picture isto be painted otherwise all the less informed and slightly more ignorant public falls for the become vegetarian propaganda, the one that says milk is bad for you and butter, cream and egg-cholesterol will kill you.... By the way... Even your "you'll be healthier by eating more veggie based diet" is questionable on the premises of how you prepare the ingredients, and only a very slight increase in cancer (ca.1% from 3 to 4%) was ever proven f.ex. in case of intestinal cancer as resulting froim eating and thanks to mainly processed -red- meat products...
"leaving a little space for the other species" is getting more difficult all the time. Extinction rates are approaching levels not seen since the dinosaurs died off and is due primarily to displacement by us. Also, a lot of our agriculture is not sustainable due to ground water depletion and soil loss among other reasons. Nature will limit our population for us and it will be ugly. Besides, who wants to live on a planet with just us, cockroaches, rats and coyotes? That won't be living. Soylent Green (dystopian movie, 1973) is us!
11 billion is pretty much the minimum for the end of this century and depends on low birth rates, 2 people have 2 children etc. Lower birth rates occur in nations with higher living standards. Nations with high living standards consume orders of magnitude more goods and energy. Even renewable electricity, manufacturing and recycling have other none CO2 pollutants. Can the world and our environment really function with at least 11 billion people with modern living standards? This is even if we ignore more human issues such as war and resource competition. I really find it hard to comprehend the idea that 11 billion people is sustainable. I don't see how a problem of too many people with to many things can be solved by more people with more things.
11 Billion sustained. But what if food prices soar ? Is there enough paided work for the two more billion people to go by 2050 because we are in the middle of a robotic and AI revolution ....
Note on that agricultural land : 2/3 i.e. 66% is marginal land and for one reason or another unsuitable for growing crops other than gras for livestock. It is to steep, rocky, poor, etc. to grow those crops on.
Education is the way to avoid the big families so common in the poor parts of the world. When people get away from subsistence living they don’t need huge families.
You got !!! Everyone bangs on about climate change, but nobody, but nobody but you (and maybe a few others), is talking about it. HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH. Great little potted history of western development and population growth and civilization in general. The inputs for our culture(s) are the degrading factors. But the very intensive animal feedlotting should be replaced with nice green-friendly roo meat, very eco-friendly and eco sustainable(unless we export it, like all the beef/mutton we send) wshich would probably defeat the purpose.
I live in Canada. It makes sense to eat meat here. Climate and ability dictate a lot of why those numbers are the way they are in terms of who and where people eat more or less meat. We may not be able to grow Mangoes and Bananas here but we sure can grow a whole lot of Pork, Beef and Chicken! Sure we can grow a whole lot of lentils and we do and we export them to the world. All of my vegetarian friends turn to meat though once their bodies start to fail on them. I have seen it so many times now. A nice balanced diet with a good dose of meat is what I recommend. For my British friends though, I would say that if you want to have better teeth and bones, lay off the tea a little. It is eating your bones.
My principal concern is developing economies which will not move straight to efficient economies from a resource standpoint and as they represent the mass of future consumers. Mankind does always seem to work things out however.
Hi Squeaky squeaky. Sorry about your poor ear drums. I got a couple of other comments like yours and I've actually changed the intro again now to something very simple - just a rumble of thunder and some electrical interference. I hope the latest videos are less painful for you :-) All the best. Dave
Sorry there were NO vegetarians when our ancestors were hunter gatherers during the last ice age. It's sort of in our genes! Still a very good video as usual.
Population is tapering but we currently can produce enough food for about 10 billion. Emissions and other resources though eh probably not so great at that level.
Population is declining in the developed world. However the population hot spots will see growth until the end of the century. These are under developed countries such as Africa, india and parts of Asia. By 2050 projected population will most likely be close to the 10 billion mark. As far as what number is sustainable, that is strictly a guessing game. Considering the human population was at 2 billion around 1925 to 1935 and in less than a hundred years has almost quadrupled there is no president for a viable prediction. A good indicator of serious problems though is things like mass extinction, water scarcity, chronic starvation of nearly a billion people, escalating food insecurity and now climate change. All the red flags seem to be waving that we are way passed a sustainable population.
I appreciate the data presented in this analysis, ... specifically, that a reduction in the consumption of meat in human diets will help yield several important beneficial results regarding global resource management. HOWEVER, ... even IF transitioning dietary habits and a reduction in meat consumption is achieved, ... the notion that global human population 'may' increase to 11 billion people, ... IS A PIPE DREAM. Bottom line is that planet earth's resources ARE FINITE, and 'we' are ALREADY past 'maximum human population' level. Don't kid yourselves people ...
We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion and that is with our current meat diet. :) We could easily sustain 10 or more billions if we produced food in a sustainable way instead of for profit as we do now. If you can't figure out the difference do some reading!
@@pietersteenkamp5241 That is why the soils are depleted, the crops have much less nutrients and all sorts of deficiencies are on the rise for even well-fed people for the first time. We can eat crops grown in water (hydroponics) or eat synthetic supplements made in a lab, but that doesn't mean we will lead healthy lives. According to scientists (and economists aren't scientists), the sustainable human carrying capacity of the planet is 1-3 billion. Your claims of "easily supporting 10 billion people" requires a large majority of that 10 billion living in abject poverty, just like they do now. You want to keep eating animals bigger than yourself, please continue, but please don't spread misinformation
I really appreciate your matter of fact approach to present the facts, all pointing to a mostly plant based diet. The health care crisis would also be reversed in time if we changed.
I just looked up that interactive diet map to see where my country (New Zealand) comes in. Turns out we're at 191% !! Much higher than Argentina, so much for clean green NZ.
Oh dear. I hadn't spotted that. My mistake and my apologies. I have a Kiwi colleague at work and she says New Zealand is always getting overlooked. I fee suitably guilty!
Yes, if we transition to renewably powered and clean, healthy circular economies based on Cradle to Cradle Certification and design for disassembly thinking. Good thing is that wind and solar PV for electricity are already cheaper than fossil fuels and growing rapidly. Good thing is that there are already thousands of Cradle to Cradle Certified industrial products on the market.
Wind turbines require 1 million pounds of steel and probably 3 million pounds of concrete. Both of which can be recycled after 25 to 50 years of operation. Wind turbines repay their embodied energy in under 6 months of operation. This included mining, smelting, shipping, constructing, servicing and recycling. SunPower solar PV panels are the highest efficiency on the market. But they are also Cradle to Cradle Certified for clean disassembly and remanufacturing inside our "circular economy". Solar PV panels have an energy return of 14:1 in Alaska and 27:1 in Arizona because of increase solar radiation.
A word of caution, with regards as to how much cattle breeding impacts on resources it is not as simple as portrayed. Depends on the region's climate, land fertility, they way it is fed. If its done mainly on grain/ration (feed-lot) then the damage is max.; but until a generation ago in the Argentine region cattle was bred extesively on natural pasture Therefore impact was minimal and if done rationally the land in some areas can benefit from it as you well say in other videos. The reason I write this is because the way this video put it tends to make feel guilty the people who, living in low densely populated area, enjoy a steak twice or thrice a week disregarding where it came from. If you analyze more thoroughly that is a dangerous approach to the subject.
It seems as though you have the problem sussed, however things are NEVER as simple as the statistics show, the question still needs to be answered in so far as what we should be eating. I know the vegetarian/vegan group think they have all the answers, but I'm not sure they do, but I like most people reading this, I will be dead long before that question is answered.
Unfortunately, food is just one dimension of the problem. Thus, for every lb of human something like 30 tons of infrastructure are (presently) used to support it, i.e. roads, buildings, telecommunications etc. Then there is resource depletion to consider, e.g. phosphorous, copper, sand, etc ...and environmental destruction, e.g. deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases etc...When all these are taken into account, then no, eleven billion people on the planet is *not* sustainable - not anywhere close.
Very good your video, I already managed to reduce the use of red meat by 1/4, replacing it with poultry and increasing it replacing it with other proteins and including a greener and fruit diet, and I still think I can cut more later For a while you don't even feel like eating so much red meat, it becomes a heavy intake.
Your conclusions on land use and beef production show a lack of understanding of a number of things. Beef production is generally done on land that is unsuitable for other uses. Cattle consume no fossil fuel in their production until we start to feed them grain. A point that needs to be factored in. I like to look at what food production looked like before industrialization. That food production, without fossil fuels, consisted of grazing animals not fed grain and the common vegetables eaten today. It is likely that we will be growing food on every square inch of land when the earth hits 11 billion. That is if tensions of a crowded globe don't drastically reduce population overnight. We seem a world less afraid of nuclear conflagration with each passing day.
Great to see your channel grow by 900% since this video... I'm falling in love with your channel and think you're one of the best at communicating this well researched content at a high level while keeping it easy to understand which is a powerful thing!
@@JustHaveaThink You're welcome, i really hope you succeed, also if you ever wanted to do a video on molten salt reactors and/or the thorium fuel cycle feel free to bounce any ideas off me. Its an area I would consider myself very knowledgeable about and very relevant to your channel and would gladly share my thoughts and knowledge if you need (although you're clearly very good at doing your own research)
I think this doesn't pay much attention to the probability of the third* green revolution: Permaculture with robotics, and indoor cropping etc. Many people own land which is not put to good use, in that people own land and yet only grow lawns or they have excess space in their houses which provides them little value. The third green revolution would see people investing in automated food production in their own homes as the price of buying food transported over long distances exceeds the price and effort input of having an automated garden growing fresh crops for immediate consumption. NASA have already proved the theory that a person can be sustained on a well organized plot of land, indoors or outdoors, in the range of a few square meters per person fed. If price of robotics continues to reduce at the same rate it is, then it will become more efficient for people to invest in robotics to grow their food on their own land than it would for mass farming cultivation. It is almost inevitable when you think about it because the cost of transportation of food with the current system is entirely unavoidable Other technologies such as the new research into homesteading, and industrial, water desalination will likely also increase the amount of freshwater available. And the new focus on creating rainclouds also will increase freshwater availability
But yeah I can see how the Argentina thing could be true, my sister married an Argentine... Who find it funny to laugh when people mention eating meat etc around me, considering that I'm a vegan
The 1943 expert was right. We consume faster than the Earth replenishes so even though there are 7B+ people, it's not "sustainable". We're living on credit.
Great video, thanks! Although I come from a large family: 6 kids, I constantly advise young couples that it's quality, not quantity, when it comes to having kids. Have 2 kids, spoil them, send them to college and spoil them some more. Have 6+ kids, like my parents, live poor with not a dime for college or help and barely keep track of them, let alone spoil them. That's my experience.
Excellent video! I recently found your channel and are looking through some of your old videos. I'm a longtime fan of Hans Rosling and have seen most of his presentations, both in English and in Swedish. And your summary is excellent. As well as you easy to understand explanation of how switching to a plant-based helps reduce land use so that we can feed everyone. You should make a new version of this video now that you have an additional 152000 subscribers, so that more can see it. Keep up the good work!
Okay, had to look up this chart, but it kinda was, euhm, unexpected, Belgium is like 104.5% according to this.,. ( I thought we were around the same as France ) Sooo, euhm, not sure.,. btw, did you look at new zealand? 191.2% O.O
And as for the drop in fertility being attributed to living standards, gender equality and women's education, BOLLOCKS. What about global pollution by hormone mimicking chemicals. We are polluting ourselves towards infertility.
Then why are people having children later and later? Before the medium age was 25 for first child, now it's closer to 35. The truth is, women don't want to have children because there is not enough infrastructure/policies to let them have kids AND a career. And it's become too expensive; even on two salaries. Look at what's happening in Japan. It's true though that pollution is a factor on fertillity, but it's more and more a problem the older you get. If 25 years old wanted to have kids, they would have less infertility problems.
@@ouicertes9764 Your first question is based on the premise that you are commenting on the west. I'll bet Africans and Indians are not delaying reproduction. Next, your second comment which suggests you have to choose between children or career, then you say it's (children I presume) too expensive. Are you seriously going to put a dollar value (cost) of having children? I'm sorry, that is nuts. The difference between having children and having dollars is a chasm. Why? Well, having dollars merely supports a level of lifestyle, you're saying "I want enough money to live like the Jones or live up to my expectations about how life should be." On the other hand having children is a biological imperative, it is what life does to sustain itself. Having children is way more fundamental than getting rich. You are suffering from a modern mindset that puts you at the centre of the universe, rather than your potential children. Fundamentally it is a selfish attitude. Put children at a higher priority and you will be rewarded with satisfaction during you life, put money higher and you will have squandered your life. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, it sounds harsh to me, but I think that biological imperative trumps the egotistical me, me, me attitude to life. Having children, focusing on raising then to become happy adults, is the purpose of life, having the biggest bank balance when you die, is not.
Will part 2 address resources for stuff? The concept of consumerism and materialism has grown massively in my life time. I wish we had, could or would put aside huge swaths of land for the other life. The 11 billion people is just unimaginable to me. Also water resources, desalination plants have issues. That's not an answer.
Hi Marcia. Thanks for your feedback. It's a good challenge for a part 2. It seems to me that there is a very ironic sort of self regulatory factor at work when we consider population growth. And that is that if our civilisation does actually arrive at the year 2100 with 11 billion inhabitants living on the planet, then almost by definition, someone, somehow, must have worked out a way of resolving the looming climate and resources problems that we all know only so well. if on the other hand, we keep bowling along our 'business as usual' , RCP 8.5 trajectory, then your fears will most likely be realised. Nevertheless, those births, at least in the near and medium term are inevitably going to start to ramp up the size of our global population, and that means, as we and others have very sadly concluded before, that hundreds of millions, if not billions of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world will perish well before the end of their otherwise natural lifespan and our population growth will be controlled, not by a voluntary reduction in fertility rates, but by a mass genocide through wilful inaction and negligence by world governments and politicians more concerned about keeping the money happy and protecting their careers than actually taking courageous decisions that may jeopardise their own careers but which might actually galvanise the masses into more urgent action. Having said all of that, who knows what the future really holds. As I mentioned to another contributor recently, no-one knew that penicillin was just around the corner, and without that antibiotic breakthrough, many of us would not be here today.
@@JustHaveaThink you have a good point. I keep coming back to the fact that humans are an animal. We like to think we are somehow able to meet all challenges because of our opposing thumbs and frontal cortex. I think we indeed can and have done so in many instances. Which may have left us more confident than we should be. I only get to stick around till 2040ish. I do hope our brilliance once again saves us but i admit too much doubt.
Great information! One question you forgot to ask: do most Americans think it's okay for them to have most of the food and let the rest of the world go hungry?
At one time or another USA has sent food aid to MANY (100's) countries in times of famine including Soviet Russia in 1921. We may not be perfect but we've tried.
I found your channel couple of days back... and i must say i am binge watching your old videos. It gives immense amount of interesting information. Keep it up. ✌️🙌
I'm sad he died so he won't have to live through the facts he subverted and denied. Would've loved to see him alive and miserable, the lying sack of shit
The mainstream production of cultured animal proteins can't come soon enough, not that I care for them personally now, but it's good clear thinking not to dress up sliced and diced body parts in secondary terms when secondary certainly is not the global theme of our times anymore. Cow-abunga dude; I bet some 'burger' place somewhere has that surf term on the menu!
Hi Stoke Pusher. I guess you're talking about lab grown beef and all that new technology. That's definitely the future if they can guarantee it's safety. We'll be looking closely at that later in the year. Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave
I would add a variable to your vast research on this subject. Look up debt and fertility ratio. Debt in this case is an interesting variable, and it has an unexpected effect on younger generations. In countries where education is not free, younger generations are piling up debt, and this is time shifting the time when they leave their parents’ homes and start their own homes. In addition, government debt is having a similar effect in countries where debt is very high in relation to GDP. In the old days it was said that, government debt had a ‘crowding out’ effect on corporate debt. I would argue that government debt is having a similar ‘crowding out’ effect on fertility rates. Other variables have a similar result. For instance, climate change appears to be lag correlated to a drop in fertility rates. Finally, plastics appear to be correlated with a drop in male fertility rates.
Hi Eric. All very good points. I appreciate you taking the time to set them out clearly. There are so many factors at play in this arena that it's almost impossible to keep track of everything and harder still to tie all the interlinked elements together into something coherent that our global leaders can tackle. I will carry on banging the drum for what it's worth anyway. All the best. Dave
While you greatly irked me with your "sea ice loss" video, this one is a lot more objective & evidence-based. THE ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION COULD LIVE SUSTAINABLY IN NEW ZEALAND..!!! Good for you for telling the TRUTH..!!! Please see my prior FACTUAL analysis of global CLIMATE MODERATION's Overwhelming Benefits for our world & humanity, point# 8) being relevant to this video.
Ever heard of the Inca's agricultural recycling revolution? Their population density is 33,000 to 55,000 people per square mile and yet as the more people they have the more soil and water resources becomes more enriched and increased in numbers and quality and bio-diversity. Why this fact is not a well known public knowledge and not taught in schools and not discussed in governments and in military policy makers.
This video is very unfair to meat eaters and meat produces. A lot of the worlds land is only suitable to pastoral farming (herding cattle, sheep) as appose to growing crops. Growing crops is much more profitable per square km that growing meat. Most farmers if given the choice would grow plants instead of animals. However most land is not flat enough, fertile enough or wet enough to grow crops. Countries you criticised for eating too much meat, are countries that originally had vast amounts of grazing land suitable only for ranching. The people here naturally ate a lot of meat. I know in rural Australia 100years ago people ate beef steak for breakfast! Why? Because they lived on a cattle ranch and that’s all there was, not because they indulged in a profligate lifestyle. Argentina, middle USA, Canada, Australia all were known for their small populations occupying vast areas of land only suitable for ranching. I’m not surprised Mongolia also showed up as red on your graph, they likely still eat a lot of animal products based on their traditional lifestyle of herding animals on the steppe. With regards to crops grown to feed animals in the US, that is more a reflection of the fertility of the American continent than of people’s greed. The Mississippi catchment is one of the most fertile river systems on planet earth, it’s in the same league as the Yangtze or Ganges. The Americans can grow so much food they don’t know what to do with it. They could grow enough to feed a billion or more people, but there isn’t a billion Americans to feed, the billion people who are hungry are on he other side of the world and aren’t rich enough to pay for its transport. So instead Americans feed their animals with their crops. They also grow copious amounts of corn, only to process it down to syrup to sweeten drinks and other junk food. It’s not extravagant if you’ve got the quality land and low population density to get away with it. If the American continent was as populated as China or India, Americans would eat very differently. A similar truth exists for places like Australia, Argentina, Europe. These are home to some very fertile lands, with relatively low populations depending on it. I know France especially has very productive farmland. The problem is people in highly populated or land quality poor areas seeking a lifestyle or consumption habit similar to those who live in sparsely populated and high quality land areas.
Hardly. The US can currently grow the amount it needs, but using industrial farming. The problem with which is that it required huge amount of water and causes top soil erosion, and hence, it is not sustainable. Just check out these two topics : "top soil erosion" and "Ground water Depletion". I'd recommend the documetary pumped dry. Cheers mate.
@@kartik_adhia You're comment is both erroneous and contradictory. All farming is industrial, if it wasn't nothing would be produced. Using 'a lot of water' is a meaningless statement. Is it rain water or irrigation? Both are very different. Why would this necessarily cause errosion? A farmers soil is what is most valuable, it is in his interest to keep it. Good farming is about minimising inputs (fertilizer, water, labour, cash) and maximising outputs (value of harvest) so that the difference between the two are largest. For a lot of the world's land livestock is the optimal 'crop'. It's inputs (subsidised corn meal, agricultural by products) are very cheap. A well manage farm is both productive and sustainable, one does not exclude the other. A poorly mange farm is only one or none. In my experience, poorly managed land is that which is not owned by the farmer. Rented land is often treated as a mine, depleted of nutrient and value until the renter moves on. Owned land is improved so that it can produce indefinitely. In my view the environment would be much helped if law was constructed to encourage this truth instead of discouraging it. Subsidies, handouts, restrictions, ownership arrangements distort a farmer's natural incentives to well manage his land.
A google search would have spared you so much writing : www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america : Excerpt : "In the US alone, soil on cropland is eroding 10 times faster than it can be replenished." psmag.com/environment/groundwater-depletion-may-cause-domestic-wells-to-dry-out
I like your video's in general but this one is based on foolish numbers. Numbers like human population, how was the human population counted before 2000? 1980? 1950? 1800? 1000? Were women counted then? Africans? Asians? North and south Americans? How could the "New World" people have been counted by Europeans when they didn't know it existed? So I believe your population growth charts are based on very little information, I would be interested to see how those numbers were calculated.
The good news: we might have already reached 'peak child', so 'production' is slowing down. If we want to reduce it further, we need to make sure Africa has more healthcare, even a pension, etc. so they stop having more than 2 children.
Very informative video ~~~ but after years of given it a think ~~~ there are other limiting resources that may limit main resources (like food). Not sure if you have additional videos on this topic of sustainability and human population, but would be great to include some additional resources usage overall that run our industry including agriculture ~~~ food production estimates are based on fertilizer usage to increase production, and there are limits to say nitrogen and phosphorous in crop usable form. Example is that "P" for agricultural use is estimated to last us @ current use levels for about 80 years +/-... Synthetic Nitrogen fertilizers utilize natural gas (for hydrogen source) = natural gas has proven reserves of about 52 years +/-.. Using USA as an example of food production of every size and type, we use an incredible amount of fertilizers, and N & P are the top two, and K as # 3... Now is the time for the younger generations to look into the future and to expand and to create the tech needed to recycle our organic waste, and design plan D for developing future fertilizer sources... A few years ago while working with a design team designing livestock waste systems wrote a report showing that my state (Nebraska) was generating enough animal waste from livestock (beef, dairy, and swine) and poultry to fertilize the entire state crop fields, and no need to apply commercial fertilizers... cost of transportation was high, and nutrient concentration varied, so.... Then convincing farmers that you were providing 2 - 3 years N and 4- 5 years of P, K, etc ~~~ dang is a hard sale. Any who, food production is a limiting factor for human population, but nutrients and water are limiting factors to produce our food. Sorry for the dissertation ~ cheers
The British, Germans, Finns & Swedes aren't very rude are they ? British, Germans & Finns I understand of course, that's obvious, but Swedes ? Really ? Those movies when I was little must have been all made up.
I'm heavily referencing Just have a Think videos on a website dedicated to providing solutions to the Canadian province of Alberta's contributions to greenhouse gas production, but I would like to have a greater variety of sources (although Just have a think is the best channel of this type on the internet - IMO). Any suggestions? Here's the website www.deathpartyofalberta.ca/ - and yes, I know the name is horrible ;)
number and figures unfortunately don't bring to the conclusion that reducing meat consumption would help. You, Sir, could find a truer point of view if you could just talk with a farmer. Understanding that VEGETABLES are the most unsustainable way to feed ourself, for the fact that they just drain the ground to make huge harvests. The annual crops such as wheat, oat, corn are little less intense in thems utilization of fertility, but they require a HUGE amount of fertilizers. The only sustainable and regenerative way to produce food is with poliennial plants, and grasses. No fertilizers, no tilling of the ground, and a costant sink of organic matter in the ground with deep root systems. The problem is much more complex than it seems, and the answers vegetarians and non agriculturally educated people gives, are superficial slogans
Hej the animals that I 'dead' to live run around here, Göteborg, but I do avoid the fresh fruit and veg that has to be trucked up at great expense and vast environmental harm after being grown in ecologically destructive poly tunnels by slave labour in southern Spain. Do not TRUCK it!
Sorry- But what it really sounds like we need to cut out the Practices in how we raise Beef? Yes we should all at least cut back. But that doesn't change the need to raise, feed, slaughter,.., Cattle differently. Changing the hows should fix the problems. An Historical reference is how Native Americans had more Bisons than we could ever have with Cows.
So given an historical flip back and forth between fact based progressive/liberal/science based planning, and expansionist sexual-dominance conflict based planning, no matter that this seems to work, you likely will continue to face intermittent Trump/Johnson like periods in resource allocation (or mis-allocation, if you prefer). If you accept that will happen, then the number of sustainable humans that the world can tolerate drops substantially. The one mitigation I see at least having some effect in these United States, are publicly recognized rules systems and science based constraint recommendations.
My "favorite" subject. I even have an email from Paul Ehrlich to never be deleted from my inbox. Someone ought to get a kick out of this- ruclips.net/video/1-0vnRmej0Q/видео.html One other comment- This species has a massive misunderstanding about protein. Where does a baby get its protein while it is growing faster than a human ever grows during its life? Mother's milk has less than 1% protein. Excess protein is the cause of most of our diseases. The human body doesn't even use protein. In fact protein is seen as a foreign object. It is broken down into amino acids, and then the body turns those into protein. So we really only need amino acids.
I don’t think it is, our land is tilled with chemical fertilizer, it’s getting dryer, it’s going to fail. All my farm brothers know this, but the price goes up, people can’t afford it and they migrate to new lands. What’s happening now with boats in the Mediterranean is the harbinger of a future where millions of migrants will go to food and water. It’s going to get bad, real bad.
Way back in the 60s ZPG was the thing instead of the CO2 Goose Chase. Zero Population Growth is still the most sure fire way to stop the mess we are creating. I'm glad we are making some progress in that area. Your math was wrong when you repeatedly stacked your billion people blocks on top of the ones that died. If the average growth rate is 1 person for every person, the population growth stops. Disease, accidents and wars reduces the total.
>Implying that in China people are vegetarian and don't have pork ever and any time they can afford it. >Implying that meat is just protein and calories. >Implying that your life is better just for being vegan.
The population of the Western world is not growing. Our dietary habits, however ill-advised they may be, are technically "sustainable". The problem comes in when people in Africa and Asia decide that they want to eat loads of beef like the west does. THAT is what will be unsustainable.
Hell yes the earth can support much more than that. We can grow food anywhere anytime with new technologies. We need more CO2 for our plants...they are starved. We keep cleaaning the air of particulates and find clean, cheap (maybe nuclear molten salt Thorium), energy...no big deal.
All has to be said, farming is incredibly inefficient and all those alarming numbers become completely meaningless igpf more efficient methods like greenhouses or hydroponics are used. Also GM plant with all essential aminoacids or synthetic milk/meat and aquaponics will incedibly help with the inefficiency (and cruelty) of livestock
Good points. But one I wish you had addressed was range land. This type of land is too barren and stony to grow crops on. But animals can graze it. I imagine a lot of Scotland is like this. I’m from B.C. Canada. Should range land be used for agriculture or revert to wilderness? How effective or ineffective is it at feeding us? You see the animals do the work walking around eating off land too poor for crops than we round them up and eat them. This was a good system for people in the past. Has it now seen it’s day or is it a good way to produce food from non arable land? Have always been curious about that....
You claim that the fertility decline is a result of wide spread education of women and strengthening of women's rights. I'm sure this is true in some cases, but a large part of the fertility decline is due to the abortion of female fetuses in places like India and China. The spread of HIV in the 1980s also encouraged the use of condoms, which were rarely used prior to this time period.
I'm a relatively new subscriber, I've been watching this channel for several months now, and this video is quite a bit older with a lot less views than the newer ones, but I loved this video! I loved the format, the background music, and all the charts! I love the new videos too but this one felt exciting!
In Africa some cattle and wheat farmers are rehabilitating the land by planting indigenous plants and farming with buck instead. The buck can live very well on the land and don't need antibiotic injections, so it's much less work for the farmer and produces healthier meat. Also, it stops the extinction of indigenous plants and insects, also birds and small mammals. Game farms are much more beautiful than wheat or canola farms and the farmer can also make money by building some chalets and hiring them out to tourists. It's a win, win situation.
Where does population increase? Certainly not Europe. We can't have 11 billion with european living standards, and as people want this standard, then we cannot have 11 billion people at all, and the reduction must take place where the increase also happened. How can that been achieved? Propably with a very important economical crisis.
Hoping when a sort of optimal global dietary profile is finally realized our Earth will be able to support 11b people for long term so that colonizing Mars becomes unnecessary.
Just recently found your channel and really enjoy your presentations, cheers mate, from an ex pat now living in Oz...
Thanks Jaypea. Much appreciated. Welcome to the channel.There's a few of you watching over there now. Good luck with your elections mate. I hope you get a new bunch with a slightly more amenable attitude towards renewables!
@@JustHaveaThink thanks mate, we need it, most of them have their heads in the sand but I just joined ACF Australian Conservation Foundation and talk is that we're going to make this a Climate Election, keep up the good work, cheers mate...
When my grandmother was born in 1927, population was 2 bln. When my dad was born in 1949, it was 2.5 bln. My mom in 1952 - 2.6 bln. (only 0.6 bln. rise since grandma's - in 25 years, which means 0.024 bln per year). When I was born in 1993, it was 5.6 bln. (3 bln. since mom's - in 41 years, so 0.073 bln. per year). Now it is 7.7 bln. (2.1 bln in 25 years, so 0.084 bln per year).
And it wasn't the west. How about that.
You're suggesting that the baby boom didn't happen? Or are you choosing to ignore all of the deaths from world wars and plagues?
And in the next 25 years it's expected to rise by 1.7bn, or 67m a year. In the 25 years after that it's projected to rise by under 1.1bn, or around 42m a year. Past increases are a poor guide to future trends. The population explosion already happened.
I m a 91 you have a. Pretty Life i Say you politica of so happens will do of US soylent green with this all problems ti solve we are too much manu blind insider some ignorino they aldready are killing us
The dying oceans turning acid and heating up fast. They saved our ass up to now. Tips and feedbacks cutting in soon. We won't get to 11 B . ❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️
Brilliantly thought out and produced video. I think it's the simple clear approach that makes it work so well encapsulating just the necessary info.
Hi Matt. Many thanks for a very kind comment. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave
What's little realised is that until the 1950s those famously carnivorous French were relatively modest meat-eaters by today's developed-country standards, averaging barely 40 kg annually between the wars against 100 kg today: a century earlier the European average intake was barely 20 kg a year, only Britain exceeding 40 kg along with North America. Modern levels of meat consumption aren't a traditional part of our way of life, they're unprecedented and unsustainable.
A few points. Leaving aside the totally ridiculous practice of growing cereal crops to feed livestock, it is often assumed by people who have zero experience in farming, that if only we would not raise livestock, that something like 10 times as much vegetables/grains could be raised on this land. This is total bullshit. Much grazing land is either marginal or unsuitable for farming, the limiting factor being water. Also, cropping tends to be much harder on the land itself than grazing. Secondly, the social justice arguments, which can only set ever decreasing limits on anything and everything which may be consumed, need only be invoked where population growth is accepted as inevitable. How about we start planning for a drastic decrease instead? This is the real elephant in the room. It's either that or Soylent green. Take your pick.
We need to reverse desertification.
Talk to Walt Disney about it
Could happen. Won't happen.
Biggest two problems: livestock destroys soil, natural plant growth; undeveloped (sorry: 'developing') peoples cut down trees for fire wood - and as these are the people most likely to have population growth, this is just going to get worse in Africa, Middle east and India.
@@danguee1 watch Joel salatin Ted talk on how animal grazing is essential for grasslands to thrive
Sorry, alan savory. Both interesting tho.
Great with the statistics, but not so on the diet issues. The idea that a plant based diet is the best and most healthy diet is a myth. Humans would never have been able to develop our advanced brain and intellect on a purely plant based diet. Humans are omnivores, so we are designed to primarily eat animal products as well as plant products. Plants in fact have many naturally toxic chemicals as defense mechanisms to reduce animals grazing on them, as well as man-made chemicals used in modern agriculture. In the future, technologies like aquaponics and aeroponics in vertical farms and advanced animal production techniques will solve the land use problem.
This is pretty much the reason I gave up eating meat 2 years ago - it was the single biggest thing I could do for the environment and the easiest to achieve.
Not once have I ever badgered my meat eating family and friends about it.
What it did do, was to highlight how staggeringly tilted our diets are - the hardest part of doing this lifestyle change, was eating out.
90% of food in hospitality in the UK contains at least some meat, pushing the vegetarian options in the worst cases, to a cheese sandwich.
Good luck if you are vegan - not even worth trying to eat out in 99.9% of venues.
But there's hope in sight - in most large towns and cities, there's enough choice for vegetarians and slowly, for vegans too.
In less sophisticated and less populated areas, well, there's always roast potatoes, chips, bread, beans and other vegetables - good venues will always try to help you out.
Bad ones will offer you a cheese sandwich.
Of course Earth can sustain even 12 billions with a bit of tweaking. Question is, what about the rest of living beings in the Universe, i.e here on earth ? Human isn't going to extinct...it's really not a problem. The problem is that we are a parasite killing our host (not the physical earth itself, but the balanced biosphere that make life easy and enjoyable, not a living hell like Madmax).
Hans Rosling was amazing . I was watching him and thinking wow we could use him now. I have chosen to be childless. I made that decision a long time ago when i saw the track the human race was taking, and how it would eat up the planets resources. I dont advocate it for everyone, but im happy with my choice.
Exactly! That's what my wife agreed upon, too, although in retrospect I would have loved to have had one child...
@@jonathanstewart351 You can adopt
Very thoughtful and considerate for all others
@@jonathanstewart351 perhaps adopt?
We are exactly like bacteria in a Petri dish. Infinite growth with finite resources.
Spoiler : they all die in the end, or some evolve to survive. Either way it's hell.
@@Elviloh The only 'survivors' are dormant spores, waiting around for the environment to return to normal. We are on track to breed ourselves into extinction.
David Suzuki used this example....In a couple of generations we'll be having our last supper as far as resources go.
A very dumb thing said by a very smart guy.
Yes we are. We are just like all other living things. If we can get the food our population will grow. When we can't, it will shrink. So let's stop whining about it and let nature run it's course. Hey it looks like our population can grow quite a bit... all we have to do is eat less meat and more veg.
Ridiculous We already grow enough food for 11 billion . Yes true it is just that much food gets wasted
We may be able to “sustain “ eleven billion people but such a world would be an unmitigated nightmare.
Excellent analysis! Here are some of my thoughts.
As you point out, the idea of concentrating large numbers of humans to live in one area started with the agricultural revolution and accelerated with the industrial revolution. This along with the ideas and thinking that the economy (human activity) always has to grow for us to progress and the idea that money and the financial systems always need to increase for us to be successful is why we are starting to hit the wall.
The key is to operate in balanced cycles just like nature does. The economy (human activity) and the financial systems need to be about sustainability not about growth. Presently, if the economy or the financial system are not growing, it is considered a failure. This thinking is wrong and cannot go on uninterrupted on a finite planet. Whether its the planet's population or the amount of US dollars, they cannot continue to increase forever. There needs to be some new models developed based on sustainability.
Everything in moderation can be made to work with the natural cycles of the planet. Pollution is also part of the natural cycles. If the fish use the lake as their toilet, it is not a problem unless you start getting too many fish. If we start a few camp fires to cook some meat, it is not a problem. If we burn some coal to generate some electricity it is not a problem, if we burn some gasoline to move some vehicles around, it is not a problem. When everybody starts doing this and we say that we have to keep doing more of it every year because if we don't we are not growing and that is bad thing then it becomes a problem.
Excellent presentation of a major problem. Let's eat less meat!
I am.🌎
If people eat less meat, then we will be able to produce more food, and the population will just go up even more. As another commenter said, we are just like bacteria on a petri dish... if food is available population will increase
Solent Green
Wont help. We need less people that eat less meat.
@@seanhurley4003 There is a negative correlation of fertility rates with politcal stability, equal rights, womens education and health care. Food plentitude on the other hand doesn't lead to higher fertility rates or at least is not a dominating factor, or do you want to tell me, that the blue countries here @3:21 are suffering from food shortages.
My entire household is completely plant based. We practice no-till self-sustaining gardening. Fruit trees and native edible plants. We live in northern Florida, so I’m concerned about sea level rise. Contemplating moving before the housing market crashes near the coasts.
By scientific scales of performance we have all of the resources today to solve the issues of overpopulation. It is not a lack of resources, it is the manner in which we are allocating those resources. Lets start with food. We already throw out almost 60% of the food produced in the world today because we are not allowing needs to determine where these resources are going. It is resulting in an over supply in wealthy markets that gets thrown out before it is used. We can grow food anywhere today with our regenerative agriculture, hydroponic, aquaponic and vertical farms. Fresh water? We have several desalinization technologies at our disposal today that are capable of creating millions of gallons of fresh water a day. We can build pipelines and canals anywhere we want almost. Healthcare? Again being limited by profit interests, not a lack of science or personal. Education? Same issue. Housing space? 84% of the earths land mass is sparsely populated. The truth is we possess ALL of the technology and the resources to end scarcity today. We can solve all the issues. The only reason it is not happening is this anitquated religious belief in our own man made creation. Money
Hi Buffalo Chips. I agree 100% with every word. It sounds so clear and obvious when it's written down in black and white, and yet as you say, the demented and delusional pursuit of money is apparently more important to the narcissistic megolomaniacs than the survival of our species and all the species around us as well. Major change is urgently needed.
It's much easier to accept for people to not have children then it is to life an enviromnet friendly way.
No.
Please do a video on
A. Lab grown meat
B. Plant based meat like alternatives like Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat
I've been told by many dieticians, that for an average male, 0.5g of protein per lb of body mass. "Mind you" -couldn't resist - I'm a little over weight and slightly larger than the average male, but even if I were my athletic weight in University days that's 90 grams of protein per day. Which is about 15-20% of my daily calories. So, I don't know where you get 50g; that just seems low to me.
In the society of monetary psychopaths and culture based on consumerism, the answer is 'no'. Thanks for the informative graphs. Can you please cite your source of the global calories at 8:20? I can't find that.
I don't know his original source for the calorie numbers, but this talk by Joseph Poore is full of top-quality info along those lines: climateseries.com/lectures/34-joseph-poore-climatechange-food-impact
whenever I meet a friend who doesn't have children I always tell them they are Eco Warriors and doing more good for the planet than anyone else. Love your program and would love it even more without the background music....your voice is enough.
Trigger Troll It's not when the planet is overpopulated and your future children and grandchildren are fighting and possibly killing for enough food and water to survive along with the other 11 billion people because the planet can't support that many humans
Lol thank you for calling me so, even though I decided not to have kids just because I cannot stand them being closer to me than 100 meters
Been a nonbreeding tree hugger since 1970. Hate the fact that the behavior that would lead us to extinction was never respected or heeded. Enjoy every day for it could be be your last. And sooner than you would ever want.
It’s not that the world can’t support 11 billion people. We just expect too much of everything as we advance further in the future. Humans are too complicated
One thing is for sure, the Earth can’t sustain the current 10 BILLION animals bred for eating, we currently grow enough food for 10 billion people but 80% of it is fed to animals bred for eating!. So PLS stop talking about ‘over population’ and talk about the real problem of the real population explosion!
good program as per usual! thanks! BUT! I think f.ex. the chart showing animal-produce consumption per capita in the world is highly misleading. yes, these countries are probably consuming more animal-based products but also, even more importantly they produce more per capita than other countries as a result of intensive animal husbandry practices. see holland, denmark, sweden etc as examples or even new zealand or australia. A lot of these products then are exported to other countries f.ex. China or arabic countries, Russia etc.This in turn makes the chart misleading and your conclusion just the same... Another thing. I am rather sick of this one sided standpoint in the animal production debate concerning water use or even protein/carbohydrate per sq km land... As an agricultural engineer and farmer I know the DIFFERENCE between different types of agricultural production. Land or water use can't be blindly compmared like this... stock-yard intensive maize based animal husbandry (fattening) of cattle so very common f.ex. in the US is rightly said draining on resources BUT grazing based extensive or low intensive systems such as you've shown regenerative agricultural practices where animal husbandry is coupled and integrated with cropping is highly advantagesous for both the environment and food production. this is further supported by the fact that we have more land available to graze than to crop on and grazing doesn't compete with other food or human rsource producing practices. a more nouanced picture isto be painted otherwise all the less informed and slightly more ignorant public falls for the become vegetarian propaganda, the one that says milk is bad for you and butter, cream and egg-cholesterol will kill you.... By the way... Even your "you'll be healthier by eating more veggie based diet" is questionable on the premises of how you prepare the ingredients, and only a very slight increase in cancer (ca.1% from 3 to 4%) was ever proven f.ex. in case of intestinal cancer as resulting froim eating and thanks to mainly processed -red- meat products...
"leaving a little space for the other species" is getting more difficult all the time. Extinction rates are approaching levels not seen since the dinosaurs died off and is due primarily to displacement by us. Also, a lot of our agriculture is not sustainable due to ground water depletion and soil loss among other reasons. Nature will limit our population for us and it will be ugly. Besides, who wants to live on a planet with just us, cockroaches, rats and coyotes? That won't be living. Soylent Green (dystopian movie, 1973) is us!
11 billion is pretty much the minimum for the end of this century and depends on low birth rates, 2 people have 2 children etc. Lower birth rates occur in nations with higher living standards. Nations with high living standards consume orders of magnitude more goods and energy. Even renewable electricity, manufacturing and recycling have other none CO2 pollutants. Can the world and our environment really function with at least 11 billion people with modern living standards? This is even if we ignore more human issues such as war and resource competition. I really find it hard to comprehend the idea that 11 billion people is sustainable.
I don't see how a problem of too many people with to many things can be solved by more people with more things.
11 Billion sustained. But what if food prices soar ? Is there enough paided work for the two more billion people to go by 2050 because we are in the middle of a robotic and AI revolution ....
Note on that agricultural land : 2/3 i.e. 66% is marginal land and for one reason or another unsuitable for growing crops other than gras for livestock. It is to steep, rocky, poor, etc. to grow those crops on.
Education is the way to avoid the big families so common in the poor parts of the world. When people get away from subsistence living they don’t need huge families.
You got !!! Everyone bangs on about climate change, but nobody, but nobody but you (and maybe a few others), is talking about it. HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH. Great little potted history of western development and population growth and civilization in general. The inputs for our culture(s) are the degrading factors. But the very intensive animal feedlotting should be replaced with nice green-friendly roo meat, very eco-friendly and eco sustainable(unless we export it, like all the beef/mutton we send) wshich would probably defeat the purpose.
I live in Canada. It makes sense to eat meat here. Climate and ability dictate a lot of why those numbers are the way they are in terms of who and where people eat more or less meat. We may not be able to grow Mangoes and Bananas here but we sure can grow a whole lot of Pork, Beef and Chicken! Sure we can grow a whole lot of lentils and we do and we export them to the world. All of my vegetarian friends turn to meat though once their bodies start to fail on them. I have seen it so many times now. A nice balanced diet with a good dose of meat is what I recommend. For my British friends though, I would say that if you want to have better teeth and bones, lay off the tea a little. It is eating your bones.
My principal concern is developing economies which will not move straight to efficient economies from a resource standpoint and as they represent the mass of future consumers. Mankind does always seem to work things out however.
It could, but only force everyone living cleverly, not wasteful, and don't let dumb person rise to power.
This is so terrible for our planet
No. "Fortunately" no need, since population will start to diminish drastically in the near future.
Please lower your intro music volume and speak louder, I had to lower the volume for the explosive intro and then increase it for your hushed voice.
Hi Squeaky squeaky. Sorry about your poor ear drums. I got a couple of other comments like yours and I've actually changed the intro again now to something very simple - just a rumble of thunder and some electrical interference. I hope the latest videos are less painful for you :-) All the best. Dave
1,000 to 3,000 in a couple of weeks, you are picking up. A large part of that I think is down to your presentation style.
A generation is 30 years not 15
Sorry there were NO vegetarians when our ancestors were hunter gatherers during the last ice age. It's sort of in our genes! Still a very good video as usual.
congratulations on an excellent Channel .....very informative and beautifully communicated!
Thanks Linsey. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave
Yes I second the motion! @@JustHaveaThink
Population is tapering but we currently can produce enough food for about 10 billion. Emissions and other resources though eh probably not so great at that level.
Population is declining in the developed world. However the population hot spots will see growth until the end of the century. These are under developed countries such as Africa, india and parts of Asia. By 2050 projected population will most likely be close to the 10 billion mark. As far as what number is sustainable, that is strictly a guessing game. Considering the human population was at 2 billion around 1925 to 1935 and in less than a hundred years has almost quadrupled there is no president for a viable prediction.
A good indicator of serious problems though is things like mass extinction, water scarcity, chronic starvation of nearly a billion people, escalating food insecurity and now climate change. All the red flags seem to be waving that we are way passed a sustainable population.
@@decimusrex92 ya but per capita emissions are way way less. By the time they're up hopefully renewable will be norm
I appreciate the data presented in this analysis, ... specifically, that a reduction in the consumption of meat in human diets will help yield several important beneficial results regarding global resource management. HOWEVER, ... even IF transitioning dietary habits and a reduction in meat consumption is achieved, ... the notion that global human population 'may' increase to 11 billion people, ... IS A PIPE DREAM. Bottom line is that planet earth's resources ARE FINITE, and 'we' are ALREADY past 'maximum human population' level. Don't kid yourselves people ...
We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion and that is with our current meat diet. :) We could easily sustain 10 or more billions if we produced food in a sustainable way instead of for profit as we do now. If you can't figure out the difference do some reading!
@@pietersteenkamp5241 That is why the soils are depleted, the crops have much less nutrients and all sorts of deficiencies are on the rise for even well-fed people for the first time. We can eat crops grown in water (hydroponics) or eat synthetic supplements made in a lab, but that doesn't mean we will lead healthy lives.
According to scientists (and economists aren't scientists), the sustainable human carrying capacity of the planet is 1-3 billion. Your claims of "easily supporting 10 billion people" requires a large majority of that 10 billion living in abject poverty, just like they do now.
You want to keep eating animals bigger than yourself, please continue, but please don't spread misinformation
I really appreciate your matter of fact approach to present the facts, all pointing to a mostly plant based diet. The health care crisis would also be reversed in time if we changed.
I just looked up that interactive diet map to see where my country (New Zealand) comes in. Turns out we're at 191% !! Much higher than Argentina, so much for clean green NZ.
Oh dear. I hadn't spotted that. My mistake and my apologies. I have a Kiwi colleague at work and she says New Zealand is always getting overlooked. I fee suitably guilty!
Imagine being shocked that a country dedicated to farming uses all of its arable land
Yes, if we transition to renewably powered and clean, healthy circular economies based on Cradle to Cradle Certification and design for disassembly thinking. Good thing is that wind and solar PV for electricity are already cheaper than fossil fuels and growing rapidly. Good thing is that there are already thousands of Cradle to Cradle Certified industrial products on the market.
Do you know how many resources are used, and waste generated for each MWh of solar and wind production?
Wind turbines require 1 million pounds of steel and probably 3 million pounds of concrete. Both of which can be recycled after 25 to 50 years of operation. Wind turbines repay their embodied energy in under 6 months of operation. This included mining, smelting, shipping, constructing, servicing and recycling. SunPower solar PV panels are the highest efficiency on the market. But they are also Cradle to Cradle Certified for clean disassembly and remanufacturing inside our "circular economy". Solar PV panels have an energy return of 14:1 in Alaska and 27:1 in Arizona because of increase solar radiation.
@@Aaron16211 Each solar panel generates 300x it's weight in waste, and do you have any figures on how much recycling of those actually occurs?
A word of caution, with regards as to how much cattle breeding impacts on resources it is not as simple as portrayed.
Depends on the region's climate, land fertility, they way it is fed. If its done mainly on grain/ration (feed-lot) then the damage is max.; but until a generation ago in the Argentine region cattle was bred extesively on natural pasture Therefore impact was minimal and if done rationally the land in some areas can benefit from it as you well say in other videos.
The reason I write this is because the way this video put it tends to make feel guilty the people who, living in low densely populated area, enjoy a steak twice or thrice a week disregarding where it came from.
If you analyze more thoroughly that is a dangerous approach to the subject.
It seems as though you have the problem sussed, however things are NEVER as simple as the statistics show, the question still needs to be answered in so far as what we should be eating. I know the vegetarian/vegan group think they have all the answers, but I'm not sure they do, but I like most people reading this, I will be dead long before that question is answered.
Unfortunately, food is just one dimension of the problem. Thus, for every lb of human something like 30 tons of infrastructure are (presently) used to support it, i.e. roads, buildings, telecommunications etc. Then there is resource depletion to consider, e.g. phosphorous, copper, sand, etc ...and environmental destruction, e.g. deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases etc...When all these are taken into account, then no, eleven billion people on the planet is *not* sustainable - not anywhere close.
Yes, maybe the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet for 'civilized' humans is about 3-5 mill?
Very good your video, I already managed to reduce the use of red meat by 1/4, replacing it with poultry and increasing it replacing it with other proteins and including a greener and fruit diet, and I still think I can cut more later For a while you don't even feel like eating so much red meat, it becomes a heavy intake.
Excellent Denunci. Keep it up :-)
Your conclusions on land use and beef production show a lack of understanding of a number of things. Beef production is generally done on land that is unsuitable for other uses. Cattle consume no fossil fuel in their production until we start to feed them grain. A point that needs to be factored in. I like to look at what food production looked like before industrialization. That food production, without fossil fuels, consisted of grazing animals not fed grain and the common vegetables eaten today. It is likely that we will be growing food on every square inch of land when the earth hits 11 billion. That is if tensions of a crowded globe don't drastically reduce population overnight. We seem a world less afraid of nuclear conflagration with each passing day.
Then, of course, there is the next pandemic.....
Half the globe please for nature without humans.
Amen!
Great to see your channel grow by 900% since this video... I'm falling in love with your channel and think you're one of the best at communicating this well researched content at a high level while keeping it easy to understand which is a powerful thing!
Wow. Thank you Dominic! That's extremely kind feedback. I'll do my very best to keep putting out the information as well as I can. All the best. Dave
@@JustHaveaThink You're welcome, i really hope you succeed, also if you ever wanted to do a video on molten salt reactors and/or the thorium fuel cycle feel free to bounce any ideas off me. Its an area I would consider myself very knowledgeable about and very relevant to your channel and would gladly share my thoughts and knowledge if you need (although you're clearly very good at doing your own research)
I think this doesn't pay much attention to the probability of the third* green revolution:
Permaculture with robotics, and indoor cropping etc. Many people own land which is not put to good use, in that people own land and yet only grow lawns or they have excess space in their houses which provides them little value.
The third green revolution would see people investing in automated food production in their own homes as the price of buying food transported over long distances exceeds the price and effort input of having an automated garden growing fresh crops for immediate consumption.
NASA have already proved the theory that a person can be sustained on a well organized plot of land, indoors or outdoors, in the range of a few square meters per person fed.
If price of robotics continues to reduce at the same rate it is, then it will become more efficient for people to invest in robotics to grow their food on their own land than it would for mass farming cultivation. It is almost inevitable when you think about it because the cost of transportation of food with the current system is entirely unavoidable
Other technologies such as the new research into homesteading, and industrial, water desalination will likely also increase the amount of freshwater available. And the new focus on creating rainclouds also will increase freshwater availability
But yeah I can see how the Argentina thing could be true, my sister married an Argentine... Who find it funny to laugh when people mention eating meat etc around me, considering that I'm a vegan
Ok for food. But what about other resources ? Metal, phosphore, wood, sand for construction, fresh water, etc....
That might be a problem.
The 1943 expert was right. We consume faster than the Earth replenishes so even though there are 7B+ people, it's not "sustainable". We're living on credit.
It's possible to pay off massive amounts of credit. I know. I've done it.
There is more than just protein in meat that the human body needs.
What type of farming irrigation are you talking about? American farming or farming in less efficient countries?
American farming like soaking whole fields to grow cotton in the desert?
Great video, thanks! Although I come from a large family: 6 kids, I constantly advise young couples that it's quality, not quantity, when it comes to having kids. Have 2 kids, spoil them, send them to college and spoil them some more. Have 6+ kids, like my parents, live poor with not a dime for college or help and barely keep track of them, let alone spoil them. That's my experience.
Well said!! Good post
Spoiling kids makes them bad people. Don't spoil them. Raise them right.
Have none, spoil yourself
Excellent video! I recently found your channel and are looking through some of your old videos. I'm a longtime fan of Hans Rosling and have seen most of his presentations, both in English and in Swedish. And your summary is excellent. As well as you easy to understand explanation of how switching to a plant-based helps reduce land use so that we can feed everyone. You should make a new version of this video now that you have an additional 152000 subscribers, so that more can see it. Keep up the good work!
Okay, had to look up this chart,
but it kinda was, euhm, unexpected,
Belgium is like 104.5% according to this.,.
( I thought we were around the same as France )
Sooo, euhm, not sure.,.
btw, did you look at new zealand? 191.2% O.O
Someone from New Zealand told me off for missing them out. And I must admit I had completely missed it. I am a bad person! ;-)
And as for the drop in fertility being attributed to living standards, gender equality and women's education, BOLLOCKS.
What about global pollution by hormone mimicking chemicals.
We are polluting ourselves towards infertility.
Then why are people having children later and later? Before the medium age was 25 for first child, now it's closer to 35. The truth is, women don't want to have children because there is not enough infrastructure/policies to let them have kids AND a career. And it's become too expensive; even on two salaries. Look at what's happening in Japan.
It's true though that pollution is a factor on fertillity, but it's more and more a problem the older you get. If 25 years old wanted to have kids, they would have less infertility problems.
@@ouicertes9764 Your first question is based on the premise that you are commenting on the west. I'll bet Africans and Indians are not delaying reproduction. Next, your second comment which suggests you have to choose between children or career, then you say it's (children I presume) too expensive. Are you seriously going to put a dollar value (cost) of having children? I'm sorry, that is nuts. The difference between having children and having dollars is a chasm. Why? Well, having dollars merely supports a level of lifestyle, you're saying "I want enough money to live like the Jones or live up to my expectations about how life should be." On the other hand having children is a biological imperative, it is what life does to sustain itself. Having children is way more fundamental than getting rich. You are suffering from a modern mindset that puts you at the centre of the universe, rather than your potential children. Fundamentally it is a selfish attitude. Put children at a higher priority and you will be rewarded with satisfaction during you life, put money higher and you will have squandered your life.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, it sounds harsh to me, but I think that biological imperative trumps the egotistical me, me, me attitude to life. Having children, focusing on raising then to become happy adults, is the purpose of life, having the biggest bank balance when you die, is not.
Big fan and hope this reaches you in good health. Considering COVID-19 and the lower birth rates would be interesting to see an update of this video.
It shows the power of the media's hysterical hyperbole over COVID, that you think it has impacted the world's overall population.
Will part 2 address resources for stuff? The concept of consumerism and materialism has grown massively in my life time. I wish we had, could or would put aside huge swaths of land for the other life. The 11 billion people is just unimaginable to me. Also water resources, desalination plants have issues. That's not an answer.
Hi Marcia. Thanks for your feedback. It's a good challenge for a part 2. It seems to me that there is a very ironic sort of self regulatory factor at work when we consider population growth. And that is that if our civilisation does actually arrive at the year 2100 with 11 billion inhabitants living on the planet, then almost by definition, someone, somehow, must have worked out a way of resolving the looming climate and resources problems that we all know only so well. if on the other hand, we keep bowling along our 'business as usual' , RCP 8.5 trajectory, then your fears will most likely be realised. Nevertheless, those births, at least in the near and medium term are inevitably going to start to ramp up the size of our global population, and that means, as we and others have very sadly concluded before, that hundreds of millions, if not billions of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world will perish well before the end of their otherwise natural lifespan and our population growth will be controlled, not by a voluntary reduction in fertility rates, but by a mass genocide through wilful inaction and negligence by world governments and politicians more concerned about keeping the money happy and protecting their careers than actually taking courageous decisions that may jeopardise their own careers but which might actually galvanise the masses into more urgent action. Having said all of that, who knows what the future really holds. As I mentioned to another contributor recently, no-one knew that penicillin was just around the corner, and without that antibiotic breakthrough, many of us would not be here today.
@@JustHaveaThink you have a good point. I keep coming back to the fact that humans are an animal. We like to think we are somehow able to meet all challenges because of our opposing thumbs and frontal cortex. I think we indeed can and have done so in many instances. Which may have left us more confident than we should be. I only get to stick around till 2040ish. I do hope our brilliance once again saves us but i admit too much doubt.
Great comment, Marcia. We have triumphed this far but will we adapt to a changing planet? @@dallastaylor5479
Great information! One question you forgot to ask: do most Americans think it's okay for them to have most of the food and let the rest of the world go hungry?
At one time or another USA has sent food aid to MANY (100's) countries in times of famine including Soviet Russia in 1921. We may not be perfect but we've tried.
I found your channel couple of days back... and i must say i am binge watching your old videos. It gives immense amount of interesting information. Keep it up. ✌️🙌
I learned so much from reading Hans Rosling's book. You read some good stuff.
I'm sad he died so he won't have to live through the facts he subverted and denied. Would've loved to see him alive and miserable, the lying sack of shit
The mainstream production of cultured animal proteins can't come soon enough, not that I care for them personally now, but it's good clear thinking not to dress up sliced and diced body parts in secondary terms when secondary certainly is not the global theme of our times anymore. Cow-abunga dude; I bet some 'burger' place somewhere has that surf term on the menu!
Hi Stoke Pusher. I guess you're talking about lab grown beef and all that new technology. That's definitely the future if they can guarantee it's safety. We'll be looking closely at that later in the year. Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave
glad i found this......great info and videos
Thanks Anton. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave
I would add a variable to your vast research on this subject. Look up debt and fertility ratio.
Debt in this case is an interesting variable, and it has an unexpected effect on younger generations.
In countries where education is not free, younger generations are piling up debt, and this is time shifting the time when they leave their parents’ homes and start their own homes.
In addition, government debt is having a similar effect in countries where debt is very high in relation to GDP. In the old days it was said that, government debt had a ‘crowding out’ effect on corporate debt. I would argue that government debt is having a similar ‘crowding out’ effect on fertility rates.
Other variables have a similar result. For instance, climate change appears to be lag correlated to a drop in fertility rates.
Finally, plastics appear to be correlated with a drop in male fertility rates.
Hi Eric. All very good points. I appreciate you taking the time to set them out clearly. There are so many factors at play in this arena that it's almost impossible to keep track of everything and harder still to tie all the interlinked elements together into something coherent that our global leaders can tackle. I will carry on banging the drum for what it's worth anyway. All the best. Dave
While you greatly irked me with your "sea ice loss" video, this one is a lot more objective & evidence-based.
THE ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION COULD LIVE SUSTAINABLY IN NEW ZEALAND..!!!
Good for you for telling the TRUTH..!!!
Please see my prior FACTUAL analysis of global CLIMATE MODERATION's Overwhelming Benefits for our world & humanity, point# 8) being relevant to this video.
Ever heard of the Inca's agricultural recycling revolution? Their population density is 33,000 to 55,000 people per square mile and yet as the more people they have the more soil and water resources becomes more enriched and increased in numbers and quality and bio-diversity. Why this fact is not a well known public knowledge and not taught in schools and not discussed in governments and in military policy makers.
This video is very unfair to meat eaters and meat produces.
A lot of the worlds land is only suitable to pastoral farming (herding cattle, sheep) as appose to growing crops. Growing crops is much more profitable per square km that growing meat. Most farmers if given the choice would grow plants instead of animals. However most land is not flat enough, fertile enough or wet enough to grow crops.
Countries you criticised for eating too much meat, are countries that originally had vast amounts of grazing land suitable only for ranching. The people here naturally ate a lot of meat. I know in rural Australia 100years ago people ate beef steak for breakfast! Why? Because they lived on a cattle ranch and that’s all there was, not because they indulged in a profligate lifestyle. Argentina, middle USA, Canada, Australia all were known for their small populations occupying vast areas of land only suitable for ranching. I’m not surprised Mongolia also showed up as red on your graph, they likely still eat a lot of animal products based on their traditional lifestyle of herding animals on the steppe.
With regards to crops grown to feed animals in the US, that is more a reflection of the fertility of the American continent than of people’s greed. The Mississippi catchment is one of the most fertile river systems on planet earth, it’s in the same league as the Yangtze or Ganges. The Americans can grow so much food they don’t know what to do with it. They could grow enough to feed a billion or more people, but there isn’t a billion Americans to feed, the billion people who are hungry are on he other side of the world and aren’t rich enough to pay for its transport. So instead Americans feed their animals with their crops. They also grow copious amounts of corn, only to process it down to syrup to sweeten drinks and other junk food. It’s not extravagant if you’ve got the quality land and low population density to get away with it. If the American continent was as populated as China or India, Americans would eat very differently.
A similar truth exists for places like Australia, Argentina, Europe. These are home to some very fertile lands, with relatively low populations depending on it. I know France especially has very productive farmland.
The problem is people in highly populated or land quality poor areas seeking a lifestyle or consumption habit similar to those who live in sparsely populated and high quality land areas.
Hardly. The US can currently grow the amount it needs, but using industrial farming. The problem with which is that it required huge amount of water and causes top soil erosion, and hence, it is not sustainable.
Just check out these two topics : "top soil erosion" and "Ground water Depletion". I'd recommend the documetary pumped dry.
Cheers mate.
@@kartik_adhia You're comment is both erroneous and contradictory.
All farming is industrial, if it wasn't nothing would be produced. Using 'a lot of water' is a meaningless statement. Is it rain water or irrigation? Both are very different. Why would this necessarily cause errosion? A farmers soil is what is most valuable, it is in his interest to keep it.
Good farming is about minimising inputs (fertilizer, water, labour, cash) and maximising outputs (value of harvest) so that the difference between the two are largest.
For a lot of the world's land livestock is the optimal 'crop'. It's inputs (subsidised corn meal, agricultural by products) are very cheap.
A well manage farm is both productive and sustainable, one does not exclude the other.
A poorly mange farm is only one or none.
In my experience, poorly managed land is that which is not owned by the farmer. Rented land is often treated as a mine, depleted of nutrient and value until the renter moves on. Owned land is improved so that it can produce indefinitely.
In my view the environment would be much helped if law was constructed to encourage this truth instead of discouraging it. Subsidies, handouts, restrictions, ownership arrangements distort a farmer's natural incentives to well manage his land.
A google search would have spared you so much writing :
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america :
Excerpt :
"In the US alone, soil on cropland is eroding 10 times faster than it can be replenished."
psmag.com/environment/groundwater-depletion-may-cause-domestic-wells-to-dry-out
Another well produced and informative piece of journalism, keep it up Dave Jhat.
Hi Matthew. Thanks for your comments. Very much appreciated. One small edit though...I'm Dave not Paul 😊
@@JustHaveaThink All apologies Dave Jhat.
I like your video's in general but this one is based on foolish numbers. Numbers like human population, how was the human population counted before 2000? 1980? 1950? 1800? 1000? Were women counted then? Africans? Asians? North and south Americans? How could the "New World" people have been counted by Europeans when they didn't know it existed? So I believe your population growth charts are based on very little information, I would be interested to see how those numbers were calculated.
It can’t hold a billion
Let's just all have only a single child, that way we'd be fine
The good news: we might have already reached 'peak child', so 'production' is slowing down. If we want to reduce it further, we need to make sure Africa has more healthcare, even a pension, etc. so they stop having more than 2 children.
Very informative video ~~~ but after years of given it a think ~~~ there are other limiting resources that may limit main resources (like food). Not sure if you have additional videos on this topic of sustainability and human population, but would be great to include some additional resources usage overall that run our industry including agriculture ~~~ food production estimates are based on fertilizer usage to increase production, and there are limits to say nitrogen and phosphorous in crop usable form. Example is that "P" for agricultural use is estimated to last us @ current use levels for about 80 years +/-... Synthetic Nitrogen fertilizers utilize natural gas (for hydrogen source) = natural gas has proven reserves of about 52 years +/-.. Using USA as an example of food production of every size and type, we use an incredible amount of fertilizers, and N & P are the top two, and K as # 3... Now is the time for the younger generations to look into the future and to expand and to create the tech needed to recycle our organic waste, and design plan D for developing future fertilizer sources... A few years ago while working with a design team designing livestock waste systems wrote a report showing that my state (Nebraska) was generating enough animal waste from livestock (beef, dairy, and swine) and poultry to fertilize the entire state crop fields, and no need to apply commercial fertilizers... cost of transportation was high, and nutrient concentration varied, so.... Then convincing farmers that you were providing 2 - 3 years N and 4- 5 years of P, K, etc ~~~ dang is a hard sale. Any who, food production is a limiting factor for human population, but nutrients and water are limiting factors to produce our food. Sorry for the dissertation ~ cheers
look up Argentinian BBQ and you'll see why
ARGENTINIAN PEOPLE ARE NOT ABLE TO EAT SO MUCH META DUE TO THE COST OF LIVING,SO MAY BE MOST OF THE MEAT GOES TO EXPORT
considering the average of the People i know.... NO. PLEASE. NO.
The British, Germans, Finns & Swedes aren't very rude are they ? British, Germans & Finns I understand of course, that's obvious, but Swedes ? Really ? Those movies when I was little must have been all made up.
I'm heavily referencing Just have a Think videos on a website dedicated to providing solutions to the Canadian province of Alberta's contributions to greenhouse gas production, but I would like to have a greater variety of sources (although Just have a think is the best channel of this type on the internet - IMO). Any suggestions? Here's the website www.deathpartyofalberta.ca/ - and yes, I know the name is horrible ;)
number and figures unfortunately don't bring to the conclusion that reducing meat consumption would help. You, Sir, could find a truer point of view if you could just talk with a farmer. Understanding that VEGETABLES are the most unsustainable way to feed ourself, for the fact that they just drain the ground to make huge harvests. The annual crops such as wheat, oat, corn are little less intense in thems utilization of fertility, but they require a HUGE amount of fertilizers. The only sustainable and regenerative way to produce food is with poliennial plants, and grasses. No fertilizers, no tilling of the ground, and a costant sink of organic matter in the ground with deep root systems.
The problem is much more complex than it seems, and the answers vegetarians and non agriculturally educated people gives, are superficial slogans
Hej the animals that I 'dead' to live run around here, Göteborg, but I do avoid the fresh fruit and veg that has to be trucked up at great expense and vast environmental harm after being grown in ecologically destructive poly tunnels by slave labour in southern Spain. Do not TRUCK it!
Sorry-
But what it really sounds like we need to cut out the Practices in how we raise Beef?
Yes we should all at least cut back. But that doesn't change the need to raise, feed, slaughter,.., Cattle differently.
Changing the hows should fix the problems.
An Historical reference is how Native Americans had more Bisons than we could ever have with Cows.
So given an historical flip back and forth between fact based progressive/liberal/science based planning, and expansionist sexual-dominance conflict based planning, no matter that this seems to work, you likely will continue to face intermittent Trump/Johnson like periods in resource allocation (or mis-allocation, if you prefer). If you accept that will happen, then the number of sustainable humans that the world can tolerate drops substantially. The one mitigation I see at least having some effect in these United States, are publicly recognized rules systems and science based constraint recommendations.
My "favorite" subject. I even have an email from Paul Ehrlich to never be deleted from my inbox. Someone ought to get a kick out of this- ruclips.net/video/1-0vnRmej0Q/видео.html
One other comment- This species has a massive misunderstanding about protein. Where does a baby get its protein while it is growing faster than a human ever grows during its life? Mother's milk has less than 1% protein. Excess protein is the cause of most of our diseases. The human body doesn't even use protein. In fact protein is seen as a foreign object. It is broken down into amino acids, and then the body turns those into protein. So we really only need amino acids.
I don’t think it is, our land is tilled with chemical fertilizer, it’s getting dryer, it’s going to fail. All my farm brothers know this, but the price goes up, people can’t afford it and they migrate to new lands. What’s happening now with boats in the Mediterranean is the harbinger of a future where millions of migrants will go to food and water. It’s going to get bad, real bad.
Way back in the 60s ZPG was the thing instead of the CO2 Goose Chase. Zero Population Growth is still the most sure fire way to stop the mess we are creating. I'm glad we are making some progress in that area. Your math was wrong when you repeatedly stacked your billion people blocks on top of the ones that died. If the average growth rate is 1 person for every person, the population growth stops. Disease, accidents and wars reduces the total.
>Implying that in China people are vegetarian and don't have pork ever and any time they can afford it.
>Implying that meat is just protein and calories.
>Implying that your life is better just for being vegan.
The population of the Western world is not growing. Our dietary habits, however ill-advised they may be, are technically "sustainable". The problem comes in when people in Africa and Asia decide that they want to eat loads of beef like the west does. THAT is what will be unsustainable.
Hell yes the earth can support much more than that. We can grow food anywhere anytime with new technologies. We need more CO2 for our plants...they are starved. We keep cleaaning the air of particulates and find clean, cheap (maybe nuclear molten salt Thorium), energy...no big deal.
All has to be said, farming is incredibly inefficient and all those alarming numbers become completely meaningless igpf more efficient methods like greenhouses or hydroponics are used. Also GM plant with all essential aminoacids or synthetic milk/meat and aquaponics will incedibly help with the inefficiency (and cruelty) of livestock
Good points. But one I wish you had addressed was range land. This type of land is too barren and stony to grow crops on. But animals can graze it. I imagine a lot of Scotland is like this. I’m from B.C. Canada. Should range land be used for agriculture or revert to wilderness? How effective or ineffective is it at feeding us? You see the animals do the work walking around eating off land too poor for crops than we round them up and eat them. This was a good system for people in the past. Has it now seen it’s day or is it a good way to produce food from non arable land? Have always been curious about that....
You claim that the fertility decline is a result of wide spread education of women and strengthening of women's rights. I'm sure this is true in some cases, but a large part of the fertility decline is due to the abortion of female fetuses in places like India and China. The spread of HIV in the 1980s also encouraged the use of condoms, which were rarely used prior to this time period.
I'm a relatively new subscriber, I've been watching this channel for several months now, and this video is quite a bit older with a lot less views than the newer ones, but I loved this video! I loved the format, the background music, and all the charts! I love the new videos too but this one felt exciting!
In Africa some cattle and wheat farmers are rehabilitating the land by planting indigenous plants and farming with buck instead. The buck can live very well on the land and don't need antibiotic injections, so it's much less work for the farmer and produces healthier meat. Also, it stops the extinction of indigenous plants and insects, also birds and small mammals. Game farms are much more beautiful than wheat or canola farms and the farmer can also make money by building some chalets and hiring them out to tourists. It's a win, win situation.
Where does population increase? Certainly not Europe. We can't have 11 billion with european living standards, and as people want this standard, then we cannot have 11 billion people at all, and the reduction must take place where the increase also happened.
How can that been achieved? Propably with a very important economical crisis.
Hoping when a sort of optimal global dietary profile is finally realized our Earth will be able to support 11b people for long term so that colonizing Mars becomes unnecessary.