The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2024
- Population Collapse: If you’re struggling, consider therapy with our sponsor BetterHelp. Click
betterhelp.com/twobitdavinci for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a
licensed professional specific to your needs.
We have all lived in a world where populations have been exploding, and for good reason. Between advancements in technology and engineering, we've gotten really good at sustaining human life on our precious planet. But we're living in unprecedented times, and we might be looking at the height of human population before a collapse. In my research for this video, I uncovered some startling data, and we need to talk about this. Let's figure this out together!
》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《
Join our Newsletter! geni.us/TwoBitWeekly
Become a Patron! geni.us/TwoBitPatreon
Buying a Tesla? geni.us/GoTesla
》》》OUR PARTNERS《《《
Protect Yourself Online: geni.us/deleteMe
》》》GOING SOLAR?《《《
Save 50% on Solar Panels ⟫ geni.us/SolarSteals
Energy Sage for Solar ⟫ geni.us/EnergySage
》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《
Sponsor A Video! sponsors@twobit.media
》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《
Twitter 》 / twobitdavinci
Facebook 》 / twobitdavinci
Instagram 》 / twobitdavinci
Chapters
0:00 - Introduction
1:40 - The Drop
5:30 - The Birth Rate
7:20 - Country Level
9:00 - Why?
10:50 - Age Demographics
14:50 - Why Populations Matter
18:20 - What can be done?
what we'll cover
two bit da vinci,population collapse,population decline,stephen j shaw,stephen shaw,elon musk,human population growth,human population and the environment,human population dynamics,human population decline,human population growth crash course,We're 1 Generation from Human Extinction - Unpacking Population COLLAPSE,replacement rate,elon musk population collapse,elon musk population decrease,population decrase,World Population Crisis & Why NO ONE Sees it Coming, The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming , Society will collapse, world population, economics explained, data explained. 
Наука
Click betterhelp.com/twobitdavinci for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a
licensed professional specific to your needs.
We're unlucky, more humans means the cost of each humans are low.Humans are expendable!
And btw the governments will eventually take care of births.Humans will be grown in surrogate mothers for optimum performance.
I don’t have children so how about restricting social security payments to what I put in plus inflation?
with greater automation and use of AI we wouldn't need the extra social security. Ai will take care of the elderly efficiently@@RCdiy
Point of order in regards to Russia.
It's not the fall of the Soviet Union or the war in Ukraine that's shrinking Russia's population.
It's the "Double Echo" from both the famine and purges before WWII and the loses from WWII at12.7% (both around 20m dead). The Soviet Union and thus Russia never had a 'baby boom' era post war like the rest of the war which replaced these population loses and thus they're now seeing the effects.
Basically Russia is experiencing what the world will a hundred years earlier.
RealLifeLore has a good video on this.
How 'bout creating content that doesn't send people to therapy
Maybe we need a system that doesn't rely on growth.
Yes, for most of human history we didn't have economic growth.
It does seem like today's Tier 1 economy is a pyramid scheme that's running out of friends-of-friends to rope in....
@@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy No, we just had war & slaughter instead as every two-bit shitbag fought their neighbors to increase their personal power & wealth. Clearly a much better arrangement, right?
Who says that needs to stop? We got a functionally endless supply of resources to feed it. Just look UP. All we gotta do is climb into the sky & figure out how to survive & thrive there.
We have the technology to feed 200 times the current population.
Nobody ever seems to talk about changing the current system. All we care about is bringing in more indentured servants into this world.
Yes, the system isn't caring for the people we have. There are able bodied homeless who would like to work and live in a home. Those people are thrown away and they want us to make more. It's completely insensible.
Exactly this. I believe that this video was in fact sponsored by the Club of Rome or a similar “think-tank” who simultaneously want to see higher childbirth rates and also replace as many workers as possible with AI and automation. What could possibly go wrong with such a scenario? I love that he quotes Elon muskrat, only the single most wealthy and powerful man on the planet nowadays, and one who also seems to have a tenuous grasp on reality. The entire video also assumes that global capitalism will persist indefinitely, even with those 2 aspects of technology making life for the average citizen ever more precarious and increasing the likelihood that something else develops to replace it.
Let it all fall.
The population now had a chance to save themselves by changing laws, implementing innovations or having kids.
They didn't and instead they enriched themselves and kicked the ladder away. 30 years ain't our problem
@@User53123I have seen both sides of the coin. I have talked to people afraid to work; because, working would endanger their government subsidies, and I have also spoken with people desperately looking for work. We need to find a system.
I would say changing the system is discussed EVERY election. Just because it may not be the sweeping instant changes you might want doesn't mean it doesn't matter. That's the nature of compromises.
I have three grown kids. None of them have kids. None of their friends have kids. Very few of my friends have grandkids.
In my family, and my generation more precisely, we are 13. I am 22, the youngest of my sisters and cousin. My oldest cousin is 38. For all of them, only one have started to have children.
@@clarissat867 oh wow
I know like 40 people (~20 family) and other tens related to them and clients at works. Only 1 had a Kid recently. First newborn I hear of since 2010! Several had kids back then. No more since then. It's like the world really ended in 2012.
grab your pension, while you can.
As a 30 year old millennial I've just accepted that I'm most likely not going to have any form of retirement and if I don't figure out a major vein of revenue or whatever I'll probably just end up in a ditch somewhere by the time I'm elderly if I get that far.
Bro you can't afford a ditch, that's only for the rich.
Good thinking. Worse that can happen is you have too much money.
Yeah or we'll just work until we die basically, honestly i hope I die before I'm 60 or so, because otherwise those last years won't be pleasant
Agree, 31 y/o here. I gotta work till im almost 70 y/o according to the current policies and data. Even though i am living in the Netherlands and we have one the best if not the best pension systems in the world, although i am even wondering if we will still have the same quality of life when i hit 70 y/o as people of this age have nowadays.
I have heard this said by many in your generation, so I have some advice for you. I am at the front end of the boomer generation (77 next month), so have watched life for the working stiff decrease over the last couple of decades. Understand the the economy is like the Titanic after it hit the iceburg, but before it started to sink. The damage is done, but many refused to belive it. So my advice is get off the boat while you still have personal resourceses to create a life boat for you and the people you care about. If you want to now how(no I am not trying to sell you anything) reply to this post and I will tell you how I have created in the third world a place to ride out the storm that we all see coming.
I don't remember where I saw it, but I think the problem is pretty neatly summed up by "plants are the new pets, pets are the new children, and children are a pipe dream" in terms of how much just living costs. I don't think social media is why kids aren't dating. I think having to work wage-slave jobs and use every minute of time making money rather than connections is having a much harsher impact.
Then WHY do they WASTE 6+ HOURS EVERY SINGLE DAY PLAYING on their CELL PHONES??????
@@traybern Because cellphones are literally an essential for life in the 21st century. It's how people access the news, it's how people talk to one another, keep up with emails, read/listen to books/podcasts/scientific literature. Extraordinarily powerful companies have pushed all of us to be on our phones constantly, social media has branded itself as the only way to connect with people and Gen Z and Gen Alpha have grown up knowing nothing else. They aren't "playing on their phones" They're interfacing with the world in the way they have been taught to. Just like TV for Millenials and Gen X and Radio for boomers.
Also people live the city if they just leave and gain some independence it's doable and stable to have a family and a community
Please don’t take this as a an attack, but working for minimum wage is not new. As a kid I had my first job at 14. By 19 I was working 2-3 jobs making $5.25 to to like $6.50/hr. for about 7 years. I hated it….it did suck. My friends had similar situations unless they went to college. And yes I know inflation should be used to adjust minimum wage. But the $15/hr offered now is incredible to me, but it’s probably adjusted to be about what I made. But it didn’t stop us from having girlfriends. But if I had the choice, hell no I’d rather not work that many jobs (low pay & no insurance).
@@rythmblood27 No attack taken, but most jobs are not offering $15/hr in my area and a lot of them require a degree. In 2021 I worked at a call center, if you had a bachelors (didn't matter in what) you made $13/hr if you didn't you only made $11. For the city I was working in, you have to make $17.72/hr for it to be considered a living wage (according to one estimate by MIT). When we first moved to the city, my spouse was working on their master's and working in their field was only making $10/hr (2016), we were living in the cheapest studio apartment we could find and went into debt just keeping ourselves fed and the car running.
I'm not sure when you started working, but it might be a good idea to look up a price adjuster and input both what you were making, and see what the costs of goods and services at that time were. Inflation can really pull things out of perspective.
As a 22 year old Canadian guy the main thing holding me back from having kids is housing. I was raised by a single parent and lived in probably 12 different apartments/houses throughout my childhood. I just want a house but the cheapest houses within an hour from me are like half a million for old shitboxes😂
Half million for a 70 year old sewer connection is a realtor- bankster scam we are all suffering from. OUTRAGEOUS.
Buy land and build your own.
@@allan339 There are few empty lots even near the urban areas and where there are some, the price has gone crazy.
@@allan339 Thats the goal, I will still have to move hours away though. It will still cost around 500k still but will be way nicer than whats out there now. Ive been debating getting land and buying a trailer for a bit🤣
@@bigmike4923 Yeah, better to have a small house on a large piece of land than the opposite.
My wife works in end of life care and she has been talking me how people are not living as long as they used to. Cancer, heart disease, or strokes are taking people younger and younger. It would seem peak life expectancy is behind us as we are exposed to more and more chemicals, electrical frequency’s and poor quality food.
Stop making excuses for Pfizer.
Come on you must know why this is?
And vaccines
It's invisible. Nobody can point a finger at the problem because as always "...there's no evidence" . Trouble is there's plenty of evidence except for where it's coming from, but we all know it's coming from somewhere. Good luck proving it though.
Are you kidding me, the Boomers were the worst at taking care of them selves, Drugs, alcohol, unsafe sex, and risk taking. Both my parents died in there 50s…..did over use of pesticides and herbicides help? Only on the weed they were smoking!
I live in an area of low population, I’m 57 years old and am dreading getting old, this is because there are more retired people where I live than young or working age people, the problem this brings is there are not enough people to carry out the fundamental functions for a healthy society.
I’m an electrician and have been well aware for many years that there is a severe shortage of electricians in my area this means that I am working harder now than I was twenty years ago and it’s just getting worse.
Young people just keep leaving the area to go live in the city, I can foresee the area I live in becoming a pristine wilderness in the future.
>> this means that I am working harder now than I was twenty years ago and it’s just getting worse.
If you are one of the few electricians in your area then you should be able to work less for more money.
I think you are doing something wrong here.
When young people are struggling to settle, e.g. buying an apartment and social security is scarce, it's no wonder that having children is not on the priority list.
The idea that it's economic is plain wrong. It's cultural. Even the poorest people in developed countries are wealthier than most humans across history who still managed to procreate. Wealthier countries have the lowest birth rates, and education, wealth, secularism, and urbanism all predict low birth rates. It's not that the life we need is expensive, it's that the life everyone wants is expensive. Within most countries it's the hyper-traditionalist religious groups that are reproducing fastest, from the Amish in the US to the Orthodox Jews in Israel. And they tend to make do with a lot less.
@@sebastianwetherbee9465 I'm sorry but you're just wrong. It is literally just numerically objectively more difficult and expensive to house yourself now than fifty years ago. Wealth is relative. The poorest person int eh US might have more money than a well off person elsewhere. But, they need far far more to survive. It doesn't matter that fifteen dollars an hour would put you in the one percent in Bangladesh. Here in America, that won't even keep a roof over your head most of the time.
Also, culture is adaptive. The culture is shifting away from having children precisely because of economic reasons.
Talking about relative wealth means we're talking cultural expectations, not actual needs. Compared with the wealthiest moment in human history? We are the next most wealthy after the baby boomers in the late 20th century... And sure, it is more expensive to live in a developed economy, but we're not talking about literal survival, we're talking figurative survival, meaning "being able to have gaming consoles, spend time out with friends, have weekends off, have a car, eat really nutritious food, get a higher degree in a subject we find meaningful, etc etc." Don't be so melodramatic about it. Even someone living in a trailer park has all the basic necessities covered. And yes, culture is often adaptive but it can also be maladaptive. We're in an environment where a lot of our cultural values have twisted to start producing maladaptive behavior. At some point there will be a correction. This isn't about what people actually need (economic) this is about what people want (maladapted culture) @@ErikratKhandnalie
@@sebastianwetherbee9465 some of the most out of touch shit I have ever seen. As a 'younger adult' in the US - I can't afford a house, and the economy is just generally worse now than the guilded age. I can't afford to exist, but this isn't an economic problem. Whatever helps you sleep at night
@@sebastianwetherbee9465 @sebastianwetherbee9465 No, talking about relative wealth means that it *literally costs more to live here than it does to live elsewhere*. Like, pull your head out of the sand, dude. Are you really trying to tell me that you could survive in the US on five dollars a day? Or are you just conveniently omitting "home", "healthcare", and "food" from your calculations? This isn't a culture thing, it is an economic thing.
It is literally just more expensive to live here than it is to live in, say, Malaysia. The wealth of our society is meaningless to most people when the overwhelming vast majority of that wealth is concentrated into a tiny handful of pockets. Might as well go to the Congo and declare that, because the country is so rich in mineral wealth, nobody there must go hungry. It's just an awful take all around. You talk about "figurative survival", but then list things that either ridiculously cheap to the point that they barely even factor into the conversation(game console? Seriously? You think people are broke because they bought a console? A console plus like three or four games is barely half of a rent payment for most people. Next to the library, is basically the cheapest form of entertainment available. Nobody is missing rent payments over a damn Xbox ffs), or that we do actually need to survive. In ninety percent of this country, you absolutely *do* need a car to survive. It is not, in any sense, a luxury.
I'm sorry, but you just have a hideously skewed perspective on what people are struggling with, and it betrays the fact that you've never really had to struggle yourself, at least not for a very long time. Things have only gotten harder in the past few decades. People are legitimately *struggling* - not for all that silly nonsense you mentioned, but just to keep a roof over their head and food in their kid's mouth. Stop downplaying the real suffering that people in this country are facing and realize that this problem is, inherently, fundamentally, *economic*, and anything cultural is merely a byproduct
As a swede, we already have many of the benefits for having children (such as paid maternity/paternity leave), but we still have this same problem with a birth rate that is dropping.
So it is not as easy as implementing a few policies to reverse this trend.
No man in his right mind wants to have anything to do with a Swedish woman. That's the truth.
Same in germany. On the other side as a single person u find it even unfair . Even couples without kids pay less than singles.
@@VxO4fame For Sweden that is not the case we do not have joint taxing at all.
yep, everywhere governments are in control of 'incentivizing behavior' we have less and less children.
hopefully some academics and social engineers or youtubers figure that out. They'll probably insist it just needs MORE social engineering, more 'behavior punishment/reward' from government force and more redistribution of wealth. THEN they're sure it will work.
That's cause the only reason growth was so high is because pre modern medicine as many as 70% of children died before turning 18, since they were needed as workers families then had many to make sure they made it through. Then we hit the industrial revolution and entered a transitional stage where people were still having that many kids but the kids were not dying off, so population numbers BOOMED, once we realized that was the case it became unsustainable and pointless to have so many so a majority of people stopped. Now that 99% of kids will make it and kids are a net loss not a net gain in income/work, people only need and want one or two. It's natural and for the record the transitional period trashed our planet with overpopulation so it had its downsides too. Personally economic woes is not making any of us face extinction, so I think we are better off making it through this transitional period then trying to keep population numbers up. I'd give up excessive consumption for not going extinct anyday lol
Population collapse isnt a crisis at all. The fact that it could happen naturally without drastic measures is something we should rejoice at. The economic system can change to accommodate this or if not it can be replaced.
Why would i willingly bring a child into a world where they'll have to work till their grave
So basically for thousands of years of recorded history no one should have bothered to reproduce? Because retirement is a new thing.
@@Amlux1984 when did i say no one should?
Get a vasectomy then. Man up.
Yeah, my grandad in 1760 had cripling student debt & a 100 000$ hospital bill due.
@@Amlux1984 the idea of retirement is not a new thing, back then retirement was your kids providing for you when you got older. In the modern times it was rebranded as the younger generation as a whole will provide for the older one, but it's fundamentally the same thing.
'We're living in a golden age of mental health'. I don't think I've heard anything so at odds with reality. We are actually living in a well documented mental health crisis of epidemic proportions.
Especially our leaders in the west either have dementia or are raving psychopaths
Mental health is such bullshit. The shrinks are usually more "cuckoo" than the patients.
Yeah I just heard that depression rates are up a whopping 50% since like 10 years ago.
Hope this is classy - your part of the psyop lol 😂
Agreeing with you Dominic my post is for what? Producer
We are entering in a time where Plague and war is going to reduce the population. This is a planned event by elites : )
It's really hard to care about this when you mention how many young people it takes to support one old person. We young people have had the rug pulled from beneath our feet. Human productivity keeps rising as wages have stagnated since the 70's, inflation keeps rising and pay doesn't keep up, corporations use every exploit they can to dodge taxes, CEO to average employee salary keeps diverging. It seems the world is going to have to burn before these things get fixes. Especially in the Unites States.
And you can't buy a house because the old folks had 5kids, they haven't died yet and there's nowhere thise 5 kids, woth families now, can live. His proposal is total BS, don't believe this maniac, he only wants his investments to keep on booming so he exploit you to pay more rent on the houses he owns. 😂 This guy is ploting with Elon Musk, that can't be any good, the Millionaire that hypes up non existent currency just to make extra cash is trying to do the same but woth the population. 🤷
Reminder...the old people invented every toy and accessory that young folks can't live without, and most of the old people are actually feeding and housing their kids or grandkids
@@kwren-od3si and the old people of your time invented every toy and accessory you couldn't live without. What's your point. Old people are still feeding and sheltering their kids because they've also lived through that same stagnation. It's been stagnant since the 70s. Most young people can't afford to move out even if they wanted to. Rent is ridiculous, housing prices are insane. Let's not even add the need for a college degree since that was shoved down our throats. So now even jobs that shouldn't need it you do since every other applicant will have one.
@@Havox7 the younger generation are mostly crybabies. I moved out on my own at age 17, In 1970. I left a 3room 400 sqft hovel with a $13 guitar and the clothes on back. Spent years being homeless before it was fashionable. Gave up fun for an education, and i worked usually one full time and one part time job totalling 60+ hrs per week until 1987. After a medical event I cut back to 40 hrs week until my heart developed a life threatening condition. At age 43 I had a part of my heart removed. At age 55 I had two surgeries for malignant melanoma, followed by brain infection of unknown cause, intestinal obstruction, and all the horrors of fibromyalgia. Point being..my life has not been easy, and nobody sent me off with an inheritance. I didn't think anyone owed me anything. Along with partners of the time, I have bought two homes and in this twilight of my life I have bought a home alone, on the country. I never fell for the latest cars or the fancy vacations and I never had children.
If I can earn my own damn college degree without spending the time partying...of I can earn my own down payment without first buying a fancy new car (btw, I only had one new car in my life, and that was a dodge Aries) then the rest of you can stop buying the latest car, cell, computer, giant tv, ATV toy, boat, skis, and save for yourself. So far I have not met a gen x who wouldn't rather party til he puked and blame everyone else for it in the morning hangover in mom and dad's basement.
Yep, this is a stupid topic to promote, considering it is pure speculation and there are so many REAL problems, like you mentioned
When the baby boomers were booming there were many more single income homes. However, since 1978 the average salary for the CEO of a company has gone up 1,478%. An example with my wife's company her bonus can be paid out as high as 10% of her salary. In her yearly performance review she exceeded expectations. She recieved 22% bonus payout of that 10% and no pay raise again for three straight years. Her CEO's bonus paid out at 242% of his annual salary and he received fotry-nine million dollars in stock for his performance last year. The land of milk and honey has turned to the land of hate and money. I fully understand people not wanting to have kids. They can live a much more comfortable lifestyle since CEO's are focusing on taking the whole pie and leaving their employees with crumbs.
Having children in today's world is so much more difficult and expensive than it used to be. My (paternal) grandfather had 8 children and not a single one of them went to university or had some great education. They just somehow managed to survive. Today you can't just pop kids right and left. The social pressure is huge. We must do everything perfect and buy the best things for our little angels. It's just honestly too much work for truly no return. No wonder that nobody wants kids anymore.
Nobody forces you to be perfect or buy the best things. Its just your own excuses
where has "social-pressure" come from: Thank the CIA funding boyfriend FB for that...all intentional, they mapped your life, so YOU don't have one.
Well then, you go and have 20 kids instead XD
@@dallysinghson5569 If you will. I think one or two shall be fine
Ricky, I believe you beautifully elucidated the problem, but have its solution dead wrong. I am a retired environmental science professor. For 11 years I taught the "demographic transition" in many of my SDSU classes.
We have discovered that our societal institutions are nothing less than a growth Ponzi scheme. The solution can't possibly be to feed more customers into the scheme. Human well-being must not depend on a continual supply of more humans. In the long run, the Earth's population cannot increase indefinitely, and I strongly believe it needs to decrease.
How can we do this without catastrophic societal consequences? Perhaps technology can be part of the answer. Perhaps pro-natal policies can slow the crash and give us more time to institute appropriate policies. But as a child of parents who endured the great depression, I can't help but feel that tightening the belt, learning some restraint, and valuing quality of life over quantity of life will be the biggest part of the solution.
In the long run I would favor a planet earth with FAR fewer humans on it, each living FAR better lives. Let's continue to honor women -- both their motherhood and their choice not to be mothers. Let's devalue social media and re-prioritize real world social life. But above all let's work together in the real world to create a healthy culture that can weather difficult times.
"Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of a cancer cell"
- Edward Abbey
👏🏽
Exactly right. I see this being a struggle for my generation and the generations following me, but eventually a new equilibrium will be found. This is a period of de-growth, and all of these calls to have more children are short-sighted. We have overshot carrying capacity, even if it doesn’t look the same as other populations doing the same.
Underrated comment! I want kids but not if I expect they’ll suffer most of their life!!!
Perfect. Loved your response. I work in the oil field(actually out in the field) and I see the devastation we cause for this insatiable need for consumption. Right now, I work in Texas close to the New Mexico border and we are drilling drilling drilling. I have been out on this site since around June. When I first got to this site, not much was going on around me. There were gas flares off on one side of me that I could spot but on the other side, pretty much open land. Now I spot 6 rigs about to start drilling near me. When I got here, we were pretty much overrun with scorpion, tarantulas, gold millipedes and we could also see coyotes and rabbits everyday. Now, there aren’t so many of them. We have seen a lot of birds die since we have been here and I can’t help but think it’s the toxic sludge water that is just sitting yards away from me or the salt water that pools inside our containments after a rain. None of this is good. We can’t just keep making more and more oil pad sites and fragmenting all these living things. We are killing them and killing the environment. Then when I hear about this talk of “renewable energy” I’m just thinking, you’re going from one resource to the next, and we are just going to pillage and burn everything. Renewables are not clean. The way we mine these resources is far from sustainable or clean and we don’t even have the proper methods in place to not just throw away lithium and cobalt and other elements that took a lot of energy to mine. We don’t have proper recycling in place to add new life to these “renewables”and we are just in this endless cycle. Every “clean” energy source is not without devastating problems. We cannot sustain this population like this much less a bigger one. People are ignorant to the problem when they think population growth is the big issue.
Well put.
I've been following this topic for some time now. What I have noticed is that most people have their own favorite cause as to why this is happening. Some folks will blame costs of living, some folks will blame social media, "Me Too", female hypergamy, gaming, porn, female educational priorities, personal freedom, wanderlust, lack of religion, too much religion, etc. My own personal favorite is lack of multigenerational interaction (grandparents aren't involved).
The truth is there is a Perfect Storm of environmental inputs that is preventing young people from getting together and reproducing. Everybody's pet reason is part of the problem. You're all RIGHT.
The society we've created is simply not encouraging for people to even date, let alone make babies. No minor changes like increased childcare or tax benefits will do anything beyond minor bumps in birthrates.
Realistically, until having children is more financially advantageous than NOT having children, we're just going to see population drop.
Couldn't agree more. We have had such an unprecedented few decades of change, and we barely know what it will lead to. Exponential technological growth, a social environment where old traditions become obselete, and lack of a new culture to allow people to thrive in this new place...
I remember a quote from somewhere, something along the lines of "we were so preoccupied to know if we could, that we forgot whether we should." In the heat of passion, we have opened many Pandora's boxes over the past decades, some for the better and some for the worse, but all of which we are only beginning to feel the consequence of.
Though, I am glad that at least, we are acknowledging these consequences. It may or may not be too late, but late is still better than never.
@@akman7826Change is happening WAY faster than evolution can deal with. It's demonstrating that we are more interested in luxury than offspring. For the majority of our existence, luxury meant actually HAVING more offspring. Now that the two aren't synonymous, we can see that luxury is what we really want.
I'm very much part of the problem. I didn't have kids (for legit reasons). So I'm really hoping the species figures it out despite my own resistance to joining in on the future.
You seem to forget that having children is often not a decision made solely based on logic and economic thinking, but often also a very emotional decision.
I guess that may be more so because I'm in an actually developed nation (the Netherlands), opposed to a nation like the USA, which is basically a third-world country with golden laqcuer.
When you have an actual social safety net, it most certainly helps the people who want children (emotionally) to not be too afraid to make them.
@@EnchWraitsMusic Why the hostile tone?
Obviously Social Safety nets are your pet reason for this issue, and they will make having children easier for those who choose to. However as your own country shows, generous social safety nets don't even increase the fertility rate above my own gilded 3rd world nation.
It's capitalism, the root of all modern evil... all the other pet peeves are either a result of it or a bad interpretation of its evil... Unless the system is radically dismantled climate collapse and societal collapse are inevitable...
A population collapse is the opposite of a crisis...
the population needs to fall to save the world, so this is a good thing. even if the economy falls, we need the population to come down to save the planet.
The main problem with increasing the retirement age is not riots like in France, it’s the fact that living longer doesn’t mean being longer fit and healthy enough to deliver productivity on a competitive level. In my country, retirement age was increased to 67, but barely half of the people above 60 actually get a job. You have ever seen a 65 old grandma almost dying while pulling a pallet truck at snail speed, then you understand why increasing the retirement age doesn’t solve workforce scarcity.
In my country 65.
The way I see it is it's just a band-aid solution even head in the sand approach. Question is how low high will they increase it?
@@crevard203 I assume they will increase it until there is virtually no retirement, just people who are officially unemployed, and in reality just too old and frail.
@@peterp5099I think that's the ultimate plan - you work until you either (magically) saved enough on your own to retire, or until you expire. But never actually retire.
peter, let's get out in the real world and see many in their 70s and 80s still working productively.
Here’s a huge problem:
People used to be able to pass on their gains to their children. Now, their kids have to use every last asset to pay for long term care. It’s evil what that industry has become; overpriced death factories.
Why should anyone else pay to keep your parents alive? They're your parents your responsibility.
@@kimpeater1 of course it is the responsibility to take care of one’s parent. The OP is talking about long term care facilities, where nurses or healthcare workers are on staff. Parents could have illnesses or dementia that need professional care.
@@kimpeater1 correct, the cost of health care and long term care or not has skyrocketed including insurance, that is the point. Cost is an issue that needs to be addressed that is a fact.
@@patrickm6012 again, the cost of caring for your parents is your problem and yours alone. Your parents your responsibility. If you can't afford it you can't afford it. No one else cares!
@@kimpeater1 everyone is concerned about the cost of healthcare, it’s on the top 10 list of voter concerns, so yes we care. Otherwise we would not reform healthcare and insurance. This has to do with systems, corporate greed, and cost not individuals responsibility. When we see something is broken it’s time to remedy it, you don’t ignore it.
Good to finally see a vision of the population bubble. I knew this was going to happen since studying biology at school in 1970’s. Population growth in the animal and insect worlds follow a predictable, observable and verifiable path under many scenarios. I have long mentioned the fate of human population growth to friends and colleagues only to be politely scoffed at. Now I can show them your video, kind thanks to you.😊
Surprisingly the major problem is politics. Present situations are counter productive for having families.
Also you didn’t address the issue of preferring a better standard of living for people. So even if you control population level there would be the need for more resources.
As you said the situation is complex.
A am struck by the concept that our "economic model" that drives our society, and will fail due to population collapse, is totally a man made system, there are no laws of physics at play here. The question then, for me, is should we be encouraging people to have more kids to sustain our made up "system" or should we adopt another system that provides the societal benefits regardless of population demographic trends? I don't know the answer, but I would like to see the experts tackle that question.
I vote return to 150 million worldwide and resume nomadic hunting/gathering and building huts. Let's keep the toilet paper mills running though...LOL
The answer is really simple... resource-based economy. It is slapping our leaders f^
I agree with you. A youtube channel called The Venus Project may be interesting to you. Talks about a Resource Based economy.
@@ziplokk1453bidet, man, come on!
;)
@@ziplokk1453 I think we can still support a lot of people, just not 8 billion, if we switch to garden-based agriculture. And it will be sustainable.
I think it’s important to include increasing automation in the mix. Mechanised farming has in the last 150 years reduced the proportion of the population working in agriculture from almost 50% to around 2%
Three generations ago children were free labour and a retirement plan when you lived on a farm. Now they are very expensive pets.
Yes and with AI in our midst, what are all these extra 80 million people a year going to do for a living?
@pampence96 AI/automation will not destroy more jobs than it creates.
@heuzame6198 No, but for those of us without the education to work alongside these machines (programming, assembling, repairing, etc) I think we're in trouble.
@@Alderoth There should kickstart programs so they can adjust in time
Its probably a good thing to see the global population start to decline. I put it down to the cost of living, and usually high demand or lack of supply cause costs to rise.
Housing is a good example, my grandfather was able to buy a house outright with savings on a basic brick laying job while my grandmother was free to bring children up, but my dad needed a higher paying job and could only pay a deposit for a mortgage, my mother had a part time job, but my partner and i need full time higher paying employment and it might not get us a house, this is based in the same city.
Also in the western world it is looked down on to be poor especially if you have children.
So i guess we can just pay higher taxes to help pay for the pension.
Population collapse? It's welcomed, less traffic, less population, less issues...
Agreed, the world would be a better place with less people ! Plus with technology improving we need less people to run economies.
Feel free to make this world a better place if you think you are only a problem.
In India, during my father's education period. Students per class was 20 and 1 teacher per class. It turned into 40 by the time i entered the education system and by the time i graduated, we were 80-100/class per teacher. Reasons being lack of incentives to be teachers and compitation in the society to be well paid. Resources like food and shelter is no longer enough. Quality of life takes precedent now more then ever in history. Declining population might be the solution. Nature will take it's course.
its course. NOT it’s!!!!!
INDIA STILL has 300 MILLION people who SH1T in the STREETS!!! MAYBE think about INDOOR PLUMBING before…ANY OTHER quality of life issues, Honey!!!!
Its a problem of overpolulqtion in india but other counties around are almost ending due to lack of young people and no children , like China , Japan, even Eastern European countries like Poland …. This are ageing populations that will disappear soon … so it’s a matter of relocation. Besides - why India, being such poor country and many people not afford shelter, food or school for children any people have more and more children?
It is better to be overpopulated than under populated in long term....once replacement rate is low it is very difficult to recover
Not might but the only option for certain overpopulated countries is degrowth.
I’d riot too. It’s not “just 2 years.” By the time you reach your 60s, you’re tired, your body can’t do what it used to, & you’re much more likely to get a debilitating chronic disease or illness. So, there’s not much time left to enjoy the “golden years.” It’s more like, give the majority of your life to work, and then you can’t do all the things you’d dreamed about.. & then, you’re dead.
@@googleuser868 Facts!
Retirement is a modern luxury that never existed in the past, and will have to disappear in future. And whilst doing hard manual work may not be practical for the elderly, there's plenty of white collar jobs that they can still do. And it will help counter the mental & physical decline.
@@googleuser868I’m a debt free millennial but I didn’t fall for the bs that is college.
@@blueoval250
You're an outlier. There's more folk who didn't go to college and permanently indebted.
@@KatariaGujjar permanent debt is the American way. I chose not start out in life with massive debt. The majority of college degrees aren’t worth the ink it takes to print them. Yesterday I heard a woman working at a restaurant talking about how much she regretted going but the worst is a guy working at 7-11 saying he had a masters degree. I feel bad for these people that got scammed and it’s only getting worse.
truly the world is a funny place, first a complaint about overpopulation and now it's a complaint about population decline
Dude your channel should get huge I am a big fan now. Keep it up man great topic and amazing data backed perspectives.
Whenever I see discussions about over/underpopulation, I remember the rodent utopia experiment: rodents were provided with as many resources and as much fun as they would want, and they had a BLAST. Their population boomed because they were able to thrive! However, it eventually plateaued, and then dropped. They had as many resources as they would want, but they weren't reproducing as quickly.
Okay, cool, but there will be a lower plateau too, right? Wrong. When rodent populations got low, they didn't start reproducing a bunch again. It was almost like they lost the motivation to have/raise babies, or perhaps lost the knowledge of how to do it.
Since I heard of this experiment, I have always wondered if this is the direction humanity is going.
Sadly this is where we are going in the long term I think
Also, might not be rated but there is a MIT experiment that predicts mass death by 2040.
The main difference between experiment and people is that there was always somebody that takes care of the mice regardless how bad it gets. Once we lose our safety nets we going to be in big trouble.
That’s interesting. I also wonder if this is the human version of the rat experiment
What was the experiment even trying to prove, that rats will overpopulate and go insane in a closed environment? Well, proven I guess.
Interesting indeed. I think the thing is that every single species plus the planet as a whole exept for humans themselves will profit from human population declining massively.
My childhood (in the US, 40 years ago) was pretty f'd up. As a child, I promised myself I wouldn't have kids if I couldn't guarantee them a stable family environment.
I kept that promise.
Thanks
Same decision, same outcome.
So you gave your child that life or just didn't have one ?
By doing WHAT, removing the genitals???
I made that promise, too, but I’m still a rabbit 💪😏👍🏼
When someone says that the population of Earth will go down eventually, my answer is always the same :
AND ? .....
And you clearly didn't watch (or understand ) the video before commenting.
@@chinook575 I could say I don't agree with the video. Can you explain briefly why it's so important to keep Earth's population growing?
@@Simboiss Literally the whole point of the video is that its about to fall, a lot and in our kids lifetimes, there is no good inverted population pyramid
@@chinook575 Why is it a catastrophe that the world has 6 or 7 instead of 8 billion people? What's the calculation behind the reasoning?
@@Simboiss It sounds like you didn't watch the video. This was clearly addressed. The problem is it won't go from 8 billion to 6 billion, it will continue dropping, rapidly, because birthrate is below replacement, and it keeps getting smaller. In 3 generations we could go from 8 billion to 1-2 billion.
Imagine how much space everyone had in 400AD when global population was 100 million less than that of modern day USA. Virtually nobody lived in North America.
Could it be that on an intuitive level younger folks of childbearing years have a knowledge that things are not going to turn out well for themselves and there progeny? Many people might say that they don't want to bring children into such a world: a world where emotional depression, fear, social stratification and isolation, war, environmental degradation and shortages seem like certainties.
I think you're on to something there. Maybe they don't KNOW it's not going to turn out well, but are unsure if it will and like in horror movies it's the tension and not knowing what's coming that really stresses you out and that sustained level of of heightened fear takes a toll on people and puts them into a perpetual fight or flight mode which is not conducive towards having a family.
Another part is the unprecedented levels of information/communication we're subjected to. The average millennial/genz is inundated with social media, youtube recommendations, mobile phone apps, discord and so on. It places enormous burdens on still developing minds as there are literally distractions everywhere they turn to. It's also created challenges in dating. People follow the top instagram influencers and see how beautiful and rich their lives look and then the average person can't measure up to that so they don't even bother with dating. Another is FOMO, people have a hard time settling on one person since there's such easy access to dating markets. No one wants to get stuck with a potato so they hop from one person to the next never able to feel satisfied.
This is my reason to not have kids at least.
"Many people might say that they don't want to bring children into such a world"
Some say that. They might even mean it. But they want sex and drugs.
It is simply crazy expensive nowadays. Having a kid means needing one more room, and many people simply can't afford it. This is also why I am very skeptical of projections predicting that the population will crash. I think once the population starts dropping, real estate will become more affordable, so people should start having more kids again.
I'm one. Withholding having children is the best way for working class people to force a better distribution of wealth.
I believe Peter Zeihan said it best: “when people were living on farms, children were free labor, so you had as many as you wanted plus one (which is how you found out you had enough).
“But when people moved into urban condos, children became very loud very messy very expensive furniture, so adults have fewer of them.”
Except chosenites like him.
No one should have kids to exploit them
Peter Zeihan is one of these children too. Very loud, very messy, ZERO contribution to humanity.
@@makeitcount2985 "No one should have kids to exploit them"
Why?
The population talking points are ALL a lie. The population growth is healthy. Governments are promoting this BS to secure a poverty class of people, thats ALL!!
It's amazing how some with an "engineering mindset" has no clue.
This video is amazing. Thanks for the in-depth analysis.
Finally a video on this, thanks. I was born in the 80s & have already noticed a terrible decline in quality of life. Unfit apartments, anti-social miserable living conditions, stagnant wages & exploitation. Absurd travelling cinsitions & an unfit road network (won't mention train network as it's dire). An increasing obsession with qualifications limiting job options for most, restricting better talent from entering due to a lack of qualifications.
I was born in the 80’s and have encountered the exact opposite.
@@christerry1773 that's called privilege
I thought this was going somewhere. But it's just a list...
Your list is all the negative ramifications of overpopulation.
@@thec9424 Correct
I believe the explanation is simple: life today is insanely expensive and the future isn't looking good. Who would have a kid in this scenario?
Bingo
Hope you’re right! Less of us is the start of the solution!!
@@mikelundrigan2285you can start by 'solving' yourself.
"Who would have a kid in this scenary?"
No, "scenery". I would. Most people would, presumably. There's apparently no way to have a decent life without it.
Stop destroying kids in the womb - problem half solved.
Population falling is the best thing that happened to us as a race in hundred year - every metric that counts, from biodiversity loss to pollution (CO2 is pollution - we basically already screwed up) to projcetions about sustainability of industrial agriculture says that we ARE in the middle of the crisis, we are just so blinded by baseline effect that we can still kid ourselves "everything is fine".
Is earth with 8 million people intrinsically better than one with 6 billion? Or worse than one with 11 billion? And if you say it is - why?
Why? Just look at what we've done to the place! And what makes you think that destruction won't continue unless our population goes down by a LOT?
@@Bookhermit But that is exactly what he is saying. I really don't understand the point of this video. So we are worried about money? but the whole ecosystems are going to collapse? I guess we are going to eat money ... :(
Population decline is expected
But this isn't a decline.
This is a population bust.
That's not the best thing that could happen.
That's a civilization ending situation.
Population decline is expected but what we're seeing is a population bust.
That's what makes it dangerous.
@@savioblanc nothing is expected. There have never been so many people on the planet.
I really enjoyed this. Data and fact driven information to draw your own conclusion. Thank you for this high-quality content!
I am from Czechia, so part of EU. Our replacement rate has already been below 2.1 for some time. We only grow in population thanks to immigration but that has its own set of problems when not handled sensibly and carefully (which I am afraid it rarely is).
Millennials and certainly Gen Z are now basically openly being told to save some (significant) money for retirement rather than hope for dignified pension from government.
Many people here are giving up having kids because of the high cost of raising them.
I kind of wish I could fast forward 30-40years just so I could see how all of these present time issues developed and where we all ended up at.
Ahoj Libore 😀
Please don't call the country Czechia. 🙁
Being occupied by EU destroys countries.
Jesus will probably return before that happens.
@@earlysda why would he, he deserves his peace.
Why is less people bad? I haven’t been to many places and said, “you know what this place needs? More people.”
It’s because is that that instead of having 8 billion the world will have 5 billion forever.
It’s that if each couple only has 1 child, the next generation will be 4 billion, then 2 billion, than 1 billionm than 500milion until extinction.
And before we disappear we’ll suffer to find young people to work to pay the retirement pensions for the retired people, we will lack basical services that requires a complex economy with many workers, if most people are too old to work.
That’s the problem do you get it now ?
As you get older, everyone around you is also getting older.
You get sick, you have no one running the hospitals or too few people there to look after you.
You're house needs some renovations to make it safer for your aging self? Sorry, not enough people to do that either, which means it becomes more expensive to even hire them.
You want fresh fruits and vegetables to buy from your local grocer? Sorry, not enough people to pick them, sort them and transport them to your grocer.
Want to go for a drive? Sorry, not enough people to fill the petrol stations.
Your EV battery died? Sorry, not enough people to mine the elements that created that battery and the few there are are now out of your price range.
Your trash hasn't been collected. Sorry, not enough trashmen available.
Go live in the wilderness for a month and see how well you fare without people around you.
Grow your food, treat your own wounds, sow your own clothes.
Cos that's the future we're all collectively looking forward too.
And that's the positives.
The real horror is that we likely won't even get to that point.
If history has taught us anything, it's that people who belong to and practise an authoritarian, child bearing ideology will likely take over and those that do not align with it will be "cancelled"
@@markstein2845We’ve had population declines before, baby booms, so how do we know that it would be forever declining? Also the world and generations change a lot that priorities change.
@@savioblancTechnology is also becoming more and more automated.
Maybe we need a system that helps parents afford childcare and health care.
We did have such a system, it’s called women prioritizing the family over their careers.
I'm so happy to hear this.
I think ultimately it's down to people not being able to afford having children like they used to. And looking at the development of the distribution of wealth, it's very easy to see why and what needs to be done about this.
I ain't no fan of the rich fat cats either. But it's pointless to blame them. This is a social problem even they couldn't create, nor do they want, and damn sure can't do much about. As the cost of specialist labor continues to climb, it'll outpace even their deep pockets within thirty years. Right now they're deeply funding this robotics & AI development, but I believe that'll plateau out at some point when they realize that robots can never fully replace humans in the workforce for a multitude of reasons. All of which reduce to robots ain't people.
@@brianhirt5027 It's not blaming the wealthy. It's blaming the policies that reward the wealthy at the cost of the working class.
It's not about blame. It's about identifying and correcting a problem. Wealth for working class citizens is falling, while wealth for upper class people is rapidly rising. It started in force in 1972 and hasn't stopped since. Couple that with tax policy that rewards the wealthy. Working class couples MUST work two full-time jobs just to pay the bills, making raising children properly nigh-on impossible. Probably not a stretch to correlate that with our mental health and mass-shootings crises as well. We have to fix this, because society is currently in decay because of it. @@brianhirt5027
When I was a teenager in the 90s I swore I would never have kids unless I could raise them in a home where they had all the opporunity I never had... I'm doing well for myself by today's standards....and that is still far below my 90s quality of life when we went to theme parks every summer, vacations twice a year etc...Making twice as much as both my parents combined and I can't even afford those basics.
@@newtunesforoldlogos4817 kids are cheap if you let them die like they used to.
Humanely raising a kid ain't cheap. Then again maybe you have different definition of humane as I am sure our ancestors did.
Then again you can also force women to have children by putting that in the law, as long as you are willing to compromise on morality it's not really a problem.
Everything is on fire. The environment, economy, and culture. It’s hard enough to be on your own, let alone raise a family.
Truly
If didn't study this stuff, we wouldn't know this issues even existed. This should give mankind a chance to plan. This does not necessarily fall on the individual, but on society & government.
@@chrisguevara it doesnt take studying to know
it may sound silly, but i learned a lot about how population crashes can be unintuitive and sneak up on you from a town building game called "banished". because life expectancy is far longer than child bearing age, its easy to miss the signs when it matters. before you know it, you dont have enough kids coming of age to replace workers and then you dont have enough of a workforce to support the existing population, and as the elderly suddenly start to rapidly die off and the existing workforce is retiring without leaving kids to take their places (because you didnt give them the opportunities they needed), suddenly your food supply and other critical resource supplies to keep people alive start to collapse and people start to die off en masse for reasons other than old age. and then, without extremely quick thinking and rapid changes to your economy, the newest adults find themselves in no position to be raising kids either so they dont and before you know it, they are also too old and thats game over. I've also seen population spikes from uncontrolled immigration cause the same thing.
I wish i could say, well thats just a game, its not realistic, but looking at the real world, although the systems may be a lot more complex, in the grand scheme of things, i'm seeing the same trends. if it takes an entire generation to fix our economy so that young adults can be comfortable raising families again, then that gap in the supply chain will start to snowball as that generation's small number of children starts to become our critical workforce. and without extremely rapid corrections to adjust our economy to support more people with a smaller workforce, which is frankly just completely unrealistic with the way things are currently run, we can expect even countries like the US to be suffering mass starvation and chaos due to collapsing supply chains within a couple generations. but the CEO's that currently rule this country dont care. they only care about maximizing their profits now, with no regards for anyone's future, and most of our workforce continues to work month to month or even week to week, without the breathing room to plan ahead or think about their future.
Too bad this game isn’t being promoted so that everyone played it. I really think people don’t understand the scale of the problem in the tiniest bit. Honestly I feel like our only hope is AI and the advancement of robotics…they won’t be taking jobs from people, companies will be trying to crank them out fast enough so that they can take care of an aging population.
Maybe the people who don’t agree with all this will get lucky when they hit retirement, and the government will provide each elderly person with one personal care bot when they hit 70, as a replacement for the social security system that is defunct by that point. It could definitely be a whole lot worse than that…
“They burnt Paris to the ground”. Citation needed.
Sadly they did not.
Figure of speech.
i love watching society collapse under the weight of greed and short term profit that could easily be used to fund infrastructure etc and keep the country going for years on end rather than causing people to get desperate and violent.
Its collapsing under "progress". Barbarians at the gate are invited in, while the very smug adopt cats.
@@churblefurbles Looks like I've got to start looking for cats.
Um….we’re GIVING AWAY 13% of the TOTAL national budget to FREELOADING BUMS who CANNOT even run their own LIVES!!!!
Fund what infrastructure, for what purpose? Pursuit of financial success is not greed, it is just the pursuit of financial success. "Greed" can't be successfully and persuasively defined anyway.
@@robertd9850 well, the definition of infrastructure is the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise. The definition of greed is intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. Since my sarcasm didn’t translate well, I went and looked up these very simple definitions for you so you can better understand why your opinion is both stupid and wrong. Corporations are literally polluting the world at unprecedented levels for s h o r t t e r m p r o f i t because they are g r e e d y. This clearly upset you enough to comment because you must also be a greedy person who feels like money is worth more than a functioning society that you can actually spend the money in🙃hope this helps, babe💖
I am 24 years old, the beginning of Gen z. I seriously do not see myself retiring. I will die at the job. It will take a miracle for me to have a child. Only one of my friends has a child and is struggling to feed his child with two incomes in the house even after working well over 50 hours a week and family support for child care. I don't know how he'll afford education when he can't even afford a house. A lot of people my age don't see a point in working for a future generation because they see it as throwing their lives away so their children can struggle as well. My financial goals are traveling and being able to afford a truck, i don't know a single person my age with any hope of having children or owning a home.
Feminism has been a disaster. Letting women work and letting women vote will inevitably cause catastrophic population decline. The only surviving cultures will be those that put their women back in the kitchen, where they belong.
Just have kids. If you stress about having enough money, or waiting for the right time, it'll never happen. Just pop them out and figure it out. That's the only way families will function right now because boomers have ruined our prospects so severely that we can't rely on any stability for the foreseeable future.
Literally why would anyone have a kid at 24 yo!! lol that’s way too young. If I were you, I’d be surprised that one of my friends had a kid, and everyone would assume it was an “accident”, because again, who the heck chooses to have kids that young.
@@agme8045 that’s funny cause the red pill men consider a woman at 25 as “hitting the wall” 😂
@@agme8045 before the turn of the century, many families did have their first kid by 24. My own classmates were popping out babies shortly after high school because that's what rural, poor Texans did, we reproduced and worked at the Piggly Wiggly if we weren't lucky enough to afford college. Someone's gotta populate that shithole of a town.
And the lucky ones, like me, we either got scholarships or sold our souls to the student loan companies (over 20yr later I'm still paying them off, but only 4k left). The latter were too broke to have kids, and the former usually met their spouse in college and had kids as soon as they got their first jobs mid 20s. Looking back much further, traditionally, families were having babies by 17-18 because they were going to need like ten tries to keep three kids alive and it takes about a year to gestate and birth and prepare enough for the next one to hopefully be healthy. Five to six births by the early 30s was not unheard of. Mother mortality was the biggest threat to large families, because pregnancy and birth is freaking dangerous, even today, but especially before modern medicine.
And speaking of mother's mortality rate, the US has the HIGHEST DEATH RATE of mothers during pregnancy and childbirth than ANY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY. Of course modern women aren't clamoring to pop one out. Google it if you don't believe me. I can cite a dozen reputable sources that back this up, including my own family doctor, who mentioned this to my wife. Suffice to say, we aren't having kids.
24 is a good age to start having kids especially if you will not have two or three kids your facility drops after 30, he even said it in the video. Plus you don’t wanna have super old parents. And mostly human history. People were having kids at 24. It’s the reason we’re having a population decline. Did you even watch the video?
The population going down seems like a good thing., to me. Ocean levels rising, climate getting more extreme, water shortages, etc., etc. The only way for humans to survive is for population de-escalation.
non of that requires the population to fall nuclear out beats fossil fuel way more and is a lot safer.
All the problems described are engineering problems which can be solved. And as stated above the key is cheap and abundant energy
Its a natural progression: what comes up, must come down, including populations. People are thinking we can "engineer" our way out of anything, but the only thing engineering has done since the industrial revolution is create more of the problems they claim it will solve, so I have no faith in their claims of 300 years.
Awesome vid well broken down, clear and concise.
I used to work full-time at a factory to make $600 CAD a week after taxes.
That’s $2400 a month.
A boomer would think that’s amazing, but they forget that inflation exists.
Rent for a one-bedroom apartment in my area is $1500 a month.
A car is also required to get to work since the factory is in the middle of nowhere, so that’s an extra $500 a month for insurance, gas, and maintenance for a used Corolla.
Utilities take up $200-300 no problem.
So that leaves…
$100-200 a month for food, other bills, and savings…
So working full-time, busting my ass at a factory and destroying my body in the process, made me working poor and forced me to rely on food stamps…?!
No freaking way I’m going to afford a family or risk getting anyone pregnant when I can’t even afford to take care of myself!
Bruv, I feel for you. If you are still in this month-to-month situation (I have briefly lived that cycle but quickly broke it) I am curious to ask : Why not go all-in on fishing, forestry, mining or even the militray to save up hardcore for a few years?
@@luxuryvagrant6496 My answer to this is that sadly, I'm not the only one in this situation, and a lot are even worse off. I've applied before to places such as a mining site in New Brunswick that needed workers, and work for places that were desperately hiring like long term care homes and elderly care.
Despite how my resume was approved and hand crafted by government entities, these places never got back to me.
Now I'm working a job I enjoy much more, am very good at, is in demand in my area, work less in it, and get paid $22 an hour! I'm a freelance videographer!
But sadly, the world isn't the same as it was in the past where getting a middle-class lifestyle where you can support a family of 4 off your income alone was something you only needed a high school degree for.
There's indicators that married couples tend to make more, especially married men. If you team up with someone you're more vulnerable in some ways, and less so in others. Even if it just comes down to getting a male roommate, you can find a way forward brother.
@@user-hv7ef4st2r
Preach. Now I must ads that married or not, woman or not; uniting with someone is a superpower ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY ARE RELIABLE!!
If the person is not gonna synergise with you economically, logistically.. you're better off alone.
Someone with common goals.
Good luck, man.
In biology, you always expect a population crash after a population explosion. If we really want people to have kids, we're going to have to address the things that make it miserable to have kids. It's isolating to raise kids as a nuclear family, and there is little support for new parents unless they have enough money to hire it. Young couples don't, typically, and single parents have even fewer options. In other news, Paris is still there and has not been burned to the ground.
No, Paris isn't burned totally down yet, but it is completely overrun with tourists. Hoping it's just a post-covid catch up thing, which is also affecting the main tourist spots elsewhere. Hey people - spread out, check out the countryside and small, peaceful countries not on everyone's bucket list. Venice is now charging €5 a pop to visit and the locals can't even live there anymore. Stay away for awhile.
Exactly. The problem is the system not our bodies. We are burned out completely
Good. There are far too many people in the world by a factor of about 100.
@@cathjj840….tourists? Look again in 5 years. I suspect the tourists you think are overrunning Paris will still be there.
@@geoffreyharris5931 "There are far too many people in the world" - and thats where egoism comes in. Theres to many people making to many problems - for "me". theres too much competition, too much money goes for them and not for me. We all think as one with being individual. It's that simple :/ .
I love your conversation guidelines, those reflect the principles I live by! I'm a mom of four young children and a stay at home mom. It is increasingly difficult to live on a single income and it is difficult to even work part time and juggle everything- and we have a pretty minimalist life style! I sometimes wonder if there should be more incentive towards having children (as you said) it also might be worth incentivising living in a multi generational household. A tax exemption for building a second house on your property for example. This might be a win/win, grandparents help young parents, both parents can work at least part time, children might even actually learn *gasp* manners and parents might be willing to have more children if they have adequate support. This might help us to be able to cut back and eventually halt social security more gracefully.
This is a good thing for the planet. Let's hope it acceletes. We need less people, not more.
I don't think it's a bad thing the population is decreasing imo.
I just want to add to the reason why people are not getting children (in most EU countries): it's just too expensive. A kid costs about 200.000 to raise. That's not even a small (61 square feet) appartement in my country. So what the hell am I gonne do without a roof? I make that in 9 years with a higher education degree...
we have good child care help (somewhat) in my country ... its too expensive for us to have a second child. I would love a second child but I can't afford two mortgages (especially with current inflation) as that's how much child care is (the same as paying my mortgage) and to be honest, with the horrible way we have to work in offices and stuff ... the work life balance is screwed and I am struggling to be there for one child while still having to fit in all the other stuff I have to do as an adult.
Sadly this isn’t the reality, people tell themselves this. But when we compare with other countries in Europe and outside of europe where the cost of life is higher to their average salary, but the birthrate is higher, this proofs the theory false.
The reality is that the european socieity doesn’t favor the existance of children like many other countries specially middle east and africa do.
The mouse utopia experiment comes to mind. It was disparaged by other scientists at the time, but mice are social and form bonds like humans. It is an interesting thing in any case to read about.
Not really. It’s a super flawed experiment that denied the mice the space they have evolved to need. Mice don’t live in apartments…they run in wide open fields and forests.
Thanks for the heads up Peter Zehan.
This actually answers the question I always had. Most people I know personally and online have no interest in having children. Some of them doesn’t even want to commit in a marriage at all. I always wonder why the population is still growing.
Trends in population lag roughly 20-30 years behind the causes. China recently began its decline, but this was set to happen in the 1980s and 90s. This is why these projections exist for the remaining of the 21st century. Even if trends reversed and people started having more kids again, which I doubt, we wouldn't see the impact until about 2060s. More likely is fertility rates go down even more causing an acceleration of decline. China due to its size will see the largest cliff losing 7-8 million people every year. That's the equivalent of a mid sized US state every year, year after year. We can see in countries like Italy how disproportionately decline causes feedback loop of people leaving places for opportunities. Cities empty and become ghost towns as the remaining population incredibly centralizes in major cities.
It will be fascinating how humanity handles this coming century.
What you are seeing is not representative world-wide. South America, Africa, and other developing countries are still growing, some growing quickly.
I tell these people to plan their demise, suicide or assisted suicide. No way my children and great childre will provide for them !
@@MacNerfer Actually they are not. South and Central America, don't look at the UN counts, look at the country counts, have been below replacement for more then a decade, and declining. In Africa only Niger (with the highest population growth rate at nearly 3.8 percent), followed by Equatorial Guinea, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Burundi have population growth (all below Niger, but above 2). The rest of the continent is at replacement or below. Already countries in Africa are feeling the effect of not enough young people.
China's aggressive population count during and following Covid found almost 100 million children missing, with again almost half that in missing births (births, like children were registered in multiple locations for funding purposes). The population drop in China (according to the UN and WEF) wasn't supposed to happen until 2050, but we all apparently missed it (including the Chinese) because their population Officially (after signed letters and formal complaints)stopped growing in 2021, but unofficially it started sometime between 2018-19.
India's population is still growing BUT that's a false count because India's women of reproductive age are only having 0.8 when replacement is 2. Couple that with the fact though India has a very young population in total numbers, women of child bearing age only make up 22% of the demographic (the rest are men). And sex selection abortion is common place which means each year less females to males are born (the government has been working hard with religious leaders to stop the practice, as well as the practice of infanticide of girls, but it's been a hard road).
Add in the removal of merit based education & hiring and we're in trouble in the West, no matter how you look at it.
Take care and be well, I hope you have a great day.
south america is also shrinking mate. Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Suriname, Guyana and Paraguay are projected to shrink since woman are not having as much children as necessary to mantain the population. While bolivia, argentina, colombia, peru, equador and venezuela are projected to have a very little growth.
The places that are actually growing are Africa, parts of the middle east and pretty much the south of asia.@@MacNerfer
My cousin works as a nurse and they have no maternity leave. That was amazing to me that hospitals in the USA have such crappy care for their employees!
It's the US xD They literally work in hospitals and don't even get healthcare usually lol
Keep in mind that US hospitals are run by utterly ruthless private, for profit companies. And not only that, their customers are equally ruthless (some might say immoral or even illegally collusive) private, for profit, insurance mega-corps.
How is the shithole California a "bright spot"?@@retiredbore378
I'd rather no maternity leave and more money than maternity leave that I can never use. Employers factor in potential maternity leave as money they have to pay. Since I'm not sure I will have children (because no partner) and the difficulty of finding a partner is near impossible, the additional money is more important than the appearance of some benefit I can never use.
Don't get pregnant.
The countervailing force is if there are less people, then they are in higher demand and should be paid more. This would of course decrease profitability and hurt pensions. The challenge is pensioners tend to vote against any party that reduces their wealth, hence the triple lock in the uk.
Honestly, I'm looking forward to it. We need a change.
Why everyone acts like it's a bad thing? When they say japan had population crisis, what do they compare it to? People who had 4-10 children? It's stupid. In fact, we should welcome a decrease from such a lunacy.
You are correct on why families are decreasing in size. Living in Asia, I hear first-hand from Koreans and Japanese friends about how expensive it has become to have even one child, let alone two. Three kids is totally out of the question for most families - shrinking housing isn't helping either - it's hard to fit three kids inside a 900 sq ft apartment.
Maybe if you had gotten a DECENT education you could afford MORE than a shanty!!!!
Japan is past the point of no return. I watch NHK news channel quite a lot, and it seems that all they talk about is their population decline. The government is slowly but surely going broke.They will have to make some tough decisions very soon.
(It's a shame to see all those gorgeous Japanese women childless. I would gladly volunteer to help repopulate their country.)
Absurd. It's not hard, it's 'socially unacceptable'. There's a difference. If you look at what society did in the past most houses were two rooms. One room was a kitchen, the other a dining room and everyone slept in the dining room on cold days and on the porch on hot days. If you don't believe me, go visit ye olde 1900's housing. I'm sure there will be a historic housing museum near you somewhere.
There are some families living in caravans too with six children in the US. Two caravans, 8 people. It also promotes good behaviour because nothing pushes people to cooperate more than being forced to live with them for 365 days a year and sleep only 1m away from them.
@@JustinWilliams-ed2ug de la Motte family.
I also know several other families near me that live similarly. Not caravan but 5+ and earn less than me.
It's more a social issue than cost per se. With the increase in living standards these cultures have become very materialistic. Appearances matter a lot and women are expected to keep working while raising infants, and keep those infants looking cute at all times.
Lots of people raise multiple kids in small spaces in other countries. They depend on extended families to help with childcare, and they share used baby clothing and gear with their friends and relatives. That's how you get the costs down and the enjoyment higher.
Happy somebody finally makes a descent video about this subject!
I do not think population growth rate is a positive feedback loop. I think it is an inverse feedback loop where the people want to have fewer kids when the population is too much and more kids when the population is too little. Till now we had favourable conditions for growth so we saw one side of the feedback loop. Now that conditions have changed and become unfavourable, we are seeing the other side of the feedback loop. It will keep oscillating near equilibrium according to the conditions.
Doing research on my family, my maternal grandfather was one of 16, my maternal grandmother one of 10. I found that the boys were called "Bubba/Brother" and the girls "Sis/Sister" until they were of age (usually 5-8) to choose their own name. Why "waste" a name on a child that may not live?
Never heard of this before. Something I saw in my mothers 1700's family is naming a subsequent child the same name as a deceased one.
I don't believe that. People in the past were very religious, both Catholics and Protestants. To have a child baptised was one of their biggest priorities, and they needed a name for the baptism. They did it even if the child was lame and was very likely to die, to ensure he / she has access to heaven.
@@jirislavicek9954 Whether or not you believe it makes no difference. The reason I know it happened is I delved into family history and there were writings addressing this. And while people in the past were more religious in the past did not mean they were baptized as children. In fact, a number of Southern protestant churches did/do not believe in infant baptism. Baptism was a choice and a baby could not make that choice. Perhaps in the Catholic church, if there was one available.
I believe the masai tribe does this after 3 months because most of them don't make it past 3 months. Never heard about waiting several years tho.
@@stischer47 I’ve researched this topic for a number of years I can’t count, it sounds like this was more specific to your family, it was assuredly not done in mass like you may be mistaken. This is objective fact. It is interesting that your family follows a tradition like that. Is this still practiced by other members?
I believe humanity will rely more and more upon robotics and AI to replace this decline in the workforce. It would be informative and interesting to see how many jobs have been eliminated since the inception of such technologies in our contemporary environment.
I'm pretty sure civilization is going to collapse from global warming and peak oil before 2050. There won't be any AI or robots.
Indeed, we are replacing ourselves with robots. They are our intellectual descendents.
the cost to train AI is tens of million USD. OpenAI spent $63million to train GPT-4. The cost to serve ChatGPT to user is half-million USD per day. You will find that, in time, use of robotic will not be widespread even tho the technology exist.
@@xponenThe cost for any individual user is almost always cheaper than the cost of paying the people it replaces. Training an AI is a one time cost, and the operating costs are divided between millions of users.
I agree this is a likely course. Problem is they're not exactly syncing. All the robotics stuff looks set to mature before we even begin to hit the downslope. So it'll functionally displace about a third of working population, further exacerbating the problem down the way.
I think it will be good for the economy because that means they will have to pay workers more in the sense, that they are rare.
great information! Thank you
I think the incentivization needs to start at a different point. When I was a child (and teenager), motherhood was something I really wanted for myself. Why? It was presented to me as something beautiful. A privilege. Hard work, but still a privilege. It proved true for me. I had eight pregnancies in total, only three of them resulting in live births. And all of those three were met by a society that made it a good experience to have (in my country we had long maternity leave, the importance of mothers was still recognized).
Now? I wouldn't have a baby in my country anymore. Motherhood is looked down upon. You're "just a lazy woman" if you want to stay with your kids. Daycare is "so much better for socialization" than being with your mother for the first few years, and you're under constant scrutiny for every little mistake you may or may not make in your child's nutrition, education, and socialization. It's just not a good thing to choose anymore.
Motherhood doesn't have to be romanticized, but it has to be at least somewhat attractive to make it a good choice for women. That's the point I'd start at. 🤷🏻♀️💙
I think the lens society looks through is too much one of economic where it needs to be a full spectrum set of lenses. Have you seen anything on community intelligence and how humans have "lost" it? It popped up on my feed yesterday - it was an interesting concept that is mulling in my mind.
Our short attention spans and the endorphin rewards our minds get here on some social media and quick-paced TV is hurting our ability to think longterm and indepth. Our judgements are therefore quick and good:bad far too soon.
Couldn't say it better! Thanks 👍
This discussion hasn't mentioned the suffering caused by the bearing of human children. Men have no idea how awful it is. But young women, do. Then there is the ordeal of trying to raise them alive to adult independence.
I had two children. One died newborn of a heart defect, the 20 year old by suicide. I too suffered a respiratory arrest during birth and nearly died. They broke my tail bone to speed the delivery and the pain made me stop breathing. I still have difficulties.
I was extremely nauseated for 18 months of my life. My body is stretched and loose. And so I do not recommend childbearing. You are sending a woman into combat. The data show one thing clearly: there is no such thing as maternal instinct. I draw a polite veil over evidence of men strongly feeling the desire to be a father. But when a woman has survived childbearing, she will often say enough. That is what the data say.
It should not be attractive. It should be seen for what it is. It’s not just a job where u can resign after finding out that it’s not as attractive as the company presented it. So many women were pushed into it. My mother even now regrets having us early at 18. She wanted to work but couldn’t because she had me and my brother just at 18,19. So had to stay at home, regretted not having financial independence and respect she deserved bcz she was betrayed by the attractiveness that was portrayed. Let’s not make our age women fools by glorifying motherhood. It’s something you can’t return from. Women should know it before they go into it
Just as we were told over population was going to end in calamity, now we’re being told the opposite….I think even if we lose half the population human civilization will be fine…our ability to solve problems is greater than ever
Social collapse within a generation time span is a very real possibility. Capitalism is great for making cheap widgets but not for addressing rapid changes since people are the gears that keep the system moving. At least until AI can fill the gaps. The question is how many people can economies lose and how quickly while still functioning? People can adapt quickly but interconnected systems aren't so robust. I think transforming the education system will be huge for how fast we can adapt to drastic changes. Having everything explained clearly once for all students to access online regardless of time/location will turn teachers into tutors helping clarify for those that need it rather than the current army of teachers all trying to teach the same thing in isolated single classroom. The current system leaves little to no time for helping those who struggle and also slows those who excel.
not all halfs are comparable, if the remaining half is made of 90% functionally illiterate and unenployable people lets say societies will be hard pressed
Tell that to your 401(k) when it happens.
"our ability to solve problems is greater than ever"
well, that's because their are more educated people on earth than ever, but with population decline will this still be the case ?
I worry about the loss of human capital. Imagine the progress that 1 billion people can make; the breakthroughs, the slow, gradual progress, the geniuses, ….
In a deflationary economy the value of housing and liquid assets like money in your bank decrease over time rather than increasing. This will have HUGE implications, although interestingly it will make accumulating wealth more difficult. It also means demand will drop and that a lot of production will collapse. Including the construction of new homes. So properties will overwhelmingly age as well.
most people I know that don't want kids is because we are facing so many challenges and catastrophes right now as human beings, mainly because of humans and the thus evolving climate crisis. Thus I believe that for now, this might not be too bad and probably when population is declining, maybe then the worlds population will hopefully stagnate at a sustainable level
I don't know if climate is a valid reason to stay childless, but being inundated with climate panic seems to be having the same effect that threat of nuclear war and environmental panic was having in the 70's and 80's.
The Earth has multiple climates and they have been changing long before humans came into the picture. Even recently in the 70's there were talks of global cooling and there was a barrage of claims relating to global warming ever since the start of the last century. Nothing to worry about for now, except the fact that almost all the media articles relating to the evolution of Earth's climates have been pushing for over 120 years now, for a world government run by billionaires. Look up Tony Heller's RUclips channel to know more. He's an actual scientist and he has records and newspaper articles dating back centuries. Most economic and social downturns that have occurred in the West in the last few centuries were caused on purpose and they will may well continue during our lifetime.
Also, what you're experiencing is called demoralization and it is a state induced by said billionaires with the purpose of deterring people in the West(not limited to) from having children. So definitely have children. But try to develop those crucial critical thinking skills first and pass them along. Planning currently to do the same
Lol.
Most people I know lie about their life decisions. They like to pawn it off as something they had no control over. And the reason they are where the are is because it was thrusted onto them.
When you truly look into why people are not having kids, it’s because the divorce rate is staggeringly high. And the cost of living is higher.
@@alextitei9748 why would billionaires be against people having kids? They need wage slaves form the poor! Also it’s not cheap to have a child. I have one child and I can barley afford them. So I think it’s fine for people to not have kids if they are not comfortable having one. Others who think they can afford and do it, go ahead.
I think why young people see an over population crisis coming is because we dont see it as a positive, we see it as negative. From my experience, I am having problems competing with others to get good paying jobs, competing with others to get a place to live, competing for mates. I am always comparing myself to my parents and I just seem to have it worse off. My mom rented a house and bought a new Mustang car in the 70s working at Del Taco (lits like a taco bell). My dad was a lazy kid after barely graduating HS but got a job as a city clerk after his mom threaten to kick him out if he didnt get a job. Now that very same position in the same city, you need a bachelors degree and untold amounts of intern hours. By that way, he eventually worked his way to a state agency position and retired. What ever systems we have going on, I dont think its working for most of us.
Young people are getting a ton of deliberate propaganda about lgbt, careers for women, toxic male, over-population, that is helping them choose not to have kids. I love the internet & social media, but if that all went down for 10 years, you'd see an increase in relationships and children, regardless of housing prices being high. Perhaps gov could incentivize couples by selling vacant houses and plots of land dirt cheap like for a $1., if they promise within 5 years to renovate, and living in it for 5 years.
Inflation. Caused by government spending. You have appx 30k more items in your house than your parents did at your age. You don't have a mustang, but you easily could. Your place is also probably bigger and much more technologically advanced. You have more free time too. They were spoiled. You are spoiled. I am spoiled. We aren't working in the dirt like our great grandparents. After slavery ended my father's family worked in the cotton fields. This was before minimum wage. The entire family, especially children, worked the fields for pennies a ton. '16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt' Its an old song, but carries less weight for the new generation.
There is definitely the money issue, but also it is more acceptable for people to just not have children these days. In the past it was kind of seen as a duty, but now people have more freedom to do what they want, and a lot of people don't want children.
why do you care what your parents did and what they had ? Adapt. Why miss out on one of lifes greatests gifts because of what other people say or think . Why want an easy life?
@@ex7229if you like children become a sportscoach...you meet children that are interested and like to learn...children of your own are a liabillity and family life these days means hell
I believe a world with fewer people will be better for everyone. There will be more resources for everyone. An economy with a shortage of labor will have to value its human workers. We will be more resilient to environmental changes.
Excellent info. Thank you.
I'm a 32 year old male, I want to have kids, but refuse to consider having them without owning a home, and it's seemingly illegal to buy or sell or make homes+land (near civilization, think 10miles from chipotle, home depot) for anything less than $120k. So I've been working on fixing that for society by figuring it out for myself.......how hard could that be...... just have to solve the housing problem real quick! 😅
I finally bought home @ 40 yrs old in 120-130k salary range. I'm now questioning if it was really worth it.
I can relate. I live in a country where there is no credit. No mortgages, nothing. The only way to buy a house is in cash. So, we decided we needed to work our asses off for the following five years, saving every cent we could, so we would have enough to buy a house in cash and then have kids. Still haven't been able to buy it, though, and it's becoming a burden.
As population shinks, there will be lot of empty houses. Capitalism may cause problems. Money goes where growth is. Some places will become ghost towns and some places too expensive to live. Many old areas will be totally abandoned because our system can not handle slow decline of production and markets. Same time new expensive areas are build around economical hot spots.
AI will accelerate equity concentration and make situation worse if wealth is not distributed somehow.
@@kutkitket3570 "AI will accelerate equity concentration and make situation worse if wealth is not distributed somehow." Exactly. There needs to be better distribution of wealth in the world.
Have more children, follow his tips, so u can make him richer renting the houses his savings will allow him to own. Have 10kids, go ahead. 😂 Or come with me, no kkds, travel EVERYWHERE, save up for in 20/30 years you can buy a good house and retire. 👍
I get that life is going to suck for the older population left behind on the downslope but I would think that allowing the population to continue to grow is an even worse outcome for humanity in the long run.
It will suck for the young more. They will be taxed to hell and back to pay for the old.
@@TheDabus1maybe the super wealthy should be taxed properly to balance societies books. We have never had so few people owning so much, and the rest of us are paying the price
@@paulandersen8396 They are being taxed properly^^. They don't have billions in their checking accounts, they have assets. How do you tax assets? Make them sell shares of stock? Property? Very fair.
I'd rather suggest you work a little harder to be able to sustain yourself and your family without outside help!
Things like private jets and transporting cars by plane need massive taxes.@@nobodymister5435
@@paulandersen8396 Do you actually understand the the 'super wealthy' as you put it are part of what allows you to buy you iphones and your iwatches and Starbucks and everything else you own. If they did not provide the capital for companies, companies would not exist. Everybody screams about the profits they make. Profits belong to shareholders. The largest shareholders are mutual funds. The majority of mutual funds are held in retirement funds (pensions, iras, etc...). Who owns these funds? Oh, that's right. Workers. Yes there are uber rich people. They actually pay more taxes than the rest of us combined. Oh, how about the poor people that are on the lower end in the tax brackets? I'm there by the way. Earned income credit is one of the most common credits claimed in the US. Many receive it. That is a refundable credit meaning that even if you didn't pay in equal to the credit you recieve, you get the difference. Oh, wait. That means that those individual's receiving it and crying about the rich not paying their share are hypocrites because they are not paying their share. As for, "We have never had so few people owning so much, and the rest of us are paying the price." You need to learn your history a little better. Our history is riddled with times that the poor had nothing and a choice few had it all. Every monarch, oligarchy and feudal type culture in the world in our past was worse. The poor owned NOTHING and the ruling class owned EVERYTHING!
I'm broke as hell right now but I also know that if you over tax something (starve it) it dies. No margin, no mission, no reason to have a company open and doing business.
I don't agree with tax credits that will encourage families to continue the "two income family" issue. I'd rather help but also encourage a one parent income. I don't care who stays home, woman or man... I just think there's value in encouraging one parent to stay home to tend the home and the children. To share and pass values, create and maintain their family traditions. To have fun... with their children. We need to get away from this two income family problem ... what's the point of more children, if you're to tired to pass on your values and traditions?
If govt. only did things that they needed to do, there would be plenty of money for everyone.
You mentioned some countries had raised their retirement age to 67. So did the United States. For anyone born after 1960 the “full retirement age” is 67 and I’m sure it will continue to go up.
Ever notice how those that raise the age of retirement are the same ones doing sedentary non physical jobs. They are unable to stand in 40⁰c (106⁰f) and dig ditches, or work 20m (70ft) from the ground on a ladder or crawl through roof spaces in boiling heat at age 45 but expect 65 year olds to do so...
I'm pretty sure our generation mostly won't achieve 67 to retire, at least 70% won't last as much. Our "old people", now over 80 nowadays, have retired around 50 to 55. If we have to work 10-15 Years more, with worse food, worse living conditions, more stress... sure we won't last as much
I'm 50. I expect never to be able to retire. At least not with much pension to talk about.
Denmark has actually raised retirement age to 70, if you are born after 1971.
@@RandomUser6947 let's see how many will actually retire.
As a self-reliant farmer living in a Quaker/Amish community deep in rural America...
I CRINGE when I hear the assertion that "on a farm, kids are free labor:"
It is clear to us that whoever said that first, and everyone who cites that authority thereafter, never lived the life of a working farm and didn't have children.
"Children" are defined as human beings not of child-bearing age-let's say 12 and under. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE are 0 -12 year-old-children a net contributor to the parents around the farm. Not on subsistence farms (animal/draft power) or industrial farms (tractors). Each child is a net consumer of the parents' time, effort, and capital. That consumption is overwhelming when the children are young.
Young adults of childbearing age arbitrarily defined as "children", say 13 to 18, MIGHT have been a net addition in time, effort, and capital in the pre industrial setting, but not if they go to high school, as is (and has been) required (since the late 1940s). Farmers and farmers' wives spend essentially all of their non-working time driving their kids around to pointless activities devised by people who don't have and don't want children.
Other than that... great work. Enjoyed the video.
Hi, please go to any real asian restaurant in ASIA, children are working there, even recently we were served by around 12-years old in one restaurant in Malta (we were surprised that this is also happening in some places of Europe). In Asia if they have house and a farm (poor families have unmechanised farms as it was mentioned earlier), children are also helping to parents...Children are free labour for parents in many parts of the world, just go outside the America and Europe. I'm from central Europe and I remember stories of my friends that when their families were working on a farm, no one could took care of them (everyone were involved), so they were also helping with the harvest and it was normal thing not long ago.
@@TheSowinska They do labour but they aren't a net contributor since kids aren't fully independent and need to go to school and such as well, which costs. Probably, pre-industrial kids on farms would be, but only after years of them not being (meaning it would take a while for them to return the resources invested in them). But the problem with the assertion is that people didn't have kids just to make them work. People had kids because it was just the thing you do. It's instinct, it's societally normal, there's no contraceptives, there's nothing else to do and no notions saying you shouldn't outside of famine if that is a threat. People didn't do an economic analysis and decide to never have sex again. What makes people have kids or not has little to do with financial viability. That was true then and it's true now. It's what they want, their lifestyle and culture and worldview and knowledge and sentiments. There is a strong current of anti-children sentiment and living an individualistic consumerism-based lifestyle that would be partially sacrificed for children. That's basically the problem summed up today.
Bingo. The majority of people who use finances and the cost of living as a reason to not have children likely don’t want children, or aren’t 100% sure if they do. They just want a reason to explain to their parents, friends, society, and maybe even themselves. There’s no need for this subterfuge. If you don’t want children, just come out and say it. Nobody will kill you.
And if you do want children, you are more than likely able to support that child. People of all income levels have children and they manage to survive. It’s just that they don’t prioritize a specific type of lifestyle that would be very expensive.
In the early industrial societies (the early 19th century mainly) children as young as five were working in mines and factories.
@@skyworm8006 '(...) has little with financial viability'. I could not disagree more, the lack of stability is the reason why I still do not have kids...
I think the financial situation we are in now is preventing people from having kids. Housing is difficult to get into now, it's hard to have a family when you can barely afford a 2 bedroom apartment. Also with recent inflation, groceries are already expensive enough for 2 adults, let alone adding teenagers to that. I think we will see a yoyo affect on this, as I watched another video that talked about the "housing crisis/crash" which also had a unique thought. That since we have a large aging populus, when they end up passing, we will have an influx of housing and not enough people to buy them. When you are not maintaining the same population (having less than 2 kids on average), then housing needs will eventually decrease as well.
Title wrong. Been hearing it all my life.
(I’m 35)
My wife and I only have one child. We both had siblings.
Out of 5 families we have as close friends, 4 of them are the same as us, came from larger families, only have one child now though. The other one actually has 3 kids.
Cost and time was the main reason from what we can all gather through occasional talks about it. We dont have enough money, or time. No such thing as a single income here in Australia unless you accept you aren't getting far, or are extremely rich already.
one friend of mine has 1 child, 1 has three. The rest of my whole circle of "friends" (10-20 pairs) has 0 children. They are all aged 28 to 35. None of those plans to have children. Im from germany.
@@Erwachsener1492 OMG! I can't believe that. I'm in my 40s and I still don't have kids, but I'm dying to have them. I think children are about the most valuable inheritance we can leave in the world. If you raise a kid to become a good, honest and happy person, it just makes the world a better place.
Bingo. One parent income being sufficient in the past is biggest factor because the family had time for kids and to run a household. We have one child and we both work and sometimes we feel completely overwhelmed. If we had one income and a simple home with a yard we would've had maybe 4 kids.
@@katiegreene3960completely understand you. Me and my wife we would strongly consider having children if one income was enough. Im an educator, shes working in IT. But both income and job security arent good enough to rely on only one income.
We are sharing the housework, Im doing all the shopping and I cook (fresh, no industrial prepared foods), each week I spend about 10-12 hours with my obligations.
My wife is washing our clothes and cleaning the house, it takes her about 6-10 hours a week.
We both work around 30 hours a week.
If we had a child, despite loving to spend time with it, we would be at and above our limits. Its not about downsizing one of our hobbies, its about having almost no time off. You are ALWAYS in demand, either your employer or your family. And over the years (and this is at least until puberty) this really uses up your energy.
I also find this very sad because family should be something thats also invigorating. What is all this technological and economical progress worth if it makes having a family something that weakens you?
People nowadays very much focus on topics like climate change (very important though), (geo)politics and economical growth. But the fact that our populations are literally DIEING before our eyes is a very potent sign that our society as a whole has completely lost track. Overpopulation is not the problem, at least if we somehow can handle (over)consumption. Its people losing hope in the future so much that they decide that having children, family, is not worth it. Its a very very sad status quo we have reached.
Same in a lot of places in the US. The other issue is even if you are a 2 income family, childcare is about the equivalent of 1 income making it almost pointless to work because you are essentially working for pennies on the dollar.
As Peter Zeihan once famously said ....
In the olden days, children were basically free labour.
In a modern urban environment, children are just a massive financial liability.
Hence as societies modernise, the birth rate naturally declines.
Birth rates are high when child mortality is high. When mortality rates get lower through better healthcare, better access to food, better shelter, education and and few other factors, birth rates drop. Since mortality rates are rising again in the US, you may be alive long enough to see this in action.
hear me out
Mandatory child labor... kids should be required by law to work, and the educational system must get them job ready before 10
even worse many people are prioritizing their elder relatives over kids. My solution is to ban this. Anyone with under 3 kids should be banned from refusing to work, anyone with 3 kids must also be banned from taking care of elderly relatives. Problem solved. Dementia patients and brain cancer patients cost around 300k a year in economic costs honestly the economic truth is that they never get better and generally they should be just abandoned so we can spend resources on raising kids and getting them working in stem jobs before they are teenagers
Children arent that expensive. And in fact if they are educated and raised well, they increase a families fortune.
The real issue is that most people have little to no capacity for love and caring, and thus don't want to spend time with their children.
Which leads to children that didnt get parential care and love, and were raised poorly; who naturally have little interest in having children of their own as their experience as child was terrible.
@@Tiasung It costs roughly $15,000 to give birth to a single child in a hospital in the US.
@@Tiasungthe reality is that elders are the real expense for the most part, theres states in the usa where you can legally required to pay for whatever medical bills your elder relatives decide to get. Elder care and pensions are sucking the life out of our civilization.
legit we spend 300k per year per dementia patient, and each senior on average 35k a year. The amount we spend on boomers is so comically large while young folks are struggling. Honestly its just much more important to have and take care of kids rather then dementia patients its an actual investment rather then a money pit. We have the wrong priorities as a society. We put so much on "comfortable retirement" often 1-2 decades long and rarely 3 that all our resources as a society go to that instead of things that would make us all better off.
Every generation until now was living in a time with the highest population ever... a bit like "the best iPhone ever" phenomena
There were less Gen x’s I think than baby boomers and there are less Gen z’s than millennials.
I have been teaching human geo for 10 years. All my past 10th grade students knew about this years ago. This is pretty common knowledge for my gen z students
You don't think anyone sees this coming? I could probably spend just 10 minutes making a list of like 50 youtube videos explaining this very issue. People have been aware of this for probably the past 20 years actually
Had the same exact thought. Not only yt knows this, but the very goverments are aware of this since 80's and it has shaped immigration politics for decades. Title is a clickbait, correct one should be: "The World Population Crisis EVERYONE Sees Coming".
Very important topic, but already factored into government policies. As you said it, many countries have already in-acted unpopular policies because of it. Here in Canada, our government is perusing agressive immigration growth in response to this. Love your work, but information on current proposals or initiatives would be a great follow-up video to balance-out the topic before calling for discussion. All the best.
I first read about this in the 90s. Not exactly fresh news....
Came to say this. Nobody but the tons of other people talking about it. Elon Musk went viral talking about it 😂
When he says no one, I think he means it’s not getting enough attention. Yeah some countries are an acting some changes but it’s quickly becoming too little too late, just like with climate change. The main issue is to get people having more babies.
One of the core issues is population is collapsing in the parts of the world that can actually sustain a growth while its growing in the parts of the world that arent self-sufficient.
Your wrong. These places are not lacking in self-sufficiency, they are exploited for their resources and ran by people with an agenda to keep their countries underdeveloped.
Exactly, therefore the burden will collapse everything
well, lets go with birth control for south asia africa and india.
@@CrakenFlux mostly Africa.
Lots of good comments here. I haven‘t heard any discussion of how effective density on arable land changes as land erodes from above (poor soil management) and below (sea level rise). Perhaps we are heading for optimal density in a depleted but still beautiful world?!
It isn't only question of how many or how few people but rather the consequences of the externalities from the people alive right now. PFAS chemicals found in the blood of virtually everyone, exploding autism rates, type 2 diabetes in kids, rising sea levels, glyphosate in the damn rainwater, diseases of despair, species loss (70% of vertebrates in the last 40 years), habitat loss, water table depletion, increasing zoonotic diseases and the most egregious moral harm to farm and marine animals. Until these issues are solved, we have no business having more kids. We've effed up the world quite enough.