"Millions must die" Common rabble: (cheering, roaring applause) "Georgia Guidestones aren't all that bad" Peasants: (boooing, screaming, throwing tomatoes)
It's quite simple, Georgia guidestones are monument which is where freedumb of expression mindset comes in, even if contents are horrible. While millions must die, like darwinism is a sentiment which is shared because they don't see themselves as part of the weaker side.
Per the last chapter and sexuality: The increased sexual dysfunction in younger generations is no accident. The aim (the endgame, really) of turning the women into virtual strippers and the men into simpering paypigs is to utterly shatter the concept of the nuclear family, inducing a total stoppage of childbearing in a significant portion of the population. This doesn't totally block, but rather mitigates, the accelerated growth talked about in the video. It also has the bonus effect of vectoring more of the familyless, sexless populace into being pawns for the system. The women occupy endless slots of useless entertainment and managerial positions, while the men fill the roles of cogs in the service overmachine. Both, encouraged in their behavior as they are, act as partial behavior sinks for the other, without many of the real benefits of either. The men provide no security or tangible material, and the women no nurturing or care. A society of users and consumers, riding adrift atop an unregulated market that's running hellbent for leather to the edge of the cliff formed by the Black Line That Goes Up™. But just like population, economic growth isn't infinite, and as soon as the hubris of modern macroeconomics comes crashing down around our ears, things will (after a long period of suffering) return to zero. Sort of. In a way. The mass psychological damage that has been inflicted on the last five generations is neither totally irreparable nor totally fixable, but it will take lots of hard work to deprogram enough people to continue society as a workable whole. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. TL;DR This ain't our first rodeo, and Mr. Bones says the ride never ends.
Indeed and marrying foreigners isn't going to help either. I'm stuck at one kid and short of hoping the wife disappears or divorces to try for a younger model, that's the end of me.
Very insightful. I don't find it likely though people choose existence over the mice verse, think about people who've made it rich and afterwards do nothing but get depressed. Cities are just what you described, population dumps, where people come to die. It sort of has an effect on your psyche. Maybe its generational or just the state of affairs or something
A big factor hindering a lot of young couples from having kids is lack of space/real estate. No one wants to raise a kid in a one bedroom and few people my age can afford something bigger without sacrificing the job opportunities that come with living in/around a major city.
Diversity frankly seems like a much bigger problem. Houses are better and bigger dollar for dollar, but you have to choose between an expensive house or a cheap one, and with diversity people hunker down.
Back at the late 1800s, early 1900s, multiple generations of a family would live in one room in the tenements of NYC. I feel that way of life will need to come back for new york college graduates to have a kid
malthus asserted linear food supply growth and exponential population growth. whereas in reality - populations grow along with resources - tracking it with mostly micro adjustments.
Yeah, that is how it happened in the past, and once the carrying capacity is again reached, you have famines and it hovers around that size. The population shot back up after the black death. The population shot up in India after the arrival of the British only to experience famines and slow.
I would like to add that food in last 100-200 years grew exponentially - from every acre we are producing way more tons of food than it was 100 years ago - you know fertilizers, chemicals, machinery that quicken up the work at farms etc.
Exponential food production preceded exponential population growth. We currently produce more then enough food to feed the expected 10 billion people on the planet. Distribution is the problem. I have 2 degrees in Food Systems and have a food distribution company. What do I know?
There isn't this conspiracy to reduce the population, birth rates fall naturally as a product of social and economic progress. Birth rates are highest in places that rely on subsistence agriculture as it only works because of the free labor kids provide. Porn and degeneracy isn't wants keeping millennials and zoomers from having kids, it's simply most recognize the life long commitment a kid is, that the majority of available jobs make it possible just to barely ensure your own survival and that the traditional family dynamic failed most of them growing up who witnessed thier parents trapped in toxic relationship dynamics and suffered abuse as a result.
Population is about to implode. The book “empty planet” makes a good case. Higher literacy and education among women -> less marriage and childcare -> more participation in labor and workforce. China is already imploding as is much of Western Europe
I think Malthus still applies to industrial society, but we haven’t quite reached diminishing returns yet. When you automate a process it’s fairly simple to do initially then to copy. We see this with nations in Africa leapfrogging traditional phone lines and going straight to cell towers. And also with the initial gains in farming that resulted from using ploughs that didn’t choke the animals. But eventually it becomes a technological arms race spending more and more for ever diminishing returns. A company nowadays might hire an engineer to improve the efficiency of their code by 1% and be pleased with that.
Another great example is public health. Increasing things like public health when people don't have access to clean water is very easy. Once the low hanging fruit are out of the way you start going for more and more obscure diseases to fix/cure until return on capital no longer exists (where we are at RN in biotech btw)
a lot of the issues are because we get stuck into successful large scale systems which we cant easily replace. Think of how hard it is to replace centuries old infrastructure in buildings, and take that to things like the electrical grid or the internet or logistics systems. These things work, but they wont scale forever, but that doesnt mean nothing else could scale at least way further. Its just that we cant use those options easily unless we first tear down the prior system. This is also a large part of why central and northern europe has such successful government ran systems, a lot of them were built from the ground up in the ashes of ww2. This also is why the US became such an industrial powerhouse compared to colonial europe, they had cutting edge tech that was created during and after the first industrial revolution in britain/france, that could be applied to land that had no significant infrastructure to tear down first.
Malthus actually factored in increases to the productivity of land, for example with his example of covering the entirety of Britain in greenhouses and gardens. In his time it was already possible to see increases in the productivity of land, not just bringing in marginal land into cultivation so he didn't make that mistake and in a thought experiment actually considered a very generous constant rate of increase in the supply of food of Britain (which should exceed the actual increase we've seen but ofc Britain imports food). Malthus' wrong prediction was that population growth given there are ways to support a larger population necessarily follows whilst technically we're not even below replacement fertility globally and that may or may not last. I'm glad you've read the essay though since most stuff floating around it fail to even mention the difference of arithmetical vs. geometrical growth.
This was very interesting. To me it seems like with practically anything there is a degree of social hysteria that prohibits these topics from being adequately analyzed and assessed, because if you bring this topic up the most common responses you are going to get is that either population growth is the literal antichrist and we will all die in 5 years,or that infinite growth is a good thing and any damage to the environment and collective society is justified as long as the price of my favourite cheap plastic garbage goes down by 5 cents. Phrasing it like this in that it is just another aspect of life in this world that we might have to deal with, while maybe overly optimistic, is probably the best for the overall sanity of people. I will say though that just because former models failed to predict the trends it will likely not stop anyone from trying again, and in all fairness I do not see a single concrete reason as to why it would not be possible to one day create a comprehensive and accurate model. We learn from our mistakes after all, so I do not exactly agree on the view that attempting to create such thing is futile. Like, it might be, but we would never know for sure. Finally I'd also like to add a tiny comment about ecological concerns- I was raised in a family of two ecologists and obviously knew and had connections with many more, some world famous. And for how much concerns about the environment or the ecology or the global food web I've heard, never, not once was the blame for it attributed to population growth, because any ill that is brought up as an alleged consequence of population growth is much more easily and better explained by technological development or economical growth. And I bring this up because I have absolutely no idea where this concept came from, given how it has no basis in reality and not even diehard green people in research believe in it. I am genuinely interested where and when this shit originated, did someone write something influential on this, or is someone financing the spread of this misinformation, or are there fuckin FEMA camps where they brainwash people into this, because it really feels like a piece of viral programming. This thing just randomly popped out at one point and really caught on with the masses
The idea "popped out of nowhere" because it's pretty much exclusively what all government sources claim, or at least have claimed since 2000, and the U.S. education system is reliant on the government's understanding, or willingness to understand, and all of our "outdated" (truth, embodiment of consistency, magically just stops being consistent) textbooks are replaced with new ones that conveniently organize and characterize the data so you know that you are literally a cockroach, according to scientists. Don't forget your house will be underwater in 10 years, 50 years ago, and also in 10 years, 100 years ago, and also in 10 years, yesterday. Maybe 5 years because not enough people were scared enough to put mystery juice in their arm. If you're not paranoid and suicidal, you're just not wanted by the powers that be, frankly. Actually you're threatening and are now a terrorist of some kind.
When you look at traits like intelligence, in pre-historic hunter gatherer times, there were a lot of ups and downs. For times, maybe even periods of thousands of years, certain traits may have been selected for, only to then just as strongly be selected against, back and forth. This is true for certain traits generally, and while intelligence has been selected for from ancient times until industrialization, it still had ups and downs in its rate depending on times of war, famine, cultural shifts leading to more violence, etc.
My issue with overpopulation ideologies is that it only looks at material concerns: food, water,space, etc . But there is a lot we could do before we get to that point and carrying capacity can be artificially increased, especially if certain new technologies take off. I disagree with Malthuse. That being said the qualitative and immaterial concerns are far more pressing. As the population exponentially increases, the well endowed grow in arithmetic proportion, but the ill endowed grow in geometric proportion. That is to say the lower quality types, being the post prolific, are actually the population growing exponentially. I fail to see how this can lead to anything other than a fatal regression in the species, such as we’ve already seen, because the lowest social strata, defined qualitatively, ascend above all others and annihilate all forms of differentiation and life outside of the mass technological system. We should also consider that mass production inevitably leads to a decrease in quality, defined as producing something with no purpose beyond producing as much of it as possible. I fail to see how this does not apply to human beings, in fact the 19th-21st century proves that point. This creates a feedback loop were as the population increases, the material goods increase too, first in consonance and second superfluously so; therefore the material goods decrease in quality along the same line as the population leading, yet again, to a fatal regression in both domains.
my gen x aunt has had her daughters on birth control since age 13, saying "attackers don't care if you are or aren't on it" and they see it as empowering and being safe. My cousins are both developmentally stunted, and you can tell by looking at their faces, it's NOT a good idea
I think this website is actively working on directing people away from your channel. I used to get your other videos as recommendations under the video (your video) that I am watching, but now it's mildly relevant TED talks and other such stuff.
What you're talking about is actually diminishing marginal utility. It may be the case that only very large companies can even put up enough capital to make certain innovations, and the increased scale may be disproportionately good, but that doesn't disprove diminishing marginal utility. And as far as the innovations and specializations in land use, it's an economic problem. You can't even hope to specialize some areas into timber land and some into orchards, etc, if you're just too poor. Pre-modern agriculture was very limited as to where you could farm especially as it pertains to water. Nowadays most of the prime agricultural land is actually paved over which would leave people screwed if there were a cataclysmic collapse. Some places, like British Columbia, go to great lengths to try and preserve that land.
I think every population eventually reaches an asymptote. The problem isn't stagnation, it's when you have to compete with other demographics in your own country
the problem most definitely is stagnation and regression. Even if you get rid of muh migrants, jenny whitey isn't magically going to stop heau-ing on twitch
Don't worry, with the modern marvels we have to go all in on one or two things without meaningful competition/local alternatives and make people live longer lives (sans the last few years), overpopulation will take care of itself
this pretends that people with poor living standards dont always attempt to overpopulate. If mortality is high, the only societies and cultures that exist are those that overproduce to match that mortality. Every population today descends from such a state of being.
It's lucky there is no relationship between number of people and the amount of damage people do. And no sign that we have passed the point of damage the planet can sustain. Everything is fine. Keep breeding, being productive and consuming.
Only respectable comment here. How many commenters loathe the system they're trapped in, yet think that "rebellion" lies in bringing even more consumers to the plantation? One of the Elite's neatest tricks has been to push a depopulation conspiracy, to make the "rebels" have even more to continue propping it up. You have to hand it to the Elites - they can play a man like a fiddle.
Not only are evolution and various ecological problems happening at an unprecedented rate, we're going to have hundreds of millions of African refugees. It will make the population movements of the 20th century look like child's play. An interesting idea for a podcast would be to look at Yascha Mounk's latest book and social capital in general.
@@fulconandroadcone9488 Yes, some 70 IQ African is going to help out your country. More like they'll just sponge off welfare. Japan has been shrinking for quite a while now, and they make up for it with capital investments. Now they're still a keynesian nightmare state, but that's a separate issue. The other issue is they'll then be here for a long time as citizens warping the genetics of the native populations. We could do just do what the UAE and other Arab countries do and have them go home once the work is done never giving them citizenship, but we're ruled by evil people.
Overpopulation can matter, but the real problem is dysgenics. I also really don't see how Malthus aged poorly when he was fundamentally correct for early industrial/pre-industrial society. We see how after Britain took over India, they increased agricultural and industrial productivity drastically. The population shot up, but this was predictably followed by unprecedented (in absolute numbers anyway) famines.
I have one critique. The population number of 8 billion is most likely not correct. The example I have is China. If you add all the biggest citys in China, all 50.000 citizens and more, you don't even get close to 1 billion. Of course you could argue, the rest of the chinese all live in a lot of smaller towns in rural areas. But if you look at the numbers of food/calories produced in a year, you could only sustain ~half a billion with this production. Of course countrys can import food to counter deficits in food production but to import enough food to sustain more than double the population is highly unlikely. Most nations produce roughly the calories they need to sustain theire own population, of course some produce more, some less than they need but to my knowledge no nation produces double or triple what they need themselfe. The same applies to India so it's population is most likely exaggerated as well.
Well there was that time china reported that they have over counted by some too many millions not sure how much. With aging populations all over the world over population might be the least of our worries
Interesting. Just to add on aren’t a lot of benefits given by the CCP to administrative regions/towns etc based on birth and population numbers? I remember reading something about how some rural towns have been found to be inflating their population numbers to get more benefits from the higher up admin units. I don’t necessarily think these small towns are lying to the extent of half a billion people not existing but probably a few million spread across rural China.
You know, I'd usually be ready to call something like that schizopost but it almost makes sense in this case. China is authoritarian and can essentially put out any data they want to, and we already know that they hit the wall hard and are experiencing a rapid population decrease. Having the largest population on earth gives them a large leverage both politically and culturally, becoming the manufacturing center of the world of course is a bigger deal but that only came about relatively recently in history, far after they established themselves as this populous giant. Without this fact I'd argue they would lose their relevance in the region to something like India so there is an incentive to keep the numbers up. Add on top of this the corruption of centralized governing where regions might over-report their data to get larger budgets and you just might have a point there. Granted I don't think it's as extreme as you say, it would be very hard to cover up such a discrepancy, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was like 15-20% lower
@@Rytheking2 I have had this comment in my mind since I read it however many months ago. I thought about it more and more, and then I thought about why people lie. I also consider that I too am from a rural area, which basically translates into being poor, and it tracks that yes, the small towns are most likely collectively lying on the magnitude of billions of people that don't actually exist, for whatever resources they get as a result. Knowing the scrutiny of the Chinese government as a whole, it probably withholds too many resources anyways, so these towns are effectively forced to lie to get what they need. Possibly even other countries inflate their population, because at the most primordial level, if you look bigger you can avoid a fight. We could just be like 4 billion people and no one would ever know.
Census's are required by law in many countries. ESPECIALLY china. You would be delusional to think population data was overcounted to such an insane degree.
Yet to enjoy the video but nonetheless a brief comment on the "mouse utopia" findings. Firstly, he ran more than one utopia and only one had this result which speaks to a broader point. Why would something like this behave with the same regularity of mechanics or physics? Is the nature of the mouse really so consistent in the persistence of it recurrent patterns as that? We could run endless mouse utopias and derive endless results. This isn't physics and thus doesn't need to have the same amount of regularity and prediction we see there. Secondly, what do the behaviours of irregular communities of mice have to do with predicting human behavior? This assumes that man is just another animal only because our brains are basically larger versions of mouse brains. But does that determine the outcomes of the human mind? Not a shred of evidence to say that it does in fact. So let them starve or overfeed mice if they wish....Future generations will look back and mock such men who due to their dogmas foolishly assumed that this would somehow, someway explain humanity. It is the modern version o0f how many angels may dance on the head of a pin.
Everything is crowded: school, malls, city's, naiberhoods (city) it's just unpleasant being in the woods or on a trail for solitude and it's crowded with other that want the same. This is why I go outside in the evenings or when it's cold outside or it rains.
Arithmetical and geometrical are funny ways of wording linear and exponential. As discussed, food production may even be worse than linear. However, industrialization kind of just flipped that on its head, as labor was the major bottleneck in food production and machines forced that neck wide open. This didn’t help standard of living for a long time, as the early industrial revolution was marked by extreme working conditions and living in squalor.
57:57 Jordan Peterson responded in the same way to a lib college midwit: the more people and kid we get out of poverty, the more geniuses we'll have, and the more likely we will be able to find solutions to climate, carbon, food and other fake and real problems. The clip is called "Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union".
yeah, but be careful with his statements. he used to be reasonable gatekeeping controled opposition (he admitted that and you can see it in a video called dismantling jordan peterson, i think) and ever since he got out of his mysterious hospital phase, he went all crazy
@@thnxm8 Yep, I know. Never put anyone on a pedestal. Listen, learn, take the good parts, but always remember that no one on this planet is an infallible god. Einstein was an a$$hole as an husband and father, Gandhi was racist, and who knows what Picasso and Michelangelo did with the junk in their pants XD. Luckly for them there were no socials and we don't know. Sometimes geniuses are idiots.
Theres no magic wand that you can conjure up to solve issues like that. Just because theres slightly more high IQ people in the world, doesnt mean fucking shit. Especially if their all poor, uneducated, and lacking in job prospects.
In case anyone was wondering why he's completely fine with slipping sterilization drugs into third world countries, Paul Ehrlich just happens to be Jewish.
@@websurfer5772 What's rude about my comment? It is a personal opinion respectfully stated. Just because it is critical doesn't mean it is rude. Edit: grammar.
I just realized, when 95% of people which ever existed exist right now, it's not that unlikely that I of all people am one exist in this age prosperity.
Yup! There's actually quite an interesting statistical trick called the Doomsday Argument which utilizes this sort of anthropic 'there was this likelyhood of me being born in year x' thinking to predict when the humanity is likely to either go extinct or have a massive population collapse. I call it a trick because I don't really buy the argument, but there are people that do so you might be interested in reading about it. It's just an interesting thing regardless
@@beybladeguru101 I also thought, this isn't true, when looking at the chart. The area below the last dozen years is not 20 times as much as the area below the last centuries.
@@porky1118 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population “Estimates regarding the questions of "how many people have ever lived?" or "what percentage of people who have ever lived are alive today?" can be traced to the 1970s.[8] The more dramatic phrasing of "the living outnumber the dead" also dates to the 1970s, a time of population explosion and growing fears of human overpopulation in the wake of decolonization and before the adoption of China's one-child policy. The claim that "the living outnumber the dead" was never accurate. Arthur C. Clarke in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) has the claim that "Behind every man, now alive stand 30 ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber the living", which was roughly accurate at the time of writing. Recent estimates of the "total number of people who have ever lived" are in the order of 100 billion.”
Because he's been saying the same things since he was on 1k subs. It's a fallacy to suggest that the number of subs is an indicator of outside influence.
Anthropocentrist values will always eat up the lions share of bandwidth while discussing human population, such as the economy, agriculture, public health, etc. However, I hope I am not the only one to notice the plumetting population of countless animal species which face extinction as a direct result of unchecked human expansion, through loss of biodiversity, pollution, etc. You don't have to be a malthusian or hitler to take notice of such obvious things.
Humans outnumber all mammals on Earth by a wide margarine (excluding rodents and bats of course.) The people in these comments only see the economy, they consider anything regarding land use, environmental stress, public health, biomass loss, agriculture as a consequence of not letting the market be totally free. More people means more exploitable labor to them and they see themselves as riding the wave that increasing population growth brings. They can't fathom the consequences of the stress put on agriculture and the environment.
~109 billion people have already died so its kind of the inverse statistic: 7% of people in human history are alive today, still a huge fraction though.
The first thing i would say is you need to recognize what side of the argument you actually support. The big problem today is EUROPEAN nations and their progeny are having population collapses. This is only as big of a problem as it is because of immigration from the third world, which will culturally destroy these countries irreversibly. I do not support 20 billion people on earth, I do think the concept of infinite population growth in a finite space is bad, and anyone reasonable or 'anprim' should too. That being said, when you're competing with an adversarial group like the people who run our society and their hordes of foreigners, thats when you have a problem. I'd take one alexander the great figure over a billion normies any day. If you think 'le elites' want population control, while have their programs largely fueled the explosive population growth of the third world? On Malthus, I think he was correct for reasons you touched on. We delayed the situation he predicted with the green revolution, this revolution is built upon thing like nitrates and free flow of trade. These things are not perennial and can go away if times get tough, and one day they will.
Malthus was not alive in a world where people no longer want children, but we are in that time today. Population growth is not based upon the size of the population alone, far from.
TFR in basically every country nowadays is below 2.9 outside of Africa. Mexico and Iran are barely beating the US. Add to that birth control permanently destroying fertility after less than a year of use.
How has Bill Gates been forcing it? The reason he's rich is _because_ there's a lot of people on earth. Same goes for _most_ rich people. Without all the muggles, without all those _customers..._ they'd be nothing.
Bill Gates did a Ted Talk on Carbon emissions, where he talks about reducing population growth as a method of reducing total carbon emissions. It's on youtube
When I become a single digit millionaire. I want to put some meme stones up somewhere and scare the conspiracy theorist. Because they believe some stones with Latin that has grammar errors in it.
13:45 "food production is additive" What does this even mean? Does this make sense at all? That's not just not a simplification of how the world works. This doesn't tell me anything about the world? Am I just stupid? Is his explanation more accurate than the explanation in this video, so I can't understand it without context? There are multiple factors you could take into account for food production: 1. better technology, more food 2. more humans, more work, more food 3. more land, more food Another thing, that could be taken into account, is, that less food might be needed: 1. better technology, healthier food, less food needed 2. evolution/genetic modification, less food needed 3. intelligence/awareness about health, less food needed I think, I get it now. If there are N humans, there will be N * X humans in the next generation. If there is N food now, there will be N + X food in the next year. So food does not depend on the currently existing food, while human reproduction does. That's not true in both cases. Both, food (plants/animals) work the same as humans. You can only create more food, if you already have some food. And if you have more food, you will have more seeds and can plant more food. But both humans and food will slowly stop reproducing when there is not enough space or food for them. So it both cases, it's a more complicated function, probably containing the N as a factor.
You could just read his paper if you're curious, it's very short. The claim he makes is that the growth of food production is _at most_ linear. He starts by saying that the population in the United States of America at the time was doubling every 25 years (some regions even every 15 years). Then he also says that food production is limited by area, you can't just grow it forever. He posits the following hypothetical: Suppose we're at the state where every single acre of land has been tilled, every fertile land occupied, and the population alive is equal to what this amount of land can sustain. Now, in 25 years, the population doubles. Can the food production double? He says that it's unlikely possible to imagine, if the advancements in science and in effort are good enough. A miracle might happen. Now, 25 years more are passed. Is it feasible that the original food production has quadrupled in 50 years, from innovation alone? It is not. *At most, the most optimist person in the world can still say that this same amount will keep being summed every 25 years, as 1N, then 2N, 3N, and so on, while the population itself will be doubling, at 1N, 2N, 4N, 8N.* So it's not that "food production is linear", it's not like Moore's law or anything, it's just that, at most, it increases arithmetically, according to him. If you want a clearer and more complete picture then I recommend you read the original paper, he writes much better than I do.
Malthus was right. Land is productive, due to it's energy input. In this case solar. But some land has frozen solar. If you drill down you can get this frozen solar. it's called a hydro carbon. So the land become multiple times more productive while we had access to this cheap energy input. We started with 100 barrels of oil per 1 being produced. We are now down to 4. When we hit 1 we will have the Malthus curse to deal with unless we go nuclear. :)
The White population becoming a 1/3 of the World population was unique and due to the Industrial Revolution. Europe's pop. lingered around 8-12% for much of history (as demographic retroactive models show). Before that the pop growth was very slow despite high TFR due to high infant mortality. The rate of pop growth of the past two centuries is unique. An average of 1/2 of children born didn't reach the age of reproduction. Dropping TFR levels around the world are an adaptation to low infant mortality.
