What Happens When Demographics Change Forever? 

I will always be deeply suspicious of those who say " more babies we need more workers!" Those people will pay your babies low wages until they can replace them with robots!

I think a lot more people would have children if they didn't have to worry about whether they could afford it. I'm not saying this would change the trend, but I think the best way to support people to feel able to have more children is better child benefits and community support. Better community support could both support people having more children and support an aging population.

This video doesn't even cover some of the biggest issues with the decline in childbirth. Lack of homes. Lack of high paying jobs. The death of the middle class. The exploitation of the growing lower and working classes. The fact that people can't be sure if their children will starve to death in the streets because of climate problems. The consolidation of wealth into the hands of the few while the many suffer. All this stuff is being brought on by governments and corporations, then we get talking points fearing the collapse of the economy based on this stuff but it still keeps happening. Nobody is fixing the root of the problem. The rich are ruining our world with their greed, the governments with their corruption. Our planet is dying, our societies collapsing into war and poverty. No shit people don't want big families.

Viewing increased consumption as a constant necessaity is the real problem. We simply cannot have infinite growth with finite resources. Reaching a steady equilibrium based on "enough" should be our goal. ~And billionaires don't fit into that picture.~

5:25

Transition to a circular economy. Prioritize the stability of basic necessities. Invest in our greatest resource, our children.

Humans did just fine when there were only a billion of us. We don't need 9 or 10 billion. Even 5 billion people is way more than we "need" to sustain civilization. Most of these "advances" in agriculture have been devastating to the environment and to species diversity. If we can adapt to going from 3 billion to 8 billion in my lifetime, we can certainly adapt to going back to 6 billion.

Best way of preparing is rethinking our current economic models that count on continuous growth in consumption and focuses on other metrics to measure quality of life and prosperity

I'd like to dispute the closing tag about living in a "shrinking world". The smaller the human population the larger the world. Humans aren't the only thing on this planet. Also, by changing the way we farm, we've only accelerated environmental collapse (extra chemicals, soil malnourishment, loss of nutrition in the food, and collapse of surrounding environments).

Honestly, for ecological reasons, I can’t see population growth as a good thing. Better for our societies and economies adapt and the population shrink.

Government: We are going to make everything expensive Also government: Strange, why is no one having kids?

The population explosion was also unprecedented. Many people alive today were alive when the population was half what it is now.

We should probably stop using consumption as a driver of the economy anyway.

Thank you for this. I'd thought "everybody" was going nuts. I am glad to hear I am not alone. Somehow. I was hearing whispers throughout the vid over the concern to fewer wallets. Then she brought it forward. Tell industry to get over it. Yeah I know, it is going to be rough making adjustments, but there it is.

Brilliant, engaging, calm in the face of flustered billionaires and policymakers who see a person with a uterus as a customer-printing machine, and so instructive. Thank you, Sinéad Bovell and team!

IMO there are far too many people in the world NOW. This decline in population is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. The world will have to adjust, and it will in time. And if there are fewer consumers of goods, which is the real issue with magnates obviously, they will have to adjust too. I chose to be child free years ago, and am glad I did. ✌

My wife and I chose to wait until our 30s for children. It let us establish our careers and become financially secure. Also, by only having 2 kids, we can better focus on each one.

Birth rates are low and staying low. Japan is dying along with South Korea. It is not just about consuming, how do we supply all of these seniors with support in their old age with fewer people in the workforce?

High-intensity fertiliser indeed.. The nitrogen is now screwing ecosystems everywhere it is used on this massive scale. That's not a solution either. It's a problem that we created that allowed us to grow rapidly.

Love your channel and the topics you touched on in this video. IMHO, I wish you had given more time to the economics of what families face today. In my opinion, population collapse is a concern of the wealthy 1%. They're worried they'll run out of workers and consumers. Yeah, we may see a shortfall in services in 100 years, but that just translates into less profit for the 1%. Most families, at least the middle class in the US, require two incomes to keep up. Who wants to have children that will be raised by a daycare center while the parents are working to pay for the increase in the cost of living, increase in taxes, and the increase of having children. E.g., my brother and his wife are in their late 40s and they are still paying off their student loan debt. We want the fertility rate to go up, we need to take a look at the economics and the quality of life of these "workers and consumers".

The planet will heal. Thats what will happen

When considering the impacts of demographics we should seek opinions of other scientists besides economists who are only concerned about money. We should also remember that absolute numbers are less important than population structures (kids vs teenagers vs adults vs retirees vs elderly people). For example, in the 80s there were a lot less people, but the economy was okay'ish generally. Elderly people are viewed by economists as "unproductive" and / or "a strain on national resources". The problem is they are only valuing people by work productivity & spending. But let's take a look at this more closely - as housing becomes more unaffordable, young people are staying at home longer, supported by parents - parents often give kids a financial step up by, for example, paying a deposit on a house or helping buy a car etc - grandparents often provide free childcare while parents work - older people are more likely to volunteer for welfare agencies & charities providing free social assistance to people govs are failing - older people provide lnowledge & wisdom gained over years of life experience - the cost of healthcare in general is because it's been privatised and corporations make big profits from health services - this is gov failure not the fault of the elderly - city a generally developed & managed to get rich men in fancy cars to / from work and fails to properly cater for ALL residents,incl the elderly, impacting their health & welfare awa via pollution from unregulated industry & manufacturing (again this is due to gov failure) There's lots we can do to support families like providing family planning services, and ensure families have everything they need to raise a happy family. Let's see if govs are doing this - serving the interests of economic & political elites only - rolling back the rights of women - gender inequity - no paid maternity leave, discrimination in career opportunities during family years etc - inaction on the ecological, biodiversity & climate crisis - slow on action against racism, sexicism, agism & misogyny etc - high rates of GBV & sex trafficking globally - heavy taxation of the middle & lower classes - cut backs on spending on social support services - privatisation of many essential services such as food, housing, energy & healthcare awa high cost of living etc Soon the only jobs available to most of us will be soldier, worker drone or sex slave. Our world is slowing disintegrating around us... not a good place for kids to grow up in. Perhaps its best that we don't - if there's very little hope for the future, why bring children into it? Tx for an interesting take on the demographic crisis. It was a bit short though - perhaps a series looking at different aspects of the crisis as there's a lot to consider (psychology, sociology, enviro sciences, development sciences, urban planning & development, gender studies, economics, healthcare & education, political sciences etc)

It is crazy that there are factions out there trying to increase birth rates due to economics- specifically consumption. The theories surrounding economics were created by us and therefore can be adjusted to match our reality. Our use of limited resources and providing for society is largely based on innovation and policy. There are several companies out there that have and are developing technological solutions like AI, automation, robots etc that will help with our aging population and generally keeping society functioning and flourishing. A large reason why we are seeing a decrease in population is because people in the first world can't afford to have kids- there is a growing strain on resources to maintain our first world lifestyles, especially as more of us enjoy that lifestyle around the world. Better use of resources based on innovations are definitely happening so we will start seeing birth rates increase once that happens, especially with the cost surrounding: housing, food, education, and medical. As pointed out, we reached 2 billion at the beginning of the 20th century. We reached 1 billion the century before. Before then, stretching back to the beginning of civilization, we were far below 1 billion people and had a shorter life expectancy- we survived...baring a nuclear war, which keeps being threatened by Putin, we will continue to survive and become stronger.

Um scuse me, Skeptical Boomer here again - those new farming techniques _ especially pesticides and enormous monoculture as shown in your clip there_ have resulted in exhausted soil and nasty resistant pests!

Less people to suffer here, isn’t the worst thing that could happen.

Reducing the human population is absolutely a good thing - for one thing, it could mean less human sprawl into hitherto undeveloped/wild land areas. ' If we could focus on any one thing, I'd strongly urge advocating a revolution in attitudes toward consumption. We need a shift in global philosophy away from uncontrolled consumption, casual consumption ("click once to order from Temu!"), and an end to planned obsolescence that requires frequently replacing everything from shoes to major appliances. Reducing the excessive and needless buying of ephemeral, non-recyclable, non-sustainable goods will have a ripple effect throughout the world: stop supporting polluting industries, stop giving money to the private equity interests that are behind them, stop putting money in multi-billionaire pockets. I'm not sure how to make that shift happen: young people, though far more aware of and concerned about climate change, show no signs of limiting their consumption of the very consumer goods that exacerbate it.

The population is growing where they can't feed kids and shrinking where they can't pay for kids.

There's a disconnect between how our civilization views humans vs. every other species. An increase in food supply results in an increase in the feeder population. Everytime.

Corporate greed has devastated the middle class in America. I would have loved to have a family of 4 kids, but there's no way we could have afforded more than 2, especially with both parents in the house needing to work. If you want the population to grow, either fund child care with public money, or make it possible for a larger family to be supported by one wage earner.

Well if the climate will change there going to be less food and then population will shrink much faster.

Demographic changes are never forever.

And look around, how many people around do you WANT to be raising children? Just because someone can, in no way, means they should…with or without government programs.🤨

The best thing governments can do to incentivize people to have more children is to offer free and low cost childcare. I don't have kids and even I know this.

It is more about the rate of change than the change itself. We can handle more or less people as long as we have time to adjust.

Change also means opportunities. I hope after the change wealth and population will be a bit more evenly distributed over the world. Also a focus on essentials, farming/energy/healthcare/technology. Also more solidarity, because the older generation (aka me by that time) will have to support each other and provide entertainment. There's no doubt in my mind the transition will be hard, but my dream is that afterwards we will live in a slightly better world. I won't have any kids but it is my intention to invest in society as long as possible and the best way I can. Together we can do it.

It's a smaller world after all. 😉

Imagine a world where a young family can afford to own a home

Why would this be a thing?? Why would people be sooo worried about population going down in 100 years or so? We should all be happy if that happens!

Is that a typo at 0:13, where the 1990 population is shown to be 1.65 billion? Should that be 1890? I believe population was around 3 billion in the 1960s, so it couldn't have been 1.65 billion in 1990.

I think what people underestimate is the necessary shift in expectations. It's theoretically possible that having more older people to take care of may lead to young people not being able to keep up with the demand. But this view is based on the scarcity model: a belief that we are barely able to keep up producing what the population needs to survive and prosper. But I propose that it's an illusion. In fact there is a large number of jobs in the economy that are make-work. Producing a new model of a car every year is a straightforward example. Another is forcing a new model of cellphone onto the market, while making sure the old one is no longer updated after four years, even by a willing third party. It's basically gauding the population into believing they HAVE TO buy a new phone, while making the technically savvy unable to keep old phones working, by locking out everyone except the manufacturer, using crypto-locks and secrecy. There is absolutely no need for this; my desktop is a 2011 model running Linux, which is a proof old hardware can go on for much longer. But it can only be done because it's based on IBM PC, an open technology, rather than secret design of cell phones that are not mutually compatible. There are other examples of market and regulatory capture that only serves manufacturers. There are NO technical reasons for the crazy amount of make-work going on, just to please the banks and stuff CEOs' pockets. Perhaps if we redirected the economies of the world to concentrate on sensible, useful, open technologies, we could afford the health care, the pensions, the agricultural machinery, the next-year's seed, and even mass-produce robots that can cater to the needs of the elderly population. But if we don't, all that will happen is that the industrial complex will burn itself out, leaving us hungry and helpless, and slaves to the few remaining people with options, who will have life and death power over us.

The big challenge is going to be clean drinkable water and until that's figured out little else matters.

Nature balances itself

Finally!!! Good news for mother nature

A LOT of countries seem caught in a "no take only throw" mentality when it comes to increasing birthrates. they want the benefits of a high birthrate without making the social, economic, or political that would actively incentivize women to give birth. as long as women are unable to rely on supports like affordable childcare, labor laws protecting their job, and others, they can't reliably trust in their ability to provide the best life for themselves and their children

Decline to how many? It will have to decline to a lot fewer than we currently have now to get to 'not overpopulated'. David Attenborough said, "I can't think of a single problem that wouldn't be easier to solve if there were less people". And he was talking about whatever the population was years ago. We already have too many. 10 billion is terrible even if it is the plateau and the end of the century is plenty of decades to do damage from overpopulation. I don't see those forecasts as good news. Preventing fewer consumers and taxpayers is not a good reason to keep increasing overpopulation, given the preponderance of problems it causes to the ones it allegedly addresses. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IC0ysBmD--c.htmlsi=-9lj_9vCVpMCDOzZ

Population decline all over the world and people still aren't being told the truth about exposure to agricultural chemicals and falling fertility rates.

FEWER CHILDREN who are raised by EDUCATED and EMPLOYED mothers and fathers mean a better life for those children. What parent on earth does not want that?

your graphic at the beginning should have the date 1900 for when the population reached 1.65M. As for billionaires whining about falling birthrates -- they just want more masses to exploit.

I have zero concern about a declining population. If our economies and societies need to adjust to suit a world with fewer people, then fine, no problem. What's the big deal? A world that doesn't depend on wasteful consumerism would be a great thing. Jeff Bezos and his endless river of cash might be affected by such a world, but that would be just fine with me. Billionaires are an indicator of an unhealthy society.

Oh, gosh - at 4:40 you came so close to saying something like we need to get away from a consumption economy (although old people "consume", too) and then didn't take it beyond Sciubba's remarks.

Decarbonising agriculture is going to be a massive challenge, food shortages are back on the agenda for multiple reasons, droughts, wars, displacement, diet change and sustainability are coming whether we want it or not

The Population Boom was only wrong in the particular disaster it predicted. It was right on in predicting disaster from overpopulation. Now we have it: out of control climate change. And there are others. Planet-wide microplastic pollution. Massive species and habitat decline. Unaffordable land and housing leading to massive homelessness. So, economic crises have ALREADY happened due to overpopulation. Yes, further economic challenges will occur as a result of aging populations. This is especially true because we have an economy founded on the false idea of perpetual growth. Now that we see the flaw in that, one might think there would be a great deal of effort going on to find ways to change the economy to function well with DECLINING growth, but I don't see that happening. We'll wait till the last second just like we are doing with climate change. But declining population is a very good thing, not a bad thing. It will eventually give the earth a chance to recover. And one more thought: economic disaster seems more likely to be coming from AI rather than population decline. But actually, with a different economy the two could work hand-in-hand, AI providing the workforce needed to sustain a largely post-retirement-age population.

6:12 These adaptive, large scale farming practices (animal/vegetable) have been shown to be rather destructive and non sustaining.

The less humans in rich countries, the better.

Great coverage of this topic. Thank you.❤

This was such a informative video on such a crucial topic. More people should be know this so we can make the necessary changes. Such as pivoting our economy away from a profit driven model

Population collapse is the least of our worries. Why does it matter how many people are on the planet if the planet is burning and no longer suitable to support life. Why does the economy matter if everybody is starving? As humans, as societies, as governments, we need to figure out how to live without consumption being a marker of economic success. We have to stop buying things to feel successful or normal. We have to modify our behaviors today if we have any interest or compassion for future of life on Earth.

Well, the economy has finally to adapt to not exponential growth. And in rich countries, they still try to achieve exponential growth even with lower birth rates, which makes richer countries the largest environmental problem. So economy adapting to a stable non-growing market would be sensible both considering population and environment.

Wow it’s almost like infinite growth and constantly increasing consumption on a finite world isn’t sustainable!

2.3 children per couple sounds about ideal as a global birthrate, though births/woman and births/couple are different enough as metrics that the figures shouldn't be used interchangeably. "Close to population replacement" birthrates are the ideal, not only for climate reasons, but political and economic stability as well; not so many as to increase stress on infrastructure and renewable natural resources, not so few as to cause economic instability instead of allowing incremental change that forces wages and standards of living to rise with the invention and adoption of new technology.

I'm choosing to not have kids at all at this point, but if I still wanted them - I can't buy a house that I will for sure own until I cease and be able to give to my kids for them to have or sell. I am worried about buying a new car rn as well. I can't even afford to feed myself a true good diet, I'm not birthing a kid to not be able to feed them. Even with insurance, my own eyes and teeth bills always trip me for months after a visit, I cannot afford another person's health costs. And it wasn't long ago when the talk of "pre existing conditions" was here and basically if you were born with xyz it was looking like a possibility that insurance wasn't wanting to cover it (I think that got banned but I personally won't forget that evil). And let's say I have child no. 1 and it goes great but pregnancy no. 2 is an ectopic pregnancy and nation wide I'm pretty much told its better for me to just stop existing - what if I cease, what happens to my already here child? I could go on and on. I could mention how I've been socially treated pre-marriage, during, and now post-marriage by people. Society is ugly to women, I fear raising a daughter here. Just, in conclusion, why why WHY would I procreate? There's no benefit in any direction except in the just "being a mom" bc I had considered it before and that looks so selfish and like an ugly choice to me knowing I could not provide and having an unsure future for them to survive in. I also hate that this feels like its "economics! Corporations! Rich overlords worry!" D amn them. I hope they worry themselves off of something high.

We probably have to let go of economic fantasies that seemed realistic for a few hundred years. Capitalism as practiced in the West was never really sustainable, either in terms of the environment or as a viable economic system. Modern crony capitalism must always expand to survive; it's the ultimate Ponzi scheme. And one can easily see how failure is baked into the very premise. For example Western companies have always sought to force their way into new markets to create new consumers of their products but even more importantly as fresh sources of cheaper labor. But eventually those "developing economies" will "mature" causing wages to rise necessitating finding even newer markets to exploit. And since rising productivity nearly always depends on creating a more educated workforce this further drives fertility rates down since education and economic opportunity are the main drivers of the choice to have less children. The fact is that for much of human history women have few if any choices at all.

Related topic: We know by now that it's less about "over population" and more about "hoarding of limited resources," right?

1. We must stop the compulsion of trying to engineer everything - today we want less babies, tomorrow more, etc; let the couples decide what size of family they wish. And those who decide to have large families (for reasons best known to them) go ahead and make sure they can feed and look after them and not clamour for subventions from society. 2. I can not understand why a decrease of population is being presented as a negative. For starters, there will be a beneficial impact on environment for obvious reasons; it is incidental, but positive 3.The other reason why a fall in population is is perceived to be of concern is (a) funding for Pensions and (b) a fall in demand and as a consequence lower Employment and lower Profits for the Corporations. 4.These are genuine fears, in our present economic thinking. What we need, however, is (a) a new economic model that produces only what is required, such that conspicuous and wasteful consumption is eliminated, but enough is produced to provide for everyone's needs to have a comfortable standard of living (b) evolve a new theory of economic production that reflects our ability to produce optimally and, side by side, a theory of distribution of wealth in a world where scarcity is a thing of the past (c) unleash new ideas for the people to use their leisure time in a way that is fulfilling. Our economic Theories hang on the overriding premise of - SCARCITY. We need to recognize that Scarcity will not be a limiting factor from the last quarter of this Century (or thereabouts). Therefore, MONEY, as we know it will not be the driver of choices. Thank you.

Get used to it, things are gonna change. Perhaps Thanos was on to something...

We can’t flirt with each other anymore without fear of being accused of sexual harassment. And we wonder why young people aren’t dating.

We are heading towards a dark age of lost knowledge and disinformation. Led chiefly by a lack of resources and education.

People do not know how to bring up children, lack of time and resources, lack of community support, poor education standards leave children and youth scarred for life

This is why we need refugees and migrants to keep the country going. No replacement is happening.

This is a great trend for the planet

Corporations better stop mass production of toxic substances if consumption is still gonna be our basis for economics. An elderly majority means that most people will be unfit for most labor.

Excellent information. Thank you

So, clearly the answer is: 1. Stop climate change and lower emissions now 2. Reduce population as it will consume less and use less planetary resources 3. Ditch capitalism, consumerism and infinite growth economic models which are out of the laws of Physics and get to a sustainable steady state

You think Africa's population isn't going to get decimated by climate change?

Honestly I think a loss in population is not a bad thing. There already a strain on resources. Lower demand equals lower costs, less crowding and more opportunity. The only sectors that benefit from excessive population are corporations, they sell more products at higher costs and governments get more tax revenue!

Overpopulation leads to less opportunity, increased distress, fewer jobs, more violence, increased government control to try and mitigate the increased violence and overuse of earth resources. Those seeking more money want to ensure growth. Those seeking increased quality of life want the polluting, people population to decrease.

Population increase has been a key driver of global warming.

I'm proud to have done my part for population decline. No babies will come from my genes. But I still want to adopt or foster kids somehow. Which requires enough income to afford it.

I don't get why this would be a bad thing. The only reason the video seems to give about why it would be bad is that it's not going to fix climate change (doesn't mean that decline is in itself bad) and that capitalism would not find it profitable. These are not important reasons. Why is there an urge to have more and more people? What does that serve? (Outside of religious dogma.) Surely the goal is homeostasis so that we can continue, and for the people who are alive *now* to be safe and happy.

A very balanced video; it avoids both kinds of alarmism. On one hand, it's important to say that reducing birth rates is neither necessary nor sufficient to stop climate crisis, but on the other hand, it avoids populist propaganda for breeding.

The population bomb did happen. We just managed to tech our way out of it. Even today, when the modern farming and food distribution even creaks a little - like the current war in one of the biggest wheat and oil producing regions - people start going hungry fast. We're also trying to tech our way out of the demographic collapse. Advanced automation - even down to self-checkout and cart following product tracking - removes some of the need for more unskilled labor. But, just as widespread famine is just a war away - regardless of how productive and efficient modern food production can be - so to will be the tech solution for an aging population. At some point a human will be required and if there are not enough of them, then systems start to fail. Stock up on popcorn. It's gonna get interesting...

Are you sure the low fertility is a result of women choosing to have fewer children, and not families simply being forced to have fewer kids because they cannot afford to accomodate them due to the never-ending housing crisis driven by ever-accelerating income inequality? From my perspective as a middle income "salary man", the global financial system and political populism seem to be the main cause of why we aren't able to adapt. Previously the people with power were affected by most of the same crises as the rest of us so there was consensus on how to solve issues. Now, thanks to the global financial system, the rich and powerful are exempt from effects of all but the worst disasters, because they can distribute their risk among the rest of us. I think we should vote for politicians that extend terms of elected leaders and remove re-election, so that the people we elect are not afraid to piss off the rich and actually implement the bold and global changes for the benefit of humanity as a whole, instead of the ultra-rich that sponsor their next re-election.

There are vast numbers of people trying to move from the places where weather and war have made life impossible to the extent they WALK hundred if not thousands of miles to come to where technological civilization and SOME equity in economy and civil services and life make it livable. They want jobs. LET'S WELCOME MIGRANTS TO THE GLOBAL NORTH!

I liked what you said about supporting women...but with a caveat. I don't think we should ever let capitalism be the deciding factor in our growth models. In fact, it seems to me biodiversity of plants and animals would thrive with less people. Maybe humans needs to start thinking about the impact we have on the rest of the globe. I am an older person. I would consider self-suicide at a certain age in order to help society. There would have to be some real social shifts to accept this kind of thinking but why not? Anyone over 83 life usually is so challenged...maybe it could be on a person to person decision where those whose bodies are failing could be given the option of a state death, one that is very peaceful. And those who are doing well and want to continue could do so. This would decrease the social/economic strain...and these people could put their money and properties back into the social system. Just an idea, one of many that we should start to consider.

Climate change is the biggest challenge, 1000%. Thats one of the biggest reasons my partner and I are not having children. Who knows maybe yhat might change. I'm technically still in that fertile age for someone with a uterus. but I can not justify bringing someone who has no choice in the mayter into a world that for all intents and purposes is full of a multitude of threats to their potential furtue self. Thankfully I'm in a place to be able to make that choice (for now at least because forced birthers are becoming a much much bigger problem). I do think we can adjust to a smaller population, just as we did to a larger one, though not without its sometimes very big faults. However, I know climate change and what we do to mitigate it or not is the biggest and absolutely most difficult challenge we face.

Interesting that the people who see the specter of disaster in a population decline are for the most part, the same people who benefit from business as usual. Those of us who have been increasingly barred in various ways from prosperity through the current systems of government, economics, and social strata, tend to see the low birthing trend in a more nuanced way, and with much more curiosity as to the possible consequences.

the agricultural wonders you tout as solutions at the end are major contributors to our climate crisis The exploration of 'zero growth" economies....the horror of the 1 percent who own the majority of wealth and benefits of the current system....is a very important direction to consider, if we are allowed, to benefit global society as a whole

If I tried to sell a perpetual motion machine people would laugh in my face. yet those same people believe wholeheartedly in a perpetual growth economy. It's hard to have sympathy for the masters of capital when literally every economic interaction has been treated like a Greater Fool scam for the past century.

As population starts shrinking and our food needs are smaller we can focus on improving our food sources and on better global food distribution which would hopefully lead to better quality of life for everyone! I know it sounds rosy but the future is ours to build!

Let's add what we see every day. A family size package is now enough for three and higher price too.

The planet can not afford to change the current trend, and we should not want that either. What has to change (and what is easiest to change) is our economic system that is built on the insane concept of infinite growth. I am only a few years from retirement but my employer does not offer partial retirement, where I could still be productive and my health care costs could be met by Medicare (saving my employer $). If I could take partial Social Security payments (not an option today; it is all or nothing) then my income could remain the same as it is today, I would still be contributing to the economy AND I would be reducing the burden on the Social Security system. Why is this NOT an option for me? All we have to is change the way we think about these and other things that can be changed with the stroke of a pen. A whole lot simpler than removing millions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere!!

advanced economy population will fall for a decade or two then stabilize naturally.

The problem is that the birthrate is declining in developed countries but remains very high in undeveloped countries.

I am glad you mentioned the anthropocene. At the rate species are declining and tipping points are being exceeded we will not have a chance to decide what to do with population changes.,

The question is, why to be worry with growth population? We are killing our planet, and we must be worry to grew population, it’s paradoxical.

I enjoyed the video and I see a lot of great comments and interesting discussion. In my mind, the next few decades are likely to bring back those ancient horrors humanity once hoped to overcome - war, famine, and disease. Hundreds of millions are likely to die in conflict and strife. Who wants to bring another person into that? Actually, I can't see why anyone would want to bring someone into the world *as it is now*, nevermind an overwhelmingly bleak future.

If we are worried about not having enough money for social services why are we cutting taxes? Seems a lack of common sense is the real problem.

A much smaller and older world population sounds like good news to me.

The graphic at 0:13 shows a world population of 1.65B in 1990, but that was the population in 1890. In 1990 it was more like 5.3B. Still staggering growth, but please correct the graphic!

My job is to make more and more people unemployed. Thinking that one needs to work to earn a living will not be tenable much longer. When we switch away from that dogma then the need for young working people to be the financiers of our society will evaporate.