theo beat th

@anphuctrannguyen737 ? Ko hiểu cho lấm

Reaction mà bạn bảo người ta câm đi??

reaction mà thằng ngu

Có tôi bạn ạ 😂

That's interesting ! First person I've heard say that. What's your data/reasoning?

​@@RealJoshBinderthe UN passively collect numbers from all member States. Nobody says 210 countries do not lie or falsify numbers. E.g. China is not at 1.4 billion but between 890 millions and 1.2 billions. Also Nigeria is exaggerating numbers. One reason is Districts gaining more money when reporting more births. Next point is the UN make calculations on future populations based on a premise that suddenly all countries reach equilibrium and suddenly the birth rate STOPS dropping. The UN , a few years back stated peak at 60 billion people. Then they said 20 billions. Recently they had 14 billions. Newly adjusted downt to 12. Last prognosis was 10.2 Clearly not based on math but based on politics. Do you blindly believe official Stats on Economics and Demography from Russia and China and Nigeria?

​@@RealJoshBinder I reccomend this book ( 5 years old now, numbers are lower today) or these podcasts / you tubes: The Empty Planet by Dr Darell Bricker and Claus Eberhardt

@user-ju1qd3ok2g I'll have to check those out. Would you agree that either way (8.8billion vs 11billion) it's potato/patato since we'll peak and decline regardless of the exact number or time?

​@@RealJoshBinder Yes. You are right. But the urgency for Korea, Germany, Italy, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, Japan and China is important. These economies and societies will experience all the urgent problems at the same time. Which will make a Global Crisis tomorrow or the next few years. But a good thing is that the rest of the world can monitor and adjust their own solutions.

I appreciate the comment! I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. The difference between Malthus and Newton is that Newtons predictions actually work. Newton's equations accurately predict the motion of objects under the influence of forces, including planetary orbits, projectile trajectories, and interactions in everyday mechanics. Every one of the predictions from Malthus has failed miserably. Essentially, he's a complete hack. Plain and simple.

So, regarding happiness and life satisfaction, the results are complicated. Studies show that parents of newborns have higher levels of overall happiness but this tapers off and returns to baseline as parenting is difficult. However after children grow into adulthood, their parents often report greater life satisfaction and a stronger sense of purpose compared to non-parents. This suggests that while the day-to-day experience may be more challenging, having children adds a deeper sense of meaning to life. This echos the results of Harvard's famous 85 year study on happiness as well. Basically, if you want short-term happiness, don't have kids. If you want lasting long term happiness and a greater sense of purpose and meaning, have lots of kids :)

@@RealJoshBinder Oh, yes of course: the famous "having children adds a deeper sense of meaning to life". I am well aware of this interesting theory...

@patcartier8171 Another interesting difference is people who decide not to have children experience significantly higher levels of loneliness in the later years of life. Studies: (The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (2015), (Study by Grundy & Read (2012)) British Household Panel Study, (2005)American Health and Retirement Study (HRS)

@@RealJoshBinder Very interesting difference indeed. I'll have to move from the theoretical to the purely subjective to make a relevant comment on that one, since I am not the social scientist armed with academic references that you seem to be. I am the male in a French DINK couple (Dual Income No Kids), we are now 64 and 63, newly retired, and I can testify that for the both of us having few, indeed very few social relationships is not a bug of old age without kids: it's a feature. In addition: no kids ==> no grandkids ==> no fear of abandonment by a non-existent new generation. Loneliness in old age should terrify parents, who do not desire it and are very much hurt when and if it hits them, since they did not plan for it possibly happening to them.

You're absolutely correct, this was pointed out by another comment and is addressed in the video's description. Unfortunately most people don't read video descriptions (myself included most of the time)

I agree that it's apples and oranges, it's more to show that people don't have kids because they can afford them, it's more based on cultural and economic forces - this is true in both developing and industrialized nations

I disagree entirely - malthusian thinking is based on a flawed scarcity mindset because It ignores the fundamental reality that humans themselves are the resource and productive ideas are the driver of economic production. The larger number of humans results in more productive ideas and technologies, more production per capita, and higher capacity for sustaining larger populations. This is why Paul Elrich lost the famous $10,000 bet to Julian Simon. Mathusian ideas sound compelling but fail to make any predictions in the real world. Mathusian thoughts only survive in sterile vaccum-like theoretical environments, divorced from reality and real-world application. Their kryptonite is human history, similar to the ideas of communism and flat earth.

“People in Congo are making 6 kids” People in Congo live in farms.

Agreed -- It's sad we're still having this debate. I guess there will always be people with a scarcity mindset 🤷

@derek4412 Of course.

Google what happened to Romania when they tried to ban abortions. Then look up South America, abortion is mostly banned but their fertility is already crashing nevertheless. Abortion doesn’t influence total fertility that much.

@@deaththekid3998 I Google about Romania, all was good when abortions was banned and when abortion became legal fertility rate decline below replacement rate. If country do not protect child life so people think that country do not need children. Google better Ireland were after legalization of abortions fertility decline below replacement level. And for society to start again think that it is good create children need about 100 years after banned abortions, humans do not changed their mind. Poland banned only 30 years ago.

@@deaththekid3998 South America example say that we do not need abortions to have not growing global population. We can have stable population with banned abortions.

@@deaththekid3998 If country allows abortions , it says that children not important for society.

​@derek4412 Agreed. The lowest income countries have the highest birth rates. The wealthier people become, the less kids they have. People blame economics but it's a cope

@derek4412 That's an interesting point. It makes sense. I think we're seeing a version of that playing out in the US post-COVID, with housing prices vs. income ratio being at an all-time high for this country, it seems reasonable that this would be enough of a shock to influence a significant percentage of people to spend more years at home saving for a down-payment/etc. I'm curious if this trend will continue or if there will be a counteracting force that could get us back to where we were. Trends from around the world seem to point to a one-way street down the fertility ladder...but time will tell.

@derek4412 That's an interesting idea that the "bottom" of fertility rates could be when the majority of the population regresses into rural areas. The demographic transition model (DTM) assumes population is more so a function of birth and death rates -- so as long as we continue to decrease death rates, the fertility rate could technically continue to drop to zero if unimpeded. The epidemiological transition model (ETM) theorizes that population is a function of disease patterns and mortality rates --- which also doesn't clearly point to a bottom in the fertility rate. According to the ETM, there will be a re-emergence of global pandemics acting as a checks-and-balances on the population. I suppose it's possible that the DTM could define the early stages of population growth until the ETM takes over and loops humanity back around into sparse rural populations until the cycle starts all over again. But who knows, man... other models will no doubt be theorized, I just hope the population doesn't crash beyond repair

The lowest income countries dont have comprehensive sexual education or contreceptives, a lot of laws are backwards in these places as well for girls and women, many places with high birth rates are symptoms of slavery and rape unfortunately ​@RealJoshBinder

Population density stress "Behavioral sink" Calhoun rodent experiments "Universe 25"

You're half-right! According to the most recent estimates, women make up about 50.5% of the world’s population, while men make up about 49.5%. But you're absolutely correct that there are more boys born than girls -- but since men tend to have higher mortality rates at every age, often due to factors like health risks, lifestyle choices, and access to healthcare, which leads to women outnumbering men, especially in older age groups. In many countries, particularly in Europe and North America, women tend to live longer than men. Good catch! Appreciate the comment 🙏

@@RealJoshBinder Well, I hope I did not sound pushy or anything. I am not trying to engage in a fight for the right one. But still I have not find data backing up that there are more women than men. Sex at birth start from 1.056 males to 1 female, in some countries it reaches 1.3 males per 1 female. China and India have respectively 1.12 and 1.18 males per each female born. That is to have a simple perspective on 2/5 of human population. Yes, in the ''western world'' there are more females because the deadliest conditions are applied to the male cohort. But in a general world view the violence and health factors are equally applied to male and female (if not over applied to females in most cases). So I will stand my claim that there are more males than females, even though we have tend to live 6 years less than women on average.

​@WilliamSantos-cv8rr I appreciate the follow up. You're right about China/Indias numbers! From a global perspective they're outliers driven by cultural societal and economic factors (the 1-child policy in China's case, families favored having boys) --- the data we used primarily came from the United Nations Population Division (UNPD), they publish a new global population report bi-annually. Some other solid sources are the World Bank's Demographic Report, the WHOs annual health stat report and the CIAs annual Factbook. It seems that men are great at being born but terrible at staying alive haha

@@RealJoshBinder I don’t see the point of living beyond 60 anyway, at that point you’re just going to be a burden to society until you become a vegetable

But cities have the best food options! Lol My compromise is suburb-life: close to the action but not in the action.

@ you must not have small kids, Josh. Going out to eat with kids 0 to 6 years old as hell and not worth it. Learn to cook.

I'm just joshin ya loll

@@RealJoshBinder well played