I loved the more off the cuff style here, Lea. I really appreciated your commentary around humility. I absolutely agree that we must love ourselves, and if people want to laugh at that, then I say we should just let them laugh ☺ I'm very much a mood reader too, and I like to think of TBRs as mere suggestions. I find they do help to keep me enthusiastic about the books on my shelves rather than feeling the desire to go out and buy more of them. I've been trying to read some more non-fiction so I've definitely been taking notes when you mention books on here or on your Goodreads. I hope you've been doing well!

Essential themes here. I'm finding self discovery and acceptance to be humbling, liberating and empowering in a society run by mega corporations that are anything but ethical constantly dictating to us what is ethical. I see your plate is quite full but I'm curious if you've read any Wayne Dyer?

I love your channel

You make great videos!

Seems like everybody who studies the various collapses long enough comes to the conclusion that Capitalism and sustainability of any sort are fundamentally at odds with one another. Don't forget "The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression, by Peter Joseph", eventually. I'm sure the topics covered will fit this channel's ethics well, plus it might serve to draw TZM eyes towards you and the other highly relevant books you discuss here; mutual benefit imho. Can you (or anyone here) keep an eye out for any Sci-Fi thrillers that would fit the "Solarpunk" aesthetic, or recommend anything like that you've already come across? There's basically a crass amount of Cyberpunk titles, since your average person's imagination seems to be hamstrung by dystopian paranoias... but I haven't found any truly exciting opposite yet. I'd bet someone out there wrote something akin to the triumph of scientific problem solving like "The Martian", only applied to a competing Earth-based techno-commune, or rogue group of environmentalists forcing the hand of markets to yield to reality though psychological and technological superiority. Or maybe an already established utopian society being threatened by fundamentalist capitalist terror plots to create a war-like reversion or false scarcity, or pointless envy. I'd like to write something within this genre, but it seems like lots of attempts come off as clumsy and preachy. How to shape a story in such a way to penetrate the cynical membrane of instant-dismissal that capitalist apologist societies have conditioned us all with... I'm stuck in nebulous territory with every idea.

The education system should help train competent and healthy people but for past few decades it is ruining the children. Children as young as 10 are committing suicide. That shows things are going in wrong direction

Population is falling organically and it should reach 2 billion hopefully. Human species should focus on maintaining Population at 2 billion.

Amazing video! Book added to reading list.

Wow, sounds like a really wonderful read! I'll have to pick it up sometime soon. Thanks for the spoiler warning, too! Have a nice weekend!

I like humans very much , but optimum number of humans earth can sustain is less than 40 millions

Where to get all these books?

Such a wonderful review! Right up my alley in terms of book choice too! ❤

Somehow it's a miracle that KZbin recommended me your channel. I LOVE every single one of your videos! It somehow feels nice to know that I am not the only one dealing with this existential dread. Because I am surrounded by completely oblivious people in my daily life.

If you put the time before the chapter descriptions, it'll automagically add them to your video's progress slider bar thingy.

Ok . Educated women end up being career oriented. Career oriented woman tend to have less children or no children ✌️ I think as a society we should protect women & Children. But make sure both man & women become family oriented

Can you talk about Fallout New Vegas on your next video

Perhaps a world government would utilize an information ministry (for propaganda) to address migrants by their work status i.e. "migrant farm worker" to make them more acceptable to nationals. Politicians and corporations have always worked behind closed doors to make their priorities attainable. I think multilingual citizens (as well as horticulturists) would get better treatment than most by 2050. Thanks for the in-depth review!

Thank you for the video , was so lovely! You know what will be the sad thing> 20 years from now USA and EU will start taking all those young people from Africa to migrate in Europe ... After we stole their goods, diamonds, oil etc... in 20 years these continents will start stealing their youth((

Socialism works best on the back of capitalism. For a long term economic system that is viable for hundreds of years into the future, we need a system that evolves to cater to the current societal dynamics. Fiat growth for one, conservative and governmental spending limited for one, commodity based for one, socialism and fiat. It is apparent that constant growth isn’t going to work. It would also solve the problem each economic sect has with each other. It needs to be mechanical in nature. Switching between evolution types according to statistical metrics and not democratic or republic voting.

The only way to improve brith rate is have a verry good wealth redistribution system.

Beware of billionaires who have MASSIVE consumption habits telling you that you need to have nothing, not reproduce, not eat like they do for “the planet” to “survive”. This is manipulation and indoctrination. They are the problem. As for climate. It changes. It will always change and always has. Paying more taxes will not stop it changing or make change differently. So much of the “climate change agenda” won’t do anything except make people poorer.

They rolled back women's rights in the states. I'm worried this is only the beginning and if we go below the 1.6 we're at, then they (republicans)will go further and get rid of contraceptives. I'm glad I got my tubes removed.

John Wyndham wrote another book "Out of thr Deep" with a similar theme of alien invasion in the deep ocean but from a different viewpoint. The book you reviewed I wasn't aware of till I watched your video. Enjoyable.

Canada is trying to grow its population because it is a large country with few people. This isn't the case in Europe. Each country will have to decide which is best for its future when considering all factors including space and resources.

Interesting discussion. A smaller population might not be good for economic reasons but it's great for the planet.

Many thanks! Interesting I will answer you soon again 🙂

Your thank you at the end was so sweet. I think you’re too hash saying that the video is too long and poorly edited because to just listen to the audio is very satisfying and natural and not overcooked. It is an unhurried exploration and very thought-provoking both as an accurate description of the book and some valid criticism, especially what you’re saying about climate change not taken into account.

For Americans: 50 C is 122 F. Hotter than just about anyone wants to live in, especially if humidity is high.

I know there are negatives, but a lot of things presented as negatives are actually better for everyone, and I'm hopeful that we handle it gracefully. Talking about careers and finance and savings as negatives don't seem like a negative to me. The whole concept we've based economics on just doesn't actually work long-term, and we're just running full-force into that wall. :D

Basic Economics disproves most of the modern environmental agenda presented in this video. Im not saying there should be no supervision on pollution or overconsumption. However, high demand and low supply brings prices up which induces better resource management and alternative sources for supply. More people provide more capital to create both the pressure to economize as well as technology that is required to do so. This is not even going into age brackets and the problem with old people, taxes, labor etc. as well as the increased popularity of sustainable consumption within higher income countries and marginal improvements to quality of life thanks to technology in poorer countries.

What do you all reckon the worlds population will be by 2100?

A slow gentle decline in overpopulated countries sounds like a good result - obviously to steep a decline would cause problems. One thing to consider is national debt, just as a growing population and growing economy can afford to borrow and invest longterm, so a declining economy requires greater fiscal prudence by the state. Another thing to remember is emigration, and we shouldn't underestimate the desire of some people in wealthy countries to retire to warmer/cheaper places. Especially if the states involved can agree on things like reciprocal healthcare. Conversely governments that freeze pensions of emigrants are discouraging people from emigration decisions that benefit everyone, including the areas where retirees bring jobs and investment. A third thing is that one should always be wary of extrapolation, it won't take many generations of one pregnancy families for twins to become more common. Or for subcultures such as the Amish to change the paradigm. Countries with low birth rates might consider mothballing some surplus schools rather than redeveloping them all.

We need far fewer people polluting the main source of our oxygen - the ocean. We are badly overpopulated ❤😢 Save the ocean.

Very interesting books to review. New subscriber

A truly fascinating overview of Varoufakis' book. I'm impressed!

One of the key problems is that so many people see economic growth on an absolute, rather than a per capita, basis. With population declines, on average everyone can be better off (per capita economic growth) even as economies have declines in absolute (overall) economic growth. What we need is to make everyone (on average) better off but to do so with a lower strain on the resources of the Earth . After all, if we had a quarter of the population, we could all consume twice as much with half as many resources used even if we do not improve our use of the world's resources. Literally the only way to do this is to have population decline over time. We also need to do something about the increasing economic inequality and work to reduce it so that we can distribute resources from the top to the bottom without much affecting the middle. Finally, we need to work more to deal with carbon change by limiting inputs to production processes. That's probably the most important thing that we need to do because far too many environmentalists keep worrying about the outputs rather than focusing solely on the inputs. If we limit inputs and someone can figure out how to create the same output with less, we should not berate them for doing so.

Get to your point.

Ginseng is a stimulant try honey and water and milk.Nothing taste as good as caffeine drinks and your review of population book brought new ideas to me thanks

I was all over usenet in 1992. I went all in on the GOOG IPO in 2004. My son made his first $M at AMZN at age 29. His second was at GOOG. My wife designed a synthesizer for developing cell phones in 1980. I designed cell towers for China in 2000. Our son was writing code for androids in 2020. In 2024 the grandkids watch cartoons on my cell phone.

UN population projections are always wrong. Human breeding habits can change very quickly - it's more likely that the upward trajectory will continue and this is just a pause. It's far more likely that population will reach 20 billion by 2080.

The extent to which people use pipe dreams about the future to avoid adapting to a current reality imbued with decline threatens to accelerate decline into collapse. The more we disabuse ourselves of the myth of perpetual human progress the better our chances of managing a gradual decline as opposed to falling off a cliff. It just doesn’t seem possible that mankind will be able to get anything near the EROEI from renewables that we have experienced from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have allowed our economic growth, our debt-based financial system, and our population growth. I don’t see how renewables can replace the status quo. It seems evident to me that a human population die-off is inevitable. Maybe as a species, though, we’ll get lucky and not even notice a relatively quick die-off. Continued resource scarcity and unwinding of complexity could easily bring a tipping point towards significant population reduction over a relatively short period of time; while ironically, at the same time, allowing most people a somewhat normal life not characterized by constant war or famine, but instead defined by higher general mortality rates which are perceived as a new normal. Of course, there will be horrific localized effects, but they will pass somewhat quickly as far as the world far removed from those locals is concerned. An 8-fold increase in the number of people dying every year would create a net population decrease of about 3-4% per year or more if current birth rates continue to decline precipitously. At a 3% rate of decrease, the world population would shrink from about 8 billion to 1 billion in about 65 years. Birth rates, though, would also likely decrease even at an even faster rate during this time due to a shrinking population base. Therefore, with relatively small increases in net mortality, the current population can drop significantly in a relatively short time. Just ask yourself: “Would my life become unbearably abnormal if instead of 2 or 3 people close enough to affect me die each year; 8 to 16 died instead?” Within 2-3 short generations society could be back to living a pre-industrial circa 1800 lifestyle with a world population similar to that era of 1 billion.

We have been brainwashed for decades to think "the problem is overpopulation." And this makes sense when you consider that resources are limited and an ever growing population means that someday you will hit the wall and then society will collapse.... due to "too many people and too few resources." But there are two problems with this: 1. Most developed nations keep expanding their social safety networks, with government providing more and more benefits. This means you NEED an expanding taxpayer base, with more taxpayers than people needing benefits. So depopulation, due to falling birthrates, creates a REAL problem when old people live longer and young people have fewer children. 2. The overpopulation theory completely ignores technology. As technology advances the planet can support a larger population. One hundred years ago there were only 2 billion people on the planet, and the global extreme poverty rate was around 75%. Today the population is four times higher at 8 billion, and the global extreme poverty rate is around 8%. Advances in agricultural technology have resulted in FEWER people living in extreme poverty despite the quadrupling of global population. You are absolutely right about all the different factors involved in any of these projections, including "human behavior patterns." Women having fewer children is an important factor, but so are things like climate change, GMO food production, and fuel and metal consumption. Personally, I feel like Darwin was right. We will adapt or die to changing conditions. My guess is that we will find a way to adapt.

If we are destined for a temporary plateau and decline in the global population as seems likely, the question is all about the speed of the decline, a nation may have modest declines generation to generation and things still be relatively sustainable, but the consequences of a total population collapse as is happening in many east Asian countries are socially and economically apocalyptic.

Almost nobody cares as the zeitgeist of the day is misanthropy, with most people holding one of two opinions, those being "f**k humanity, we're killing the earth" or "less people means more stuff for me."

China is shrinking by almost a million a year ( more deaths than births).

Is growing very rapidly(5--10 children per woman) another third is either shrinking( over 800,000 decline in a single year). While the remaining third is transitioning from growing to shrinking. And in N. America and Europe unless the authorities move stridently against it will fill up rapidly with immigrants. It's almost as if the species intends to make its final stand on N. America and Europe.

The problem is that a third of the Earth's population isgowi

Yeah, any model hitched to capitalism is is a non-starter.

Hyper-sexualization, the pill, dating apps, terrible foods, mercury and aliminum injections, abortion, feminizing hormones in foods and pesticides, feminism, netflix, obesity, mental health decline, toxic media, social media has much to do with it too.

We now number 3,000 times more than were our ancestral ecologically balanced self-sustaining Hunter-Gatherer clan/band members. Those clans/bands never numbered more than 150 (the Dunbar number) as that would be unsustainable for H-Gs. We are indeed in an overshoot, unsustainable condition presently and consuming non-renewable natural resources toward a population collapse. We are, also, careening down the blind cul d sac of climate collapse from our dependence on fossil fuel burning for our unsustainable lifeways. Most ecologists estimate that the planet cannot long support a human population of more than 500M, or 1/16th of our current numbers. There is a wealth of scientific evidence and well researched books laying all o0f this out in detail, irrespective of the unfounded wishful thinking of most of the commenters here.