Can Earth sustain 11 billion humans?

[@KateeAngel]

When my grandmother was born in 1927, population was 2 bln. When my dad was born in 1949, it was 2.5 bln. My mom in 1952 - 2.6 bln. (only 0.6 bln. rise since grandma's - in 25 years, which means 0.024 bln per year). When I was born in 1993, it was 5.6 bln. (3 bln. since mom's - in 41 years, so 0.073 bln. per year). Now it is 7.7 bln. (2.1 bln in 25 years, so 0.084 bln per year).

[@nozirohhh]

And it wasn't the west. How about that.

[@lexiecrewther7038]

You're suggesting that the baby boom didn't happen? Or are you choosing to ignore all of the deaths from world wars and plagues?

[@davepx1]

And in the next 25 years it's expected to rise by 1.7bn, or 67m a year. In the 25 years after that it's projected to rise by under 1.1bn, or around 42m a year. Past increases are a poor guide to future trends. The population explosion already happened.

[@awakeknowledgeYawehseemyhell]

I m a 91 you have a. Pretty Life i Say you politica of so happens will do of US soylent green with this all problems ti solve we are too much manu blind insider some ignorino they aldready are killing us

[@AussieSaintJohn]

Just recently found your channel and really enjoy your presentations, cheers mate, from an ex pat now living in Oz...

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Jaypea. Much appreciated. Welcome to the channel.There's a few of you watching over there now. Good luck with your elections mate. I hope you get a new bunch with a slightly more amenable attitude towards renewables!

[@AussieSaintJohn]

@@JustHaveaThink thanks mate, we need it, most of them have their heads in the sand but I just joined ACF Australian Conservation Foundation and talk is that we're going to make this a Climate Election, keep up the good work, cheers mate...

[@candicecrawford2996]

My entire household is completely plant based. We practice no-till self-sustaining gardening. Fruit trees and native edible plants. We live in northern Florida, so I’m concerned about sea level rise. Contemplating moving before the housing market crashes near the coasts.

[@mattw9764]

Brilliantly thought out and produced video. I think it's the simple clear approach that makes it work so well encapsulating just the necessary info.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Matt. Many thanks for a very kind comment. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave

[@matthewtrow5698]

This is pretty much the reason I gave up eating meat 2 years ago - it was the single biggest thing I could do for the environment and the easiest to achieve. Not once have I ever badgered my meat eating family and friends about it. What it did do, was to highlight how staggeringly tilted our diets are - the hardest part of doing this lifestyle change, was eating out. 90% of food in hospitality in the UK contains at least some meat, pushing the vegetarian options in the worst cases, to a cheese sandwich. Good luck if you are vegan - not even worth trying to eat out in 99.9% of venues. But there's hope in sight - in most large towns and cities, there's enough choice for vegetarians and slowly, for vegans too. In less sophisticated and less populated areas, well, there's always roast potatoes, chips, bread, beans and other vegetables - good venues will always try to help you out. Bad ones will offer you a cheese sandwich.

[@vitabricksnailslime8273]

A few points. Leaving aside the totally ridiculous practice of growing cereal crops to feed livestock, it is often assumed by people who have zero experience in farming, that if only we would not raise livestock, that something like 10 times as much vegetables/grains could be raised on this land. This is total bullshit. Much grazing land is either marginal or unsuitable for farming, the limiting factor being water. Also, cropping tends to be much harder on the land itself than grazing. Secondly, the social justice arguments, which can only set ever decreasing limits on anything and everything which may be consumed, need only be invoked where population growth is accepted as inevitable. How about we start planning for a drastic decrease instead? This is the real elephant in the room. It's either that or Soylent green. Take your pick.

[@doritoification]

Great to see your channel grow by 900% since this video... I'm falling in love with your channel and think you're one of the best at communicating this well researched content at a high level while keeping it easy to understand which is a powerful thing!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Wow. Thank you Dominic! That's extremely kind feedback. I'll do my very best to keep putting out the information as well as I can. All the best. Dave

[@doritoification]

@@JustHaveaThink You're welcome, i really hope you succeed, also if you ever wanted to do a video on molten salt reactors and/or the thorium fuel cycle feel free to bounce any ideas off me. Its an area I would consider myself very knowledgeable about and very relevant to your channel and would gladly share my thoughts and knowledge if you need (although you're clearly very good at doing your own research)

[@hillockfarm8404]

Note on that agricultural land : 2/3 i.e. 66% is marginal land and for one reason or another unsuitable for growing crops other than gras for livestock. It is to steep, rocky, poor, etc. to grow those crops on.

[@joshuaewalker]

I'm a relatively new subscriber, I've been watching this channel for several months now, and this video is quite a bit older with a lot less views than the newer ones, but I loved this video! I loved the format, the background music, and all the charts! I love the new videos too but this one felt exciting!

[@jessicaainsworth6060]

whenever I meet a friend who doesn't have children I always tell them they are Eco Warriors and doing more good for the planet than anyone else. Love your program and would love it even more without the background music....your voice is enough.

[@joegastly6166]

Trigger Troll It's not when the planet is overpopulated and your future children and grandchildren are fighting and possibly killing for enough food and water to survive along with the other 11 billion people because the planet can't support that many humans

[@KateeAngel]

Lol thank you for calling me so, even though I decided not to have kids just because I cannot stand them being closer to me than 100 meters

[@richdiana3663]

Been a nonbreeding tree hugger since 1970. Hate the fact that the behavior that would lead us to extinction was never respected or heeded. Enjoy every day for it could be be your last. And sooner than you would ever want.

[@freespiritlibra9281]

It’s not that the world can’t support 11 billion people. We just expect too much of everything as we advance further in the future. Humans are too complicated

[@Astillion]

Excellent video! I recently found your channel and are looking through some of your old videos. I'm a longtime fan of Hans Rosling and have seen most of his presentations, both in English and in Swedish. And your summary is excellent. As well as you easy to understand explanation of how switching to a plant-based helps reduce land use so that we can feed everyone. You should make a new version of this video now that you have an additional 152000 subscribers, so that more can see it. Keep up the good work!

[@dbrown2430]

Hans Rosling was amazing . I was watching him and thinking wow we could use him now. I have chosen to be childless. I made that decision a long time ago when i saw the track the human race was taking, and how it would eat up the planets resources. I dont advocate it for everyone, but im happy with my choice.

[@jonathanstewart351]

Exactly! That's what my wife agreed upon, too, although in retrospect I would have loved to have had one child...

[@autohmae]

@@jonathanstewart351 You can adopt

[@mohannair5671]

Very thoughtful and considerate for all others

[@mohannair5671]

@@jonathanstewart351 perhaps adopt?

[@pascalw.paradis8954]

The dying oceans turning acid and heating up fast. They saved our ass up to now. Tips and feedbacks cutting in soon. We won't get to 11 B . ❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️

[@richardgoldfine3191]

We may be able to “sustain “ eleven billion people but such a world would be an unmitigated nightmare.

[@akash5781]

I found your channel couple of days back... and i must say i am binge watching your old videos. It gives immense amount of interesting information. Keep it up. ✌️🙌

[@matthewmartell9118]

Another well produced and informative piece of journalism, keep it up Dave Jhat.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Matthew. Thanks for your comments. Very much appreciated. One small edit though...I'm Dave not Paul 😊

[@matthewmartell9118]

@@JustHaveaThink All apologies Dave Jhat.

[@lilbaz8073]

We need to reverse desertification.

[@MrSvenovitch]

Talk to Walt Disney about it

[@danguee1]

Could happen. Won't happen. Biggest two problems: livestock destroys soil, natural plant growth; undeveloped (sorry: 'developing') peoples cut down trees for fire wood - and as these are the people most likely to have population growth, this is just going to get worse in Africa, Middle east and India.

[@danielhowell1452]

@@danguee1 watch Joel salatin Ted talk on how animal grazing is essential for grasslands to thrive

[@danielhowell1452]

Sorry, alan savory. Both interesting tho.

[@stevelondon659]

We are exactly like bacteria in a Petri dish. Infinite growth with finite resources.

[@Elviloh]

Spoiler : they all die in the end, or some evolve to survive. Either way it's hell.

[@mafarmerga]

@@Elviloh The only 'survivors' are dormant spores, waiting around for the environment to return to normal. We are on track to breed ourselves into extinction.

[@abyssmanur3965]

David Suzuki used this example....In a couple of generations we'll be having our last supper as far as resources go.

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

A very dumb thing said by a very smart guy.

[@seanhurley4003]

Yes we are. We are just like all other living things. If we can get the food our population will grow. When we can't, it will shrink. So let's stop whining about it and let nature run it's course. Hey it looks like our population can grow quite a bit... all we have to do is eat less meat and more veg.

[@franklinrussell4750]

Excellent presentation of a major problem. Let's eat less meat!

[@richdiana3663]

I am.🌎

[@seanhurley4003]

If people eat less meat, then we will be able to produce more food, and the population will just go up even more. As another commenter said, we are just like bacteria on a petri dish... if food is available population will increase

[@optimisticfuture6808]

Solent Green

[@allnamestakenn]

Wont help. We need less people that eat less meat.

[@scribblescrabble3185]

@@seanhurley4003 There is a negative correlation of fertility rates with politcal stability, equal rights, womens education and health care. Food plentitude on the other hand doesn't lead to higher fertility rates or at least is not a dominating factor, or do you want to tell me, that the blue countries here @3:21 are suffering from food shortages.

[@optimisticfuture6808]

My principal concern is developing economies which will not move straight to efficient economies from a resource standpoint and as they represent the mass of future consumers. Mankind does always seem to work things out however.

[@kartik_adhia]

Please do a video on A. Lab grown meat B. Plant based meat like alternatives like Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat

[@bipolarbear9917]

Great with the statistics, but not so on the diet issues. The idea that a plant based diet is the best and most healthy diet is a myth. Humans would never have been able to develop our advanced brain and intellect on a purely plant based diet. Humans are omnivores, so we are designed to primarily eat animal products as well as plant products. Plants in fact have many naturally toxic chemicals as defense mechanisms to reduce animals grazing on them, as well as man-made chemicals used in modern agriculture. In the future, technologies like aquaponics and aeroponics in vertical farms and advanced animal production techniques will solve the land use problem.

[@Danny_6Handford]

Excellent analysis! Here are some of my thoughts. As you point out, the idea of concentrating large numbers of humans to live in one area started with the agricultural revolution and accelerated with the industrial revolution. This along with the ideas and thinking that the economy (human activity) always has to grow for us to progress and the idea that money and the financial systems always need to increase for us to be successful is why we are starting to hit the wall. The key is to operate in balanced cycles just like nature does. The economy (human activity) and the financial systems need to be about sustainability not about growth. Presently, if the economy or the financial system are not growing, it is considered a failure. This thinking is wrong and cannot go on uninterrupted on a finite planet. Whether its the planet's population or the amount of US dollars, they cannot continue to increase forever. There needs to be some new models developed based on sustainability. Everything in moderation can be made to work with the natural cycles of the planet. Pollution is also part of the natural cycles. If the fish use the lake as their toilet, it is not a problem unless you start getting too many fish. If we start a few camp fires to cook some meat, it is not a problem. If we burn some coal to generate some electricity it is not a problem, if we burn some gasoline to move some vehicles around, it is not a problem. When everybody starts doing this and we say that we have to keep doing more of it every year because if we don't we are not growing and that is bad thing then it becomes a problem.

[@michaelj132]

11 billion is pretty much the minimum for the end of this century and depends on low birth rates, 2 people have 2 children etc. Lower birth rates occur in nations with higher living standards. Nations with high living standards consume orders of magnitude more goods and energy. Even renewable electricity, manufacturing and recycling have other none CO2 pollutants. Can the world and our environment really function with at least 11 billion people with modern living standards? This is even if we ignore more human issues such as war and resource competition. I really find it hard to comprehend the idea that 11 billion people is sustainable. I don't see how a problem of too many people with to many things can be solved by more people with more things.

[@M_J_nan]

I really appreciate your matter of fact approach to present the facts, all pointing to a mostly plant based diet. The health care crisis would also be reversed in time if we changed.

[@bjorn3847]

Big fan and hope this reaches you in good health. Considering COVID-19 and the lower birth rates would be interesting to see an update of this video.

[@jeffbrunswick5511]

It shows the power of the media's hysterical hyperbole over COVID, that you think it has impacted the world's overall population.

[@davepx1]

What's little realised is that until the 1950s those famously carnivorous French were relatively modest meat-eaters by today's developed-country standards, averaging barely 40 kg annually between the wars against 100 kg today: a century earlier the European average intake was barely 20 kg a year, only Britain exceeding 40 kg along with North America. Modern levels of meat consumption aren't a traditional part of our way of life, they're unprecedented and unsustainable.

[@natemeyers6895]

I've been told by many dieticians, that for an average male, 0.5g of protein per lb of body mass. "Mind you" -couldn't resist - I'm a little over weight and slightly larger than the average male, but even if I were my athletic weight in University days that's 90 grams of protein per day. Which is about 15-20% of my daily calories. So, I don't know where you get 50g; that just seems low to me.

[@SquealyD]

congratulations on an excellent Channel .....very informative and beautifully communicated!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Linsey. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave

[@linmal2242]

Yes I second the motion! @@JustHaveaThink

[@TheMyrkiriad]

Ok for food. But what about other resources ? Metal, phosphore, wood, sand for construction, fresh water, etc....

[@robbenvanpersie1562]

That might be a problem.

[@stardust03820]

I appreciate the data presented in this analysis, ... specifically, that a reduction in the consumption of meat in human diets will help yield several important beneficial results regarding global resource management. HOWEVER, ... even IF transitioning dietary habits and a reduction in meat consumption is achieved, ... the notion that global human population 'may' increase to 11 billion people, ... IS A PIPE DREAM. Bottom line is that planet earth's resources ARE FINITE, and 'we' are ALREADY past 'maximum human population' level. Don't kid yourselves people ...

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

We already produce enough food to feed 10 billion and that is with our current meat diet. :) We could easily sustain 10 or more billions if we produced food in a sustainable way instead of for profit as we do now. If you can't figure out the difference do some reading!

[@paranoah1925]

@@pietersteenkamp5241 That is why the soils are depleted, the crops have much less nutrients and all sorts of deficiencies are on the rise for even well-fed people for the first time. We can eat crops grown in water (hydroponics) or eat synthetic supplements made in a lab, but that doesn't mean we will lead healthy lives. According to scientists (and economists aren't scientists), the sustainable human carrying capacity of the planet is 1-3 billion. Your claims of "easily supporting 10 billion people" requires a large majority of that 10 billion living in abject poverty, just like they do now. You want to keep eating animals bigger than yourself, please continue, but please don't spread misinformation

[@Richard-zc1cj]

Thank you, I just found this channel, I think it's great 😃. Keep up the good work

[@RussellFineArt]

Great video, thanks! Although I come from a large family: 6 kids, I constantly advise young couples that it's quality, not quantity, when it comes to having kids. Have 2 kids, spoil them, send them to college and spoil them some more. Have 6+ kids, like my parents, live poor with not a dime for college or help and barely keep track of them, let alone spoil them. That's my experience.

[@franklinrussell4750]

Well said!! Good post

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Spoiling kids makes them bad people. Don't spoil them. Raise them right.

[@paranoah1925]

Have none, spoil yourself

[@webchimp]

1,000 to 3,000 in a couple of weeks, you are picking up. A large part of that I think is down to your presentation style.

[@Arman-xv1zf]

Please lower your intro music volume and speak louder, I had to lower the volume for the explosive intro and then increase it for your hushed voice.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Squeaky squeaky. Sorry about your poor ear drums. I got a couple of other comments like yours and I've actually changed the intro again now to something very simple - just a rumble of thunder and some electrical interference. I hope the latest videos are less painful for you :-) All the best. Dave

[@Aaron16211]

Yes, if we transition to renewably powered and clean, healthy circular economies based on Cradle to Cradle Certification and design for disassembly thinking. Good thing is that wind and solar PV for electricity are already cheaper than fossil fuels and growing rapidly. Good thing is that there are already thousands of Cradle to Cradle Certified industrial products on the market.

[@killcat1971]

Do you know how many resources are used, and waste generated for each MWh of solar and wind production?

[@Aaron16211]

Wind turbines require 1 million pounds of steel and probably 3 million pounds of concrete. Both of which can be recycled after 25 to 50 years of operation. Wind turbines repay their embodied energy in under 6 months of operation. This included mining, smelting, shipping, constructing, servicing and recycling. SunPower solar PV panels are the highest efficiency on the market. But they are also Cradle to Cradle Certified for clean disassembly and remanufacturing inside our "circular economy". Solar PV panels have an energy return of 14:1 in Alaska and 27:1 in Arizona because of increase solar radiation.

[@killcat1971]

@@Aaron16211 Each solar panel generates 300x it's weight in waste, and do you have any figures on how much recycling of those actually occurs?

[@llothar68]

It's much easier to accept for people to not have children then it is to life an enviromnet friendly way.

[@chuckkottke]

Fantastic elegant presentation Dave!! I agree, no need to wear sack cloth and ashes and perform self flagellation, just cut back on meat consumption, especially the more consumptive to produce forms. Since people are still craving meat then maybe reworking plant protein into meat like slabs isn't such a bad idea? For some lands, pastured animals makes sense I think, mimicking the wild bison herds of our wild wollie west, but probably that would suffice for just the occasional big holiday gatherings and such. Nuts are great protein sources, I'm thinking about growing hazel nuts sustainably as the demand little water and fertilizer and yield tons of tasty nuts. Thanks again for the presentation and keep sending out the possible solutions!

[@markusantonious8192]

Unfortunately, food is just one dimension of the problem. Thus, for every lb of human something like 30 tons of infrastructure are (presently) used to support it, i.e. roads, buildings, telecommunications etc. Then there is resource depletion to consider, e.g. phosphorous, copper, sand, etc ...and environmental destruction, e.g. deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases etc...When all these are taken into account, then no, eleven billion people on the planet is *not* sustainable - not anywhere close.

[@linmal2242]

Yes, maybe the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet for 'civilized' humans is about 3-5 mill?

[@tomkelly8827]

I live in Canada. It makes sense to eat meat here. Climate and ability dictate a lot of why those numbers are the way they are in terms of who and where people eat more or less meat. We may not be able to grow Mangoes and Bananas here but we sure can grow a whole lot of Pork, Beef and Chicken! Sure we can grow a whole lot of lentils and we do and we export them to the world. All of my vegetarian friends turn to meat though once their bodies start to fail on them. I have seen it so many times now. A nice balanced diet with a good dose of meat is what I recommend. For my British friends though, I would say that if you want to have better teeth and bones, lay off the tea a little. It is eating your bones.

[@gyorgyangelkottbocz9766]

good program as per usual! thanks! BUT! I think f.ex. the chart showing animal-produce consumption per capita in the world is highly misleading. yes, these countries are probably consuming more animal-based products but also, even more importantly they produce more per capita than other countries as a result of intensive animal husbandry practices. see holland, denmark, sweden etc as examples or even new zealand or australia. A lot of these products then are exported to other countries f.ex. China or arabic countries, Russia etc.This in turn makes the chart misleading and your conclusion just the same... Another thing. I am rather sick of this one sided standpoint in the animal production debate concerning water use or even protein/carbohydrate per sq km land... As an agricultural engineer and farmer I know the DIFFERENCE between different types of agricultural production. Land or water use can't be blindly compmared like this... stock-yard intensive maize based animal husbandry (fattening) of cattle so very common f.ex. in the US is rightly said draining on resources BUT grazing based extensive or low intensive systems such as you've shown regenerative agricultural practices where animal husbandry is coupled and integrated with cropping is highly advantagesous for both the environment and food production. this is further supported by the fact that we have more land available to graze than to crop on and grazing doesn't compete with other food or human rsource producing practices. a more nouanced picture isto be painted otherwise all the less informed and slightly more ignorant public falls for the become vegetarian propaganda, the one that says milk is bad for you and butter, cream and egg-cholesterol will kill you.... By the way... Even your "you'll be healthier by eating more veggie based diet" is questionable on the premises of how you prepare the ingredients, and only a very slight increase in cancer (ca.1% from 3 to 4%) was ever proven f.ex. in case of intestinal cancer as resulting froim eating and thanks to mainly processed -red- meat products...

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

This was actually a much better video than I thought it might be. Pretty informative, in fact. When you started by mentioning the idea of "managing" population, I thought, oh no, here we go again...but it wasn't quite that way. 11 billion sounds a bit on the high side, compared to most estimates I've seen, but it may actually be closer than those to what will actually happen. Of course, none of us knows, but I'm inclined to more optimism than most in thinking mortality will keep dropping, so 11 billion could be close to the outcome. NOW, something that few, including I suspect the Think guy, have thought about: A few years ago, I saw a range of estimates in a book that ranged up to 21.5 billion for 2100. And I thought, well, that's ridiculous. (And it is.) A couple years later, I saw a similar mention in a KZbin clip, and again, thought it absurd. I wondered where such absurd numbers come from. I still don't know for sure, but have a pretty good guess. There's only one way I can see to get to 21 billion by 2100, and that is if EVERY PLACE maintained the same birth rate as at present. If you take the present birth and death rates for each country, project EACH ONE to 2100, and add up the populations, you get pretty close to 21 billion. If that happened, a certain set of nations, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, would "explode", and would dominate the population by 2100. That's a totally different picture from what you get just going by global rates of birth, death, fertility, and so on. But is that plausible? Hell, no. When death rates fall, birth rates fall in a generation or two. One after another, countries are going through the same kind of demographic transition that started in Europe and North America about 200 years ago. There is NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE of a country that has gotten "stuck," with a major drop in death rate, but no drop in fertility, for a really long time. Of course, if that were to happen, there would eventually be a crash, but in the 200 years or so since countries starting having major rises in longevity, this has not happened. I have trouble even hypothesizing how it could. Once it starts, the transition always completes. Anyway, I just wanted to point that out, and see if anyone has informative to add. I don't remember Hans even Rosling going over this, in all easily available talks. It's an interesting matter of statistics, and may have lessons for other statistical matters.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Incoming Ice Age will reduce this number to 1 billion...

[@brianjonker510]

Ridiculous We already grow enough food for 11 billion . Yes true it is just that much food gets wasted

[@marinerents9939]

Thank you so much for producing this informative content.

[@earthgirl0225]

In the society of monetary psychopaths and culture based on consumerism, the answer is 'no'. Thanks for the informative graphs. Can you please cite your source of the global calories at 8:20? I can't find that.

[@xxwookey]

I don't know his original source for the calorie numbers, but this talk by Joseph Poore is full of top-quality info along those lines: climateseries.com/lectures/34-joseph-poore-climatechange-food-impact

[@skipscramble5915]

Great video. The demonstrations you do are so helpful! Thanks, I love your content!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Skip. Much appreciated. It really does spur me on when I hear that people are finding the content useful. All the best. Dave

[@denuncimesmo2568]

Very good your video, I already managed to reduce the use of red meat by 1/4, replacing it with poultry and increasing it replacing it with other proteins and including a greener and fruit diet, and I still think I can cut more later For a while you don't even feel like eating so much red meat, it becomes a heavy intake.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Excellent Denunci. Keep it up :-)

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Education is the way to avoid the big families so common in the poor parts of the world. When people get away from subsistence living they don’t need huge families.

[@xflyingtiger]

I learned so much from reading Hans Rosling's book. You read some good stuff.

[@MrSvenovitch]

I'm sad he died so he won't have to live through the facts he subverted and denied. Would've loved to see him alive and miserable, the lying sack of shit

[@linmal2242]

You got !!! Everyone bangs on about climate change, but nobody, but nobody but you (and maybe a few others), is talking about it. HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH. Great little potted history of western development and population growth and civilization in general. The inputs for our culture(s) are the degrading factors. But the very intensive animal feedlotting should be replaced with nice green-friendly roo meat, very eco-friendly and eco sustainable(unless we export it, like all the beef/mutton we send) wshich would probably defeat the purpose.

[@antonohaodha1846]

glad i found this......great info and videos

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Anton. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave

[@apuuvah]

No. "Fortunately" no need, since population will start to diminish drastically in the near future.

[@namewastaken360]

I just looked up that interactive diet map to see where my country (New Zealand) comes in. Turns out we're at 191% !! Much higher than Argentina, so much for clean green NZ.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Oh dear. I hadn't spotted that. My mistake and my apologies. I have a Kiwi colleague at work and she says New Zealand is always getting overlooked. I fee suitably guilty!

[@lexiecrewther7038]

Imagine being shocked that a country dedicated to farming uses all of its arable land

[@ronkirk5099]

"leaving a little space for the other species" is getting more difficult all the time. Extinction rates are approaching levels not seen since the dinosaurs died off and is due primarily to displacement by us. Also, a lot of our agriculture is not sustainable due to ground water depletion and soil loss among other reasons. Nature will limit our population for us and it will be ugly. Besides, who wants to live on a planet with just us, cockroaches, rats and coyotes? That won't be living. Soylent Green (dystopian movie, 1973) is us!

[@baronvonhoughton]

177k subscribers now! Wow well deserved fast rise!

[@darthvader5300]

Ever heard of the Inca's agricultural recycling revolution? Their population density is 33,000 to 55,000 people per square mile and yet as the more people they have the more soil and water resources becomes more enriched and increased in numbers and quality and bio-diversity. Why this fact is not a well known public knowledge and not taught in schools and not discussed in governments and in military policy makers.

[@patersjy]

Another great video Dave. Hans was brilliant.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Cheers John. Hans was indeed an inspiration and his imagination and infectious enthusiasm are sadly missed. I hope you're doing OK and still giving 'em hell down there in Oz! 😊 All the best. Dave

[@johnransom1146]

Excellent graphics, spot on as you say

[@karlpilkington997]

I think this doesn't pay much attention to the probability of the third* green revolution: Permaculture with robotics, and indoor cropping etc. Many people own land which is not put to good use, in that people own land and yet only grow lawns or they have excess space in their houses which provides them little value. The third green revolution would see people investing in automated food production in their own homes as the price of buying food transported over long distances exceeds the price and effort input of having an automated garden growing fresh crops for immediate consumption. NASA have already proved the theory that a person can be sustained on a well organized plot of land, indoors or outdoors, in the range of a few square meters per person fed. If price of robotics continues to reduce at the same rate it is, then it will become more efficient for people to invest in robotics to grow their food on their own land than it would for mass farming cultivation. It is almost inevitable when you think about it because the cost of transportation of food with the current system is entirely unavoidable Other technologies such as the new research into homesteading, and industrial, water desalination will likely also increase the amount of freshwater available. And the new focus on creating rainclouds also will increase freshwater availability

[@karlpilkington997]

But yeah I can see how the Argentina thing could be true, my sister married an Argentine... Who find it funny to laugh when people mention eating meat etc around me, considering that I'm a vegan

[@andytomm1]

A word of caution, with regards as to how much cattle breeding impacts on resources it is not as simple as portrayed. Depends on the region's climate, land fertility, they way it is fed. If its done mainly on grain/ration (feed-lot) then the damage is max.; but until a generation ago in the Argentine region cattle was bred extesively on natural pasture Therefore impact was minimal and if done rationally the land in some areas can benefit from it as you well say in other videos. The reason I write this is because the way this video put it tends to make feel guilty the people who, living in low densely populated area, enjoy a steak twice or thrice a week disregarding where it came from. If you analyze more thoroughly that is a dangerous approach to the subject.

[@buffalo_chips9538]

By scientific scales of performance we have all of the resources today to solve the issues of overpopulation. It is not a lack of resources, it is the manner in which we are allocating those resources. Lets start with food. We already throw out almost 60% of the food produced in the world today because we are not allowing needs to determine where these resources are going. It is resulting in an over supply in wealthy markets that gets thrown out before it is used. We can grow food anywhere today with our regenerative agriculture, hydroponic, aquaponic and vertical farms. Fresh water? We have several desalinization technologies at our disposal today that are capable of creating millions of gallons of fresh water a day. We can build pipelines and canals anywhere we want almost. Healthcare? Again being limited by profit interests, not a lack of science or personal. Education? Same issue. Housing space? 84% of the earths land mass is sparsely populated. The truth is we possess ALL of the technology and the resources to end scarcity today. We can solve all the issues. The only reason it is not happening is this anitquated religious belief in our own man made creation. Money

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Buffalo Chips. I agree 100% with every word. It sounds so clear and obvious when it's written down in black and white, and yet as you say, the demented and delusional pursuit of money is apparently more important to the narcissistic megolomaniacs than the survival of our species and all the species around us as well. Major change is urgently needed.

[@chetankane568]

great...you give me hope by educating people!!!!!!!

[@alanjones1956]

Sorry there were NO vegetarians when our ancestors were hunter gatherers during the last ice age. It's sort of in our genes! Still a very good video as usual.

[@ek9772]

I would add a variable to your vast research on this subject. Look up debt and fertility ratio. Debt in this case is an interesting variable, and it has an unexpected effect on younger generations. In countries where education is not free, younger generations are piling up debt, and this is time shifting the time when they leave their parents’ homes and start their own homes. In addition, government debt is having a similar effect in countries where debt is very high in relation to GDP. In the old days it was said that, government debt had a ‘crowding out’ effect on corporate debt. I would argue that government debt is having a similar ‘crowding out’ effect on fertility rates. Other variables have a similar result. For instance, climate change appears to be lag correlated to a drop in fertility rates. Finally, plastics appear to be correlated with a drop in male fertility rates.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Eric. All very good points. I appreciate you taking the time to set them out clearly. There are so many factors at play in this arena that it's almost impossible to keep track of everything and harder still to tie all the interlinked elements together into something coherent that our global leaders can tackle. I will carry on banging the drum for what it's worth anyway. All the best. Dave

[@chapter4travels]

There is more than just protein in meat that the human body needs.

[@dallastaylor5479]

Will part 2 address resources for stuff? The concept of consumerism and materialism has grown massively in my life time. I wish we had, could or would put aside huge swaths of land for the other life. The 11 billion people is just unimaginable to me. Also water resources, desalination plants have issues. That's not an answer.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Marcia. Thanks for your feedback. It's a good challenge for a part 2. It seems to me that there is a very ironic sort of self regulatory factor at work when we consider population growth. And that is that if our civilisation does actually arrive at the year 2100 with 11 billion inhabitants living on the planet, then almost by definition, someone, somehow, must have worked out a way of resolving the looming climate and resources problems that we all know only so well. if on the other hand, we keep bowling along our 'business as usual' , RCP 8.5 trajectory, then your fears will most likely be realised. Nevertheless, those births, at least in the near and medium term are inevitably going to start to ramp up the size of our global population, and that means, as we and others have very sadly concluded before, that hundreds of millions, if not billions of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world will perish well before the end of their otherwise natural lifespan and our population growth will be controlled, not by a voluntary reduction in fertility rates, but by a mass genocide through wilful inaction and negligence by world governments and politicians more concerned about keeping the money happy and protecting their careers than actually taking courageous decisions that may jeopardise their own careers but which might actually galvanise the masses into more urgent action. Having said all of that, who knows what the future really holds. As I mentioned to another contributor recently, no-one knew that penicillin was just around the corner, and without that antibiotic breakthrough, many of us would not be here today.

[@dallastaylor5479]

@@JustHaveaThink you have a good point. I keep coming back to the fact that humans are an animal. We like to think we are somehow able to meet all challenges because of our opposing thumbs and frontal cortex. I think we indeed can and have done so in many instances. Which may have left us more confident than we should be. I only get to stick around till 2040ish. I do hope our brilliance once again saves us but i admit too much doubt.

[@linmal2242]

Great comment, Marcia. We have triumphed this far but will we adapt to a changing planet? @@dallastaylor5479

[@ellenchevarie8517]

yes it can.the world can sustain people.climate has always changed since the beginning of time.we are ok.we still need to not pollute our waters and protect what we have.there is no emergency if anything.with a bit of help the world can and will sort itself out like it has been doing for thousands and thousands of years.its beautiful and however it got to be it will sustain us

[@merijnvanmoorsel2953]

I havent seen many youtube channels this good at only 1000 subscribers

[@danecustance2734]

Fantastic thanks. I would love see one on the effects of pollution and habitat loss.

[@timob4870]

Good points. But one I wish you had addressed was range land. This type of land is too barren and stony to grow crops on. But animals can graze it. I imagine a lot of Scotland is like this. I’m from B.C. Canada. Should range land be used for agriculture or revert to wilderness? How effective or ineffective is it at feeding us? You see the animals do the work walking around eating off land too poor for crops than we round them up and eat them. This was a good system for people in the past. Has it now seen it’s day or is it a good way to produce food from non arable land? Have always been curious about that....

[@Elviloh]

Of course Earth can sustain even 12 billions with a bit of tweaking. Question is, what about the rest of living beings in the Universe, i.e here on earth ? Human isn't going to extinct...it's really not a problem. The problem is that we are a parasite killing our host (not the physical earth itself, but the balanced biosphere that make life easy and enjoyable, not a living hell like Madmax).

[@patrickmcnulty848]

Very well done David...

[@davidbeaulieu4815]

Population is tapering but we currently can produce enough food for about 10 billion. Emissions and other resources though eh probably not so great at that level.

[@decimusrex92]

Population is declining in the developed world. However the population hot spots will see growth until the end of the century. These are under developed countries such as Africa, india and parts of Asia. By 2050 projected population will most likely be close to the 10 billion mark. As far as what number is sustainable, that is strictly a guessing game. Considering the human population was at 2 billion around 1925 to 1935 and in less than a hundred years has almost quadrupled there is no president for a viable prediction. A good indicator of serious problems though is things like mass extinction, water scarcity, chronic starvation of nearly a billion people, escalating food insecurity and now climate change. All the red flags seem to be waving that we are way passed a sustainable population.

[@davidbeaulieu4815]

@@decimusrex92 ya but per capita emissions are way way less. By the time they're up hopefully renewable will be norm

[@nolan4339]

Of course if animals are primarily raised on marginal lands, rather than croplands as is often done, then ruminant livestock quantities don't really need to be reduced all that much, though it does still mean the reduction in some consumption levels of them.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Nolan. Yeah, it's really the intensive livestock farming that seems to be the issue, as well as the massive land clearance to feed those intensively farmed animals.

[@polanve]

Great information! One question you forgot to ask: do most Americans think it's okay for them to have most of the food and let the rest of the world go hungry?

[@blaydCA]

At one time or another USA has sent food aid to MANY (100's) countries in times of famine including Soviet Russia in 1921. We may not be perfect but we've tried.

[@lizairvine9159]

In Africa some cattle and wheat farmers are rehabilitating the land by planting indigenous plants and farming with buck instead. The buck can live very well on the land and don't need antibiotic injections, so it's much less work for the farmer and produces healthier meat. Also, it stops the extinction of indigenous plants and insects, also birds and small mammals. Game farms are much more beautiful than wheat or canola farms and the farmer can also make money by building some chalets and hiring them out to tourists. It's a win, win situation.

[@MarinelliBrosPodcast]

What type of farming irrigation are you talking about? American farming or farming in less efficient countries?

[@penguinuprighter6231]

American farming like soaking whole fields to grow cotton in the desert?

[@kurtappley4550]

Your conclusions on land use and beef production show a lack of understanding of a number of things. Beef production is generally done on land that is unsuitable for other uses. Cattle consume no fossil fuel in their production until we start to feed them grain. A point that needs to be factored in. I like to look at what food production looked like before industrialization. That food production, without fossil fuels, consisted of grazing animals not fed grain and the common vegetables eaten today. It is likely that we will be growing food on every square inch of land when the earth hits 11 billion. That is if tensions of a crowded globe don't drastically reduce population overnight. We seem a world less afraid of nuclear conflagration with each passing day.

[@kurtappley4550]

Then, of course, there is the next pandemic.....

[@borealphoto]

The 1943 expert was right. We consume faster than the Earth replenishes so even though there are 7B+ people, it's not "sustainable". We're living on credit.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

It's possible to pay off massive amounts of credit. I know. I've done it.

[@bluceree7312]

Its almost a year since this video and there are already 200 million extra humans. One year. 200 million. Almost an extra Nigeria. Let that sink in.

[@ouicertes9764]

The problem is not as simple. We could feed a good portion of the animals we eat with the food we throw away each year. It is cheaper to produce crops for animal consumption (less regulations). The problem is not eating meat, it's how we choose to allocate ressources. Farming animals need to be regulated so it's not as cheap and it doesn't take as much crops away from human consumption.

[@mattw9764]

Half the globe please for nature without humans.

[@dallastaylor5479]

Amen!

[@stokepusher5481]

The mainstream production of cultured animal proteins can't come soon enough, not that I care for them personally now, but it's good clear thinking not to dress up sliced and diced body parts in secondary terms when secondary certainly is not the global theme of our times anymore. Cow-abunga dude; I bet some 'burger' place somewhere has that surf term on the menu!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Stoke Pusher. I guess you're talking about lab grown beef and all that new technology. That's definitely the future if they can guarantee it's safety. We'll be looking closely at that later in the year. Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave

[@FatRonaldo1]

This is so terrible for our planet

[@donfields1234]

I think your incorrect personally, not that population isnt somewhat of an issue even though we do produce(and waste sadly) more than enough to support the whole population now and thats bringing most of humanity UP to a higher standard of living. However i feel the amount of change that needs to occur in the short time we need it to occur, leaves little room for almost any focus on anything but mitigating climate change. After all we are taliking about completely restructuring the global economy/society, hopefully moving out of a competitive capitalist based system to a co-operative one planet, one ecosystem and one human species system. I just feel thats more than enough to focus one. A co-operative working together toward one goal of expanding human concious awareness system, by default this addresses many if not all of the "other" issues that exist, such as population etc, simply through not thinking of me and we vs them, but instead just us working with us. How much more effective, efficient and rapidly developing technologically would we be in said system. And yes this is an unlikely event to occur from the standard "normal" way of thinking, the current state of mankind, hell even the "united" states has been divided up into little portions competing and bickering with each other. From the individual keeping up with the jones's, to countries racing each other to space, co-operation will far outpace competition, and do so in far wiser, efficient and effective ways. I think deep down we all know this is whats truly required to possibly make those emmense changes to mitigate enough of climate change as for mankind and countless other species to not go extinct, or at the least not experience the massive global economic and social collapse thats on our doorstep. Of course this is my opinion, albeit a highly researched one over decades. The only way i percieve "it" possibly occuring is if somehow, someway, humanity goes through a "quantum leap" of evolution into an enlightened concious awareness, leaving all racism, greed, vanity etc behind. Without that occuring i think we have a snowballs chance in hell honestly, and ironically that maybe how we all feel at least in the northern hemisphere in just a few months. Good luck fellow humans, there can be only one.... One life...one ecosystem...one earth...one species to "save" them all. 😉

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Don. Thanks for your feedback. Almost uncannily close to the very thinking and opinion that I have also arrived at as a result of what I have seen and thought about over the years. I've said for a long time that the next step that our species needs to take (assuming we survive long enough) is an evolutionary one. We have long been firmly ensconced at the top of the food chain. No other species on the planet represents event the remotest threat to our survival. That means, in my view, that many of the instinctive emotionally driven characteristics that are causing so many problems in our modern society are no longer required. It's just such a shame the world is still being ruled by men who have not yet progressed past the 'neanderthal' stage (with humble apologies to the actual Neanderthals!). All the best. Dave

[@komerwest5872]

A generation is 30 years not 15

[@mayflowerlash11]

These problems are not two separate problems running beside each other. They are inextricably connected.

[@zack_120]

Hoping when a sort of optimal global dietary profile is finally realized our Earth will be able to support 11b people for long term so that colonizing Mars becomes unnecessary.

[@inquisitive.lurker]

11:00 lmao I totally guessed Argentina their love of beef is over the top...

[@mariusm5660]

What are the plant based proteins if you can not eat legumes? Maybe I missed something?

[@darwenmint1]

It seems as though you have the problem sussed, however things are NEVER as simple as the statistics show, the question still needs to be answered in so far as what we should be eating. I know the vegetarian/vegan group think they have all the answers, but I'm not sure they do, but I like most people reading this, I will be dead long before that question is answered.

[@diegoayala11]

Very informative video ~~~ but after years of given it a think ~~~ there are other limiting resources that may limit main resources (like food). Not sure if you have additional videos on this topic of sustainability and human population, but would be great to include some additional resources usage overall that run our industry including agriculture ~~~ food production estimates are based on fertilizer usage to increase production, and there are limits to say nitrogen and phosphorous in crop usable form. Example is that "P" for agricultural use is estimated to last us @ current use levels for about 80 years +/-... Synthetic Nitrogen fertilizers utilize natural gas (for hydrogen source) = natural gas has proven reserves of about 52 years +/-.. Using USA as an example of food production of every size and type, we use an incredible amount of fertilizers, and N & P are the top two, and K as # 3... Now is the time for the younger generations to look into the future and to expand and to create the tech needed to recycle our organic waste, and design plan D for developing future fertilizer sources... A few years ago while working with a design team designing livestock waste systems wrote a report showing that my state (Nebraska) was generating enough animal waste from livestock (beef, dairy, and swine) and poultry to fertilize the entire state crop fields, and no need to apply commercial fertilizers... cost of transportation was high, and nutrient concentration varied, so.... Then convincing farmers that you were providing 2 - 3 years N and 4- 5 years of P, K, etc ~~~ dang is a hard sale. Any who, food production is a limiting factor for human population, but nutrients and water are limiting factors to produce our food. Sorry for the dissertation ~ cheers

[@mafarmerga]

I too was impressed by Hans Rosling's presentation but I "Just had a think" and asked myself? Can anything be done? Well... If the birth rate were 1.70 (US currently 1.80, China currently 1.62) then by 2100 there are only 9 billion people on Earth, not 11 billion. And no one had to die to do this. THEN... If the mother's age at first birth were raised to 29 years (US is currently 26.4, Germany is 29.4 and Greece is 30) this dramatically decreases the number of generations in Rosling's model, and combined with a birth rate of 1.70 there would be fewer people alive in 2100 than there are today. Think about it. With two modest changes in family planning we can avoid breeding ourselves into extinction! All without draconian measures or death by starvation and war. So let's do it!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Extremely interesting statistics! Thanks for sharing these. All the best. Dave

[@dustibecker4233]

What about the fact that much of land devoted to grassland grazing would not support growing crops?

[@s4098429]

This video is very unfair to meat eaters and meat produces. A lot of the worlds land is only suitable to pastoral farming (herding cattle, sheep) as appose to growing crops. Growing crops is much more profitable per square km that growing meat. Most farmers if given the choice would grow plants instead of animals. However most land is not flat enough, fertile enough or wet enough to grow crops. Countries you criticised for eating too much meat, are countries that originally had vast amounts of grazing land suitable only for ranching. The people here naturally ate a lot of meat. I know in rural Australia 100years ago people ate beef steak for breakfast! Why? Because they lived on a cattle ranch and that’s all there was, not because they indulged in a profligate lifestyle. Argentina, middle USA, Canada, Australia all were known for their small populations occupying vast areas of land only suitable for ranching. I’m not surprised Mongolia also showed up as red on your graph, they likely still eat a lot of animal products based on their traditional lifestyle of herding animals on the steppe. With regards to crops grown to feed animals in the US, that is more a reflection of the fertility of the American continent than of people’s greed. The Mississippi catchment is one of the most fertile river systems on planet earth, it’s in the same league as the Yangtze or Ganges. The Americans can grow so much food they don’t know what to do with it. They could grow enough to feed a billion or more people, but there isn’t a billion Americans to feed, the billion people who are hungry are on he other side of the world and aren’t rich enough to pay for its transport. So instead Americans feed their animals with their crops. They also grow copious amounts of corn, only to process it down to syrup to sweeten drinks and other junk food. It’s not extravagant if you’ve got the quality land and low population density to get away with it. If the American continent was as populated as China or India, Americans would eat very differently. A similar truth exists for places like Australia, Argentina, Europe. These are home to some very fertile lands, with relatively low populations depending on it. I know France especially has very productive farmland. The problem is people in highly populated or land quality poor areas seeking a lifestyle or consumption habit similar to those who live in sparsely populated and high quality land areas.

[@kartik_adhia]

Hardly. The US can currently grow the amount it needs, but using industrial farming. The problem with which is that it required huge amount of water and causes top soil erosion, and hence, it is not sustainable. Just check out these two topics : "top soil erosion" and "Ground water Depletion". I'd recommend the documetary pumped dry. Cheers mate.

[@s4098429]

@@kartik_adhia You're comment is both erroneous and contradictory. All farming is industrial, if it wasn't nothing would be produced. Using 'a lot of water' is a meaningless statement. Is it rain water or irrigation? Both are very different. Why would this necessarily cause errosion? A farmers soil is what is most valuable, it is in his interest to keep it. Good farming is about minimising inputs (fertilizer, water, labour, cash) and maximising outputs (value of harvest) so that the difference between the two are largest. For a lot of the world's land livestock is the optimal 'crop'. It's inputs (subsidised corn meal, agricultural by products) are very cheap. A well manage farm is both productive and sustainable, one does not exclude the other. A poorly mange farm is only one or none. In my experience, poorly managed land is that which is not owned by the farmer. Rented land is often treated as a mine, depleted of nutrient and value until the renter moves on. Owned land is improved so that it can produce indefinitely. In my view the environment would be much helped if law was constructed to encourage this truth instead of discouraging it. Subsidies, handouts, restrictions, ownership arrangements distort a farmer's natural incentives to well manage his land.

[@kartik_adhia]

A google search would have spared you so much writing : www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/topsoil-farming-agriculture-food-toxic-america : Excerpt : "In the US alone, soil on cropland is eroding 10 times faster than it can be replenished." psmag.com/environment/groundwater-depletion-may-cause-domestic-wells-to-dry-out

[@Funkywallot]

11 Billion sustained. But what if food prices soar ? Is there enough paided work for the two more billion people to go by 2050 because we are in the middle of a robotic and AI revolution ....

[@AlenLadavac]

Uh... 50 grams protein per day is an often misinterpreted guideline. It's the *minimum* for a skinny sedentary adult. Basically, a person who is already at risk of various diseases. This is way too little for someone who is active and has a lot of muscle. Couple that with the fact that most plant based proteins are very scarce in essential amino acids, you need more plant based protein than animal protein.

[@alan2102X]

Minor correction: correcting climate change is not an "unimaginably herculean" task. More like a very imaginable, difficult but possible task.

[@optimisticfuture6808]

alan2102 you would first have to create a world that feels there is climate change man made and then the will to change. Unless the changes sought are cheaper to do, and not from a catastrophic cost view, it will not happen. This is a west centric view. The rest of the world pats us on the head while they continue to develop conventional energy systems.

[@alan2102X]

@@optimisticfuture6808 I am trying to make sense of what you wrote. "first have to create a world that feels there is climate change" -- there is general consensus, everywhere except perhaps the U.S., that anthropogenic CC is here and is serious. "Unless the changes sought are cheaper" -- cheaper than what? What are you talking about? "This is a west centric view" -- WHAT is a west centric view? "The rest of the world pats us on the head" -- for WHAT? why would they do that? Please slow down and write clearly. Explain what the hell you are talking about. Make your sentences complete and intelligible. Thank you.

[@optimisticfuture6808]

alan2102 let me be more concise. Energy systems which are non oil based need to be economical for developing economies to pursue them on any great degree. Much more coal, oil and gas tW capacity is coming online worldwide than “renewables”. My pat on the head means that the west’s activism is viewed in Asia as “great.... ummm we’ll talk later but glad you guys are doing it, we’re developing and can’t afford the 3x cost of renewables” and I made no statement as to the validity of manmade climate change. My point was unless renewables, etc can compete on a real cost benefit to conventional there day will not be significant until other sources are used up over the next 100 years or so.

[@alan2102X]

@@optimisticfuture6808 OK, now I understand. I am not seeing that the West is any great leader in renewables buildout, with notable exception of Germany. China has been going great guns, and India is ramping up nicely. Of course it does depend on relative cost, but costs have been dropping so rapidly that FFs are becoming uneconomical in many parts of the world; nuclear is already uneconomical and largely dead in the water. Renewables don't cost "3x more" except in northern climes, and dropping fast even there. In S Asia (India) and Africa it would be insane to build more FF-dependent power generation. That shit is history. India actually stopped building a coal plant, half way thru, because solar cost had dropped so far that it made no sense to continue. Five more years, renewables will totally dominate and represent nearly 100% of new energy generation. They are close to that in some places even now. kzbin.info/www/bejne/omHGd2WAjr9risk 'Is the Electric Vehicle Revolution Real?' with Marin Katusa of Katusa Research [renewables buildout] Published on Dec 20, 2017 Ramez Naam on renewables: Exponential Energy kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKi2nISXZtmBo6c Wonderful news: at 16:40 -- "In January, China cancelled 104 planned coal power plants, including 40 for which ground had already been broken... in one month India cancelled 14GW of planned coal capacity, because solar PV price is in freefall. THE WORLD'S COAL PIPELINE IS DRYING UP". Thank God! kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKi2nISXZtmBo6c Exponential Energy | Ramez Naam | SingularityU South Africa Singularity University Summits Published on Oct 20, 2017 cleantechnica.com/2017/06/29/china-install-403-gw-wind-energy-next-decade-make-consulting/ China To Install 403 Gigawatts Of Wind Energy Over Next Decade, According To MAKE Consulting www.pv-magazine.com/2017/07/28/aecea-china-could-reach-230-gw-of-solar-by-2020/ AECEA: China could reach 230 GW of solar by 2020 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics in 2000 China had 19 MW of solar installed, increasing by a factor of 42 to 800 MW in 2010 and again by a factor of ~55 to 43500 MW in 2015, and added 34500 MW in 2016. chinaenergyportal.org/en/china-halts-building-coal-power-plants/ China halts building of coal power plants www.brookings.edu/2018/01/22/chinas-coal-consumption-has-peaked/ China's coal consumption has peaked Monday, January 22, 2018 www.businessinsider.com/china-coal-energy-fossil-fuels-solar-farm-2018-4 China's latest energy megaprojects show that coal is really on the way out www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/2014/The-End-of-Chinas-Coal-Boom.pdf The End of Chinas Coal Boom: 6 Facts You Should Know April 2014

[@optimisticfuture6808]

alan2102 I appreciate your optimism but the reality is far different. Look deeper CNBC did a story on renewables which I couldn’t locate for you but the cancelled coal project in China was a publicity stunt by the central govt. most of those projects were placed back on by local authorities. China coal use is largely for steel production and their are little options for other than coal. Don’t get me wrong, renewables are great they save energy dense energy sources where we need them, aviation, shipping, etc. let’s hope new techs replace many of these needs. The energy scarce future scares me, not for electric but for basic production that needs fossil fuels. We need to implement renewables as quickly as possible. China is investing in renewables it sadly its largely to market to the west. Even worse China is bringing coal generation online in Africa at a very raped rate.

[@alangardner8596]

Well certainly here in the UK the post glacial landscape tells us that with the best will in the world many areas are just unsuitable to grow crops and can only sustain animals?

[@jeffmathers355]

Don't think I'll ever ditch meat entirely, but more and more these days I try to make the veggie side of my plate bigger with the meat side smaller and less beefy. What can I say, it's a process. 😉