World Population Numbers Are A HUGE PROBLEM

Thanks to the French tourism board for sponsoring this video #VisitFrance
( 7:30 )
If you want to support more videos like this one, I have a patreon:
/ toycat
/ toycat - Subreddit community! For discussions on all the things you see on this channel
Check out my probably main channel at / ibxtoycatletsplays
Also on twitter @ibxtoycat

[@roulam3001]

This man was serious about the visit France joke.

[@hughreid5303]

I'm struggling to see whether or not this video was actually sponsored by the french tourism board.

[@TheCTCSquad]

Lol

[@The3PillarsOfGaming]

Fr*nch

[@TheCTCSquad]

@@The3PillarsOfGaming I really don’t understand what the joke is

[@gamingmoran9597]

It's the same country that made the song about how much the love of onions

[@gamingmoran9597]

@@TheCTCSquad it's not a joke he's British he's being paid by the French to make an advertisement would you like to hear a British person say go to France or a French person say go to France

[@VoldemortNightcore]

You know what I think about? For me, this is the only channel you have and every time you say "Second channel, don't care", you literally put a bullet to my hearth. I am watching your geography videos for 2 years and I am loving them. Please stop saying that hurtful words.

[@nobewayo]

i started as a sub to his other channel, now i'm only subscribed to this one lol

[@incog22]

@@nobewayo same I am not interested in minecraft anymore tbh

[@spiko-ou3bp]

@@nobewayo me too, but I do watch his minecraft occasionally, but this is his main channel for me

[@markusklyver6277]

This channel is much more interesting than Minecraft gameplay

[@katashworth41]

I don’t watch anything related to Minecraft, I just like geography videos.

[@thelakeman2538]

I wouldn't be surprised if the India estimates were lowered in the future/actual figures end up being lower than the predictions considering how India's rapid fall in fertility rates was not really expected by demographers, with the current national family and health survey already putting the national average at 2.0. The population growth till 2050 will be only really driven by like 2 very populous states (Uttar Pradesh and Bihar). Also having more people is not necessarily a good thing if many of them end up being malnourished, unskilled or even unemployed, many countries in the developing world have high unemployment rates and in the case of India in particular actual decent well paying jobs are in single digit percentage points of the total number of jobs.

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

Even UP and Bihar is progressing on that aspect.

[@tehdasi]

Unlikely. The main driver of fertility falls is wealth, and as TC said, wealthy regions just import what little growth they have from poorer regions. You will prolly just see lots more internal migration from those two poor regions into the more wealthy regions.

[@thelakeman2538]

@@tehdasi main driver of fertility falls is rise in education and improvement in healthcare, increased education among women is shown to decrease fertility rates, wealth can indirectly contribute to all of those factors but when you look at a country like India wealth hasn't risen drastically for the majority poor, what has increased is literacy, access to healthcare and other state interventions like family planning measures. That is not to say wealth is not a factor but that it is not the biggest factor here.

[@danz1182]

@@tehdasi I think that is correlation rather than causation. The driver is urbanization. In an agrarian community children are assets that start contributing labor at an early age. In urban societies children are liabilities (economically) pretty much until they are independent adults.

[@homijbhabha8860]

As an Indian I can confirm this, Most Indians now don't even plan for more than 2 kids.

[@m0rtal803]

"Sweden, the land of the swedes" - Toy cat, 2022 Wiser words have never been spoken before

[@ausboy2281]

Land of the immigrants BAHAHAHA

[@elitecereal]

As a Swede, I’m glad such wise words were spoken by such a wise human being.

[@JonasTisell]

@@ausboy2281 original joke

[@Fyrdman]

@@JonasTisell if only it were a joke

[@capnsteele3365]

​@@Fyrdman what the fuck do you expect would happen to a group of humans who were genocided against for 3 centuries, humans bounce back

[@Chorutowo]

Toycat you are where I receive my world news, you’re honestly more interesting, informative or trustworthy than most other news platforms

[@Lunar_Pendragon]

He's literally advocating for de-population. And on top of that, the long debunked and morally erroneous Malthusianism.

[@aDifferentJT]

Likewise, that’s why I’m subbed to the second channel but not the first

[@lost4959]

sadly, this is the world where you can't trust mainstream media

[@ca1ebyt6]

agree

[@kingstongrigg4029]

@@aDifferentJT facts.

[@bobofthestorm]

Imagine all the abandoned suburbs on the outskirts of every city in the world in 2150. Right now we're in the midst of rapid urban sprawl to accommodate the population boom and it would be pretty interesting to see how it goes once millenials start dying off in 2080

[@joemungus6063]

It would if we would live that long too xd

[@yojiviriak675]

Dang।। Never thought that way

[@user-hm1zb8js5i]

It is more likely that the inner cities would be abandoned and suburbs would continue to grow.

[@benfelps]

@@user-hm1zb8js5i seems kind of unlikely to abandon central cities, they’re much cheaper to run than suburbs

[@user-hm1zb8js5i]

@@benfelps Central cities also have much higher crime rates and restrictive laws, which is why people are leaving them. Even looking at current trends, suburbs continue to grow faster than their central cities.

[@ASMRDoodlez]

An interesting thing I thought of: If your country has a birth rate of 1.25 and you have 5 kids, then your next generation will be 4x the percentage of the population of your country (not counting immigration). If those kids average 2.5 each between them, you and your descendants will be 8x the population in just 2 generations. It's like going from 1 in 100 to 1 in 12.5.

[@anahitaazadeh3449]

And intelligence is highly hereditary, especially from the mother. Now think about the people you see having large amounts of kids…….

[@Wiimeiser]

@@anahitaazadeh3449 You mean the stupid people?

[@carlwessels2671]

The video creator is an idiot, why can't he and most people realize that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. His love of immigration,when so many countries are having big problems with assimilating those immigrants, the balkanization of the whole planet will not be peaceful(for an idea just study the history of the Balkans over the last thousand years). I think we are much more likely to be on the trajectory set forth by the Club of Rome and MIT in the early 70s. "A steep decline of the quality of life starting about 2020 leading to almost no quality of life by about 2040". That prediction seems to be coming true right before our eyes yet so many people discount it.

[@carlwessels2671]

I didn't touch on violence much,now I will. The estimates are that since the start of covid over 300 million people cast into poverty,with another 300 million into extreme poverty,there will be dire consequences from that,when people and their children realize that they are going to starve the social order is over leading to extreme violence. If you think I'm wrong:ask yourself "would I trade the 2022 world for the 2019 world if I could ". I think everyone knows the answer to that question.

[@carlwessels2671]

A Hobbesian war of "all against all ".

[@dobs8946]

Fun fact, world fertility is estimated to be 2.3 and it is in pair with replacement fertility. This number (replacement) is 2.1 for developed countries, but worldwide is closer to 2.3 counting in higher mortality in poor countries.

[@ericktellez7632]

i mean which ones though, plenty of so called developed nations are well below the 2.1, virtually all major economies are below 2.1 from the usa to germany, france, japan, and south korea, as well the uk, and many more are well below 2.1

[@paulheydarian1281]

It doesn't matter. Tomorrow is never guaranteed. Enjoy your life today and stay present in the present.

[@itz_yanii378]

All developed countries are below the 2.1 mark, the only developed country with a fertility rate higher than 2.1 is Israel with 3 children per woman and for obvious reasons in Israel there are more young people than old people, the opposite of the others developed countries where their population is ageing like Japan.

[@iandavidvillaloboswong5180]

Guess that explains why so many "developed" countries are pretty much begging for foreigners to go there and fill their jobs

[@jamescook4402]

Fertility rates of developed nations are so bad that the have to replace them with immigration.

[@chraman169]

The UN always revised their 'projections' down. The UN always overestimated growth. This will surely be revised down multiple times. I don't think it's just a choice. With more women working, the supply of laborers increased and the salary of each individual worker as a percentage of GDP decreased. It is much more difficult to live with several kids in a one-earner household than it was 60 years ago. I know several people who would want to live in a traditional one-earner household but can't. And I'm talking about mostly college-educated people here. They have comparatively high salaries. Still, they can barely have one child with only one parent working.

[@marinhaalternativa3829]

It's an economics concern, leading up to more stress and psychological disorders within the populus. Something alike happend in my family, but my mom let her parents to raise me and my sister. With my life experience, if families were more united, building upon each generation(literary in housing too), that would relieve some stress on the next gen. But this is just a lil theory of mine :p

[@chraman169]

@@marinhaalternativa3829 I agree with you

[@AnimeReference]

Doesn't that just result in wage stagnation for the period of time it would've taken the male workforce to double, followed by a resumption in wage growth? My country has a birth rate of 1.66 but has grown 50% in population in the past 30 years (Estimated doubling by 2062). Assuming diminishing wages isn't possible, as simple supply demand economics would expect.

[@chraman169]

@@AnimeReference In real terms, most developed countries' net wages after tax have not seen any significant increase since the 90s. In fact, many important ratios like annual net income/average houseprice have worsened. This is also indicative of falling real wages

[@SMC_Dev]

@@marinhaalternativa3829 In Pakistan we have that United housing, either women move into men's family house or men move into women's family house (but is rare case). This helps them have more earners to pay for house bills/rents and food expenses aren't much of a stress as well as multiple females can make (or go to work), children are raised by family in general and not just parents and this could provide relief to women and men in term of financial or work stress (again this has its own flaws too like let's say our elder respecting manner which would just put pressure on younger cuz elder have to rest that age)

[@jamesplatt3101]

Tbh in a lot of the global north with declining populations surveys of women have demonstrated that on average they would like to have 2 to 3 children but the simply can’t afford it! The crisis isn’t the low birth rate, it’s the symptom. We need to make it more affordable for families to become stable and have more children.

[@butterfox7442]

how could developing countries in africa and asia manage to afford children then? developed countries should have easy time to afford children since so much resources are available

[@skylinefever]

@@butterfox7442 Undeveloped countries have high birth rates because children's labor can be extracted by their parents. Industrialized economies did away with that incentive.

[@butterfox7442]

@@skylinefever So you think every family in undeveloped countries send their child as child labor? That is so stupid. Generally, parents wants the best for their child, except extreme cases when food security is an issue. Every family member try to contribute each to their ability. In middle income family, which is the majority in developing countries, they dont make their children help anymore since they could afford the essentials. But still make great importance to have children at least 2. They dispense with luxury, sacrifice their lifestyle.

[@jacturner6886]

Some people are choosing to have fewer children because the world isn’t currently safe enough in their opinion to bring life into the world. For others, it’s because the cost of living is just way too high and it’s just not possible to have a child.

[@jacturner6886]

@@odenoki9571 honestly, yes.

[@Pratt11]

For me and many other fellas, kids are too annoying to take care of aswell

[@50TEW]

Most people wish they werent born themselves, they just too busy to think about it

[@amazinglats6020]

Neither of these is the reason for our major population decline. It’s because of women becoming far more educated and having far more options in life(mostly career wise). This is a great thing for women. Bad for the population.

[@50TEW]

@@amazinglats6020 bad for population? Do you have any idea of peoples life, here in Australia one of the least densely populated country people suffer from overpopulation. Crowd and traffic in cities are bad as elsewhere, high price and competition in everything. More people only make everything worse, poor people and homeless population grow every day

[@RobDEV]

These type of high quality video is fine as long as you don't stop making the low effort ones

[@ibx2cat]

I'll make the next one nice and low quality don't worry

[@RobDEV]

@@ibx2cat Thank you!

[@amoththatthinks]

@@ibx2cat your hair is super annoying.

[@CockestMan]

No way on earth VisitFrance sponsored these type of videos, this is truly peak marketing lol

[@ibx2cat]

Read the sponsor spots for the sponsors you want to have, not the sponsors you do have

[@98SE]

@@ibx2cat lol toycat

[@whitesox2]

@@ibx2cat big boi

[@redchan2571]

I fundamentally disagree that we need "more people" in the world in order to grow/innovate, we need better quality people, through education ect. a person born into poverty in Africa is very unlikely to be able is escape that predicament and honestly I would argue it's rather cruel to be born to toll the soil and suffer also less population means more resources to the few, which arguably means people spend less time on the "working to feed oneself" and more time on the "innovation" (you don't see farmers inventing stuff in the past, it's always the academics/monks who already had that basic needs sorted that had time to think up the fundamentals of physics, biology ect)

[@Dhi_Bee]

I couldn’t agree more with you! We do need less children unless they have “quality” parents then have 2 at most. It’d be way better for our environment especially how we’re see in real time the devastating effects pollution/climate change & farming/natural resources are becoming more scarce

[@LoliLikesPedobear]

Yes! If you observe an average consumer, you don’t want more people in this world.

[@frka.836]

As an African i will reply to you that even between a poor people now and a poor people from 20 years ago the comparaison is unthinkable. They people are richer even with 4+ kids. In the city almost all of those Kids go to school so they are going to contribute far more than their parents. Overpopulation ist a matter of 4-5 on 54 countries currently, with the largest mineral deposits of the world and tons of land uncultivated. So don't assume that Africa is somehow doomed. Stagnation is never a good thing, especially when your economy relied on consumption.

[@mayankdewli1010]

Yup. You talk like you're bill Gates. You should decide for everyone if they should bring kids in this world. 1.5 billion white people own 60 percent of land on earth and own almost all the resources. How many more resources do you want?? They are already digging and polluting congo and other african countries to make lithium batteries for your electric cars.

[@DrewPicklesTheDark]

I still never got how people can say we need better quality people, then also denounce eugenics in the same breath. Education has become a joke, but even if it was still the prestigious thing it once was, all education can do is unlock potential. If you plan on actually raising the bar of humans collectively, you will need to resort to eugenics, which of course, creates a massive morality debate.

[@Aleblanco1987]

African inmigration will be crazy. In Argentina we are having a small but steady flow of mostly Senegalese inmigrants. Economy will have to adapt to a world that doesnt rely in growing population like a ponzi scheme. ps: Doctor Congo made me laugh out loud.

[@Darium147]

Bro. We dont know if latin american countries will still exist in 20 years.

[@StuffandThings_]

@@Darium147 Latin America tends to be extremely stable in its borders. If anything, that's the region that I'd bet on remaining the same.

[@ItalianIrishguy]

Mass immigration and multiculturalism have failed in Western countries and nationalism is growing by thr day. Their isn't going to be any "African immigration".

[@A-T_Teitus]

the problem is some countries Allow illegal immigration and even benefits from immigration, while the immigrants own country is Also without security that everyone can leave it without a ticket.

[@taxthesocialist2602]

All Western countries need net zero immigration rates from third world countries. Force them all to either change their ways or face the consequences. No more coming to the West to take advantage of what OUR ancestors built.

[@occamschainsaw3450]

“Oh no, we’re only going to have billions of people instead of gazzilions, how am I going to play human jenga now”

[@caninehat6589]

Don’t worry y’all. I have this under control.

[@thiccsand]

???

[@caninehat6589]

@@thiccsand don’t worry man I got this.

[@alonelyz1981]

@@thiccsand he is gonna spawn 1b babies every year dont worry

[@GordonSlamsay]

hell yeah 😎

[@deusmachinima1189]

Are you Johnny's true successor?

[@mylohebert1777]

To me, Decrease in human population is half and half, Decreasing population will mean less population density per areas based off of what area by population increases or decreases and less food has to be made for survival, but less population will mean smaller labor forces of humans for countries that will have declining population rates like China or Japan.

[@zzzanon]

Population densities vary wildly. NYC or Hong Kong vs rural Wyoming ior rural Alaska s very different. Human congregate together into cities because it increases economic activity and makes everyone in it richer on average (and makes it easier to become richer). I think I read that the majority of the US lives within 100 miles of the coasts. And all across the world, more rural people are moving to the cities. So if you are concerned about population density, just know that economic factors are, and will continue to cause this. EDIT: Correction, ~⅔ of the US lives within 100 miles of the border.

[@ericktellez7632]

whats up with all of you people thinking food shortage is a problem, we produce enough for 10 billion, the problem is the capitalist market preferring profit over losses.

[@ericktellez7632]

@@zzzanon not the coasts, but the borders, majority of Americans live around 100 miles from both borders.

[@zzzanon]

@@ericktellez7632 , thank you, you are correct. Thank you for the correction.

[@zzzanon]

@@ericktellez7632 , I hope you are not fooled into preferring the ideology that killed 100 million (mostly starved) in Communist China (Great Leap Forward, Culture Revolution, etc), and 60 million in the USSR.

[@tonyf3431]

"the majority of humans will be born in Sub-Saharan Africa" so we'll be coming full circle.

[@lawbringer9857]

hehe Life has a funnier way of correcting itself. Its time for Africans to rise back up.

[@kiddarts8812]

It doesn’t come full circle unless we immigrate down back to the ocean and evolve to swim again

[@leonelgaldinomonteiro4783]

Famine...I think.

[@eclogite]

I disagree about the imperative to keep the global population growing; we can't do that forever in finite space without eventually crowding out the rest of the biosphere. I also think it's unlikely we'll find a way to practically move significant portions of the population offworld to future colonies, given the enormity of the energy required to escape earth's gravity

[@batfurs3001]

Same thought. Having less people in total is a GOOD thing. Better for the climate, easier to keep everyone fed, watered, housed, healthcared, educated, etc. There are too many of us right now. Period. Lower fertility rates are the best way to get the numbers down without. Well. Yknow. Murder.

[@baobamarcopolo726]

These are good arguments, But there's also the factor that, until the decline stops and population stabilises, we will find ourselves in the situation where there's more elder people and less young people. This basically means less people to work and more people to sustain, making life harder for everyone. That's why some countries with low fertility rates are trying to attract skilled immigrants.

[@abmstudio3678]

@@baobamarcopolo726 the solution to that is to kill grandma. Or more humanely, everyone above 70 should not get the same healthcare as the younger folks.

[@henrikhans467]

@@baobamarcopolo726 Of course there are countries such as Japan that are working day and night to improve automation as fast as they can to address that issue you mentioned. Granted these technologies in a practical form will most likely be available in those types of regions, but it may help a lot with this problem.

[@fazalking8304]

They want the population to stabilize, because if we keep going this way, it’s gonna becomes a culture to have 1 or 0 kids this will cause population to drop to 1 billion by 2200 and an average age of 58-64 nearly everyone would be old and technology advancement you see today won’t be here

[@Laz3rCat95]

Quality > Quantity, I'd rather there be a smaller population of people that are able to live a higher quality of life because we're not all struggling and fighting over limited resources. Endless growth is not sustainable.

[@CasGroenigen]

The thing is, we could accomadate for soooooo many times the amount of people on earth we have now if we live more sustainable. And with more people, quality of life will increase faster for everyone. (source: idk...)

[@mistergibzzz1948]

You forgot about aging?

[@some2043]

i would rather have 11 children than go anal or use a condom also it will work a way or another

[@devon1on]

Wealth inequality, medical stability, financial stability, and housing prices are the main things that make people less interested in having kids - with the ability to choose, many people decide not to jeopardize their own career and health for a child. It's not religion, it's not a country's wealth (unless the wealth is actually equally distributed), it's people's personal economic situations that make them less willing to have kids. To fix the population crisis, we need to fix inequality, plain and simple.

[@allthenewsordeath5772]

That’s demonstrably false, the countries with the lowest birth rates are economically the most developed, rank towards the middle of the pack or better on the Gini index, generally have more extensive social programs and healthcare systems, and have lower cost of housing relative to median incomes, your hypothesis doesn’t work.

[@jaredcullison6502]

@@allthenewsordeath5772 you beat me to it

[@devon1on]

@@allthenewsordeath5772 However, overall economic wealth, even without inequality, does not a happy populace make - I was concentrating too much on inequality in my first comment, I admit, but the general economic situation and amount of stress from work - in my mind, at the very least - is a, if not the, major factor in people's desire to actively have children. If you have to constantly keep working and climbing corporate ladders to make enough money to buy a house, to continue your career and not get stuck in a low level job, then who is going to want to devote a ton of time to a child? Many parents, especially women by far, receive much lower pay and job opportunities after having a kid. It just naturally encourages people of all genders to not have children, and keep working to stay financially stable

[@allthenewsordeath5772]

@@devon1on Now that there is definitely some truth to, particularly in east Asian countries ware work culture dominates so heavily, the other side of the coin though is a lot more controversial is third and fourth wave feminism, it’s not a bad thing mind you that women are no longer chained to the stove as it were but since being parents is quite literally the most necessary job in order to continue the species, I do feel as if we have lost the ball so to speak in terms of societal norms. In this case though it is hard to tell whether we are dealing with a chicken or egg situation, where women entering the workforce caused wages to drop their bye necessitating that both parents work, or whether wages fell so women had to enter the workforce.

[@mjjfilms4597]

@@allthenewsordeath5772 The only thing that is demonstrably false is your reply. The most economically developed countries also have the highest wealth inequality and cost of living. The richest countries aren’t actually that rich, their goods and labor are just valued more in the international market. Everyone gets paid more but everyone spends more.

[@than217]

The fact that I can't tell if that was a joke or not about the French Tourism Board being the sponsor of the video makes it even more effective.

[@marcusoppong1024]

I find it hilarious how for the France graph, "The people" has 0% as there's no green bar. :D Guess the people are something to not love, huh.

[@Betterhose]

Another version of that joke is that "the blue in Germany's flag stands for winning World Wars".

[@ylette]

That's the joke.

[@Abrothers12]

I wonder if mass immigration is playing into most of these changes. Especially in eastern asian and northern African nations, there has been a steady rate of outflow as transportation has become an easier commodity. I think that we are experiencing a global osmosis in a matter of perspective. We’ll have to see how this will affect the globe moving forwards.

[@danz1182]

The maps he used don't account for it. When you factor immigration in US population continues to rise into the 2070s. The maps are just birth rates.

[@oliverqueen5883]

7:40 As a French person, I can 100% agree with the 0% for liking French people thing. When I’m in Irish mode (cuz I’m Irish too), I’m friendly AF, and when I’m French mode, I’m pouty AF 🤣

[@bigyokes4747]

You have another comment where you say you’re 100% French

[@felixherz2864]

"The population needs to keep growing" is not the conclusion you should draw from the fact that our economic system requires growth. Instead, I feel that the conclusion that said economic system has a fatal flaw (as growth will have to stop at some point in an environment with finite resources) is much more natural.

[@randomobserver8168]

The natural conclusions for me would be: 1. Population growth, extremely rapid, was both initially a consequence and a subsequent driver of the industrial revolution and all that has come of it. 2. Better on the whole than relative stagnation in both population and development, albeit with always local variations from both natural and human action. 3. That same economic development leads to demographic transition, whose other side we have not seen because even the leading nations have not passed through. 4. It probably does mean a growth-dependent system must eventually fail for lack of growth or new expansion, and the resources of the solar system seem still out of reach, which would have pushed at least the resource frontier back quite a ways. 5. What a growth-independent economic and social system could actually look like remains opaque, as much as the future beyond demographic transition. All economic systems of modernity have assumed growth. Needed it. You couldn't hope to build communism in Marxist terms without stacking up a pile of capitalist wealth so vast that the subsequent stable/stagnant future could never draw it down. Hence the need of Soviet state socialism to try to power up industrialization. 6. Technology may be showing us the way to the stagnant but stable future insofar as robotics may fill many gaps, and technology may make more and more human work unavailable and unnecessary. Japan may lead here, still, as they seem entirely willing to replace population with robots. I just hope they level off in their decline. I'd miss them. But again, an unresolved question. 7. Africa is looking at being the last to the transition, at an undetermined date, since they really only began a massive population boom in the early 20th century, accelerating rapidly in the second half. 8. WE should worry about the sustainable future but it might be the only one on offer. If at last the truths of science mean we are forever prisoners here, that is what we must do. I just hope our efforts to create it don't result in a society incapable of seizing new opportunities for ambition when they come. A fair amount of sustainability ideology decades ago and today is about stagnation as a virtue unto itself, not just a necessity. Their version of SF is always about people living in tiny villages, and the dream of the "brilliantly post-technological society" that lives in postmodern comfort but looks like peasant huts or treehouses. 9. For the sake of ultimate optimism, we can remember that unsustainability is not wholly a negative or a unique feature of our current model. Everything falls in the end and there is a chance to build anew. It's best to let that happen, know it will happen again, and plan for soft landings. What gets built next might suck, but it too shall pass.

[@brapamaldi7666]

we dont need more people... we need higher quality people

[@LRM12o8]

9:50 Two fascinating observations from this graph: 1) It's absolutely wild that neither World War made a visible dent in the graph! 2) So, It took: 15 years to get from 3 to 4 billion, 12 years to get from 4 to 5 billion, 12 years to get from 5 to 6 billion, 12 years to get from 6 to 7 billion and 12 years to get from 7 to 8 billion (probably). Perfectly balanced, as all things should be!

[@dion5804]

F*ck.! We're wild apes indeed.

[@scottfree9517]

I have no idea why this is ‘bad’ and not ‘fantastic’. A larger human population isn’t a good thing for anyone. I do not see how adding to poverty, the housing crisis and resource wars is going to help prosperity at all. We need to work smarter, not harder. Quality life, not quantity. The rich won’t increase in population, only the poor.

[@ItalianIrishguy]

Because of this thing called population collapse and economics.

[@eliasfilipe1106]

Well the biggest problem is that as the populations declines the populations of elderlies just increases so at some point the young work force wont be able to handle the economic with many old people

[@scottfree9517]

@@eliasfilipe1106 These are problems tied to poor economic systems, and shouldn’t need to correlate with boosting the population.

[@danz1182]

@@scottfree9517 it is not easy to solve. Capitalist systems are best suited to cope if they can balance growth and inequality but that is very difficult. Socialism becomes simply unsustsinable.. authoritarian communism and fascism work, but who wants to live under that?

[@DrewPicklesTheDark]

@@danz1182 Third Position (what the fascists used) was much more effective than communism. You could adopt Third Position economics with a less totalitarian state, but people avoid it because the fascists used it so it's a bit of a boogeyman now.

[@alexpotts6520]

2:36 Jeez I had no idea the Great Leap Forward was that destructive.

[@joshuarichardson6529]

Somewhere between 40 and 60 million people died under Mao's rule. Stalin did the same in his country.

[@djunior874]

You didn't mention the quality of the people though: As populations get older and fewer people have children, it means there are fewer young people to support the drain of the older people - could lead to societal collapse.

[@Betterhose]

I think that is what he tried to imply and why it is a bad thing.

[@vassiliaye1244]

That’s why here in canada 400 000 people are accepted each year

[@StuffandThings_]

Japan is managing even with steep population decline. The answer is technology - let robots replace the jobs of workers who were never born. Also, immigration can help alleviate both the issues of overpopulating and declining population regions.

[@vassiliaye1244]

@@StuffandThings_ robots dont consume we need consumers for taxes

[@StuffandThings_]

@@vassiliaye1244 But robots produce. The economy is based on production. A highly automated economy will produce very large amounts of products compared to the amount of people, thus creating a very high GDP per capita. Then each citizen will consume more. The government can then skim a little off the top as they please.

[@EatMyShortsAU]

Africa's population is very worrisome.. Where are they going to find the jobs, homes, food, water and energy for all the new people in African?

[@bsg806]

In Europe

[@pvp216]

@@bsg806 chujowo

[@svr5423]

they are in the process of getting colonized by China.

[@highlander8402]

They'll figure it out, give or take a few decades with suffering in between. These are just projections anyway and the UN has constantly revised them down.

[@PanzerFaust1754]

@@bsg806 Europe is done with open borders policy

[@Kirbychu1]

I will not produce another slave for this system

[@mistergibzzz1948]

Enjoy working until you're 80

[@raustaklass]

Shoutout to whoever edited this thing, good work!

[@SomeStupidBastard]

world power isn't just based off population, it's based off of who is able to control others. sure the higher the population the more soldiers but that doesn't mean they're smarter.

[@tanjoy0205]

UN:The brith rate is falling Singapore/Japan:We know prepare you pension systems and beef up your healthcare.

[@totallynormalminecart519]

Finally someone who digs deeper into the problem rather than just calling for a genocide of "bad whites". I think the only way to fix all of this is giving people more education, making them more bound to the rest of the world. But of course that's a tough thing to do. That would require lots of money, time, would lead to a very huge shift in the lifestyle of a decent part of the global population and so on. Hopefully that will happen sometime tho, because otherwise I see a lot of problems coming up in a few decades.

[@iandavidvillaloboswong5180]

Knowing algebra in elementary wont make people stop wanting kids. Brainwashing people into thinking having kids will destroy the planet seems to be the most effective action but that one will die fast since the people that truly believe in the idea just wont reproduce. While the people that dont care will just have more kids and live happily. Its like voluntary eugenics lol

[@slevinchannel7589]

Overpopulation in itself is never a Problem. I see a lot of People say 'Stop-breeding' when Any Disaster or even just negative Thing is bought-up. Lets leave aside how inherently f-ed-up that 'Suggestion' is and assume they just dont know better. Tbc, Humanity objectively and this is nothing to object to, produces enough for all of Humanity to be fed. Many dont get this but Earth has a Distirbution-Problem, not a Resource-Problem. If Food-Waste and Water-Waste, big problems as the Videos about these things by 'Some More News' and 'Second Thought' show, were to end, Starvation would end.

[@phanomtaxskibididoodoo]

Bad whites what are you talking about?

[@Bluespicygreen]

@@phanomtaxskibididoodoo KZbin is full of crazy people that have managed to find a phone off the street and started posting.

[@spinyslasher6586]

Funny thing is, even a few years ago people were whining so much about overpopulation being a problem. Now we are facing the opposite issue.

[@sonictelephone1526]

I don't think the population dropping is a bad thing. We just need to find ways around the problems an ageing population causes. We can't just keep growing exponentially though - the world can't support it. There needs to be less of us and the only humane way to do it is to let people make their own choices not to have so many kids.

[@danz1182]

If your population is declining you quickly wind up with a worse than 1:1 ratio of productive people to those who need support from others whether due to youth or advanced age. Declining populations cause significant economic disruption even in socialist economiesm

[@sonictelephone1526]

@@danz1182 The alternative is keep breeding like rabbits until we have royally wrecked the planet and there is no resources for anyone. We're kinda heading there now. Has to be a happy medium somewhere.

[@danz1182]

@@sonictelephone1526 there us. 2.1 live births per woman. Stable population. Or a slow step down to a better level (like 2.0) before going to 2.1 is sustainable. 1.7 is a disaster in the making.

[@codygolden7074]

You must be white

[@sonictelephone1526]

@@codygolden7074 Not sure what this has to do with anything. Does everything have to be about race these days

[@britzman9905]

Not having kids is the best thing you can do for the enviornment.

[@VojtaJavora]

Environment for whom?

[@britzman9905]

@@VojtaJavora plants, animals, people

[@englishvocgrammarspk7292]

There's no environment anymore.

[@VojtaJavora]

@@englishvocgrammarspk7292 even if there was nothing but vacuum of space, there would still be an environment.

[@U9DATE]

Good don’t have kids. Wouldn’t want your genes in the pool.

[@vitaminluke5597]

I actually agree with Toycat's aspirations for humanity. I think that the majority of things that make some people misanthropic can be boiled down to a greedy subset of people (who become CEOs, landlords, and abusive bosses) who are incentivized in our economic system to cause destruction of natural resources, with most other societal problems stemming from the effects of such greed. Therefore, I think that the population stabilizing and slightly declining *right now* is a good thing, as it can buy us some time to restore the biosphere and transition to a fully sustainable future that would allow humanity to do great things. We just can't do those things right now because of the collapse of ecosystems we absolutely need. And if it makes Toycat feel better, so much of human progress in math and science happened when the population was lower and had the disadvantage of vast numbers of people living in poverty under undemocratic rule. Imagine what we can continue to do with a stabilized 8 billion people who are more liberated from poverty and autocracy. That's a lot of potential scientists to make advancements and workers to implement them, with the dignity and motivation of being paid well for their work. That's the future I want.

[@KentoKei]

My chances of having children vary depending on what happens in my future, and the future of the world as a whole I think people's main argument within western nations is that it's too expensive to have children

[@castorchua]

Costs too much, diminishing returns on investment and it appears that prospects for human life peaked some decades ago.

[@AlteFore]

Yeah fair enough

[@deutschermichel5807]

@Mihail Parshin that's the fucking problem! Your generation was in some way raised in a different, a wrong way. If it's the lack of religion, or else, idk. People must realize how important it is to get married and reproduce, as it's our only purpose besides praising the lord.

[@bnbcraft6666]

I plan on having at least 2 kids but I'd prefer to have 4 if my future partner is up for it

[@deutschermichel5807]

@@bnbcraft6666 I wish you happiness from the bottom of my heart in your desire to have children.

[@mjr_schneider]

Apparently polling data actually suggests that married parents are on average a lot happier than childless and unmarried people. Being a single parent or having more children than you can take care of is certainly worse, but it turns out being married and having a reasonable number of kids actually tends to give people _more_ joy in life, not less. So the idea that having fewer children will increase happiness overall is really unfounded.

[@jasoncola6071]

It increase it short term because you’re not awoken in the middle of the night all the time, and have disposable income to consoome. But it removes a potential meaning in life long term.

[@nunnie768]

If that true, how do you know it's not happier people tend to get married?

[@make-some-noise]

But more children means more monthly expenses. Considering the high inflation rate nowadays, if you don't earn enough money, it may potentially lower the quality of your and your children's life

[@Username-ct9fe]

correlation doesn't mean causation

[@diepie5144]

I like to think about it in this way: The people who don't enjoy having children don't pass on those genes, but the people who do, do.

[@DanielMether]

there is a finite amount of food and matrrials on this planet, and the less times you have to divide them the better.

[@robertmartin6800]

That doesn't mean that rapidly aging and shrinking populations are a good thing.

[@MayTheSchwartzBeWithYou]

​@@robertmartin6800 It's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's just reality arising from billions of individuals valid personal decisions. People should not be encouraged to have more children than they actually want. If that results in population decline, then so be it. But assuming decline will be linear, and that the shift from 3 to 2 or 2 to 1 will be the same as from 1 to 0 is ridiculous. Having no kids is fundamentally different from simply having less kids, and most people will still want at least one kid. As long as that's the case, humanity will continue to stick around. We have a long, long, long, long, long way to go before we could even begin to imagine ourselves as an endangered species.

[@robertmartin6800]

@@MayTheSchwartzBeWithYou The problem with an aging, soon to be _shrinking,_ population in developed countries all around the world is that those phenomena will cause a great deal of suffering and deprivation, as well as all sorts of social and political crisis. It likely won't drive us to extinction in this century, but it will make life _much_ harder, and it won't start getting better until _after_ we return to greater than replacement birth rates. It is most certainly not _neutral,_ it is a very bad thing. We are not reproducing at rates high enough to sustain our civilizations, and the consequences of that will be absolutely dreadful.

[@MayTheSchwartzBeWithYou]

@@robertmartin6800 The most aged countries are invariably the ones with the highest quality of life and life expectancy. The youngest countries are invariably the ones with the lowest quality of life and life expectancy. That's no coincidence. And with technology, there's no reason why, just as agricultural output has been able to become more productive-requiring less farmers and less farmland-we should similarly be able to leverage our labor force at an increasingly more productive rate-requiring less workers. And if we truly need more workers, the developed world has plenty willing souls. There is simply no need to procreate for the sake of procreating. Every individual should be trusted to do what is in his or her own best interest. That's not always the case, but with something as major as bringing human life into the world, we should respect reproductive autonomy instead of trying to nudge people to have more children than they really want. We could spend more money trying to incentivize people to have more kids, but guess who has to pay for that? If anything, an increasingly geriatric society is likely to be more stable and peaceful, and it is the over-populated youthful countries who are most likely to suffer from war and poverty, which will only increase those populations' desire to emigrate. The oldest countries in the world are Monaco, Japan, Germany, and Italy. The youngest countries in the world are Niger, Uganda, Angola, and Chad. I can assure you, nobody in the former four would want to migrate to the latter four, but many in the latter four would love to migrate to the former four.

[@robertmartin6800]

@@MayTheSchwartzBeWithYou Wealthy countries tend to have older populations because they're wealthy, they are not wealthy because they're old, and poorer countries tend to have younger populations because they're poor, they are not poor because they are young. Japan is a great example of the demographic problem in the modern world, decades ago they were projected to overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world, and they came close, but for the past twenty years or so their economy has been stagnant, and soon it's going to start shrinking. _Why_? Because their population _aged_ rapidly, and they stopped having enough kids. So now there are an increasing number of dependents in the system, and fewer and fewer producers and consumers. They've been able to keep things going, but eventually they're going to hit a wall, the economy is going to take a nosedive, the quality of life of the people of Japan is going to plummet. South Korea and China are both in the exact same boat, lots of old people, barely any young people, their economies are slowing down, and they're on the same trajectory as Japan. You see the same thing happening all over Europe, they're trying to offset the problems with immigration, but that's causing problems itself, and they're still running out of young people. Even fertility of the poorer countries is decreasing as they urbanize and their economies grow, so immigration will only work for so long. If there aren't enough young and middle aged people investing, borrowing, producing, and consuming, then the economy falters, and starts to decline _rapidly,_ and as that happens the overall quality of life follows it down into the gutter. When you age out of the game and you leave your spot empty, then _everything_ that you used to be doing to keep the economy going is simply not being done anymore, that means there's that much less production, that much less capital flowing through the system, and you become an idle consumer for the rest of your life, which in the modern world could be decades. I _do not_ how how better to explain it. If the population of a country like Japan was set to decline by a few percentage points over the next century that certainly wouldn't be _good,_ but it wouldn't necessarily be a catastrophe, but Japan is not set to lose a few percentage points of her population over the next century, she's set to lose _half_ of it, and that _will_ be a catastrophe. "There is simply no need to procreate for the sake of procreating..." Yes there is, if we didn't procreate, then we'd go extinct.

[@bedouinknight9437]

My dad had 12 children and we all lived a good life and for me i can barely support 2-3 kids life is different now

[@ibrahemhamdi2816]

This is such a good and dense video packed with good information i love it and keep going i like your videos

[@sertaki]

We can succeed as a species without overusing the earth. The way we are doing it now (and in the next decades), we are quickly depleting soils and freshwater reservoirs. And using artificial fertilizer at mass scales works but is dependent on a well-functioning global trade and also damages the environment in the long run (and without it, the soil can't feed this many people). And most importantly: less humans means less energy demand, meaning less pollution and less impact on the climate. It will take a while for Sub-Saharan Africa to get to our standards of living, but once they are there, they will also ultimately go down in numbers to the point where the whole world population plummets and ends up in a somewhat stable point, maybe at 3-5 billion or so in the long run. It would be much better for the earth, and would most likely lead to less poverty since there would be more resources for every person (at least in theory - I'm sure they will instead end up concentrated in the top 0.1%). And innovation would actually have a good chance of being stronger in a smaller population. Looking back at historical records, the renaissance happened partially because it followed the Black Death, where almost half of Europe died - decreasing the necessity to compete for resources, and allowing people to live a bit more relaxed lives.

[@brock6856]

False

[@sertaki]

@@brock6856 Got any actually substantial points to elaborate on that claim? Or are you just contrary for the sake of it?

[@brock6856]

@sertaki To start off you make many claims yet you don't back them. You assume that the population growth of all of sub Saharan Africa will mirror how it's going for some countries now. Yet that would be ignoring things like the culture which are likely to play a role in population growth. Also what are you even arguing? Your structure kind of goes all over the place. Are you saying that people should have less offspring, or are you merely hoping that they do?

[@sertaki]

@Brock We have a lot of data on how population growth gets impacted by rising wealth - and pretty much everywhere (including Africa), rising wealth tends to align with falling birth rates - regardless of culture. Will this mean these families will have a birth rate as low as Japan or Germany anytime soon? No. It's possibly, but most likely it won't happen at least in the next few decades. But it's very likely that with more access to money and some baseline living standards and especially the expectation of at least some security in old age, birth rates will drop significantly. And my point is that less people is better for the world and our continued survival - but also that more equality and a better spread of wealth leads naturally to lower birthrates. But I agree, I was a bit all over the place with that post.

[@heuzame6198]

​@sertaki more people means more mind to work on current problems. Also, science is expected to get more expensive and harder to achieve. Those less people can also lead into less technological growth while more people under economic growth can increase technological growth (+ if there's incentive to increase something it will be invested into it) while contracting population can theoretically increase automation and AI to save on labour force, this is also likely with more people. Also renaissance was basically about using old texts which were ahead of what they had. In general renaissance was closer to ancient greek and Rome than what it came before in a philosophical point of view.

[@Architectofawesome]

I think from now on it will be unfavorable to have a place with too high of a population because of drinkable water and other resources rapidly shrinking if a nation can do that, because it is obviously easier for richer nations, in fact basically effortless, and poorer nations need those numbers to develop.

[@enderspirit5238]

As a French citizen, I must say I'm already pretty convinced by the product presented in this video

[@dumbgameboys618]

My condolences

[@SGilles919]

OMG I was dying when you used your head on the graphs!

[@peaceandloveusa6656]

It is not concerning at all that people are having less children. Throughout history we have had 6+ children per household because the likelihood of a child reaching adulthood to take care of their parents was so low. As medicine and quality of life improves, people have less children because they become more mouths to feed with much less odds of being necessary later in life. On a global scale, we need to reduce the population to around 6 billion people. This is a much more sustainable number than 10 billion which means more resources per person (and, as such, more opportunities for said individuals to contribute to society in bigger ways). As for the retirement problem, we are already facing that with the baby boomers retiring, at least here in the United States. This is why the decline needs to be slow instead of spiking up or down. Around 1.85-1.95 children per woman would be a good average to maintain until we reach 6 billion total population. There will be greater reliance on adult children to support their retired parents during this time, but greater resources per person from population reduction can help mitigate this.problem. It must, because our current model of more workers every generation to pay for retirement is simply not feasible with our numbers so high we are killing the planet just by existing.

[@SHANEO144]

Well they are working on depopulation

[@NashHinton]

We need rapid population decline. Rivers are drying up worldwide.

[@cinnamonstar808]

no the global north = which are the 99% polluters of the planet. EARTH IS DOING HERSELF a favor ( try that angle)

[@echelonrank3927]

@@cinnamonstar808 i wonder how the global easter island is doing

[@Tausi]

As long your number of subscribers are not peaking, the world is great

[@kensh851]

The Philippines right now is having the best “population situation” right now. Stablizing birth rates, the population pyramid is still a sharp pyramid, young people are the majority and fresh growth policies.

[@FF-ch9nr]

Yup PH and Indonesia, I would say have ideal population growth rn along with rapidly accelerating industrialisation. However I would say Indonesia is slightly more ideal as PH has a teen pregnancy problem.

[@ahyarhartanto1802]

ph isn't really good when you consider their biggest industry is philipino migrant workers, they have a big problem of brain drain. it doesn't matter how stable their population is when most of their educated people are moving out from the country. their govt should work more to provide better paying jobs for their citizens in order to prevent them from moving abroad.

[@frederikvater]

"Land of the swedes" You were looking for the swedish word for Sweden: "Sverige" "Sve" - short for the swedish people? I think? "Rige" - means kingdom. Kingdom of the swedes. (I think, I'm danish)

[@deutschermichel5807]

I'm German and in our language it's simply Schweden. But as you are Danish, why doesn't your country have a name like Danrike our something? In German it's Dänemark, meaning the border region (of / against) the Danes. Why not Kingdom of the Danes?

[@fluffy3953]

i love how the reasons mentioned doesnt include economic factors in europe/north america, that a lot of people dont want kids cause they would be able to give them the same quality of life they were raised with.

[@milokojjones]

This is pretty spot on. It's actually what my parrents told me couple of years back when I asked if they would like to have / why don't they have another child ( third one ) - they told me that they wouldn't have enough money to have us live in a good enough quality of living they would like us to be raised in. I feel like it's a huge factor, as while the standard of living in developed countries rises, the costs of living do so as well - worst of all many times due to unrelated events / happenings. Not to mention, what my parrents said was years back, I can't even start to think how diffocult it must be now, with prices of everything rising and housing being unavailable or unreachable for avrage newly formed families.

[@alex4594]

@@milokojjones it also doesn't help that the lower income people are making less and less real money each year to pay for the growing prices of things. At least in the US. Idk all the stats in other countries.

[@milokojjones]

@@alex4594 Well it's not just low income people, it's pretty much everyone who is not in the top 10%. The poorest are affected the most, but it affects pretty much every normal person. Wages have been stagnating in all countries ( or atleast in the developed world ) for years now. Pretty much no country was able to catch up with the huge inflation of the last two years.

[@robertmartin6800]

That is just an excuse millennials give their parents for choosing not to have children. If a peasant farmer in the third world can afford his twelve children, college educated, middle class Americans could _easily_ afford two point one, but they simply choose not to have them.

[@ephraimakoto3657]

@@robertmartin6800 This is a lie from an African like me, most African kids cannot attend high school

[@Nooticus]

Great editing, great video!

[@jaxojames]

love the editing!

[@baumstammkurbel]

the congo's population is growing rapidy!! belgium: the time has come... again

[@PanzerFaust1754]

Time to revive the hero Leopold

[@marcoslightspeed5517]

@@PanzerFaust1754 bruh

[@mxkinist]

@@PanzerFaust1754 😬

[@deutschermichel5807]

Cursed

[@igodohealth9884]

@@PanzerFaust1754 The God of the Hebrews is just & has a curse in place, for the 10 million Congo Hebrews killed by leopold.

[@liamnacinovich8232]

You kinda touched it with the pension thing but I think the biggest problem will be the aging population crisis. When more and more old people are retiring and not working growth is going to slow even more and more. Just look at Japan their economy is pretty much in a standstill because they have an aging population (well it’s not just that reason but its definitely a factor)

[@danz1182]

And Japan cheats by relocating its industrial base overseas to where the labor is and brining the capital returns back to Japan. That won't be an option in the future when everywhere is shrinking.

[@TheDuked]

Editing was good on this one!

[@isbn6800]

I really like the editing!

[@ajaymuj]

India population growth will peak in 10 years. Difference in 2050 with chinese population would still be 350 million but at the much lower numbers than UN has projected. Its been 5 years now that India tfr has gone below replacement levels. UN has projected that India will peak at 1.7 billion but I am sure that India will peak at 1.55 billion. UN needs to revise it for sure. Some 40 years back UN had projected that India will peak at 2.1 billion, now they have come down to 1.7 billion.

[@AdistuffRBX]

The only problem with this report is that it doesn’t include illness and medical improvements, for example, many kids in poorer and even richer areas die of illness and parents have miscarriages, When there is a cure to all of that, most likely by 2080. The population would be larger then this report says, however it may keep going down.

[@danz1182]

Or the pasts big driver when populations outgrow local resources - war. Going to be a lot of those in Africa.

[@toade1583]

@@danz1182 Probably not as again this didn't take into account mortality rates or education. Sure a Nigerien could have had 5 children, but how many of those children died in infancy? A person can have 10 children, but all of them died at one point, but it still would be classified as them as having 10 children. Combine this with the fact that the younger, educated people in these countries tend to have much lower numbers of kids and in reality, the overpopulation fear isn't one that's going to materialize. The poorer, uneducated people in these countries are far more likely to experience child mortality and the more educated have less children which curtails how much the population actually grows.

[@Brian-zj4mm]

I don't like the idea of having kids, because the world is fucked already. How can I be oke with putting kids on a world I don't find fair myself

[@Justicsgenie]

Dude we live in the best age of humanity, generations before is had to live trough famines, wars and plagues. Nowadays we complain if we even feel a little bit of discomfort. Also dont forger that news likes to focus on the bad things in the world and not the good stuff

[@Brian-zj4mm]

@@Justicsgenie That's true, previous generations had it bad too, but I'm not forming my opinion on discomfort, I'm not someone who nags about living conditions, because I actually live by the rule "Live life the best you can". So I'm normally as optimistic as I can be. My problem with our society is it's parasitic dependency on the earth's resources and as long as our society is based around making money, I don't see that changing, ever. Instead we will deplete everything at an increasing pace that has already surpassed the point of no return in terms of climate change.

[@Justicsgenie]

@@Brian-zj4mm pherhaps but progress is Being made more and more alternatieve energy is Being created and ways to reduce polution. Their are hoe compagnies for example that are trying to make long term carbon storage possible for example

[@Brian-zj4mm]

@@Justicsgenie And those are idea's I support and I'm also hoping that they'll be succesful enough to make a big impact on climate change, but in my eyes, people are too attached to their lifestyles to make sacrifices needed to stop ourselves from causing the eventual collapse of our society. Because it's not just fossil fuels being the problem, resources such as certain metals aren't infinite either. Anyways, I'm a big supporter of adoption and just because I don't want to put children on this earth, doesn't mean that I wouldn't want kids at all

[@Ghostdesuu]

Automation + better policy will help a lot so assuming the things that need to happen will happen within the next 50 years (coin toss), it will probably be manageable

[@Erolsaurus]

"I wish there were less people" people when they realise that they are also a person:

[@filip4394]

That's like saying "everyone who supports abortion has been born".

[@skylinefever]

This is why I say "I wish there were more Darwin Awards" handed out.

[@mistergibzzz1948]

They should start with themselves

[@gtw4546]

With all the problems with global wheat supply, fertilizer shortages, and the projections of famine in 2023, plus "second wave" famine for 2024, I suspect that population growth in Africa (both sub-Saharan and northern regions) will be much lower.

[@TrueNativeScot]

Many african countries are severely dependent on foreign aid. They are actually severely overpopulated compared to how much food they produce. Once food imports from other countries are interrupted, as you say, they will experience a massive die off until either aid is reestablished or until their numbers lowered to a more sustainable level

[@big4330]

There is 7 births per woman but I imagine that the infant death rate would be much higher.

[@guywholovemaps1591]

Please this video needs to be the most popular video on KZbin

[@alexfernandezvargas8044]

Ok editor, you have my respect. Goat just put a botw song there and I still can't believe it🤝

[@Chubby_Bub]

OK so it wasn't just my imagination that that was Kass

[@lucstar1589]

Love when Australia is referenced in these vids

[@TheDuked]

Yeah, videos like this get more people to believe it is real!

[@stantonclark]

Australia won't have any population issues because of its size to population. Would be good if they can have more inland cities and towns so that their people aren't too centralised/dependent on the big capital cities on the coast.

[@WorldSacred]

@@stantonclark It is difficult to populate inland regions because of the lack of secure water resources. There is a big desert inland from the coastline. Unless you can guarantee at least 500mm of rainfall per year in the desert areas, you will not see inland towns develop. The idea is to decentralise the population growth away from the main cities. Get regional towns to grow.

[@stantonclark]

@@WorldSacred Yea theres no practical way for the inland cities to develop, but i agree in developing already regional towns. I have cousins in Toowoomba and they know of people from out west that had been severely affected by the drought and bushfires.

[@danmarsh5949]

I'm not convinced that this is any kind of crisis. Even if absolute population starts declining, I'm still not convinced that's a real problem. Are there secondary effects of declining population? Sure, and you mention some of them. But viewed from the perspective of humanity as a whole, there have been "enough" people at least since the last ice age. Even if world population drops to as low as a single million before stabilizing, humanity will be okay. In any case, ever since it was clear that birth rates were declining enough that world population would reach a peak (at the time they thought 15-20B), I stopped worrying about overpopulation. So far I see no real reason to worry about underpopulation. There are other things I worry about -- if civilization collapses totally, I don't think it can come back -- but population isn't one of them.

[@Betterhose]

"Underpopulation" isn't necessarily the problem. It's the downwards trajectory or "imbalance" between generations. The very large baby-boomer-generation didn't had enough children. Two baby-boomers had to pay for one retiree. Now it's the other way around and one gen-x/millenial will have to pay for two retired baby-boomers. This financial burden creates a downward spiral. People won't be able to afford their own houses or won't be able to raise kids of their own. Furthermore, old people generally have a negative impact on the economy. They are not the generation that builds houses, starts businesses and founds families. To put it short: they don't use their money to create wealth and grow the economy. All the money they have saved up over their entire lives directly contributes to inflation. Or alternatively, they put their life savings in real estate and drive up prices for young families/couples. All in all this decline means that we are heading for a massive, never seen before economic recession. Try to think of the 3rd world countries. How are people supposed to pay for the elderly when they can't even live off of their wages themselves? It will be a social powder keg waiting to explode.

[@svr5423]

@@Betterhose I wouldn't worry about this. Fewer people and lot of work -> salaries will rise. Even the governments can't squeeze them out as they will then emigrate. High housing prices are an issue of (local) overpopulation. If the population is in decline, cheap real estate will become available.

[@danmarsh5949]

You're not wrong about any of that. Toycat mentions it briefly in the video. But I was taking a much bigger-picture view of things. Seen from enough distance, the economic dislocations caused by a generational imbalance don't have much effect on humanity as a whole. For example (and assuming you're American) the Panic of 1893 was a big deal at the time, which had serious political consequences and could be said to be a precursor to World War I. But seen from 130 years later, it doesn't seem like that big a deal.

[@xyzxyz4575]

uncertainty, high real estate prices, high energy prices, high food prices, most people want to enjoy life who want to have kids anyway!

[@socialmoth4974]

I like that you played Kass' song from Zelda BOTW for your France shout out. I guess his piece does sound French-like.

[@UniquelyCritical]

Humanity can grow as exponentially as it wants when it stops destroying biodiversity.

[@haroldbn6816]

I'm afraid we are playing a zero-sum game with nature.

[@robertmartin6800]

Humanity is more important than nature, fuck nature. We do not need to genocide ourselves to save nature.

[@blumoogle2901]

I think that after a hundred, or two hundred or 500 years, population is likely to still be very far from extinction and is likely to go up again, peak at a lower point, and dip to a higher point and eventually oscillate to some stable level. Even if that stabilisation point is a billion people, that's more than enough to continue to provide 1 in a billion type geniuses, artists, etc.

[@ibx2cat]

It'd be nice to have 20 of those types of people per generation rather than 1 though

[@blumoogle2901]

@@ibx2cat Honestly, it would be, but on the other side, we probably already have 19 of those 20 people alive, but prevented from ever reaching their potential due to their environment beyond their control. With the same, or higher, resources spread out between fewer people, there is some hope that a greater percentage of the potential is realised, leading to the same - or even higher - number of actually potentially generation defining people to manage to define their generation.

[@StuffandThings_]

@@blumoogle2901 Yup, that tends to be my take on it. If you have 20 billion people crammed onto the planet, then all 20 of those geniuses will probably be preoccupied with trying to keep the world from collapsing into an unlivable hellscape instead of using their talents to further humanity's knowledge and enjoyment of the universe. Not to mention that the issues of robots taking our jobs and population decline cancel each other out, such that in a world with much lower population much more people will be in high education positions with plenty of free time. It is rather telling that most famous geniuses were not born in the past 50 years or so, but rather seem to mostly come from the mid 20th century and before. Quality of life over quantity of life is a remarkably simple concept that people seem to be terrifyingly blind to.

[@greywolf7577]

@@ibx2cat Not if it means having to feed and provide energy and housing for 20 billion people who aren't geniuses.

[@zesky6654]

@@ibx2cat we already have loads of them, most die of diahrea in slums and the rest are in offices pushing paper around bored out of their mind.

[@explorernate]

Editing is great!

[@LRM12o8]

7:44 that diagram is hilarious! 😂 But the fact that the blue of the legend and the blue of the bar don't match is a bit frustrating...

[@GDub96]

Kids are just too damn expensive!

[@cageybee7221]

africa is having the problems the rest of the world had 100 years ago, and asia is having the problems the rest of the world had 50 years ago. this has to due with how fast these regions have developed, asia developed during the 20th century, and africa is developing now.

[@Melograno_Nellano]

I'm happy the population is shrinking, I hate overcrowded places like my bathroom

[@yazidbougheda4257]

Africa : Yeah I don't have that Problem

[@Ravenelvenlady]

Africa: Yeah, and I will be taking over the world that has hated and exploited us for millenia. "Revenge is mine!" says the Lord. Africa: "We say, thank you."

[@jelly4frog498]

The editing in this video is better than the main channel, this is starting to seem less like a secondary channel

[@killerkn9786]

I'd be curious about the correlation of roe v wade with the birth rate at least in America. With the drop in the 1970s birthrate, it's easy to draw conclusions in North America

[@TheMrDamp]

Roe v wade simply made the larger trend a little bit easier. If anything it started helping the mothers survive because they weren’t having to get back room abortions anymore.

[@kennethferland5579]

Contraceptives are more more important then abortions.

[@skylinefever]

Freakonomics argued that abortion was good because so many future criminals were aborted. What good is population growth among the criminal class, anyway?

[@WizardToby]

I'll be honest my first thought when seeing the map on the thumbnail was "Yakko's World"

[@mattj500]

The goal should be replacement. Low birth rates is very bad and high birth rates is also very bad. The issue now is that fertility will become an increasing problem over the next 100 years.

[@renderproductions1032]

I think I’ll cap myself at 15. Really depends on how much money I make in the future.

[@englishvocgrammarspk7292]

There is no future

[@jakubzov]

@@englishvocgrammarspk7292 sure there is. For those who believe in future there always will be a future

[@davidhobbs5679]

The demographic trends of the 20th century where due to the introduction of scientific medicine and increases in fertilizer production. The increase was due to the now large numbers of rural families having more kids live longer and cities veing less deadly. Eventually the global population will stabilise as a function of the number of rural families becomes a greater percent of the population. Africa will loose alot more of its population a lot faster since it will loose access to global supplies of food, fertilizer and become unstable. The UN reports are notorious for being trend followers, not actually modelling the systems accurately.

[@simonnzioki3261]

This is the same thing WHO said about COVID 19 that Africans will die the most because they have a deficit in healthcare services with majority of their healthcare workers migrating to Europe and Canada, turns out they were the least affected people with the least number of deaths with countries like Italy and France having funerals in hundreds daily. I think Africa might experience underpopulation crisis if they stop growing their population because Africa is six times larger than Europe yet countries like India have big population than them, the reason why most Africans are poor is because they are global consumers not producers, they export raw materials and import finished goods leading to uneven balance of payment, but if you have been paying attention you will realise that the Africa might end up experiencing industrial revolution, with countries like Ghana transforming agricultural activities from subsistence farming to commercial farming and construction of infrastructure with Chinese loans which will enable commerce, the problem is majority of African countries are following IMPORT SUBSTITUTION policies, countries like Mali want to ban exportation of uranium which provides 1/3 of France electricity, Ghana has banned export of raw cocoa to Switzerland land and they started manufacturing chocolate, same thing is seen with other emerging African countries like Rwanda and Kenya, most Africans think they are winning in the long run but in the upcoming 20 years Africa might experience underpopulation crisis in which they produce more than they consume, the people who should be worried about industrialisation of Africa is Europe which is vulnerable to aggressive acts by countries which it relies as suppliers of natural resources, If Russia can take the European economy to the brink through oil, what do you think will happen if Africa stopped supplying cobalt, aluminium, raw cocoa, cotton, tea leaves, Uranium and all those essential resources to Europe? The people you think are vulnerable might be actually be more self sufficient and likely to survive than the people you think are stable,

[@himabimdimwim]

Why is the population declining bad? More people with limited resources does not necessarily mean more success.

[@danz1182]

Because not everyone is equally productive. You need sufficient economic activity to support those who do not work. Negative population growth means you need people to retire later or not at all or to die younger. Economically it is a huge problem.

[@KnightoftheSorryFace]

transporting africans out of africa to do our work? sounds pretty familiar...

[@vestinemusanabera5327]

@Schwainer mit ai what you mean...we don't have the iq🤷🏿‍♀️🤷🏿‍♀️🤷🏿‍♀️

[@Ravenelvenlady]

Oh quite the contrary. We certainly have the IQ...and this time, the transportation will become a TAKEOVER, as all these AGING, low ertility countries DIE OUT!

[@ihateevilbill]

Yeah, it has been a bit mental over the past 200 years (where the population went from ~1b to ~8b). The overpopulation was due to lifestyles catching up with things like medication, our ability to use surgery properly an increase in knowledge along with our ability to get things like fresh food and water with ease. This increased life spans at a time where the fear of losing at least half of your children to some disease was still fresh in the mind of the population. So people continued to have large families. This started to die out (at least over here) in the 1960's and 70's with the only exception being catholic families (a quick example, one of my friends had 6 brothers and sisters and were very catholic in a time where it was slowly dying out). Nowadays, where the chances of losing a child within the first 3 years has decreased so much, people are less likely to feel as pressured to have children at a young age. The only time this changes is when poverty is high. In those communities youll find larger families than average.

[@99batran]

gb? I know you are saying billion but whats the g?

[@ihateevilbill]

@@99batran My apologies, I must have been tired when I wrote this. Fixed, and thanks for pointing it out :) (Ive also made what I meant, a little clearer)

[@wetsock6334]

I wont be able to afford a kid and most of my friends wont either. Housing is too expensive as it is where I am

[@powers1776reset]

That’s an excuse. Children are absolutely not expensive. Contrary to popular opinion

[@Tamar-sz8ox]

If I were younger in these uncertain times … I’m thinking …who would be running to have kids with the economy , the expenses and responsibilities 🥴 ?

[@mgsolf3421]

ibx2cat's head moving around the screen is kind of scaring me

[@piernikowyloodek]

What are we supposed to do instead, grow forever? on a finite planet, with finite resources? Once the population goes down somewhat I believe the issue will largely resolve on its own with increased accessibility to (reasonably sized) housing for families, perhaps more land freed up to grow food, perhaps lower but more sustainable lifestyle. It will be possible to have 2.1+ children again after correcting the mad overshoot we've had in the past 100 years.

[@fnorgen]

The worry is that we may get stuck in a vicious spiral with multiple consecutive generations being too busy caring for the disproportionately large elderly population to raise enough children. So the population just keeps rapidly declining to a point that it is no longer possible to maintain a lot of old important infrastructure, and we just end up with a relative dark age of sorts until things stabilize. Pretty rough if you have to live through it. Or so the doomsayers warn anyways. A population shrinkage of 5% per generation should be no problem, but South Korea as an extreme example is looking more on track for a population halving per generation, which is pretty damn spooky.

[@compatriot852]

It seems that we're going to be entering a serious population crisis soon with countries in Europe suffering from declining native births while regions like India, Africa, etc. deal with extreme overpopulation

[@52_Ronin]

Bro smaller European countries have more population density compared to countries like India. Only big metropolitan cities have problems like overpopulation.

[@svr5423]

I wouldn't worry about that. For example Switzerland had a fertility rate of about 1.5 since the mid 70ies. Yet the population increased by over 35% since then. So population can still rise efficiently despite low fertility rate. Besides that, lower population is something desireable, so it's not a "crisis". It lower population pressure (which is harmfull mentally) and also makes real estate cheaper and lessens traffic issues.

[@__goat__]

@@svr5423 Immigration and not participating in wars helps I guess.

[@timjones2329]

@@svr5423 Lower population means fewer great scientists and visionaries. Lower population means lower prospects for what humanity can achieve. Problems like traffic and real estate prices aren't caused solely by high population. They can be mitigated by proper planning and legislation, eg. build more 4-5 storey apartment blocks, instead of wasteful suburbs (aimed mainly at the UK and USA). Likewise traffic can be managed by efficient public transport systems. There is more than enough land on earth for people to live.

[@svr5423]

​@@timjones2329 that's why it's important to invest in education and quality of life. Then you will get a lot more great people than if you just breed as much as you can. Plus, they they actually like to stay in the country. The biggest innovations today are not driven by the countries with the largest populations. In contrast, some small countries like Israel or Switzerland contribute a tremendous amount of skilled workers to the global society. Building apartment blocks is not helpful when people want to live in suburbs. Cramping people together lowers the quality of life signficantly (lack of personal space, nature, quiet,..) and comes with things like more crime and traffic jams. Likewise, an efficient public transport system doesn't replace cars or the need for a good road system, since it cannot fullfill all the people's missions. And again: Just because there is the possibility for more people on earth with the implication of a lower quality of life (or just trashing the planet) what would be a sane man's rational to do this? How does having more people on the planet improve your quality of life?

[@MeiraV-]

So Mr Cat, how many hobbies are you going to create for the cause? Also, I spotted a Salmon again.

[@Amble_]

good job! that's how you know i edited it

[@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife]

Damn I clicked the second I got the notification but neglected to shamelessly write "first" Is this what getting old is like? At 26 now and I feel I am starting to get surpassed by technology. Oh no am boomer.