What? Did they seriously just say that the Population Bomb predictions failed to be realised because people started having less babies of their own accord? Then they segue into a discussion about...
What? Did they seriously just say that the Population Bomb predictions failed to be realised because people started having less babies of their own accord?
Then they segue into a discussion about the aging of populations in the developed world, and try to imply that we need to have more babies to prop up these societies. Sure, there will be a problem when a larger proportion of the population is not of working age, but increasing the population to share resources among a larger number of people is not the way to find more resources for old people.
I found this video to be strangely lacking in a couple of key points of logic, almost to the point where it felt like the producer had an agenda and wanted to discredit the "Population Bomb" predictions, rather than merely trying to objectively observe what had happened.
Even conservatively there's going to be 3 billion more people in 30 years, which means we're going to have to produce 50% more food. Especially protein. We're already using close to 100% of the...
Even conservatively there's going to be 3 billion more people in 30 years, which means we're going to have to produce 50% more food. Especially protein.
We're already using close to 100% of the arable land and even conservative projections predict a collapse of most staple fish populations within 40-50 years due to overfishing.
We can slow the population curve by lifting the entire world out of poverty to bring birth rates down to what we're seeing in western countries but that throws economic growth through immigration out the window and globalizes the ageing population issue. I feel our systems are already straining as it is.
I wouldn't discredit the idea and related problems just yet.
I'd argue it's simply a matter of being wrong about the timeframe. Humans are wired to react to short term threats, not long term ones, which biases the proximity of our forecasts for various...
I'd argue it's simply a matter of being wrong about the timeframe. Humans are wired to react to short term threats, not long term ones, which biases the proximity of our forecasts for various reasons.
Plot any variable you want over the past couple hundred or thousand years. We're at the end of the exponential hockey stick on all those graphs and it'd be naive to assume we've seen the end result of that yet. Think in centuries, not years or decades.
Are humans resourceful? Sure. I guess. But these are forces much, much powerful than any human variable.
A margin of error of decades is absolutely nothing compared to the timescales we're talking about.
Can someone please help me explain why this video doesn't seem to foster further discuss, it was interesting, but other than that I feel there is not much else to say.
Can someone please help me explain why this video doesn't seem to foster further discuss, it was interesting, but other than that I feel there is not much else to say.
What? Did they seriously just say that the Population Bomb predictions failed to be realised because people started having less babies of their own accord?
Then they segue into a discussion about the aging of populations in the developed world, and try to imply that we need to have more babies to prop up these societies. Sure, there will be a problem when a larger proportion of the population is not of working age, but increasing the population to share resources among a larger number of people is not the way to find more resources for old people.
I found this video to be strangely lacking in a couple of key points of logic, almost to the point where it felt like the producer had an agenda and wanted to discredit the "Population Bomb" predictions, rather than merely trying to objectively observe what had happened.
Even conservatively there's going to be 3 billion more people in 30 years, which means we're going to have to produce 50% more food. Especially protein.
We're already using close to 100% of the arable land and even conservative projections predict a collapse of most staple fish populations within 40-50 years due to overfishing.
We can slow the population curve by lifting the entire world out of poverty to bring birth rates down to what we're seeing in western countries but that throws economic growth through immigration out the window and globalizes the ageing population issue. I feel our systems are already straining as it is.
I wouldn't discredit the idea and related problems just yet.
I'd argue it's simply a matter of being wrong about the timeframe. Humans are wired to react to short term threats, not long term ones, which biases the proximity of our forecasts for various reasons.
Plot any variable you want over the past couple hundred or thousand years. We're at the end of the exponential hockey stick on all those graphs and it'd be naive to assume we've seen the end result of that yet. Think in centuries, not years or decades.
Are humans resourceful? Sure. I guess. But these are forces much, much powerful than any human variable.
A margin of error of decades is absolutely nothing compared to the timescales we're talking about.
Hey, this is a pretty cool channel! It has some nice, digestible content on a variety of issues. Thanks for posting.
Can someone please help me explain why this video doesn't seem to foster further discuss, it was interesting, but other than that I feel there is not much else to say.