There is no need to have population growth to have economic growth. This video simply shows a basic phenomenon of more affluent societies. As people get wealthier and there is far less risk of children dying people have less kids. Racists want to use this to strike fear into white European populations, just like that murderous idiot in Norway.
@rugbyguy59: Oh, it is ALL about race. Can't be any other motivation. Such as simply continuity of civilisation. If a society doesn't reproduce itself, the culture that is that society won't continue. It really is that simple. You're living in a fools paradise. People make an economy, w/o people you can't have an economy. W/o more people, you can't have a growing economy. Many hands make for light, two heads are better then one. etc. Ehrlich, etc. owe human cilivisation an apology.
@VictorLepanto What a ridiculous argument. All false premises. There's no threat of there being too few people to do the work. The many hands are using up resources at an unsustainable rate and half the world population is too poor to yet be involved. There is no society that can't reproduce itself, simply some cultures that are currently shrinking due to low birth rates. Believing in infinite growth is the fool's paradise. Read "A Short History of Progress" to find out about the "progress trap"
@rugbyguy59: You're really quite hilarious, speaking as you do & simply repeating the ignorant lies of the zero-population fad of the 60s. People in the future will look on that as a greater popular madness then the witch hunting craze which followed the Reformation. At least the witch hunters only killed a few senile old women. Your lot have blighted the whole human race. You should learn about the research Julian Simon did on this subject. Your malthusian madness is killing us.
@VictorLepanto You should try and form an argument rather than baseless ad hominems. Which people am I (are we?) killing? How has the human race been blighted? Malthus was incorrect, in 1798 because of transportation improvements and the opening of the North American West, Australia, and Argentina to wheat production. Do you claim limitless growth can occur? There is also no need to be as negative as Malthus in looking at the capability of humans. Apparently that's a trait you prefer though.
@rugbyguy59: My pointing out to you that you were doing precisely what you accuse me of doing is ad hominem? I see. Do you actually think that Britain was getting its surplus wheat from America & Oz? How was the zero-pop movement of the 60-70s NOT as negative as Malthus? They were both saying that all these people are going to make us all starve. As for transportation leading to better food production, do you think we grow food on trucks or trains?
@VictorLepanto "Do you actually think that Britain was getting its surplus wheat from America & Oz?"
No but these sources have played a big role in sustaining world population growth.
"As for transportation leading to better food production, do you think we grow food on trucks or trains?"
Trains and trucks allow surpluses from areas of surplus to get to areas of deficit. That played a key role in how Britain avoided Malthus' predictions and Britain hasn't been able to feed itself for a century.
@VictorLepanto Why is pointing out realistic limits negative? I see Malthus as negative because he assumed humans were incapable of controlling their base urges and were doomed to overpopulate. This is proven wrong by the lowered birthrates you decry. Lowered birthrates are a result of prosperity. The same will occur in today's immigrant families in Europe within a generation or two. However there is no way even the current number of people can live with European prosperity on just one earth.
@rugbyguy59: It was the increase in population which made the industrial revolution possible, w/ its naturally resulting increase in wealth. Both Malthus & Ehrlich were amateur enthusiasts who knew absolutely nothing about what they were talking about. Much damage has been done b/c of these arrogant elitist pretensions. The disciples of Malthus implimented his theories in Ireland & India, w/ mass death being the result. Now China has destroyed their future b/c of Ehrlich.
@VictorLepanto The industrial rev would have occurred increased population or not, might have been a little different but inventors create without an increasing population. China began it's population controls before it encountered economic success. It is local environmental collapse that threatens China not population. Ireland and India would have been treated the same regardless.
I'm not sure why you go on so much about Malthus or Ehrlich it certainly has nothing to do with my original point.
Sadly I don't think people realize the harm of spreading the idea of overpopulation. I have a feeling that some where in the future there will be next a avocation of a genocide against the elderly. I make this assumption because with a decreasing youth there is no way to support them.
the young are disappearing because some stupid organization are promoting the idea that Europe is over populated and they have to reduce their population !!
it is non sense, Europe NEED POPULATION GROWTH in order to have a growing economy
they are gone cuz europeans for go to fuck more..and let immigrants to do that..over them..just don't cry when u will be minorrity in your own land...good day
@boumbh "like if people were born old" ...or possibly migrated in...??
theboysmithy 4 months ago
Oh, on this graph, it seems that they are killing the people when they get 85 in UK! Is it really the solution?
From 2004 (0:35) to the end of the video, the population from 20 to 30 increases without sense (like if people were born old).
boumbh 4 months ago
this graph is an illusion as i know that there was less men in uk in 1940s due to the war, so why does this not show it.
toiwin 6 months ago
There is no need to have population growth to have economic growth. This video simply shows a basic phenomenon of more affluent societies. As people get wealthier and there is far less risk of children dying people have less kids. Racists want to use this to strike fear into white European populations, just like that murderous idiot in Norway.
rugbyguy59 7 months ago
@rugbyguy59: Oh, it is ALL about race. Can't be any other motivation. Such as simply continuity of civilisation. If a society doesn't reproduce itself, the culture that is that society won't continue. It really is that simple. You're living in a fools paradise. People make an economy, w/o people you can't have an economy. W/o more people, you can't have a growing economy. Many hands make for light, two heads are better then one. etc. Ehrlich, etc. owe human cilivisation an apology.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto What a ridiculous argument. All false premises. There's no threat of there being too few people to do the work. The many hands are using up resources at an unsustainable rate and half the world population is too poor to yet be involved. There is no society that can't reproduce itself, simply some cultures that are currently shrinking due to low birth rates. Believing in infinite growth is the fool's paradise. Read "A Short History of Progress" to find out about the "progress trap"
rugbyguy59 7 months ago
@rugbyguy59: You're really quite hilarious, speaking as you do & simply repeating the ignorant lies of the zero-population fad of the 60s. People in the future will look on that as a greater popular madness then the witch hunting craze which followed the Reformation. At least the witch hunters only killed a few senile old women. Your lot have blighted the whole human race. You should learn about the research Julian Simon did on this subject. Your malthusian madness is killing us.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto You should try and form an argument rather than baseless ad hominems. Which people am I (are we?) killing? How has the human race been blighted? Malthus was incorrect, in 1798 because of transportation improvements and the opening of the North American West, Australia, and Argentina to wheat production. Do you claim limitless growth can occur? There is also no need to be as negative as Malthus in looking at the capability of humans. Apparently that's a trait you prefer though.
rugbyguy59 7 months ago
@rugbyguy59: My pointing out to you that you were doing precisely what you accuse me of doing is ad hominem? I see. Do you actually think that Britain was getting its surplus wheat from America & Oz? How was the zero-pop movement of the 60-70s NOT as negative as Malthus? They were both saying that all these people are going to make us all starve. As for transportation leading to better food production, do you think we grow food on trucks or trains?
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto "Do you actually think that Britain was getting its surplus wheat from America & Oz?"
No but these sources have played a big role in sustaining world population growth.
"As for transportation leading to better food production, do you think we grow food on trucks or trains?"
Trains and trucks allow surpluses from areas of surplus to get to areas of deficit. That played a key role in how Britain avoided Malthus' predictions and Britain hasn't been able to feed itself for a century.
rugbyguy59 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto Why is pointing out realistic limits negative? I see Malthus as negative because he assumed humans were incapable of controlling their base urges and were doomed to overpopulate. This is proven wrong by the lowered birthrates you decry. Lowered birthrates are a result of prosperity. The same will occur in today's immigrant families in Europe within a generation or two. However there is no way even the current number of people can live with European prosperity on just one earth.
rugbyguy59 7 months ago
@rugbyguy59: It was the increase in population which made the industrial revolution possible, w/ its naturally resulting increase in wealth. Both Malthus & Ehrlich were amateur enthusiasts who knew absolutely nothing about what they were talking about. Much damage has been done b/c of these arrogant elitist pretensions. The disciples of Malthus implimented his theories in Ireland & India, w/ mass death being the result. Now China has destroyed their future b/c of Ehrlich.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto The industrial rev would have occurred increased population or not, might have been a little different but inventors create without an increasing population. China began it's population controls before it encountered economic success. It is local environmental collapse that threatens China not population. Ireland and India would have been treated the same regardless.
I'm not sure why you go on so much about Malthus or Ehrlich it certainly has nothing to do with my original point.
rugbyguy59 7 months ago
Sadly I don't think people realize the harm of spreading the idea of overpopulation. I have a feeling that some where in the future there will be next a avocation of a genocide against the elderly. I make this assumption because with a decreasing youth there is no way to support them.
Zamriasra 7 months ago
the young are disappearing because some stupid organization are promoting the idea that Europe is over populated and they have to reduce their population !!
it is non sense, Europe NEED POPULATION GROWTH in order to have a growing economy
personutile 9 months ago
they are gone cuz europeans for go to fuck more..and let immigrants to do that..over them..just don't cry when u will be minorrity in your own land...good day
verdefull 1 year ago 2
@verdefull English, motherfucker.
blacktigerpaw1 9 months ago
Seems interesting...
1996Firefox 1 year ago
which website did you get this?
Apple6128 2 years ago
That is odd...I am curious as to how this is calculated.
knightontherock 3 years ago