This is crap. Completely overlooks the existence of ppl who DO live off the grid, and DO give back more than they take from nature. Having fewer ppl doesn't FIX the problem of consumption, it only DELAYS it. For every person that moves into an ecovillage lifestyle, two consumers are offset. The proposal here is to kill ourselves, rather than give up shopping... Idiocy. There ARE ways to design cultures that don't simply take. We COULD restructure the way we do things to be considerate of ecology
@BastionKnight "The proposal here is to kill ourselves, rather than give up shopping" - no, the video is about voluntary contraception as a means of reducing consumption because: Only the lack of a consumer means zero consumption. p.s. The video clearly states that impact is a multiplication of consumption and population, so your comment seems to come from someone who hasn't actually watched the film.
In response to your comeback earlier (a week ago) I agree that Germany's and Russia's economy's have been improving since fertility rates began to decline. This is because an ageing population doesn't affect an economy until many years after the birth rate has begun to fall. With each passing year more and more pressure is being placed on Russia's workforce which will in effect result in economic slow down, many years down the track.
@sajemsursell Please suggest an alternative to an ageing population as it HAS to happen at some point, why not do it earlier rather than later when populations are even larger and less sustainable. Drops in education spending offset the majority of pension costs and crime drops as people get older. We don't want to continue our current population ponzi scheme (having to constantly add kids to teh bottom to support a biggger an bigger top) do we?
Your video clip gives the viewer the impression that contraception is the only alternative in preserving the earth’s ecosystems and resources from over exploitation. An alternative to your "only" alternative is to simply invest in more efficient technologies which are cleaner, reduce climate change and allow more people to live on this planet. It seems kind of dramatic to say that contraception is the only way.
@sajemsursell 1) Voluntary contraception is by far the most effective method, i.e. a lack of a consumer means much much less consumption. If you drop average consumption by 10% by population goes up 10% = same result 2) Energy efficiency drives prices lower which increases consumption even more you buy more when products are cheaper. (look up Jevons paradox) and as I have stated we simply don't have the ecosystem services to support 7 billion long term at an acceptable level of consumption.
58 national science academies agree with this video!
80% of people worldwide barely survive on less than $10 a day, the solution is for rich countries to shrink their populations fast by voluntary contraception and for those in poor countries to have universal access to voluntary contraception.
@staum607 The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. Urban lands take up another 66 million acres and mountains and deserts take out another huge chunk. Now take off lakes and rivers and areas that need to stay as forests (747 million acres) for flood control a supply of timber etc
Agricultural land: You are left with approx one third of what you suggested and that relies on fossil fuels (i.e. unsustainable).
@phillips78 sorry, I used the wrong #. Yes current farmland is about 950,000 acres (usda. gov) but my initial claim was in regards to the entire midwest area; just to prove how much space is needed, not how much land is currently being used for that.
propaganda at its finest. Blaming logistical, political, and ideological problems on overpopulation. The fact remains, the columbia river and the midwest area of the US provide enough food and water for the entire world pop. (at 6-7 bil) Of course there are other issues (waste, pollution, etc), but if anti-birth people lie about the resource fact, why should I trust them about other issues. IMO, if the countries of the world were "good" (judeo-christ, capitalistic), these problems would't exist
@staum607 "if the countries of the world were "good" (judeo-christ, capitalistic)" - A gross assumption that religion or belief in sky fairies makes people automatically good (look up doctors/scientists killed by religious extremists) and that capitalism or communism (which are both based on growth) works on a finite planet. You also incorrectly suggested that 6-7 billion could be fed by Columbia/midwest. The current world population (80% of which live on less than $10 a day) uses 1.4 Earth's!
@phillips78 not talking about religion here, only freedom with the values/ideals of the US founding fathers. The average American eats 2175 pounds of food a year. 2175 x 7 bil = 15,225 bil. Avg amount of food per acre is 10,840lbs. Current amount of farm land in US is 2.26bil acres. 10,840 x 2.26bil = 24,498bil. 24,498 > 15,225
@staum607 The video is about voluntary contraception and the scientific fact that humans are using ecosystem services faster than th Earth can replenish or recycle them. (read the millennium ecosystem assessements 5 volumes of data or read the GEO-4 assessment. You have yet to give a source for any of your data or take into account that people use more than food. An average American uses 9 bioproductive hectares to provide their lifestyle, yet only 2 per person are available. (GFN)
@phillips78 My sources were just basic reference material. usda. gov, encyclopedia (Columbia river output volume), all of my info is not based on biased studies, but instead of common knowledge-type facts. I figured Americans eat the most, so their lbs of food 'needs' would be highest, I also calculated h2o at 128 gallons per day (not just hydration, but also sanitation, cooking, etc). The UN has an agenda, so I believe their info to be biased (though agenda does not PROVE bias), just my .02
@staum607 Why would you assume that the millenniume ecosystem assessment is biased. It is compiled from scientific data from 120 different countries and multiple independent agencies and bodies. thousands of scientist hekped put it together and it finds that humans are categorically using resources and ecosystem services faster than they can be replaced or replenished. Our lifestyles are unsustainable and we are overpopulated.
Intelligence without wisdom again! - You just need to look down from an airplane! Does it really look overpopulated?? First of all we have about 75% of the surface being water! Not many live there! Then you have giant deserts! Not many live there... Then you have mountain ranges! Not many live there... Then you have jungles and vast forests! Not many live there! In fact all the people of this planet cover only 0.2 % of the planet and for all to have food for 100 years we need ca 4% of the planet
@cosmobserver All the places you mentioned are uninhabitable without using huge amounts of resources taken from somewhere else which defeats the idea in the 1st place. In 2006,humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths: so humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.We can't support 7 billion at the moment without 80% living on less than $10 dollars a day so 4% of the land definitely couldn't feed 7 billion who live as well as you do!
Yes, i do think that an ageing population is negative for the economy, just look at Russia and Japan. They have some of the smallest fertility rates and highest percentage of elderly people in the world. Only now does it seem that these countries realize the full implications of having a declining population. They are experiencing huge labour shortages, companies are starting to move overseas due to lack of labour and these governments are now trying to encourage couples to have more children.
@sajemsursell The economies of both Japan and Germany both went into recovery around the time their populations just began to decline (2003–2006). In other words, both the total and per capita GDP in both countries grew more rapidly after 2005 than before. Russia's economy also began to grow rapidly from 1999 onward, even though its population has been shrinking since 1992-93. Scandinavia has population ageing but they are doing better than most economies worldwide.
You say that it is an insult to imply that old people are a drain on the economy when you are the one who is implying that humans in general are a drain on the earths resources and are going to consume all of the earths resources if not dealt with.l Please explain yourself? what you say is contradictory.
@sajemsursell No what I said was that we as humans use too much, too quickly and there are too many of us for everyone to have even a basic standard of living. What you implied was that too many old people are a problem for the economy, jobs and incomes. My intention was not an accusation, I apologise if you felt it was, I was merely making the point that having more kids to cope with an ageing population is counter productive in the long term.
According to Australia’s Third Intergenerational Report, in 2010 there were an estimated 5 people of working age per person 65 or older. By 2050 only 2.7 people of working age are projected per person 65 and older. Regardless of whether the government forces elderly persons to work till they are 70 or longer, this “alternative” of smaller families will result in slower economic activity, loss of jobs and falling incomes.
@sajemsursell Reducing family size means less money is required to be spent on state education, these savings can be transferred to pensions. Unemployment and child benefits shrink with smaller family size saving the govt billions each year in unemployment and child benefit pay-outs.Would you rather we kept adding to the population ponzi scheme than dealt with the issue by its cause rather than deal with consequences. Its insulting to old people to suggest they are simply a drain on the economy
I just had a question. If we all were to limit our family sizes how would our kids and grandkids be able to support us? I mean the whole globe would be facing a major ageing population crisis. The workforce would be under extreme pressure to support a large number of retired elderly people and they would be paying large taxes to make up their pensions. Why not simply invest in more sustainable technologies to help feed a larger population? or share resources among countries more evenly?
@sajemsursell The alternative to not limiting our family size is to continue adding to the ponzi/pyramid population scheme where increasingly large numbers of kids are needed to support an ever growing population and a full collapse in ecosystem services.Some other points to note: kids don't contribute to taxes for 20-25 years,having smaller families reduces education costs.Old people work/volunteer or are active on average until the last 5 years of life so raise retirement age, not family size
It doesn't matter what MSG is made from, but I know the effect on me. The long term effects are a lot worse. How come you have no rebuttal on any of the other poisons? All poisons are made from Natural stuff, that doesn't make good for you, but will keep doctors busy and lives short!
@macjc5 1) MSG has been used safely for more than 100 years to season food. Life expectancy has risen in the last 100 years. See also Tarasoff and Kelly (1993) Some american food comaonies started spreading rumours about MSG as they were concerned about lossess to far east food companies. 2) Please feel free us how many have died from fluoride beacsue I cannot find any record of such, nor is life expectancy different in similar countries with and without fluorinated water?
There are approx about two soccer fields of land available per person on the planet but the average North American needs 4-5 soccer fields to support their lifestyle and a European typically uses 3-4. Of the two soccer fields per person only one of them is bioproductive, the other would be unfarmable due to mountain ranges, ice, no soil, no rain etc
We are already overpopulated right now...today...., whether the world population stabilises in the future or not.
@macjc5 Actually it's easier to control a dumb population and large family size reduces the money available for education so thats a big flaw in your idea, not to mention the fact that your conspiracy theories are ridiculous.
OVERPOPULATION MYTH was started by the globalist BASTARDS that think it's harder to control larger population. The don't want to lose the grip they have on our enslavement! The cowards fear rervolution! FIGHT NWO and UN escalation of power! According to them 500Million slaves are easier to control, that's why they are poisoning our water(fluoride), poison our food (GMO, MSG, Aspartame, many chemical etc.), poison our air (Nuclear, Chemtrails). They aim to cut world population by 90%. WAKE UP!!!
@macjc5 Writung in capitals does not make you any less incorrect. Like most ignorant conspiracy theorists you fail to notice that the wite house couldn't keep Bill Clintons naughtiness with lewinski secret, so what on earth makes you think that they could keep any of your risible conspiracy theories secret. Your arguments are always along the lines of "commie, nazi cabal is going to rule the world, aliens did it, elvis is still alive etc blah blah blah. p.s. MSG is made from seaweed.
@DackIsBack If you think overpopulation isn't a problem then i'm sending all the unwanted children (50% of pregnancies in the US are unintended) to your house. p.s. no one needs to die, they just need access to voluntary contraception and awareness of the benefits of smaller families e.g. more resources available per person, less unemployment, lower crime etc.
@Churruminonian Currently we are already overpopulated as shown by 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific journals that make up the millennium ecosystem assessment. It clearly shows that humans are using resources faster than ecosystem services can replace or recycle them. With 70 billion everyone would one tenth of what they do now. i.e. everyone would be in poverty.
@Churruminonian With 70 billion people the average consumption level would be that of a Bangladeshi or Eritrean or Haitian on less than 0.5 dollars per day and one tenth of the food they have now. Do you quality of life or quantity of lives?
Every gain humans have made has been a result of drawing down natural resources which are limited in their rates of recycling and replenishment.
Overconsumption, by advertsisement mind controlled zombies.
Overpollution, caused by rich selfish industry giants.
(also think about supermarket who rather dump their excess food than give it away)
If we better managed the earth's resources, better built our cities, we could support a population of many times what we already have, we could keep growing until we have the technology to spread out into space
It's the system that's overpopulated, not the planet.
@Bos187 "If we better managed the earth's resources, better built our cities, we could support a population of many times what we already have" (only at a poverty level) and the fact is we don't manage resources well and we rely on unsustainable sources so therefore we ARE overpopulated based on our current lifestyle (which is unlikely to change) so why not try and ask everyone (especially rich overconsuming people) to have smaller families instead so the poor can escape poverty?
@Bos187 "Reducing the population does not solve any problems" - evidently that is not the case because countries with the lowest population growth and even negative population growth tend to have less poverty, better quality if life, are better educated and have better environmental legislation. Are you saying that reducing the populatioon wouldn't make it easier to solve environmental and in some case social/political problems, after all the more people there are, the less someone matters
Sterilization is the answer. People should not have more children than the replacement rate (which is two). If they do, they should be extremely fined. At this point, people aren't people anymore, they're cattle. Harsh measures like forced sterilization must be taken for the well being of our descendants.
@MiguelBendezu No Sterilisation is NOT the answer. Voluntary contraception is more ethical and more effective than any coerciove measure.e.g. Thailand reduced it's birthrate to that of China without using coercion, it just made sure that everyone who wanted voluntray contraception had access to it and knew how to use it. See "one planet one child" for more on this.
This is a subject many do not want to think about. Thank you phillips 78 for having the courage and forsight to see into the future. It's an important video.
This is a subject many do not want to think about. Thank you phillips 78 for having the courage and forsight to see into the future. It's an important video.
There are approx about two soccer fields of land available per person on the planet but the average North American needs 4-5 soccer fields to support their lifestyle and a European typically uses 3-4. Of the two soccer fields per person only one of them is bioproductive, the other would be unfarmable due to mountain ranges, ice, no soil, no rain etc
We are already overpopulated right now...today...., whether the world population stabilises in the future or not.
When people claim that Malthus predictions of ecosystem collapse were wrong they often assume incorrectly that ecosystem services can never collapse and they forget that malthus lived in a period when fossil fuels were yet to be in use. They make a logical fallacy akin to saying that I drive my car and have never crashed yet, therefore I can never ever crash.
One problem i have with this video is that it is long on music but short on facts or resources of the few "facts" it claims. Then It tries to patronizes us with a quote from MLK to appease our sensibilities. The MLK quote attempts to make us ask ourselves who where born after the 2 billion people mark "should I have been born?Should I OFF myself to save myself from myself?" Give me a break.
@damandbass thanks for your comments but have you looked at the wide variety of sources available under the video? For more peer reviewed papers and info try "One Planet One Child". if you need more information let me know :) p.s. the video is about VOLUNTARY CONTRACEPTION, no need for deaths or you to "off yourself"?!, the video asks you to plan responsible family sizes through choice and awareness of others needs inculduing the next generation,plus the environment.
Human growth is a cancer growth. . Just as cancer cells do not know that as they multiply they will destroy their host and also die, . . so to do humans not seem to know that as they multiply they will destroy our planet and die also.
Thank you for this. Ultra-pronatalists don't get it. We need our houses, but we need land to grow food, land to mine resources, land to refine resources, and land to distribute resources. It takes less people to produce more stuff, but that stuff runs on fossil fuels. If we live in some super civilization that can grow food aeropoinically in space, and run on solar, and recycle our metal, then overpopulation is just a matter of how much prime land their is, but until then, it's more complicated.
In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person. Since the world's population is growing rapidly, this number is rapidly decreasing, not to mention the fact that on average an American uses 9 global hectares so no texas could NOT support 7 billion or even 1 billion.
In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person. Since the world's population is growing rapidly, this number is rapidly decreasing, not to mention the fact that on average an American uses 9 global hectares so no texas could NOT support 7 billion or even 1 billion.
We _could_ deal with more ppl, but the world at large care about that- it's about growing teh economy. Ecology 101: populations boom & populations bust. The key determinant is available resources. We are destroying our soil at an unprecedented rate, not to mention the decline in the availability of elements vital for plant (and animal including human) life, the shit we do to our DNA, the destruction of our capacity for resilience, or the fact we aren't getting along. What's to debate?
If you are taking about the Rwanda comment then it is widely accepted knowledge I'm afraid. If you don't accept it then it leads me to believe that you are a paid government propaganda troll. If not then you are just so deeply immersed into the lies that you are unable to summon the courage to see the truth. So I hope you enjoy having no children, living under tyranny and having a devalued useless currency. I may well be a consiparacy theorist but a conspiracy is just an alternative idea, and t
@digwillhachi No, a conspiracy theorist is someone like yourself who wants to feel important by pretending to know "secrets" that "only" they know about. Your confirmation bias is pronounced. If you prefer to live in an overpopulated world with increasing shortages and more and more civil wars with nature deciding how to end lives rather than prevent the problem occuring by using voluntray contraception to limit our numbers voluntarily then I fear for your logic and objectivity.
@digwillhachi Well said! However, no longer a conspiracy - it is an agenda! Approximately 150 million people were murdered in the 20th Century - Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Kmer Rouge etc (all financed and placed into power by a higher authority which runs the planet) They are now gearing up for a cleanse which will eclipse anything we've seen so far. Thesel Eugenecists only want a population reduction so they can control the masses more easily. It's genocide!
@TheHumanity100 You are yet another conspiracy theorist who wants to feel important by pretending to know "secrets" that "only" they know about. If you prefer to live in an overpopulated world with increasing shortages and more and more civil wars with nature and dictators deciding how to end lives rather than prevent the problem occuring by using voluntary contraception to limit our numbers voluntarily then I fear for your logic and objectivity. p.s. the video is not about eugenics.
@TheHumanity100 If the population reduces, then we can hardly be called "the masses" anymore. The head powers already have a good time controlling us. The more people, the more poverty. The more poverty, the less power.
@TheHumanity100 The people you are writing to are true believers in overpopulation. Let them continue to delude themselves into thinking that their are to many people on the planet.
@1StoryImageFigure1 humans are using resources faster than ecosystem services can replace them. this has been confirmed by the ,millennium ecosystem assessments 5 volumes of scientific peer reviewed data and 58 national science academies. 1 billion are malnourished, pollution is increasing, most people are less well off than you, take your overprivileged unsubstantiated unscientific opinions elsewhere.
@1StoryImageFigure1 The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares required per person (18.0 billion in total). With a world-average biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares per person (12 billion in total), this leads to an ecological deficit of 0.9 global hectares per person (6 billion in total). The world's population is growing. Even if resources were distributed equally the average consumption would be that of a Botswanan.
@phillips78 Please. The problem is how the world is managed, that is capitalism. Lowing the population is not going to free up resources it is just going to make them more expensive. The poor will still be poor.
And the population will cap around the middle of the century and, If trends continue, will start to drop. A majority of contries do not produce enough children to replace their popualtons. Relax. Overpopulation doomssayers have been wrong and will conintuall be wrong.
@1StoryImageFigure1 You said: "Lowing the population is not going to free up resources it is just going to make them more expensive", Actually less people means lower prices as the level of resources per capita increases whenever populations fall plus land prices drop with less people. you also said: "A majority of contries do not produce enough children to replace their popualtons" -The average TFR worldwide is 2.53 i.e. above replacement. We are already overpopulated right now.
@phillips78 Wrong. It does not matter how many people are on the planet as long as the resources are privatly owned or controled. Lower it all you want, there will still be poor peole. The problem is absese of wealth not absense of resources.
There is plenty of room and resources for everybody on the planet. The problem is capitalism. Equal resources for everybody is not profitable.
@1StoryImageFigure1 you said: "Lower it all you want, there will still be poor peole" - a lower population would force wages up and reduce land prices. At the moment, prices are high because competition for resources is high, it even leads to civil war. Capitalism relies on growth just like communism. If you are serious about bringing capitalism down then maybe you should consider a smaller family. Small family size means more money for education i.e. escape from poverty.
@phillips78 False. The reason why people how low wages is because all the proftis go to very few people, the capitalist ruling class, instead of the people who actually do the work. The reason why their is compitition for resources is because capitalism is all about controling resources for profit instead of using them for human need.
I want to bring down capitalism because it is a violent, repressive, and wasteful system for organizng human civilazation.
@1StoryImageFigure1 As stated before, people can get their wages increased by having a smaller family. With a smaller population unemployment falls and the rich have to pay more to their workers as there are less workers availble. This is what happened following the drop in Euopean population after the plague. I have already said that both capitalism and communism are based on growth so both are faulty economic models on a finite planet!
@phillips78 False. For a vast majority of people living in poor countries, a small family means extinction. They need all the help they can get so they have larger families. They also have higher mortaility rates so having a large family increases the chance of offspring living into adulthood. What they need is a good, stable goverment, education, and the capitalist to end their imperialism.
As for me, I have a small family. I also have no children.
@1StoryImageFigure1 High mortality rates are partly a result of large family size. The UNFPA states that poverty is exacerbated by large family size. Small family size means more money for education, more attention to each child and better attainment at school. Glad to hear you have chosen to have no children. You are doing a great service to the environment.
Considering everyone on the planet could fit into Texas that leaves the whole rest of the world empty for growing food, is that not enough space for you?
@digwillhachi As stated before: "fitting" into an area is not the same as surviving there. In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person. Since the world's population is growing rapidly, this number is rapidly decreasing, not to mention the fact that on average an American uses 9 global hectares so no texas could NOT support 7 billion or even 1 billion.
@phillips78 The statement about Texas is hypothetical. It isn't talking about consumption it's talking about population distribution and the free space as a result. It is the distribution that is causing the problem not the numbers or the resources
@mrmybuttisbig The "we could all fit in texas" idea suggests to those unaware of human impacts beyond their own backyard that the planet can handle human demands.This simply isn't the case with ecosystem services dwindling and continued growth in consumption and population. In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land/water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person but the average human uses more than 2.1 GH's
@phillips78 But that's what you're wrong, the planet CAN handle the demands! Reducing population numbers isn't going to feed the hungry like your video suggests. The hungry will stay hungry. The problem is who has access to the the food. The west has more access than we need and we turn access into excess and become wasteful. Africa, if simply used for agriculture, could feed the entire population! So your argument that the world can technically only support 2bn people is BS my friend :)
@mrmybuttisbig you wrote: "your argument that the world can technically only support 2bn people is BS", firstly re-watch the video, it states that only 2 billion could be supported long term at the consumption level of the average European which is vastly different from your comment. In addition 58 national science acdemies agree that overpopulation is a major issue. Read the 5 volumes of scientific data in the millennium ecosystem assessment for clarification.
From the outset of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, Washington's hidden agenda consisted in establishing an American sphere of influence in a region historically dominated by France and Belgium. America's design was to displace France by supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front and by arming and equipping its military arm, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)
@digwillhachi Your last comment was Copied and pasted not from a peer reviewed journal but a conspiracy theory website written by Michel Chossudovsky who honestly thinks that the HAARP can start earthquakes?!
He is one of a growing number of scientifically uninformed conspiracy theorists who say things are "secret" or part of a "new world order" even when information about them is publicly available and vast amounts of contradictory evidence disproves their ideas.
You seem to equate famine and war with overpopulation when they are totally unrelated. Western exploitation of africa is responsible for all the problems they have. Africa is rich is resources and fertile land yet they are poor and starving and indebt to the world bank and have western installed dictators. We destroy their crops and steal their land so we can grow biofuel, so I wonder why they are starving?
@digwillhachi Any country where GDP grows slower than the population inevitably leads to a fall in the quality of life. Can you name one war that wasn't about conflict over resources?
I agree that the west has exploited Africa but rapid population growth can certainly exacerbate conflict as can growth in resource consumption by all countries alike. Look up "water conflict" and Read: Overpopulation and war: the example of Rwanda, Bull Soc Languedoc Geogr. 1996 Jan-Jun;30(1-2):33-55.
@phillips78 well you provide evidence supporting your claims rather than some fancy video with a guy talking over it. The fact that we do have more than enough to eat is evidence in itself that therenis enough to go around. the world is not full up.
@digwillhachi 1 billion do not have enough to eat and the average consumption level is that of a botswanan or guatemalan. You having enough to eat is not the same as "everyone" having enough to eat. If everyone wants to live in a western lifestyle then there certianly isn't enough to go round. If everyone lived like you the planet could only support 2 billion. Ecosystem services are the key, not space and they are diminishing faster than they are replaced.
Oh and the majority of your scientific acadamies are all bought and paid for by the globalists, the research they put out doesn't add up, and yes I've read it. Just like climate change, the majority of real scientists disagree but there views arent shown in the controlled media. So stop quoting academies because it doesn't mean shit.
@digwillhachi "the majority of your scientific acadamies are all bought and paid for by the globalists" -you seem to be a "conspiracy theorist" in the making, I fear for your objectivity and rationality. Please define "globalist" for us as it's not clear what definition you are using. I am a "real" scientist and I say the evidence disagrees with you.
Please indicate a source of evidence that shows humans are not using ecosystem services faster than they can be replaced.
Famine, wars and scarcity of resources is due to human actions not the number of people. You need to look at how the west controls and abuses the majority of other countries and creates these problems. Either you are a paid propagandaist or you fail to see the bigger picture. The UNs own papers state that population will fall so read them!
@digwillhachi If there were just 2 billion people on the planet (reached through voluntary means e.g. condom use) I can guarantee you there would be less wars famines and no lack of resources. The UN projections are not "predictions". There are a variety of UN projections, some show continued growth, some show slowing growth but all show growth and that is simply unsustainable as we are already using resources faster than they can replaced or recycled.
@phillips78 type in overpopulation is a myth and watch the three cartoons that come up. That's real research done by people who aren't funded by eugenic organizations. Ie ford foundation, CFR, rockafella, ect...
@digwillhachi My video was in response to those very unscientific PRI "cartoons". I suggest you find out a bit more who made them: 1) they are not a scientific organisation, 2) in fact they are a religious one that wants to ban condoms. 3) The director of PRI takes home a huge wedge of the donations.4) "Population reserach institute" have never published a single scientific paper in any scientific journal. 5) read the UN's millennium ecosystem assessment.-overpopulation is real.
@phillips78 you don't lower the population to 2billion voluntarily. The UNs own papers show that population will peak in 30 years then fall. The west is also dieing our BR is under 2. Resources are not scarce neither is food and climate change is a myth. I suggest you read real facts rather than soak up nazi propaganda
@digwillhachi You happen to be one of the lucky 1 billion who have enough to eat, a house, luxuries and money to spare. The other 6 billion would disagree with you that "resources are not scarce". Every single major national science academy on the planet agrees that overpopulation is a major issue and that the majority of climate change is very likely to be anthropogenic since the 1970's. You consider voluntary contraception and "nazi" the same?! odd.
Biggest bullshit I've heard, straight from the mouth of the global elite who want to kill off 2/3 of the population. Yes the choice is ours and we say fuck off Gore, Rothschild etc.. You all have tons of kids how about they go first?
The video is correct, if everyone decided to have just 1 or 2 children then over time the numbers would decrease. We as idividuals wouldn't be missing out or losing anything but the world as a whole would be much healthier. Think about it.
The video is correct, if everyone decided to have just 1 or 2 children then over time the numbers would decrease. We as idividuals wouldn't be missing out or losing anything but the world as a whole would be much healthier. Think about it.
58 national science academies agree with this video. Almost 50% of pregnancies in the USA are unintended. Almost 40% of pregnancies worldwide are unintended.Condoms can save the planet and help people out of poverty especially if rich nations used condoms properly.
* Mass suicide by those believing overpopulation is a problem. By choosing to live they are being hypocrits. They can do something to reduce the problem but choose not to.
* Cut off all financial assistance to 3rd world nations.
* Stop state financing of AIDS medications. The majority of people with the disease brought it on by their behaviour.
* Deny all immigrants entry to the West.
* Reinstate the death penalty throughout the globe
@thepotatovagina No need for deaths, suicides or famines or coercion or death penalties or cutting off aid or stopping immigration. All you need is worldwide access to condoms/voluntary contraception and people like you to read some scientific peer reviewed reports on how unsustainable the human population is. p.s. 58 national science academies agree with me.
The problem lies not with people in the West; it lies with the huge families of the East. But, since ethnics are little angels in leftist eyes, I'm guessing you'd rather prevent a Western couple from having the 2 or 3 children they desire than dare suggest that Mohammed and his 7 wives have less than 25 kids.
@thepotatovagina Actually our impact on the planet is a multiplication of consumption per capita and family size. A family in say Bangladesh or Pakistan or India uses 20 times less than a typical American hence a family size of 10 there still has less impact than a wealthy westerner and 3 kids. I digress though as bascially everyone should do their bit and choose to have small families whatever their nationality.
3:27 we have to get the world population to 2 billion or poor people can never escape poverty? this is some propaganda bull shit sounds like something shown at the elites fag ass robe ceremony's. super weak
@SuperLotusfire 58 national science academies disagree with you and your ad hominems. Would you prefer that nature controlled our numbers or we choose to voluntarily before it gets to that point?
It may not be a myth, and it may be a worry, but it SHOULDNT be a worry.
When a bird builds a nest it is natural right? When a man builds a house, why isn't that natural?
If it's really a natural crisis, then nature will destroy us.
But right now, theres enough to go around, more than enough.
The governments are so greedy and giving the rich countries more than they need, and we waste. So stop worrying and start pointing your finger at the man who enslaved you and tricked you into believing.
@Amiles666 "But right now, theres enough to go around, more than enough"-only from a rich unscientific persons perspective. The average consumption level on the planet is that of a botswanan or guatemalan and we have almost a billion who are malnourished. Please choose to have a smaller family so that those with less than you can have a meal today without destroying their environment.
@phillips78 Thats very true. But the point is that, if we weren't governed by fat cats and assholes than supplies might actually be shared fairly, instead of america getting ridiculously fat and africa getting ridiculously skinny.
We are overpopulating our world period. Just because a pig have many babies you also have to act like one. People still get praise for bringing lots of child into the world like a blessing but as our population start to increase it becomes a pest. Destruction to natural habitat for mall, houses, roads, less jobs. Would you want your child to live miserably in a hell on earth and fend for the last remaining resources. Its not hunger they will likely die from! greedy neighbor that want their bread
this is bull shit the world isnt overpopulated in fact we have enough food to feed everyone on the planet, the reason for starving people is war, poverty and lack of infrastructure, and we use less land to produce more food than 50 years ago, and we have the technology to turn the sahara desert into farmland, here watch this: watch?v=OXrN9HhnCcM&list=LL9ShijpB9-TaU14c0DDTHTA&index=1&feature=plpp_video
@meee2014 "war, poverty and lack of infrastructure" all are made worse by population growth and growth in consumption. 1 billion are malnourished. Technology often increases consumption as it makes things cheaper.
@phillips78 growth of the population means growth of the economy and of the overall nation, just look at china, and acutally with the growth of population, living standards have increased, and less people are being born, in japan the population is acutally dropping,more people=more consumption of goods and services=more jobs=economy growth if there was less people on the planet you wouldnt be living any better in fact you would be living worse than you are now
@meee2014 The countries with the highest population growth have the worst economies actually. Do you actually think that economic growth is possible or needed forever?!
58 national science academies agree with me. Watch the new doc "growthbusters" for more info :)
The "millennium ecosystem assessment" is just liberal code for "tax, tax, tax." The people who walk America's backwoods know the true state of the land and God's plan for our greater glory upon it. Only He can know when we are too numerous, for it was written long ago.
@HorseCents "God's plan for our greater glory upon it" if your sky fairy wants people to breed themselves out of a planet to live on then they should reconsider whether they are a force for good. I prefer science to suprerstition.
@phillips78, you and the other libtards are just circle-jerking over your own opinions. Only God knows the true mind and motives of Man, and it's all under His control. There is nothing to worry about except taxation and gun control laws.
Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It takes FIVE. One changes the bulb from incandescent to CFL while the other four kiss Al Gore's hands and feet.
@HorseCents 1) Al Gore isn't a scientist so he is irrelevant as are your political ad hominems, evidence is the key here and you have yet to provide any for your own "opinion" 2) Do you think your particular brand of sky fairy would be pleased with your comments on here? 3) 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific evidence in the millennium ecosystem assessment indicate that humans are using resources faster than they are replaced or recycled by ecosystem services.
@HorseCents Which brand of sky fairy do you subscribe to?
p.s. An ecosystem is a complex set of relationships among the living resources, habitats, and residents of an area or do you deny that living things interact?
@Kubie5789 : Humankind is not a 'race' it's a species. Race & uniting race is irrelevant. If we don't reduce our population growth to replacement, or less than replacement, then our population will eventually collapse due to war, famine, drought & disease. The problem is that, if we don't act to limit our population before that point, we'll most likely drive most of the higher mammals (& a lot of other animal species) to extinction before lack of resources culls us.
@Kubie5789 The world population could fit into loch ness too but the world population "fitting" into an area isn't the same as surviving there with a good quality of life. The issue is growth in population and growth in consumption multiplied together, which gives us a figure for our impact.There are too many high consumption people who think growth can last forever. With less people through voluntary contraception everyone gets a greater share of resources and those in poverty can escape.
@Kubie5789 You said: "If Human Beings would voluntarily control our consumption of the world's resources, the population could grow to 8 billion or more with no loss" Firstly the majority of the worlds population is living on very low consumption already and we have env collapse, the only way to increase their consumption with no long term environmental damage is for those who consume a lot per capita to have smaller families. Only the lack of a consumer means no consumption by that person.
@10rosegarden14 Whatever governments do it should be a voluntary programme. Thailand managed to reduce family size from a dangerous 7 kids per family down to 2 in just over 20 years by providing free access to contraception and an extensive family planning eduaction network. They also reduced AIDS infection rates at the same time.
@10rosegarden14 this is bull shit the world isnt overpopulated in fact we have enough food to feed everyone on the planet, the reason for starving people is war, poverty and lack of infrastructure, and we use less land to produce more food than 50 years ago, and we have the technology to turn the sahara desert into farmland, here watch this: watch?v=OXrN9HhnCcM&list=LL9ShijpB9-TaU14c0DDTHTA&index=1&feature=plpp_video
You miss the mark. Overconsumption will not occur as yo describe it. As more people have enough money to live like the developed nations, demand for food will grow making it more expensive and this will mean more people will stop eating as much and obesity will not be such a problem. Food will be redirected, the rich will eat less and the the poor will eat more, thus there won't be the crisis you claim. The same with other resources. Plus, as they move from poverty, fertility rates will fall.
@tacticalmastermind you said: "As more people have enough money to live like the developed nations, demand for food will grow making it more expensive" If food gets more expensive then millions will die and democracy collapses, I've seen it first hand. Why let nature control our numbers with deaths from disease and starvation when we choose to have smaller families voluntarily and no deaths?
Name one dis-benefit from a population of 2 billion rather than 10?
There is enough food for everyone on the planet. Usually the main problem for hunger in the world is economic issues. Central planning has generally been the cause of starvation in the world. This includes the Ethiopian famine, and hunger in India. When there were 1 billion people there was also starvation, was overpopulation the problem then? Think about it.
@phil8888 you said "There is enough food for everyone on the planet" 1) Only if you/every human lives at the consumption level of a botswanan. Thats not going to happen. The only way for consumption to increase without further ecosystem collapse is for people to have smaller families. 2) What benefit is there from having 10 billion over 2 billion, (with 2 billion we have a greater share per person and everyone can live outside poverty)?
58 national science academies agree we are overpopulated.
to all the freaking monkeys that actually believe that we are overpopulated!!
Commit suicide and leave a note behind stating the purpose of your act. I feel that that will free up some space for the rest of us to live. Might as well take the environmentalist by the hand so that they may join you.
@dtwmtl 1) 58 national science academies plus 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific data agree with me that humans are using resource sfaster than they can be replaced or recycled, why don't you provide some evidence for your views instead of puerile comments. 2) No need for deaths, just access to voluntary contraception. 3) Why would you rather nature controlled our numbers harshly than we control ourselves?
@norwedgianawesomenes 1) 58 national science academies plus 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific data agree that humans are using resources faster than they can be replaced or recycled 2) No need for deaths, just access to voluntary contraception. 3) Better we limit ourselves voluntarily than let nature do it in an unpleasant way later.
Our world is far from being over populated, cities are becoming over crowded because they cannot keep up with the population growth. We don't need more earth, we just need balance. More people moving to farm communities to promote more agricultural growth and larger farming communities so we can lean away from the big industries that inject our food with toxins that go into our bodies.
@jcdenton100 "Our world is far from being over populated"- what scientific data do you base this comment on because 58 national science acadmies say we are overpopulated and the millennium ecosystem assesments 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific data confirmed that humans are using ecosystem servuices faster than nature can replenish or recycle them.
@phillips78 We have more land then we need, the building techniques and technology to build a ski resort in dubai could be used in the Sahara desert and even Antarctica. There is land that could be reused for farming in America. Small starving communities in Africa could use a makeover because they dont have the resources to survive, people in this world that are spending money on the huge city development they dont need could be used on other things in the world.
@jcdenton100 I have heard many answers like yours but without an explanation of where the money and resources are supposed to come from. Your suggestions patch up consequences temporarily they don't deal with the long term cause of environmental damage, namely too many people, using too much, too quickly. Why deal with consequences when the cause is easier, cheaper and more prudent to deal with through voluntary contraception. Smaller families means more people go into education/less poverty.
@phillips78 So the only way to have smaller families is to promote it but there is no law in America against having a certain amount of kids in your family, China has that law though and its just starting to take effect. I watched a video on overpopulation and it said we only need balance not more space, if we did need more space though theres always the possibility of building multi level cities. And that would be a sight to see! :D
@jcdenton100 58 national science academies agree that we are overpopulated, find me one that says we are not. If we split resources equally we would all be living on the same amount as a guatemalan or botswanan and that's not including the other 2 billion expected by 2050!
@phillips78 So what could we do? What are the effects of building indoor farms in Antarctica? Or even the Sahara desert? To downsize the human race, that would require a genocide or even a virus and im not sure we would want that at all. The best way to do this might be to stop having children but almost every adult or couple wants to have a child, how could the population be managed?
@jcdenton100 There is no need for death, viruses or coercion for the human population to fall, it simply requires access to voluntary contraception and awareness of the simplicity of solving every environmental issue on the planet simply by having 2 children or less until we reach a more sustainble population worldwide (probably around 2 billion). My other video "One Planet, One Child goes into more detail on this. We need to stop solving consequences of our actions and look at causes instead.
@phillips78 my interpretation of what you said is that in order for the human population to lower in number we first need to solve our environmental problems....im not sure if that is right.
@jcdenton100 Sorry i think you misunderstood, my point was that reducing the human population through voluntary contraception means an end to environmental problems on a global scale. It also has the effect of raising wages, reducing poverty, increasing education access and less conflict.
@phillips78 Good video although I would ask how in the current climate you are going to convince Durex to go out of business? It is hard enough convincing banks! Lol. I do agree in part by the way although I would state that our current economic paradigm is built on infinate growth and the stifling of progress in favour of profit. That is the real problem that needs addressing.
overpopulationis only a sub issue of a much larger problem... poverty, the entire world can suppport over 2 trillion people hypothetically.
look at shanghi over 7,000 people a square kilometer and they have very little problem with that ammount of people, overopulation is similar to Hitler blaming jews for the worlds problems, its not the population but corrupt idiots who would rather have a few billion in their bank accounts then help starving famalies.
@mrh112 1) Poverty is exacerbated by high population growth, large family size leads to low opportunity and less money for education. 2) Having lived in Shanghai, I would say there are many problems with such rapid growth, not to mention the fact that Shanghai is reliant on huge amounts of land outside the city for it's survival. Hitler didn't mention overpopulation (you broke Godwins law there) Hitler believed in growth of population, I don't. Smaller rich/poor families means an end to poverty.
Poverty has actually decresed over the past 100 years yet the population has grown by 4 billion people...
Infact with more people a nation tends to develope faster as is visible in china and india, without their massive populations they would still be under developed, african nations again this is visible with nations with larger populations developing at a higer rate than thoes without.
Put simply overpopulation is a bad science because we are always progressing and advancing.
@mrh112 China developed faster than India because of it's one child policy reducing family size thereby allowing more money to be spent on eduaction by parents. (No I don't agree with China's policy but it had the desired effect of reduicng poverty by reducing family size contrary to your beliefs that rapid population growth means less poverty?!) The countries with the highest growth rate have the greatest poverty. p.s. 58 national science academies disagree with you.
You have a point assuming you included the fact china has a recent boom in economy not from the 1 child policy which is actually casing incresed poverty through an ageing population crisis and actually due to the recent large boost in manufacturing of electronic devices (over the last 15 years)
And the fact that "growth rate" is not population size... india has a steadying pop growth rate but over a billion people, as with china with reducing poverty.
@mrh112 1) Constantly increasing the child base to pay for people who can work is a population ponzi scheme. 2) China doesn't have an ageing population crisis, money saved by people who had less kids more than covered old age costs. 3) The boom in techniology came from better educated children as a rsult of them coming from small families where more money could be spent on University education. China's poverty rate fell faster than India's due to small family size in China.
You have to understand we as a species are constantly evolving in our technilogical aspects.
Saying we will have a population crisis by 2051 is like saying we would in 2011 while living in 1961, im sure they predicted computers, large transport ships, modern fuels and robotics in wide use back then in to their equasion of 4 billion people being a problem... wait they didnt...
Poverty is the problem, If you actually looked at real evidence you would see that even the UN agrees.
@mrh112 You would rather rely on technology that has yet to be invented by other people (I bet you haven't invented anything) and keep patching up the consequences of growth, than actually deal with the cause of our problems, too many people, using to much, too fast. The solution is voluntary contraception access. The UN states that rapid population growth is a major cause of poverty, look at Lagos, Manilla or L.A.
Where is poverty greatest, in the areas with the greatest population growth.
This is crap. Completely overlooks the existence of ppl who DO live off the grid, and DO give back more than they take from nature. Having fewer ppl doesn't FIX the problem of consumption, it only DELAYS it. For every person that moves into an ecovillage lifestyle, two consumers are offset. The proposal here is to kill ourselves, rather than give up shopping... Idiocy. There ARE ways to design cultures that don't simply take. We COULD restructure the way we do things to be considerate of ecology
BastionKnight 5 hours ago
@BastionKnight "The proposal here is to kill ourselves, rather than give up shopping" - no, the video is about voluntary contraception as a means of reducing consumption because: Only the lack of a consumer means zero consumption. p.s. The video clearly states that impact is a multiplication of consumption and population, so your comment seems to come from someone who hasn't actually watched the film.
phillips78 6 minutes ago
In response to your comeback earlier (a week ago) I agree that Germany's and Russia's economy's have been improving since fertility rates began to decline. This is because an ageing population doesn't affect an economy until many years after the birth rate has begun to fall. With each passing year more and more pressure is being placed on Russia's workforce which will in effect result in economic slow down, many years down the track.
sajemsursell 1 day ago
@sajemsursell Please suggest an alternative to an ageing population as it HAS to happen at some point, why not do it earlier rather than later when populations are even larger and less sustainable. Drops in education spending offset the majority of pension costs and crime drops as people get older. We don't want to continue our current population ponzi scheme (having to constantly add kids to teh bottom to support a biggger an bigger top) do we?
phillips78 1 day ago
Your video clip gives the viewer the impression that contraception is the only alternative in preserving the earth’s ecosystems and resources from over exploitation. An alternative to your "only" alternative is to simply invest in more efficient technologies which are cleaner, reduce climate change and allow more people to live on this planet. It seems kind of dramatic to say that contraception is the only way.
sajemsursell 1 day ago
@sajemsursell 1) Voluntary contraception is by far the most effective method, i.e. a lack of a consumer means much much less consumption. If you drop average consumption by 10% by population goes up 10% = same result 2) Energy efficiency drives prices lower which increases consumption even more you buy more when products are cheaper. (look up Jevons paradox) and as I have stated we simply don't have the ecosystem services to support 7 billion long term at an acceptable level of consumption.
phillips78 1 day ago
58 national science academies agree with this video!
80% of people worldwide barely survive on less than $10 a day, the solution is for rich countries to shrink their populations fast by voluntary contraception and for those in poor countries to have universal access to voluntary contraception.
phillips78 2 days ago
@staum607 The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. Urban lands take up another 66 million acres and mountains and deserts take out another huge chunk. Now take off lakes and rivers and areas that need to stay as forests (747 million acres) for flood control a supply of timber etc
Agricultural land: You are left with approx one third of what you suggested and that relies on fossil fuels (i.e. unsustainable).
phillips78 3 days ago
@phillips78 sorry, I used the wrong #. Yes current farmland is about 950,000 acres (usda. gov) but my initial claim was in regards to the entire midwest area; just to prove how much space is needed, not how much land is currently being used for that.
staum607 3 days ago
propaganda at its finest. Blaming logistical, political, and ideological problems on overpopulation. The fact remains, the columbia river and the midwest area of the US provide enough food and water for the entire world pop. (at 6-7 bil) Of course there are other issues (waste, pollution, etc), but if anti-birth people lie about the resource fact, why should I trust them about other issues. IMO, if the countries of the world were "good" (judeo-christ, capitalistic), these problems would't exist
staum607 3 days ago
@staum607 "if the countries of the world were "good" (judeo-christ, capitalistic)" - A gross assumption that religion or belief in sky fairies makes people automatically good (look up doctors/scientists killed by religious extremists) and that capitalism or communism (which are both based on growth) works on a finite planet. You also incorrectly suggested that 6-7 billion could be fed by Columbia/midwest. The current world population (80% of which live on less than $10 a day) uses 1.4 Earth's!
phillips78 3 days ago
@phillips78 not talking about religion here, only freedom with the values/ideals of the US founding fathers. The average American eats 2175 pounds of food a year. 2175 x 7 bil = 15,225 bil. Avg amount of food per acre is 10,840lbs. Current amount of farm land in US is 2.26bil acres. 10,840 x 2.26bil = 24,498bil. 24,498 > 15,225
staum607 3 days ago
@staum607 The video is about voluntary contraception and the scientific fact that humans are using ecosystem services faster than th Earth can replenish or recycle them. (read the millennium ecosystem assessements 5 volumes of data or read the GEO-4 assessment. You have yet to give a source for any of your data or take into account that people use more than food. An average American uses 9 bioproductive hectares to provide their lifestyle, yet only 2 per person are available. (GFN)
phillips78 3 days ago
@phillips78 My sources were just basic reference material. usda. gov, encyclopedia (Columbia river output volume), all of my info is not based on biased studies, but instead of common knowledge-type facts. I figured Americans eat the most, so their lbs of food 'needs' would be highest, I also calculated h2o at 128 gallons per day (not just hydration, but also sanitation, cooking, etc). The UN has an agenda, so I believe their info to be biased (though agenda does not PROVE bias), just my .02
staum607 3 days ago
@staum607 Why would you assume that the millenniume ecosystem assessment is biased. It is compiled from scientific data from 120 different countries and multiple independent agencies and bodies. thousands of scientist hekped put it together and it finds that humans are categorically using resources and ecosystem services faster than they can be replaced or replenished. Our lifestyles are unsustainable and we are overpopulated.
phillips78 2 days ago
I HAS DA SOLUTION... WW3
Justzaak 1 week ago
Intelligence without wisdom again! - You just need to look down from an airplane! Does it really look overpopulated?? First of all we have about 75% of the surface being water! Not many live there! Then you have giant deserts! Not many live there... Then you have mountain ranges! Not many live there... Then you have jungles and vast forests! Not many live there! In fact all the people of this planet cover only 0.2 % of the planet and for all to have food for 100 years we need ca 4% of the planet
cosmobserver 1 week ago
@cosmobserver All the places you mentioned are uninhabitable without using huge amounts of resources taken from somewhere else which defeats the idea in the 1st place. In 2006,humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths: so humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.We can't support 7 billion at the moment without 80% living on less than $10 dollars a day so 4% of the land definitely couldn't feed 7 billion who live as well as you do!
phillips78 1 week ago
Yes, i do think that an ageing population is negative for the economy, just look at Russia and Japan. They have some of the smallest fertility rates and highest percentage of elderly people in the world. Only now does it seem that these countries realize the full implications of having a declining population. They are experiencing huge labour shortages, companies are starting to move overseas due to lack of labour and these governments are now trying to encourage couples to have more children.
sajemsursell 1 week ago
@sajemsursell The economies of both Japan and Germany both went into recovery around the time their populations just began to decline (2003–2006). In other words, both the total and per capita GDP in both countries grew more rapidly after 2005 than before. Russia's economy also began to grow rapidly from 1999 onward, even though its population has been shrinking since 1992-93. Scandinavia has population ageing but they are doing better than most economies worldwide.
phillips78 1 week ago
You say that it is an insult to imply that old people are a drain on the economy when you are the one who is implying that humans in general are a drain on the earths resources and are going to consume all of the earths resources if not dealt with.l Please explain yourself? what you say is contradictory.
sajemsursell 1 week ago
@sajemsursell No what I said was that we as humans use too much, too quickly and there are too many of us for everyone to have even a basic standard of living. What you implied was that too many old people are a problem for the economy, jobs and incomes. My intention was not an accusation, I apologise if you felt it was, I was merely making the point that having more kids to cope with an ageing population is counter productive in the long term.
phillips78 1 week ago
According to Australia’s Third Intergenerational Report, in 2010 there were an estimated 5 people of working age per person 65 or older. By 2050 only 2.7 people of working age are projected per person 65 and older. Regardless of whether the government forces elderly persons to work till they are 70 or longer, this “alternative” of smaller families will result in slower economic activity, loss of jobs and falling incomes.
sajemsursell 1 week ago
@sajemsursell Reducing family size means less money is required to be spent on state education, these savings can be transferred to pensions. Unemployment and child benefits shrink with smaller family size saving the govt billions each year in unemployment and child benefit pay-outs.Would you rather we kept adding to the population ponzi scheme than dealt with the issue by its cause rather than deal with consequences. Its insulting to old people to suggest they are simply a drain on the economy
phillips78 1 week ago
I just had a question. If we all were to limit our family sizes how would our kids and grandkids be able to support us? I mean the whole globe would be facing a major ageing population crisis. The workforce would be under extreme pressure to support a large number of retired elderly people and they would be paying large taxes to make up their pensions. Why not simply invest in more sustainable technologies to help feed a larger population? or share resources among countries more evenly?
sajemsursell 1 week ago
@sajemsursell The alternative to not limiting our family size is to continue adding to the ponzi/pyramid population scheme where increasingly large numbers of kids are needed to support an ever growing population and a full collapse in ecosystem services.Some other points to note: kids don't contribute to taxes for 20-25 years,having smaller families reduces education costs.Old people work/volunteer or are active on average until the last 5 years of life so raise retirement age, not family size
phillips78 1 week ago
1 soccer field of farmable land can feed a lot of people!
macjc5 2 weeks ago
@macjc5 Actually 1 football field will only feed a single American for 40 days out of 365. (based on GFN data)
phillips78 2 weeks ago
It doesn't matter what MSG is made from, but I know the effect on me. The long term effects are a lot worse. How come you have no rebuttal on any of the other poisons? All poisons are made from Natural stuff, that doesn't make good for you, but will keep doctors busy and lives short!
macjc5 2 weeks ago
@macjc5 1) MSG has been used safely for more than 100 years to season food. Life expectancy has risen in the last 100 years. See also Tarasoff and Kelly (1993) Some american food comaonies started spreading rumours about MSG as they were concerned about lossess to far east food companies. 2) Please feel free us how many have died from fluoride beacsue I cannot find any record of such, nor is life expectancy different in similar countries with and without fluorinated water?
phillips78 2 weeks ago
There are approx about two soccer fields of land available per person on the planet but the average North American needs 4-5 soccer fields to support their lifestyle and a European typically uses 3-4. Of the two soccer fields per person only one of them is bioproductive, the other would be unfarmable due to mountain ranges, ice, no soil, no rain etc
We are already overpopulated right now...today...., whether the world population stabilises in the future or not.
phillips78 2 weeks ago
Sterilize all NWO and UN followers, and Overpopulation zombies and "voila'" problem resolved.
It's easier to control a smaller population. They plan to reduce us by 90%. It' s written in stone (Georgia Tablets)! WAKE UP!
macjc5 2 weeks ago
@macjc5 Actually it's easier to control a dumb population and large family size reduces the money available for education so thats a big flaw in your idea, not to mention the fact that your conspiracy theories are ridiculous.
phillips78 2 weeks ago
OVERPOPULATION MYTH was started by the globalist BASTARDS that think it's harder to control larger population. The don't want to lose the grip they have on our enslavement! The cowards fear rervolution! FIGHT NWO and UN escalation of power! According to them 500Million slaves are easier to control, that's why they are poisoning our water(fluoride), poison our food (GMO, MSG, Aspartame, many chemical etc.), poison our air (Nuclear, Chemtrails). They aim to cut world population by 90%. WAKE UP!!!
macjc5 2 weeks ago
@macjc5 Writung in capitals does not make you any less incorrect. Like most ignorant conspiracy theorists you fail to notice that the wite house couldn't keep Bill Clintons naughtiness with lewinski secret, so what on earth makes you think that they could keep any of your risible conspiracy theories secret. Your arguments are always along the lines of "commie, nazi cabal is going to rule the world, aliens did it, elvis is still alive etc blah blah blah. p.s. MSG is made from seaweed.
phillips78 2 weeks ago
If you think overpopulation is a problem, start with yourself...
DackIsBack 3 weeks ago
@DackIsBack If you think overpopulation isn't a problem then i'm sending all the unwanted children (50% of pregnancies in the US are unintended) to your house. p.s. no one needs to die, they just need access to voluntary contraception and awareness of the benefits of smaller families e.g. more resources available per person, less unemployment, lower crime etc.
phillips78 2 weeks ago
there is not overpopulation problem. the planet can easily deal with 70 billions of humans. it´s needed just a better organization
Churruminonian 3 weeks ago
@Churruminonian Currently we are already overpopulated as shown by 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific journals that make up the millennium ecosystem assessment. It clearly shows that humans are using resources faster than ecosystem services can replace or recycle them. With 70 billion everyone would one tenth of what they do now. i.e. everyone would be in poverty.
phillips78 3 weeks ago
@Churruminonian With 70 billion people the average consumption level would be that of a Bangladeshi or Eritrean or Haitian on less than 0.5 dollars per day and one tenth of the food they have now. Do you quality of life or quantity of lives?
Every gain humans have made has been a result of drawing down natural resources which are limited in their rates of recycling and replenishment.
phillips78 2 weeks ago
(cont.)
Overconsumption, by advertsisement mind controlled zombies.
Overpollution, caused by rich selfish industry giants.
(also think about supermarket who rather dump their excess food than give it away)
If we better managed the earth's resources, better built our cities, we could support a population of many times what we already have, we could keep growing until we have the technology to spread out into space
It's the system that's overpopulated, not the planet.
Bos187 4 weeks ago
@Bos187 "If we better managed the earth's resources, better built our cities, we could support a population of many times what we already have" (only at a poverty level) and the fact is we don't manage resources well and we rely on unsustainable sources so therefore we ARE overpopulated based on our current lifestyle (which is unlikely to change) so why not try and ask everyone (especially rich overconsuming people) to have smaller families instead so the poor can escape poverty?
p.s. space?!
phillips78 3 weeks ago
Actually... overconsumpulation is what the "overpoplulation is a myth" people are talking about.
But the problems are not CAUSED by "overpopulation".
They are just MADE WORSE.
Reducing the population does not solve any problems.
It's our lifestyle that's the cause.
(to be continued)
Bos187 4 weeks ago 2
@Bos187 "Reducing the population does not solve any problems" - evidently that is not the case because countries with the lowest population growth and even negative population growth tend to have less poverty, better quality if life, are better educated and have better environmental legislation. Are you saying that reducing the populatioon wouldn't make it easier to solve environmental and in some case social/political problems, after all the more people there are, the less someone matters
phillips78 3 weeks ago
Sterilization is the answer. People should not have more children than the replacement rate (which is two). If they do, they should be extremely fined. At this point, people aren't people anymore, they're cattle. Harsh measures like forced sterilization must be taken for the well being of our descendants.
MiguelBendezu 1 month ago
@MiguelBendezu No Sterilisation is NOT the answer. Voluntary contraception is more ethical and more effective than any coerciove measure.e.g. Thailand reduced it's birthrate to that of China without using coercion, it just made sure that everyone who wanted voluntray contraception had access to it and knew how to use it. See "one planet one child" for more on this.
phillips78 1 month ago
This is a subject many do not want to think about. Thank you phillips 78 for having the courage and forsight to see into the future. It's an important video.
musicjamvideo 1 month ago
This is a subject many do not want to think about. Thank you phillips 78 for having the courage and forsight to see into the future. It's an important video.
musicjamvideo 1 month ago 6
There are approx about two soccer fields of land available per person on the planet but the average North American needs 4-5 soccer fields to support their lifestyle and a European typically uses 3-4. Of the two soccer fields per person only one of them is bioproductive, the other would be unfarmable due to mountain ranges, ice, no soil, no rain etc
We are already overpopulated right now...today...., whether the world population stabilises in the future or not.
phillips78 1 month ago
When people claim that Malthus predictions of ecosystem collapse were wrong they often assume incorrectly that ecosystem services can never collapse and they forget that malthus lived in a period when fossil fuels were yet to be in use. They make a logical fallacy akin to saying that I drive my car and have never crashed yet, therefore I can never ever crash.
phillips78 1 month ago
Good video, good info and well put together, i'm choosing to have a small family for the sake of others whose needs are greater than mine.
TheDisproof 1 month ago
One problem i have with this video is that it is long on music but short on facts or resources of the few "facts" it claims. Then It tries to patronizes us with a quote from MLK to appease our sensibilities. The MLK quote attempts to make us ask ourselves who where born after the 2 billion people mark "should I have been born?Should I OFF myself to save myself from myself?" Give me a break.
damandbass 1 month ago
@damandbass thanks for your comments but have you looked at the wide variety of sources available under the video? For more peer reviewed papers and info try "One Planet One Child". if you need more information let me know :) p.s. the video is about VOLUNTARY CONTRACEPTION, no need for deaths or you to "off yourself"?!, the video asks you to plan responsible family sizes through choice and awareness of others needs inculduing the next generation,plus the environment.
phillips78 1 month ago
Sorry mate, this video is bullshit.
nekocekoBiH 1 month ago
@nekocekoBiH 58 national science academies disagree with you. Please explain in full which part of the video you consider to be "bullshit"?
phillips78 1 month ago
Human growth is a cancer growth. . Just as cancer cells do not know that as they multiply they will destroy their host and also die, . . so to do humans not seem to know that as they multiply they will destroy our planet and die also.
musicjamvideo 1 month ago
Thanks, nice work on the video
Justathought81 2 months ago in playlist More videos from phillips78
Thank you for this. Ultra-pronatalists don't get it. We need our houses, but we need land to grow food, land to mine resources, land to refine resources, and land to distribute resources. It takes less people to produce more stuff, but that stuff runs on fossil fuels. If we live in some super civilization that can grow food aeropoinically in space, and run on solar, and recycle our metal, then overpopulation is just a matter of how much prime land their is, but until then, it's more complicated.
TheRepublicOfUngeria 2 months ago
In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person. Since the world's population is growing rapidly, this number is rapidly decreasing, not to mention the fact that on average an American uses 9 global hectares so no texas could NOT support 7 billion or even 1 billion.
phillips78 2 months ago
In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person. Since the world's population is growing rapidly, this number is rapidly decreasing, not to mention the fact that on average an American uses 9 global hectares so no texas could NOT support 7 billion or even 1 billion.
phillips78 2 months ago
THANK YOU FOR THE VIDEO. Great job!
vmorgun 2 months ago
We _could_ deal with more ppl, but the world at large care about that- it's about growing teh economy. Ecology 101: populations boom & populations bust. The key determinant is available resources. We are destroying our soil at an unprecedented rate, not to mention the decline in the availability of elements vital for plant (and animal including human) life, the shit we do to our DNA, the destruction of our capacity for resilience, or the fact we aren't getting along. What's to debate?
drpuki 2 months ago
If you are taking about the Rwanda comment then it is widely accepted knowledge I'm afraid. If you don't accept it then it leads me to believe that you are a paid government propaganda troll. If not then you are just so deeply immersed into the lies that you are unable to summon the courage to see the truth. So I hope you enjoy having no children, living under tyranny and having a devalued useless currency. I may well be a consiparacy theorist but a conspiracy is just an alternative idea, and t
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi No, a conspiracy theorist is someone like yourself who wants to feel important by pretending to know "secrets" that "only" they know about. Your confirmation bias is pronounced. If you prefer to live in an overpopulated world with increasing shortages and more and more civil wars with nature deciding how to end lives rather than prevent the problem occuring by using voluntray contraception to limit our numbers voluntarily then I fear for your logic and objectivity.
phillips78 2 months ago
@digwillhachi Well said! However, no longer a conspiracy - it is an agenda! Approximately 150 million people were murdered in the 20th Century - Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Kmer Rouge etc (all financed and placed into power by a higher authority which runs the planet) They are now gearing up for a cleanse which will eclipse anything we've seen so far. Thesel Eugenecists only want a population reduction so they can control the masses more easily. It's genocide!
TheHumanity100 2 months ago
@TheHumanity100 You are yet another conspiracy theorist who wants to feel important by pretending to know "secrets" that "only" they know about. If you prefer to live in an overpopulated world with increasing shortages and more and more civil wars with nature and dictators deciding how to end lives rather than prevent the problem occuring by using voluntary contraception to limit our numbers voluntarily then I fear for your logic and objectivity. p.s. the video is not about eugenics.
phillips78 2 months ago
@TheHumanity100 If the population reduces, then we can hardly be called "the masses" anymore. The head powers already have a good time controlling us. The more people, the more poverty. The more poverty, the less power.
computerlover1991 2 months ago
@TheHumanity100 The people you are writing to are true believers in overpopulation. Let them continue to delude themselves into thinking that their are to many people on the planet.
1StoryImageFigure1 1 month ago
@1StoryImageFigure1 humans are using resources faster than ecosystem services can replace them. this has been confirmed by the ,millennium ecosystem assessments 5 volumes of scientific peer reviewed data and 58 national science academies. 1 billion are malnourished, pollution is increasing, most people are less well off than you, take your overprivileged unsubstantiated unscientific opinions elsewhere.
phillips78 1 month ago
@phillips78 THe reason why 1 billion people are i such poor conditio is because of unequal distributation of resources caused by capitalism.
1StoryImageFigure1 1 month ago
@1StoryImageFigure1 The world-average ecological footprint in 2007 was 2.7 global hectares required per person (18.0 billion in total). With a world-average biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares per person (12 billion in total), this leads to an ecological deficit of 0.9 global hectares per person (6 billion in total). The world's population is growing. Even if resources were distributed equally the average consumption would be that of a Botswanan.
phillips78 1 month ago
@phillips78 Please. The problem is how the world is managed, that is capitalism. Lowing the population is not going to free up resources it is just going to make them more expensive. The poor will still be poor.
And the population will cap around the middle of the century and, If trends continue, will start to drop. A majority of contries do not produce enough children to replace their popualtons. Relax. Overpopulation doomssayers have been wrong and will conintuall be wrong.
1StoryImageFigure1 1 month ago
@1StoryImageFigure1 You said: "Lowing the population is not going to free up resources it is just going to make them more expensive", Actually less people means lower prices as the level of resources per capita increases whenever populations fall plus land prices drop with less people. you also said: "A majority of contries do not produce enough children to replace their popualtons" -The average TFR worldwide is 2.53 i.e. above replacement. We are already overpopulated right now.
phillips78 1 month ago
@phillips78 Wrong. It does not matter how many people are on the planet as long as the resources are privatly owned or controled. Lower it all you want, there will still be poor peole. The problem is absese of wealth not absense of resources.
There is plenty of room and resources for everybody on the planet. The problem is capitalism. Equal resources for everybody is not profitable.
1StoryImageFigure1 1 month ago
@1StoryImageFigure1 you said: "Lower it all you want, there will still be poor peole" - a lower population would force wages up and reduce land prices. At the moment, prices are high because competition for resources is high, it even leads to civil war. Capitalism relies on growth just like communism. If you are serious about bringing capitalism down then maybe you should consider a smaller family. Small family size means more money for education i.e. escape from poverty.
phillips78 1 month ago
@phillips78 False. The reason why people how low wages is because all the proftis go to very few people, the capitalist ruling class, instead of the people who actually do the work. The reason why their is compitition for resources is because capitalism is all about controling resources for profit instead of using them for human need.
I want to bring down capitalism because it is a violent, repressive, and wasteful system for organizng human civilazation.
1StoryImageFigure1 1 month ago
@1StoryImageFigure1 As stated before, people can get their wages increased by having a smaller family. With a smaller population unemployment falls and the rich have to pay more to their workers as there are less workers availble. This is what happened following the drop in Euopean population after the plague. I have already said that both capitalism and communism are based on growth so both are faulty economic models on a finite planet!
phillips78 1 month ago
@phillips78 False. For a vast majority of people living in poor countries, a small family means extinction. They need all the help they can get so they have larger families. They also have higher mortaility rates so having a large family increases the chance of offspring living into adulthood. What they need is a good, stable goverment, education, and the capitalist to end their imperialism.
As for me, I have a small family. I also have no children.
1StoryImageFigure1 1 month ago
@1StoryImageFigure1 High mortality rates are partly a result of large family size. The UNFPA states that poverty is exacerbated by large family size. Small family size means more money for education, more attention to each child and better attainment at school. Glad to hear you have chosen to have no children. You are doing a great service to the environment.
phillips78 1 month ago
Considering everyone on the planet could fit into Texas that leaves the whole rest of the world empty for growing food, is that not enough space for you?
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi As stated before: "fitting" into an area is not the same as surviving there. In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person. Since the world's population is growing rapidly, this number is rapidly decreasing, not to mention the fact that on average an American uses 9 global hectares so no texas could NOT support 7 billion or even 1 billion.
phillips78 2 months ago
@phillips78 The statement about Texas is hypothetical. It isn't talking about consumption it's talking about population distribution and the free space as a result. It is the distribution that is causing the problem not the numbers or the resources
mrmybuttisbig 2 months ago
@mrmybuttisbig The "we could all fit in texas" idea suggests to those unaware of human impacts beyond their own backyard that the planet can handle human demands.This simply isn't the case with ecosystem services dwindling and continued growth in consumption and population. In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land/water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person but the average human uses more than 2.1 GH's
phillips78 2 months ago
@phillips78 But that's what you're wrong, the planet CAN handle the demands! Reducing population numbers isn't going to feed the hungry like your video suggests. The hungry will stay hungry. The problem is who has access to the the food. The west has more access than we need and we turn access into excess and become wasteful. Africa, if simply used for agriculture, could feed the entire population! So your argument that the world can technically only support 2bn people is BS my friend :)
mrmybuttisbig 2 months ago
@mrmybuttisbig you wrote: "your argument that the world can technically only support 2bn people is BS", firstly re-watch the video, it states that only 2 billion could be supported long term at the consumption level of the average European which is vastly different from your comment. In addition 58 national science acdemies agree that overpopulation is a major issue. Read the 5 volumes of scientific data in the millennium ecosystem assessment for clarification.
phillips78 2 months ago
From the outset of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, Washington's hidden agenda consisted in establishing an American sphere of influence in a region historically dominated by France and Belgium. America's design was to displace France by supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front and by arming and equipping its military arm, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi Your last comment was Copied and pasted not from a peer reviewed journal but a conspiracy theory website written by Michel Chossudovsky who honestly thinks that the HAARP can start earthquakes?!
He is one of a growing number of scientifically uninformed conspiracy theorists who say things are "secret" or part of a "new world order" even when information about them is publicly available and vast amounts of contradictory evidence disproves their ideas.
phillips78 2 months ago
You seem to equate famine and war with overpopulation when they are totally unrelated. Western exploitation of africa is responsible for all the problems they have. Africa is rich is resources and fertile land yet they are poor and starving and indebt to the world bank and have western installed dictators. We destroy their crops and steal their land so we can grow biofuel, so I wonder why they are starving?
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi Any country where GDP grows slower than the population inevitably leads to a fall in the quality of life. Can you name one war that wasn't about conflict over resources?
I agree that the west has exploited Africa but rapid population growth can certainly exacerbate conflict as can growth in resource consumption by all countries alike. Look up "water conflict" and Read: Overpopulation and war: the example of Rwanda, Bull Soc Languedoc Geogr. 1996 Jan-Jun;30(1-2):33-55.
.
phillips78 2 months ago
Is the millennium ecosystems projectbpart of the UNnor funded by the UN?
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi The Millennium Ecosystem assessment was an international synthesis by over 1000 of the world's leading biological scientists.
phillips78 2 months ago
@phillips78 well you provide evidence supporting your claims rather than some fancy video with a guy talking over it. The fact that we do have more than enough to eat is evidence in itself that therenis enough to go around. the world is not full up.
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi 1 billion do not have enough to eat and the average consumption level is that of a botswanan or guatemalan. You having enough to eat is not the same as "everyone" having enough to eat. If everyone wants to live in a western lifestyle then there certianly isn't enough to go round. If everyone lived like you the planet could only support 2 billion. Ecosystem services are the key, not space and they are diminishing faster than they are replaced.
phillips78 2 months ago
Oh and the majority of your scientific acadamies are all bought and paid for by the globalists, the research they put out doesn't add up, and yes I've read it. Just like climate change, the majority of real scientists disagree but there views arent shown in the controlled media. So stop quoting academies because it doesn't mean shit.
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi "the majority of your scientific acadamies are all bought and paid for by the globalists" -you seem to be a "conspiracy theorist" in the making, I fear for your objectivity and rationality. Please define "globalist" for us as it's not clear what definition you are using. I am a "real" scientist and I say the evidence disagrees with you.
Please indicate a source of evidence that shows humans are not using ecosystem services faster than they can be replaced.
phillips78 2 months ago
Famine, wars and scarcity of resources is due to human actions not the number of people. You need to look at how the west controls and abuses the majority of other countries and creates these problems. Either you are a paid propagandaist or you fail to see the bigger picture. The UNs own papers state that population will fall so read them!
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi If there were just 2 billion people on the planet (reached through voluntary means e.g. condom use) I can guarantee you there would be less wars famines and no lack of resources. The UN projections are not "predictions". There are a variety of UN projections, some show continued growth, some show slowing growth but all show growth and that is simply unsustainable as we are already using resources faster than they can replaced or recycled.
phillips78 2 months ago
@phillips78 type in overpopulation is a myth and watch the three cartoons that come up. That's real research done by people who aren't funded by eugenic organizations. Ie ford foundation, CFR, rockafella, ect...
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi My video was in response to those very unscientific PRI "cartoons". I suggest you find out a bit more who made them: 1) they are not a scientific organisation, 2) in fact they are a religious one that wants to ban condoms. 3) The director of PRI takes home a huge wedge of the donations.4) "Population reserach institute" have never published a single scientific paper in any scientific journal. 5) read the UN's millennium ecosystem assessment.-overpopulation is real.
phillips78 2 months ago
@phillips78 you don't lower the population to 2billion voluntarily. The UNs own papers show that population will peak in 30 years then fall. The west is also dieing our BR is under 2. Resources are not scarce neither is food and climate change is a myth. I suggest you read real facts rather than soak up nazi propaganda
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi You happen to be one of the lucky 1 billion who have enough to eat, a house, luxuries and money to spare. The other 6 billion would disagree with you that "resources are not scarce". Every single major national science academy on the planet agrees that overpopulation is a major issue and that the majority of climate change is very likely to be anthropogenic since the 1970's. You consider voluntary contraception and "nazi" the same?! odd.
phillips78 2 months ago
Biggest bullshit I've heard, straight from the mouth of the global elite who want to kill off 2/3 of the population. Yes the choice is ours and we say fuck off Gore, Rothschild etc.. You all have tons of kids how about they go first?
digwillhachi 2 months ago
@digwillhachi 1) This video is about VOLUNTARY contraception, not killing or coercion. 2) Which part of the video do you disagree with, be specific?
3) Provide some evidence for your views. 4) Please watch the video in full before jumping to conclusions.
phillips78 2 months ago
The video is correct, if everyone decided to have just 1 or 2 children then over time the numbers would decrease. We as idividuals wouldn't be missing out or losing anything but the world as a whole would be much healthier. Think about it.
MrAmsterjam 3 months ago
The video is correct, if everyone decided to have just 1 or 2 children then over time the numbers would decrease. We as idividuals wouldn't be missing out or losing anything but the world as a whole would be much healthier. Think about it.
MrAmsterjam 3 months ago
58 national science academies agree with this video. Almost 50% of pregnancies in the USA are unintended. Almost 40% of pregnancies worldwide are unintended.Condoms can save the planet and help people out of poverty especially if rich nations used condoms properly.
phillips78 3 months ago
My solution to the "overpopulation problem":
* Mass suicide by those believing overpopulation is a problem. By choosing to live they are being hypocrits. They can do something to reduce the problem but choose not to.
* Cut off all financial assistance to 3rd world nations.
* Stop state financing of AIDS medications. The majority of people with the disease brought it on by their behaviour.
* Deny all immigrants entry to the West.
* Reinstate the death penalty throughout the globe
thepotatovagina 3 months ago
@thepotatovagina No need for deaths, suicides or famines or coercion or death penalties or cutting off aid or stopping immigration. All you need is worldwide access to condoms/voluntary contraception and people like you to read some scientific peer reviewed reports on how unsustainable the human population is. p.s. 58 national science academies agree with me.
phillips78 3 months ago
@phillips78
The problem lies not with people in the West; it lies with the huge families of the East. But, since ethnics are little angels in leftist eyes, I'm guessing you'd rather prevent a Western couple from having the 2 or 3 children they desire than dare suggest that Mohammed and his 7 wives have less than 25 kids.
thepotatovagina 3 months ago
@thepotatovagina Actually our impact on the planet is a multiplication of consumption per capita and family size. A family in say Bangladesh or Pakistan or India uses 20 times less than a typical American hence a family size of 10 there still has less impact than a wealthy westerner and 3 kids. I digress though as bascially everyone should do their bit and choose to have small families whatever their nationality.
phillips78 3 months ago
@thepotatovagina There are other ways to reduce population over time than to kill off everyone.
norwedgianawesomenes 2 months ago
3:27 we have to get the world population to 2 billion or poor people can never escape poverty? this is some propaganda bull shit sounds like something shown at the elites fag ass robe ceremony's. super weak
SuperLotusfire 3 months ago
@SuperLotusfire 58 national science academies disagree with you and your ad hominems. Would you prefer that nature controlled our numbers or we choose to voluntarily before it gets to that point?
phillips78 3 months ago
It may not be a myth, and it may be a worry, but it SHOULDNT be a worry.
When a bird builds a nest it is natural right? When a man builds a house, why isn't that natural?
If it's really a natural crisis, then nature will destroy us.
But right now, theres enough to go around, more than enough.
The governments are so greedy and giving the rich countries more than they need, and we waste. So stop worrying and start pointing your finger at the man who enslaved you and tricked you into believing.
Amiles666 3 months ago
@Amiles666 "But right now, theres enough to go around, more than enough"-only from a rich unscientific persons perspective. The average consumption level on the planet is that of a botswanan or guatemalan and we have almost a billion who are malnourished. Please choose to have a smaller family so that those with less than you can have a meal today without destroying their environment.
phillips78 3 months ago
@phillips78 Thats very true. But the point is that, if we weren't governed by fat cats and assholes than supplies might actually be shared fairly, instead of america getting ridiculously fat and africa getting ridiculously skinny.
Amiles666 3 months ago
@Amiles666 Nature IS destroying us. Actually, we are pretty much destroying ourselves in different ways.
norwedgianawesomenes 2 months ago
We are overpopulating our world period. Just because a pig have many babies you also have to act like one. People still get praise for bringing lots of child into the world like a blessing but as our population start to increase it becomes a pest. Destruction to natural habitat for mall, houses, roads, less jobs. Would you want your child to live miserably in a hell on earth and fend for the last remaining resources. Its not hunger they will likely die from! greedy neighbor that want their bread
Pogi724 3 months ago
this is bull shit the world isnt overpopulated in fact we have enough food to feed everyone on the planet, the reason for starving people is war, poverty and lack of infrastructure, and we use less land to produce more food than 50 years ago, and we have the technology to turn the sahara desert into farmland, here watch this: watch?v=OXrN9HhnCcM&list=LL9ShijpB9-TaU14c0DDTHTA&index=1&feature=plpp_video
meee2014 3 months ago
@meee2014 "war, poverty and lack of infrastructure" all are made worse by population growth and growth in consumption. 1 billion are malnourished. Technology often increases consumption as it makes things cheaper.
phillips78 3 months ago
@phillips78 growth of the population means growth of the economy and of the overall nation, just look at china, and acutally with the growth of population, living standards have increased, and less people are being born, in japan the population is acutally dropping,more people=more consumption of goods and services=more jobs=economy growth if there was less people on the planet you wouldnt be living any better in fact you would be living worse than you are now
meee2014 3 months ago
@meee2014 The countries with the highest population growth have the worst economies actually. Do you actually think that economic growth is possible or needed forever?!
58 national science academies agree with me. Watch the new doc "growthbusters" for more info :)
phillips78 3 months ago
The "millennium ecosystem assessment" is just liberal code for "tax, tax, tax." The people who walk America's backwoods know the true state of the land and God's plan for our greater glory upon it. Only He can know when we are too numerous, for it was written long ago.
HorseCents 3 months ago
@HorseCents "God's plan for our greater glory upon it" if your sky fairy wants people to breed themselves out of a planet to live on then they should reconsider whether they are a force for good. I prefer science to suprerstition.
phillips78 3 months ago
@phillips78, you and the other libtards are just circle-jerking over your own opinions. Only God knows the true mind and motives of Man, and it's all under His control. There is nothing to worry about except taxation and gun control laws.
Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It takes FIVE. One changes the bulb from incandescent to CFL while the other four kiss Al Gore's hands and feet.
HorseCents 3 months ago
@HorseCents 1) Al Gore isn't a scientist so he is irrelevant as are your political ad hominems, evidence is the key here and you have yet to provide any for your own "opinion" 2) Do you think your particular brand of sky fairy would be pleased with your comments on here? 3) 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific evidence in the millennium ecosystem assessment indicate that humans are using resources faster than they are replaced or recycled by ecosystem services.
phillips78 3 months ago
@phillips78, there is no such thing as ecosystems, only God and his children. End of story.
HorseCents 3 months ago
@HorseCents Which brand of sky fairy do you subscribe to?
p.s. An ecosystem is a complex set of relationships among the living resources, habitats, and residents of an area or do you deny that living things interact?
phillips78 3 months ago
@phillips78, speak for yourself on fairies, you granola-munching, redwood-gazer.
I subscribe to the TRUTH which is self-evident to all who seek it. End of story.
HorseCents 2 months ago
@HorseCents Because praising the Bible sure helps. Look at the world history and see how far we have gotten with it.
norwedgianawesomenes 2 months ago
@Kubie5789 : Humankind is not a 'race' it's a species. Race & uniting race is irrelevant. If we don't reduce our population growth to replacement, or less than replacement, then our population will eventually collapse due to war, famine, drought & disease. The problem is that, if we don't act to limit our population before that point, we'll most likely drive most of the higher mammals (& a lot of other animal species) to extinction before lack of resources culls us.
randledj 3 months ago
@Kubie5789 The world population could fit into loch ness too but the world population "fitting" into an area isn't the same as surviving there with a good quality of life. The issue is growth in population and growth in consumption multiplied together, which gives us a figure for our impact.There are too many high consumption people who think growth can last forever. With less people through voluntary contraception everyone gets a greater share of resources and those in poverty can escape.
phillips78 3 months ago
@Kubie5789 You said: "If Human Beings would voluntarily control our consumption of the world's resources, the population could grow to 8 billion or more with no loss" Firstly the majority of the worlds population is living on very low consumption already and we have env collapse, the only way to increase their consumption with no long term environmental damage is for those who consume a lot per capita to have smaller families. Only the lack of a consumer means no consumption by that person.
phillips78 3 months ago
The government should do something now, ASAP.
10rosegarden14 3 months ago
@10rosegarden14 Whatever governments do it should be a voluntary programme. Thailand managed to reduce family size from a dangerous 7 kids per family down to 2 in just over 20 years by providing free access to contraception and an extensive family planning eduaction network. They also reduced AIDS infection rates at the same time.
phillips78 3 months ago
@10rosegarden14 this is bull shit the world isnt overpopulated in fact we have enough food to feed everyone on the planet, the reason for starving people is war, poverty and lack of infrastructure, and we use less land to produce more food than 50 years ago, and we have the technology to turn the sahara desert into farmland, here watch this: watch?v=OXrN9HhnCcM&list=LL9ShijpB9-TaU14c0DDTHTA&index=1&feature=plpp_video
meee2014 3 months ago
You miss the mark. Overconsumption will not occur as yo describe it. As more people have enough money to live like the developed nations, demand for food will grow making it more expensive and this will mean more people will stop eating as much and obesity will not be such a problem. Food will be redirected, the rich will eat less and the the poor will eat more, thus there won't be the crisis you claim. The same with other resources. Plus, as they move from poverty, fertility rates will fall.
tacticalmastermind 3 months ago
@tacticalmastermind you said: "As more people have enough money to live like the developed nations, demand for food will grow making it more expensive" If food gets more expensive then millions will die and democracy collapses, I've seen it first hand. Why let nature control our numbers with deaths from disease and starvation when we choose to have smaller families voluntarily and no deaths?
Name one dis-benefit from a population of 2 billion rather than 10?
phillips78 3 months ago
There is enough food for everyone on the planet. Usually the main problem for hunger in the world is economic issues. Central planning has generally been the cause of starvation in the world. This includes the Ethiopian famine, and hunger in India. When there were 1 billion people there was also starvation, was overpopulation the problem then? Think about it.
phil8888 3 months ago
@phil8888 you said "There is enough food for everyone on the planet" 1) Only if you/every human lives at the consumption level of a botswanan. Thats not going to happen. The only way for consumption to increase without further ecosystem collapse is for people to have smaller families. 2) What benefit is there from having 10 billion over 2 billion, (with 2 billion we have a greater share per person and everyone can live outside poverty)?
58 national science academies agree we are overpopulated.
phillips78 3 months ago
to all the freaking monkeys that actually believe that we are overpopulated!!
Commit suicide and leave a note behind stating the purpose of your act. I feel that that will free up some space for the rest of us to live. Might as well take the environmentalist by the hand so that they may join you.
dtwmtl 4 months ago
@dtwmtl 1) 58 national science academies plus 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific data agree with me that humans are using resource sfaster than they can be replaced or recycled, why don't you provide some evidence for your views instead of puerile comments. 2) No need for deaths, just access to voluntary contraception. 3) Why would you rather nature controlled our numbers harshly than we control ourselves?
phillips78 4 months ago 5
@phillips78 Could you please show links for the Scientific Literature that supports this?
jappud 3 months ago
@jappud I've added a few to the info section on the video but I have more if you need them.
phillips78 3 months ago
@dtwmtl We'll take 98% of all environment scientists with us, then. According to many here, death is the only option. -.-'
norwedgianawesomenes 2 months ago
@norwedgianawesomenes 1) 58 national science academies plus 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific data agree that humans are using resources faster than they can be replaced or recycled 2) No need for deaths, just access to voluntary contraception. 3) Better we limit ourselves voluntarily than let nature do it in an unpleasant way later.
phillips78 2 months ago
Our world is far from being over populated, cities are becoming over crowded because they cannot keep up with the population growth. We don't need more earth, we just need balance. More people moving to farm communities to promote more agricultural growth and larger farming communities so we can lean away from the big industries that inject our food with toxins that go into our bodies.
jcdenton100 4 months ago
@jcdenton100 "Our world is far from being over populated"- what scientific data do you base this comment on because 58 national science acadmies say we are overpopulated and the millennium ecosystem assesments 5 volumes of peer reviewed scientific data confirmed that humans are using ecosystem servuices faster than nature can replenish or recycle them.
phillips78 4 months ago
@phillips78 We have more land then we need, the building techniques and technology to build a ski resort in dubai could be used in the Sahara desert and even Antarctica. There is land that could be reused for farming in America. Small starving communities in Africa could use a makeover because they dont have the resources to survive, people in this world that are spending money on the huge city development they dont need could be used on other things in the world.
jcdenton100 4 months ago
@jcdenton100 I have heard many answers like yours but without an explanation of where the money and resources are supposed to come from. Your suggestions patch up consequences temporarily they don't deal with the long term cause of environmental damage, namely too many people, using too much, too quickly. Why deal with consequences when the cause is easier, cheaper and more prudent to deal with through voluntary contraception. Smaller families means more people go into education/less poverty.
phillips78 4 months ago
@phillips78 So the only way to have smaller families is to promote it but there is no law in America against having a certain amount of kids in your family, China has that law though and its just starting to take effect. I watched a video on overpopulation and it said we only need balance not more space, if we did need more space though theres always the possibility of building multi level cities. And that would be a sight to see! :D
jcdenton100 4 months ago
@jcdenton100 58 national science academies agree that we are overpopulated, find me one that says we are not. If we split resources equally we would all be living on the same amount as a guatemalan or botswanan and that's not including the other 2 billion expected by 2050!
phillips78 4 months ago
@phillips78 So what could we do? What are the effects of building indoor farms in Antarctica? Or even the Sahara desert? To downsize the human race, that would require a genocide or even a virus and im not sure we would want that at all. The best way to do this might be to stop having children but almost every adult or couple wants to have a child, how could the population be managed?
jcdenton100 4 months ago
@jcdenton100 There is no need for death, viruses or coercion for the human population to fall, it simply requires access to voluntary contraception and awareness of the simplicity of solving every environmental issue on the planet simply by having 2 children or less until we reach a more sustainble population worldwide (probably around 2 billion). My other video "One Planet, One Child goes into more detail on this. We need to stop solving consequences of our actions and look at causes instead.
phillips78 4 months ago
@phillips78 my interpretation of what you said is that in order for the human population to lower in number we first need to solve our environmental problems....im not sure if that is right.
jcdenton100 4 months ago
@jcdenton100 Sorry i think you misunderstood, my point was that reducing the human population through voluntary contraception means an end to environmental problems on a global scale. It also has the effect of raising wages, reducing poverty, increasing education access and less conflict.
phillips78 4 months ago 12
@phillips78 Good video although I would ask how in the current climate you are going to convince Durex to go out of business? It is hard enough convincing banks! Lol. I do agree in part by the way although I would state that our current economic paradigm is built on infinate growth and the stifling of progress in favour of profit. That is the real problem that needs addressing.
fibbsabaddy 2 months ago
overpopulationis only a sub issue of a much larger problem... poverty, the entire world can suppport over 2 trillion people hypothetically.
look at shanghi over 7,000 people a square kilometer and they have very little problem with that ammount of people, overopulation is similar to Hitler blaming jews for the worlds problems, its not the population but corrupt idiots who would rather have a few billion in their bank accounts then help starving famalies.
mrh112 4 months ago
@mrh112 1) Poverty is exacerbated by high population growth, large family size leads to low opportunity and less money for education. 2) Having lived in Shanghai, I would say there are many problems with such rapid growth, not to mention the fact that Shanghai is reliant on huge amounts of land outside the city for it's survival. Hitler didn't mention overpopulation (you broke Godwins law there) Hitler believed in growth of population, I don't. Smaller rich/poor families means an end to poverty.
phillips78 4 months ago
@phillips78
Poverty has actually decresed over the past 100 years yet the population has grown by 4 billion people...
Infact with more people a nation tends to develope faster as is visible in china and india, without their massive populations they would still be under developed, african nations again this is visible with nations with larger populations developing at a higer rate than thoes without.
Put simply overpopulation is a bad science because we are always progressing and advancing.
mrh112 4 months ago
@mrh112 China developed faster than India because of it's one child policy reducing family size thereby allowing more money to be spent on eduaction by parents. (No I don't agree with China's policy but it had the desired effect of reduicng poverty by reducing family size contrary to your beliefs that rapid population growth means less poverty?!) The countries with the highest growth rate have the greatest poverty. p.s. 58 national science academies disagree with you.
phillips78 4 months ago
@phillips78
You have a point assuming you included the fact china has a recent boom in economy not from the 1 child policy which is actually casing incresed poverty through an ageing population crisis and actually due to the recent large boost in manufacturing of electronic devices (over the last 15 years)
And the fact that "growth rate" is not population size... india has a steadying pop growth rate but over a billion people, as with china with reducing poverty.
mrh112 4 months ago
@mrh112 1) Constantly increasing the child base to pay for people who can work is a population ponzi scheme. 2) China doesn't have an ageing population crisis, money saved by people who had less kids more than covered old age costs. 3) The boom in techniology came from better educated children as a rsult of them coming from small families where more money could be spent on University education. China's poverty rate fell faster than India's due to small family size in China.
phillips78 4 months ago
@phillips78
You have to understand we as a species are constantly evolving in our technilogical aspects.
Saying we will have a population crisis by 2051 is like saying we would in 2011 while living in 1961, im sure they predicted computers, large transport ships, modern fuels and robotics in wide use back then in to their equasion of 4 billion people being a problem... wait they didnt...
Poverty is the problem, If you actually looked at real evidence you would see that even the UN agrees.
mrh112 4 months ago
@mrh112 You would rather rely on technology that has yet to be invented by other people (I bet you haven't invented anything) and keep patching up the consequences of growth, than actually deal with the cause of our problems, too many people, using to much, too fast. The solution is voluntary contraception access. The UN states that rapid population growth is a major cause of poverty, look at Lagos, Manilla or L.A.
Where is poverty greatest, in the areas with the greatest population growth.
phillips78 4 months ago