I have only returned to study this issue for the first time since my youth during the early 70's. Back then, it was issue of stopping further growth; now we hear that world population has to drop significantly to reach a sustainable level. What I am finding confusing, is what that sustainable level should be! The Overpopulation is not a Myth video sets the number at 2 billion with a European standard of living. Others I've come across, like retired engineer - Jack Alpert , believe that number is too high and doesn't properly factor in all the resources we use, and sets the number at 100 million for the eventual target....don't know how we'll ever get there, but I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to get a clearer picture of what the target should be. Thanks again for your channel.

I agree with your response to Texasjim.....why is it always Texas? TJ doesn't realize that Robert Malthus wasn't proven wrong just by the mere fact that we are still here today. Malthus was using the best evidence for resource use available at the time, and didn't forecast how much more of the natural environment could be harnessed through the Industrial Revolution. Same goes for Paul Ehrlich -- who's reputation was trashed because more oil was taken out of the ground and everything seemed to be back to normal in the 80's. But, it wasn't! All that happened was the Green Revolution allowed us to raise the stakes even further and take even more of the natural environment. This time, I see it as time to either fold or call, because we have reached the final limit of how many chips the Earth will allow us to gamble with.

in response to Texasjim 2007: 1) This isn't the 19th century so things have changed considerably since then. 2) 58 national science academies agree that overpopulation is a major issue 3) the millennium ecosystem assessment -an international synthesis by over 1000 of the world's leading biological scientists that analyses the state of the Earth's ecosystems found that the majority of ecosystems studied are in decline and that we rely on ecosystem services for trillions of dollars of free services per year that would need replacing if we continue to use ecosystem service resources faster than they can be replaced or recycled. 4) The rich countries have a greater impact than poorer ones due to high consumption per capita multiplied by theri population 5) Both socialism and capitalism rely on economic growth and sometimes wars so neither system is environmentally or people friendly. 6) Many civil wars start over a lack of resources

The reason socialists are emotionally biased towards a crackpot theory that would have killed everybody in England off in the 19th Century if Malthus had been right is that it gives them a convenient rationalization for killing off tens of millions of people in two world wars started by socialist greed for other people's property and tens of millions of Ukrainians and Jews being starved to death by socialists to steal their food.

Loved your answer to that troublemaking esther19741974 on your "Overpopulation is NOT a MYTH - OVERCONSUMPULATION" vid which we just faved. Great channel, man! We just subscribed.

Check out my other vids

whar other places have u been besides borneo and thailand