Feet?

Next stop, Prager U gravy train?

@adamferguson5468 I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Shapiro funds the next video

I’ll pass.

Already did! Their stuff is great

How you comment so fast if the video is an hour long?

@@user-ik8tb5qh7c Because I had a general idea of where the video was going and what the main point was going to be.

​@@user-ik8tb5qh7cmuch like our protagonist, he saw the writing on the wall.

@@jack.h99 It felt like 5 minutes

​@@ShatteredKnightamongus

the book is correct re overpopulation, its the root cause of the dysfunctional and sad state of the World today.

They definitely didnt take his advice they had their own population boom they couldnt support.....

You don't think the USA is collapsing. I got news for you.

and communism, alot of communism, god thats alot of communism.

Ehrlich is basically a feminist sustainability guru.

1 In 10 are starving today.

@@TheBigChoomah starvation has never been a supply issue, its a logistics and transportation issue. Learn what the actual problems are first

@dracotoy It's cruel to adopt a dog when you have a 0% chance of being able to feed and water it properly is it not.

​@@dracotoy...never YET. There is zero evidence to suggest that "yet" shouldn't be included. The problem with dismissing the carrying capacity idea is that all your data is backward looking. Furthermore, there's the legitimate concern that every addition human is a burden the global system. Can we ally technology and efficiency such that we won't also need to engage austerity and mortal sacrifice...? Well, there isn't an answer other than "maybe" or "we can expect a self-correction" or "we don't need to be worried about it yet"....seriously, no definitive statement of nth level optimism can exist. Furthermore, if at any point we decide that another stage of human action is needed, are we sure we won't have already passed the point where the carrying capacity maximization we've already embarked upon won't make that new stage impossible?

@@dracotoyit’s also a tyranny problem.

*BFG Division plays*

It’s about better education…. Not indoctrination . Great dialectic though.

@@corticallarvae Yeah, let's not elect Biden again.

@@metalmike570 Hä?

@@Gernot66 You're right, he's not really a war monger I guess.

I need it like I need oxygen to breathe. Feels like I'm suffocating on second-hand twitter takes.

@@insederecWhy not just pull the plug? Who needs that garbage?

@@allanshpeley4284 I don't have social media.

​@@insederecgot suspended on twitter, best thing that ever happened to me

​@@allanshpeley4284 well you still need to keep up with the state of the world, right?

Disagree, look @ the power man has now. What's the only thing they can think to do with that power? GREED.☹

I guess the thing holding me back from getting any sense of optimism from that is that it really feels like most of the world’s problems are also _caused_ by people and that we only solve them when our backs are against the wall and we absolutely have to

Yeah, but most people are coming together behind capitalism rather than acting in their own biological, fundamental interests.

Yeah, it's why fascists and neocons are pretty much always conspiracy theorists, Malthusian philosophy is on its face built entirely on lateral thinking, making connections between every possible cause and saying that they're all the same. Problem is, of course, that Malthus is wrong. We aren't hungry, lazy masses seeking to only breed and eat, in fact most of us are very willing to put in work and thought into not only improving the world but sustaining it.

@@redgreen2453 Yeah, but the people who mainly cause those problems are typically the type of people who are Malthusian and/or Machiavellian, so what we should do is limit that type of thinking because it's exactly what results in it happening. If we look at the 1927 Einstein-Bohr debate (fifth solvay conference), we can see the brightest minds of the early 20th century all gathered together, around half of them are Jewish. If the Malthusian, Machiavellian Hitler would've got the world as he wanted it, most of those scientists would've been killed. It isn't ever a realistic proposition, because it only works for those who have or are seeking power and control, and not for anyone else

Idealist, which is an organization, so it ends with the abbreviation of the word "organization"

I didn’t tear up but I did notice I’ve become a bit pessimistic over the last three decades. One thing I learned from this video, I’ve been concentrating on all the negative things happening and not enough on how to change it for the better. My mother tried to convey positive theory’s to me early on and I laughed at her. I’m not laughing now but I sure feel more optimistic for the future. 😉

That's funny. I cried there too.

You know what's crazy about that? The amount of people who know about the fact that world leaders meet yearly to discuss the direction of our lives and yet we can do nothing about it.

@@jonathanalexander9881 I keep thinking that surely not every world power is thrilled with the WEF... and that Davos might be an unusually dangerous city to live in as a result.

The WEF

@@kathrynck No more dangerous than any other major US city.

Exactly

I was hoping 99942 Apophis was going to hit earth. but it wont :(

There are less and less intellectual people, we are doomed! 😂

​@@SuperLifestreamIt would be quite a show. But good that it doesn't hit.

You watched the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate too?

agreed ^ Thank you so much Kevin

Yeah, very inspirational. I need to avoid the doom and gloom and focus on what I can do to make the world better more.

I'd like to thank balloon Kevin, too, for the emotional support he provides

Don't go popping his 🎈

It wasn't about population _density_ in any particular local area, but about population _growth_. The USA and other "western industrialized"" countries had (and have) very low population growth compared to, say, many African or Asian countries The skin colour was tangental to the demographic. The mere fact of having a crowded apartment, neighbourhood, subway car or even entire city wasn't the entire story. Furthermore, have you ever even been to, say, Manila or Kathmandu or Dhaka? They're WAY more dense than NYC, which is only 25% as dense as the most dense city. NYC isn't even in the top 100 densest cities.

@patientzerobeat My impression reading it was that he was clearly disgusted by the "people, people, people, people" he saw in India, not by the mere growth rates of the population around him. He didn't emphasize growth rates in that passage. But he never evinced any such disgust in describing densely populated cities in the western world, which I suppose _could_ have been coincidence.

Maybe the conditions related to children starving to death - while their parents continue to have more children - had something to do with his disgust. Or he's a disgusting, evil racist. When in doubt, always assume racism, that's what I say.

@@Pandaemoni, I think you need to experience a truly high density area of the world, which will make NYC seem like nothing to get all hot and bothered about. There is simply no comparison.

@@patientzerobeat It's been a while since I was a teenager, and since then I have been to Bangladesh, Manila, Delhi, and a few other places thought to be very crowded, though I am not sure what places you are thinking of. We have not seen the problems Erlich predicted on the scale he asserted they would manifest. While every place has its challenges to be solved, I have come to think of people as the solution to most problems, not merely as problem-causers whose very existence is to be regretted. I also still believe, obviously, that Erlich's palpable disgust was, in part and perhaps subconsciously, a result of a certain racist sensibility that saw population growth as a real issue, but high non-white population density as a reason for true disgust. Maybe that is not true of the man, but, if so, he really should have edited The Popularion Bomb a little better to remove that implication. At the time I read it, I found it convincing, but a little racist. That then led to me reading other, more recent, studies on the same topic where I learned the book was largely wrong in its dire predictions (at least in the time frames it was predicting those problems). Still, nothing I read changed my opinion that the book would have even more persuasive if the pointedly misanthropic passages were less targeted at non-white populations than they seemed to be. Still, llike the quatrains of Nostradamus, we can read the book to be a prophesy of future disaster even though it was not proven right in its own age, but I think that requires a generous reading of some of the predictions. For example, global warming is a problem, but thus far the greatest cause of that problem has been the western world, not the places that had the highest poplation density. It is possible that will change at some point, but historically the issue has been caused more by the affluence of countries than it has been by their high population growth.

I didn't like how the video started because I thought it was going to be nihilist porn.

​@FirstNameLastName-okayyoutube oh... then make your own. I look fwd to watching

Not enough for me. I still do not trust nations with high birth rates.

It is not hopeiun, simple truth.

@@Milen983 Leaves out dysgenics.

The problem with that is Malthusians want less people and more poverty to preserve resources. That's on of the fundamental flaw of their thinking. The other big one is the assumption that resources are finite. In reality we are just very inefficient with some, which can be fixed with better technologies. For example if Africans would have access to the same technologies and machines that American farmers use, nobody would starve, they would be struggling with obesity too. And that's still super primitive compared to what's already possible at lab scale.

@@TheLevifrancisco You could even say it's a "Problem that's been identified and in need of correction." lmao. Because overinflated importance is just as deadly as enforced ignorance. Overabundant emissions could have been solved ages ago if we went full bore into nuclear power instead of "renewables" that are hardly renewable considering all the resources that go into making wind turbines and solar panels that don't even have a long term plan on how to recycle those resources. Meanwhile we have places like France that run almost entirely on nuclear power and doing great meanwhile Germany going full bore into renewables and suffering for it. Yes pointing out problems for people to solve is important but make sure they're actually problems in the first place. Take for instance the "Homelessness problem." in the US isn't a homelessness problem, it's a drug and mental illness problem, homelessness is just a side effect and you can't fix the drug and mental illness problem by giving people houses or even the opportunity to buy houses. Not to mention California and New York Alone contribute to over 40% of the united states homeless population (600k for a population of 340 million btw), so one could argue that the US doesn't have a homeless problem when two states with 1/6th the country's population is contributing to nearly half it's homeless population.

Our first goal should be to grow at a sustainable level. 4 people can live in your house in relative comfort. 4000 in your house and tell me how "rich" everybody is.

The real problem is that the RICH want more people and more poverty, because only poor people work. Rich people aren't going to mow your lawn, clean your house, make yoiur food, pack your meat, or farm yoiur fields. Thats why the rich LOVE poverty , immigration, and the hig fertility and squalid living conditions that the masses are forced to endure. Its the new slavery.@@andrasbiro3007

How about 8?@@TheLevifrancisco

Not if you have the adequate resources to educate, than they may end up not contributing for a society, instead bringing more people without the means for them to solve the problems. Its more of a capitalist problem and to some extent compliance amongst those who dont see the problem with the system and its exploitation under the guise of the market

one down, 8 billion to go. oops no, its nearly 9 billion now lol

​@@andy-the-gardenerhere hoping to see the 69 billion

@@kimitohanahala8674 let's go to space... also: ya better do your part! breed af.

@@andy-the-gardener Except Rosling was wrong. He was only concerned about what current wheat production was capable of feeding. He was not concerned about what the planet can sustain.

@@Tore_Lund roslin certainly was wrong. big time.

you're a different one brudda

@@user-iu8cb2bx4h brudda dog, da dog wit da brudda on 'im

i am inspired to eat more mac n cheese while watching vsauce2

‘accustomed’ being the key word. The ‘style’ wore me down to a nub.

same here. showed my younger cousin (highschooler now) and he got hooked watching the classics

DeepAsleep :D MördörLuciferian fake Mocking other MördörLuciferian. Can you please be honest and tell the lamb they are completely dead.

in'net didn't be when i was a kid

you had to irl walk, up hill both ways, mind you, down to a brick and mortar retailer, what we use to call a "store", and buy our vsauce in a jar ,and try not to drop it on the way home (jars were glass then)

@@intellectually_lazy Was the Vsauce in a heavy sugar syrup? Or was it in creamy chonk condition?

The homeless man you see in the street eats as well as a man from a thousand years ago

Lmao. Sort of hard to achieve, create, or innovate any creative solutions when our society essentially just wants wage slaves to manage the status quo. The amount of talent that goes to waste in America, for many reasons (politics, “need the next check, little opportunity for smart people.) is absolutely sickening. The boomer system of misery loves company is a massive shame, arguably the biggest failure ever of humans. End of the day we prove we are emotional after all, not logical as we wish.

@carsonhunt4642 no opportunity for smart people in America? You get any proof for that or just making up something

​@@user-ik8tb5qh7cthe average man ate every day, had shelter and worked. If he was away from civilisation , he could hunt and fish in lands and waters that are now privately owned or prohibited from use because we have hunted so many land species to extinction.

@thomascromwell6840 no seasoning no spices no good fruits or vegetables no charity from others

yeah most scientists think the world population will hit about 10b then cap off, birth rates in some places are already lower than rate of death. across the world the birth rate is already 30% lower than it was 20 years ago. all it takes is for the birth rate to fall below 2 children per woman on average and you have a population decline.

Its a model predicated on the association between 'development' which is a construct derived from multiple different variates and birthrates. No guarantee that industrialization is the causation given the total lack of control in this observation (good luck funding an experiment to actually test any of this though). Seeing mental and physical health issues are also skyrocketing with these developments I tend towards the hypothesis its a change in food and environment that has led to the declining birth rates and rise in poor health outcomes. Still only a hypothesis though. Basically we have set natural selection to hyperdrive because of the rapid change in environment and food over the last century. Declining birth rates are those being selected against. Its also something I think we could address if we actually took the metabolic epidemic seriously.

@@MathiasMartinWR "No guarantee that industrialization is the causation " It is the causation as you don't see it on any previous human era. We have the entirety of the human history as control. Its only now that's different.

@@MathiasMartinWR A large proportion of children in developed societies are not planned. They are "happy accidents". Our carnal desires used to result in families of six to eight kids. Then we invented birth control and in two or three generations that dropped to around two. Emancipation of women and the desire for modern possessions also pressured towards smaller families, as it was no longer automatic that the ladies would stay at home and cook and reproduce. The blurring of gender lines and the collapse of the "traditional" family also causes fewer families with fewer children. Developed countries adjust this situation by attracting migration from underdeveloped countries, either intentionally or not. Those from underdeveloped countries tend to have larger families for the opposite of the above reasons. In the UK, for example, the indigenous population (of which I am one) is decreasing while the overall population is increasing.

​@@MathiasMartinWRlul, you talk about a lack of a control experiment while making perhaps the stupidest of all guesses 😂😂😂 way to expose yourself as cognitively impaired

😂 Time is short. Wage slave and make some KZfaqrs "rich" in the final days.

Wish you the best, man.

There was never a reason to be doom-scrolling.

lolol adhd+depression are two buddy

Also worked too hard to have proper time for family

Yeah I wondered about that. And it's not splitting hairs. It's very important to be accurate.

I remember hearing about it and not believing it

I think it is a great video but just like every other video, even made by professionals, there are certain details that should be mentioned. Like you said, we are not the only lifeform on this planet. About 1 species goes extinct per day. The problem is not noticeable to most humans since most of us aren’t spending all our time in the forests and verifying how things are going. There are scientists who observe it but even they don’t know what will happen in future. All they can tell us that when you remove a species, part of the food web collapses. An example given in the video is the milkweed or whatever plan that is getting reduced and this effects the monarch butterfly. As for resources, the only reason human population went up is because a lot of fertilizer is being produce. This is something that he did not discuss in the video. You need to make NH3 and use that as fertilizer. Some of the NH3 is converted to NO2 which is converted to HNO3 to make NH4NO3, Ca(NO3)2. These are used as fertilizers. You also need to mine Ca3(PO4)2 since phosphate is also an important anion for planets. The number of farmers went down but due to automation and fertilizers, the production went up. In order to produce all that fertilizer, such as NH3, you need an energy source since there isn’t any mine for NH3. The energy source is petrol and coal. There is plenty of petrol and coal mines. What happens when those resources get exhausted? I don’t know. Maybe some countries will rely on hydro plants for their energy source to make fertilizer. As for other mines. There are no gallium mines. Gallium is an impurity in Al2O3 mines. I think gallium is still used for LEDs. The price has gone up quite a lot. Indium: this is used as In2O3 as a transparent conductive coating for your monitors. There aren’t too many mines in the world. There is research to replace this with a SnO In2O3 or replace it completely with Al2O3 but it isn’t working out well. I think this problem will be solved eventually. If you need platinum, palladium, rhodium as a catalyst for your car, these are very limited resources. Also, humans are reactionary. For example, cars: a lot of people started dying due to horrific car accidents. It took time to come up with the idea of seatbelts, where to place stop signs, where to place traffic lights. Airbags: it took time to invent this and make it mandatory. Tetraethyl lead: again, it took time to use an alternative. These are all very recent inventions and already, they have caused a lot of problems. I’m not saying these inventions should disappear. I don’t want to live in the 18xx and previous to that. Who want to get rid of cars and ride around with horses? I like the modern life and living in a city. Almost nobody wants to go back to those old days.

Not true. America's conventional oil production peaked around 1970. Economic circumstances allowed fracking to increase US production again for a while from around 2008, but world oil production has now peaked. Since humanity depends on oil, this video is garbage.

You shouldn't disparage Elon Musk. For all his faults, he is a Titan of mankind. He has nearly single handedly reignited our reaching for the stars. The largest existential risk to humanity is the fact that we are a single planet species. All other 'emergencies' become less daunting when you have your eggs in more than one basket.

@@_SimpleSam elon musk is an embarrassing fraud

@@_SimpleSam😂😂😂

@@_SimpleSam I'm not sure whether to laugh at your comment or instead laugh at you because you're actually serious.

@@_SimpleSam Woke is a mind virus, dont listen to the haters.

since when is unhinged hopium and ignorance "good work"?

and your solution for that is population control and genocide? no thanks, hitler. everyone sane would rather take their chances

Generalizations all around. This is why doomerism has failed for 2000 years.

What you're forgetting is that we can have an impact on how damaging that nickle mine is(just to follow up on the example you provided). its unavoidable that while the nickle mine is operating it will have some kind of negative environmental impact, however, as a society we can figure out ways to mitigate that impact and not just that, we can repair the environment afterwards. In my home country of Canada mining corporations are required by law to do environmental hazard assessments and create and follow strategies to mitigate them (or face revocation of their mining license) and not just that but mining corporations are required to repair the surrounding area after mining operations cease. As a result of this the areas around mining operations are usually better off than they were before the mine was built. These measures have lead to Canadian mining operations in the NWT or YK being some of if not the cleanest in the world and it only gets better from here -assuming we decide thats what we want. Not to mention, as technology has increased things have generally gotten greener, a mine in 1800 was way more damaging to the environment when expanded to be on a comparable scale to modern day mining operations, but it seemed less damaging because operations were smaller. Similarly, I suspect (however I have no real idea nor does anyone else for that matter) that in another 200 years we will look back on modern day mining operations and assume they were horribly dirty(hopefully we'll think that cause they happened on earth instead of in space, but thats just what I hope happens). Technology usually makes things greener, we become better stewards of our planet, we get better at using what we have and we need less of it to do more, and I see no reason that this trend should diminish.

​@@DingDingTheKZfaqBuddy The mining thing was just an example but I am not this optimistic. If you don't force companies to be greener they have no incentive to be greener. In France we have an aluminium plant in the south that have been releasing arsenic into the Mediterranean see since the 60's with authorization from the French government, since this factory employs thousands of people. This company also produced fake scientific report claiming the this would have no impact on biodiversity. They only stopped in 2021, now they take it by ship to the coast of western Africa and dump it there. There's not much possible for repairing this kind of damage to the environment sadly. In the end the economic interest is all that counts, since no government wants to be the one not favouring jobs in a sluggish economy, and companies lobbying is making sure they think of their interests first. Technologies may become greener in the future, but if the scale of production and demand expands the negative impacts will still grow, and we will not be able to depollute all of that, since most of the time, it's either impossible or not economically viable. I believe it's better to limit our impact now rather than bet that we will be able to fix it all in the future, because we don't know what the future will hold, and if technologies will actually become greener.

@@maximedersoir7055i feel that's quite a moronic way of thinking

while fertility is going down super fast...

​@@JimBoom92😏

Wrong. The planet's resources are finite. Hoping that more creative people will be born won't change that. Optimism is just a lie that you tell yourself so you don't have to face reality.

the problem is you guys aren't having kids, so the government HAS to bring immigrants because of your aging population, otherwise Canada would collapse like japan is. It's your people's fault or I should say the dogma about not having kids so you can go on adventures that's gripped you all

Our population has been exploding despite us, not having the infrastructure for it. Hospitals, libraries, schools etc. Housing for sure. It's insane. I don't think it's for lower wages as much as it's for increased economic activity. Growth. More people means more economic activity, and so the government can claim the economy is doing well.

@@jasondashney the national bank of Canada actually just released a statement saying they're in a population trap which is where your population increases so fast that your countries standard or living can't keep up. It's so simple and basic that one has to question how the leaders of a nation just up and decided to increase the population to such a degree.

It's going to sink them in the next election. I can't wait. Countries all over the western world are waking up.@@nomorenames5568

It's crazy that people are still afraid of overpopulation, when we are facing population collapse, which is far far worse. Most economic and political issues that we are struggling with today are consequences of the aging population, which precedes the collapse. If you don't believe it, just look up the birth rates and age distribution.

@@andrasbiro3007 We still have overpopulation… 8 billion is too much, it’s time to shrink. Governments should start figuring out a new pension system which is more sustainable.

We have a distribution issue not overpopulation. @@naniyotaka

@@naniyotaka We could probably afford to sustain and maintain a population up to 10 billion with the right combination of factors/economic movements/policies all things considered As quality of life rises, people reproduce less because there's less imperative to do so. If we can raise general quality of life worldwide then we don't have much to worry about and it'll plateau at about our maximum.

Its crazy that you haven't been to a major American city, or Mumbai, Shanghai, London...@@andrasbiro3007

I would argue that we aren't anywhere near that limit, and neither will our great grand children be. Much of the planet is uncolonized and/or under colonized.

@@_SimpleSam Lets not tear down more forests and jungles shall we?

The point is that the fact that people were able to work hard and make sure it didn’t happen is exactly why he was WRONG!

that's what got Miliken canceled, but if it's for The Planet, you get a pass.

No, not really. Overpopulation is a WEF propaganda lie. We have an overcrowding issue and a resource distribution problem.

The dichotomy is between the instinctual doomsaying of Ehrlich and the nuanced perspective of Simon.

I'm not so sure. The presenter seems pretty heavy-handed when it comes to adhering to Simon's perspective. I don't think that is a very nuanced way of looking at things@@VoidHugger

Ehrlich was wrong. His predictions didn't hold up. Note I didn't say won't, he predicted we're already done and plummeting in population decades back, he was wrong, why should his incorrect assumptions be given any real let alone equal weight. Population may in fact be nuanced. Ehrlich be wrong isn't.

@@bryanandhallieIt’s required to prove why something is right, as by default ideas are wrong. It is not important to prove every way something can be wrong, just once. It is important to prove how something is right however.

There has been a lot of writing on debunking the tragedy of the commons esp from the left wing. id say look into it

There are lots of studies and yes you are correct. You don't need any studies to see that when you have limited ownership of land, you respect the land, because you can't just easily get more land. Under Feudalism, the land you had was the only land you'd ever have. When you can buy land and just disregard it when you're finished and can buy more, of course it's going to be thrashed. That's the problem with capitalism. All that matters under capitalism is profits. If the land collapses, the rich don't care, they'll always eat.

Especialy when your usefulness is calculated in dollars

⁠​⁠@@neilhannay4976🔥☄️💥

Not really. There is never any need to justify your existence. However, if you serve no purpose then there is no reason for anyone to trade with you. That doesn't mean you die, it only means that you have nothing to offer anyone else, and that means you either have to have your own means of survival or rely on the charity of others who are willing to feed you. Think about that, and how it works. If you are in a place with free people generating lots of wealth then there are many people doing well and so many willing and able to be charitable. But if you are in a slave state, a socialist cesspool with limited ability to gain wealth, then you have a lot fewer people willing or able to be charitable and even government less able to rob the people to redistribute the more limited wealth to you.

There is no lie everyone would have been better off if India and other countries had heeded his advice. If you are not wealthy do not have more than one kid, its a pretty simple idea one that the state will have to enforce.

Ehrlich was wrong. Period. If his "advice" had been followed, India, China, and the rest of the world would be suffering from population implosion. And when proven wrong, Ehrlich simply ignored the pesky truth. And his acolytes have been pushing his lies non-stop.

None. It is a pure element. You can mix copper and tin to make bronze.

no everything will be okay and we don’t have to do anything about anything because the spirit of mankind is indomitable

100% this. Any threat of destabilization also brings with it the possibility to change for the better.

@@oberonpanopticon Ah yes, the Warhammer 40k way

@@davisdf3064 pretty sure that’s more “throw indomitable spirit of mankind ((bodies)) at it until it dies or otherwise goes away”. Same as the SCP foundation.

"doomerism is so useful!!!" right after watching a video where doomers sterilized 6 million people, and thats not even close to the worst things people believing in near inevitable apocalypse have done in the past century.