I've been following both Zeihan and Peterson for years, they've been among my favourite educators. I've long imagined a conversation between them. Who knows, Zeihan is on his book tour right now so it's not impossible for him to get on Peterson's channel.

We had 5 children, and when we started getting shamed for it, decided to have two more. I don't think shaming really works, but no doubt Peterson is right that people try it (under the guise of saving the planet). Zeihan is I think more correct, but both approaches are probably right, just to varying degrees.

Funny that the narrator fails to link the two positions with the one similarity... Peterson began by saying that as soon as women are educated, the birthrate drops precipitously, something not at all dissimilar to what Zeihan says about it being more about industrialization. For those who fail to see the link between those two positions all I can do is shake my head.

9 or so minutes to Dr. Peterson and 2 minutes to Mr. Zeihan….the video clearly shows that the philosophical side is more important!

Excellent!

Zeihan is more right than Peterson. We have plenty of people, even with the demographic trends Zeihan speaks about, but, not for the current economic model which requires growth. For growth you need more people. We need a steady state economy, which requires changes to our financial system and our metrics for what is good (true and beautiful as well).

Its a cost/benefit analysis backfiring. Most people want their kids to do at least as well as themselves. If you are a Doctor, Engineer, etc. it takes significantly more investment for that than if you are poorly educated and in poverty.

And now we are seeing shortage of workers, here in NZ alone, we need 20,000 Nurses and Hospitality venues need to shut atleast one day a week now due to low staffing and so many more industries are screaming out for workers. This is happening globaly

2 perspectives, thanks

Simple : IT'S TOO FLIPPING EXPENSIVE!

If there is nothing more to life but acquiring wealth, influence and power than we have failed as a species. We already walk the path of self destruction. The human mindset has not changed for a million years, but our weapon systems and destructive technologies have. If we don't learn how to cooperate in order to establish a healthy liveable existence for human kind on our planet then we will go down the drain of self extinction and the Earth would not care. It has happened many times before (in different ways). We need deeper insights into ourselves in order to understand who we are. That requires constant awareness of our thoughts and actions.

It's good to have the knowledge of the things that are shaping our world, but these are forces you can't do much about on a personal level.

The Pill changed everything. Effective contraception made the changes in demographics possible, regardless of urbanization or the rise of post-modernism.

I am more familiar with Mr. Zeihan’s public published predictions: I expect that where he is categorical, he is correct. Zeihan is usually careful to note the point where his predictions become warnings of possibilities rather than ‘baked-in’ unavoidable results. Mr. Zeihan also refrains from making firm detailed predictions regarding conditions, outcomes, and trends beyond the turn of the 22nd century. Though the effects of changes in population take decades to manifest, it is still the case that no trends are forever: Twenty-Second century population numbers that are similar to mid-twentieth century numbers suggest that there would be a sufficient potential basis for trend reversal even though early twenty-second century populations might well be much older on average than mid-twentieth century populations were.

Two of the smartest and knowledgeable men I have heard of !

Person is permanently angry

When the world is rid of selfish souls through aging and disease, the remnant will be much younger and will have a chance to rebound and abandon the material to strive for the spiritual.

I'll be stupid to have children in this time too expensive to live

The math had us plateauing at 11-13 billion. Apparently it didn’t include the socio-economic factor.

Good clips but how does this answer the question you posed? Nothing of value was really added here beyond the original content.

I think Zeihan is closer on the mark as to why the population collapse is happening than Peterson, ultimately I (from my layman's POV) think human population is self-adjusting. At one point in early human history there were less than 20000 living human beings on the entire planet. We bounced back from that pretty well. Same with the Bronze Age collapse, same with the fall of Rome, the Black Death, both world wars. I'm not saying it's not gonna suck living through the next few decades/centuries (depending on how bad it gets), but unless someone gets an itchy finger near the nuke launch button, we'll probably be fine.

Jordan Petterson needs to have a conversation with Peter Zion

The world is unstable, the prices are going up, the wages are going down, debt is going up, the divide between the rich and poor is larger than ever (and growing), harsh natural events are on the rise, the legal system promotes divorce, culture/society (school systems) indoctrinate your children, a.i. and automation are on the rise (the economic system needs to be altered to respond to this, but it won't be),..... etc. Etc... what is the incentive exactly for having children?

But will this collapse happen soon enough to prevent a Runaway Hothouse Earth?

Peterson “As soon as you educate woman family size collapses because they have other options “

zeihan explains so much while saying so little and involving objective information ; when you stand him up against peterson it makes jordy look kind of pathetic imo ; example jordan peterson says the war in ukraine is because of woke-ism and zeihan points to the greater strategic, economic, demographic and cultural reasons they're not even on the same level when it comes to foreign relations, geopolitics... the stuff peterson talks about and concerns his messaging with just aren't pertinent in the world of diplomacy and geopolitics

Population collapsing could be True for the West or Developed Nations, in Developing countries like here in India we have plenty of people. you will never feel lonely i assure you.

Nice comparison. Get a better mic though my dude

The one thing you forget, is that it cost money to have kids. And as the cost-of-living goes up, one cannot afford to have kids.

There are some mathematical equations that predict a cyclic medium of the population where we may be over populated now and headed to a point of a minimal population this will turn around from that point to a time of growth of population and again and again this will happen. the way we survive will also change as the population changes it will go in this way

I have listened to a few videos of both of these gentlemen. My take is that Peterson has very strong opinions on how the world should be and how humans should conduct them selves. He is very sure he is right and is predicting a disaster is near because people are deciding to have fewer children. My guess is humans will figure out how to deal with declining populations in spite of the hardships that will occur. I think Peterson's self assure attitude sets him up for mistakes. Zeihan on the other hand bases his outlooks on more scientific footings pointing out facts and logical outcomes. Most of his predictions make sense. For instance he points out the importance of the age group from 25 to 50 as both suppling the labor for production and providing the demand to keep an economy churning. Therefore a population that lacks young people will contract which is not good for a country. He predicts the population bust will create hardships but not necessarily disaster.

Why is it a crisis? As far as I am concerned collapsing population is a good thing. Less Pollution, more food and space for everyone.

When my kids were small the evening was totally taken up with dinner to bedtime vhores

As a VHEMT activist I lean back and smile. Maybe world population will stabilize on a level that's actually sustainable and doesn't destroy every last ecosystem by its mere existence? What if we find a way to live that doesn't constantly destabilize the basis of our existence? A climate-neutral, resource-neutral circular economy that recognizes all resources are finite and uses our rubbish to mine for secondary raw materials. With fewer people competing for the same sparse resources everybody will be better off. It's just the transition that will be a little rough, as long as there are a lot of seniors supported by fewer young people. Getting used to a post-growth world can be bumpy, but in the end we have no choice.

We need to get these 2 in a room together. They may have some ideas for a solution. It would certainly be better than nothing.

Unfortunately the world is like that movie idiocracy.

Peterson is an unmatched genius; I do not feel what they express are juxtaposed...Zeihan expressions are what can be seen yet Peterson reaches deeper into meaning which do nor believe Zeihan pretends to do. Apples and oranges

So, if we know the human population collapse will end globalism and significantly lower economic output, then why such a rush to accelerate the elimination of fossil fuels in such a wreckless manor? What is the point of "going green" if it's not for the sustainability of humankind?

I don’t hear any solutions

Survival is a challenge because we are designed to see who will suffer, who will be rich, who will be poor, if you can feel whatever happened, whatever hardwork you do, still not working it's BECAUSE you are designed to SUFFER, why put a effort, let's all jump in the lake, those rich will they help poor, if they can give big salaries to survive why not? And everything goes up, we need to plant in order to survive, and work in order to pay bills. So in the next generations how can we race if everything is expensive it means to survive, is to SUFFER, so how can we produce next generations.NOTHING... 😞😞😞ITS SO SAD TO SEE EVERYTHING, EVERYONE to be like this.

Two of my favorite people.

These opinions are so humanized. What do other animals on this planet worry about if too many of their species live on it? Most living things just grow and multiply. This is a human concept. Is it justified?

While I'm in agreement with Jordan Peterson on most issues I can't help feeling the idea that there are too many of us should be tied to 'shame' or 'guilt' is rather missing the point, wilfully?. Equally I'm entirely alongside to idea that us humans have our built-in nature and it drives me crazy when so many actively refuse to face that reality because they don't like it. However we have the gift (curse?) of thought so let's use it. The notion "There are too many people" is not the same as saying "People are bad" or "Your having children is bad". It's not a matter of 'guilt', it's just numbers. Is the assertion there are too many people right or wrong? Personally I would say there are too many of us but even then it's a matter of nuance. If we are talking the Earth's carrying capacity the number you come up with has a lot to do with how much you value lifestyle, are willing to change habits, and how much you value other organisms you increasingly come in to direct competition with as your numbers grow. The last thing you want is to face some kind on Malthusian crisis or environmental catastrophe as a direct result of not having faced these issues - but nowhere does that suggest humans are fundamentally bad. If I were to be uncharitable I might wonder if some who push the 'guilt' angle as a means to poo-poo this issue do so out of their own selfishness or fear of change. Show me the fundamental flaw is in my point of view, don't just tell me I'm bad for thinking it. But what about the consequences to us? Yes, a shrinking population is an aging population. Yes, there are big, big, problems with that for you and me. But again your position must be nuanced if you bother to think at all. How do we balance those consequences against the fundamental thesis? Where is that balance? What cultural changes may help? Are we prepared to make those changes? The smart money is we're all going to live longer anyway so regardless of population size we're going to have to deal with the consequences of an aging population. Again, at no point have any of these questions got anything to do with how 'good' or 'bad' humans are, or how 'guilty' we should feel for daring to exist! But what about the consequences for us? Of course this is a long enough post, I'm sure many reading with an axe to grind may dishonestly pick holes because of the short-cuts and 'outdated' statements used for brevity... For anyone reading with an honest eye we can consider: For you and me living on a planet with a population of 20bn all doing what we are doing now, how comfortable do you think that would be? How long do you think we could sustain that? Do you think the rest of the planet would be nice to look at? Our nature being what it is do you really think that en-masse we would change our habits sufficiently that a world with 20bn of us would be a nice place to be? So what if the human population was 2bn... or 200million..? Given that we might struggle to change our habits do you think the world might be a more pleasant place for all of us, even those who aren't human? Again, it's not a matter of suggesting that humans are any worse, or better, than any other creature, it's just a numbers game. Yes, dealing with the consequences of a shrinking population is a really big issue, as is an aging population. Both are happening now, like it or not, but maybe the final result will be a good thing. Maybe we can make it a good thing through tackling these issues rather than quite frankly justifying a status-quo that can't last by presenting the claim "It's all just a badly thought through guilt-trip." No, to use an admittedly imperfect analogy for illustration: However many it takes you know only so many sardines are going to fit in that tin. What do you do with the rest of them? What is the alternate? Force every woman to have more than two children? That sounds worse than the rather disingenuous and incorrect suggestion that we are being made to feel guilty for being human or for wanting offspring. More, growing your way out of a problem today is no more than the folly of a pyramid scheme. How long can you sustain that growth?

As I write this we are 7 hours 44 mins. into the day Apr. 19th. 62K is the rise in population according to the worlds population clock. Is it wrong?

The bottom line question that no one has an answer:. How do women "win" in a culture having over 2 kids? Corner office, CEO etc and 3 kids?

Look at the sadness and anger in Peterson versus the robust joy in Zeihan. Which do you want to emulate?

I'm in the camp of declining human population is an existential problem, but for those voicing this problem, I really dislike JP and much prefer PZ's apolitical expression.

If you tell people to have children you can afford, what do you think the consequences are?

Concerning that many believe that populations and consumption growth, boom or bust, is the only way to prosper. French retirement age riots are short sighted. We live longer and should thus work longer to maintain regain a life cycle viable balance.

It's not a question of ideologies. It's just cyclic. It already happened in the past, see for example ancient Rome, which depopulated almost completely in just a few century, or Renaissance Europe, which depopulated in the 17th century. Cycles are part of biology, also human biology. If culture is not enough to decrease births, the four knights will increase deaths, by famines, diseases, wars and natural disasters.

More brains solve more problems….

Universe 25 comes to mind when I hear about population collapse. Fertility Rate in South Korea is so low and declines so fast that if it continues the Fertility rate can virtually drop to zero with about 25 years. Population collapse could lead to a lot of chaos and pain. A lot things are cheap because of economy of scale. As population gets older the health care and everyday items will become more expensive. Industries will suffer because of lower workforce and lower demand. As population collapses national debt will increase and it will be spread among less people. Some coutries will collapse under financial burden and with today's interconnected world it will ripple across the world. For example War in Ukraine had the possibility to create food shortages in many countries. Now imagine many countries collapsing at once. Also, there is a MIT program that predicts civilization collapse by about 2040 and apparently we are ahead of schedule.

Without including multiple branches of science in the considering the issue this discussion is just hot air. Global supplies of geological commodities are or soon will be in decline, especially energy and necessary metals. This greatly impacts global food production. Additionally global warming is accelerating adding further challenges that will continue for centuries after fossil fuels are largely gone.

We also have gotten less dull by not wanting the same old, same old, which is quite boring. We want something new and then get bored again and look for another thing again. For me children are replaced with engineered animals that do the same job because those don't have a bad qiant, old school and dangerous reasons particularly religious reasons behind it. I can't stand low tech and low complexity, so the more things change the better and sooner the better.

I wish the USA was maxed out at around 80 Million people. And an ocean all the way around, like Australia.

July, 8, 2008, oil breached 147USD/barrel and there were food riots and malnutrition because people could not afford to eat so it did happen

I think it’s because no ones happy. We’re all over worked , over taxed and can’t afford homes. Why would any of that make me want to have children

Funny to see that Jordan never sees the problem in capitalism

when people have phone, they dont look for s3X...

People predicted catestrphic over population and were catestrophically wrong. Now they are predicting catestrophic population colaps. I question whether prediction scills have improved much, based strictly on past performanc.

If human history doesn’t horrify you, I don’t know what to say. We are really cruel to one another and our habitat.

No, it means social changes. E.g., Women that are mothers should be able to work remotely. Corporations should have daycare facilities in the same space as the offices for those occasions when mothers had to come in. etc. This reflects the way that we evolved. The kids stayed with the women foraged and trapped small game while the men hunted the larger animals. These were societies where people relied upon each other, and all had value. Well, the birth givers and the children have value again. We simply have to restructure the past few centuries of social direction.

This Subject is so complex that to narrow it to a few ideas is really not a productive presentation. Electricity as the reason for not having children seems to discount the changes in women's status as being brought into the work force in times like WWII. Just a minor point to some but an added idea. The idea of having children as the highest ideal is also not borne out in most religions. It may be a result of many factors that cross paths. I see this as a personal choice that has many variables.

Deeply rooted existential self hatred comes (quite often) from child abuse. Why doesn't he say such things out loud?

Zeihan and the late Hans Rosling have the better theories. Rosling's work shows the world population self-leveling at 10/11 billion. Death was the main reason that before 1910ish that families in even industrial nations had large families. Up to half of the kids didn't survive to adulthood - so a family had many. Kids were also the first line of social security. When nearly all kids survive to adulthood, families are smaller. Zeihan / Rosling are more correct than Peterson. Industrialization begets smaller families. Education is not running rampant in the Arab world, yet their family size is shrinking.

I don't see humans as a cancer on the planet, but we are in the midst of a mass extinction event and maybe we need to balance the population with our technology level until we can sustain a larger population without killing everything else. In my lifetime the population has more than doubled and judging by the disappearance of nature, forests and species, it came at a cost. Would makes sense too if regions would have a population number that can actually be fed locally. No??

The world needs to expand existing animal habitats on both land and in the oceans by 100x. Too much development of the land is taking away animal and natural habitats and too much fishing and netting is destroying and depleting the ocean. The human population has doubled since 1980s and it is continuing to grow out of control at a logarithmic rate. See the world population websites if you don't agree. Our planet has not grown to adjust to the human growth, so we as humans must learn how to balance our population and set bounds on our dedicated land for farming and living for humans, and habitats for animals. Natural and animal habitats must be protected and increased in size or the only animals we will have left will be on farms and zoos. We must do this now before it is too late, and the passage of time and human greed erases all animal and natural habitats. Most people are narrow minded and think we can just live together however man in most all scenarios destroy habitats so there is no living together side by side. We must expand and set aside the land and ocean preserves and not allow any roads nor people in those areas.

the 'planet' is nowhere near its carrying capacity

Almost everyone I know educated or not that have families said they would have had more children if they could afford it but once they had a child mama had to o to wotk. And at a j pool b that paid for everything like daycare and business clothes

If you put, every person on the planet, in Texas, it wouldn't be as crowded as New York city and New York isn't even as crowded as it gets... 🤨😐

Pop. replacement rates are declining to 2.5 on average worldwide because there is a mass movement of people from farms to cities. Children are an economic benefit to farmings because they are cheap labour. In cities, children are an economic cost until age 18 because (a) they are in school and not working; (b) because school cost money and (c) children cost money. Pops are declining in developed countries with little or no immgration such as Japan. There's nothing weird or strange or "cyclical" or indicative of some malaise. Simple wise economic decisions. Also, the more than women get an education the more they can (a) support themselves economically so they dont have to get married (and bear children) or else starve; and (b) educated women chose to have children later in life and have fewer. Prob. why the Taliban resists educating women.

To the creator of this content: Combustion is the problem; methane is the accelerant.

Having children is a crime and the most selfish action a person can do. If humanity actually had some great purpose that justified the horrible pain of existence than I could understand, but there is no actual purpose.

"bachelor of arts" yeah uh leave the philosophizin to the REAL academics, gym teacher

For forty years China had a one child policy. Realising the disastrous implications of this they allowed two then three children. People had got used to small families... even no children! We are moving into a brave new world of robots and androids . It is by choice or even the momentum of technology pushing us along. Hopefully we figure out how to save the planet from climate change and pollution and our "humaneness" at the same time.

Educating Women is perhaps a side effect of the problem. Not a cause, partial or root, of the problem. Basically, the better things get, the less effort is required to acquire the basic needs. People get bored and have little or no purpose. Some turn to drugs. Some turn to any number of potentially hazardous pastimes. And yes, some turn to sexual encounters as well. As our knowledge and technology improves, so does the average life expectancy. There's no REASON to saddle yourself with a house full of kids. The same healthcare advances that allow us to live longer, to remain active longer, also make it that much easier to avoid having children 'Until We Are Ready'. Whether it's Contraceptives, Abortion, Tubal ligation, Vasectomy. There's no reason to have kids. Even while there is no reason to abstain from the activities that would normally result in pregnancy. By the time MOST feel they are 'Ready' to have kids. Ready to face the responsibility of having kids. Many, even most are no longer capable of making kids.

“I hope you enjoyed it”. Well, no; not really

It is always about the money. Children are just too expensive with little return on investment. Nothing unnatural. Just a reaction to the economics. Make kid profitable and people will invest in them.

Overpopulation of any species collapses. We are in for some ugly times as the rapid climate change creates the conditions for mass starvation.

I had bought into the replacement theory when I was young and only had two children. It was the must stupid thing I every dd. Thank God my youngest made up for what his brother inability to replace himself.

Population decline means that over time all markets will collapse. Is market based economics over?

That’s not Peter….

He sounds moderately conservative.

We can't afford kids! Children are Expensive and time consuming. We're working all the time too And Climate Change is happening right now!

Birth control pill and industrialization.

jordan is infj peter zeiahn is entp.

We’re fucked then , ,pubs open woooooooooot 😆😆😆😆

It is not the fact that you educate women, but that you sent women (educated or not) to work. Most of women work because they have to; men simply do not make enough money. Some women work because they want to. This does not matter. The minute a woman works, she has less children. Rich women can hire live-in nannies, housekeepers and even cooks. Ordinary women come home and do the other 2 jobs: raising children and housework. And so, since the politicians still dream of the 1950s to come back, when women could stay at home, they do not provide enough affordable nurseries and pre-kindergartens. Who is supposed to take care of the kids, when mommies have to work?? I cannot see how this current depopulation trend can be solved quickly.

If you want children help families

Humans are not valued, so why would you bring up a child in a world like this.

So in the 80s and 90s now in 2022 we are being told we have to help the 3rd world avoid mass starvation. And in each subsequent decade the problem is worse by 10s to 100s of millions. Of course a great deal of these at risk populations are antithetical to "our" way of life, ie muslim. But playing the devils advocate if in the 80s we had let nature take its course how many less would be in danger now. Moreover if the west hadn't provided medical care in addition to food how many would've been "spared" this suffering. I know this will be unpopular but by giving food, inoculations and medical care we have actually multiplied the problem exponentially. More people and less death along with longer lifespans is causing more suffering and our so called compassion is at the root. Despite the callous truth above I as a Christian am deeply disturbed by what we have caused, I am not trying to be mean or ethnocentric. Here in America we will soon face a serious crisis with water scarcity, Los Angeles, San Diego and Las Vegas are in a water deficit and have been for several decades. Soon no matter of reservoir or any other public works will make a difference. The simple fact is you cannot have 10s of millions of people living in a desert. It's simple math. You know math? The purest science of all. Dispute and name call all you want

We don’t need more people…rather we need more educated people making good decisions..

I think Peterson is closer to the truth on this. In Western populations that are having kids at above replacement rates it is those populations that see having children as a duty and good in-and-of themselves (i.e. Religious populations and Isreal). The issue is cultural more than demographic or economic... We have young people volunteering to cripple their economic future with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt for worthless degrees that 60% of the time never pay for themselves. Why? Because going to college is seen as socially valuable. Having kids at 23 and raising them into productive and virtuous adults is seen as being "irresponsible". If people truly value something they are willing to make nearly any sacrifice to have it. The problem is a cultural one more than it is demographic.

One problem I do not see discussed is the issue of sustainability - leaving the earth suitable for human habitation for centuries and millennia in the future. Every week, we bury in landfills valuable metals and minerals that future generations would perhaps desperately need. Also, the earth can support only about 1.5 to 2 billion people while maintaining the health of the planet's ecosystems overall. In many areas, we are exhausting the soil and we definitely are overfishing the oceans, as evidenced by the collapse of many fish populations. One reason so many decry the coming loss of population is that modern economic and political theories - capitalism. socialism, communism, fascism, even democracy - have been predicated on the pie (population) gradually increasing. None of these systems, especially the economic ones, will work all that well with declining populations, which will create chronic deflation as too few people are available to buy too many assets or goods. Economically that will be a disaster for all current economic systems we have. That's why Musk is so set on increasing the human population.....he can't make as much money if the population collapses.

Bad ideas have their consequences. The problem here is cities. Cities have always been population sinks, mostly from disease, high taxes and over crowding. Then, you add in Socialism which denies personal responsibility and freedom. Without governments enforcing trends, the people in cities would have reduced their birth rate to the replacement level. When the population dropped slightly, people would see that and adjust. Those who didn't procreate would leave room for those who do. From 600 AD to 1780, the population of England remained fairly constant because farmers were periodically forced onto increasing marginal land. The industrial revolution pulled people off the farms into the cities. Trade from the Americas brought in food. This increased the standard of living and, for a time, birthrates increased. England's population tripled by 1880. Then, the counter productive tendencies of urbanization and socialism had their consequences. The cities are dying from the results of their successes. Manufacturing was moved out of America when China joined world trade. Now, with the end of Globalism, manufacturing is returning to the Western Hemisphere. But, improved manufacturing won't return to the Rust belt or the Left coast of America. Those location will be allowed to returned to farmland. Technological improvements have made it unnecessary to be in cities because we have good communications and transportation systems. Life is better in small towns. There is more room; we can afford to have children. People vote with their feet. Right now, it is out of the high crime, corruption, taxes and pollution of the big cities. That is where the world is headed.

The only sum that really matters is wealth per capita. The number of people matters far less and arguably the planet as a whole can only benefit if there’s less humans on it!

Anyone is free to make own choices. If the population continues to grow, it creates higher demand for natural resources, which in the planet are not inexhaustible. Better a planet with abundant resources available to reduced population than the contrary. If in the past the population growth was justified because it was needed as workforce, today with machinery and technology the opposite is preferable. Agriculture in the past employed half of workforce, today is down to below 5%, despite much higher population.

I hope as the human race in general we can turn this around, at least for most countries

Over population is the foundational issue for almost every single threat facing humanity.

Less people please! Thank you ☮ (less people on highway, beaches, needing food, fresh water, protein) Amen. (Peterson is also shaming those who think differently.)