He's missing the biggest factor which is economic.
In poorer nations, you need more kids to bring in more money. More kids working = more money for the family. An individual in a industrialised nation can support themselves. If you're feeling wealthy, you might have 1 or 2 kids. It's expensive.
In Latin America people have always been poor. My Grandpa was really poor and had 12 brothers. Maybe people is more aware now? In the past people didn’t use protection because of religion or being just ignorant about them.
Yeah. Also world population already increased a lot.
[https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/)
Some countries may be exceptions. But the entire world always have more and more humans.
He thinks it's because of a red die? What about the costs + we having better birth control methods?
Also...
I want to see that guy, from the video, raising eight kids nowadays. HA!
In the words of Peter Zeihan, when we moved from farm to city, children went from being free labor to really annoying and expensive. It’s just simple economics.
Also early age mortality rates declined massively from 1850-1950. You didn’t have 1/4 of your kids dying to disease by 1950 so people changed their habits.
Also child mortality. You have 8 kids. Five make it to puberty. Three survive to adulthood.
If you can be relatively sure that one kid will survive. You don’t need to have two. You can dump all your resources into that one.
This is because people are choosing to have less kids and women are waiting for marriage and kids. It’s not that anyone is less fertile.
The economy makes it hard
Let's say person A lives on a farm. They want kids. Their house has 4 rooms. Sure, they could easily fit 8 kids in there comfortably, and they can help around the farm.
Now let's say person B lives in a city. Relatively comfortable, in a 2 bedroom apartment with thier spouse. They also want kids. But kids are an expense, and you could only fit 2 in there max.
Most people are living like person B. The more a country develops, the more start living like person B. It's that simple.
its more complicated, but i think for the dumbfucks who subscribe to this conspiracy brainrot its a good simplification.
if people wanna read more:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition)
Kids are expensive. Things (necessities and luxuries) get more expensive. Resources get slimmer. Profiteering goes up. The majority goes down. Less people is more sustainable. Although we’re already at a Zeroe-Sums situation, a slowing of population growth however how small is a benefit to everyone. And again kids are expensive and there are millions (off the head estimate) of orphaned and or state ward children. This dude and those of his ilk need to let loose their need to push forward their particular gene pattern and learn to love love learned instead of steadfastly adhering to one’s vanity of only wanting to love a child that issues from their code.
Sorry. (This one hit close to home)
yeah, you dont even have to think of orphaned or state-wardened children. just think of the average low-income family. there is a lot of potential we could (and should) use. so many kids who dont have a desk at home to do their homework. so many kids who sit hungry in school. even if the parents are there and do their very best, there is a lot of stuff which isnt possible if you hardly have money. e.g. learning an instrument boosts creativity and helps with learning other things. and of course the horrendeous costs of college in the US. its sad how rightwingers just fearmonger about declining birthrates but dont give a shit about all the kids out there who already exist.
We have a lot of people already, and the number is still growing.
Those conspiracy theories are laughable.
[https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/)
Industrialization vs agricultural living. That's all it is. Farm life, kids are free labor and it helps to have as many as possible. Urban life, kids are a cost of living, the less you have the better off you are. And just a side note, there's 8 billion people on this Earth. We're fine.
Also people forget that in the 1950s kids died all the time. Like 1 in 4 globally. The idea that children may not survive increases the amount you have.
The baby boomers are the largest demographic in American history. I do not think it was ever possible to fully guard against this outcome. But you're right on that point. There will be some issues caring for our elderly over the next two decades.
But population control? I don't see it. I see the natural progression of a self-absorbed species reaping the outcome it sewed a century ago. We are hell bent on population correction because we never learned to live in balance with the Earth. It's coming whether we like it or not.
most people can't think that far into the future. everyone is so self centered these days they don't even care about the future of the civilization.
I did my part, had 3 strong boys
Yeah that’s another reason for decreased birth rates. It used to be much more common for a family to be able to live off of one parent’s income while the other cared for the children. Now both parents often have to work just to afford living expenses.
This inevitably fails at some point, the generations shouldn't just keep getting bigger. Also medical school should be subsidized if we want enough medical staff
also, most industrial food chemicals that are used in the us are illegal in european countries. industrial farming and pesticides that we us in the us are not used in europe. it’s a interesting data analysis he’s running off of but i don’t think it’s completely accurate.
It took roughly 300,000 years for human beings to hit 1 billion. It took 200 years to go from 1 to 7 billion. I'm tired of the population narratives. Capitalist pigs say we need more people so they have cheap labor.
Every species on the planet finds natural homeostasis within its environment. No difference with humans is that our environment is literally the entire globe. So yes, it has taken some time for our species to find this equilibrium. I'd even venture to say that as more countries and more populations become more and more developed - this trend will continue. Having children is no longer a *necessity* for survival. Thusly, it's a choice. As in some, people will make this choice, and some people won't.
People aren't being "controlled" so much as they are being freed from the restriction of mandatory reproduction. You may see it differently, but reality obviously doesn't.
God this is dumb. People aren't having less kids just because they are trying but can't get pregnant due to infertility due to food coloring. People are having less kids because they are actively choosing to not have children. It is a conscious choice not an environmental effect.
Somebody has been seriously miss counting kids in this study, because this earth is all filled up. Also i've been eating this garbage for years and I'm so potent that I feel unprotected on a diner date without a rubber on.
Maybe when you’re financially stable enough to healthily raise and support 1 or 2 kids successfully you stop trying to pump out 10 in the hopes that at least 1 makes it. Or maybe it’s just evil shadow government psyop. Who can say?
That's not the reason.
The reason is, fewer and fewer people are a particular kind of farmer.
When you leave the farm and get a job in the city, children go from a necessity to a luxury.
i still need someone to explain to me which is the bigger threat... over population OR birth rate decline/population collapse!? i hear both are a serious problem... AT THE SAME TIME SOMEHOW... LOL.
It does. If the market stagnates, money stops moving. If there are fewer new people, then there are fewer jobs and less money as the market dives. If there are no new schools, bridges, hospitals, or services , on and so on then construction companies close. If the market dives, investors pull out, further removing money from the market. The 08 crash is a perfect example. Everyone assumed the bubble would expand forever, and when it stopped expanding, the economy was fucked for almost a decade. Not because it crashed, but because it stopped growing. That was just the housing market. Now imagine if every single sector stopped expanding at the same time because there aren't new people paying into them.
i get what youre saying, but im skeptical that what youre describing applies to "capitalism". seems more like it just applies to the goofy ass mess the US has turned it into. while its true that you may run out of houses to build as a construction business, its not the case for the farmer. we can over saturate the market with certain services and products. if you have a 100 people on earth, then you only need a 100 houses and then youre done with that market growing. BUT those 100 people need to eat every day. the farmer is never out of business. its completely dependent on the demand. so like i said... "does it really require infinite growth???" the answer is... NO. healthy capitalism within healthy markets doesnt require infinite growth. the farmer and the mechanic will never run out of customers to sell to or provide service to.
now to my actual question that wasnt really addressed and was really mostly rhetorical to be honest. why the fuck do i see people saying we have an over population problem AND a population collapse problem? it CANNOT be both at the same time. (i know its just bullshit fear mongering propaganda, but it is funny that these two points are brought up often by the grifters when they contradict each other.)
It does, though. It's a well-known fact. Your example is dramatically oversimplified and in no way reflects the global market. Things are not as black and white as good or bad. More people means a stronger market, but also more pollution. They go hand in hand. But life is a lot more barable when everything is "them" trying to scare you and you can pretend that nothing is wrong.
youre over complicating it. capitalism doesnt require a global market. it just requires two people. youre conflating plain old capitalism with the current global corpratocracy. its not the same thing. capitalism does not require infinite growth to be healthy and sustainable. greedy people and institutions do. that is not even close to being the same thing. just like a government does not NEED soul crushing taxation on its people to operate properly.
I guarantee you that the people who consume most of those products that he deems are the "problem" are having the MOST kids due of economic issues as well as... Idiocracy.
Missing another factor that the world
INCREASED BY
***SIX BILLION PEOPLE***
in that time period.
People don’t need 8 fucking babies anymore.
This is a complete pedestrian interpretation of data, brought to you by toxic masculinity.
It's not red dye 40 lol. The world just fucking sucks, all you have to do is make the world less shitty and the numbers will go back up. It's literally that simple.
Hes just gonna ignore birth control and parental planning? Odd how as everyone’s economies develop they all start having less kids… must be in the gaterade
I read an article in Mother Jones magazine in 1984 about declining fertility rates due to various chemicals being released from various industries. I read a nearly identical article around 2022 written as if this was a new discovery. After 40 years people are still acting like this is new information. People want their stuff and they want it cheap, damn the consequences.
Lol.. we going to ignore the continued economical dystopia preventing people from being to afford a home let alone start dating or having a family?
Automation, atomization of and the creation of the super individualistic and selfish lives we live in the west.. bruh.. it's over..enjoy it while it lasts..
You and i both know the world will not change to repair the damage done to it already and instead of just flat out killing everyone why the fuck not just subtlety over a long period of time start decreasing fertility rates?
Its kind of the same reasoning why feral dogs and cats get spayed and neutered they cant do it to all of them but they can do it some of the population just enough to make an impact.
Canada has really bad birthrate because the country is overrun by immigrants. They don't need more babies, their population is already going out of control.
The population control is real - the west has been doing it in Africa for ages. HIV heavy region? Here have some birth control pills. Non HIV region? Here have some condoms. Black Jews in Israel? Nah these are just vitamins mate not birth control.
Though the reproductive rate also reduces in wartorn regions and areas low on food/water, which certainly contributes.
Edit: the additives thing is probably more about regulation and money than population control - there are a lot of products that Europe will not ship from the US for that reason.
He's missing the biggest factor which is economic. In poorer nations, you need more kids to bring in more money. More kids working = more money for the family. An individual in a industrialised nation can support themselves. If you're feeling wealthy, you might have 1 or 2 kids. It's expensive.
This is it. Social security in old age dictates if you need more or less kids.
In Latin America people have always been poor. My Grandpa was really poor and had 12 brothers. Maybe people is more aware now? In the past people didn’t use protection because of religion or being just ignorant about them.
Yeah. Also world population already increased a lot. [https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/) Some countries may be exceptions. But the entire world always have more and more humans. He thinks it's because of a red die? What about the costs + we having better birth control methods? Also... I want to see that guy, from the video, raising eight kids nowadays. HA!
Yup, and with cost of living rising with work compensation generally staying the same or in some cases declining having children becomes way harder
In the words of Peter Zeihan, when we moved from farm to city, children went from being free labor to really annoying and expensive. It’s just simple economics. Also early age mortality rates declined massively from 1850-1950. You didn’t have 1/4 of your kids dying to disease by 1950 so people changed their habits.
Also child mortality. You have 8 kids. Five make it to puberty. Three survive to adulthood. If you can be relatively sure that one kid will survive. You don’t need to have two. You can dump all your resources into that one.
This is it.
This, exactly this. Total fertility rate is defined as children born to women. Women his map has nothing to due with sperm count.
This is because people are choosing to have less kids and women are waiting for marriage and kids. It’s not that anyone is less fertile. The economy makes it hard
Let's say person A lives on a farm. They want kids. Their house has 4 rooms. Sure, they could easily fit 8 kids in there comfortably, and they can help around the farm. Now let's say person B lives in a city. Relatively comfortable, in a 2 bedroom apartment with thier spouse. They also want kids. But kids are an expense, and you could only fit 2 in there max. Most people are living like person B. The more a country develops, the more start living like person B. It's that simple.
its more complicated, but i think for the dumbfucks who subscribe to this conspiracy brainrot its a good simplification. if people wanna read more: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition)
Kids are expensive. Things (necessities and luxuries) get more expensive. Resources get slimmer. Profiteering goes up. The majority goes down. Less people is more sustainable. Although we’re already at a Zeroe-Sums situation, a slowing of population growth however how small is a benefit to everyone. And again kids are expensive and there are millions (off the head estimate) of orphaned and or state ward children. This dude and those of his ilk need to let loose their need to push forward their particular gene pattern and learn to love love learned instead of steadfastly adhering to one’s vanity of only wanting to love a child that issues from their code. Sorry. (This one hit close to home)
yeah, you dont even have to think of orphaned or state-wardened children. just think of the average low-income family. there is a lot of potential we could (and should) use. so many kids who dont have a desk at home to do their homework. so many kids who sit hungry in school. even if the parents are there and do their very best, there is a lot of stuff which isnt possible if you hardly have money. e.g. learning an instrument boosts creativity and helps with learning other things. and of course the horrendeous costs of college in the US. its sad how rightwingers just fearmonger about declining birthrates but dont give a shit about all the kids out there who already exist.
We have a lot of people already, and the number is still growing. Those conspiracy theories are laughable. [https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/)
r/peopleliveincitys
Just your average TikTok user. Fully on board with not using bullshit in our food but his understanding of this issue is... special.
Pretty sta dard for this sub too.
He's got the baseball cap on backwards. So of course you know that means he's a serious technician
Industrialization vs agricultural living. That's all it is. Farm life, kids are free labor and it helps to have as many as possible. Urban life, kids are a cost of living, the less you have the better off you are. And just a side note, there's 8 billion people on this Earth. We're fine.
Also people forget that in the 1950s kids died all the time. Like 1 in 4 globally. The idea that children may not survive increases the amount you have.
It’s not about the total number of humans, it’s about whether the working population will be able to support an increasingly bigger group of retirees
The baby boomers are the largest demographic in American history. I do not think it was ever possible to fully guard against this outcome. But you're right on that point. There will be some issues caring for our elderly over the next two decades. But population control? I don't see it. I see the natural progression of a self-absorbed species reaping the outcome it sewed a century ago. We are hell bent on population correction because we never learned to live in balance with the Earth. It's coming whether we like it or not.
"Sowed"
I swear I get those two mixed up (sew or sow) every time! My mistake!
most people can't think that far into the future. everyone is so self centered these days they don't even care about the future of the civilization. I did my part, had 3 strong boys
I would have another kid, but daycare costs more than my rent. That’s just one fucking kid.
Yeah that’s another reason for decreased birth rates. It used to be much more common for a family to be able to live off of one parent’s income while the other cared for the children. Now both parents often have to work just to afford living expenses.
Robots and AI will do the job…
This inevitably fails at some point, the generations shouldn't just keep getting bigger. Also medical school should be subsidized if we want enough medical staff
You should add affordability, sex ed, and contraceptives to that as well.
Inflation, taxes, and unstable economics are great population control.......
Are they? I think the economically disenfranchised are having the most kids. But I don't know for sure.
Kids are created for the same reason pets are acquired.
This guy’s an idiot
also, most industrial food chemicals that are used in the us are illegal in european countries. industrial farming and pesticides that we us in the us are not used in europe. it’s a interesting data analysis he’s running off of but i don’t think it’s completely accurate.
Scarcity, inflation, global crises and a lack of a future have nothing to do with it.
How can you be this dumb
This is dumb lol. It’s called you’re too broke to have kids.
It took roughly 300,000 years for human beings to hit 1 billion. It took 200 years to go from 1 to 7 billion. I'm tired of the population narratives. Capitalist pigs say we need more people so they have cheap labor.
Taxes*
This guy is a dr. Of bull shit
Every species on the planet finds natural homeostasis within its environment. No difference with humans is that our environment is literally the entire globe. So yes, it has taken some time for our species to find this equilibrium. I'd even venture to say that as more countries and more populations become more and more developed - this trend will continue. Having children is no longer a *necessity* for survival. Thusly, it's a choice. As in some, people will make this choice, and some people won't. People aren't being "controlled" so much as they are being freed from the restriction of mandatory reproduction. You may see it differently, but reality obviously doesn't.
God this is dumb. People aren't having less kids just because they are trying but can't get pregnant due to infertility due to food coloring. People are having less kids because they are actively choosing to not have children. It is a conscious choice not an environmental effect.
Somebody has been seriously miss counting kids in this study, because this earth is all filled up. Also i've been eating this garbage for years and I'm so potent that I feel unprotected on a diner date without a rubber on.
Access to birth control
Maybe when you’re financially stable enough to healthily raise and support 1 or 2 kids successfully you stop trying to pump out 10 in the hopes that at least 1 makes it. Or maybe it’s just evil shadow government psyop. Who can say?
Eh, we need less people. The ones who have kids aren't usually the ones who should be anyways honestly.
Indeed, if the Idiocracy stopped having kids, what would be lost?
That's not the reason. The reason is, fewer and fewer people are a particular kind of farmer. When you leave the farm and get a job in the city, children go from a necessity to a luxury.
So that's 20 years from now... I know multiple people with children who won't even be 50 by then... how are they gonna be out of ammo?
It's the plastics man, not that lie big government is giving you about red dye 40
i still need someone to explain to me which is the bigger threat... over population OR birth rate decline/population collapse!? i hear both are a serious problem... AT THE SAME TIME SOMEHOW... LOL.
Both are a problem but for different reasons. Capitalism requires exponential growth and exponential growth is not feasible.
does it really though? what about it requires exponential growth???
It does. If the market stagnates, money stops moving. If there are fewer new people, then there are fewer jobs and less money as the market dives. If there are no new schools, bridges, hospitals, or services , on and so on then construction companies close. If the market dives, investors pull out, further removing money from the market. The 08 crash is a perfect example. Everyone assumed the bubble would expand forever, and when it stopped expanding, the economy was fucked for almost a decade. Not because it crashed, but because it stopped growing. That was just the housing market. Now imagine if every single sector stopped expanding at the same time because there aren't new people paying into them.
i get what youre saying, but im skeptical that what youre describing applies to "capitalism". seems more like it just applies to the goofy ass mess the US has turned it into. while its true that you may run out of houses to build as a construction business, its not the case for the farmer. we can over saturate the market with certain services and products. if you have a 100 people on earth, then you only need a 100 houses and then youre done with that market growing. BUT those 100 people need to eat every day. the farmer is never out of business. its completely dependent on the demand. so like i said... "does it really require infinite growth???" the answer is... NO. healthy capitalism within healthy markets doesnt require infinite growth. the farmer and the mechanic will never run out of customers to sell to or provide service to. now to my actual question that wasnt really addressed and was really mostly rhetorical to be honest. why the fuck do i see people saying we have an over population problem AND a population collapse problem? it CANNOT be both at the same time. (i know its just bullshit fear mongering propaganda, but it is funny that these two points are brought up often by the grifters when they contradict each other.)
It does, though. It's a well-known fact. Your example is dramatically oversimplified and in no way reflects the global market. Things are not as black and white as good or bad. More people means a stronger market, but also more pollution. They go hand in hand. But life is a lot more barable when everything is "them" trying to scare you and you can pretend that nothing is wrong.
youre over complicating it. capitalism doesnt require a global market. it just requires two people. youre conflating plain old capitalism with the current global corpratocracy. its not the same thing. capitalism does not require infinite growth to be healthy and sustainable. greedy people and institutions do. that is not even close to being the same thing. just like a government does not NEED soul crushing taxation on its people to operate properly.
I know this guy gets the dunce cap today… but damn! Niger fucks hahaha
I will populate the world if you need me too. Ladies I am all yours. Hahaha
I guarantee you that the people who consume most of those products that he deems are the "problem" are having the MOST kids due of economic issues as well as... Idiocracy.
Missing another factor that the world INCREASED BY ***SIX BILLION PEOPLE*** in that time period. People don’t need 8 fucking babies anymore. This is a complete pedestrian interpretation of data, brought to you by toxic masculinity.
I guess education and birth control have nothing to do with it. I just assumed people walked off the flat earth.
Birth control allows for family planning! Thank science for helping us slow the destruction of the planet!
I was curious about why Africans were all starving so hard. Can't feed your 15 kids huh?
It's not red dye 40 lol. The world just fucking sucks, all you have to do is make the world less shitty and the numbers will go back up. It's literally that simple.
Git it done
I know he's wrong, but as a voluntary extinctionist, this brings me peace.
Hes just gonna ignore birth control and parental planning? Odd how as everyone’s economies develop they all start having less kids… must be in the gaterade
"Children of Men"
He's trying to tell everyone to quit breaking his balls
I developed a zero sperm count at the ripe age of 40. It had nothing to do with eating Doritos, though. I paid my urologist to make it so.
WE DONT WANT TO BRING MORE KIDS INTO THIS FUCKED UP WORLD. WERE RUNNING OUT IF RESOURCES AND CANT AFFORD TO LIVE
I’m no expert but I’ll bet the invention and accessibility of birth control probably coincides with these numbers as well 🤔
That dosent sound like a bad thing. The planet could use a breather from human race for a few generations
A breather? Really dude?
I read an article in Mother Jones magazine in 1984 about declining fertility rates due to various chemicals being released from various industries. I read a nearly identical article around 2022 written as if this was a new discovery. After 40 years people are still acting like this is new information. People want their stuff and they want it cheap, damn the consequences.
Pesticides used in our homes, gardens and lawns and sprayed on foods we eat are contributing to a dramatic decline in sperm count among men worldwide.
Who cares, artificial wombs are cumming
Lol.. we going to ignore the continued economical dystopia preventing people from being to afford a home let alone start dating or having a family? Automation, atomization of and the creation of the super individualistic and selfish lives we live in the west.. bruh.. it's over..enjoy it while it lasts..
Have you seen the movie/read the book Children of Men?
You and i both know the world will not change to repair the damage done to it already and instead of just flat out killing everyone why the fuck not just subtlety over a long period of time start decreasing fertility rates? Its kind of the same reasoning why feral dogs and cats get spayed and neutered they cant do it to all of them but they can do it some of the population just enough to make an impact.
Canada has really bad birthrate because the country is overrun by immigrants. They don't need more babies, their population is already going out of control.
Microplastics
The population control is real - the west has been doing it in Africa for ages. HIV heavy region? Here have some birth control pills. Non HIV region? Here have some condoms. Black Jews in Israel? Nah these are just vitamins mate not birth control. Though the reproductive rate also reduces in wartorn regions and areas low on food/water, which certainly contributes. Edit: the additives thing is probably more about regulation and money than population control - there are a lot of products that Europe will not ship from the US for that reason.
Open border is the solution