The Most Important Video you Will Ever See

[lazerus]

Complete Video List
Part 1 of 8

Linked to me by a Danish friend, this eight-part video contains an elderly professor explaining the concept of exponential growth. Those with a solid background in math may wish to click through the first video, as it will largely be a review. The majority of the piece, however, is dedicated to explaining how the human mind (mis)understands exponential growth, and how those failures to understand the growth of population and energy consumption lead to public policy in the 70's that is largely responsible for the mess we're in now. He gives advice on correcting this cognitive flaws in yourself -- for instance, always convert a percentage growth rate into a doubling time in your head whenever you hear it. Most people, upon hearing "The earths population is growing by 2.5% a year," would find that rate comfortingly low, while the full implications of "The earths population will double in 28 years," are immediately obvious and terrifying. You can approximate this calculation in your head by just dividing 70 by the percentage growth rate to get the doubling time.

One of the points he makes at the end, the necessary conclusion of this math, is that there is no such thing as sustainable population growth. Any non-trivial percentage population growth per year results in a doubling time -- and the earth cannot sustain 13+ billion people. The logical upshot then, is that if we don't limit population growth, nature will limit it for us -- via wars, plagues, famine, and other "natural methods." The implication, given the populations current growth rate, is that within our lifetimes we will either experience a sharp reduction in population growth rates, or the die-off of a significant fraction of the human population. These figures become even scarier when you consider that we are not only experiencing a yearly % growth of the population, but of per-capita energy consumption

I was aware of most of the things this video said before I watched it -- but never stopped to do the math on how soon they would come up. The idea of a planet choking to death under 13 billion humans was something I assumed my eventual children would have to struggle with, but the idea that it could happen in my lifetime (not that late in my lifetime either), is new and terrifying for me. Worse, I -- as an Engineer -- had always held that technology would save us. That things would get bad for awhile, even very bad, but that eventually we would have the technology to have a free and stable society without destroying our environment. This makes it clear that that is wrong. To have any kind of stable society, population growth must cease -- and that requires not just technological advancement, but a cultural change to make such measures possible. A cultural change I don't see us, as a species, of being capable of making.

Predictions of doom and a desire to spread this video aside, I'm curious for the thoughts of the people on this board about this issue. As a species, are we capable of making such a shift required for survival? If so, will it be before the earth turns to shit or after? What about our prospects for surviving as a civilized people?

[Darth Wong]

I don't know why you ever clung to those delusions in the first place. Humanity is like every other species: too stupid to limits its own population growth so it will expand until it consumes its resources and poisons its environment so that its die-off rate finally matches or exceeds its birth rate.

The math is ruthlessly simple. Luckily (for me), population growth varies from region to region and I'm in a region which is experiencing low population growth, which currently has low population density, and which is socially advanced enough for family planning to be widely popular. It's the poorer places which are in real trouble.

People keep saying China is evil for its "one child policy", but they've at least got some idea of the scope of the problem. In the rest of the world, we're sticking our heads in the sand about it. Especially the fucking religious folk.

[lazerus]

I don't know why you ever clung to those delusions in the first place. Humanity is like every other species: too stupid to limits its own population growth so it will expand until it consumes its resources and poisons its environment so that its die-off rate finally matches or exceeds its birth rate.

Stupid optimism.

The math is ruthlessly simple. Luckily (for me), population growth varies from region to region and I'm in a region which is experiencing low population growth, which currently has low population density, and which is socially advanced enough for family planning to be widely popular. It's the poorer places which are in real trouble.

People keep saying China is evil for its "one child policy", but they've at least got some idea of the scope of the problem. In the rest of the world, we're sticking our heads in the sand about it. Especially the fucking religious folk.

Yeah, no kidding. Though China is actually relaxing that policy now, much to my concern.

[Alyrium Denryle]

People keep saying China is evil for its "one child policy", but they've at least got some idea of the scope of the problem. In the rest of the world, we're sticking our heads in the sand about it. Especially the fucking religious folk.

It is kinda twisted of me, but the one child policy is actually REALLY good at limiting the population. Not from the reduction of growth, but because with their culture, it leads to a population crash.

They abort females, thus biasing the sex ratio in favor of males and as a result cutting the bottom out of the population in the long term. Combine this with the increase generation time that comes with an increased standard of living, and in a generation or so (when their current crop of working people begin to age and die) their economy will start to collapse under the strain of having more old people than working age adults. Then, their population will collapse as the old people die without enough recruitment to take their place. This will of course probably cause another recession as the population of china (and its industrial capacity) collapses over the course of a decade or two.

[Kane Starkiller]

In my country population is declining so by 2050 the population will decline from current 4.5 million to roughly 3.9 million.
In fact almost all European countries currently have stagnant or negative population growth France being one major exception which is expected to grow from 62 million today to about 70 million in 2050. On the other hand Russia's population will drop from 143 million to 110 million, Germany from 82 million to 73 milllion.
On the other side of Eurasia Japan's population is predicted to drop from 127 million to 93 million and South Korea from 48 million to 43 million.
The only reason countries like US, Canada and Australia have a population growth is immigration, their fertility rates being 2.05, 1.58 and 1.78 respectively.

On the other end of the scale we have Ethiopia expected to grow from 85 million today to 278 million in 2050 and Nigeria growing from 150 million to 264 million however as far as First World and much of the Second World is concerned no child policy is really required.

Source census.gov

[Darmalus]

It is kinda twisted of me, but the one child policy is actually REALLY good at limiting the population. Not from the reduction of growth, but because with their culture, it leads to a population crash.

They abort females, thus biasing the sex ratio in favor of males and as a result cutting the bottom out of the population in the long term. Combine this with the increase generation time that comes with an increased standard of living, and in a generation or so (when their current crop of working people begin to age and die) their economy will start to collapse under the strain of having more old people than working age adults. Then, their population will collapse as the old people die without enough recruitment to take their place. This will of course probably cause another recession as the population of china (and its industrial capacity) collapses over the course of a decade or two.

True as that is, I am NOT looking forward to the unrest the massive numbers of frustrated young men will create. The potential for a civil war in a nation with nuclear weapons isn't a pretty one.

[Samuel]

They will import women from poorer countries.

[Stark]

By 'import' you may mean 'desire to steal' and it's fascinating to imagine what that'll do to the internal racism of China (by weakening the Han purity lol).

[Singular Intellect]

Well, that was refreshingly optimistic!

But seriously, it doesn't seem to matter where or how you look at it; we're royally fucked.

[sketerpot]

By 'import' you may mean 'desire to steal' and it's fascinating to imagine what that'll do to the internal racism of China (by weakening the Han purity lol).

Not steal, just straight-up import them. We're already seeing this sort of thing quite a bit in Taiwan: because of the combination of a skewed sex ratio, women not wanting to marry beneath their station, and higher wealth than many neighboring countries, an eerily large number of brides get imported from poorer southeast Asian countries. There used to be billboards quoting very reasonable prices for brides from various countries, but they were taken down a few years ago for being too tacky.

[Stark]

I believe Taiwan has a degree of internal racism itself, so how does this impact culturally?

[ray245]

It's something that is already happening in China to a certain extend. People have starts to marry(import) brides from the poorer regions of China.

The same thing occurred in Singapore as well.

[Eulogy]

I don't know why you ever clung to those delusions in the first place. Humanity is like every other species: too stupid to limits its own population growth so it will expand until it consumes its resources and poisons its environment so that its die-off rate finally matches or exceeds its birth rate.

The math is ruthlessly simple. Luckily (for me), population growth varies from region to region and I'm in a region which is experiencing low population growth, which currently has low population density, and which is socially advanced enough for family planning to be widely popular. It's the poorer places which are in real trouble.

People keep saying China is evil for its "one child policy", but they've at least got some idea of the scope of the problem. In the rest of the world, we're sticking our heads in the sand about it. Especially the fucking religious folk.

So in other words, we're going to have to take draconian measures to save ourselves and the environment. I don't see us establishing space colonies anytime soon, meaning that we will have to crack down on and forcibly sterilize families that (will) get really huge and refuse to stop (e.g. the fucking Duggars). If this means they squeal about their religion being violated, so be it.

Unlike most other species, humans ARE capable of limiting their population growth. Doing so won't be easy, but it's far preferable than having our descendants struggle on a ruined world.

[Samuel]

So in other words, we're going to have to take draconian measures to save ourselves and the environment.

Not really. Most of the population growth is in the third world- the first world is negative.

I don't see us establishing space colonies anytime soon

"There are 340,500 births per day in the world"

Space colonies are not an answer for overpopulation.

meaning that we will have to crack down on and forcibly sterilize families

Or just deny benefits past a certain number of kids. The Chinese government uses soft power as well to get families in line.

[Darth Wong]

So in other words, we're going to have to take draconian measures to save ourselves and the environment.

Not really. Most of the population growth is in the third world- the first world is negative.

Correct. This means that the first-world nations are going to have to admit that third-world immigration is being used as a population balancing measure, and start strictly limiting immigration if population growth is positive as a result of it. This would be considered a draconian measure by some.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know why you ever clung to those delusions in the first place. Humanity is like every other species: too stupid to limits its own population growth so it will expand until it consumes its resources and poisons its environment so that its die-off rate finally matches or exceeds its birth rate.

The math is ruthlessly simple. Luckily (for me), population growth varies from region to region and I'm in a region which is experiencing low population growth, which currently has low population density, and which is socially advanced enough for family planning to be widely popular. It's the poorer places which are in real trouble.

People keep saying China is evil for its "one child policy", but they've at least got some idea of the scope of the problem. In the rest of the world, we're sticking our heads in the sand about it. Especially the fucking religious folk.

It does seem like advanced countries have self-limiting populations. But the limit is currently not reached until a level of resource consumption and population density that we probably couldn't sustain if everyone on Earth was doing it.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Correct. This means that the first-world nations are going to have to admit that third-world immigration is being used as a population balancing measure, and start strictly limiting immigration if population growth is positive as a result of it. This would be considered a draconian measure by some.

I don't suppose tying aid to a recipient nation's awareness efforts to inform their population about the dangers of global overpopulation would do any good either, would it? More in the long run than anything, of course.

[tim31]

They've been trying to educate the poor masses on that and similar issues for decades. Remember though, it's not enough to give them free condoms; you actually have to show them how to put them on, otherwise they wind up nailing them on the front door like a horseshoe.

People get on their high horse about immigration in this country but the fact is that a few years ago(don't know about now) the biggest official entry point to the country(Sydney) was increasing its population by about 200-500 persons a week. Just keep building houses! Oh yeah, and desal plants!

[JBG]

They've been trying to educate the poor masses on that and similar issues for decades. Remember though, it's not enough to give them free condoms; you actually have to show them how to put them on, otherwise they wind up nailing them on the front door like a horseshoe.

People get on their high horse about immigration in this country but the fact is that a few years ago(don't know about now) the biggest official entry point to the country(Sydney) was increasing its population by about 200-500 persons a week. Just keep building houses! Oh yeah, and desal plants!

This probably still is the prime entry point.

And no, desal included, we have not maintained yet alone expanded our infrastructure to cope with the increases. This place is a mess. I really should pop on down to the Apple Isle to relax and breath some clean air. If you see a bearded git in a silver MX-5 with NSW plates...

Population is one of the elephants in the room. As our ethics have developed, it is a nightmare problem.

[Darth Wong]

Correct. This means that the first-world nations are going to have to admit that third-world immigration is being used as a population balancing measure, and start strictly limiting immigration if population growth is positive as a result of it. This would be considered a draconian measure by some.

I don't suppose tying aid to a recipient nation's awareness efforts to inform their population about the dangers of global overpopulation would do any good either, would it? More in the long run than anything, of course.

It's ironic that one of the best arguments that could be made for limiting Mexican migration to America is population control, but the kind of people who tend to oppose Mexican migration also have a problem with population control, so they would never make that argument.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

A bright spot here is that world population growth won't continue at its current rate. All of the first world countries that now have stable or declining populations once had much higher fertility rates. First the death rates dropped precipitously due to medical technology but the birth rates didn't change, causing population explosions. After a couple of generations the birth rates also fell dramatically. There is no good reason to believe that birth rates for the third world will not also drop just like they did in every first world country in the 19th and 20th centuries. The open question is how much damage will be caused by overpopulation in the mean time.

[Stofsk]

Correct. This means that the first-world nations are going to have to admit that third-world immigration is being used as a population balancing measure, and start strictly limiting immigration if population growth is positive as a result of it. This would be considered a draconian measure by some.

I don't suppose tying aid to a recipient nation's awareness efforts to inform their population about the dangers of global overpopulation would do any good either, would it? More in the long run than anything, of course.

It's ironic that one of the best arguments that could be made for limiting Mexican migration to America is population control, but the kind of people who tend to oppose Mexican migration also have a problem with population control, so they would never make that argument.

They don't want population control, they just want their kind of population.

I have to wonder if some part of fear of foreigners is based on the notion that the other tribe over the hill is bigger than we are.

[tim31]

And no, desal included, we have not maintained yet alone expanded our infrastructure to cope with the increases. This place is a mess.

Fear not, I am well, well versed in all aspects of the desal story. On the one side, I can read, and on the other, I have family in Kurnell

[Zac Naloen]

In my country population is declining so by 2050 the population will decline from current 4.5 million to roughly 3.9 million.
In fact almost all European countries currently have stagnant or negative population growth France being one major exception which is expected to grow from 62 million today to about 70 million in 2050. On the other hand Russia's population will drop from 143 million to 110 million, Germany from 82 million to 73 milllion.
On the other side of Eurasia Japan's population is predicted to drop from 127 million to 93 million and South Korea from 48 million to 43 million.
The only reason countries like US, Canada and Australia have a population growth is immigration, their fertility rates being 2.05, 1.58 and 1.78 respectively.

On the other end of the scale we have Ethiopia expected to grow from 85 million today to 278 million in 2050 and Nigeria growing from 150 million to 264 million however as far as First World and much of the Second World is concerned no child policy is really required.

Source census.gov

Do you have the figures for the UK? I was under the impression our population is expected to increase for the same reason as countries like australia, except we really are struggling for the room.

[Kane Starkiller]

Sorry I forgot to put up a LINK. Here you'll find plenty of information about all countries in the world.
UK population is predicted to rise from 61 million today to about 64.5 million in 2035 and then dropping to 64 million in 2050.