Overpopulation, Eugenics + Adjacent BS (IMPORTANT DOCS №13)

Overpopulation, Eugenics + Adjacent BS (IMPORTANT DOCS №13)

Show Video

Soylent, Green Dan. Brown's Inferno. Logan's. Run ready. Player one and. Idiocracy. Now. When I watch these films I'm. Reminded, of how it seems like there's just too many human beings on earth that's. Why I got this tiny house move, myself away from all those terrible, overcrowded. City streets living, here in the wilderness I've, reflected on population. Growth, there's. Just no. Room for these people. No. In, 1843. Charles, Dickens wrote a Christmas carol the story centers around the transformation. Of a man named Ebenezer Scrooge. At the beginning he was described, by Dickens as a squeezing, wrenching. Grasping. Scraping clutching. Covetous, old, sinner but. At the, end he was giving away turkeys, like that question mark suit guy claims. The government gives away grant, money, Scrooge. Was more or less the 1840s. Equivalent, of a payday lender inspired. By creditors, Dickens, own family, moved around constantly to avoid as he grew up when. A pair of altruist. Solicited, Scrooge to donate some money for, efforts to feed the poor he, rejected the idea outright. He said the poor should go to work houses, which at the time were, places, were people who couldn't support themselves could live in exchange for a job to do and, it sounds nice but it really, wasn't work. Houses, were intended, to maintain harsh, living conditions to, ensure that only the, supposedly, truly. Destitute. Would apply the, do-gooders, replied, with many. Cannot cava and many. Would rather die - which Evan eases crude shot back with they'd. Rather die they'd better do it and decrease the, surplus population which, you know makes sense I mean the world was overrun with people one hundred seventy-five, years ago when a Christmas carol was written and now we've got literally, 7.5. Times, that many people now I. Mean. Seriously, look how bad it has gotten George. Was an avatar, of various issues that Charles Dickens had with the harsh capitalist, transformation. Happening, around him and a Christmas. Carol is ultimately, a vehicle, for criticizing, those issues there's, a number of indictments, of capitalism. The society, it was creating, we can see in the character, of Ebenezer, Scrooge, but here, let's, focus on Scrooge's, usage of the term surplus. Population. In, using, this term it's established, this character, though meant to embody many of the issues to contact with society, explicitly. Agreed with the then popular ideas, a man, by the name of Thomas Malthus introduced. A few decades prior and, like I don't know I'm. Just, ironically, detached, enough, to want to hear in detail, about something Evan E's Scrooge a fictional person agreed, with an ironic I. Mean. It could be hilarious, it, was not hilarious. In. 1798. Malthus. And actually, real political, economist that Dickens, unfortunately. Didn't, make up published. A book entitled an essay, on the principle of, population in. It Malthus, asserted, that since food production, improved, people's well-being and, apparently. Happy, and healthy means perpetually, horny that an exponential, population growth, would, potentially, take place and would outpace growth in food production, eventually. According, to Malthus there, couldn't possibly be, enough food or resources. In population. Went unchecked increases, in a geometrical. Ratio, the subsistence increases. Only in an arithmetic oratio. A slight, acquaintance, with numbers, will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison, of the second, essentially. Overpopulation. As we talked about today, is the, idea that humans could multiply to a number that overwhelms. The planet Earth it's, rooted in the ideas of Malthus, who believed that humanity, had the potential, to double its population, every. 25, years he. Believed the amount of food produced up until this time was a natural, check which balanced, humanity's, growth other checks, included, things like disease, and famine and because, of combinations, of these and more factors, people, never previously, had the means to multiply at, the rate necessary, to overpopulate. However. Advances, in technology, in both food production, and medicine, quickly, overcame, that implying. That potential, could be reached soon, at least according to people who still believed in these things, Thomas. Malthus wasn't, the first person to raise a version of this concern, long, before Malthus, Plato, had expressed concerns about overpopulation. When, the world had only around 150. Million humans, living on it or less. Than 2%, of today's population, he, believed the world couldn't sustain more, than that and advocated. For a stationary. State an idea, that Malthus would adapt and advocate, for as well by, Malthus is time the world population, had grown to about 1 billion people well.

Beyond What Plato thought would be sustainable make. Him wrong. Still. Thomas, Malthus reintroduced. A popular, concern the idea that humankind, would outgrow available. Resources, telling, folks that a finite, amount of land would be incapable of supporting a population, with a supposedly, infinite, growth potential, also making. Him, wrong, over. The last six decades population. Has doubled Wow food production, on the other hand has. Tripled, at the same time we make so much food we could, feed. 141, percent of the people who exist right now that's. About ten point five billion people, we, could easily feed. Three, billion more, people without changing, anything, about, production, we. Just don't. Here's. Thomas Malthus his model not. Very, similar. Is it the, time for a Malthusian, catastrophe or. What, we came to call an event where food production, would no longer keep up with population growth matches. Up best with the growth of the baby boom which, took place after World War two through the 1960s. Because, food supply, supposedly. Only increases. Arithmetic, alee and this is a natural check on population. Malthus, predicted, that population, would then continue to grow exponentially. It. Didn't, though as you. Can see growth tapers, off and becomes linear after. The 60s, despite. Growth, in food production, outpacing. Human population. Growth and linear. Growth with more people means the birth rate actually went down more. People, having less, kids, we'll. Talk about that more later anyways. It's food, production, that's speeding up not, population. Technology. Is, actually what's, growing at an increasing, rate specifically. Technology. That feeds us, like. This amazing craft, beer this wasn't possible in the 1960s. Because. Food, production, was encouraging, so much population, growth to happen Malthus, thought it would be necessary to, regulate, the population. He believed there were only two ways this could happen either, the death rate rises, or the birth rate lowers when, Scrooge said to let the poor die off to decrease, the surplus population. It was a reflection, of the popular, interpretation. Of malthus's work just, as in today's capitalism. The port were generally, blamed for the conditions, they lived in and when, discussing this in relation, to overpopulation. It was said that helping the poor would worsen conditions for, everyone, in the long run from, an essay on the principle of, population, instead.

Of Recommending, cleanliness to, the poor we should encourage contrary. Habits, in our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and caught the return of the plague in. The country we should build our villages near stagnant. Pools and particularly, encourage, settlements in all marshy, and unwholesome, situations. But, above all we should reprobate, specific, remedies, for ravaging, diseases, and those, benevolent, but much mistaken men. Who thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting, schemes for the total extirpation, of particular. Disorders, if by these and similar means the annual, mortality were, increased, we, might probably every, one of us marry at the age of puberty and yet few be absolutely, starved. Allowing, the poor to live worse and, therefore, shorter, lives would, naturally, increase the death rate while quote, unquote we. Will. Live in abundance, we. Being. The obviously. Intelligent, definitely. White bourgeois, class or, you, know whatever they called it that in there as this. Bleak worldview took hold in order to preserve the workers will to work hard, it had to be tied to living better in an aspirational. Manner working. More had, to appear, to get you paid more getting. Paid more would supposedly, get you property, getting. Property, meant having appreciating. Assets, which, meant you were building wealth this, justified, the system as well as created consequences. For not being quote unquote good, enough it's. Not hard to understand, where people's perception, went with this people, thought the best among the impoverished, would rise and take a place among the obviously, intelligent, definitely. White bourgeois, class because, it happened to people like Charles Dickens as the, obviously, intelligent definitely. White bourgeois, class group, members. Would clearly have enough sense to take intentional. Measures to lower the birthrate then, the, death rate among the pores could rise because, we. Don't help those sickening, poor it feels, like the right thing to do but they overpopulate. The, world if you help them in the meantime the, obviously, intelligent definitely. White bourgeois, class could maintain and, the stupid Poor's could be left to live short sickly lives necessary, hard labor, then automation. Could come around and maybe we could just let them all die off, I ain't who knows and really, who cares. We, certainly. Don't, now. They're. Obviously, would be exceptional. People amongst, the poor like Charles, Dickens who should be raised from poverty and join the obviously. Intelligent definitely. White bourgeois, class despite, kind, of hating the obviously, intelligent definitely, by booj walk class this, system wouldn't, be fair otherwise and, this, system he's so clearly. The. Poor had to have the freedom. To become rich upward. Mobility was, there, they, just had to prove they were worthy, if. They couldn't well they, were part of the surplus population and. Looked down upon by the Scrooge's of the world as a burden, and a hindrance only. There were less of them, we, could, have a much better time here, on planet, earth if, this is starting to sound like eugenics, it's, because, it. Is, malthus's. Book was published just, at the beginning of a time when a growing consciousness, was threatening the labor situations. In the nascent Western world in, efforts to preserve the horrific institution. Of slavery as well as other forms of inexpensive. Labor both here in the US and in the UK, justifications. For hierarchy, in both class and race were sought pretty aggressively. So. Eugenics. For. Those not in the know eugenics. Is stated, to be about improving the genetic, quality of the human population or. A segment. Of it this, could and would, be practiced, in one of two ways, raising. The rates of sexual reproduction, among people with desired, traits, or reducing, the rates of sexual reproduction of people with undesired. Traits often, through marriage bans and forced sterilization the, connection, between overpopulation. Should be made obvious, in that overpopulation. Was seen as a problem of multiplying, Poor's, people, who were seen as disposable. But necessary, to perform various labor also, consider. The idea that eugenics is built on identifying. Desirable. Versus undesirable. Traits, understanding. That desire, is a subjective, human concept. And that, the prevailing, attitude at the time these ideas we're spreading was that black people were unintelligent. To the point of being subhuman. One. Can guess, who, is the most likely to be bred. Out when talking about.

Undesirable. Traits truly. A hipster, Malthus. Liked eugenics, before, it was cool by about a half century, I'll, use some of malthus's explanation. Of eugenics, before, it was called eugenics, from 1798. An essay on the principle of, population by. An attention, to breed a certain degree of improvement similar, to that among animals, might take place among, men whether. Intellect, could be communicated, may be a matter of doubt bird size strength. Beauty, complexion. And perhaps longevity. Or in a degree transmissible. As the, human race however could not be improved in this way without condemning all the bad specimens, to celibacy it is not probable that a detention to breed should ever become general. What's. Interesting here, is that he asserts the ideas, we would come to know as eugenics, probably. Wouldn't become popular, this, is a rare time I wish Malthus was right but unfortunately this one didn't affect his batting average at all he, also said that intellects, transmissibility. May. Be a matter of doubt but, it's, important, to note that he didn't rule it out and, given. He was ultimately talking, about general, concern, and public, matters, he could have easily meant, may, be hard for people to believe or perhaps swallow, let's. Also not forget Malthus. Had political opponents. Who took him to task on blaming the poor for their own exploitation. At the hands of capitalists. So it's not outlandish, to assume he may have hedged his own arguments, against charges of classism, by biological. Assertion, I look, at it this way if you've got ten people who advocate for policies, that target, the poor and marginalized hoping. To decrease, their lifespan or outright. Kill them but, one time one of them says, intelligence. May be a matter of doubt does, it really changed the overall goal, or effect of that group of ten people his. Usage, of the phrase bad, specimens. Should sound some alarms to the, ideas Malthus, espoused do necessitate. Large numbers of people to be viewed as bad, specimens. As he calls them as earlier. Stated it, is not the obviously, intelligent, definitely. White bourgeois, class that multiply. Like rabbits, it's those sad laborers, that are never gonna get anywhere so they need to fuck the pain away it's, also conveniently. For the British Empire those, quote unquote savage. People in distant, on developed, countries, that could be enslaved or live on land that is rich in resources or, perhaps provide better more convenient, trade routes we. Have to go and civilize. These people if, we're talking about the 1800s. Anyhow, nowadays. We call it spreading. Democracy, like.

Overpopulation. Eugenics, dates back to Plato apparently. No one with bad ideas actually, comes up with them on their own they just rip off the less popular, Plato deep cuts of, course Plato didn't call it eugenics, he called it something. Greek, similarly. Malthus, didn't have a word for it but he included, talk of it in his book about overpopulation, which, indicates, it's more than casually, connected, in fact I'd go further and say they're inseparable and, it, isn't hard to demonstrate their convergence, another. Field of study that emerged in the time between principle. Of population and, a Christmas carol was craniology. Craniology. Was, the brainchild of a man named Samuel, George Morton, who collected, hundreds of human skulls from the many regions, of the world after. Studying, them he claimed that he could judge the intellectual, capacity of, a race simply, by average, size of the skulls he had measured, large. Skulls, to Morton meant, a large brand, therefore. High intellectual, capacity. Also, he, believed a small skull indicated, the opposite, because bigger, is better and that's that also, also. Different. Skull shapes could dictate various. Personality. Types also also. Also this. Is all obviously wrong, both. Elephants. And whales are. Examples, of animals, with brains significantly. Larger, than ours and though, they are both smart and cool they can't really compete. Not, that it's a competition. I mean, sometimes, people say that when they feel threatened, that's, not why I said that I'm not threatened by elephants. And whales okay, I am, so much smarter than elephants. And whales, not. Threatened. Also. I probably got way bigger dick than them not. A competition though. Similarly. We have about the same brain to body mass ratio, as mice, yet, mice haven't, invented a smartphone yet that, is to say with, a small amount of critical thinking it's easy to tell that Morton's ideas, were basically, nonsense. Nevertheless. In, 1839. Morton, published crania, Americana, in which he claimed that white people had the biggest and therefore, best brains, while black, people had the smallest brands, science. He said had proven black folks are not, good brain people to use a direct quote okay, so it's not a direct quote but he, also said, the skulls were evidence that God had created all the races separately, given each specific. Irrevocable, traits and characteristics so, I don't. Need to directly quote him who. Cares, Morton. Published his work quite, a while after Malthus, his principle, of population and, though, it doesn't seem particularly, related.

When, They intersect, they, do it hard, in. 1864. Herbert, Spencer published. Principles, of biology because. It was apparently, a trend to name things principles. Of something now, Spencer, was an unapologetic, supporter. Of laissez-faire, capitalism. As he believed the struggle cause self-improvement. Which, was also something he believed to be genetically passed on Spencer's. Idea of survival. Of the fittest yes, he's the guy who came up with that his, directly, influenced, by the principle, of population Malthus. His work in fact he believed that overpopulation. Would lead specifically. To survival, of the fittest Herbert. Spencer's, writings, were known as imperative. Contributions. To scientific, racism, which, is racism. Dressed, up as science you, know like how so-called, identitarian, czar really just more branding, focused white supremacists. Except, in the 1800s, nobody was like don't claim to be racist, they, were more like find, a way to back, racism, was something that sounds like science and conjecture. Is still generally pretty accepted, so go ahead and use that like just make sure you use big words okay use, big words. Spencer. Was one of the progenitors, of social. Darwinism, what, this means is that he applied Darwin's, ideas, to the. So. Show. But. Since Darwin's theories are biological. Applying, them to the. So. Doesn't. Work. Maybe. You're not quite as dauntless, as you thought you were you're. Right. I'm. Not. I'm divergent. Also. Spencer, believed humanity, could be steered, and driven. To evolve towards, the quote, unquote ideal. Human, race because. Of course, he did the Spencerian. Take on evolution. Claims savages. Are less, evolved. And incapable. Of higher thought Spencer, also, cited crania, logical, studies of skull, size and capacity in support, of this because, again of course, he did these, ideas influenced, the eugenics, movement which was jump-started by Francis, Galton in 1869. Who, proposed the first social measures meant, to preserve or enhance biological. Characteristics. Finally, dubbing these ideas. Eugenics. He, specifically, proposed, a system of arranged marriages, between rich obviously. Intelligent definitely. White bourgeois, men and women note the binary, conceptualization. Of gender to produce the ideal. Human, race. In. 1899. Georg Fischetti Lapage published, the Aryan and his social role in which he classified, humanity, into different hierarchies. Races. Spanning. From the Aryan white race to the mediocre. And inert, Jewish. Race he. Applied eugenics, to his conceptualization. Of race as generously, as someone, who never, wants skin cancer should apply sunscreen the. Shed Dilip Uche had two ends first. The end of trade unionists, who he and his followers considered. To be quote unquote degenerate. As their, aim was to improve the conditions, of the working poor remember. According to the prevailing thought of the time the poor were genetically. Inferior and contributing. To the surplus. Population but, where have we heard the word degeneracy. Before, let's. Watch a YouTube video to find out. Let's. Watch an instructional video to learn more. The. Word degenerate, comes from the Latin prefix D which, means away from and the Latin word genus, which means race our kind so to be degenerate, is to no longer be of your race our kind and if you think this already sounds pretty flashy you. Pay attention. Second, verse shared Allah push wanted to prevent social conflict, by establishing, a fixed hierarchical. Social order with well-bred. Intelligent. Elite individuals. At the top and, a disposable, mass of people at the bottom Java. Shed Allah push became one of the leading inspirations. Of Nazi anti-semitism and. Other Nazi stalwarts. In the, hundred and one years between, an essay on the principle of, population and. The Aryan and his social, role one, big, thing worth noting happened. The, United States Civil War abolished, slavery in the country mostly. Slavery. Was a means to not just get work done for free but seen, by money as a means of controlling the populations, of supposedly, genetically, inferior races, entering, the new world considering. Labor and economics. As well as social hierarchies, it makes sense, that, these people would want reasons, to devalue, groups of human beings also fuck.

These People the, various eugenicist, c-can't, in you´d their work even, after slavery, was quote/unquote over because, even a lot of people with anti-slavery. Views, didn't, believe all humans to be created equal despite, it being the start of the second paragraph the United States Declaration of, Independence, but whatever. The. American eugenics, society, was founded in the early 20th century USU. Genesis outwardly, supported, restriction, on immigration, from nations, with, what they considered, to be inferior. Stock, and, argued. For the sterilization. Of, degenerate. And. Unfit. Individuals. For, reference this meant the mentally ill or the neurodivergent, the blind the deaf promiscuous. Women, homosexuals. And immigrants. Or racial groups between. 1907. And 1935. All but 12 states in the US had passed or were in the process of passing forced. Sterilization, laws, and just. In case you're wondering well over half had actually, already passed, them and yes. Many, progressives. Were proponents, of these laws let's. Just go ahead and say this though progressives. Were much. Bigger assholes. A century, ago because, people, in general were much bigger assholes. A century, ago I mean woman's, suffrage, had an element to white supremacy. Foreign, philanthropy, had an ulterior motive of, establishing, apparatus, of Western control and progressives. Didn't think people should be able to make their own choices about drinking, alcohol. Well progressive, attitudes, towards, government were certainly better than many not. All these. People were not removed. From their time they, were still capitalists. Who still believed in hierarchy, and all the shit the laissez-faire dopes, who popularized. These ideas, first like Spencer, and Malthus, for that matter thought, they, just also, believed, in regulation. That, alone doesn't make people good these. People are all dead, though what. Do you think people believe now hint. Most. People are different now a century, later though without, critical context, many people all over the political spectrum, unintentionally. Support the myths and assumptions we've been discussing thus far so. Early. In twentieth-century America. Over, 20,000. People were sterilized, because of their supposed genetic, inferiority, which. Included, the poor who if, they were genetically, superior could, have never been poor right, don't. You dare help them it will hurt us all move, into the wilderness away. From them do, the smart thing gears of a tailor sack they'll pay literally like eighty thousand, dollars for, it by like a hundred twenty acres of land get. The hell away from them this, world is overpopulated. And, I hate the morons who voted the way I don't like they're, both really stupid, idiots with deficient, brains, we. Have to get away from them I. Have. To get away from them now. All this, forced, sterilization, and, genetic, sorting, was in the United States before the, Third Reich happened, it should be noted that eugenics, really only became less popular because, Nazi. Germany ended, up loving that shit Adolf. Hitler had detailed, his belief and enthusiasm. For eugenics, in 1925. S mine Kampf and as, he took power he implemented, eugenic, sterilization, legislation. That had been pioneered, here in the United States much, of the master, race rhetoric, was based firmly, on ideas that had been espoused, 134. Years of in an essay, on the principle of, population by. Thomas, Malthus, overpopulation. Genius. It really seems to me that eugenics, is an unavoidable practice. If the problems, of human sustainability are. Anchored, in, overpopulation. In fact the implication, of saying, overpopulation. Is there, should be less people which brings, up a lot of questions, who, do you get rid of how, do you do it who, do you stop from having kids who do you deprive of food water resources.

And Health care to shorten lifespan do, you just kill people is, there a way to go about eugenics, that's good. Wouldn't, designer babies, be okay would it be great if we could breed out mental, illness wasn't Planned Parenthood, founded by somebody, who supported, eugenics, don't, right-wing, people try to use that to take down Planned Parenthood, well. Yeah, she. Did and they. Do but. What's weak is that instead, of saying eugenics. Isn't a good motive for Planned Parenthood's, various, services, but luckily, that's not really an acceptable, thing to believe and the Planned Parenthood of today doesn't, people, instead, defend, or even try to ignore, Margaret, Sanger trying, to act like somehow her eugenics, wasn't, the, one that had been gestating for, about a century or so before her before, we go any further it needs to be acknowledged, that this is an extremely, controversial. Topic, and that, there will be people who disagree with me here that's, fine and I don't think that you're a bad person if, you do but, I'm simply of the mind that we don't need to shine up the past, the. Past is a turd, Sanger. Had a positive, net. Effect, in several ways but I think it's worth saying that she held some really bad views, some. Have suggested that, she pretended, to have these views to popularize, contraception. Which I don't really, care to entertain, like. You, can't actually, know, a person's, motivations. Especially. When, they've, been dead for decades unless. They write them down which. She did and they. Sounded, really bad I mean, good job associating. A major moment, in body autonomy, with, the forced. Sterilization, crowd, that. Has not produced. Problem, for people advocating, for Planned Parenthood of this. I am sure, Sanger. Advocated. For negative, eugenics in, her book published, in 1920. Entitled. Woman. And the, new race which, I don't think I need to point out anything, about for. You to understand, why, it gives me the heebie jeebies negative. Eugenics and to improve human hereditary. Traits through social, intervention. By reducing, the reproduction. Of those who were considered unfit, this, was also in service, of reducing, the overall population, as here's. A surprise, Sanger. Was deeply, concerned with overpopulation. Publishing. Articles and, papers on the subject with titles like preparing. For the world crisis, in which she advocated, that no one should have babies for five years so the population, could quote unquote write itself and giving, speeches entitled. Overpopulation. And war, in. A speech she gave titled, the morality of birth control she, divided society, into three groups, educated. And informed a, designation. That regulated, the size of their families, intelligent. And responsible, who wanted to do family planning but lacked the means and knowledge and. Irresponsible. And reckless people, they, were just banging all the time with no dong bags, according. To Sanger, there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking, people that the procreation, of this group should be stopped. She also endorsed exclusionary, immigration. Policy, because I guess immigration, is bad she, also supported, compulsory, segregation. Or sterilization. For the heavy, scare quotes and, content. Warning, profoundly. Retarded, her. Words, not. Mine now, it's important, to note that she advocated, for free access to birth control methods.

And Full, family planning autonomy, and these, are good things when they're advocated, for all people, but it's also important, to note that she only advocated, this stuff for the able-minded. Which. Would not mean the heavy scare, quotes content. Warning, profoundly. Retarded keep. In mind that in a situation driven. By eugenics, neuro, divergence, is regarded, as unfit. Sanger. Saw her thoughts on eugenics as the, good kind writing. We do not believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the, defective, progeny, resulting, from irresponsible in, unintelligent. Breeding thing, is even, if she didn't like the war mongering, Nazi, eugenics, which she thankfully, didn't she's, still considered neurodivergent, people, the, defective, progeny, resulting, from irresponsible and, unintelligent. Breeding, I dare. You to repeat that as your own opinion, on Twitter can, you imagine how that would go so. I mean, no there. Isn't a good version of eugenics, eugenics. Is about establishing who, is unfit. Genetic, stock and either, breeding, them out or just outright genocide. Eugenics. Is a ridiculous, motive to empower people with reproductive, rights one the right wing absolutely, does use as a line of attack it's not a very clever one though as it reveals that they would hate their own deeply, held ideology. If they weren't cultivated. In service, of it eugenics. Is hierarchy, it's survival, of the fittest and it's. Meritocracy. But poor, people are not stupid. They're, just not born into wealth they're given the same opportunities. As those who are and those, who are incentivized, to hoard the wealth instead of spread it around enforce. Those limited opportunities, poverty. Doesn't happen because the poor are lazy dumb assholes, who have a lot of sex because they don't know how to do anything else with their free time they have no free time well, Margaret Sanger's, work resulted, in more body autonomy, Sanger. Herself, held a lot of bad views, that we shouldn't be afraid to debunk shying, away from criticism, of a single individuals, Inconvenient. Worldview, seeds, ground to opponents, of women in all people's, right to reproductive, self-determination. Sagres. Motives, for promoting birth control, and birth, control itself. Are not one, in the same birth. Control, is a tool, and, nothing. More body. Autonomy, is an important, cause on its own, why, bother defending. A dead person, who at best. Complicates. The fight for reproductive, rights and at worst, functions. As an ideological foot, in the door for eugenics, and for. That matter why. Indulge over, population, if it does the same, there. Are folks who still believe that people both, racially. Speaking and individually. Speaking are genetically, predisposed.

To Exist in a hierarchy, and that the, hierarchy tells us who is worthwhile and who isn't it's, not hard to find them actually, just mentioned, Charles Murray's 1994. Book the bell curve or Jordan, Peterson's, lobster comparison, on social, media and a flurry of discussion, will suddenly accumulate. Around you some. Of these folks will. Be there recently. You may have seen some among, the youtubes left graciously, spend their time debunking, nonsense, like the great replacement with, informed, research and even-handed commentary. The great replacement, is one of a number of contemporary, fallacies. Derived, from ideas, like overpopulation. And eugenics those, ideas contextualize, historical. Realities, like a limited, supply of resources. Or, the various social orders humanity, is manifested. Through the ages creating. A perception, of necessity. For the status quo and its current socio-economic, system, of capitalism, in, fact way back when thomas malthus's, ideas, were first gaining traction Karl, Marx and Frederick Engels known, capitalism. Haters collaborated. On a series of pretty harsh reaction, videos dunking, on Malthus, uploaded. To YouTube in the mid-1800s, while. Kind of Marx, and Engels thoughts on population, can be found in 1845. The condition, of the working class in England 1867. S capital and 1861. 263, 's theories, of surplus-value but, these are obviously, not YouTube, videos though, when. Marx and Engels addressed, Malthus, they were quite, harsh and probably the closest equivalent to, a measured, response style, dunking, that we have from that time period the subsistence increases. Only in an arithmetic or ratio. Look. Peter just put one of the music here, you, want yourself I'm. Going through some stuff right now. Marx. And engels saw, malthus's, principle, of population, as framework, for bourgeois economists, to claim the way society, has historically, played out isn't the result of structures, that can be criticized, or even changed, but rather the, result of supposedly, unquestionable. Natural, laws in fact, there's a good chance that this is a substantial. Part of why people think, capitalism. Works because, human, nature you, know people. Who say stuff like of the two worldviews there, is only one, that allows and acknowledges, human nature claiming. The natural. Order of the world is that superior. Humans. Will naturally rise, to the top and the inferior, ones will sink to the bottom, explain, the inequalities. Inherent, in capitalism, and previous, socio-economic. Systems therefore it's, not hard to understand, how in a capitalist, world the people at the top you know those who benefit, from how things currently are those, who pollute and consume the most might, look at the issues of sustainability.

And Longevity of, the human species and see population itself. As the, problem, rather, than, flying a private jet everywhere, or demanding. Bluefin, tuna decorated, in edible gold garnished, in caviar or. Craft beer. Why. Face the idea it might be inefficient modes of production and distribution ones. That might waste and pollute more but our cheaper, and yield higher margins, when you benefit, more from just, not. Facing. It it's, easier, for someone like that to say there's just too many people there. A member of a class that wouldn't, be considered, the surplus, population in. Such a model, they are supposedly, genetically. Superior according. To the theories that led to the social and economic order, we have today which were socialized, to accept whether or not we believe in, the specific, theories they, are supposedly, more, vital, people leading, us towards a better future with, their capital, which they will invest in technologies, of tomorrow, they aren't disposable. They won't be the ones who starve, if there's too many people for the capitalist, mode of production and, distribution to, sustain, keeping. In mind that perspective. It's very easy to see why socio-economic. Systems rooted in these I would be kept in place it's, privileged, and insurance, all at once its comfort its power there's, no incentive to end these systems, and these viewpoints will likely never truly die under, them they're the supposedly, logical. Answer, to questions, of humanity's, essence, if a competitive, mode of existence is accepted, as human. Nature the. People saying it don't actually, make an argument for it they just say it and move on as if it's true why. Do we accept that a. Popular. Defensive malthus's, ideas, are that he never actually said overpopulation. Was inevitable, but he did say that when left unchecked, population. Doubles every 25, years and that food production, doesn't what, conclusion, should we make besides that a slight acquaintance, with numbers, will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison, of the second, and the, solutions, or checks, that he proposed, in his book instead, of recommending cleanliness, to, the poor we, should encourage contrary. Habits, in our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd, more people into the houses and caught the return of the blade were, discussed, and developed for a century by others and then eventually, inspired Adolf Hitler to do you.

Know His. Stuff but. Again the, predictions, Malthus, made didn't, come true human. Growth only became, exponential. Due to medical advances, as well as food production advances. These, things all happen just before the 1960s, and briefly. The Malthusian human, population, factor looked real there, was a, baby. Boom something. Else that happened around then was while, feminism. And equal rights see. The interesting thing about Margaret, Sanger's, outlook, was that she believed educated, informed intelligent. And responsible people planned, families, and had less kids, this meant affluent. People with money if you ask any Malthusian, which isn't, wrong, but it makes some wrong assumptions, about why, the, thing is it's less about money and it's way, less about intelligence. What, it's about is. Agency. Agency, means, the capacity, condition. Or state, of exerting, power and in this context, we're, talking about the ability for a person to act for themselves as more. People gained, more agency, over their bodies, the, baby boom oddly, enough quickly. Relegated, itself to linear growth the, struggles, of feminism, and equal rights advanced, the interest of agency, over one's body though, it should be argued, no one has full agency, in a system that extracts, from in value, alienating. Us from labor product, to other people, in the true essence of ourselves still. There. Has been less gender, and race oriented restriction. On people's careers more. Encouragement, to pursue passions but. Overpopulation. When. A young woman person, of color trans, person, neurodivergent. Person, or anyone who may have been called a degenerate, 100, years ago are given, the choice as well as the means birth, rate goes down there's. Genuinely. No, reason to care about wild. Population. Growth if you, care about sustainably. Improving, people's quality of life on an equal basis, right, now quality, of life improves, as a consequence, of the goal of profit, but profit motive also does a lot of things that aren't great from, intentionally, creating new problems to solve to more importantly, the lack of incentive, towards sustainability, or to, put it in terms that overpopulation. Warriors might be more familiar with capitalism. Grows infinitely. Exponentially. Overtaking. Everyone, and everything, it's. By design - back. To the charts. Your. Data I only like my. Data my, data is just way more chill. You. Know when I claim the world is headed for calamity, you left us just have to come back and make problems, claiming. The system depends on a lot of these ridiculous, beliefs to exist this, country, is already, divided, enough. Remember. When I said our food production growth, is outpacing our, population. Growth now, our, distribution. Methods definitely, aren't we, waste half the food we produce for various reasons, that can be summed up by saying it's, cheaper, to waste it rather than give it away remember. It still costs, money to distribute, free food similarly. It's the mode we operate, on at a planetary, level which causes, the massive, carbon emissions not. Individuals. Normal. Folks having, jobs and trying to get by wouldn't, change much by purchasing, a Tesla, because they, are personally, contributing, much to air pollution relatively. Speaking even. With their 1987. Buick Riviera, also. The electric, grid is still mostly coal capital. Still owns the means of production of electricity and, right, now coal is still way, more profitable than, other energy, sources in, fact energy, sources like solar wind hydroelectric. And, nuclear are often, denigrated, by oil companies because again. Their motive is making more money not, providing, energy they. Provide, energy to. Make money, nuclear. A potentially. Worthwhile, source of power that doesn't, cook the atmosphere, has problems, inherent to how we do things today half, of the nuclear reactors, running right now or at least 30 years old I live. Pretty close to two nuclear, power plants, one, began operation. In 1975. And the other in, 1971. Since. Then research, on nuclear tech has expanded, the potential, significantly. Waste, from new reactors, has been significantly, reduced and the ability to recycle that waste into, more fuel further, reducing, it has been developed quickly as well recently.

Experiments. That create glass as a waste product from a nuclear reaction have shown the potential to even further reduce, the waste from any of these processes by, up to 90% with, that glass being very safe to store compared, to traditional nuclear, waste but, the incentive, to perform an expensive, replacement, or upgrade, while an old reactor is still making money is well. Let's, just say again nuclear. Isn't great in capitalism, nothing. Really is anyway. How we generate, electricity and how we distribute, food, has way more bearing, on whether the world will be uninhabitable for. The 11 or 12 billion we're eventually going to top off at a century, from now then. How many people there are by. A lot like. An immeasurably. Large amount, does. Population. Growth increase, the need for clean, air resources, and food sure. Is population. A resource burn yes, absolutely. But. Is population, the, problem. See that, one is a No the problem is not consumption. It's, not specifically, that people eat or burn stuff the problem, isn't, where, we are or who, we are in fact it's really really. Not, who, we are the. Ultimate problem is that we live in a system that, prioritizes. Profits, and metrics, over our fellow human, beings we, have popular, thought leaders claiming, they have the forbidden, knowledge that, biologically. Proves the ladies either aren't capable of complex work or that, the ones that are capable, of complex work shouldn't be doing it instead, they should be breeding stock for a class of supposedly, valuable. People its. Degeneracy. If ladies, married. To one of these unfit leeches who does all the hard work but also never. Works and, they're having unprotected sex, at home all day because. They're there all day, while also working 16-hour. Days at the mill the, mill, more. Like the couch and by the couch I mean the building equipped with machinery for grinding grain in the flour so actually. A mill that, person, is lazy, and unintelligent, probably has trouble expressing their ideas with clarity not, like me. There's. Also people who don't believe all that stuff but accept, ideas like overpopulation. Or IQ, the, blame and supremacy, creep into the worldview over time causing, them to say things like vanos, has a point, no. Thanos. Does not have a point if, we accept that we're biologically. Stuck in a hierarchy, that essentially, ranks all humans, from 1st to, 7.5.

Billion Who, decides how that supposed meritocracy. Works who, is worthy who. Is useful, whose. Worldview, is a threat, who's. Got to go this. Doesn't mean no, one is more specialized, more, educated, or even more talented, than other people it, means we don't measure a person's, worth that way, help, maybe, we, could even just not measure people's, worth at all, when. I see talk of overpopulation, the. Finger tends to point at people like you and me or more. Insidiously, at people in some far-off land, that's been devastated, for its resources, labor land. Trade people. Who buy every possible, metric, are the least responsible. For any of the negative things we associate, with overpopulation. Would, so bizarre I think is that this, just misses, the point entirely, the, higher the quality of life the, more agency, people have the. Less likely people, are to breed like filthy, disgusting animals. Or whatever it is the obviously. Intelligent definitely. White bourgeois, class thinks. Why. Because. The more people get to be themselves the. More they want to be themselves for. Some people this means having kids and spending every minute they can with them for, others it means burying, themselves in a hobby an obsession, or labor the, principal's, mouth is put forward are dismissive, and often, outright disdainful, of people who haven't proven. Themselves to, be merit. Worthy which, ultimately led. To a lot of quote unquote science. Claiming, this as a genetic, reality, but what defines merit, worthy or more. Specifically. Who. What. Is good, in capitalism. Is. Usually, defined by capitalists. What. Is genetically. Superior, is. Usually, defined by people who believe in, their. Own superiority. At. Best. Overpopulation, seems, to be used as an excuse to avoid enacting, humane measures that cost money which, could easily be in someone's, pocket, capitalizing. On the fact that it's currently considered, acceptable, that 30 million people flat, out don't have health care in the United States for instance or, that the people of Flint Michigan and countless cities in at least 34, states don't, have clean drinking water not. Fixing, that stuff help. Somebody's, bottom line at worst. Overpopulation. Is a justification, for, sterilizing. Torturing. And. Even killing people someone, thinks the world would. Be better without what. I think people have failed to point out through the years is how adjacent. To genocide, this makes capitalism either. Let. Him die. Or. Kill him it's. Not hard to get some stock footage of an overcrowded. City pair, it with some footage of a shanty town in the so-called world and say, there. Are too many of us it's. Popular, to do two because. It seems plausible but. When you start asking questions like, maybe, this, one place is overcrowded for, sure but, is the world population growth, actually exponential. You start finding that most, of this rhetoric is based in pseudoscience, that leads to unsavory, situations. But, if you solve more material, problems, like the production, and distribution of, food the rights of all sentient life and, human, driven climate, change, population. Isn't really, a problem. It's. Simply a number. Everything. Tends to work out better as people's. Quality of life goes, up. So. Why isn't that the priority. Darry, spirit. Will. He live I. See. A vacant place at this table I, see. A crutch without an owner carefully. Preserved. If. These, shadows. Remain, unaltered. By. The future the child will, die. No. Sale despair. If these, shadows remain unaltered, by. The future none other of my species will find him here, but. If, he is to die then, let him die and. Decrease. The surplus population. You. Use my own words against, me. So. Perhaps in the future you will hold your tongue until you have discovered, what the surplus population. Is. And, where. It. Is, it. May well be that, in the sight of heaven you are more, worthless and less, fit to live than, millions. Like. This poor, master. Yeah.

2018-07-13 01:01

Show Video


Thank you for this video. As a person who got a degree in conservation and sustainability, I can fully tell you that the human race has little to nothing to worry about in regards to their own food supply or personal space. The issues are that we're removing resources for OTHER species. Oh, and that capitalism is ruining everything for everyone across the board, it's just that the bougies can avoid consequences by throwing money at the problem (eg: relocation from flood as well as mining and fracking operations, NIMBY movements etc) whereas poor folks can't. It's frustrating. A lot of the classes I took (at one of the highest rated environmental science and geology programs in the country, so you THINK maybe they could get with the fucking times) actually still preach the overpopulation myth as well, but I think they're doing the really gross, really prevalent in academia method of "if you turn this into an issue about humans, then you can scare people into doing what you want." The argument was never "poor people should stop breeding" but the whole thing smacked of "it's our duty to make sure the human population stays in check, and that may be through preaching reduced family sizes, etc" which still would likely mean that the higher ups would only punch down. College is such a fucking mixed bag of dollar store candy and razor blades. It's superficially pretty okay when it's okay, but you're still going to have to wade through way too much bullshit to get anything out of it. I've done a lot of work locally and regionally with some professors to raise awareness about how capitalism and growth-obsessed industrial production does far more damage than any amount of the general population could. I live in the rust belt in a city fraught with abandoned paper mills, coke plants, and mechanical factories. The neighborhoods around these are absolutely terrible throughout much of the city (though, I do live in a tiny loft apartment in a former factory building, but out of a city of a dozen or more abandoned factories, this is the only one that was ever repurposed.) The homes were never maintained and are in a state of obvious distress, they often situated dangerously close to where the houses would have been showered in industrial pollutants for 24 hours a day, the soils feature high concentrations of lead and mercury, the houses themselves feature lead paint. These houses, obviously, are still being rented and/or purchased, primarily by the city's black and immigrant population. Much like there is a lot of evidence to show that the general population isn't dooming the human race to famine and plagues, there's a lot of evidence to show that large corporations ARE dooming the entire planet to a future of disease, coastal and inland flooding, and general shittiness, due to climate change. At any rate, again, thank you for making something that exposes bougie bullshit again.

Gonzo the great so, basically, because the quality of life for individuals improved at all levels so dramatically due to scientific advancement, the number of people dying off decreased. This lead to a massive increase in population, even though birth rates, on average, severely declined.

Gonzo the great Growth is what is added to the population. What is added each year to the population has fallen from the post war (1950's, 1960's) levels and is currently leveling out. This means what is added each year becomes less. Increased live expectancy and a population boom after the war, however is something we still live with. These people don't die off once the population growth reduces and levels, thus the overall population will continue to grow until a large part of the baby boomer generation has passed away.

When you add the same amount of people every year that's linear growth. When every year, you have more people, but the amount of new people doesn't go up, that's declining growth. It's not the population ~shrinking~, but I never made any claims of that. I claimed the rate of growth has gone down, and that we add roughly the same number of people yearly. Eventually, there is a ceiling for number of people unless the growth *rate* goes up. Which it is not; it is going down.

Gonzo the great no, Our World in Data shows that the world population is still growing, the annual rate went down.

+Astro Illogica Explain how it can be linear? From 1960 to 1999 world population went from 3 billion people to 6 billion people. It happened in 39 years. Growth rate dropped from 2.1 to 1.3. Yet, the doubling occurred in 39 years which is equivalent to exponential growth at a growth rate of approx. 1.8. Whether the growth rate is varying or not, it still is exponential growth. (cfr variable rate compound interest) Btw, it could not be exponential decay, because the growth rate is positive.

i did International development, and they taught us how malthus was overall wrong . The baseline we began from was increasing standard of living through health and education decreased mortality and birth rates, and using only economic growth as a measure of equality isnt accurate. Thats how alot of UN work is done now, quality of life +economics

He said 'lands at a new plateau'. If he believes that this means population stops to grow, then he is wrong. It still is exponential growth. Even with a varrying growth rate.

No, it isn't, and he didn't make any claim about zero population growth, either.

That's not what is happening. It is not linear growth. It is exponential growth with a declining variable growth rate. ZPG is a myth.

So you are making a mistake on what linear growth means in this context. Linear growth means that there is the same number of people being born constantly, which in the short term means population goes up until you have the same number of people at every age group. If you look at the blue line from the thing that you linked you'll notice that the curve before 1960 curls up, then becomes straight/linear, and even seems to have curled down a bit. This trend will continue and the curve will end up making a large S-like shape as population lands at a new plateau.

6:40 He says population growth becomes linear after the sixties? This is wrong. He doesn't know what he is talking about. There are numerous errors in this little video. What do you care if it is nicely done. It is utter fiction. No grasp of reality at all.

I haven't watched the video yet (I know, I know), and I will, but I can guess where this is going. Yeahhh, overthrowing capitalism, efficiently and justly distributing resources would magically make those resources NOT finite and dwindling, miraculously solve the issue of oil dependancy, simultaneously halting already irreversible catastrophic climate change and the resulting mass extinction (including that of humans). Yeah, let's modernize and industrialize those poor developing countries with their booming populations so they can feed themselves, that definitely won't fuck us up. The planet can definitely withstand an industrial civilization with 10+ fucking billion mouths to feed, I just need to justifying killing poor people :/

I always forget that these videos only have tens of thousands of view when the production value is better than people with millions of views.

Great video. I wished you touched on how animal consumption diminishes the amount of people we can sustain globally, but you covered so much that it's ok.

Sonic 2 analysis when?

Just recieved a notification for a now-missing video entitled "test". That was a funny face on the thumbnail!

This is really good. Nice work!

I won't lie, lil me grew up thinking about overpopulation after being taught about it in public school. If I could go back in time I''d make lil me sit down and watch this video.

Neoliberal capitalist ideology doesn't have any answer to over-consumption or waste. It doesn't really even have a framework to even understand or acknowledge that it can exist. If there is too much consumption of a thing, then there will be less of it and the price will go up, making consumption go down and if there is any waste that could be used to help people, then it would be profitable to use that waste and therefore someone would be doing it. If you believe that, then there can't be any such thing as over-consumption or waste. That means any question of over-consumption or waste has to be reframed as a question of overpopulation.

Really good video but I think my favourite part is the "he didn't call it eugenics, he called it... something greek" joke, it caught me off guard

You just blew my mind, mah dude.

Ive been on the communist left for many a decade, and this is the best Ive ever seen these points communicated. Great job!

excellent choice of hitler footage.

Fuck nicer automata. Good video

A&W is the craftiest of beers.


this video is long lol

i dont understand how, but the quality of your videos keep increasing in every way. keep up the amazing work!!

Thank you!

Thing about exponential population growth is it's an effective strategy. For rodents. Which we aren't. For humans, making a baby into a breeding-age adult takes 2 decades of intensive, collaborative work and enormous sums of money. People who are somehow able to have numerous children, while competently providing for and teaching them, deserve to. Making people is socially important work and someone has to do it.

Seeing other YouTube folks working with you again warms me old bitter heart. That one of them was HBomb with a typical dedication to having All the Appropriate Props makes it even better.

The contrapoints part made me giggle. Great video, you've got a new subscriber!

I like how Thought Slime got a little bit of a nod here in your video (@ 35:10). He's one of my favorite new YouTubers!

Is the only safe course of action when watching an Indiana Jone double-bill, to watch Indy fighting Nazis in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" followed by Indy fighting inequality in "The Temple of Doom" - otherwise you either go leftist tankie or risk getting sucked into Peterson's rhetoric and become a "national socialist" in your dreams? Or does "anything goes" (including aliens and crystal skulls)?

Amazing video. Thank you.

Great Video

Great video

Youtuber pops up in my feed I've not seen before, and it's sourced? That's an easy subscribe.

It's "funny" how most modern people would agree the 19th century poor weren't really to blame(but the people then didn't think so) and yet today we see the same arguments. I often think about how disgusted future humans will find us early 21st century humans.

Peter coffin has the best hat hair

I came very close to physically snarling when you said "Idiocracy"

TheCommunistGamer That's because you are a rabid animal! Your brain is trying to get you to finally accept that fact.

25:06 are you in Finland?

This is extremely well done! Editing, scripting, sound, sets, etc possibly your best video so far

I literally just went to a party at the question mark man's house OMG

I actually really like Lesko!

Hi quality stuff keep it up!

Actually, people in better living conditions have always had fewer children, modern contraceptive methods have only increased that trend, not caused it. There is a very simple biological explanation to this: There are two different basic taktics among sexually reproducing species, some have as much offspring as possible and take little to no care of it, and some have very little offspring and take much care of the individual. We are the species that has taken the latter to the extreme, no other species invests more in its young (elephants and blue whales maybe excluded). This is probably one of the causes for homosexuality, as well as the reason why every human society has members who voluntarily forego procreation and are rewarded with high social standing. Yet, it seems that in life-threatening situations an emergency program kicks in and humans start to procreate intensively, in hopes that kids some survive. Which seems to prove that poverty causes population growth.

Limey Lassen: You are right, the word "cause" is misunderstandable. I was referring to the evolutionary causes, why it is of advantage for many species to have a certain percentage of homosexual members.

Limey Lassen Maybe, it is just another version of the grandmother hypothesis

I'm not saying it's false, the explanation just leaves something to be desired.

Limey Lassen same sex younger siblings are often gay, it depends on environment in the womb. A lot of domesticated animals have an 8% chance of being gay, like us humans.

"This is probably one of the causes for homosexuality" easy on the conjecture there mate

The funny thing about craniology is that West Africans have in average larger skulls than white people. After Morton's first examinations showed that, he had to quickly invent a whole host of "skull shapes", "measuring angles" and other new factors to explain that away.

This is your best yet! This + the episode of Vegan Vanguard that Mexie and Marine did on overpopulation really helped me - as a lay person - understand the problems with overpoplation rhetoric.

This is Peter's best work so far. It exposes the underbelly of the overpopulation argument, in addition to showing how Capitalism demands human suffering. I'm thankful that Leftist YouTube has put in the work to explain this stuff thoroughly and entertainingly. I'd probably be towing the line of Capitalism if not for the work of Peter and people like them.

Excellently put

This was really amazing! Well researched and presented. Thanks for the advocation for nuclear power as well. Environmentalists tend to have totally irrational fears about it thanks to famous disasters, private sector propaganda and the pseudo-religious environmentalist obsession with the cleanliness of Mother Nature stained by the mere idea of radioactive waste. Technological development has made it much more clean and safe (as modern reactors have passive safety mechanisms that make meltdowns and such physically impossible). Moreover, it has the lowest overall death toll per units of energy produced than any other energy source. Plus, it's cheap energy long term, although the starting costs are quite big - practically necessitating state intervention, which is why many capitalists hate nuclear power so much.

This is incredible!!!

Ahh Crap! My opinion just changed.

Best one so far

Who is wigged creature labeled "Gournay" you parody with crawling text whilst narrating about Herbert Spencer (around 17:53)? When I looked up the name, I got a Marie de Gournay, who looks to be a proto-feminist advocating for equal education in the late 16th and early 17th century, but I somehow doubt that's who this is referring two since the rest of the "quotes" come from fairly shitty authors. Any clarification anyone can offer?

Much obliged for the awfully quick response. And since I neglected to say so earlier, great video, good sir. I've been known to toss about the "there's too many damn people" joke when in traffic or some other trifling circumstance (a Bill Burr classic), and it's strange how even things meant in jest seem certifiable when assessing ones own actual political positions without any terra firma basis. Needless to say, I think I'll at least attempt to be a mite less cynical while en route for ice cream henceforth.

Vincent de Gournay, 18th century French economist credited with coining the term "laissez faire." Not one that comes up in conversation a lot, though.

Man I'm not watching all that shit. U sure it couldn't be shorter and still have the same information value?

I take it back, watched the whole thing

This is your best video yet. Or, it's my personal favorite, at the very least.

Christmas Carol is as anti-capitalist as the NSDAP

I've had to watch this three times to process it all. It has left me with an overwhelming sense that _human nature is cooperative,_ not competitive. Competition only exists to profit a few. I'm going to do everything I can to tell people this from now on. Bravo, Peter.

49:48 ghost of Christmas present BTFOs Scrooge

this is amazing

Masterfully done. Those 50 minutes flew by!

Everyone in the world today would fit into the state of Florida

Anyone who quotes goddess Contra is a good person in my book. You've got a new subscriber.

Despite everything, i like the song at the end

Damn, you do a really good job!

What's the name of the classic movie you've gotten the scene from the end of the video? Really curious about it

Damn Peter.. you humble me. Is this the stuff that goes through your head when you're in the shower?

That expensivest show on vice is one of the worst concepts for a tv show ever.

Well spoken, I will admit I have caught myself using Malthusian language before, much to my great shame, but it is something I am working on. This Very Important Documentary is definitely one that more people should see, if only so we can become aware of how internalized Malthus' ideas are in our society.

I like these better than the adversaries series.

Up till about a year ago I would have said that truly revolutionary thought didn't exist. This isn't the first video to make me change my mind, but it may be the best. Definitely more revolutionary than anything the so called dark web has to say.

this is easily your very best work in this series of documentaries yet. the amount of research and preparation that went into this must have been enormous. this should also help in convincing people that without capitalism, we could already be living in a post-scarcity society. also, very nice use of cameos of/nods to other leftist youtube contributors. always nice to see the community interact in this manner.

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth/up-next Turns out, the only ones multiplying exponentially are the folks that Capitalism has left behind. That "bottom billion" mentioned in another ted talk is who keeps multiplying - the folks without reliable food, healthcare, shelter, clothing... Everyone else averages out to procreate enough just to replace their own population. Im a little annoyed you didnt mention this - but I can understand as it fell off of youtube. The people left behind by Capitalism are the ones who will overcrowd us. Capitalism isnt just disrespectful - it is the real problem that makes overpopulation a threat.

I've used Rosling's info and a bit of his rhetoric, but I kind of thought if I did more explanation it almost would sound like I'm doing too much. I do like his explanation and I've shared it before.

I think there's a sense in which the overpopulation argument resists refutation because it FEELS true, irrespective of actual analysis. Dense crowds without a shared purpose are psychologically exhausting, and tend to generate that feeling of just needing to be alone. All the rationalisations laid above it are just ways to explain that feeling, layered with various forms of prejudice like the worst sandwich.

I'm loving the crossovers of all my favorite Youtubers. It's just nice and I like it.

also i swear to god my mind auto-completed Peter at 43:56 as saying "We Live In A Society" and then the video would've just ended after that

Extremely well-done video, a lot of info for my digestion. Thank you

You put the sources on the description....you are a Heroe only for that(i kinda hate when they put it only in th video...is makes track the info more harder). PD: Hello from Argentina, a place with MANY problems

Anybody else get a CRTV ad before this video starring Gavin McGinnis, mark Levin and some chick from fox? Also some rip off PragerU ad starring doctor "I used to be an atheist guy". Is it all the ads on YouTube, or just the ones for me?

Was that exurb1a?????

This is easily the best doc ever man. It's awesome to see a lefty pushing the pros in Nuclear power. I've seen too many leftys actully push fossil fuel companies talking points. And I'm gonna make sure to push this video on my FB page. Sure some of my friends will say "why you posting this Connie crap" but fuckem.

This is so fucking good man. I've watched it like 6 times so far.

Killing the rich would solve the problem, tho

Please someone gif capture the [bourgeois Intensifies] scene and send it my way. I need it for reasons.

I doubt Plato called eugenics, Μαλακίες. But it was funny, μαλάκα!

Hey, can you release a playlist of the music acompanying these videos

Goodness, this one was a fucking masterpiece, and also helped me with the essay I had to write today, so thanks Peter!

Overpopulation is one of the most OBVIOUS covers for racism I've ever seen. I mean, the whole theory of capitalism relies on infinite growth and an infinite ability for capitalists to solve society's problems. So why wouldn't there also be a " peaceful market solution" to increasing populations? A capitalist shouldn't see a need for the government to limit population growth, as the market should be able to take care of population if it's a problem.

Damn man, that was beautiful. You've thoroughly convinced me of my folly and I will promptly change my opinions. Thanks for saving me!

I Swear I'm Not a Troll How is it racism... YOU CLOWN??!! ...When only whites and Europeans have been told that overpopulation is a problem, and were the only ones expected and coerced into not having children...So that the worse parts of the world could flood in, leech off of us, and easily outnumber us??? Just look at the birthrates. And remember who is paying the bill, for all the socialism that people praise so ignorantly! Without those paying the bills, all the handouts that fund the constant breeding of others...VANISHES INTO NOTHING!!! You people are delusional, because you've never had to live truly difficult lives or work or fight for what you have. It was all just given to you, and you have too much time & luxury on your hands, to appreciate it! You think because it's easy for you, now, that it must've always been this easy and so therefore was easy to come by or build in the 1st place. The world was brutal, FOR EVERYONE, in the past! And now we demonize a select few, who are easy to pick on, because it's the norm. You just keep picking on the same groups, over & over, no matter who does something wrong on the day-2-day, right?! Because you know they will take it. It's cheap, and easy. It's weak. And it's lazy... And listening to people, like this idiot that made this video, is only going to reinforce the stereotypes & the delusions you've been indoctrinated into, by other idiots just like him. Why don't you get out of your safe little bubbles, and go experience the difficult reality and choices that need to be made, in the world...Instead of just sitting back, judging, from inside the luxury! Maybe we could try being grateful to the people that gave us everything you enjoy and rely on, daily??? Huh? No, that won't work, will it. 'Cause then what happens to all the trendy, ridiculous outrage, that everyone revolves their worldview around?! Lol. Our ancestors were heroes, and were ACTUALLY brave, and ACTUALLY inspiring, and collectively built an amazing society...The same one that our worthless, whiny generations are systematically destroying, because we have no foundation, and no moral-base, and also because its trendy to do so. So I don't care if we could technically handle 50 billion people on the planet. Because alot of the ones we have now, aren't worth much, and would be doing a great service if they just ceased to be. Just because people "can" exist, doesn't mean they should. Unless there is, suddenly, a strong movement for people to become helpful and useful and productive, than it is just furthering the wasting of space & oxygen & resources. And, btw, the only people that rail against Jordan Peterson are those that are small, and are intimidated by someone who is intelligent and speaks sense and logic. And we all know, that goes against the narrative of the day. So they bash him, to protect their fragile little egos! That's all. Because you can't refute his logic...So you come up with one label after another. And they don't stick, so you have to keep creating just as fast as they fall apart. God forbid admitting ignorance, and admitting that they don't know. Because then you'd have to open yourselves up and learn. And the world might actual become a better place. And really, who wants that, right?! Just keep fighting against logic and against solutions, without offering anything but regurgitated hate & rhetoric in it's place. BRILLIANT! That's all. It's weakness personified! And to pretend it's anything more, is just lying to yourself & others. Please get a clue....And realize. Go against the flow of insanity that has somehow become "right" and "normal". Because it's not going anywhere actually good!

18:00 Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for getting Darwin's theory of evolution so wrong people screw it up to this day. -Dude from the early 21st century

Every time I mention that lobster thing on social media no one knows what I am talking about. :(

jeremy miller the 20/80 thing?

Definitely a good thing!

Maybe that could be considered a good thing.

This is probably one of the most accessible debunkings(assuming you added subtitles xD idk) with the least impenetrable leftist jargon. Awesome.

I definitely need to show this to some people I know who are concerned about overpopulation without, I think, really realizing the implications of what they're saying. Because even if you frame it in more universal terms, as they do (everyone should have to have fewer kids), it's still missing the point, as you so eloquently explain. (Nitpicky, off-topic side-note though: why do Americans think the "r" is bourgeois is silent or that "laissez" is pronounced "lahz-ay"? I mean, I get that French pronunciation isn't intuitive to non-French speakers, but sometimes things (like "bour" and "laiss") are pronounced exactly as phonetics would make you think.)

Love the ff7 reference!

Very well done! Thanks for the great content!

America has been built up as the ultimate Malthusian-based country. When you really question people why they dislike socialism, they will always walk the border of Malthusianism . Whether it be wood, food, oil, money , people in this system naturally assume a constant scarcity . This is then reinforced by the monopolies created during slavery times. Malthusian tragedies could be avoided with leftism, something Malthus and his followers never allow into their thinking. I would say Malthus was correct, but in that they perfectly describe the utopian mindset and the common sense that exists in bourgeoise culture.

I believed in overpopulation, but just thought the fix was to expand humanity to the stars and colonise other planets... please don't take that way from me.

Does this count as a Christmas movie?

Amazing work! I love your VIDs so much, man!

It is worth noting that subsequent editions of malthus's essay were slightly less horrible on the solutions. Solutions like voluntary abstinence, It's not great but it's a slight difference. Also is there that much difference between Spencers views and Darwins? I know Darwin said some pretty reprehensible things about the "lower races".

Some of your best work, thanks man.

Nice Moviebob impression at 25:10

Solid video comrade! Pssst, the bourgeoisie ain't gonna give it up without struggle. Get in the vanguard already.

I think you missed an opportunity to come down on liberals that often perpetuate the overpopulation tropes. Especially people that have studied or work in the ecology fields.

I want them to change their minds rather than think of me as an enemy.

Contra ❤️❤️❤️

This was an awesome video, some of your best work. Please keep it up!!

Why are most of the commercials right wing propagana?

so I guess you would disagree with Iceland breeding out Down Syndrome

whomever is doing the voice for Malthus is doing a very good impression of comedic actor Richard Murdoch


absolutely masterful

This is a great video and it is much needed, hardly anyone is questioning the concept. I read the script before and I thought it seemed wordy and technical. However seeing the result edited together, it works well.

Absolutely brilliant. Probably the best one so far

Is society discouraging incest eugenics? Don't we frown on brother/sister marriage mostly because the offspring would likely be genetically harmed?

Love your work

Great vid

I feel personally attacked by the mention of craft beer. Not really, though. But maybe if all beer was craft beer, shops and breweries wouldn't be pouring them out in the thousands upon expiration, because we wouldn't be brewing more than we "need." The only real overpopulation is the amount of things we don't need, sitting on shelves waiting to be bought until they're deemed unsellable, and wasted.

So Malthus was awful and racist and wrong about exponential population growth and technological progress. Sure. But I'm still afraid we're going to starve because of our current unsustainable farming practices. Current food production methods could feed the world, but for how long? How long before the soil loses its nutrition? We don't have infinite oil, we don't have infinite phosphor. To be clear, I get that capitalism would have driven humanity into these farming practices even without a huge world-population, but I'm not convinced we could have a huge (say 11 billion) population without relying on farming practices that are effective in the short term but unsustainable in the long term.

“the rights of all sentient life” does this mean you’re vegan?!

It means if I were a better person I'd be vegan lol

nice nier automata plug

Watched the whole thing twice because I need to think about this more.

Thank you so much for this. We as a species need equality, not only between us but across species. We need to care more for nature and do more to make our own lives sustainable. The rich must stop hoarding their wealth.

That's very kind. Thank you ♥️

Friend Bun at 11billion all in this b******* f****** Rat Race to live like one percenters that that's not possible judging by rap videos and fashion culture we aren't going to get people to take vows of religion and poverty

Astro Illogica you expect me to take you serious and you said the word bougie??? Please sight something the only other person i heard argue that is hans rolling spelled the last name wrong public heath expert an he said we could level out at 11billion with a B eating a western diet thats already caused a greatedt hits of catastrophe like factory farming There is a common thread it takes water to move energy and energy to move water Other than nuclear a highly divisive topic the only other means we have to do this is carbob emissions. Photosynthesis stops at 104°f correct there is already 2° of warming back3d into the equations. While argee the 1% need to be taken to task more than you know. The private lending landholding class an there corporate machinery finalization must be taken to task. Calling overpopulation a boogeyman is disingenuous to put it mildly. Maybe the problem is the majority only has an attention span long enough to formulate Thoughts with words like bougie oooooo salted. The person who populated nonsence like that needs to be euthanized with the IQ fearmongers an the 1%ers

Thank you for this video, it spreads light on a topic many of us would benefit from understanding a little better, however, there was no mention of water scarcity and little development into the problem of allocating the resources we do have. Malthus may have been wrong in regard to food supply, but it is water that the world is desperately running out of; National Geographic states that: "by 2025, an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity", this is the primary concern to many in the Third World before food. But beyond the problem of distribution, even if there is enough food for the current world population and more: is the uninhabited land suitable for a larger population? Does the geography/ecological life allow for enough houses and roads to be built? And perhaps more pertinently, is there enough work to sustain an economy in these uninhabited areas? There are many issues which the world faces that cannot be solved through advances to one's quality of life. There are still questions as how to effectively improve one's quality of life without creating more of a burden on the rest of population, even more when pondering how in which to govern it. In this light, the concept of a smaller population seems desirable, and the implementation of some forms of positive eugenics (like those established in China) is not necessarily a bad idea. But again, I greatly appreciate that this video was uploaded, thank you.

*We need to fight to keep our current rights but should also fight to extend that franchise to others. Family planning is fundamental to both individual empowerment and national development and yet is somehow regularly overlooked by bureaucracies or targeted for elimination by conservative forces. There are 214 million women in the developing world who don’t want to have a child right now but don’t have access to family planning. As a result they are less able to control their futures. Their health, education, employment prospects and very standing in society will all be impacted by something Australians so often take for granted – the ability to choose.* *When a woman can control when she has children, she can control her future – complete her education, pursue a career, run her own business or spend time with the children she already has.* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/25/when-a-woman-can-control-when-she-has-children-she-can-control-her-future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcS9DdyRm8M&feature=youtu.be

49:03 Wow, I've never seen the Ghost of Christmas Present be that straight up gangsta before. Which version of A Christmas Story is this?

Falcon.....psssst...... is that you?

I think your coverage of the issue is excellent and despite being a capitalist I would be far more comfortable with many of Marx's ideas than those of Malthus. However, the idea that excessive competition in general is the issue is a problem. Economically, command economies such as the USSR saw much slower diffusion of technological advancements as the individual factory managers would rather keep things the way they are, the far easier and less conflict-prone path, rather than changing production methods to accomodate new advancements. If workers were to vote on the issue they would face similar incentives. Instead competition between firms results in more innovation, more prpductive effiicency, less profit accrued to the capitalist class, and less power in the hands of any individual producer. Individuals could be provided a stipend for a decent standard of living and such a system could still persist, as people would still appreciate the extra income, and such a stipend would serve to increase the worker's bargaining power. Furthermore the ideas of degrowth are themselves severely flawed. It is absurd to claim that all increases in GDP must stop to prevent resource exhaustion. Carbon emissions per dollar of gdp are falling globally, and thus it is possible to have growth and falling carbon emissions. And so long as the efficiency of resource utilization and recycling increase, growth is sustainable at a fixed level of resource extraction. That is before getting into the possibility oi f replacing resource intensive products and services with more sustainable ones while increasing production of those alternatives. Furthermore, the fact that money exists or the use of price has nothing to do with not using more expensive methods. Using examples of systems where such do not exist, the Soviet Union had massive industrial pollution because it took fewer resources in the immediate term. That is why certain methods are cheaper or more expensive. Some take more resources. However industrial pollution and carbon pollution are negative externalities. They result in costs not borne directly by the parties of the transaction, or by decisionmakers in planning. In a market a carbon tax would solve this. Tax carbon emissions, then reducing emissions is more profitable, if you tax it at a sufficiently high rate, which we should. The proceeds would then go to constructing flood walls and adapting to climate change as well as funding new renewable research, as research in general is a positive externality.

Anyone else really wanna see Karl Marx's YouTube channel in some alternate universe where YouTube existed 150 years ago?

What should we do? Im legitimately asking. I am catholic and god gave us the works of mercy. So i want to help people and capitalism subjugates i have a duty to help. I want to get rid of it and replace it with something better. I thought i can become wealthy by working hard and then help the needy by helping creat something new but there are people dying today from things we can easily prevent like hunger and water born illness. If you have anywhere i can look or any ideas please let me know.

Also THANK YOU for the section on nuclear energy! People pillory nuclear energy unfairly because of groups like Greenpeace regurgitating coal/natgas lobbyist propaganda about it.

It annoys me that I have to watch shitty US comic book movie spin offs just to get your cultural references...

Well done.

A drunken rant. How pefect.

Defending capitalist greed with arguments for population control makes anti-communist efforts in the early 20th century so much more slimy.

This is really good and something I have been looking forward to after your comments on overpopulation, nuclear energy etc. during streams. Only thing I might nitpick about is your description of Dickens. He certainly is a good contrast to Malthus, but he had a somewhat paternalistic, characteristically Victorian idea about Great Men helping poor people through charity (the opposite of what Malthus is going on about in that one sociopathic excerpt about deliberately not curing disease etc). Not quite what you don't overtly state, but imply, which is that Dickensian morals are socialist in nature. George Orwell's essay on Dickens is a really good essay on him from a socialist perspective.

humans die machines rise

Stop badmouthing Malthus. Yes, he was wrong. We know that now. But his conclusions were perfectly reasonable based upon the information available to him, and his concerns justified. He simply did not anticipate certain advances.

This is one of your best ones (if not the best) yet. Funny, informative, provocative and easy to follow despite its length!

Malthusians: Please depopulate yourselves.

It's unfortunate how much Malthusian ideas are relevant on both sides of the political aisle. The number of times I've seen pro choice and environmentalist arguments bleed into Malthusian elitism is unreal. When I was a conservative, I believed Malthus was primarily a fixture of the Left, not the Right. This was because I didn't know my history, but I think that actually goes to show how twisted the presentation of Malthus typically is in our education system by both left and right-leaning educators. In both K-12 and college, the wildly discredited phrenology was readily associated with racism but Malthus was simply described as coldly rational. His motivated reasoning was only hinted at, not laid bare for all to see like phrenologists'. You don't even need to resort to historical context - his quotes are damning enough - so why the hesitation to call a duck a duck?

Peter Coffin Just do it! It’s been nearly six years for me and I have zero regrets. Literally every day I feel glad to have changed. Most people already believe in the vegan ethic that animals are individuals and not objects to be used. Aligning actions to that belief is surprisingly gratifying. Love your work!

I had always interpreted overpopulation to be the problem of generating the resources required being too damaging to the environment, and thus eventually the population. I had never took it as literally packed streets and human personal space being at risk. However, I seem to be learning more and more about the possibility of having the same output with much less harm to the environment, seems I have to look into this a lot more but I've definitely started questioning the validity of what I once did believe could be a problem in a the new future... Thanks for detailed response, and the video of course!

I never thought I'd find out who Falcon was.

Thanks for saying "the rights of all sentient life" instead of just "the rights of all people".  I think I understand and agree with all of your points.  So, overpopulation doesn't matter because suffering and environmental destruction is being expanded many times faster by the people who are already here being ridiculous.  I don't know if that's easier for us to change than our birth rates are though.

If it is a problem why do they flood those who breed to fast into places that breed just right? Is that not counterproductive? Asinine even!

I appreciate the use of clips from Idiocracy. I finally watched that movie a few years ago after years of having it recommended to me, and I found it...disturbing. And by that, I mean I found the movie's classist and eugenicist politics disturbing.

"Irresponsible and unintelligent breeding" still bad. We let 10,000 people, and that's the low estimate, starve to death every fucking day. We're not going to be overpopulated; we are overpopulated by 10,000 people every day. Why would we ever advocate for a world where everyone isn't well fed and educated? Fewer people, more resources. It's just inarguable. We should be handing out mint-flavored day after pills like they're fucking tic tacs. No one should have accidental children. And the best way to improve humanity, which I guess would be eugenics, is to give everyone good prenatal care, feed them, and give them an education. We could do that a whole lot easier in a world with 3 billion people than with 17 billion. Hans Rosling has pushed this idea that population isn't a problem, but Rosling bases his ideas on the developing world becoming developed and birth rates naturally decreasing. The glaring issue with this is that while yes, birth rates will decrease as women are given opportunities to participate beyond motherhood in developing societies, they will also increase resource usage. Americans use like 40 times more resources that the average person in India uses. So the average woman in India may have fewer children, those children in the hypothetical developed society Rosling proposes will more than make up for the decrease by using more resources. Corporate agriculture, pollution, climate change, virtually every problem facing the modern world has a single magic bullet solution, or at least mitigate it, and that magic bullet is made out latex rubber. Easy equation, less people = greater quality of life for the people who exist.

This is really great, i believe your counter to the Malthus argument was more in depth argued by Boserup if you're interested. Also a great perspective on something i hadn't given too much thought to.

The reason I mentioned the USSR is not for the purpose of invoking the red scare. There is simply an abundance of data on them over a long period, which is why I was able to find sources such as nintil's post with respect to productivity growth in the USSR (a lost I would advise you look up). With respect to price my point is that prices reflect resource scarcity because nonmarket systems have shown a similar propensity for environmental pollution and fossil fuels. Thus it is not the existence of money as a medium of exchange which causes pollution. And a carbon tax is an example of how pollution can be mitigated using markets instead of in spite of them. Thus, it is clear that markets are not the primary cause of pollution, as nonmarket systems have had the same issue, and it is not impossible to reduce pollutiin via market mechanisms, as demonstrated via a carbon tax. The government can shape what is and is not profitable via taxes and subsidies, while competition between firms results in innovative adaptations to the new business environment.

Yeah, but a nation of 1 billion can beat the shit out of a nation of 100,000, especially if most of the 100,000 are older than fighting-age.

He was nice, we took shots together. Wore his question mark suit the whole night! :P

Just to be clear, your not totally against the idea of people deciding on their child's genetics are you? There is allot of bad genetic heritage in my family with depression, anxiety and various psychical ailments and I would love to spare any child of mine from having to deal with such things.

A few points. Malthus was obviously the product of his time and held some truely repugnant ideas, that said; It is important to understand Malthusian theory was based on the historical rates of growth in agricultural production vs. the population growth rate. Now obviously his prediction was way off. This was because he couldn't or didn't consider technical break throughs. The first major one was the discovery of a way to industrialize a method of mass producing fertilizer in the 1930. However even by the 60's people were again concerned with producing more food. Luckily Norman Borlaug created the green revolution and that truly altered everything. Now of course with the discovery of PCR and other molecular methods of genetic modification we have again been able to improve agriculture but not nearly as much as was accomplished with the green revolution. We have also seen decreases in agricultural production do directly to climate change. It also takes 34 bushels of corn to produce 1lb of beef greatly reducing the amout of available grain. Also a substantial amount of corn that is produced now is directly used for ethanol production. Both of these issues are impact the overall amount of available food. Also with the loss of biodiversity we will see further decreases in overall food production, especially the vast number of crops dependent on pollinators, the most important being the honey bee which has been devastated by colony collapse disease with rates is America reaching rates of close to 50%. So yes for now if we actually used a system more efficient then the current one we could feed everyone. But there are extremely important red flags on the horizon that question are ability to continue increasing production. Also if the dust bowl returned to the midwest due to prolonged drought we would see a serious drop in food production.


Silver lining; Galton believed in “taking the roulette out of reproduction”, and the eugenics movement is responsible for some of the life saving, health improving practices that are used today in modern medicine such as; prenatal screening, and prenatal vitamins and dietary/lifestyle changes in preparation for child rearing. This is not to defend the eugenics movement, but just to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day and people at least had the understanding to say “hey, if you want your children to be healthier, perhaps you shouldn’t drink and smoke for the nine months of your pregnancy…, or increase your nutritional intake with these vitamins and go see a doctor to make sure that the child you are going to give birth to is doing OK while it’s developing, and if it isn’t, we might be able to catch it in time before, SURPRISE!” But this in no way means that eugenics was a good idea or movement, but rather that the pursuit of improving the human condition is one that is taken up by every generation and is not without cause, though it is colored through the biases and prejudices of the people of the time. A lot of basic scientific ideas that had some credibility got thrown into the waste bin of history because of the eugenicists racist/classist overtones. This is what happens when you allow social prejudices to tarnish science; even a century later you are not allowed to discuss basic provable concepts because you left a bad taste in people‘s mouths with your racist/classist propaganda. I.E. what happens to a population where natural selection no longer applies? I’ll pretend that I don’t know because it’s politically incorrect (not meant in the last bastion of aggrieved white people way*) to state the obvious fact that if you no longer have predators that pic off the slow, the weak, or the diseased that those traits will just go back into the population and further spread and effect new generations. I’ll pretend that I don’t know that because it’s impolite to say those things out loud even though it can be proven in a laboratory. Thank you eugenicists for making basic scientific truths unpalatable to reasonable people. * because I’m black, and it’s even harder as a black person to be like “hey, not everything these racist/classist people said was completely incorrect, though their intentions behind saying them were incorrect.” While they certainly would’ve been no friends of mine, I am capable of separating the wheat from the chaff and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And remember, the hallmark of intelligence is holding two conflicting ideas in your head at the same time, and as you can see I’m a fan of the clichés. Good Video.

Overall I liked your vid. It tied in so much together & it leads me to take people complaining about Eugenics more seriously. However: What is the best long term solution for Cystic Fibrosis? Does it confer any benefit to the individual or society? My first encounter with CF was the mother of a child that died in her arms at 6 years old. The mother had Bi Polar and was raising her other 3 children on her own. She developed PTSD from the experience of raising that child and there was lasting mental health impacts on the son which has been a contributing factor to his drug abuse. I understand that CF is basically treatable & on average extends the *expected* lifespan to 37 years. It may well be that the mother I knew lacked the capacity to access health services adequately due to poor mental health and being a sole parent, and thus her daughter's early death may be the result. This experience and my own experience with negative heritable traits in my family has pushed me to not wanting to reproduce. I would rather not have my experienced minimized by an "ally" so I won't go into detail. I'm open to the concept of forced sterilisation for heritable diseases which cause extreme suffering to the individual AND for which there is inadequate treatment available. On the availability of treatment, it is irresponsible to insist on "support" instead of cure when support cannot be compelled. A treatment may be technologicaly available, however in the context of a NeoLiberal government, more funding for support X means less funding for somewhere else. Whilst I know of 2 Disability Rights Activists that are Anti-choice, "Pro-Life", that are opposed to NeoLiberalism & active in the Labor Movement, most Disability Rights Activists seem to think we live in a Keynsian Economic Environment. They think if they just agitate well enough, funding will appear without consequences. They don't even think to make links with the unions covering the workforce related to what would constitute "support". Yeah I hate fucking Nazis. I also hate "Disability Rights Activists" that accuse me of Eugenics when I say I want a damn cure.

Does anyone know the name of the song at 12:00? I hear it on the Zero Books podcast all the time and I've never been able to find it.

Falcon the Hero? Is that you?

Barely more than 16 thousand views after 1 week? One would expect this to have 160 thousand, and it deserves 1,600 thousand!

Uhhhhh Hegel is a known race science guy

Upon further reflection, I think "survival of the fittest" is a circular statement. Fitness is often defined or reduced to meaning "ability to survive". "Survival of the most able to survive" is just stating something without any basis. In any case, natural selection supports many places for many niches and when looked at fully can not be read in a way that supports any kind of superiority, simply the need to survive by any means necessary.

So what you're saying is we need to collect the infinity stones and kill half of everyone?

This episode has certainly shown me a different side to the argument and I certainly knew nothing of the eugenics side of the story which I really commend you on the insights. I just wanted to know what your opinion is on people like David Attenborough's views on population and the demands on resources. Now I can appreciate the argument that resource management and waste can alleviate greatly the problems of shortages but since they are inextricably linked to capitalist processes and effects. My worry is that since capitalism (with its waste and inequalities) does seem like being replaced with something better any time soon; does that imply that in the short term we ought to really be concerned with rising numbers (9-10 billion by 2050) and how many will be displaced / effected in those areas that are worse off in how resources are distributed?

This was excellent. Peter, well done! "Some of you poor folk can join us if you have the traits we like to pretend we value, but really, we don't value them that much since we never hold that shit against our own" - the "meritocracy" excuse always infuriates me when I hear it from libs. What it really does is ensure that there will always be a handful of poor people that manage to rise to the bourgeoisie, while the overwhelming majority can't and never will, but so long as they believe it's possible, they will not rebel against this system. However, this system is designed to only work if most poor people never manage to escape their poverty. Also the "american dream" is a version of this and a glaring example of how insidious this shit is.

this is down right amazing

Good shit comrade

We need socialism now, we need communism when machines take over the means of production.

Finally a left wing video that's in depth, convincing and not cringey. It's also very well made and uses real data, I'd love to see any somewhat popular youtuber on the right try to debunk this video.

It most certainly does! I'll have to take a look at it this winter... oh, and of course subscribe to you, as well. ^_^

As far as the dialogue, it's in every version of the book. But it's the production with George C. Scott as Scrooge. TBH that execution of that line just brings the whole production up several notches.

I do, for sure.

Doesn't it?

I wasn't badmouthing Malthus for being wrong. I was bad mouthing him for advising the world to do things like "court the return of the plague" to kill poor people.


In better words: this is the reason why homosexuality doesn't negatively affect the "fitness" of a human population.

The rise of the temperature of the globe is 1c since 2000 , the rate of increase is exponential, food supplies wont last.

Astro Illogica. _"I can fully tell you that the human race has little to nothing to worry about in regards to their own food supply or personal space."_ ROTFLMAO !!! I almost peed my pants. Thanks for the laugh.

I’m mostly worried about the animals...if we move where they live, where will they go?

Maybe stealing ideas from someone who looks like Grand Moff Tarkin isn't the best idea.

AAA work here. This is TV quality, it should be on tv; but more to it; this is tv. imagine this and other youtubers being put up on netflix. Of course, its already accessible here; it just needs that bump from us.

"Foreign philanthropy had an ulterior motive of establishing Western control" USAID begins to sweat and stare off to the side.

I mean, humanity, like any animal, could be bred toward whatever characteristics we want, but I don't think we want to live in a world where we breed people into some idealized Ubermensch of thousands of years.

Why do we assume that, for example, the Orca is not of comparable intelligence to us? What would they do differently, either as a group or pod or tribe or as individuals, if they were equally intelligent to humanity? It would seem to me as though analysis of their brains indicate Orcas have incredibly advanced signal processing abilities that frankly put humans to shame. The reason whales can be intelligent without founding civilization is basically that they don't have hands, live an an environment poorly suited to fire, and are pretty good predators without technology. Additionally, they DO reach population levels that are at carrying capacity.

While I agree with most of the points on over population, I find the opinions on "capitalism" to be strawmen. Capitalism isn't an ideology, it can't be described monolithically and opposed to socialism (which is an ideology/set of ideologies). Capitalism is at it's root the right to private ownership, nothing more. Yes what is done in some capitalistic society is ridiculous and horrible, but greed and willingness to cause human misery does not automatically disappear in socialist society (as proven multiple times throughout history). Pretending everything done in every capitalistic country is bad is complete BS, some countries including the US have worked on scientific projects to improve the entire human race's lives. You don't have to be a socialist to understand that you should not be a retarded consumerist, and both are not synonymous.

I'm sorry, I'd love your video to be true, but I've watched the first 20 minutes so far and I can't agree with the way you put forward your arguments. For example, arguing against the hypothesis of population reaching the unsustainable levels from the fact that this idea is being favoured by racist is sophistry. The hypothesis is true or false to the reality regardles of who likes it. The ideas of eugenics (especially as a solution of the overpopulation problem) might be wrong but the problem might be real. Second, it doesn't matter whether the body-brain ratio of mice is similar to humans. It matters that within the realm human diversity it slightly (but negligibly TBH) correlates with IQ, as studies show. We shouldn't pay much atention to it, becuase the differences are so small, but your argument is wrong.

Holy shit, were you in finland? Also that is definitely not craft beer, it's almost the worst of the worst

Peter Coffin I certainly don’t disagree with you there, depending on how it’s implemented it could start a new golden age for all mankind or create even further division and hierarchy. Certainly I think people who want to make difference get on this now and start planning how we are going to distribute it fairly and what limitations should be placed upon it before it catches them off guard.

I'm worried about genetic modification in a system that incentivizes things from a colonial, white, cis, male perspective. That's not exactly the same, IMO. TBH if all of it was free and competent it's different than if one person can pay to not have inherited depression and another can't.

I'd actually really enjoy seeing what methods they use to try to debunk it.

except that all he says on capitalism is just a bunch of strawmen... Capitalism is the right to private ownership, nothing else. You dont need to eliminate private ownership if you educate people to not be retarded greedy consumerists. And all socialist attempts in history have proven that socialism doesnt solve the problem of greed...

Very fine video. It is important to debunk the eugenic bullshit as long as their myth are repeated, even by leftists. Eugenics is unscientific und biologistic and has no place in a modern, enlightend society.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand subed.

This is the best video that Shane Smith never made.

Malthus was kinda right for the first serious 100 years of capitalism, up until the 1910s. Economic production explosions didnt translate to better per capita living conditions because people were having more children then they could support on their wage. China's com party didn't try to decrease population for no reason. They wanted to accelerate the process fast. Look its complicated OK.

"Take a look at the world. If densely populated Japan and Western Europe were poor, and thinly populated Congo and Brazil were prosperous, a nice case might be made that people reinforce their poverty by their own numbers. But this is not so." - Jane Jacobs

what i believe is that we need to confiscate all the wealth of the capitalist and given it to the poor with this you would have no overpopulation.

peter coffin is falcon.

I just discover you, but you are an amazing anti-capitalist channel

Living in Seattle and Portland for most of my 50 years, I've seen the quality of life decrease as the population of these cities rise. I assume that if the world population increases at the projected rate, this will eventually be true everywhere.

Peter, Human choice, in and of itself, creates a sort of hierarchy, where popular/desired choices are rated higher than less popular ones. This creates a societal pressure further reinforcing the supremacy of previously popular choices. Furthermore, unless humans have stop evolving ( i.e. DNA transcription is error-less, and all genomes identical) more desired traits will be favored over less desired traits, though mate selection. As such evolution is an implementation of Eugenics along a specific hierarchy. For example about 10% or autistic adults are married vs 27% for millennial from which we would expect most of these to be selected due to more prevalent diagnosis in recent years. Similar examples exist for other traits/disorders/illnesses. As such asserting that human choice is desirable requires that autistic people should marry less. As such, the specter of Eugenic does not just go away because you empower humans to make choices. Any framework where humans govern themselves necessarily creates a hierarchy, and someone who gets screwed over. Thus a hierarchy is inevitable, someone will be worse off as a result of any change in policy not constructed as to effectively do the same thing. Thus any argument for how society ought to run, must answer who it screws over, and how badly. This includes the degree to which humans should have autonomy, everything effectively reduces to how many human lives does it cost.

Listened to this all the way through and whilst you have some points (yes our system is very flawed and yes the answer is to free, educate and give agency to all the women on the planet) the overall feel of the vid was ridiculous. Firstly population growth is to the benefit of capitalism and largely driven by it (bigger markets and cheaper labour), secondly standards of living to improve is the goal and that can only happen when the economic and environmental costs of globalisation are properly accounted for and when population gets under control. Finally though the vid is not even close to right when discussing the impact on biodiversity, sustainable carrying capacity, long term impacts on other species and more. There is not a single issue on the planet today that can not be attributed to excessive population or which is not excaserbated by it.

This is beautiful

Yeah I mean the world is so (((overpopulated))) I mean Japan has too many people on their island nation. Don't listen to the right wing lies that they're suffering from a low birth rate, even the Japanese is right wing.

Without a doubt, human population is the root of it all and is what drives more of what you lament or take pleasure in and about the present times. However, without being part of the pleasantries of a 12, 13,14 billion population, my guess would be that any leveling off of human population should be from shortages in what a human needs to live a quality life.

Ok this was interesting

If overpopulation is a notion you wanted to disabuse people of, but also a notion you knew was commonly held, why would you open with such a vehement criticism of the people who proposed those ideas? It turns people off. Also why would you show such a beautiful wide open area in order to demonstrate that there's plenty of land left for people to live in or farm? Isn't there a contradiction in that you're saying "We can destroy this splendour and make way for more humans" I appreciate that that might be the utilitarian way of thinking, but I don't think these choices serve your argument on an emotional level. Finally I feel you buried the lead for too long a time. Personally I would've preferred a more succinct abstract. Eight minutes in and you're still talking about the ideas of long dead men, including the ancient Greeks, and I see that as a sign of disingenuousness towards the opposing viewpoints - the long dead do not possess today's facts and will not be modern representations of the argument about overpopulation.

basically peterson. GOTIM

Didn't agree with this video, capitalism still best system we've got. But this was informative and interesting.

Wow. That was an excellent video. Probably the best thing I have ever seen on YouTube.


Thank you so much for debunking Malthus and the Malthusian argument. A sensible take on nuclear power was also much appreciated. China has 10,000 scientists working on nuclear. They are also turning desert into forests. Imagine if the US invested in something other than spying and war. On 19 July 2018; 20,000 Views 2,100 Likes Amazing ratio. Why is this not viral?

I hear so many people say they won't have kids because overpopulation will inevitably leave them in a world without enough resources to go around (I used to say it pretty often myself). People just need to realize that while this is a rational fear, it's not one common only to the most intelligent and highly informed. The fear of being unable to provide for your children is the main reason people choose not to have them. The general population is a little more aware of their problems than self-claimed intellectuals will give them credit for. Of course, I'm sure we've all heard at least one "super smart guy" explain why the general population is just to dumb to think for themselves and that's why stuff like eugenics and population control has to be used on them.

One of the things I learned from Charles Dickens is the concept of telescopic philanthropy from his work Bleak House. It is the idea that charity should begin in one’s community rather then in remote locations. I am not saying that people shouldn't give money to charities elsewhere or fight against global problems, but rather to be mindful of those around us and to be understanding and empathetic to our neighbours.

Holy shit. How have I not found you before. This is a remarkable video.

I've just been going along with the idea that the world was overpopulated without giving it critical thought, or realizing the connection to eugenics. One of your best documentaries ever. Thank you so much.

The binary conception of gender is how you reproduce. I see nothing wrong with at least that.

+Celina k I wouldn't be surprised if fascists in 20 years time start declaring cyborgs as degenerate. I'm just waiting for that day.

Xados - cyborgs and hybrid clones is probably going to be a thing in some capacity.

Bad Company Gaming Notice the word “world” using a small portion of the world doesn’t actually elaborate on whether or not overpopulation is a major concern. (Nor is it proof of overpopulation being an non-existent problem)

darknight910 +

Elizabeth Schafer +

Dalym +

A few questions. 1) do you think the earth has an infinite carrying capacity? 2) do you think the slowing of the population growth rate will last forever? 3) do you think the rich should pay for ever more poor to live in relative squalor, if indeed automation further enfranchises the wealthy while it makes humans unemployable? 4) should that state of affairs continue until the earth is stripped of all resources? all while quality of life inevitable decreases. 5) do you think capitalism will be replaced on a grand scale? 6) is it acceptable for the population to increase indefinitely, or is there a limit at which human activity is sustainable and quality of life is good? 7) why even bring up Morton's skulls to debunk it when we now know for certain the IQ differences between races? Are elephants and whales relevant when analyzing data taken from humans? From wikipedia, "A large number of studies have been conducted with uniformly positive correlations, leading to the generally safe conclusion that larger brains predict greater intelligence." 8) you say eugenics relies on one's subjective appraisal of what is good. is there no trait which is certainly desirable in humans? Is a low IQ ever more desirable than high? Is obese better than lean? Weak better than strong? (I'm not arguing for race-based eugenics, so don't read that into those questions) 9) are humans still subject to natual selection? if not, is it wrong for humanity to take responsibility for her future in the form of our genes

Funny, informative, ...outraging that this ghost of an ideology just wont go away. I'll have to check out some of your other vids.

Why do you have so many subs but so few views? Excellent content anyway

elon musk is good in capitalism

Just a little nitpicking but food production is also very inefficient.for example cows which we keep locked up in cages are horribly inefficient because they require far more calories than they produce.Because of the rise in demand for dead animal flesh we are destroying the Amazon and draining aquifers to water crops for livestock and livestock themselves.the reason we make so much food is that western lust for dead animal flesh requires large amounts of land and resources to be wasted in an immoral system of exploitation and murder merely for a little pleasure requires it.

I agree, and it really necessitates huge change, but that's not so much specifically a population problem. Again, it's totally systemic.

Pretty good stuff. I just want to say that (in case people got the wrong idea) global food production and distribution is actually an issue in regards to the predicted growth of global population, but like you say, the solutions are practical ones that will require companies and governments working in the best interest of the whole world and are not going to be solved by something as awful as eugenics.

Wait, wasn’t On the Origin of Species published in 1859? Did Darwin not use the phrase “survival of the fittest” at all? I have to admit I only skimmed the book. Whenever I try to read it thoroughly, and I’ve tried a few times, it’s a gods damned snooze fest.

Peter Coffin, oh. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up for me.

The phrase is not a Darwin original; he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition, which was published in 1869.

Bad Company Gaming It always fills me with warm fuzzy feelings to see the use of the (((Jewish conspiracy))) triple brackets /s. Seriously, try not to blame the world's problems on an entire race/religion/vague group of people. It really helps no one.

Great use of the Contrapoints video to explain "degeneracy", the Hbomb bit got a pretty big gut laugh from me too! Your editing is always on point and your scripting makes everything clear and concise! Keep up the great work Peter!

first, I don't remember saying that "it's all the Jewish people's fault", neither did I say that Japan is somehow at fault for the *overpopulation*. You just committed the strawman fallacy. My point was that, if the world was so "overpopulated", then why are there underpopulated countries, like Japan, and why do people who believe in overpopulation deny that fact and the other fact that a handful of countries have a big issue with low birth rates.

Overpopulation and the scarcity it can bring is inherently necessary for technological and scientific development. Were it not for overpopulation we wouldn't have the advanced agricultural methods that sustain a world of almost eightbillion mouths. Without the desperation of increasingly scarcer resources there is no incentive and demand to innovate. Humans take the path of least resistance, we're lazy slobs, "If it ain't broken..."

The excerpt from _A_ _Christmas_ _Carol_ at the end punctuated the video perfectly. Bravo!

If you have a pizza, the more people there are, the less slices you get.

Box Top Well... iq. I'm not even big on iq, just devil's advocate

Benjamin Hill They will be domesticated or die. Worse case scenario is Venezuela where they ran out of food and ate the dogs, cats, pigeons, rats and zoo animals :(

Benjamin Hill + We tend to move to cities, maybe Bucky fuller style

Phart Me neither, so let's invite them to make one

Maarten van Rossem Lezingen - Can you reference a single right wing video that's in depth, convincing and not cringey? I mean this seriously - not trolling. I've just never seen one.

Bad Company Gaming You used the triple brackets dude, you know what you meant by using them. Also you were the one who brought up Japan, I didn't say anything about it. The "overpopulation" problem is less about there not being enough physical space and more about the improvement of food production and distribution to meet tomorrow's (likely) larger global population.

Maarten van Rossem Lezingen y'all tryna say contra is cringy

Peter Coffin lives in a cuck shed

If the West was really concerned about overpopulation, they would just offer to pay people in the developing world monthly reparations in exchange for them not having a bunch of kids. Also, give them healthcare so that more of the kids they do have survive. After all, the reason they have all those kids is because many of them don’t make it, and because they need offspring to give them financial support once they are too old to work. But with western welfare, everybody wins. But oh, wait, that would require us whities to make as many sacrifices as the filthy, dirty, inferior overpopulaters (whom we exploit), so of course, that can’t be the answer.

Dude you sound like jeff holiday

Best documentary , Very interesting and told by good story teller !

Wait a second, Thanos didn't judge by any of those points, ranking people in one way or another? He eliminated at random.

It's the draconian aliens working through the elite blood lines, keeping everyone else subverted, like free range live stock.

FALCON IS A FILTHY LEFTIST!?!? Why did no one tell me that before!?!? THIS IS GREAT!!!

This video is cool and all, but where is the footage of Hitler shooting someone from?

Thanos dislikes this

Huh, in my politics unit, I suggested increasing the economic heights (and thus hopefully agency) of "third world" countries to decrease population growth and thus (generationally and multiplicatively) reduce their impact on the environment. It was a weird argument for undergrad, but it got a pretty high mark. I do do Computer Science though, so am traditionally bad at humanities.

You know that not every ruling class was white right?

So self actualization and full agency sound great how exactly do you achieve that in a realistic centrally planned a society

Olvi mainittu, torilla tavataan.

Love the information although obviously you are pandering to a different demographic from me and are viewing this through rose tinted glasses. The constant jabs, mischaracterisation (not intentional) and categorisation & buzzwords was a struggle for non-lefty viewers. You really need to look at IQ and how that shapes countries and people's lives rather than thinking that all humans are equal and that the poor "are just not born into wealth or given the same opportunities". I feel that you have a cartoonish representation of people from the right when you equate them to people from the past who have written fraudulent science articles. Nitpicking: Global warming is largely following a trend that is natural although there is some human aspect to it (blaming the top percentage of people for global warming is dishonest as they also are the ones who contribute the most to society economically through businesses and other things that inevitably pollute). Pollution is also not nearly the biggest issue of overpopulation. Whites are from the bourgeois class but they were also every other class in the UK as well because nations were homogenous. Good, bad, racism, superiority and inferiority are all perspectives that change from person to person, why do you pay attention to them?. Also no one in their right mind these days thinks one group of people is "superior" to another, sure there are some characteristics in one group of people that are better than another but other peoples can also be better at different things.

44:57 And dropped. There's decades of scientific research demonstrating the predictive validity of IQ. The idea that IQ isn't real or that it isn't one of the most powerful predictors of academic achievement and job performance is on the absolute scientific fringes.

I think that the majority of people believe that if you have a debilitating deformity that can’t be cured, you probably shouldn’t risk passing it on to your kids. You don’t want your kid to be born with one leg or missing part of their face. It’s common sense; it’s the reason why we don’t do incest. But that has nothing to do with eugenics in practice; eugenics in practice is „I have more money than you, die“ or „I’m a different race than you, die“.

Unfortunately a lot of that food production is carried out through the modern holocaust that is factory farming (which apparently isn't a social justice issue 'cause basically no one talks about it).

im paused at 36:40 and thinking over this section. It's got me thinking about leaders like Tariq Nasheed. Their view on improving the situation, as I understand it, is that theres nothing you can do to change the patriarchal / capitalist / etc systems as they are - imagined as a table with seats only for "the genetically capable" an "fittest who survive" - and through hard work and cut throat tribalism ("community support") black Americans can find a seat at that table. I wonder if he ever considers it a defeat stance, accepting the machine and wanting to be a shinier cog than most cogs. You know? Anyways back to watching

"he's a racist moron so i dont need to directly quote him." oh man, just beautiful. i want to kiss your brain you wonderful content creating bastard.

lol The comedic interlude at 16:30 is perfection. Also I'm not saying this cuz I feel threatened by Peters.

macintosh plus

Fantastic..I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic for the past few days now..

Elliot Wagstaff Why would that surprise me?

Maarten van Rossem Lezingen The Academic Agent for one. This may surprise you, but there are some really smart people who don't all agree about everything.

A lot of... video game B-role.

If we have space for 3 billion more, then we have already passed the halfway point. And the growth *is* an exponential curve. But we are hitting another limit, climate change is giving us a hint that we should not aim to hit near capacity before we think about these things. Our growth is kinda cancer-y. We have to grow up and accept this and stop seeing ourselves as more important than nature, but a part of it.

Plato was basing his hypothesis on the available resources of his time. The ability to grow food in abundance and get it to hungry mouths before it spoiled. What made him "wrong" is that he could not have foreseen the evolution in technology. The ability to grow more and more food on what would have been considered barren lands. But even with today's technology. We depend more and more on the use of energy, man made chemicals and so on. People constantly complain that we are destroying the planet and need to live more simply. The truth is that the world's population is already too large. Even if it stabilized at current levels. It would still mean more pollution, more plastics and chemicals in the environment and on and on. The population was able to grow so large, so fast, because of technology. But it is those very same technological advancements that will bring mankind back down to size. The next few centuries or less, will be the pinnacle of human population. The things we make, use to grow more food, build our cities and homes with, will eventually slow us down. We will poison the earth and ourselves long before we run out of fossil fuels. All in the name of sustaining an ever growing population. In the end it isn't so much about what humans do that will doom us. But how many there are doing it.

Thanks for the video! I was recently told that being gay was a natural human defense against overpopulation, I didn't agree for some reason (uninformed as I am) But this video gave me some context to the thought process this person.

Why I hate people who say Thanos was right

Fantastic video. The mention of the N-Gage made me smile. Hmu if you wanna get smoked in tony hawk pro skater on that motherfucker.

"Also I probably got a way bigger dick than them. Not a competition tho."

Scientific American says it is not so easy: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-overpopulation-still-an-issue-of-concern/

It comes down to priorities. Is taking good care of the population a top priority?

Cook and Palisades? Kzoo or GR?

Good work, I really enjoyed it, you are my kind of people. I'm eying that Jordon P one next. I have a feeling we might be simpatico with that as well. Keep doing really important things. At the end of the ________________ everything seems more important.

This is slick propaganda up there with Vox. I especially liked all parts where you mischaracterized everything Murray and Peterson say to make them sound sexist and racist. Good job.

"profoundly retarded" is not an "ablest slur". It's a simple descriptor that was invented by the medical community ffs.


"Hell maybe we could not measure peoples worth at all."

Overpopulation is very real. So are climate change and environmental destruction. They're the main causes of the global refugee crisis that's going on. You don't personally feel the effects of overpopulation because you live in the USA, which is still relatively sparse and prosperous. Overpopulation is not happening everywhere at the same rate. It should make sense to you that the earlier-settled parts of the world are overpopulating sooner than the later-settled parts like America. Be assured that in the rest of the world, wilderness areas like the one your cabin is nestled in are fast becoming a memory, especially if they have any useful resources or food-growing value. Enjoy your wide open spaces while they last.

Dont upvote, answer!

2:53 Is that a shot at people named "Thomas" or just Malthus in general? _No Thomas, we will not call you Robert, for Thomas is a more befitting name, for such a bellend as grand as you._ Great video, regardless.

funny stuff.....

Overpopulation bothers me not just because of the history behind it, as you have now informed me, but because it continually assumes that scarcity is true. I however like to actually look at the fucking world. Every time things get worse we try and fix it usually bringing more in. First off we have more then enough already as you demonstrated. Secondly if we ran out of enough stuff the more stuff could be created. Third and finally, people already die from poverty and most people don't REALLY care so why does a little more matter to them (even if it is completely avoidable)?

Youtube is overpopulated with bs.

8:41 "we" (((we)))*

I just binge watched all of your very important documentaries. Thank you. They're great. But now I feel really depressed. And I'm not even American. I want to call my representatives here and get them to fix everything here but I don't even know where to start. This world is such a mess. But it's also beautiful and wonderful. My head is spinning now..

It depends on what you fear. If you fear running out of food then that's been debunked. But if you fear the extinction of many species, and the mass destruction of the environment then overpopulation is at least a concern. Overpopulation is somewhat subjective in that respect. If you define overpopulation as so many people that the oceans are depleting in fish abnormally then by definition overpopulation is not a myth. It's dependent on what you care about. Also associating a concept with something bad (example eugenics) doesn't make that former concept false. It just means that that a bad concept like eugenics is false, and this other thing that's not eugenics may, or may not be false.

Socialism is evil. Shame on you.

Shack man is my dad holy shit


That's cool and all, but I didn't hear a word about why racism is bad. You just assume it's bad, and you form your arguments against eugenics around that statement. It's racist, and so what?

Wait is that Falcon in the beginning?

MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR in late June 2018. The journals revealed the cause of death of the expedition members. Apparently Franklin had discovered documents that had been buried near the Arctic circle. They were about to sail back to England to reveal the contents of these documents to the world when they all mysteriously died under suspicious circumstances. It is now been revealed by the Russian government that the documents Franklin found provided incontrovertible proof that Jews did 9/11.MYSTERY SOLVED! I don't think this has been picked up by the English language news services. On August 15, 2018 I read a Russian language news item that Russian naval vessels discovered the preserved journals of the HMS TERROR i

I trust TYT over the Ruben Report

Wham City collective!

5:50 food production & population graph.. check the graph for 1800 - now and you'll have a very very different curve. in fact it's completely exponential. we're not just dealing with the developed world here, but also the world that is still underdeveloped or developing. while your take on food technology is definitely correct, we haven't talked about pollution or global warming..

41:41 In the US, this is no longer true. Coal contributes a third of America's electrical output. Coal is slowly being replaced by natural gas and now, the two are at a crossroads. In a decade or so, natural gas will outpace coal. In fact, almost every year after 2007, coal consumption in the US has gone down. Wind and solar are also on the rise. In 2000, wind provided just 0.15% of America's electrical output while solar contributed a measly 0.013%. In 2017, wind did 6.33% while solar did 1.32%; this is remarkable growth over just 17 years. Granted, these two energies have a long ways to go but it's proof that the free market doesn't just automatically favor coal.

It's strange that you approach this topic from the "racist capitalist eugenicist" angle because the only people who regularly talk about overpopulation are left-wing environmentalists (contemporarily).

Show this to Thanos

How many billions of humans do you think that the Earth can support then?

If you don't think Eugenics doesn't get into everything forget all the 'chosen people' in religion.

All noms.

Of course Thomas Malthus, in his infinite wisdom, didn't think inciting a new plague would effect non-poor people.

I was made aware of you through David Pakman’s debate with you! (not that it was a shitty, typical “debate” more of a convo, which I found refreshing) This video earned you a sub! Excellent work here, I thoroughly enjoyed the care and dedication in the set up and delivery throughout the video. Easy to follow. An hour well-spent watching! Keep making good content, no matter how long it ends up being! Take care Edit: spelling

Thank you! Very kind of you. ♥️

It wasn’t that Plato was wrong, he understood that the earth could not Sustain human life with a population more than what he estimated. The population group has that, but ecosystems have died, and are still dying today. Most likely due to overpopulation of the earth. Which at the time of overpopulation was still sustainable for the moment.

You: "Why do we accept that?" Ad: "You need to improve your business!" Me: FML!

1984!! Also Utopia!! Also, what if Bill Burr is my favourite comedian? :O

my headcanon is thanos just kills all the transphobes and other fascists

never mind lmao

except i guess genocide, whether targeted or not is inherently fascist so he'd have to kill himself too

Marx supported forced Labor, he was still a Capitalist in my view.

you think i cant tell you are a drug user? with your fat face and alergic sphincter (lips). the thing is with overpopulation, is we don't seem to be able to even talk about it on any mass level, other than a few youtube viewers that care. the top beings in any organism like it how it is, they like the chaos and shear abundance of lovers to choose from, the successful people with money enjoy the status quo, thats why things dont change.

Peter’s got a bigger dick than an elephant or a whale?

Did the eugenicists not see the overkill in sterilizing homosexuals? Any openly homosexual people in that era had already self-selected out of the gene pool.

What is that song in the beginning? Somebody?

I'd like to hear this guy's opinion, yeah

that one guy from that one place you need peter to explain to you why racism is bad?

I'm starting to think Wolfenstein.

14:37 Geez Pete, thanks for reminding me Peaches was a thing ¬_¬ Just kidding. ...Mostly. You get a well-earned sub and a like.

When in at the end of the video you minimize the video to like and suddenly recall you already did halfway through the video.

I mean... It's not a pretend concern. Overpopulation IS a problem. But... You know, killing people is not a fucking response.

Very nice, and a great quote from A Christmas Carol to end it. People often think that story to be about "pro-philanthropy", but it's really the story of a capitalist redeemed into socialism.

''Look at these fools who some 200 or more years ago tried to make sense of the world''

Thank you for this. A lot of people say some, or all, of people who are poor are lazy. Please make a video about this? I somehow know this is wrong, but how?

I watched the first few minutes of this video, i.e., the comedic parody of a person who is concerned about over-population, sitting in his tiny house in the middle of the woods. Those woods are HABITAT FOR WILD ANIMALS. Ask any biologist. He will tell you that loss of habitat is his Number One Concern. As the human population grows, more and more habitat must be consumed for human purposes. Even vegans (who are oh-so-concerned about animal welfare) who add to human population by having babies are doing grievous harm to the wild animals of the world, because in so doing, more land must go under the plow for soy beans, more acreage must be consumed for housing, etc.. I have no hope for the future. None, zero, zip, nada. My heart aches for the natural world that we are losing.

Malthus may not have foreseen oil fertilisers or effective birth control, as we are at peak oil this should be very disturbing and he may yet be proven right of we continue to live in a capitalist society.

This video is the most unscientific and illogical piece of shit I have seen on youtube in a long long time. Your main argument to disprove overpopulation is 1: your empty lot in of woods isn't crowded with people. lets see you provide everything you need on that much land, from the beer your drinking the glass bottle it is in or the electronics and electricity used to make and upload this video, lmao 2: some weak semantic bullshit arguing that overpopulation isn't a population problem but a resource management problem. WELL NO SHIT SHERLOCK, so how exactly did this semantic circle change anything at all about the issue. You seem to think that unless every square mile is densely packed urban sprawl then overpopulation isn't a problem, the comments seem to echo this idea, with people calculating that everyone living packed like NYC would fit in a mega city the size of Texas? Do you people even know what industry is? We already use 40% of the earths arable land to barely feed everyone, but that is using modern tech and fertilizer like a steroid to boost production well beyond sustainable limits. Do you know ANYTHING about biological reality of today? 97% of the biomass on the planet right now is humans and their domesticated food sources. The biosphere is in free fall collapse because of human activity. A third of ALL species have had catastrophic declines in less than 50 years, half of all mammals species have lost more than 80% of their distribution between 1900 and 2015. Up to 50% of all individual animals have been lost in recent decades. Let that sink in, ALL species in the animal kingdom have lost up to 50% of their individuals in less than 100 years. 100 years is less than nothing on an evolutionary scale. There are not enough resources on the planet to support current population and and rising quality of life without complete collapse of the ecosystem. Period. No semantic way around it. PS: @44:15 Holy shit, is that what you take away from Jordan Peterson's arguments and statements? That isn't even uncharitable interpretation and hyperbole that is just INSANE. lol I think you need to see a psychologist and sort yourself out bucko.

Wow, talk about some serious projecting on your part.

Agreed, we will have a massive worldwide dust-bowl type event and biosphere collapse well before we run out of resources like fossil fuels.

Sorry, the scientific community is absolutely in consensus that overpopulation is one of the biggest issues facing our civilization going forward. Malthus is irrelevant, the only place he is even mentioned now days is history lessons. Malthus has about as much to do with modern science on overpopulation as the humors and miasma theory has to do with modern medical science. What the political spectrum accepts is also irrelevant to empirical reality. 97% of the biomass on the planet right now is humans and their domesticated food sources. The biosphere is in free fall collapse because of human activity. A third of ALL species have had catastrophic declines in less than 50 years, half of all mammals species have lost more than 80% of their distribution between 1900 and 2015. Up to 50% of all individual animals have been lost in recent decades. Let that sink in, ALL species in the animal kingdom have lost up to 50% of their individuals in less than 100 years. 100 years is less than nothing on an evolutionary scale. There are not enough resources on the planet to support current population and and rising quality of life without complete collapse of the ecosystem. Period.

+NA NA Actually what he said about overpopulation is correct. Malthus' argument was dependent on the population growing faster than our ability to produce food, which it hasn't. That part of his video isn't really controversial as people across the political spectrum have accepted that overpopulation isn't really a thing.

most of this video is absolutely unscientific illogical nonsense, purely emotional drivel about past evils and preying on made up left/right paradigms. overpopulation is a huge issue even if you go in a semantic circle like this video does.

BUT DON'T YOU KNOW WHITE PEOPLE EVIL REEE, this is why I cant take the left/group identity shit seriously, half the comments here are degrading the west and "whitey" as some bogeyman who caused all these problems by exploiting people and they must pay reparations and "make it right". meanwhile the biggest exploiter and colonist RIGHT NOW is "communist" China. Spoiler alert to all the self hating whites here, human beings have been fucking AWFUL to each other since the dawn of time, British Empire was just the most recent paradigm of power/ruling class. instead of feeling guilty for something you are generations removed from why don't you get over it so we can focus on being human today and not black/white/brown/yellow/indigo/cyan


Francis "my ideas are so bad that my lips are closing on their own" Galton

truly excellent!

God, you're underrated, Peter. ❤

Malthus' mistake was in assuming that population growth would be the source of the problem, but biological population growth models stabilize once a population reaches a carrying capacity determined by the environment and resource availability. Populations don't grow unless there are enough resources available to do so. The problem comes when a disaster reduces the quantity of resources available, and thus lowers the carrying capacity of an environment below an existing population level. What's more concerning isn't population growth, it's that Capitalism's disregard for long term responsibility in favor of short term profit exacerbates issues like global warming and fossil fuel dependence, which poses a threat to food production in the form of droughts, famine, and reduced ability to trade food resources, which depends on energy availability. Population growth, were it the main issue, would be best solved by helping poor people have stable lives which removes child labor as an economic necessity for the family. But that isn't the issue. The issue is the relationship between people and the environment, which serves as an economic base below even the poorest human worker. Nothing is exploited quite like nature, and eventually the material conditions of our economic system will result in a revolt of nature against the system which tries to constrain it, at least if our present course continues. We can always change the system.

Haven't watched the whole vid yet, but your intro section highlights another negative of this kind of thinking; how it motivates the constant suburbanite urge to get away from "crowding" by encroaching on "the wild", destroying habitat(and drainage, and fire safety, etc etc)

Where do those clips of couples with their IQs printed on the screen come from?

Malthus' argument is RIGHT. Geometric growth in a finite environment ultimately has to stop one way or the other. Many animals' populations grow and collapse in cycles precisely because they reproduce past its carrying capacity, over-exploit the ecosystem and die out of disease and starvation. This is such a well-known thing it is even modeled by what's called the Lotka–Volterra equations. I hope all of you naysayers have fun when we're down to our last metric ton of phosphate. Let's see how fun it will be for the 9+ billion people on the planet to grow crops without chemical fertilizers and in a rapidly changing global climate.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter that food production can feed 141%. The food is for the most part, grain-based and filled with GMO-laden, pesticide-sprayed, cancer-causing, diabetes and obesity causing food. It's not QUANTITY, it's quality that's missing. You neglect to mention that top soil is being permanently destroyed at an alarming rate (the thing that gives food nutrients). Most people are stupid. Most people are lame. More people means more stupid and lame people. Regardless of their socioeconomic standing. And by the way, the meanest people on earth statistically are the incredibly wealthy. Studies show you get LESS empathetic, not more, the richer you are. You literally lose empathy: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/ So that blows a hole in your theory that people just need to get their needs met and they will be "nicer". Never mind that the etymology of the word "nice" means "stupid". (Middle English (in the sense ‘stupid’): from Old French, from Latin nescius ‘ignorant,’ from nescire ‘not know.’ ) So what you are basically advocating is a pie in the sky, Sesame Street world, where if you just get all your needs met, you will still be a stupid, I mean nice person. What you are saying is delusional and sounds like hell to me. Being surrounded by a bunch of "nice" (read: stupid) people does not make the world a better place. And it is a childishly naive way of thinking. All of the well-educated, well-paid women with kids I know are miserable or making other people miserable. Most of them would probably qualify as having an anxiety spectrum or personality disorder. People are not happy. They aren't. Your political leanings and ideologies won't change that. 1 in 50 kids is autistic. Why the fuck would you want to bring a life into this horror show? Even if you live the "best" (arguable) life ever, you still die. Death is inevitable. Suffering with every life is inevitable. No life goes unscathed or escapes pain. And no, the momentary palliatives like comedy shows, sex, and "love" do not make up for it. Mostly that is an adaptive response to *avoid pain*. It's stupid. Our biology is stupid. Our DNA has thousands of degenerative diseases imprinted in it, just waiting for the perfect storm of conditions to express themselves. That's not "eugenics", that's a fact. And it's STUPID. Life is, quite literally, stupid! It would take an act of a supreme sadist at this point to even consider having children. More people doesn't make the world somehow more compassionate. Or better. Especially since life is a meat grinder for most people on the planet. How solipsistic is it to "bury yourself in having a child so you can "find" yourself? Um, I thought the point of this was to be, as you say "Nicer"? How is that nice for the child? To be used and exploited as a device or a toy to help the parent "find themself"? How self (literally) absorbed is that? All these assholes trying to "find themselves" in their child is indicative of mental illness, not health. It is a supreme act of narcissism. Not "well being". It might bring (selfishly) a sense of "well being" for the parent, but WHAT ABOUT THE CHILD??? Don't have babies. Most people are assholes. ESPECIALLY people who have kids to "find themselves". FFS. The end.

Watching to the end of this video did make me revisit my view of the word "overpopulation", even though global warming is a symptom. It just goes to show how inefficient our current Capitalist system is and how the argument is framed to divert from those issues.

30:51 "So, I mean, no. There isn't a good version of eugenics". But how can you make such a strong statement, if you never actually argued against the concept itself? You just reviewed the history of it while repeatedly stating that it's bad.

19:00 "But since Darwin's theories are biological, applying them to The Social doesn't work". Wow. What a fantastic argument.

As a Greek, I died at 15:14.

Could you go over the drawdown method of extending carrying capacity, the cornucopian myth, and cargoism in greater detail?

This was absolutely brilliant.


OK. I think i get it.. A very fucking long video to say "Don't buy a third iWhack you dumbshit, can't you see you're killing us all !".

any relation between herbert spencer and richard spencer? im genuinely curious

Great video. Really great. Have you thought about discussing this with the alt right? Maybe they'd like our ideas?

Cites ContraPoints: ✔️ Hates Fascism: ✔️ Has Arguments: ✔️ Subscription: ✔️

Hey Falcon

Unsustainable population growth rests in a minimum quality standard for comfort of living and the global economic footprint required to maintain that. The goal is to raise the standard of living for all, not to selectively breed by targeting the marginalized. Nice hour long straw man- you sure blew it down.

Anyone know the name of the song that starts at 4:30?

Resources aren't scarce, access is.

Overpopulation = consumerism War = money Keep having babies, keep spending.

The tiny homes movement is just a ploy to make people buy cramped mobile homes at ridiculous prices.

Please stop favouriting people's comments, it indirectly influences people (e.g. manipulation). Other than that an almost great vid :)

Also human brain size over the course of time directly corresponds to human intelligence ( seems obvious to me) whales and elephants are not examples of why human brain size matters because they aren't human??

I'm pretty sure wind has been cheaper since '15, but I understand that shifting a business is very expensive....

First video of yours I've seen, excellent work.

"The world is a vampire" - Billy Corgan "The past is a turd" - Peter Coffin

Can't agree more about all the Eugenics shit but....blame all at capitalism? really? what are you proposing? Communism? free "health care", Trans, black and woman the targets of the evil "White people". It was a good research until you made clear the purpose of all this. Good try

What about adoption?

Really good! I'm a social democrat but this really opened my eyes. Btw I loved the hhbomber cameo!

Does anyone know what the music track at 12:07 is called?

There is a completely compassionate way to decrease the population and it's called Antinatalism. It allows all currently living people to enjoy the lifestyle they are currently used to. (because it's very hard to change the programming in adult humans) and then we can easily decrease the population by attrition. Now antinatalists believe like Schopenhauer and Buddhists that life is mostly suffering and bringing any life into a meat body against their will and what many consider a prison planet due to the current cultures we are forced into is a harm but if you don't agree one can easily use antinatalism to only decrease the population rather than terminate it. If you are looking for another idea as to what the actual problem is IMO you'd do well to consider what Ernest Becker and the Terror Management Theory people called "Death Anxiety" . If you are open to it read Becker's book "Denial of Death" and see if it looks like you and everyone else in there somewhere. Now it's true the earth can handle more humans than we have today but guess what? What is not realized for some reason is that when humans increase other living things on earth must of necessity decrease even if we use less stuff, reduce waste and live in tiny houses which is unlikely. Do we really not have enough humans yet or should every possible piece of flat earth have a human standing on it. Finally Antinatalism FTW!

im interested in reading a bit of this Marx guy. can anyone tell me how accessible his writing is? is it very archaic, technical, or esoteric? i like to think i have a decent reading level but ive occasionally finished a books with the sensation of being more confused than when i first opened it so any good places to start? i assume Capital or The Communist Manifesto would be decent jump off points since theyre so reknown but if theres anything i might need to study a bit before taking a gander thats cool too. i spend like 8 solid hrs a day just reading at work so i got time for a few preparatory essays or what not to mosey on through.

oh if anyone’s interested btw, The Chalice and the Blade is something i think alot of this audience might like. p digestable too.

the thing is, there's already 8bil people too many on this planet you can tell me that we'll never get to 12, but that doesnt change the fact that we are more than half way there TODAY it's not about not being able to feed people, it's about not converting the face of this planet into a farm/city visible from space people always tell me "if you hate that the refugees are making too many babies, why dont you just pump out some of your own?" because maybe it's not the end goal of humanity to clear every forest in the world just to build more cages for factory workers we dont need there is not enough sand on this planet for india to industrialize we do not have the materials for enough concrete on this planet to house all of them and why would we want to in the first place? people are depressed enough, and every baby born chips away at your value as a human being in 20+ years there will be no jobs left on this planet, and at some point you just have to stop and ask why what do we NEED people for? what is the imperative in making one more human? this whole planet could get by with the population of a hamlet if you had to pick between a lake and a housing complex for 30 people, which would you rather have next door? not that anyone actually read my comment this far (or at all) but another good reason is our lack of predators the dumb and the weak dont die anymore, we need to step in and help nature take it's course we live in a day when we can decide before the child is conceived so we have no excuse back in the day when you had to take your unproductive kids behind the shed and end them, maybe you could argue that that's inhumane, but today? i'm sure you'd advocate for all sorts of classes people have to go through before owning a gun, like we do for cars having a subpar child is way more destructive than running into a crowd with your 4wd drunk we can do this humanely, and it's disgraceful to see you making excuses for why people should have the right to reproduce you pump out too many kids and your country turns into china, a hyper competetive capitalist sh*t hole where people awkwardly scoot past your bleeding corpse because they dont want to get involved i dare any of you to come up with a counter argument but you wont, you'll just downvote before even getting this far

Okay, this was amazing, and I love the Nier Automata clips at the end X3

Don't have time to watch this, but surely the increase of food production is based on fossil fuel being burned to extract/make fertilizer. Is this mentioned? Also, if Malthus was "wrong" then, does this mean that there is no risk now? And if there is no overpopulation, at what population number is there overpopulation? 20 billion? I trillion?

"Bullshit" is a reasonable translation of malakies, but a more literal translation would be "wankings."

“That does not create problems for people advocating for Planned Parenthood” HOLY SHIT, I canvassed for Planned Parenthood in downtown Chicago for months as a black woman. I was basically called Uncle Tom by almost every black person I talked to and but anti-choicers who wanted to shame me into not canvassing.

Just one comment: overpopulation cannot be philosophically dismissed on the basis that it hasn't been reached yet practically. It can and should be dismissed politically (because we are not, and will not in nearest future be, overpopulated), but saying resources are unlimited in principle is just silly. Malthus was obviously wrong quantitatively, but e.g. genuinely socialistic system (one that provides everybody with all necessities) would remove the main restriction that was (in the times of Malthus) and still is the main thing that prevents exponential growth of population. My point is, socialist system will either have to grow its productivity exponentially (you know, how capitalist system tries to and fails miserably), or will have to limit population growth.


"Basically Peterson" LMAO

It stands to reason that there is an upper limit to how many people the earth can support. We just don't know what that limit is yet, and we may never get there if we do wind up colonizing the moon and other planets, space stations, etc.

Fascinating stuff. I didn't expect to see the Automata footage near the end, but I suppose I should've seen it coming from someone who's quite obviously a man of culture.

Capitalism is like this invisible thing to everyone else...it's never the cause, it's never the problem, it's never the instigator. It's like a shadow, but in essence, we are in the shadow of capitalism.

The Library of Congress and other American institutions have made a lot of old documents and government studies available on-line. I've read a whole ton of stuff from the Roosevelt era and its pretty clear the definition of the word "race" _back then_ also encompassed ideas like "nationality" and "culture". Funny how all the stuff about racism that you can actually _prove_ keeps getting split off and renamed. That's why you can always tell when you're dealing with a real _racist_ and not just somebody with racist beliefs. Racists are to Biologists and Sociologists as Astrologers are to Astronomers. They're so desperate to "prove" their innate superiority they need to invent sciency code-words and fake definitions to make it happen. The latest gag I've noticed is trying to equate the biology term "phenotype" with their imaginary racial categories. Unfortunately for them, phenotypes aren't what these folks are trying to make them out to be. Phenotypes are caused in two ways: by how different genes are expressed as well as by the interaction of many different genes. Sometimes, like with the hair color of cats, genertic changes can even be caused by _diet._ And since humans really like to sex each-other we've spent centuries traveling all over the world mixing and matching our phenotypes. Many racists see this mixing as the ultimate nightmare, but they're not really looking: Even identical twins have at least 100 unique mutations in their DNA. The corruption is unstoppable! https://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask68 Anyway, the bottom line is that whatever collection of phenotypes you want to call a "race" is going to be completely arbitrary. Human DNA is a grab bag. And selective breeding isn't going to fix it -- unless of course your plan is worldwide genocide and mandatory DNA testing for the rest of time to prevent people from inadvertently passing the genes for curly hair onto their offspring. tl/dr -- Racism has been scientifically proven to be very silly and all racists should all stop right now before the rest of us are forced to beat them about the head with a recently-thawed catfish.

I'm a well fed husky American who is 6'2" tall, nearly 2 meters to y'all uneducated folks, and have a huge skull atop my 6'2" frame. Thus I have a brain that is way larger than any of those tiny European folks of the era. Hurr take that eugenics, muh brain is way gooder than thur's!

To get access to great information like this is the meaning of the Internet

"Who do you deprive of food or water? Who do you stop from having kids? Who do you _just kill_?" Uh... capitalists?

Not sure how this theory was not rejected on the spot since technological advancement within agricultural industries exponentially gets better along with science, medicine (big pharma actually contributes to a lot of death as well imo),, and other technologies that inherently make people live longer more fulfilled (breeding) lives.

"I like my beer shaken, not stirred."

yeah but food production itself is what destroys the enviroment and drives species to extintion

LMAOOO AROUND 3:00 the captions say (BEER) when you pause to take a sip, that makes me so happy

I think there is a massive misinterpretation of meritocracy and hierarchies here (especially the JBP stuff), making the assumption that 1. we have to rank people "from first to 7.5 billion", 2. a meritocracy is seen as some kind of utopia, and 3. a meritocracy have to devolve into some eugenics game. Key is *context*, competence is only useful in a single area and should only be valued in that area. Number 1 on that global list of merit in writing might be number 6 billion in wood crafting. Since there is way to say one merit is better than another merit really, the eugenics game goes out the window. As for 2, a meritocracy isn't an utopia, of course it has its issues, but it's better than a world where pure power is the only determinator - competence is a much better one for a larger amount of people since it actually gives the possibility for a poor person to become successful. Not a guarantee, but a chance. This beats the crap out of having no chance, which basically is the alternative we've seen historically.

evywthingseemsdiff again i dont mean to sound cocky but the availible previews for Marx’ work feel like something i personally could digest. figure ill just go ahead and read through it before i look at other socialist reading and go back and reread a few chapters every so often as i learn more, its always satisfying to do that anyway. thanks for the recommendations.

Elijah Ragland never read any of the work, but from what I’ve heard it’s quite not accessible. If you’re looking for other similar texts, Radical Reviewer is a great channel that reviews all sorts of books and media through leftist lens. The channel Mexie also has a video that recommends various books. If you’re looking for other suggestions, I suggest you go over to the channel Libertarian Socialist Rants, it has plenty of informative videos but I believe that in the profile part it also recommends some texts, or you could just ask through a comment. Same for Anarchopac, she would probably suggest some texts as well

I am so glad i found your videos while looking for videos explaining why jordan Peterson is terrible. Really enjoying your videos

Given that the UN says sub-Saharan Africa will provide 75% of humanity's growth from 7 to 11 billions in 2100, I guess Malthus had a great "delayed" prescience. Cheer up: White population is already in absolute numerical decline since 2013... Brrr!

surprise HBomb cameo

I have one question for everyone here. What if there was simply no ethical way to solve the problem of climate change and resource consumption? If technology can't save us and the population just keeps growing, if you're wrong, what then should we do?

There actually is a correlation between brain size and intelligence *within the same species*. Obviously brains with different designs have different purposes. I.e., the prefrontal cortex is not the brain stem.

Natural selection selects for the most fertile subsets of the population given constraints from the environment. Eugenics being human selection despite natural selection means that eugenics will necessarily err on the side of infertility, which spells doom in the long run.

To be fair. Peterson isn't that evil. I also see no reason why people with severe, *heritable*, genetic defects shouldn't be disincentivized from procreating. Aaaaaand the civil war was NOT about slavery.

Not sure why but your voice sounds way cooler through your mic than through your video camera there, Falcon.

I saw the title and thought "yummy yummy!!"


He mentions that two thirds into the video. The evidence shows that people who live in well to do, first world countries don't have as many children. Population explosions go hand in hand with poverty. Compare subsaharan African birthrates to poor people in the first world and there is no comparison. In wealthy places, the birthrate issue can even reverse. In 20 to 30 years, Japan will have a number of ghost towns in it because the aging population is not being replaced at a fast enough rate.

He already addressed that. By taking our poverty you actively decrease birth rates, dramatically. In some cases, like Japan, you can even go to far and end up with a declining birth rate (but that is another issue). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html The correlations between poverty and high birth rate/overpopulation is clear. Your worst poverty areas show rates of 4+ children per woman. Some close to 6. Mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, unsurprisingly. The Nordic model social democracies that care for their poor and have the lowest rates of poverty in the world have between 1.5 and 1.8 children per woman. That is sustainable.

Shadow, the experts predicting 10 billion by 2050 are well aware of the factors that slow down the birthrate, yet they still project 10 bil./2050. 10 billion is one HELL of a lot of people. Just imagine all the megacities swollen by an additional 50%. "...try to move to organic fertilizers." Like cow manure? That would be one HELL of a lot of cows. Be serious. "...whether soy farming is a bigger problem..." MEGA-FARMING is the bigger problem, period. And you gotta have mega-farming to feed 10 billion. You gotta have mega-farming to feed SEVEN billion. Animals are going extinct right NOW because of the habitat lost to farming. Farmers in the 3rd world are killing animals right NOW to to protect their crops.

"It is said that by 2050 the population will reach 10 billion, so that swallows up current food capacity with little wiggle room." And that large population growth is again down to resource availability. Most people in third world nations usually have a lot of kids because of the low mortality rate, as well as a lack of sex education as well as education for women. If these things were fullfilled then the population growth would be much lower. "Furthermore, we currently have that capacity only because of artificial fertilizers and, even more alarming, herbicides and insecticides. The insects continue to evolve defences against current insecticides. As for artificial fertilizers, I live in wheat country where in vast swathes of land, the soil is sterile, unable to support any soil life-form." Well for artificial fertilizers we can just try to move to organic fertilizers. As for the other two I guess we as a species need to look more into a soluation. "As for veganism, soy is grown the same way as wheat." Well then, I guess the question here is whether soy farming is a bigger problem than animals farming. "Finally, I find your point of view woefully anthropocentric, focussed as it is on filling the bellies of people. I myself grieve in anguish for the wild creatures sliding into extinction." The point I am making here is the environmental problem we face is tied to the issues of how we as a species have been handling our resources. The wild animals wouldn't be suffering as much if we learned how to better distribute what resources we have.

Hello, shadowmaydawn. It is said that by 2050 the population will reach 10 billion, so that swallows up current food capacity with little wiggle room. Furthermore, we currently have that capacity only because of artificial fertilizers and, even more alarming, herbicides and insecticides. The insects continue to evolve defenses against current insecticides. As for artificial fertilizers, I live in wheat country where in vast swathes of land, the soil is sterile, unable to support any soil life-form. As for veganism, soy is grown the same way as wheat. Finally, I find your point of view woefully anthropocentric, focussed as it is on filling the bellies of people. I myself grieve in anguish for the wild creatures sliding into extinction.

The problem isn't population but rather how we have been disreputing our resources. We currently have enough food for 10.5 Billion people but a sizable chunk of that goes to waste rather than to the people who need it. Arable land that could be used for more efficiently has instead been used to grow crops that are environmentally harmful or add to the social issues for the people in the local area, like the tobacco industry. And there are far more vacant homes then there are homeless. Veganism is far more environmentally stainable as reducing the number of cows we have would lower the greenhouse emission, as well as free up the crops that were grown to feed those animals.

who would have told me that id leave this video knowing more about people in my own country

" white bourgeois class" - wt hell? like that was an issue in victorian England...

Oh, yes, shadow, I did get your point... but it was so divorced from reality that I was... filled with despair. You probably shop at Whole Foods. "You want the VEGAN-GROWN lettuce?" says the produce girl. "It's over there. It costs more, but it's worth it!" In 1954, when I was born, world population was 2.7 billion, U.S. population 163 million; now it is 7.7 billion and 326 million. In that time I have seen cities sprawl and sprawl into farmland. The Sacramento/San Joaquin valleys, prime farmland in an ideal climate, are swamped with housing tracts. Santa Clara County used to be nothing but fruit orchards; now it is Silicon Valley. The rich farmland/dairyland around Portland, Oregon is now housing tracts. (And these are American cities, where the population has "merely" doubled, not tripled, quadrupled, quintupled....) The rich farmland in eastern China is now paved over. In Bangladesh, critically needed farmland is being rendered useless by salt-water intrusion. In Africa, population pressures have forced farmers and herders, who had coexisted amicably for thousands of years, into guerrilla warfare. In Peru, poor people can no longer afford to buy quinoa because the sophisticated American urbanites have decided that quinoa is fashionable. "We just need to use our resources more efficiently." Dear fucking god.... And it is not just food. Vital habitat for wild animals is being invaded by houses (mine included, though I try to tread lightly). This area used to have bears who fed on the acorns. Then people built houses here and their damn dogs persecuted the bears. No more bears. And it's not just houses. When I moved to the Columbia Hills, this area was densely populated by eagles and hawks. Then the multi-national corporations built the wind farms and the wind farms EXTERMINATED the raptors. I hear tell of a high-tech solar power set-up in Arizona that FRIES flocks of migrating birds in mid-air. A couple of years ago, I took a road-trip through Arizona and saw a copper mine so unimaginably vast that I was totally gob-smacked. And the hunger for copper is growing exponentially. And the human-generated toxins are growing exponentially. They have found pharmaceutical compounds in the ice in ANTARCTICA. When we reach 10 billion, do you think that the consumption of pharmaceuticals will have declined? And that's just pharmaceuticals. We aren't talking yet about industrial solvents. We don't wanna think about industrial solvents. Or the ultra-toxic chemicals (the mining of which is a toxic nightmare) in the batteries of our oh-so-virtuous electric cars (powered by nuclear power plants, with all that nuclear waste). In 1970, when the country was revving up for the first Earth Day, people were talking about ZPG, Zero Population Growth. 1970: world pop. 3.7 billion, U.S. pop. 205 million. Then people stopped talking about population growth and started talking about environmental band-aids, like recycling. Band-aids on a hemorrhaging wound. And organic-vegan-grown-lettuce-eating-yuppie-environmentalists went on having babies (wrapped in organic-hemp blankets). For god's sake, don't have babies! Adopt a Syrian orphan out of a sprawling refugee camp. Do some good, don't add to the problem.

"Shadow, the experts predicting 10 billion by 2050 are well aware of the factors that slow down the birthrate, yet they still project 10 bil./2050. 10 billion is one HELL of a lot of people." First of all those stats only look at the current population growth. They are not fixed, they can change depending on current trends. Also, you completely missed the point. I listed those factors to show that again the problem is due to resource mismanagement. If we were better at managing our resources the population wouldn't be growing as fast as it is. "Like cow manure? That would be one HELL of a lot of cows. Be serious." There are other types of organic fertilisers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_fertilizer "MEGA-FARMING is the bigger problem, period. And you gotta have mega-farming to feed 10 billion. You gotta have mega-farming to feed SEVEN billion." Animal farming contributes way more to this problem than soy farming as most of the crops we grow is going straight to livestock. You want to know how much we give them well read this article; http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/livestock-feed-and-habitat-destruction/ "Animals are going extinct right NOW because of the habitat lost to farming. Farmers in the 3rd world are killing animals right NOW to protect their crops." And again this wouldn't be much of an issue if we better managed the resources we currently have. And here's another article I found that talks about how we could better manage our arable land. https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5913093/were-not-growing-enough-food-for-everyone-heres-how-to-change-that

Generally you just push for birth control and abortion, and that lowers the population.

You know I think you might have put out one of your best Important Documentaries with this one! I wish I'd had this to show people when Malthusian shit started cropping up in my Intro Environmental Science class, as well as Tragedy of the Commons nonsense. (I ended up dropping the class. Can't abide that shit.)

I had similar discussion with a friend. I suggested we should control the population then, by killing the rich and the good looking so he went bad shit. it was hilarious.

+Sallie Skakel I deleted my response comment because I decided I didn't want to further engage with this conversation. But I will say that your example of a tap applies to yourself. You are ignoring the blatant gross mishandling of our supplies; like how a third of goes to livestock, or that close to half of it gets wasted, or that arable farmland is used to grow environmental harmful crops that only add to the social and economic issues to the local people, or how there are 10.9 million vacant homes in the USA. By focusing on population numbers as a sole issue you are excusing a system that disregards the well being of both people and environment over profit. You are making excuses for those in position of power for there actions. Heck most of the pollution comes from first world nations with the exception of China. If you want to decrease population growth then you most give people a reason to have fewer or no kids. The highest birth rates come from third world nations because the infinite mortality rate is quite high. You would need to create an environment for these people that ensures that their kids are not going to die so very young. Or at least ensure that they are going to be well looked after once they are no longer able to look after themselves.

[For some reason, shadow, when I click on your recent reply ("Oh, fucking really..."), it doesn't appear here in the comments. ???] I see that I have provoked you into incivility. I should regret that, I really should. My only defense is that your reply pushed me deeper into despair, whereas my reply pushed you into anger. Recently, I watched part of a video about climate change. The fellow opened the video thus: Imagine that you return home to discover that someone has left the kitchen tap on full blast and the kitchen floor is flooded. What is the first thing you do? Do you get out the mop and bucket? No, you turn off the tap. From my point of view, this applies to environmental (and political) degradation caused by woeful population pressures. If I were a billionaire, I would dedicate all my philanthropy to educating third-world girls, a win-win. But Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson are pursuing their fatuous fantasy of colonizing Mars. (Just imagine their collective carbon footprint.) The wrong priorities, writ large. Imagine how they would be improving the prospects of life on Earth if they were inspired by ZPG. Do you remember what it was like in 1970? Or in 1960, for that matter? (Yeah, yeah. Some very good things have happened since then, but I am focussing on population.) In 1959, my father bought a house a few miles outside of an utterly charming small town in southern California. The neighborhood incorporated acres and acres and acres of untouched chaparral, habitat for lots of wild animals. If we kids weren't asleep or in school, we were running around in the chaparral. The chaparral (the habitat) is all gone now, buried under houses. On another tack, think about the wretched Rohingyas. For 300 years, they lived peaceably in Burma. But now, the Burmese Buddhists (Buddhists, for god's sake) have gone berserk, committing genocide. Do you think that just maybe increased population pressures might have something to do with it? Would this genocide have occurred if, worldwide, people and their leaders had embraced ZPG in 1970? Would climate change be the crisis is now? I come by my grief over the loss of wild lands from my father, who was born in South Dakota in 1899 (world pop. 1.6 billion, U.S. pop 74 million). Just imagine what the world would be like with our current technology and the population of 1899. Paradise. Paradise with oodles un untouched wilderness and wild animals for our psychic/spiritual nourishment. No thoughts/resources wasted on colonizing Mars.

harris bomberperson

Hey Peter, what's your opinion on Rationalwiki.

Overpopulation is not a total myth, it is however a very complex issue and the solution to it shouldn't be decided by the corporate elites. Non capitalist, communist countries like China had also ran into population problems and had to implement one-child policies. Also what happened on Easter island (collapse of society due to running out or resources) can be attributed to overpopulation.

Very interesting argument, and which I found truly enlightening. To be honest I didn't think of overpopulation in this perspective. However I do must add that after "fixing" or "transforming" or simply "replacing" capitalism and the system of unfair distribution of resources , it is still not a definite fact that overpopulation will stop being a problem. In that case enacting a policy that will encourage limiting the amount of children that anyone can have might be deemed appropriate, as long as the rule applies equally to everyone.

Is the clock at 4:36 one of the clocks outside canary wharf in london?

Awwn my favs youtubers making awesome stuff togethers is such wow :3

Contrapoints skull theory confirmed

I like that you showed the US history on this. Our country does have to own it rather than pretend it was all the other guy. I do object to your treatment of Sanger. In her day women had very little autonomy.They couldnt vote, advanced education and gainful employment limited, and Comstock laws almost insured they would spend most of their adult life pregnant , regardless if they had the time, money or help . Women would often have 3-5 children and if they were lucky, their husband survived the various wars or epidemics. As a nurse she made a living helping these women, but as a women, her work was not considered important. Nautrally when she found support withn people like Woodrow Wilson, HG Wells Justice Holmes and Henry Ford she took it. Yes her writing did slip a little into the dark, side, but this was hardly outside the norm. It was her thinking that women had the choice when and how often they would have children that was truly radical.

Terence McKenna once pointed out: *let's just have each no more than 1 child (enough to experience parenthood, no?) — problem of "overpopulation" solved (without killing anybody)...*

hold up is that "craft beer" actually a root beer bottle or am i seeing things? Also, I'm currently finishing up an essay about overpopulation and why population control cannot possibly solve climate change using this video as one (of many) of my sources wish me luck!

3:00 sick reference my boy

what about things like genetic diseases? if we can spot the markers for something like huntington's isn't it a good idea to say "hey maybe you should adopt a kid instead" ? you know so a new person doesn't also have to suffer.

Round up people with more than 1 child and ...electric chair? People were told to stop breeding in the 70's to save the planet!! Mostly ignored.

Hummmm. I absolutely loved the video - it's a very nice take on something that goes unnoticed. And for about 90% of the video I wholeheartedly agreed with everything. I just have some doubts about the part where you spoke about not measuring the value, intelligence, hierarchy or conservatism. If you admit that some people are better skilled than others, then something like intelligence necessarily comes into your discourse. Intelligence is a very different thing from "general intelligence" as poorly designed IQ tests have attempted to measure, but it exists, and good tests do exist to assess people. Genetics does have some role in behaviour and in things such as skill, strength and emotions, especially when you consider the role of epigenetics, although I'll be the first to say there's a lot of crap in the scientific literature. We do have tendencies that are cross-cultural to identify others based on similarities, to form small nuclear groups and have difficulties empathising with individuals we're not emotionally engaged with. I also don't think this is all the product of capitalism, or patriarchy or imperialism - a lot is waste products of our evolutionary past. Recognising that we have a tendency to form hierarchies simply because it's 'easier' in the sense of there being a disposition for humans to act like that is far from accepting that that's ethically correct, desirable, or that we have no power in changing it. I think the arguments against human naturalism tend to hinge on it not being very productive; but even if there's little to be done on a biological basis without falling into eugenics, at least admitting it and becoming acquainted with it, whilst denying the ethical corollaries should be a political strategy against the "darwinian right".

You made me think of Contrapoints early on, so it was like double cool when you featured her!

48:30, said like a true neo-liberalist. Even a capitalist like I wholeheartedly agrees.

Overpopulation is most certainly a huge problem. Maybe not in the immediate future but it will be felt sooner or later. The consumption of water from aquifers is unsustainable. The consumption of phosphorus ore deposits is unsustainable. The consumption of fossil fuels is unsustainable. Climate change is about to change the name of the game. The idea of colonizing other planets is complete nonsense. We are stuck on this planet and it’s headed towards disaster. To reduce the consumption of these limited resources and to prevent more climate change and perhaps even rectify some of it, the consumers — the population — must be dealt with. The globalists or the illuminati or whatever you want to call the ruling class knows this all too well. They tell us we shouldn’t worry about automation because we will be given universal wages in the event a significant portion of the population becomes unemployable. When automation truly does away with the need for human workers, the plebs will be done away with. Superbugs are on the way and no new drugs have been developed against them. Maybe they’ll deal with the population like that. Maybe they’ll outright kill us all. They have access to much better technology than what the Nazis did so who knows what they will have in the future. They certainly won’t nuke the planet because they want a lush green world contrasted with towering, gleaming skyscrapers populated by tall genetically perfect designer babies. You plebs are all marked for death. It no longer surprises me the American ruling class is absolutely not worried about their debt. The debt won’t be a problem in the new world that is to come. The debt will grow higher and higher to maintain the status quo. All the while they fine tune their machines and who knows what else. Yeah, overpopulation is no big deal. Hahaha. The problem fundamentally lies with civilization. Civilization is based on exploitation. Capitalists tell me some people are better than me so some people get to tell me what to do. Commies tell me they’re going to establish a classless civilization which of course is impossible. The Stalinists believe in socialism in one country, that the socialist state is but a phase and a classless civilization will be reached in the future. Don’t trust anyone with an ideology, they’re all liars. Nihilism is the absolute truth. With nihilism, you can reach your own goals. It eliminates the need to have other people reach their goals. Once one comes to terms with the truth of nihilism, one can for the first time ever truly be happy. This is not happiness derived from material wealth or interactions with organic machines, this is happiness derived from knowing the forbidden truth and accepting the great power it has given you. The power to kill yourself not because you’re a whimpy kid with thin skin but because you see no value in delaying the inevitable. What’s better than rest anyway? Eternal rest. Maybe you’ll say let the inevitable come on its own terms and just play along with the game. Now you can become the master. Freedom from morals and freedom from valuing anything, should you gain any fighting power you are one who cannot be negotiated with. The world will burn and so what, it means nothing anyway. See you later you ideologues or really fundamentally cucks.

Great video, I'd only add that it was F. Gall to really promulgate modern phrenology as a 'science' in the late 1700's. He even tried to correlate certain regions of the skull with generally localizable moral regions in the brain (the philosophical term 'mental faculty' was taken pretty literally here). In the early 19th c, George Combe took these ideas from Gall and started a phrenology society and journal in England. He was kind of a reformer, but rabidly denounced as a materialist/atheist due to his identification of the soul with the organ of the brain. A lot of moderate progressives found Combe's ideas useful, and Robert Chambers (who, decades before Darwin, wrote one of the first modern evolutionary epics of the cosmos-to-man sort) was a Combean. A lot of crackpot bullshit in phrenology, but also at the root of our modern neurosciences.

lol, u forgot about clean coal. 40:00

What did it cost? Oh, about ten pence! Hail, Thanos! https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/Hail_Malthus

I do not have faith in nuclear, it is a half solution to a problem it still damages the environment and it can still run out. My dad is professor who does research for energy production a great deal of the time and he has explained to me that the accepted solution at the moment is to change the national grid. At the moment we think of energy making resources as large plants that supply large areas with fuel whereas to utilise wind, hydro, wave and solar we should think of a smaller inter connected grid. Like the internet, there's no hq as it were. And this can be pushed for by getting communities to purchase a wind turbine that can power their town. But even though changing energy resources should mean electricity becomes cheaper over time, there's a big upfront cost and anyone who benefits from the current system is going to advocate against change obviously. And these people tend to be rich and powerful, capitalism. And nuclear is another form of energy that would be owned by the very rich if it did become popular and when people realised it was also unsustainable and bad for the environment no matter how much you improve the technology we'd have yet another hurdle to get over that was backed up by the people who benefit from the current system.

Thank you for making this video. You've cleared up a source of cognitive dissonance for me, and provided a rational logic for a stance I'd originally taken primarily for emotional reasons.

Peter you're doing some really important work here. Im legitimately emotional because your content is so relevant, nuanced, and well researched.

what do you think the carrying capacity for the earth is btw?

this video has inspired me to start a new eugenics movement. thank you sir for showing me why it is necessary.

Today I learned a Christmas carol is definitely not meant for children.

Wow, this was exceptional. Well done.

@john miller I very much agree with your take on this subject. Both my sister and I were very much Antinatalist, partly due to the way we were raised- more for my sister on that issue, but mine was always on the side of 'the world is a horrid place full of horrid people, I'm not adding to that' and the fact that I have Bipolar Disorder, which is such a horrible disease I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy much less a child. Unfortunately, I did have one child, a late surprise for my husband and for me. I can't really explain why I decided to go on with the pregnancy, though I'm pretty sure it had something to do with me being 34 and that 'Death Anxiety' catching up with me, though 'finding myself' was not a factor at all and I despise those who bear children only to live out their failed fantasy of what life 'should have been' for themselves. Now, don't get me wrong- I love my son and am glad he exists, but in having him, my worries and anxieties not only for his future but also whatever offspring he may produce do concern me and I feel in some way that I've failed him and humanity just by allowing him to exist, frankly. At the very least, my husband and I have had an infinitesimal effect in lowering population growth, as we are two and he is one with no possibility for us having more children, so we still fall into the negative population growth category... It's somewhat of a comfort to me knowing I at least tried, though my sister succeeded. Oddly, my son is very Antinatalist also, and I never once told him I was for fear that he'd feel he was unwanted- however, as he is at a mature enough age to understand the concept of Antinatalism, I did confess to him that I originally did not want children either and why. We are in complete agreement as to why no more humans should be born for a very, very long time and he plans to remain childless while keeping in mind accidents/suprises do happen, and if his urge for a child should develop, to adopt an already existing child, as I am adopted myself and my sister was as well- we know it works, lol, and by doing that perhaps he can remove some suffering in this world while also doing good in his life and well after he's dead. Cheers. :)

33:39 fucking lol

Deliberate obtuseness. It's all going to be okay, huh? With Climate Disaster upon us, your arguments don't hold (flood) water.

I am 8 minutes into this video and already it's like a railway train that's lost it's tracks. First up, Plato was not wrong and Malthus was not wrong; based on the limits of farming _in their day_ they were correct. In fact the cause and effect principle that they asserted has been demonstrated throughout history. When a tribe's population grows too much and their food runs out, they go to war against a neighbouring tribe and kill each other until their numbers are reduced. Workhouses were bad, but everything was bad back then compared to today. Forcing people to work for a living was the only option; it wasn't like today where millions of people are paid to sit around and do nothing all day. If you wanted to eat, you worked. Charity was reserved for a very tiny minority of people such as invalid mothers who had lost their husbands and had no means to feed their children. Incidentally, what Malthus wrote on that page in An Essay on The Principle of Population (7:45) is meant as satirical criticism.Malthus was basically correct; what raised standards of living in the mid 18th to early 19th Century was the building of mills and factories and the pull of population toward the City and town where they learned new skills and literacy became more common. The English countryside in those days was not like today; it was hard living especially when Winter came. Can we feed another 3 billion people? Sure. And I would go further than that, I think if food production was restricted to only producing the most efficient nutrient-rich foods and people ate no more than their RDA, we could feed several times the current Global population. But this is a misunderstanding of the problems of overpopulation. Do you think 129 million Mexicans would want to live in the USA if you said "okay, you can come in but you have to live in North Dakota or Nebraska, and you have to build your own Cities to live in"? No, people want to live where there is existing infrastructure; hospitals, roads, fast food restaurants. Not the middle of nowhere. How many people do you think you can fit into the City of New York or San Diego? And what happens when you bring in people from backward third-World Countries who have radically different morals and behaviours? We know what happens because we have documented evidence of what happens. Violence, and the native population get elbowed out.

I tihnk you also support the reproductive self determination of men too, do you?

This video watered my crops and cleared my skin. In high school I took a genetics class, and on our "ethics in genetics" day the teacher passed out a sheet full of cutesy questions like "if two parents know they could produce a disabled child, and they have a child anyway, and it's disabled, should they be fined?". fun class.

This is what I'd describe as a "false question". The wording of the question is very leading and presents the scenario in a misleading way. No the parents should not be fined because that's not the kind of society we live in; if you took _that_ scenario to it's logical extreme, parents should be fined for failing to take preventative measures against any flaw in their offspring. But should they have to pay more for their child's healthcare? Yes. It's not someone else's problem. Why should I pay for your risk-taking? Consequence and personal responsibility go together. Should disabled children have a right to sue their parents for making them disabled? I would say yes, if the parents knew that there was a high risk to the child. Should society be critical of parents who conceive a child knowing that there is a high risk that the child will be born with a serious life-limiting condition or disease? I would say yes. If they know that their child will be born deformed, crippled, a burden on society and live a life pretending to be happy, I call that immoral and selfish. It doesn't matter they say say how much they "love their child", it doesn't change the fact that Timmy the wheelchair-bound circus freak won't be living his dream of being an NBA star and marry the girl of his dreams. Timmy is screwed, by his parents. Something you will never hear in school or most colleges or Universities is an argument against eugenics that does not resort to appeal to emotion and the phrase "but the Nazis".

We've got plenty of fossil fuels. We have enough oil to last another 200 years just using existing technology. By which time we will probably be moving on to viable alternatives such as recycled nuclear fuel rods. Africa _is_ draining it's fossil water supply though. Black African nations have no plan for what to when it runs out, and no intention of transitioning to sustainable water supplies. There _is_ enough water in Africa, but they need to build pipelines and waterways for the future. The future is not something most black Africans concern themselves with. An important point about Capitalism: No it is not perfect. Not by a LONG way. But it is the most intelligent and skilled people who rise in business. Yes they ARE better than you in that one area of life. They have exceptional skills you do not have and they tend to be workaholics.

I never took time to watch your videos before. I'm glad I did today, you're very entertaining and I subscribe!

21:05 divergent vibes

35:43 Little note, i'm not sure they pollute most is a legitimate point, purely because they pollute more by consuming more, simply. Like, if hypothetically capital was evenly distributed, i don't think emissions would change that much, so pollution is just a reflection of how much energy they consume, which itself is a reflection of how much they consume. So, when you say "they consume and pollute more" you are repeating the same point. Edit: yeah the whole point that follows is not really based on reality, i mean there would be less pollution but very little less. Most of the reason those individuals pollute more is becaue they are assigned the pollution created by their companies, but that pollution results mainly from manufacturing and shipping goods and services, so it is also the "fault" of the people buying those services and goods. Really, when it comes to pollution it's the whole human technology who's the culprit, excellent video otherwise ^^

I am still hoping against hope that in avengers 4 they have at least a casual remark of how mad, in the sense of clinically insane, Thanos really is for thinking he provided any solution to a real problem in any way, and that they do not pull a Ultron. Ultron's idea of evolution was also bonkers insane and flat out wrong, but they never disagree with him instead the movie just kinda goes "he's right but that's not the point". Ultron: "They're gonna die" Vision: "Yes. but a thing is not beautiful because it lasts..." EXCUSE ME YOU AI FUCKS ARE YOU SAYING YOU REALLY WOULD HAVE MADE A MORE "EVOLVED"HUMAN SPECIES BY SLAMMING A CITY IN THE GROUND REALLY HARD

There's always going to be someone who's the Big Banana in charge. In a Capitalist society we at least tend to get more people at the top of the pyramid who got there by merit rather than hitting other people over the head with a club. Capitalism is imperfect (and Corporatism - not to be confused with Capitalism - is a dumpster fire) but it sure beats Socialism - failure rate of 100%. Under Capitalism, if you develop a useful skill, if you get competent and knowledgeable at something, you can make money. Simple as that. You are free to invest in your own skills, take risks and build your own business, or play it safe and work for a company. We are not running out of resources (although Africa is running out of underground "fossil" water but that's a separate issue), in fact we have plenty of fuel and energy. I am inclined to believe that the fear of an "energy crisis" is a tool used by what you might call the "secret rulers of the World" to ration energy and enforce artificially high prices. Even when oil runs out (and we have enough just using current technology to last 200 years - who knows how much more oil will be found and how long it will last with future technologies) we will have alternatives; depleted nuclear fuel rods for example are a rich potential source of energy. "Climate change" or as it used to be called "Global Warming" IMO is a scam. There is no evidence that the climate is changing any more than is natural. And even if it is getting warmer, is that bad? If the Planet gets a little warmer and wetter it would enrich plant life and increase the fertility of land. Humans are a tropical species BTW.

I am not bound to take orders from others except by the threat of withholding certain resources. I must involuntarily participate in civilization for all the land in the world has been claimed and there is nowhere to hide from the governments of the world and their corporate masters. I will continue to participate in this reality I want no part in solely to see it burn to the ground in the future. Resource depletion is coming and the capitalist corporate masters know it. I'll revel in the joy of watching the ideologues fall before their knees like good little cucks and watch as the corporate masters take their lives. Perhaps there will be a revolution and I will witness the beheading of the rich people who have thoroughly exploited billions. There are many interesting events to take place in the future. You amuse me if you really believe you can continue operating the world as it is right now. The more fossil fuels you burn, the more you fuel climate change. The laws of thermodynamics and resource depletion will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it. I hope I am there to see it for I will finally be able to play the game on my terms.

Sunscreen gives skin cancer....

personally not gonna breed myself as my genes are absolute shit and i dont want my offspring to suffer in the same ways i do. i'd rather adopt.

What's that at 8:00? Malthus' book is online and it doesn't say that anywhere.

+Peter Coffin The book is online for everyone. Control F does not find any candidates. Explain that please. Anyway it's more than just one missing quotation; as a whole it's a crass stereotype and not at all what Malthus was about - I've read the bloody thing once. Why don't you leave the twisting of truth to the nutters on the right?

Yeah he does you ass. Stop commenting on my profiles without actually reading his work. https://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html?chapter_num=47#book-reader

watching this makes me wonder if my environmental biology professor's low-key hatred of people is more aimed at the rich or the poor.

The Food production is plenty for the population but the reason you have obese populations somewhere and starving populations in other places isn't due to a lack of food but is due to it not being distributed according to population size. Globally there is enough, but some countries are hoarding more than they need while others have less than they need. The environmental issues of food production is also not due to the amount of food produced but the amount of land used to produce it which could be solved by better land management to reduce the amount of land used while increasing food output.

Shoutout to the Nokia N-Gage at 16:50

+Peter Coffin Actually there is one edition that has a quote like that, just not the one on gutenberg. But you could have just said so! And I still don't support this argument because the book is from just after the year 1800 and that is simply how most people thought about poverty back then. There is a lot more to Malthus than this. You're confusing a few people hogging all the resources with people's actual footprint, which is a real thing.

Peter, I visit "objectionable" channels as we all should. My surprise impression of a Charles Murray talk was, one, that one chapter of his book expressed caution and uncertainties if race and IQ were biologically linked, IQ as a measurement of the ability to engage in abstract thoughts, and, two, that if this hypothesis could be determined to have a factual *broadly statistical* basis (not determining any individual's capabilities), then our society and government ought to focus on some *compassionate plan of action* to mitigate intelligence-linked economic pain. I heard or got the impression that Murray was speaking of Universal Basic Income. Not socialism. But still some welfare support, as needed. He didn't specify logistics of doing that. Also, I didn't know all those Margaret Sanger pro-eugenics quotes but I read about her argument that rich white urban women had access to various birth control, so black women and mothers in urban or rural settings ought to have the same access and equal opportunity to plan for smaller families, less sickly kids, access to birth control information, black doctors. This also meant (black) rural wives could continue having marital relations with their husbands without the burden of 8-10+ children. In the same story, Sanger was opposed to anything forced or not voluntary. I guess she had different opinions in different situations and times.

You didn't cover much about genetic modification.

I love all of your collabs, keep up the solid work!

Eugenics is just a compound of 2 Greek words.

Everyone ought to read the works of Henry George. He utterly destroyed Malthus's arguments in the 1870s.

This fucked me up. I believed in the meritocracy and all the stuff Pete was saying. That some are just more superior than others, and that people have what they have because they worked harder and were not lazy, that 'good'=survival of the fittest. But I thought all of this and I was all the bad things lol. I was born female, indigenous and in to the underclass. I was born in to a world I was taught was equal and just and I was raised to believe that I was poor because of something my family chose not to do. And that I would always be poor because that is what I deserve. That I'm wrong and a thing that exists in a male universe for the pleasure of males by virtue of my femaleness. Females were subordinate because they are inferior but males have given them equality now and so whatever happens to us is our own doing. And that people hate me because I am savage and feral, but that blacks have the same rights now and if we are down, it is because we choose to be down. Like, you internalize it all. And you learn to be helpless. And this is reinforced throughout socialization at every level. People don't want to associate with you, the same people who claim that societies like mine are 'classless' and 'colorblind' with 'gender equality'. This means you look for the problem outside of these external things, and it means that you are the problem, it is internal. You feel like a burden constantly and that you are a waste of resources. Some of my family members have moved up to the working poor and the working class but most of my family is still poor and think all this stuff is true. But they look down at the rest of us now. Like, I thought I was not entitled to a job or to go to school because those things are for people who earn them. You earn the right to work and study by doing well in school and not being lazy, it is not given to you. And if you think it is, then you are too entitled. I felt so greedy and ashamed for being proud of myself when I got my first job as a cleaner because I thought I had not earned the right to be proud of my labor. And I didn't even know higher education was an option until I was 25. I have the privilege now of getting to learn, and once this stuff is presented to you, an alternative, it changes the world forever. Because we end up believing in our own inferiority. It really affects peoples' quality of life if they think that they are nothing. And it is odd, but when you try and go against it, like, you leave your station in life, a lot of people are very mad at you. I've encountered the so-called "Right". And they are not happy lol. I can't imagine what it must do to those of us who exist in the worst of circumstances. I come from Australia and I feel that my version of oppression in a rich country is not even worthy most of the time compared to "real" oppression in other nations. Because that's what society teaches you. It makes me feel awful. For all of us. But I am so grateful for channels like these. I share the videos with people I know to try and empower them too. It really does help. I hope to use my education to help too.

Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand… But I think that on a planet of finite resources and space, we have way too many people and our problems can only be exacerbated by overpopulation.

I'm with you on human Eugenics but being my background is farming that stuff you said about food was actually a process of eugenics especially in animal products

"The prevailing thought at the time..." At the time? Rich assholes still think they're special, even though they don't add anything of value to society.

That hbomb cameo took me completely by surprise, in the best way possible. Great video, btw!

Funny enough, 80% of the richest 10% have inherited their wealth (UK 2016). Meritocracy?

Funny thing, the best way to lower fertility among a certain group is to a) provide education to especially women (assuming that men will always get at least equal quality education) and then b) make sure that all have access to healthcare. That has been the experience every single time: the high-fertility populations with higher living standards are the ones where women aren't educated or don't have autonomy (USA?).

BTW, as long as you talk about brain sizes and their role in eugenics, you could remark that Einstein had a smaller than average brain.

It occurred to me, that as Malthus was pretty illiterate in economics, he might think of poor people "surplus people" just like Plato did. They thought that poverty was an effect of over-population, when poverty then as now was ever the effect of distribution. "Meritocracy" should be referred to here... One only has to take one look at Trump's statements, and any illusion of _meritocracy_ goes out the window. I'm a full-blown anarchist in that I mostly agree with "property is theft" and particularly land ownership, but owning above one's needs (a house and means of production) is theft from others. Furthermore, inheritance rights perpetuate the idiocracy (cf Trump again) of heirs of billionaires who never had to do anything to prove themselves, to actually compete, and thus we get politicians like George W Bush.

I think you should have mentioned how Malthus explicitly says his whole essay was a response to reading Mary Shelley's dad (Godwin if you must) argument for an egalitarian utopia and claims that schemes to improve humanity's lot in general are doomed to failure, the essay is explicitly a defense of the capitalist status quo of Malthus's day, you don't need to divert into a long analysis of the text to show something it explicitly says. I mean I see a comment where you said you did not have time to go into everything, but in this case you might have saved time. Still I think you are a little unfair to the Reverend Malthus (just the tiniest bit). Note Malthus only suggests making the conditions of the poor more fatal in the hypothetical, he says at the end of the chapter leading into that passage: "If after all, however, these arguments should appear insufficient ; if we reprobate the idea of endeavouring to encourage the virtue of moral restraint among the poor, from a fear of producing vice ; and if we think, that to facilitate marriage by all possible means is a point of the first consequence to the morality and happiness of the people ; let us act consistently, and before we proceed, endeavour to make ourselves acquainted with the mode by which alone we can effect our object." [this mode would be the increasing the mortality of the poor you quoted] He thinks that there is an alternative to his killy scenario, moral restraint (late marriage, hence his thing about everyone getting married at puberty in the pro-mortality scenario), but that trying to encourage or enforce late marriage would just lead to vice among the poor (ie horny poor people engaging in filthy disgusting pre-marital sex) which he can't abide either. So his solution: "If, on contemplating the increase of vice which might contingently follow an attempt to inculcate the duty of moral restraint, and the increase of misery that must necessarily follow the attempts to encourage marriage and population, we come to the conclusion, not to interfere in any respect, but to leave every man to his own free choice, and responsible only to God for the evil which he does in either way ; this is all I contend for ; I would on no account do more ; but I contend, that at present we are very far from doing this." So that demonstrates a callous disregard for human life and a purtanical morality most of us find extreme, but to suggest he was actually advocating increasing mortality among the poor by the measures suggested, is like suggesting Jonathan Swift thought eating babies should be implemented to alleviate poverty in Ireland. In terms of eugenics, I find it doubtful that Malthus would have approved or thought it a worthwhile project. The whole point of his essay is how schemes to improve general human life are doomed to failure, eugenics is just another such project to "improve" the lot of humankind. Also, he had trouble even talking about contraception and certainly did not approve of it, sterilizing people would be anathema to the good reverend, presumably he would also object to telling people who to marry both because it seems to contradict Christian sexual mores and because as with encouraging late marriage it would probably in his calculations lead to vice (adultery, using contraceptives, who knows what else). Indeed he includes the following observation in his discussion of selective breeding (what he calls attention to breeding) "As the human race, however, could not be improved in this way, without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable that an attention to breed-should ever become general ;", I think he is assuming celibacy would either not be chosen, that enforcing celibacy would be wrong or that enforcing/encouraging it would cause vice or some other harm. Also the bit you bring up about how he thought it unlikely that intelligence was subject to increase via selective breeding, that is in the context of him trying to criticise Condercet's idea that in the future humankind will be a race of immortal Adoniases thanks to such biological improvement of the race (ie eugenics). So I think he was just skeptical of the idea of improving intelligence etc. at all, he certainly thought that there were limits to any improvement (ie you might be able to extend lifespan, but Condercet's idea of immortal humans was a ridiculous extrapolation from that possibility), suggesting he was skeptical of the whole thing. Now I don't know that this has a big effect on the force of your argument, because eugenicists can be using Malthus arguments/fallacies even if Malthus would not have gone along with them. Norton's critical edition of Malthus's Essay includes excerpts on birth control as part of its context for later influence, including some excerpts by Sanger. So there are definitely connections to be made. However remember it was the Catholic church that was often a major opponent of the eugenicists in the early 20th century, and even though Malthus was a church of England man and not working for the Bishop of Rome it seems likely he would have similar problems with eugenicists (which would include things like opposition to birth control that we would not share). Also this is really subjective but I think you neglect the power and influence of Malthus's thought both Darwin and Malthus were inspired by Malthus. Ad Darwin put it "This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms." Malthus was famous for his arguments with David Ricardo and this influenced economic thought (on things like general gluts, aka recessions), including presumably the thought of your favourite minor post Ricardian (Karl Marx who thought of himself as economist and that was one economist's evaluation of his effect on economic thought). Also Engels put his trust in the unlimited advance of technology and science to keep providing food in the face of population increase (1844 Outlines of a critique of political economy), he would have fit in with tech millionaires like Elon Musk....

Absolutely amazing work. How does this not have more views?

the past is a turr

At 6:25 or so, you show that the annual growth rate of the world population decreases after the baby boom. To me this seems like a misleading way to imply that population does not grow geometrically, because all that is needed for geometric growth is for the growth rate to stay constant, right? Arithmetic growth would require the growth rate to constantly decrease. Just a thought. Thanks for the great content!

Ah shit... for a minute, around 6:00, you were being deliberately misleading. I wish I never saw that. Now i'm going to start seeing it everywhere.

how so

People dont care about each other because they are a bunch of tribalist. And the world could do with a few less people in it with the current modus operandi of extreme consumtion. I would not suggest to start killing people off ofcourse because I dont think I og anyone Else should get to be the judge of who gets to live og not. But pretending that we arent currently overpopulated helps achieve what?

Peter Coffin Yeah, well, thanks for looking past the typos and such. Had a colleague in my ear about maternity leave half the time I was writing. Keep up the “good” “work”, “Peter”.

Hahahaha I got you

Hey! You're a YouTube comments section Peter! So, I don't like your comparing the Lam figure to the Malthusian growth model, for a couple of reasons . Firstly, I think you know what the human population growth model for the last 2000 or so years looks like and I think that is why we are not seeing it... because it looks really Malthusian. You've basically picked two points on that curve that are very close together and then drawn an unsupportable conclusion about the nature of the curve as a whole. I guess its a differentiation issue? or, like, too small a sample size? Either way, it shouldn't have made it through peer-review. My second problem is the period in agricultural history that you chose: The Green Revolution. It's a time of unprecedented gains in production efficiency, made possible by the roll out of high yielding crop lines and the industrialization of fertilizer & pesticide production. I don't think you can reasonably extrapolate those efficiency gains out into infinity. Show human population growth vs. agricultural production for the 100 years before 1960... shit, show Africa's for the same period. It's quite a different story. Remember Green Mars and William Fort? Sure, you can increase lumber production by building more saw mills, but you can't just build saw mills in lieu of planting trees... that's just not how efficiency works. My final problem is your focusing on food production as the issue. I get why, and I understand that you know that it isn't that simple, but I bet most of your audience isn't thinking about waste production, fossil fuel depletion or (shudder) eco-system services. Those things (and myriad others) matter. Lam speaks of them explicitly in his conclusion, along with flattening crop yields and rising commodity prices. We can't even convince a quarter the people we have here now that it is in their best interest to stop kicking each other's teeth in and stealing lunch money. Piling more people in isn't going to make that job any easier, at least not without making things violently uncomfortable first. Don't think that i'm disagreeing with the broad strokes of what you are saying. I'm not. In an ideal world, I bet we could cram another 50 billion people onto this rock and still keep the great alpine national park and/or Yellowstone relatively intact. And obviously eugenics is a steaming pile of shit. But your use of those figures is a bit shit, and I suspect you know that. You're too smart not. I was going to write something here about filing yourself dumping your household garbage out onto a deserted beach while making the same arguments, instead of - you know - drinking craft beer, but I couldn't do it without sounding like a bitter asshole... so, maybe just imagine that I did that really well... you get the point, i'm sure.

I work for a child welfare department and I have to sort through a lot of old information. As your talking about the language oh eugenics a 'health report' from the 1940s is using the exact same language. It's easy to forget that all this shit was 'socially acceptable' not even 100 years ago. This isn't 'stuff of the past' out fucking grandparents and even some people's parents grew up with this shit. It's still prominent today just pathetically hidden under a pile of leaves only to rear its disgusting head again because the roots of the problem were never addressed.

You could fit and feed trillions of people on earth. Isaac Arthur told me so.

There are just too many of us to live in luxury. If we were only 500 million or less, it wouldn't be much of a problem, but with 7.5 billion and rising, we just can't afford to live the way the middle and upper classes do.

You assert an awful lot of things are true (or false) because you don't like the implications of them being false (or true). That isn't actually a logical argument. There are lots of great arguments against eugenics, but don't deny the underlying reality that there is genetic variation and we could (and have actually) selectively bred ourselves to enhance or reduce particular traits. I know you're going for funny, but mocking people like Malthus who lived at a time when we were just starting to get a grip on our modern understanding of genetics and economics is pretty dickish. It is a damn good bet that they were a lot less wrong relative to knowledge of their day than you are relative to today. Oh, and without Malthus's contributions to our understanding of population dynamics, there is a quite good chance you'd be dead of a disease we now know how to prevent. People, even dead ones, aren't 2-D cartoon characters.

The only problem from overpopulation is that it doesn't exist, so we cannot blame it and go on with out lives without looking like insensitive reactionaries.

I just have to say it: this is a great video and you would've gotten a like from me, maybe even a subscribe, if it weren't for the negative and, imo, inaccurate representation of Peterson. I like Contra's approach so much better: her critique of him is fair, and she's arguing against something much closer to his actual ideas than this meme of him as this stupid old school sexist. It's kind of offensive to me, honestly, as someone who has benefited from listening to Peterson. Just felt the need to express that, as politely as possible. Consider the audio you run over clips of him speaking: there are implications there that don't seem accurate to me. Great video otherwise, though, as I said.

Congratulations comparing an animal that uses half of its brain at any one given time to conquer the need to sleep or it would DROWN, and an enormous HERBIVORE which evolutionary expends a lot of energy and nutritional maintenance on the gut. In nature predators have to outsmart more than a tree, so what you tend to see is they are a better example. Comparing brain to body mass by ratio is also an oversimplification for an animal like my pet rat, that has incredibly large areas of its brain dedicated to odor processing. They can smell better than the most specifically bred for this task canine. So much so, they are used to clear landmines. Herbivore once again, and you people seem to think a powerful immune system is a free naturally selected lunch, it isnt. The rat can thrive off rotting garbage can contents without much fuss. The frontal lobe is where the magic happens. This level of think, but dolphins n elephantz n shiet, and an extremely intellectually lazy cliché attitude toward reality, that racial differences aren't in fact determinable in the way of mental capacities, is ubiquitous in the western poisoned mind.

Great Conclusion

*Lady Foppington has left the chat*

21:05 This greatly amused me.

An excessively ideological take on the problem. The video is almost entirely(and I watched it in its entirety) filled with analysis of XIX century ideas from the perspective of class struggle. I fail to see how all this is supposed to prove or disprove the threat of overpopulation. It is well known that humanity is running out of vital resources, such as fresh water or oil. The effect of our idiotic management of resources is devastating for the ecosystem. But hey, look at those stupid XIX century bourgeois with their ridiculous pseudoscience! Now we all can breathe a sigh of relief, I guess. Seriously?

There is no over Population

15:41 It literally reads "bullshit"

Woah, pretty nice debunking of eugenism. I didn't know your channel but I may give it a deeper look. B-) What's interesting to note is that we're currently being fed a new and opposite eugenist propaganda, coming right from the US military. Supposedly, a very long term study they made shows that jews have the higher IQ while arabs and hispanics have the lowest. Now, which countries would benefit from this kind of propaganda? Mh I wonder. And of course people are swallowing it because it justifies their biases.

Yeah, the homosexuals. The most likely group to reproduce.

If you really respect body autonomy, how on earth can you bring a child to the world? The child has no say. It's same as imposing a religion on a child, circumcision, ear piercing of little children... Killing a person is, presumably, bad. But life itself is a long story about someone's death. Parents are the ones perpetuating evils on Earth. You can save your children from accidents, robbery, starvation, mental illness and so on only if you don't have them in the first place.

I am not rich but I definitely don't like the city and wanna get the hell away from it

At the end, we get to the real point, which is, Edward Woodward is the greatest actor of all time.

Yes, it is true that there's not too many people for adequate food production. However what Malthus could not foresee was the total inability of the planet to cope with the ever-increasing amounts of noxious waste products of our technological advancement. Also the reduction of biodiversity is in fact directly related to the sheer number of us who need land to live on, which is inversely reducing the amount of land other creatures get to build their homes on. The drastic current reduction in biodiversity might well cause a catastrophic decrease of the human population if our ecosystem collapses.

So what’s the deal with Big Think? I’ve seen their videos referenced on here in a negative light, and I know they’re funded by the Kochs, but I’ve also seen some really leftist stuff on their. What’s their motive?

Easily the most important one you've done. Thank you.

47:27 Thanks for mentioning the lead crises isn't limited to Flint. Milwaukee has 70k lead pipes with really, really bad lead levels

someone PLEASE tell me what video game that elderly Hitler is from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So ive never commented on a video before but I agree/disagree with this video so much I had too. Malthus and the concept of overpopulation has an strong undercurrent of racism. Absolutely, yes. But that doesn't mean we should go merrily on our way, yes the idea of overpopulation is routed in some very wrong ideas, but our consumption patterns coupled with population size is too much for the planet to handle, we really need to stop consuming resources like hungry hippos on PCP. ( https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ ) So I agree that overpopulation isn't the problem (and kinda racist). But its cousin overconsumption is a huge issue (deforestation, global warming, fracking, running oil pipes through native lands, destroying oragutang's environment for Palm oil, sending e Waste to burn in Ghana) Everyone on this planet (rich or poor, white or black) needs to chill out on consumption.

Every single ad I got in this video was praguerU

corbett Report did a similar video like this where he spoke alot about Paul r. Ehrlich. Why didnt talk about that guy?

"any who may have been called degenerate 100 years ago" or, y'know... just last week on social media >.

Your work is down right rad. Thank you for your ongoing contributions and for so much relevant information in these dire, redudndant :( times. You are awesome!

People who think the planet is overpopulated should be promoting homosexuality.

IMO the way to handle this is to contextualize those insults as *very* outdated and bigoted, 1. because they are and 2. because when you see it on social media it has the reality shake effect

+Peter Coffin No thanks required, you are doing us all a great service. Keep up that amazing work hommie! Fuck the rightwing shitposts!

thank you!

Thought Slime is a little slow actually.

Left-wingers have got an irrational fear of certain words with unpleasant meanings which borders on, if, in fact, it does not wholly belong into, superstition.

as standard of living goes up in (for example) china, so does carbon pollution, wild habitat destruction, etc. this is an aspect you touch on , but saying 'it's the system that must change' is pretty simplistic.


Thanos please. This video is one more reason for depopulation.

Damn, no one ever goes and quotes that part of Christmas Carol. Its always about how Scrooge stops being a dick. , not about the dickish beliefs he held.

Overpopulation is the biggest myth of all. It was only after the use of agriculture, that humanity could multiply so quickly.

Very good work on this. Could do without the comic relief though.

The existence of hierarchy is not as bad a thing as you try to portray it. You probably make more money making those videos and selling your merch, than me moving boxes in my job. So what, are you gonna send me some of that money? Please do, I won't mind. Anyway nice video, I disagree on some of the points but that is okay. Good to hear other viewpoints.

I don't think you clarified enough, are the beneficiaries white, intelligent, and bourgeois?

Is eugenics really always bad? I have an illness that brings me pain, there for I think it would be unethical for me too pass on my suffering just because of my own selfish desire to reproduce. My genes are not that important, I would argue they suck, and it's full of orphans that I could help instead. That is a form of eugenics. Is that really so bad?

That was a beautifully powerful ending. Serious kudos to you.

keep up the good work!

Thanos was wrong!

I disagree, some people are clearly inferior to others, and the world genuinely would be better off without them. Just look at the average bell-curve quoting, racial inferiority complex spouting, frothing at the mouth, far right YouTube commentor. Excellent candidates for sterilisation. The intellectual detritus keep falling back to arguments of sterilisation, eugenics and inferiority complexes in order to shield themselves from competition and to hand wave their own failures. Maybe it's worth not entirely sidelining these ideas. The proponents of these measures are remarkably persistent after all, and have the most consistent habit of raising their voices throughout all of recorded history... perhaps indicating a genetic propensity of tribalism and inadequate analytical skills? If so, their own propositions could perhaps serve as a necessary final solution to the continued issues they repeatedly cause to the rest of mankind. Besides, the karma would be magnificent.

I just got served an ad propagandizing thinking of, ah, "entitlement spending" as a balance between "economic harm" and "humanitarian causes". Interesting to think about the shared premises between that and Malthus

See I really am liking this documentary so far, but some of what is in it can also be used as ammo against liberal support for homosexuality and similar. The quote at 18:43 for instance, as we see today that this is being pushed as natural while those same scientists hide the many physiological problems occurring thanks to practices like sodomy and the like. Not to mention of course the psychological issues that we also see. Second is the theory of evolution. I mean in this video you're bashing all these "scientific" bases that people have been leaning on, yet evolution, which ultimately set out to prove "scientifically" that people like blacks were inherently inferior because they were not as evolved, you have to be a complete creationist moron to not believe in it.

The problem isn't the population, the problem is the affluence.

AJ People who comment before watching the whole video are the new people who talk in the cinema.

Educational and reassuring. That's how I like YouTube.

the spanish subtitles are fucked up, great work but could be better translation

the ending is epic by the way


+Voltairine Kropotkin Be assured that I watched the rest of the video. I still had that comment to make. Also I don't go to the cinema so also be assured that my harm is confined to youtube in the limited context of just that and cinemas.

This is something that I peeped early on in my life. Whenever I heard conversations about "population control" there was always a "theme" to them and it all sounded like code for "Europeans and Westerners are the only ones that should be on this planet." Tried to explain to a lot of so-called intellectuals that it was overconsumption and not population that was the issue, but I was looked at as a blithering idiot. At some point I decided to keep my opinions to myself. You have no idea how refreshing it is that I found this video on the internet and dare I say it, from a white youtuber. There is a great awakening and I'm just happy that I'm no longer alone in the thoughts that have bothered me for years now. I'm hopeful now. People are waking up. People are seeing the bullshit society for what it truly is. There is really hope out there.

If you care about sustainability, climate change, deforestation, ocean dead zones, species extinction, drought, world hunger, human health issues, etc etc etc, you need to go vegan. Animal agriculture is, by far, the biggest contributer to all of these, and going vegan is, easily, the most accessible way for us to help correct these issues.

not knowing greek you lost in such a great joke since μαλακίες in modern greek means masturbation

Even if there were overpopulation it would eventually self-correct.

5:42 yes, but that food production might not be sustainable in the long run, because it requires other, only finite ressources, like oil to make the fertilizer and fossil fuels to transport the food. I don't know exactly though. I haven't made the calculation. Just throwing this in here as a thought to consider.

At 25:06 there is a picture of Olvi beer. Suomi mainittu. Torilla tavataan!

I never realized how much of a sick burn that ghost of christmas present line actually was. Fuckin rekt.

On another note, it's pretty hilarious that the vast majority of people I know who watch that movie religiously during the holidays are also staunch defenders of capitalism at the end of the day. :')

If we're going to eliminate the surplus population, we should be seeing that surplus as the entitled selfish one percent that sees poor people as morally handicapped garbage, not the poor people. Or we could, you know, not judge the value of human beings. Of course that's just my Leftist delusion telling me that we're all better off when we're all actually treated equally because meritocracy is a patently absurd concept that ignores reality.

The whole "poverty and addiction are moral failings" shtick is disgusting.

Malthus sounds like a d!ck.

It's not the space that inspires the concern over overpopulation, it's the resources those people consume and it's the waste they create. Resources don't only mean food either. ....and eugenics shouldn't be a dirty word just because ignorant people formerly wielded the word. Humanity should be able to consciously direct it's own generic future. We've already been doing it ever since humans were human, we just don't call it that. We try and pick the most fit person to breed with. Eugenics doesn't mean gas chambers and forced sterilization. It means figuring out what combinations of genes would make for the strongest, smartest and best looking child we can make. There's nothing wrong with that. When it becomes wrong is when you combine it with the power of a strong central government that can decide who gets to breed and who they can breed with. That should be up to the individuals to decide.

I disagree, as long as all people dont have an ecological footprint below 1, we do make a big impact on the earth with our gigantic population. I dont see why its a big deal to try to reduce our population. Not by ethnic cleansing or something scary like that, just reducing out birthrate. Its a hard to convince people i understand, but so is convincing people to go vegan, not to but new clothes, dont use a car or plane ect. And i dont like how overpopulation sometimes gets waved away as a far right dog wistle sometimes, im just concerned with the ecosystem which is falling apart if it has to make room for a billion more people every 10 years

Thanos is dumb lol

Your argument would be better made if you didn't gloss over the fact that our current methods of food production are unsustainable (eg reliant on oil, a finite resource) and the ecosystem is collapsing.

Other news