GiganticWebsites.com is a project through which I make it possible for people to build truly gigantic websites (thousands of articles each!) at ridiculously low prices. If you have a great domain you want to turn into an amazing website or an existing site you'd like to upgrade/scale, visit our website or check out the One Minute Economics presentation video below: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mXls26eIgamzptI.html Please note that this comment is not an ad for a third-party service provider. GiganticWebsites.com is my baby 100% and I will personally be involved in each and every project so as to ensure the website turns out great :)

fuego, I would go 3 minutes tho but I get what your trying to do here. Really great topic, you should do one about the debate/value of malthusian economics

As the population goes up, jobs lag, and people get desperate to afford increasingly scarce resources. This allows employers to pay their workers less and less as there will now be people willing to desperately work for less and less without a choice. This decreases quality of life while also contributing to the wealth gap. Higher population, worse average life for the working class, better for the upper class.

birth control is only mainstream in wealthier countries

@jeanyvespotier

Жыл бұрын

Les enfants dans les pays pauvre meurt de sous alimentation

DAYUM THIS VIDEO IS SO INTERESTING

@OneMinuteEconomics

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! :)

Nice video!

@OneMinuteEconomics

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks a lot Kerri, appreciate the kind words!

A very informative video

@OneMinuteEconomics

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks a lot Oscar, glad you like it! :)

Clear explanation tq for video

@OneMinuteEconomics

4 жыл бұрын

You are more than welcome, thank you for the kind words :)

@pulsarbalajinavigation5154

4 жыл бұрын

@@OneMinuteEconomics tq

I’d argue with the point that pollution is a “price tag” of the population boom of the Industrial Revolution. There are more trees and cleaner air and water over more of the planet than 200 years ago. Now it took some time to get there, because the wealthier a country gets, the more the people direct resources away from basic necessities over to secondary concerns.

@vinylrebellion

Жыл бұрын

Wealthy countries are still not sustainable, and could be argued to be doing worse in many areas, ie consumption very high. Land clearing and soil degradation still happening. No industry being run sustainably.

@brantpam222

Жыл бұрын

@@vinylrebellion, countries that have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years aren’t “sustainable?” That’s a loaded word with a made up meaning by people who are trying to control people instead of allowing them to be free.

One Minute Economics needs your help! Please give me a minute (heh) of your time by watching the following video if you find the channel useful, literally anyone can help (either financially or by spreading the word about my work): kzread.info/dash/bejne/m6NklsWkoZS-YbA.html

Malthus was correct, except he expressed himself in terms of food shortages. If you for a moment ignore food shortages and think about it from the perspective of disposable income and living standards then it makes sense. The productivity growth in agriculture during his time, allowed us to kick the ball of the malthusian trap forward. Subsequent productivity growth upon productivity growth in secondary and tertiary sectors pushed this ball forward further. The bad news is that productivity growth cannot continue forever, there will be a time period where it will slow to either match or be below the rate of population growth. At this point, living standards will start falling as humans reproduce to a level that makes the per capita consumption fall to the living standard of the agrarian period. If you're looking for an example of what I've just written observe the next 5 years, I think we have exhausted our productivity growth unfortunately. The days of 5% economic growth rates in the west for example are gone.

I believe Thomas Malthus was right. Even tough the green revolutions happened and food production is growing, it will stagnate at some point. The land area of Earth will not grow. I look at the productivity of farms in my country Brazil and for some areas the proctivity is already high, it is not growing anymore over the years.

@MrNote-lz7lh

Жыл бұрын

You believe wrong. We haven't even really started vertical farming yet.

@flaviopalmiro

Жыл бұрын

​@@MrNote-lz7lh Vertical farming is suitable for lettuce and carrot, buy do you think it can be suitable for large areas of soybeans and corn? I don´t think so.

@MrNote-lz7lh

Жыл бұрын

​​​@@flaviopalmiro Once again you believe wrong. There's no reason we couldn't grow them vertically. Their roots only grow 6 feet deep and corn only grow eight feet tall. So you just need to stack twenty feet tall rooms. Let's say we wanted to create a greenhouse skyscraper the size of the empire state building. With a height of 1200 odd feet you will amplify food production by sixty times per land usage. We can go a lot taller if needed. We can also go subterranean. Although then we'd have to use artificial light.

@flaviopalmiro

Жыл бұрын

@@MrNote-lz7lh Why don´t we use that already? Maybe it demands too much resources and it is expensive. Will this change in the future?

@MrNote-lz7lh

Жыл бұрын

​@@flaviopalmiro We don't do that now because we have plenty of food and plenty of land. But once the population hit about a trillion we'd have to do it to keep everyone fed.

Instead of billionaires flying to space, burning fossil fuel and everyone applauding progress, humanity should look at more inclusive and truly human means of existence.

@OneMinuteEconomics

2 жыл бұрын

I empathize with the idea that there is a LOT left to do here at home. On the other hand, however, I am a big picture guy by nature. And becoming a multi-planetary species is crucial to ensuring our longer-term survival in my view, with steps toward this direction having their role in the equation. A fine balancing act between not ruining things at home (on the contrary, preferably) but not forgetting to play offense every now and then either :)

@walzingdewormed3425

2 жыл бұрын

@@OneMinuteEconomics The concept of becoming "multi-planetary" might be appealing but going back to the "LOT to do here", that should be in my opinion our top priority. The shifting towards and development of sustainable resources and means of generating them, as well as a true shift in mentality, is urgently needed. Flying to space with the idea in mind of expanding and stepping up on the Kardashev scale, sure is appealing and definitely signifies a "grand-step" towards this kind of "expansion", but I wonder if this - besides being a massive ego-rocket-ride reserved yet again only to a very minute minority- isn't just more of the good old "treating the symptoms and not the cause".

@OneMinuteEconomics

2 жыл бұрын

I do agree that if we don't deploy prudence, we risk bringing about our own demise before getting even close to let's say colonizing another planet. A goal that, leaving everything else aside, is quite far away if we are to be realistic. Thus, to refer to the last part of your comment, while sending a multi-billionaire to space seems like more of an ego boost than a step toward a multi-planetary experience... we have to start somewhere, heh :)

@MrNote-lz7lh

Жыл бұрын

​@@walzingdewormed3425 I disagree. But that's the beauty of diversity. You and people like you can work on earth problems and people like Jeff and Elon can work on space stuff.

@Steveman27

Жыл бұрын

@@MrNote-lz7lh I figure both can be done.

high food production + one child policy = food surplus

Y’all see Urinetown

I like firetruck and monster truck

Malthus was right, and people refuse to see it

Is it true that malthusian has been overcome scientifically by revolutions like GMO and other advanced agriculture has an iota of truth? Say yes or no Yes ChatGPT ♥️🌹

Another thing that Malthus didn't factor in was first world waste, just how much food is wasted in the USA alone? population control invariably ends up costing certain ethnicities more than others -I'm sure that this is jus ta coincidence.

Please don't waste your money with the animations. A slide show is perfectly fine and more professional. You words are what we want to hear. Give more time on the content rather than visuals.

@OneMinuteEconomics

7 жыл бұрын

Really means a lot to me that people primarily care about my ideas/words and I agree, it's what ultimately matters and I guess explains why you guys support all of my projects/experiments, from animations to... vlogging haha, never ever thought I'd end up filming myself and putting it on the Internet. Yet here I am, doing it three times per week and I'm actually about to do just that in a few minutes :D

@S.12123

5 жыл бұрын

slade Kayastha no but the video educates people and helps students understand more

@Steveman27

Жыл бұрын

What did you mean by wasting their money on the animations? If the software to do it was already bought, then there's nothing else to buy. Do you think they rent the software instead of purchasing it?

"We shouldn't blindly dismiss Malthusian thinking" It isn't blindly dismissing, his views were both verifiable & testable, and they were proved incorrect. He believed we would run out of food to feed ourselves by 1900, it's now 2019 and more people have access to food than ever before. The only reasons you listed for why it might be correct can be boiled down to "Well it can still happen" Calling disproving a theory "Blind dismissal" is just dishonest.

@mistacole1335

5 жыл бұрын

@Liam Kurz And do you have any evidence of that? You seem to be the one blindly making an assertion.

@mistacole1335

5 жыл бұрын

@Liam Kurz It is absolutely assertive language, Your negating the status quo, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that a plateau in technological advancement is possible in the foreseeable future. It's not blind assertion, every single prediction of this tipping point on the checks of population have been proven untrue, not only that, food access has expanded greatly. My point is that, while population growth IS Exponential, so is food production, because the margin of technological advancement also increases.

@mistacole1335

5 жыл бұрын

@Liam Kurz I'm not saying that it's not possible, I'm saying that claims require evidence, your negating the status quo, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that will happen, Malthus attempted to prove that by analyzing the relationship between population growth and food production, however his works are now discredited, So I'm asking you, what evidence you have to make that claim.

@mistacole1335

5 жыл бұрын

@Liam Kurz Typical Neo-Malthusian.

@mistacole1335

5 жыл бұрын

@Liam Kurz Jesus Christ.. Whether or not there is a possibility is completely irreverent. Human Geography is a social science, and the Malthusian model doesn't adhere to the scientific method, We construct theories off of what we know, not what we don't. Your right, past trends do not always indicate future success, but that wasn't my point, My entire point is that Guessing what might happen is completely irreverent because we are talking about science. Even if the Malthusian trap just happened by chance, it still isn't scientific because it doesn't conform to the scientific method. How exactly does the Industrial revolution confirm anything your saying? Technology has doubled in power and halved in price every 2 years. You absolute chode.

Very informative. Much Blessings to you. Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ dot

Higher population does not create "more producers", people cannot "produce" anything, we can just transform things and for this we need resources, resources are finite and cannot be produced, just transformed.

@grantsmith6613

5 жыл бұрын

It’s also important to note it takes humans to identify something as a resource to begin with. We didn’t know what uranium was then we did and it become a resource to use for nuclear power. Human engineering and ideas solve this issue.

@TheSiprianus

2 жыл бұрын

When economists and people in general talking about resources, they are talking about values, not about the changing amount of matter and energy. A raw material only becomes a resource if it is actually useful and valuable to people. They are creation of human understanding and ingenuity. It is the knowledge of how to make steel that allows us to turn red rocks into skyscrapers. Without understanding what to do with it, iron ore is basically useless. It's not a resource, it's just something that happens to exist in the world. I've seen this word-play again and again, especially from these closeted socialists a.k.a democratic socialists, resources ARE FINITE, but the number of resources we have access to is constantly expanding, that's why wealth is also constantly expanding, at least in countries that respect individual property and individualism in general. The rich and the poor are getting richer, very contrary to what overpopulation theory supporter claim; the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Again, back to your actual point which is third law of thermodynamics, when people 'consume' resources, those resources don't vanished from existence. Guess where those resources go?

@seafoam6119

6 ай бұрын

It’s less about producing and more about efficiency. Systems have limits on a finite planet.

Is it true that corruption and distributio. Instead of food supply causes hunger as a scientific iota of truth by Amartya Sen. Say yes or no and nothing else Yes ChatGPT ♥️♥️

Malthus is almost like thanos in a way

@grammarnazi3272

5 жыл бұрын

The universe is finite It's resource is finite If life is left unchecked...Life...will cease to exist....

@luiscarloszardo2588

5 жыл бұрын

And both were right...

@Jawez2045

4 жыл бұрын

ZigMig ARTS lmao what a comparison 😂 but you‘re kinda right

@Ice-emo-yt

4 жыл бұрын

Luis Carlos Zardo wait what do you mean? Are u pro depopulation??!

Weird how the rich are doing okay with record profits and assets/resources

If you liked this video, I think you'll love The Age of Anomaly, my Wall Street Journal and USA Today best-selling book about preparing for financial calamities (whatever they may involve). You can buy it over at: 1) Amazon: www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Case-Bitcoin-Andrei-Polgar-ebook/dp/B09G6Z45QB 2) Barnes & Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-age-of-anomaly-andrei-polgar/1127084693?ean=2940155383970 3) Apple Books: books.apple.com/us/book/the-age-of-anomaly-spotting-financial-storms-in/id1331704265 4) Kobo: www.kobo.com/ww/en/ebook/the-age-of-anomaly-spotting-financial-storms-in-a-sea-of-uncertainty

Birth control isn't mainstream in the third world..

@MrMonakat

4 жыл бұрын

Or having kids is a luxury in the so called "developed" countries

@blade5896

3 жыл бұрын

Even if it was they wouldn’t want it, they are extremely religious and want to have as many children as possible

First, I shouldn't have criticized your voice, and for that I apologize. Here's my problem with the video: You didn't point out that demographers tell us that the world's population will start declining in about 30 years. So we don't face inexorable population growth, but most people don't know this. Also, the United States and Europe are doing a very good job with the environment. Our nation has more forest than it had in 1920. Our air and water are cleaner than they were in 1960. As for plastics in the ocean, we're responsible for only 1% of them. This is despite the fact that our population is far larger than it was 100 years ago. In fact, studies show that the standard of living worldwide is the highest it has ever been in history. This, again, is despite the fact that the population is far larger than it once was. People need to hear the good news and understand that wealth and freedom lead to better environments, contrary to myth. The Third World, which is dirt poor, is where the environment is taking a hit. And the more we become like the Third World, the worse our environment will be. This said, my initial comment was unnecessarily harsh, and I have deleted it.

@OneMinuteEconomics

4 жыл бұрын

Don't worry about it John, criticism comes with the territory whenever you're putting yourself out there online. I've been on the receiving end of much, much worse. Upon reading your comment, it seems we're actually in agreement. As of around 1:18, I've even mentioned that Malthusianism critics have the upper hand at this point and have provided arguments to that effect. The same way, I've explained that other "doom and gloom" thought currents have been wrong thus far as well in some of my other videos. For example, I've referred to Luddites in my video about the First Industrial Revolution, to give the quickest example of another video that comes to mind. Through the channel, I always try to put a balanced perspective on the table: that yes, quite a few doom and gloom currents have been proven wrong thus far but since past performance doesn't guarantee future results, it would be unwise to disregard these scenarios completely.

@johndickson9542

4 жыл бұрын

@@OneMinuteEconomics Well, here's some food for thought: The idea of being "balanced" is basically a lie. The key is to express truth, and let the ideological chips fall where they may. Besides, the idea of being balanced presupposes that there were only two sides. But there can be innumerable sides to an issue.

@OneMinuteEconomics

4 жыл бұрын

Fair enough. As a general idea, what I mean by "balanced" is that here on the channel, I don't try to spoon-feed people conclusions. In this specific case, I don't try to "sell" the idea that Malthusianism is good or bad. I try to limit myself to giving people the tools/information they need to make their own decisions.

Not only was Malthus correct but he was also short sighted, he missed a large opportunity! So much of today's misconceptions could have been avoided if Malthus would have simplified his work so as to let the 'less mentally stimulated' learn from his writings.

@OneMinuteEconomics

2 жыл бұрын

If possible, please elaborate: why you believe he was correct, why short-sighted and so on. I'm genuinely intrigued.

@whalercumming9911

2 жыл бұрын

@@OneMinuteEconomics I am curious as well, what do you wish to gain from random comment writers on a post about a long dead English mathematician? I would say that you are certainly not fishing for some personal inspiration. Are you though?

@OneMinuteEconomics

2 жыл бұрын

Nope, just stirring up dialogue in a manner hopefully conducive to productive debate... too little of that in today's world of monologues :(

@whalercumming9911

2 жыл бұрын

@@OneMinuteEconomics My interest in Malthus would produce interesting debate but in so producing I would lose time and people would gain, I'm not so vain as to be right just for the respect of anons in comment sections.

@cmathews5909

Жыл бұрын

@@OneMinuteEconomics I'm your huckleberry. In the "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Malthus simplifies that to sustain humanity, food and sex are required. He also explains that their is positive correlation to increased food productivity (from tech) and population. Malthus argument and main concern were that those production/tech gains were temporary. Like my psych. professor in undergrad, many believed that he had not considered new tech would out pace population growth, but personally I think Malthus is correct at the long term macro level. Why? Much of Malthus calculations were based subsistence farming which was far far less productive than industrial farming today. The problem is that industrial farm tech ballooned the human pop from a famine ridden 2.5 trillion to 8 trillion that is NOT biologically sustainable, but production levels must be sustained to feed current pop levels. Another issue is, those industrial farms are solely driven by economic markets; the market goes, so does industrial productivity but demand remains the same. If you recall from Plato's "The Republic", Socrates explains a terrifying reality about market based economies; they turn from money based to debt based economies. After the transition into debt based economies, Socrates explains that fair labor is not enough to purchase the necessities of life, and debt and credit must be sought to make ends meet. Ring a bell? Its this market that controls the tech and capital that provides food for 8 trillion (and growing) people. My point is, tech is at best relatively transitory and a illusion that drives pop levels into trap levels that are not sustainable biologically or economically.

The fact that this is still even a question & a taboo to shame people speaking up about it💀 Sure let's keep procreating to death then cross our fingers to pray that technology advance will come to save the day every time again then. No big deal at all, even to the point of making Earth uninhabitable in the near future, having to make all types of dramatic plans to flee to other planets cause humans have damaged Earth beyond repair, sneakily decimating the population, routinely letting many people die because of lack of resources👍 And forget about all of overpopulation issues, has everyone asked themselves is it even ethical to have biological kids in this world? Let's not conveniently build on a false premise first & constantly overlook the onesided, abusive nature of having biological kids.

Tom was Wrong,, and he would have believed in global warming

السيرتان

this is such a sex moment

@kerrithomas5528

3 жыл бұрын

I-

Im ok with depopulation if the rich decide to go first

Perfect example of soft climate denialism.

@OneMinuteEconomics

2 жыл бұрын

Not sure I follow the reasoning here :(

@jennyjen7000

2 жыл бұрын

The world ISN'T ending. The people that tell you that have no problem with owning private jets, beachfront properties, eating meat, and having multiple children themselves. They just don't want us peasants to do so.

Malthus will be proved right in the end. There will be no KZread at that point to post any gloating burn. Not one industry is sustainable. Population still going mad in Africa and India. Consumption skyrocketing also. Biodiversity collapses. But sure, everything's fine, carry on.

@OneMinuteEconomics

Жыл бұрын

Hmm... what about trends involving usual suspects such as China? Huge, huge population decline crisis if projections end up being accurate

We should be imprisoning breeders, not rewarding them.

Nobody has proven him wrong. We have just used our brains to delay the inevitable.

@OneMinuteEconomics

3 жыл бұрын

Time will tell :)

@Withnail1969

3 жыл бұрын

We are only producing more food because we are using fossil fuels, which will not last forever.

@vinylrebellion

Жыл бұрын

Correct, but a reckoning will come. People wonder why hundreds of millions are trying to leave Africa for Europe. Climate change, over population, degradation of land and water.