ah, do you believe trauma? as a general rule? no, never. we must deduct a top to bottom overhaul to clean out the festering rod and corruption of washington d. c. to world war 3. i mean i a, you have to consider that. that is the worse, i mean, we should never be in a position the u. s. has no business in ukraine with with population growth has always been a hotly debated topic. on one end of the spectrum, you have the people that are concerned that there's just too many people and that population growth is causing our current environmental crisis. but on the other end

of that spectrum, you have people like la, i must say that population clots due to low fertility rates. it's actually a bigger risk to civilization than global warming. i'm christy i and you're watching the cost of everything we're today. we're going to be hearing from both sides and seeing if population growth really is something we should be worried about or not. ah, india is set to become the world's most populous country by the end of the decade, overtaking china. according to the latest projections, india set to rise to 1500000000 in 2030 from 1400000000 in 2022. meanwhile, china's population, in contrast, is expected to fall slightly from one point for 2 to 1410000000 over the same period. these 2 countries population will remain significantly ahead of other

nations. global population is forecast to reach 8500000000 by 2030 and between now and 2050, more than half of the global population growth is expected to be primarily in 8 countries. the democratic republic of congo, egypt in india, nigeria, pakistan the philippines and the united republic of kansas, nia. and the last 5 decades, we have experienced a population boom, where birth rates outpace death rates. this was caused by reduced infant mortality rates increased lifespan, advances in science and technology, and improve access to medical care. this has led to many questions of whether or not the world's food supply will inevitably be inadequate for feeding the general population. som has labeled us as a plague on the earth, as people are contributing to nearly every environmental problem we're currently facing from climate change to biodiversity loss, water stresses, and conflicts,

overland natural landscape, have been transformed to be adapted for human use with deforestation. agricultural field, roads and buildings, people are rapidly displacing wildlife species across the globe, initiating a mass extinction event. and this fear has contributed to millions of 4 sterilizations in mexico, brazil, peru, indonesia, bangladesh, and india, as well as china's to child policy. meanwhile, others alarmed at humanities, environmental for has led them to decide to have fewer or no children themselves. this includes the duke and duchess of sussex to announce that they would have no more than 2 for the sake of the planet. a study calculated that by simply having one fewer child in the developed world would reduce a person's annual carbon emissions by 50 tons of c o 2 equivalent. now that is more than $24.00 times the savings from not owning

a car. but what that actually be realistic? a couple that forego the child might actually take an extra vacation. let's just call it a road trip across peru. the plane ticket alone to peru would be between $3.00 to $7.00 metric ton equivalent a c o 2. not to mention that consumption of gas for car, etc. and that's a single vacation. and that has the same carbon impact as a baby in its 1st year. so how many people is too many people? what is the earth capacity to live sustainably? estimates vary, but according to the us, we are expected to reach peak human around 2057, at which point there will be between 9400000000 and 10400000000 people on the planet. and now we'll bring in dr. heather albert lecture of global sustainable development at nottingham trinity university for more. so our 8000000 people is

a significant milestone. why did thing over population is a big problem? can the earth not sustain more? and if not, how many people do you think the earth can reasonably sustain? i'm yes, so a with so with these kinds of things it's, there is never. busy a clear cut number or, and there's no way to really be certain with this kind of thing. so, and so i'm not demographers to my work. i kind of centers more around the environmental impacts of inequality and sort of sort of more of a critical perspective of the, of the population environment nexus and basically how sort of demographics it basically inequality is within population impact set ability and have and have a carbon footprint that's, that's you know, significant. and for me most the question is more, not too much around the numbers, but the focus is a little bit more on how people consume and live. and we've seen this with, i mean, with a bunch of evidence that there are community over the years that shows that the carbon

footprints in the economy footprints of the super rich is up to thousands of times bigger than the average citizen. and i mean the, or the carpet footprint of, for instance, must, would dwarf that of the entire country and africa. so the question i'm interested in is, what kind of lifestyle do there's a certain population have? and how does that impact time change your of environment to decline them? simply the question were able to live sustainably on this pointing to the term that we use. a lot of our current, you talk, the advocacy, the idea that the human imprint is, is ubiquitous. it's everywhere. we become one of the dominant species on the plan. and not the only dominant one, you know, we haven't out competed a bacteria, viruses yet, but, but that's kind of the idea behind that, that concept. and, and so you know, that especially after the 2nd world war with bass production of goods, you know, a technological advancement, particularly in the global north and industrialized countries. we've seen a quite a dramatic increase of a dramatic shift in our relationship with

a natural systems with the climate, for instance, with bow diversity loss, but the sort of so in general, global population growth is straight stabilizing. it is slowing down, it is not increasing dramatically. and in fact, in many places in the world, we're seeing a decrease in birth rates, a decrease in population at numbers. so this is something that is going to be sort of leveling off and it's not the case that year. so this just like this the, the notion of the population bombers as put forward by early can ehrlich and 19 seventies. it's the pictures not quite that a dramatic carbon footprint of humans is something a lot of environmental, a site as a detrimental for the planet. however, carbon footprint of a child born in a low fertility country in the global north is many, many times larger than the child born in a high fertility country, such as the global south. so what do you say to that? it's yeah, i mean it's, it's so many things. it's so many factors like us makes us a very complex beast. education obviously does have an impact,

but then you're looking at, yeah, the impact of inequality, of the political. so like, especially in the u. s. when you had a big oil companies, funnelling loads of money into climates and our campaign. so the impacts of politics and it's so many things rafter one and that's what makes it a bit complex and difficult to address this challenge. and now people say the overpopulation is the main cause of resource depletion and climate chaos. and that we need to reduce the number of people. but is that really true when a 100 companies are responsible for 70 percent of the global c o 2 emissions? so isn't that just me directing the blame for societal problem? seeing as india, one of the most populous country uses on average, just a quarter of the carmen of something in the poorest path of the u. s. yes, no. so if you ask me, i definitely, i would say at the blaming population growth itself as a key driver of contemporary mar month decline is a dangerous red herring because it, it, again, it overlooks those structural factors and drivers. i'm so that the statistic you

brought up again, the colossal a carbon footprint of the, of the largest fossil corporations and the other. another kind of equity sat that came out in a research last year. the average american to the average carbon footprint of the average american over the course of a year is 14 times higher than the average wanda and citizen and so out of pace with the top level of the paris agreement. goal of limiting warming to degrees by 2100. so it's very clear that these, there are extreme inequalities in terms of who has the largest impact within countries in terms of, at the, at the national level, as well as when you look at corporations and you look at the, the super, the super rich bill in our class we, it's, those statistics are they tell a very powerful story. they show that the situation is far more complex than just saying, you know, reduce, reduce population. and even if you go down that route, that's as a whole other host of very tricky issues associated with that in terms of like the racial and gender dimensions of previous attempts to could occur population with in

the, in the us and canada across and a number of countries where the, this is always been had a very racial undertone. so the sebastian or the other kind of problem with that kind of narrative as well. i would say now does population control cause harm in terms of promoting racism and coercion to control the population primarily in the global? yes, i mean, if you look at the history of population control or policies and attempts like in the u. s, for instance, that you know, sterilization campaigns in attempts to limit the population. in most cases of african american women. her indigenous women, it's always kind of, it tends to always be kind of racial and ethnic minorities and these things. so the focus is often on, on, on certain kinds of, of population, certain kinds of places. and, and, and it's not just because it's, these are in some areas, places that have high birth rates. and, but it is, in many cases it's, i, it's, it's often had that kind of rate a racists gendered undertone and, and so looking at that history, we have to be very careful and very cautious when we, when we talk about this kind of thing and especially when it comes around coercion

and, and of those kinds of policies. thank you so much. heather will see you back after the rag. and when we come back, there is a sect of the society that thanks. overpopulation is a myth while others are ready to colonize other planets with human life. well, dive deeper on the cost of population growth after the break. oh, what he's got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult, time. time to sit down and talk with

russian state full narrative. i've studied as i've told them the most. i'm skiing with eclipse in 55. would this be the case on any 2000 speedy one else with we will van in the european union the kremlin. yup. machine. the state on russia today and square r t spoof mckibben our video agency, roughly all band to on youtube with

o children at st angel schools suffered nightmarish levels of abuse, torture in child rape. and yet the office of the attorney general suppressed thousands of pages of police and evidence that identified the perpetrators in the school. i was electrocuted twice. i was only 7 years old 1st too high for me. so for me to put me in the chair or by the law warriors to run over here after abuse somebody and run here and she kept solution with himself. some of them are my relative. didn't make it jerking themselves to death over doses. but yeah, what it made me, it made me the person i am today because i'm afraid i don't give up an easy investigations. were too often handled differently because the deceased was indigenous. so many of the worst criminals got away the bishop's got away,

the ones we've done, most of the damage never got charged ah mm. the welcome back to the cost of everything. now on the other side of the camp, you have those who believe that over population is a myth. and not only that, but they believe that a population collapse is

a more likely event than over population of the planet. and the last few decades, there have been a dramatic decline in global birth rates with many developed economy, seen their birth rates falling below the replacement ratio. italy in japan's population is expected to fall dramatically and will set an example for the rest of the world as to what will happen to economies when the population decline so drastically. this will have major impacts on society, the economy, tax revenues, and most importantly, available young workers. this will create a rising share of people over the age of 65. now, back in 1960, there were 6 people working for every retired person. in 2021, there will be 3 for every one. by 2035, there will be 2 working people for every retired person. this will have profound

implications for health care, government spending and tax revenues. governments will need to spend more on pensions and health care, but at the same time, there will be fewer young people to pay income taxes. this will cause the government to go further into debt and may require higher taxes on a shrinking workforce. there will also be less innovation, as young people are more likely to be on trip or nerves and innovators to develop new technologies and businesses. this potential brain pool will be less giving relatively fewer ideas for improving living standards. now, it's a key concept in economics. the more people you have, the more goods and services they can produce and the more they can consume. so population growth is the best friend of economic growth. that is how many developed countries partly achieved their wealth. globally, the average number of births per woman is now $2.00, which is

a little more than the replacement love of $2.00 for population to stay the same. and since the 1900 ninety's fertility rates have begun to plummet rapidly over the world. today, $65.00 countries and territories now have fertility rates that are below that of the replacement level, including 40 of the $42.00 countries and territories in europe. now let's bring back dr. heather albert lecture of global sustainable development, and not a ham trying to university. now as the population rose, it needs more resources, things like food, energy, goods. so can earth and the environment support all of this growth sustainably? as wild life is being eroded? i mean, yes. so going back to sort of point to that earlier. so there are a lot of things that we can do to minimize the impact of the kind of in terms of the current numbers that we have now. so that again addressing as radical and apologies, redistribution policies that redirect funds towards people who are struggling,

who need to feed their families and to survive, to give them a chance that they don't have to burn coal to heat their homes, you know, and give them another option for help them support them so they don't have to cut down old growth trees and forest that then hurt bio diversity. so these things have knock on effects. also, how we eat agriculture and industrial agriculture, animal agriculture, the amount of water and land that are, is used to raise cattle to then ship it to western europe. and china, for instance, if we sort of address these things, we could free up a significant amount of space in terms of plan and resources as well as reduce our, our corporate global carbon footprint. now it's interesting that people fear uninhabitable lands from climate change, but if that were really the case, why colonized mars because that land is also uninhabitable. so really is all land on earth, technically then habitable once we adapt the landscape to suit our needs. yeah, i mean that's the whole oh yeah, the new, the new builder space race attempting to colonize the moon and other planets for

resource as well as to search or tara form them to make them habitable for human habitation. i mean, we're always worried about that is they, it's, it's number one it's, it's assuming that that, that the earth is done, or that there is the environmental problems that we have right now are too severe to mitigate which is not true. and again, you know, there is, there is so much still that can be mitigated and, and preserved. and, and, and there is, there's plenty of scope for this. and in else is also the kind of in terms of who gets to escape the earth and go to other places. and, and it's usually, i mean, if you look at the price of the average ticket, and when his rocket launches it's, it's annette accessible to most people. so it's a very kind of a leads, a game that they're playing and ads about the fact that every single rocket launch a emits the equivalent of a c o 2 equivalent of what a 20 americans admit in an entire year. and it's, it's a, you're feeling the problem, bye bye. the i f i, the, that kind of approach really worries me because it's actually,

and we know what we have to do when it's not easy. but again, addressing these fundamental and historical and structural inequalities would really help scale back a lot of the damage and taking the mess elsewhere. it doesn't fix that problem. it seems that population growth is already slowing down naturally without any intervention. so what do you think is contributing to this? i'm a number of factors. i mean this, this one thing called the demographers called the demographic transition or so typically, especially around are reducing gender to qualities and it's social factors like m would, women, would women get educated friends, they have access education, they are reduced inequality socially. and in terms of gender, and we've seen that, you know, women for mary later on. so it's tied to economic and social factors and cultural factors and, and especially around around reducing gender qualities. we have declining population growth in many territories already. so how do we keep the global economy healthy if they're far more older, retired people than younger working people?

i mean, yeah, so population, a sort of sad demographic crashes and population. so in, in a lot of, and i know in china, they've been recently completely reversed. they're, they're unable as policy. so they have the one child policy. now they're trying to encourage breasts because they have a rapidly declining birth rate. i mean, we're going to have rooms with climate as the climate crisis gets worse, we're going to have, i'm in terms of migration loads of people on the move loads of people moving around the world, hundreds of millions of people in search of new habitable places. so this is gonna, i think, make us have to question our notions of citizenship in the nation state and were boundaries lie because there was plenty of, you know, there was plenty of talent. there are plenty of people around young people around, but it's, it's, again, it's, you know, if it's, yeah, it's kind of these, these populations are kind of held elsewhere and especially countries in europe, western europe that especially when you have the narrative around reducing migration, this will help the problem, you know, so it's, i am keeping that population roughly stable would be, would be ideal,

but then thank you so much heather, for our very insightful explanation. now when we talk about population, it is usually aimed at developing countries in africa, asia, and latin america, which are the biggest losers as they're the ones most often blamed for over population. so when the subject of population control is broached, it becomes deeply racist. and while it is true that human life requires resources and needs to consume food and energy, the consumption of these resources and the impact of this consumption is not evenly distributed. the world's richest half 1000000000 people, which is only 6.5 percent of the population are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. meanwhile, the communities that do the least damage to our climate, most of whom are in the global south, bear the brunt of the impact of climate crisis. so perhaps the question we should

be answering is, how can we sustainably meet the needs of the people we have and planned for a better future? rather than trying to increase or decrease the number of people we need to focus on building a planet that enables everyone to live their lives freely and sustainably. i'm christy. i thanks for watching and we'll see you back here next time on the cost of everything. ah ah, the claims of the king of the belgians leopold the 2nd to the congo were finally authorized by the leading european countries in 18. 85. in the very heart of the

african continent. a state under the rule of the belgian monarch was declared since the beginning, the congo free state was total, may him for the local population and functioned as a universal concentration camp. the majority of the population, including women and children, were forced to work on the rubber plantations. those who failed to fulfill their quota were beaten and mutilated. to keep the congolese people under control, the king set up the so called for spook leak, which were punitive detachments that cast terror on the captured country and its inhabitants. fearing that their subordinates would simply waste bullets hunting for wild animals, the officers demanded that the soldiers gave an answer for every bullet used. and as proof presented a chop hand of an african. it was not uncommon when trying to justify the use of the ammunition, the colonist amputated the hands of not only those who were dead,

but also of those who were kept alive. the atrocious exploitation of the congo turned into a real genocide in only 20 years. the policy of the belgians led to the death of nearly 10000000 people alongside the holocaust, that genocide of the congo population is considered to be one of the grimmest pages in the history of mankind. ah, ah.

some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities and other countries, the united states of america is different wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the united states. ah, we get with you little bit about it all to anybody basie since only city in p, draw the look at the book they incentive each cigarette 2 color revolutions is one among several means to reach the goal of conquering foreign lands and bringing them onto the help of u. s. western economic interests. people been sadie. i didn't that people, would i go by the democrats? yeah. new training course, sol, suite best,

se low. they're soft by whenever you get to the final goal of these thing. revolutions to ensure that there are no independent players in the world anymore. i am extension and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do. you do not watch my new show. why watch something that's so different opinions that you won't get anywhere else. i change and whatever you do, don't watch my show stay mainstream because i'm probably gonna make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact. but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way in thing ah, [000:00:00;00]

with go to, can i add some just with the kilometer on the left with these that you found that i owed them a different modification making a bit. so it, it, a,

with the united states is named just the main initiate of anti russian policy. the foreign policy concept assumes an absolute rejection of neo colonial practices and head human is as the moscow lays out. it's so foreign policy concept. it says western powers are engaged in a hybrid war against russia or mental lab said the country world price and i did.

so i'm ready to put dialogue in then you most people know reality the dollar is becoming overshadowed by other national currencies as