you believe joe biden, or did that attack on the north stream? absolutely. i have no doubt so ever. there wasn't a, somebody at the moment, there was no real opposition to all those us bass with northwest k pine gap, nor anger. just a few of them. the cia base their band be supplied from guam. no real talk about isn't the australian media this control. and we actually have permanent rotational by saying rather 1000000 national. there are always american base. it was sitting in a, a, a ah, what type of joining us here for the traditional or weekly program, the sunday program live from moscow here on running down the biggest stories of the

week. and i made headlines and thanks for joining us. we are back with ah ah ah, 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, yeah, people like eli musk saying that population clots due to low fertility rates is actually a bigger risk to civilization than global warming. i'm christy, i'm, you're watching the cost of everything. where 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 and 2022.

meanwhile, china's population, in contrast, is expected to fall slightly from 1.42 to 1410000000 over the same period. these 2 countries population will remain significantly ahead of other nations. global population is forecasted to reach 8.5 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. last water stresses and conflicts over land 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 the side to have fewer or no children themselves . this includes the duke and the duchess of sussex, who announced 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 wow, 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 kind of

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 in 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 so 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, musk 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? we've seen that that has, that is a much bigger predictor of environment, the decline than simply the question of too many people nice talk about over population. but population growth rate actually peaked 50 years ago and is now less than one percent a year. and 50 years ago, we were able to live sustainably on this planet. right? i mean, you, yes. if you just simply for having a much smaller populations earlier on in a blue sherry history, you would it either. so he would be a bit more difficult to have a more more significant impact in terms of linking to there's term that we use, a lot of scientists use an allow, in reference to our current epoch, the advocacy, the idea that the human imprint is, is ubiquitous it's everywhere we do is become one of the dominant species and on the planet, not the only dominant one. you know, we haven't out competed a bacteria, viruses yet, but that's kind of the idea behind that. that concept. and so, you know, 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 up, a dramatic shift in our relationship with a natural systems with the climate, for instance, with bow diversity loss. but the, the sort of and 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 yeah. so this just like this the, the notion of the population bombers as put forward by early can ehrlich i and 19 seventies. it's the pictures not quite that dramatic carbon footprint of humans is something a lot of environmental, a site as a debt from mental 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. what makes us a very complex beast. education obviously does have an impact am, but then you're looking at yeah, the impacted in the quality of the political to like, especially in the u. s, when you had a bigger companies, funnelling loads of money into climate and our campaign. so the impacts of politics and it's so many things rafter learn and it, that's what makes it a bit a 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 problems? 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. yet again, it overlooks those structural factors of

a year is 14 times higher than the our level, as well as when you look at corporations and you look at the, the super, the super rich bill in our class at 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 and tricky issues associate with that in terms of like the racial and gender dimensions of previous attempts to it 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 south? yes, i mean, if you look at the history of population control a policies and attempts like in the u. s. for instance that, you know. busy stylization campaigns and 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, 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. but it is, in many cases it's all it's, it's often had that kind of rate 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 you know, those kinds of policies. thank you so much. heather will see you back after the reg and when we come back, there is a sector the society that things over population 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. with us is a danger to the world,

as it is. and because it has all this economic power that it uses for the military . these are sick and twisted people that care about nothing but money empower. i'm not even hey, i think i think they're indifferent. they just want money and power and they don't . they're indifferent to who dice and as long as they can get that money empower. ah, ah, i will ensure that joe biden does not receive for more years. do you believe trump? as a general rule? no, never. we must conduct a top to bottom overhaul to clean out the festering rod and corruption of washington, d. c. o. by dint as pushing us to world war 3. i mean i a,

you have to consider that. that is the worst. i mean, we should never be in a position the u. s. has no business in ukraine with ah, we have this to go on tenderness from united states. we've exported it now to the world because the multinational corporations and we've been damaged the belief that babies needs be nurtured in care of who are in love. and so you've got a bunch of traumatized people all over the world with post traumatic stress disorder that don't know how to heal. ah

ah, ah ah, [000:00:00;00]

with that you found out a different modification making a bit. so it it, a wilma,

with 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. in the last few decades, there have been a drum decline in global birth rates with many developed economies, seeing their birth rates falling below the replacement ratio. italy in japan's population is expected to fall dramatically and will hold as to what will happen to economies when the population declines 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 entre printer as an 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 level 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 in territories in europe. now let's bring back dr. heather, albert, lecturer 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 wildlife 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 was radical 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 they help them support themselves, 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 to 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 or 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, and 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 an inaccessible to most people. so it's a very kind of a leads, a game that they're playing and add to that the fact that every single rocket launch a emits the equivalent of 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. yeah. i, i that, that kind of approach really worries me out because it's not too late and we know what we have to do when it's not easy. but again, addressing these fundamental and historical and structural qualities would really help scale back a lot of the damage and taking the mess elsewhere doesn't fix that problem. it seems that population growth is already flowing 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 a or reducing gender to qualities. and the social factors like m would, women, would women get educated friends, they have access education, they're reducing equality socially and in terms of gender. and we've seen that, you know, women, frances, had happy kids or, uh, people tend to marry later on. so it's tied to economic and social factors and cultural factors and,

and especially around around reducing gender inequalities. we have declining population growth and 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 the population as sort of sa, demographic crashes and population. so in, in a lot of, and i know in china they've been recently completely reversed their, their natal is 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, you know, 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. cuz 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, ah, if so she 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, ah, if you know, 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, a spoke

with edison both, both the models you need to do both got nelson with a, a funny guy. nobody. a lot of them bought a a with us

a personal number here with a russian state. little never unfortunately, no san steve. can i speak with anyone else with will ban in the european union? the kremlin? yup. machine. the state aunt, rush up to date and our t sport mckibbin our video agency, roughly all band on youtube. i said

with a soup here cause they could throw for a future store, great of inland to the euros. the nazi theory of racial superiority, finished style for years of caribbean ss, occupation, 14 concentration camps, 30 full prisoner of war, labor camps. 10 prisons. anyway. you know, think like a little school level, she's the media financial in the city. i need in the chest, maybe to get all and i could, elephants been listening. it was gonna be approximately 25000 people went through the audio kind of go finish camps according to official figures. did most of them

will let order. if the ship did you toyota lagging, my dear nauseous, cra, snyder a stove. so young crocus try me in your water famine, disease forced labor torture by the warden. so for mutual was eating up on the water that also need, you know, i thought so you got that needs to, to remove it off with me. i'm pushing things up. i'll give him a do duty, but he had got to go those thousands of testimonies of crimes and the impunity of criminals when you've got here, you know, wanted to do this because maryan the good idea. yeah. what a good i feel it's not my me. did it beside lose you got to really just because i it but there's dang yet. that was, but it lula ah, loan served with the united states, his name just the main,

initiate of antique russian. the policy foreign policy concepts assumes an absolute rejection of neo colonial practices and head human is in the emerging multi polar world. and moscow lays out its future foreign policy roadmap, saying it's ready for dialogue. it's western powers are engaged in a high britain war against russia. the dollarization is trending, and the u. s. greenback is losing its luster around the world. the use of other national currencies gaze momentum in that of an international trade. and a ukranian court confines the head of the country's largest monastery to 60 days on the house, or rather than