Does Population Matter? - Danny Dorling

preview_player
Показать описание
(Please be aware that the job title on the strapline in the video is incorrect. Professor Danny Dorling is Professor of Human Geography at the University of Sheffield).

One of the world's leading geographers Professor Danny Dorling visits the RSA to argue that our concerns over population growth may be overblown.

Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I think it's because he says some things people don't want to hear, for instance that they waste huge amounts of energy and money, even if it's true.

fikujez
Автор

1:21 - Belgium is missing. It's very densely populated, so it should be shown large.

davidz
Автор

An underlying problem is the persistence of economic externalities. Poor rates of recycling are a reflection of the fact that pollution and resource depletion costs are not factored into the price of production. This means that the natural resource-intensive choice (make a new product from raw materials) appears more appealing than the labor-intensive choice (recycling). When we charge appropriate fees to those who take and degrade natural wealth, we make a sustainable society much more likely.

JohnChampagne
Автор

Natural rock-oil is substitutable. It also isn't necessary for agriculture. Nitrogen fertilizer is made from hydropower. Center-pivot agriculture can be worked entirely on grid-electric power.

hitssquad
Автор

*bleh typoed the numbers, I meant 45-50 of course. You're also ignoring that we are running out of many of the resources that enable our current hugely effective agriculture and this process would be accelerated unacceptably by so many humans.

Gnomefro
Автор

Part of the consequence or process of establishing this paradigm shift is the removal of government barriers to entry and exit from markets. Promoting free market principles can go hand in hand with taking steps to account for externalities.

Taking account of externalities is synonymous with recognizing a public property rights claim to natural wealth. Imagine how the free market in labor is improved when low income workers have as part of their income a natural wealth stipend or dividend.

JohnChampagne
Автор

You can't isolate a problem like that. Farming affects society, while society affects farming. Spreading your crops out over such big areal creates a lot of problems. If you're curious i can do in dept with the issues :)

bbxhrhj
Автор

1) At 16.00 Prof Dorling  says we should worry about low fertility right now. I disagree, the dangers of 11 billion all trying to consume at a western consumption level by 2100 exceed the risks of a  slightly falling population by 2100.
2) Realistically until the population falls to 2 billion there is little chance of everyone having what they want or need. When we are below 2 billion, then start worrying about low fertility, not now!
3) Over 100 national science academies agree we are consuming more resources than the Earth can provide annually leading to a decline in ecosystem services. 
4) A shrinking economy due to falling population is NOT the same as a declining one. 
5) Impact depends on population X consumption per capita, if one rises when the other falls you are still in the same unfortunate place.

phillips
Автор

The United Kingdom currently has a population growth of 0.7% (which is less than half the peak of 1961-62) and a population of 63.7 million. This means that if (emphasis upon the word if) this percentage growth is maintained the population of the United Kingdom will be 127.4 million in 2113.

debyte
Автор

"Species endangerment" isn't a reason human population can't be larger than it is today. Now name a real one.

hitssquad
Автор

Can't understand the thumbs down from people, even if he is wrong he is raising interesting points.

EvolutionsSolutions
Автор

I agree, he does raise a lot of interesting points, but he - a bit naively - ignores that some of the resources our already large populations depend on for life are running out rather quickly. Most acutely is the problem of rapidly disappearing groundwater used for irrigation and drinking in some of the world's most populated areas. A slow decline of food surpluses is one thing, but running out of the water to produce the food is quite another entirely.

kaupaxup
Автор

Nah. A population of 54-50 billion would have a living standard that was in the toilet. Nobody in the industrialized countries would accept the compromises involved with this. Especially not when the growth only happens elsewhere. The reality is that growth towards your targets would very quickly lead to either mass starvation or huge wars, or both.

This question isn't just about number of people, but also about taking responsibility for standard of living.

Gnomefro
Автор

In which way is our current agricultural methods "effective"? They're taking up massive land areas, destroying nature and is clearly unsustainable.

bbxhrhj
Автор

Very good! I wish I could have seen the figures for longer, and where 'this' blip was from time to time....

profMontage
Автор

"as you get wiser, its harder to sell you things you don't actually need" : Perhaps this is why public education in the US has been neglected...?

PhullKnameNullContent
Автор

"Ozzie Zehner [ ...] Has many interesting points."
What are the relevances of his points supposed to be to the current conversation?

hitssquad
Автор

"we are running out of many of the resources that enable our current hugely effective agriculture"
Name one.

hitssquad
Автор

He's very optimistic but why should we face all these uncertainties when we can do one very simple thing to stop all our stop population growth

ChristopherVickers
Автор

He's saying we don't have to go out and buy a new shirt every week. There are a lot of people who feel that their fortune and well-being depend on continuing the consumerist society. (I do wonder if those 'down' votes were really from 30-something different people.)

Did you ever wish you could watch other videos that such people did not like? As soon as it becomes possible to do so, the value of trying to game the system by down-voting things that you want to suppress will somewhat evaporate.

JohnChampagne