"if the Club started planning the extermination of humankind more than 50 years ago, maybe it is time for them to switch to Plan B."
lol
I've made this point several times to right/populist conspiracy types ("they're trying to kill us all!"), re the Club of Rome and "the elites" in general, but it just bounces off of them. If they were trying to kill us all, why don't they just do it, ffs? Take down the power grid for a few months and precipitate mass die-off. Easy peasey.
All it would take is a few relatively low-yield nuclear detonations in the ionosphere (NEMP). Just one, roughly over North Dakota, would incapacitate most of the grid in the US and Canada. One well-timed and well-directed extreme coronal mass ejection (CME), courtesy of Gaia's star, would accomplish the same thing. The US is already struggling to maintain and expand its grid. Smaller local grid transformers are in short supply. Much larger ones on transmission line substations are typically custom-built and may have delivery times greater than one year. Spares are rare to nonexistent. I either occurred after financial collapse or during hostilities, rebuilding the grid might take years, if it would happen at all.
A very good post, well researched, well analysed and well written. Thank you!
A few points:
You say," Let’s imagine a major collapse of agricultural production due to a combination of climate change, resource depletion, soil erosion, and wars that stop global food delivery."
I would add to that the dependence of Western agriculture on fossil fuels, from diesel for machinery, transport, drying, processing and packaging, to gas for pesticides and fertilisers, to the point where the oft-quoted figure is 10 calories of fossil fuels for one calorie of food output. With EROEI fast approaching zero, and militaries gearing up for diesel-intensive wars, I can imagine that governments and elites might be considering depopulation, as in deporting millions of undocumented migrants, for example, as a necessary preparation for the inevitable.
I would add to that the question; what is the population for? if AI can replace middle management and robotics can replace factory and farm workers, does an elite need a mass of people anymore? Yes, corporations need customers, skilled workers and investors, but what are the rest for?
Next, I'll mention that in the 1980's I worked as a consultant in London, including for the Thames Water Authority that managed both the River Thames through London, and the water supply and drainage. At that time some academic research came to the conclusion that the full flow of the Thames was abstracted, used by people and industry, disposed into the drainage system, processed and returned 'clean' to the Thames SIX TIMES between Oxford and East London. The researchers pointed out that the processing to 'clean' did not removes many pollutants, in particular estrogen in birth control pills that was accumulating in the Thames to the point where drinking water in East London contained 'medically significant amounts'. As far as I'm aware the problem was never solved.
Next, I am old enough to remember the original Live Aid (Band Aid) concert way back in 1985 when Bob Geldof and Midge Ure raised millions for Ethiopian famine relief. Two facts emerged later; Firstly that throughout the famine, Ethiopia remained a net exporter of food, because the food export income was needed to pay it's debts. So the famine wasn't a food shortage problem, it was a money to pay for the food problem. Secondly that the Live Aid money went a long way, not just to solve the immediate famine, but also to help agriculture recover. It was so successful that there was a considerable rise in the birthrate, so when the next drought and famine came along, there were many more people and particularly children starving.
Lastly, to answer your point about whether to simply watch a population collapse and not offer aid, I would mention the report a few years ago by the United Nation's envoy that was invited to examine poverty in America, and later commented that it was as bad or worse than any he had seen in his work in Africa. So in America, I would say, the answer is already clear and happening right now.
Considering that in my lifetime the population has risen from 2.4 billion to 8 billion+ on the basis of the availability of massive quantities of very cheap fossil fuels, and that is coming to an end, I would say the future collapse of population is both inevitable and imminent. And it will be very messy and disturbing.
Thanks, AL. When I said "resource depletion," I meant what you stated explicitly: Lack of fertilizers. But I wasn't clear... let me retouch that sentence to make it clear what I meant.
It is one of those discussions in economics, when energy is modelled as just another resource, like mineral ores and farm production. But I would say that it is fundamentally different.
For me, the entire human economy is where we take something from the natural world, apply energy to it, and end up with a product we can use or sell. Whether it is a flint hand axe or a cruise-liner, the principle is the same. Whilst we may find alternative raw materials, or recycle by applying even more energy to disassemble something, the energy is absolutely key. More specifically, abundant cheap, intense energy is the key to this current abundant world of 8 billion humans.
The only energy source that comes close to fossils is nuclear fission, and hopefully fusion one day, but in the gap between the collapse of fossil and a nuclear renaissance, six million people may likely find themselves without the means of support. Mind the gap, as they say in London. (Sorry, insider's joke).
And that is why I live in France, with 70% of its electricity from nuclear and 15% from hydro and tidal. And a surplus of local food. Best i can come up with.
1. You would be well-advised to learn about renewable energy. It will take you a month or two, full time, to become apprised.
2. Re the Malthusian bit about Ethiopia: actually, it works the opposite way. Famine, and resource poorness in general, stimulate fertility, while plenitude has the opposite effect. What specifically happened in Ethiopia to cause an increase in fertility at the time you mention, I do not know, (it could have been a number of things), but the pattern I described is well-established.
3. Re population rising during the cheap fossil fuels era: funnily enough, if you take a close look at the relevant graphs, you'll notice that fertility began to drop off a cliff shortly after oil began to be used in (historically) huge amounts. Oil use was spiking to the heavens WHILE fertility and population growth dropped sharply. People who associate oil with population growth have a hard time facing this, but it is clear statistical reality.
1. As it happens, I have been an engineer for over 50 years and used to teach renewables to engineers.
2. Bullshit. You are confusing facts with opinions. The fact is as I said.
3. Again, you are wrong. The correlation is only in wealthier societies, clean water, better food and basic health, so more children survived, eventually leading to a drop in the numbers of children required to ensure genetic continuation in those countries will access to the oil. The rest of the world continued to have more children beyond replacement rate.
I've also looked at your other responses. Everyone else seems to be telling you that you are wrong too! Maybe you are a really poor AI bot?
Sensible response please, or I will Mute and Block you.
1. My advice remains the same. You would be well-advised to learn about renewable energy. It will take you a month or two, full time, to become apprised.
2. What I stated was factual. That relative economic prosperity, and basic security (absence of serious or immediate existential risk), correlate with reduced fertility is a fact, not controversial.
3. The demographic transition does indeed have multiple aspects, including education, urbanization, access to contraceptives, etc. That is consistent with what I said, not inconsistent with it. The higher oil utilization is to a large extent the cause of the aspects just mentioned (supporting urbanization, access to contraceptives, etc.).
4. Lots of people telling me that I am wrong is a fair (not good, not great, but at least fair) indication that I am on the right track, since most people are ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, or a combination thereof. Of course, proving that I am on the right track involves a lot more than being rejected by everyone, but at least it is a start.
5. Feel free to block or mute me. You appear to be quite ignorant and possibly incapable of making a useful contribution.
PS: 1a: not only renewable energy, but technologies of sustainability in general, and the realities pertaining to actual fossil fuel dependence of most of the people on this planet -- which is low. We might indeed suffer a population collapse, but it will be the result of political decisions, not shortfalls of fossil fuels.
My initial comment emphasizing renewables was in response to your remarks such as "the only energy source that comes close to fossils is nuclear fission", which revealed serious ignorance about renewables, as well as ignorance about nuclear. But on reflection I realized that the ignorance was a lot broader, hence the need for "1a" comment above. Cheers.
I'm glad the statement "The most likely culprit is pollution degrading the human reproductive system, although social and cultural factors are at play as well." Was challenged above. I work with young people and it is obvious as the light of day that the priority of family rearing has fallen off a Seneca cliff. The causes and symptoms are countless. I think many people like to go back to their pet peeves to explain this decline, which weakens their arguments. Cite Bob Dylan's Masters of War or rant about moral decay...it doesn't matter.
Are you claiming that Egypt, Ethiopia or Nigeria are less polluted than Italy?
In my opinion this is nonsense. Western women are not (statistically speaking, more often than Egyptian women) infertile. They just prefer to study, work and travel instead of having children. Statistically speaking.
Seeing "pollution" in this is just incoherent with reality. How many Italian 19-22 year old couples TRY to have children? Not that many, they wait to be 35 first, and for a perfect marriage? Well...
It is an easy escape to fault Western women for not wanting children, but they cannot be held responsible, among other things, for the 2% yearly decline in the sperm production of males. Plus, a host of pollution-related factors involving heavy damage to the reproductive system of both males and females. And not just humans; most mammals show similar patterns. The correlation between air pollution and low fertility is well established, as you can read in this recent review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36924404/.
That doesn't mean that social factors play no role in this disaster; but they are reversible. But I am afraid that the disruption of the ecosystem is a much more important factor. My next post will deal with this subject in more detail.
BTW, the correlation of infertility, poverty, and pollution is not linear. Very poor countries are not highly polluted, and they are the ones that show the highest fertility rates. On the opposite side, rich countries have cleaned up their air, but the damage was already done. Then, there are the industrializing countries (e.g. Egypt) which show the highest pollution rates. The process is dynamic, the effects of pollution manifest themselves many years later. So, if you look at Egypt, you see that it is among the richest African countries, but its fertility is rapidly declining. Nothing to do about that: the damage we have already done is having consequences now.
So, are you claiming that most 18-30 year old women want to have many children, but their PRIMARY issue is... finding male with viable sperm?
And the Amish birth rate is 6-8 because, what, they are less polluted by technology? This is seriously The Main Difference, not lack of formal schooling and early marriage, but MAINLY the fact that their horses are less polluting than our cars?
Amish-but-with-cars (I must read more about religious sects to check if such exist) would thus have birth rate below replacement?
I apologize for my strong reaction, but I find the claim that pollution is the PRIMARY cause of lower birthrates quite extraordinary. To be clear, I'm asking this as a genuine inquiry, not as a rhetorical argument: If we were to randomly select 100 sexually active 20-year-olds who are not using contraception, would most of them genuinely struggle to conceive within two years?
While there is evidence that environmental factors like pollution can impact fertility, the effect is nuanced. Particularly among young, healthy individuals, the impact seems unlikely to be as dramatic as suggested. I'm interested in understanding the scientific basis for such a sweeping statement.
One study about some impact of pollution is not that, especially not in society where increasing number of women wait until they are 35 before even trying.
The Amish might indeed be less polluted. I am thinking of plastics, ubiquitous in the industrial world, but probably seldom (or even never) used by the Amish. Plastics outgas molecules which are estrogenic and potentially hormone disrupting.
Also, even if the Amish were exposed to equivalent pollution, fertility is about a lot more than sperm counts. I presume the Amish WANT to have a lot of children, and thus use contraceptives less (or not at all).
I think the most important point is that the Amish don't use synthetic pesticides or fertilizers -- or at least they reduce their use to a minimum. That kind of stuff makes life in the country more polluted than in town
dear ugo you say population collapse can take a few decades does that mean people who are in there thirties can now grow old until there will be a pollution or a resource collapse ?
In my view, there are huge societal changes underlying the falling birth rate. The world is increasingly "full”. There is less space for people (and in particular where people aggregate the most, in the big cities), we are running out of resources (or it becomes more and more difficult to access them), we are undermining the ecosystems that we need to thrive and the capacity of the biosphere to take care of all our emissions has reached several limits (global warming is but one such). Perhaps, people feel that in some subconscious way, and that feeling ultimately also affect the desire to procreate?
Many people don’t see their life as part of the bigger biological and social context. Reproduction is seen as an individual choice and not an essential part of being a biological organism. One could argue that one of the main aspects of sustainability is to ensure the continued existence of the human species***. Not caring for the future of humanity can in this way be seen as the ultimate victory for modernism and as such it can also be the seed of its death.
this post by ugo bardi is this a joke he states population crash will not happen tommorow but we may need decades until we see an evident population but an associat membzr of the club of rome by the name ginnie servant miklos say that we will collapse very soon even nate hagens and other club of rome members say we will collapse very very soon !!!!
well professor ugo bardi I think you may be right I do not know if you know leon simons from the club of rome nl he actually sees the human population growing until 2050
so no population collapse soon than I thought it would all be over in 2030 if I saw the club of rome bau scenario so we will see a population crash in the next decades ?
"if the Club started planning the extermination of humankind more than 50 years ago, maybe it is time for them to switch to Plan B."
lol
I've made this point several times to right/populist conspiracy types ("they're trying to kill us all!"), re the Club of Rome and "the elites" in general, but it just bounces off of them. If they were trying to kill us all, why don't they just do it, ffs? Take down the power grid for a few months and precipitate mass die-off. Easy peasey.
"That doesn’t mean that the British Government consciously chose to exterminate the Irish by letting them starve. It was, mostly, a case of not looking at what one doesn’t want to see."
From the conspiriology literature, I've found two useful acronyms: LIHOP and MIHOP.
LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose (passive; "not looking")
MIHOP = MAKE It Happen On Purpose (active, deliberate)
I actually don't believe there is some master plan to depopulate the world. But, yes, nothing significant will be done to prevent it.
A couple of points maybe :
I don't believe that the "ancients didn’t have an overpopulation problem". They had overpopulation issues on a very regular basis every time the population exceeded the agricultural and energy output (that is carrying capacity) of the land. But most of the time, it wasn't seen as overpopulation per se because the economic and social issues were masked behind dynastical, political or religious divides. And still wars and famine started when the population was at its highest point and stopped somehow when it has subsided to half or a third of what it originally was.
And it might still be the case nowadays. At least, this is Jared Diamond's theory regarding the genocide in Rwanda.
-
I found it hard to believe that pollution is the main culprit behind the fall of natality. It might play a role (and a bigger role in the future), there might be more people today who have fertility problem than before but when I look around me, most people I know are quite happy with the small number of children they have. In many cases, they didn't really want children but it just happened once or twice in their life.
So, in my opinion, it's much more about the way of live.
But somehow, it seems it suited the elite quite well because, behind various excuses (ranging from natalist policies being fascist to the idea that raising children would be detrimental to equality between men and women and so on), they did nothing to prevent it.
Yes, there is a debate on whether social factors are more important than chemical factors. Personally, I think chemistry easily beats sociology, but it true that social factors do play a role, too.
About the ancients and famines, it is difficult to make an exact comparison because we don't have sufficient data. My impression is that famines were much less important because the population density was much lower. But, yes, they had famines, too.
And this is the whole point : trying to gather data to show that historical events don't depend so much on crop failures due to random meteorological conditions but follow much deeper patterns dependent on the distribution of wealth and ultimately on demographics.
Or to say the other way, crop failures when the population density is low have much less consequences than when it is closer to the average local carrying capacity.
As with so much in nature, it's usually both. I can envisage pollution affecting people's mental state (eg microplastics in the brain) leading to less inclination to reproduce.
"[Let us draw] a distinction between population decline and depopulation. The former
is a simple change in numbers; just like population growth. Thus, the definition of population decline is scientific, neutral and clear. By contrast, Thesaurus.com returns the following synonyms for the term “depopulate”: desecrate, devour, ruin, depredate, spoliate, despoil, pillage, sack, lay low, devastate, plunder, waste, lay waste. Clearly, depopulation is very different from the scientific, neutral concept of population decline, as the term evokes the language of war, devastation and destruction. Thus, in a sense, depopulation seems much more closely linked than population decline to the conspiracy theories and fears presented in much of the popular discourse.1"
I was referring to Lukas' "Global depopulation underway, however not synchronized [followed by stats]" -- i.e. Great Replacement theory; deliberate destruction of white race. The idea has a rich (?) history.
Indeed there is a population decline, and then there is the search for reasons. One reason is the steep decline in sperm production and at the same time of female fertility. In Switzerland one of six couples willing to have a child is unable to do so. At the same time there is a decline of male testosterone levels roughly by 50 percent which - unsurprisingly - is paralleled by decreasing sexual interest and activity as documented in studies from France, UK, Australia, USA and Germany. The scientific community is rather unanimous that endocrine disruptors, coming mainly from plastic and pesticides, play an important causal role in the sperm and testosterone decline, which puts this into the depopulation definition (ruin, waste). Although this is not a conspiracy theory it is treated as such by the powers that be and no action is taken.
Several studies have been completed on microplastic particle buildup in the testis of humans and other species. That some resins or common additives in them can have an effect on fertility is decreasingly disputed. If this is true (it seems like a very reasonable hypothesis to me), it will very likely become an increasing problem due to the continual and increasing production and careless escape and dumping of millions of tonnes of plastic every year. Compounding the problem is that as both new and existing plastic waste degrade in the environment due to abrasion, breakdown in sunlight and, to a lesser extent, breakdown due to exposure to reactive oxygen species, their particle size distribution will naturally decrease (more nanoparticles over time), as will the degree of chemical alteration. I suspect the smaller particles will more readily find their way into all sorts of life forms while their smaller size increases their surface area, both of which might increase their hazard.
If the above hypotheses are correct, we may be witnessing the leading edge of a much larger problem.
@Jon Wesenberg: Microplastics are everywhere, from the Himalayas to mothers milk, placenta, our blood and testes. While their impact remains to be defined we are also - and independently from microplastics - directly exposed to endocrine disruptors like phthalates and pesticides etc. which we mainly get from food. It has become clear in the last twenty years that these interfere with male and female hormones and fertility (e.g in the US midwest testosterone levels have declined 40 percent in 30 years, overall testosterone declines 1 percent per year). This is not a hypothesis anymore.
But there are other questions: If testosterone declines by half, what can we expect in the society? We have to expect an epidemic of impotence (true), of sexual disinterest (true) and a subjective insecurity about gender identities (true) with subsequent public discussion about gender roles (true).
And of course are we observing the leading edge of a much larger problem, which however is still treated as a consipiracy theory.
"if the Club started planning the extermination of humankind more than 50 years ago, maybe it is time for them to switch to Plan B."
lol
I've made this point several times to right/populist conspiracy types ("they're trying to kill us all!"), re the Club of Rome and "the elites" in general, but it just bounces off of them. If they were trying to kill us all, why don't they just do it, ffs? Take down the power grid for a few months and precipitate mass die-off. Easy peasey.
:-)
All it would take is a few relatively low-yield nuclear detonations in the ionosphere (NEMP). Just one, roughly over North Dakota, would incapacitate most of the grid in the US and Canada. One well-timed and well-directed extreme coronal mass ejection (CME), courtesy of Gaia's star, would accomplish the same thing. The US is already struggling to maintain and expand its grid. Smaller local grid transformers are in short supply. Much larger ones on transmission line substations are typically custom-built and may have delivery times greater than one year. Spares are rare to nonexistent. I either occurred after financial collapse or during hostilities, rebuilding the grid might take years, if it would happen at all.
A very good post, well researched, well analysed and well written. Thank you!
A few points:
You say," Let’s imagine a major collapse of agricultural production due to a combination of climate change, resource depletion, soil erosion, and wars that stop global food delivery."
I would add to that the dependence of Western agriculture on fossil fuels, from diesel for machinery, transport, drying, processing and packaging, to gas for pesticides and fertilisers, to the point where the oft-quoted figure is 10 calories of fossil fuels for one calorie of food output. With EROEI fast approaching zero, and militaries gearing up for diesel-intensive wars, I can imagine that governments and elites might be considering depopulation, as in deporting millions of undocumented migrants, for example, as a necessary preparation for the inevitable.
I would add to that the question; what is the population for? if AI can replace middle management and robotics can replace factory and farm workers, does an elite need a mass of people anymore? Yes, corporations need customers, skilled workers and investors, but what are the rest for?
Next, I'll mention that in the 1980's I worked as a consultant in London, including for the Thames Water Authority that managed both the River Thames through London, and the water supply and drainage. At that time some academic research came to the conclusion that the full flow of the Thames was abstracted, used by people and industry, disposed into the drainage system, processed and returned 'clean' to the Thames SIX TIMES between Oxford and East London. The researchers pointed out that the processing to 'clean' did not removes many pollutants, in particular estrogen in birth control pills that was accumulating in the Thames to the point where drinking water in East London contained 'medically significant amounts'. As far as I'm aware the problem was never solved.
Next, I am old enough to remember the original Live Aid (Band Aid) concert way back in 1985 when Bob Geldof and Midge Ure raised millions for Ethiopian famine relief. Two facts emerged later; Firstly that throughout the famine, Ethiopia remained a net exporter of food, because the food export income was needed to pay it's debts. So the famine wasn't a food shortage problem, it was a money to pay for the food problem. Secondly that the Live Aid money went a long way, not just to solve the immediate famine, but also to help agriculture recover. It was so successful that there was a considerable rise in the birthrate, so when the next drought and famine came along, there were many more people and particularly children starving.
Lastly, to answer your point about whether to simply watch a population collapse and not offer aid, I would mention the report a few years ago by the United Nation's envoy that was invited to examine poverty in America, and later commented that it was as bad or worse than any he had seen in his work in Africa. So in America, I would say, the answer is already clear and happening right now.
Considering that in my lifetime the population has risen from 2.4 billion to 8 billion+ on the basis of the availability of massive quantities of very cheap fossil fuels, and that is coming to an end, I would say the future collapse of population is both inevitable and imminent. And it will be very messy and disturbing.
Thanks, AL. When I said "resource depletion," I meant what you stated explicitly: Lack of fertilizers. But I wasn't clear... let me retouch that sentence to make it clear what I meant.
It is one of those discussions in economics, when energy is modelled as just another resource, like mineral ores and farm production. But I would say that it is fundamentally different.
For me, the entire human economy is where we take something from the natural world, apply energy to it, and end up with a product we can use or sell. Whether it is a flint hand axe or a cruise-liner, the principle is the same. Whilst we may find alternative raw materials, or recycle by applying even more energy to disassemble something, the energy is absolutely key. More specifically, abundant cheap, intense energy is the key to this current abundant world of 8 billion humans.
The only energy source that comes close to fossils is nuclear fission, and hopefully fusion one day, but in the gap between the collapse of fossil and a nuclear renaissance, six million people may likely find themselves without the means of support. Mind the gap, as they say in London. (Sorry, insider's joke).
And that is why I live in France, with 70% of its electricity from nuclear and 15% from hydro and tidal. And a surplus of local food. Best i can come up with.
That's an accurate assessment. This isn't going to end well for anyone.
1. You would be well-advised to learn about renewable energy. It will take you a month or two, full time, to become apprised.
2. Re the Malthusian bit about Ethiopia: actually, it works the opposite way. Famine, and resource poorness in general, stimulate fertility, while plenitude has the opposite effect. What specifically happened in Ethiopia to cause an increase in fertility at the time you mention, I do not know, (it could have been a number of things), but the pattern I described is well-established.
3. Re population rising during the cheap fossil fuels era: funnily enough, if you take a close look at the relevant graphs, you'll notice that fertility began to drop off a cliff shortly after oil began to be used in (historically) huge amounts. Oil use was spiking to the heavens WHILE fertility and population growth dropped sharply. People who associate oil with population growth have a hard time facing this, but it is clear statistical reality.
1. As it happens, I have been an engineer for over 50 years and used to teach renewables to engineers.
2. Bullshit. You are confusing facts with opinions. The fact is as I said.
3. Again, you are wrong. The correlation is only in wealthier societies, clean water, better food and basic health, so more children survived, eventually leading to a drop in the numbers of children required to ensure genetic continuation in those countries will access to the oil. The rest of the world continued to have more children beyond replacement rate.
I've also looked at your other responses. Everyone else seems to be telling you that you are wrong too! Maybe you are a really poor AI bot?
Sensible response please, or I will Mute and Block you.
1. My advice remains the same. You would be well-advised to learn about renewable energy. It will take you a month or two, full time, to become apprised.
2. What I stated was factual. That relative economic prosperity, and basic security (absence of serious or immediate existential risk), correlate with reduced fertility is a fact, not controversial.
3. The demographic transition does indeed have multiple aspects, including education, urbanization, access to contraceptives, etc. That is consistent with what I said, not inconsistent with it. The higher oil utilization is to a large extent the cause of the aspects just mentioned (supporting urbanization, access to contraceptives, etc.).
4. Lots of people telling me that I am wrong is a fair (not good, not great, but at least fair) indication that I am on the right track, since most people are ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, or a combination thereof. Of course, proving that I am on the right track involves a lot more than being rejected by everyone, but at least it is a start.
5. Feel free to block or mute me. You appear to be quite ignorant and possibly incapable of making a useful contribution.
PS: 1a: not only renewable energy, but technologies of sustainability in general, and the realities pertaining to actual fossil fuel dependence of most of the people on this planet -- which is low. We might indeed suffer a population collapse, but it will be the result of political decisions, not shortfalls of fossil fuels.
My initial comment emphasizing renewables was in response to your remarks such as "the only energy source that comes close to fossils is nuclear fission", which revealed serious ignorance about renewables, as well as ignorance about nuclear. But on reflection I realized that the ignorance was a lot broader, hence the need for "1a" comment above. Cheers.
Arrogant prick is, I think, the right response to you! Byeee!
I'm glad the statement "The most likely culprit is pollution degrading the human reproductive system, although social and cultural factors are at play as well." Was challenged above. I work with young people and it is obvious as the light of day that the priority of family rearing has fallen off a Seneca cliff. The causes and symptoms are countless. I think many people like to go back to their pet peeves to explain this decline, which weakens their arguments. Cite Bob Dylan's Masters of War or rant about moral decay...it doesn't matter.
"The most likely culprit is pollution"?
Are you claiming that Egypt, Ethiopia or Nigeria are less polluted than Italy?
In my opinion this is nonsense. Western women are not (statistically speaking, more often than Egyptian women) infertile. They just prefer to study, work and travel instead of having children. Statistically speaking.
Seeing "pollution" in this is just incoherent with reality. How many Italian 19-22 year old couples TRY to have children? Not that many, they wait to be 35 first, and for a perfect marriage? Well...
It is an easy escape to fault Western women for not wanting children, but they cannot be held responsible, among other things, for the 2% yearly decline in the sperm production of males. Plus, a host of pollution-related factors involving heavy damage to the reproductive system of both males and females. And not just humans; most mammals show similar patterns. The correlation between air pollution and low fertility is well established, as you can read in this recent review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36924404/.
That doesn't mean that social factors play no role in this disaster; but they are reversible. But I am afraid that the disruption of the ecosystem is a much more important factor. My next post will deal with this subject in more detail.
BTW, the correlation of infertility, poverty, and pollution is not linear. Very poor countries are not highly polluted, and they are the ones that show the highest fertility rates. On the opposite side, rich countries have cleaned up their air, but the damage was already done. Then, there are the industrializing countries (e.g. Egypt) which show the highest pollution rates. The process is dynamic, the effects of pollution manifest themselves many years later. So, if you look at Egypt, you see that it is among the richest African countries, but its fertility is rapidly declining. Nothing to do about that: the damage we have already done is having consequences now.
So, are you claiming that most 18-30 year old women want to have many children, but their PRIMARY issue is... finding male with viable sperm?
And the Amish birth rate is 6-8 because, what, they are less polluted by technology? This is seriously The Main Difference, not lack of formal schooling and early marriage, but MAINLY the fact that their horses are less polluting than our cars?
Amish-but-with-cars (I must read more about religious sects to check if such exist) would thus have birth rate below replacement?
No serious discussion can start with "so you are claiming that .... " Please, avoid cheap rhetorical tricks in the comments.
I apologize for my strong reaction, but I find the claim that pollution is the PRIMARY cause of lower birthrates quite extraordinary. To be clear, I'm asking this as a genuine inquiry, not as a rhetorical argument: If we were to randomly select 100 sexually active 20-year-olds who are not using contraception, would most of them genuinely struggle to conceive within two years?
While there is evidence that environmental factors like pollution can impact fertility, the effect is nuanced. Particularly among young, healthy individuals, the impact seems unlikely to be as dramatic as suggested. I'm interested in understanding the scientific basis for such a sweeping statement.
One study about some impact of pollution is not that, especially not in society where increasing number of women wait until they are 35 before even trying.
Here are the statistics:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infertility.htm
"Percent of women ages 15–49 who have impaired fecundity: 13.4%."
Any issues imcreasing from 13 to, for example, 15% - would be terrible for many, but not the "main reason".
And this would be surely lower if we could consider only 18-30, more traditional marriage age.
The Amish might indeed be less polluted. I am thinking of plastics, ubiquitous in the industrial world, but probably seldom (or even never) used by the Amish. Plastics outgas molecules which are estrogenic and potentially hormone disrupting.
Also, even if the Amish were exposed to equivalent pollution, fertility is about a lot more than sperm counts. I presume the Amish WANT to have a lot of children, and thus use contraceptives less (or not at all).
I think the most important point is that the Amish don't use synthetic pesticides or fertilizers -- or at least they reduce their use to a minimum. That kind of stuff makes life in the country more polluted than in town
dear ugo you say population collapse can take a few decades does that mean people who are in there thirties can now grow old until there will be a pollution or a resource collapse ?
In my view, there are huge societal changes underlying the falling birth rate. The world is increasingly "full”. There is less space for people (and in particular where people aggregate the most, in the big cities), we are running out of resources (or it becomes more and more difficult to access them), we are undermining the ecosystems that we need to thrive and the capacity of the biosphere to take care of all our emissions has reached several limits (global warming is but one such). Perhaps, people feel that in some subconscious way, and that feeling ultimately also affect the desire to procreate?
Many people don’t see their life as part of the bigger biological and social context. Reproduction is seen as an individual choice and not an essential part of being a biological organism. One could argue that one of the main aspects of sustainability is to ensure the continued existence of the human species***. Not caring for the future of humanity can in this way be seen as the ultimate victory for modernism and as such it can also be the seed of its death.
I recently wrote an article about it: https://gardenearth.substack.com/p/is-modernity-killing-itself
this post by ugo bardi is this a joke he states population crash will not happen tommorow but we may need decades until we see an evident population but an associat membzr of the club of rome by the name ginnie servant miklos say that we will collapse very soon even nate hagens and other club of rome members say we will collapse very very soon !!!!
well professor ugo bardi I think you may be right I do not know if you know leon simons from the club of rome nl he actually sees the human population growing until 2050
so no population collapse soon than I thought it would all be over in 2030 if I saw the club of rome bau scenario so we will see a population crash in the next decades ?
"if the Club started planning the extermination of humankind more than 50 years ago, maybe it is time for them to switch to Plan B."
lol
I've made this point several times to right/populist conspiracy types ("they're trying to kill us all!"), re the Club of Rome and "the elites" in general, but it just bounces off of them. If they were trying to kill us all, why don't they just do it, ffs? Take down the power grid for a few months and precipitate mass die-off. Easy peasey.
"That doesn’t mean that the British Government consciously chose to exterminate the Irish by letting them starve. It was, mostly, a case of not looking at what one doesn’t want to see."
From the conspiriology literature, I've found two useful acronyms: LIHOP and MIHOP.
LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose (passive; "not looking")
MIHOP = MAKE It Happen On Purpose (active, deliberate)
Maybe we need another one "Refuse to believe that's happening, and hence let it happen" RTBLIH
Good post indeed.
I actually don't believe there is some master plan to depopulate the world. But, yes, nothing significant will be done to prevent it.
A couple of points maybe :
I don't believe that the "ancients didn’t have an overpopulation problem". They had overpopulation issues on a very regular basis every time the population exceeded the agricultural and energy output (that is carrying capacity) of the land. But most of the time, it wasn't seen as overpopulation per se because the economic and social issues were masked behind dynastical, political or religious divides. And still wars and famine started when the population was at its highest point and stopped somehow when it has subsided to half or a third of what it originally was.
And it might still be the case nowadays. At least, this is Jared Diamond's theory regarding the genocide in Rwanda.
-
I found it hard to believe that pollution is the main culprit behind the fall of natality. It might play a role (and a bigger role in the future), there might be more people today who have fertility problem than before but when I look around me, most people I know are quite happy with the small number of children they have. In many cases, they didn't really want children but it just happened once or twice in their life.
So, in my opinion, it's much more about the way of live.
But somehow, it seems it suited the elite quite well because, behind various excuses (ranging from natalist policies being fascist to the idea that raising children would be detrimental to equality between men and women and so on), they did nothing to prevent it.
Yes, there is a debate on whether social factors are more important than chemical factors. Personally, I think chemistry easily beats sociology, but it true that social factors do play a role, too.
About the ancients and famines, it is difficult to make an exact comparison because we don't have sufficient data. My impression is that famines were much less important because the population density was much lower. But, yes, they had famines, too.
I'm sure you heard about Peter Turchin's works.
And this is the whole point : trying to gather data to show that historical events don't depend so much on crop failures due to random meteorological conditions but follow much deeper patterns dependent on the distribution of wealth and ultimately on demographics.
Or to say the other way, crop failures when the population density is low have much less consequences than when it is closer to the average local carrying capacity.
Of course! He is one of my personal divinities!
Yes, determining the importance of these two factors is difficult.
Obviously, it seems that when the standard of living improve, natality decreases. But in the mean time, people rely more and more on chemicals.
So it is quite possible that the social factors are more important at the beginning of the process, only to be overtaken later by chemical poisoning.
Which is somehow much more worrying as it might last much longer...
As with so much in nature, it's usually both. I can envisage pollution affecting people's mental state (eg microplastics in the brain) leading to less inclination to reproduce.
That, too. Yes.
signing in
Depop does not work https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/financial-system-supply-chain-cross
They are exterminating us https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-extinction-plan-uep
Global depopulation underway, however not synchronized.
Boys 0-14 years:
EU (without UK): 34 mio
Arab: 70 mio
Muslim: 370 mio
Subsaharan: 500 mio
Now factor in that:
Non-EU regions will face steeper habitat declines.
Non-EU youths have ideologies and historic reasons for conflict with white supremacy.
Testosterone levels and fertility seem to be more depressed in Europe than in Africa.
EU males are overweight in ca. 60 %.
All this will cause/intensify migrations/conflicts where an unfit, semicastrated and dwindling
male EU- population will be heavily outnumbered by relatively more fit and aggressive
adversaries. The latter will chose asymmetric warfare to compensate for technological
disadvantages. Lanchesters laws apply.
"[Let us draw] a distinction between population decline and depopulation. The former
is a simple change in numbers; just like population growth. Thus, the definition of population decline is scientific, neutral and clear. By contrast, Thesaurus.com returns the following synonyms for the term “depopulate”: desecrate, devour, ruin, depredate, spoliate, despoil, pillage, sack, lay low, devastate, plunder, waste, lay waste. Clearly, depopulation is very different from the scientific, neutral concept of population decline, as the term evokes the language of war, devastation and destruction. Thus, in a sense, depopulation seems much more closely linked than population decline to the conspiracy theories and fears presented in much of the popular discourse.1"
from:
https://austriaca.at/0xc1aa5576_0x003e3097.pdf
Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2023 (Vol. 21), pp. 57–68
Depopulation or population decline? Demographic nightmares and imaginaries
Stuart Gietel-Basten
Indeed, that's my point. Population decline is a natural phenomenon. Depopulation is the effect of human actions.
Yes, right.
I was referring to Lukas' "Global depopulation underway, however not synchronized [followed by stats]" -- i.e. Great Replacement theory; deliberate destruction of white race. The idea has a rich (?) history.
Indeed there is a population decline, and then there is the search for reasons. One reason is the steep decline in sperm production and at the same time of female fertility. In Switzerland one of six couples willing to have a child is unable to do so. At the same time there is a decline of male testosterone levels roughly by 50 percent which - unsurprisingly - is paralleled by decreasing sexual interest and activity as documented in studies from France, UK, Australia, USA and Germany. The scientific community is rather unanimous that endocrine disruptors, coming mainly from plastic and pesticides, play an important causal role in the sperm and testosterone decline, which puts this into the depopulation definition (ruin, waste). Although this is not a conspiracy theory it is treated as such by the powers that be and no action is taken.
Several studies have been completed on microplastic particle buildup in the testis of humans and other species. That some resins or common additives in them can have an effect on fertility is decreasingly disputed. If this is true (it seems like a very reasonable hypothesis to me), it will very likely become an increasing problem due to the continual and increasing production and careless escape and dumping of millions of tonnes of plastic every year. Compounding the problem is that as both new and existing plastic waste degrade in the environment due to abrasion, breakdown in sunlight and, to a lesser extent, breakdown due to exposure to reactive oxygen species, their particle size distribution will naturally decrease (more nanoparticles over time), as will the degree of chemical alteration. I suspect the smaller particles will more readily find their way into all sorts of life forms while their smaller size increases their surface area, both of which might increase their hazard.
If the above hypotheses are correct, we may be witnessing the leading edge of a much larger problem.
@Jon Wesenberg: Microplastics are everywhere, from the Himalayas to mothers milk, placenta, our blood and testes. While their impact remains to be defined we are also - and independently from microplastics - directly exposed to endocrine disruptors like phthalates and pesticides etc. which we mainly get from food. It has become clear in the last twenty years that these interfere with male and female hormones and fertility (e.g in the US midwest testosterone levels have declined 40 percent in 30 years, overall testosterone declines 1 percent per year). This is not a hypothesis anymore.
But there are other questions: If testosterone declines by half, what can we expect in the society? We have to expect an epidemic of impotence (true), of sexual disinterest (true) and a subjective insecurity about gender identities (true) with subsequent public discussion about gender roles (true).
And of course are we observing the leading edge of a much larger problem, which however is still treated as a consipiracy theory.