חדשות וירוס TV - מהדורה 723 • מיתוס פיצוץ האוכלוסין - חלק א' • 17-05-2023
- - - לא מוגה! - - -
מוזיקה
In this year's annual letter,
מלינדה ואני take the toughest questions we get asked and give our answers.
One that's come up for a long time is as we make the world healthier,
is the population going to get so big that feeding everybody and maintaining the environment is going to be impossible.
Here we can see a chart that looks at the total world population over the last 700 years.
And at first glance, this is a bit scary. We go from less than a 1.8 מיליארד and then 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7.4 מיליארדים, where we are today, is happening even faster.
So מלינדה ואני wondered whether providing new medicine and keeping children alive,
would that create more of a population problem.
What we found out is that as health improves,
families choose to have less children.
And this effect is very, very traumatic.
We find that in every country of the world this is repeated,
that population growth goes down as we improve health.
So we've taken that chart
that shows the global population growth
and we've actually extended it out all the way to 2100. And we can see that instead of continuinging it actually flattened out.
Another way to see that is through this rate of population growth.
And you can see that in the 60's that reached a pretty high number of 2% per year and it's now come way way down.
Now, a lot of מיליארדים זה עוד הרבה,
אבל השאלה טובה היא שהשאלה רבה יותר גדולה,
הרבה יותר גדולה של המילים שלהם.
The earth belongs to the living.
No man may by natural right,
to oblige את המדינות שהם עומדים או עומדים לתוכנות יותר מאלה שיכולים לתוכנות לתוכנות שלהם בזמן שלהם.
Because if he could,
the earth would belong to the dead.
איך אנחנו אוהבים את כל האנשים של כל האנשים של כל הזמן?
מה אם זו השאלה הראשונה שאנחנו שואלים?
וזה לא רק שלנו,
זה כל האנשים.
מה יקרה
לדיזיין אם נשאל את השאלה הזאת?
ומה זה יכול להיות שאנחנו נמצאים פה, כמו שאנחנו עכשיו קוראים לזה
האנתרופסים,
הארץ הארץ האחרון שבו האנשים נהיו אדם ובספיציה.
הארץ האחרון שבו אנחנו יכולים להשתמשך את המדינות.
תראי, הדיזיין תהיה מאוד מאוד חשובה,
כי הדיזיין היא הסגנל הראשון של האנשים.
כשאתה יבוא בפער ויש לווי אינטשויות,
אתה דיזיינר.
אז מה הן האבטלות כאנשים כאנשים?
אם אנחנו מנסים
לדיסוח את הפלנטה, לנסות את הארץ,
אנחנו עושים טובה,
אם זו המנסה.
ואם אתה תגיד, למה לא באמת,
אתה יודע, למה לא נמצא לגבי גלובל עורמי על הראשון פה?
אוקיי,
אבל זה מה שקורה.
אז
זה תהיה תחילתנו דה-פקטו,
ואנחנו לא יכולים רק לצלם פה ולומר,
או, מה זה אנחנו צריכים להחליט את הפופולציה.
כמו שאתה יכול לברך מכל מליציונים ראשונים
שמחים על המדינה,
וכו'.
אם אנחנו לא אוהבים כל ילד שבא,
אם אנחנו נראה על ילד מיניהו,
המחלב שלו,
החברה האנשית מתחילה.
פשוט כמו זה.
אנחנו צריכים להחליט את כל ילד שקוראים.
אנחנו נצליח את המחלב של המחלבות במדינות של מדינות של מדינות,
לא מדינות של מחלבים,
מחלבים של גבולות, 1972. זה מאוד משמעותי.
כי אני רואה את הרבה מיניות וסיסטמות ואומרת,
אוה,
כשהם יחספו עם חיילים טובים,
אתם יודעים, הם פשוט דפורים,
הם כאילו יחספו מהלגר.
We can become, once again, native to place. These are our stories.
רגעי בייטסון רואה איזה בוקר מיינד ונאצ'ר
בני early 70s. האנתרפולוגייסט,
הסבן
לברגת מיד.
ובזה
הוא קוראים את הסייברנטיקה.
וזה כשאנחנו נותנים קארצות, ובסיסט,
אתם יודעים,
במדינות קומפייטריות, נכון?
ובבוקר הוא אומר את האנשים שלו
לקהילות אחרת, והוא מדבר על קומפייטר,
וקומפייטריות, והקומפייטריה, תגיד לי, קומפייטר,
כאשר אתה חושבים שהקומפייטריות יתחיל לחג גדולים?
וכשהוא עם החזרה תהיה קביעה,
והקומפייטר אומר,
הממ,
זה משתמש לי על קוריאה.
מה זה אומרים להיות נתיב ל-3800?
אני חושב שכל הסוסטיינבילות היא לוקל.
אני חושב שהפלנת
היא לוקלות.
כמו שהפרקטלות קטנים קטנים שאנחנו אוהבים.
אבל תכף נכון שהפלנדת שלנו היא ארוכה ואנחנו לא נרצים.
אנחנו לא נלך ללכת את הפורסט ואומרים,
אה,
מגיעי פופולציה של קולים.
זה מפירס שחורים יש כמעט ארבעה מיני גמל של אנשים,
אבל אנחנו לא מגיעי פופולציה של חורים,
הם יוצרים את הסקטורים הרבה של
אקו-סיסטמות שלהם, לעשות את העבודה שלהם.
אנחנו לא יש כל כך אנשים שאינם עובדים.
ומה הם עושים? הם פשוט מסייקלים את הכול.
זה הזמן שלהם להסתכל.
להסתכל.
וזה לא רק להסתכל,
להשתמש,
להסתכל, זה לא כמו.
אנחנו צריכים להכניס שאנחנו נהיה כאנשים טראגים
סטרטגית טראגיים.
עכשיו, כמה אנשים מכירים, או משהו,
מישהו שאומר שאתה סטרטגית טראגי,
אני חושב שזה עד להסתכלות של החורים, לא יודעים?
The idea of overpopulation has become widespread in modern discourse.
you see it mentioned by economists,
politicians, comedians and even everyday acquaintances.
It's the idea that there are simply way too many people,
and since the resources of the earth are finite, this is supposedly a big problem.
you really do see this argument popularized nowadays.
the thing is, though, it's all nonsense.
there is no such thing as overpopulation.
let's have some food for thought.
Humanity,
collectively,
produces enough food to feed over 10 million people.
In the so called developed countries,
that is to say, those that live off of the exploitation of the third world,
the smallest fraction of the population work in agriculture.
meaning that even with,
in some cases, only 1%-2% of the population working in agriculture,
we manage to produce food in super-abundance.
So, where is the problem?
Why are hundreds of millions chronically malnourished?
Why are billions more going hungry every night?
The problem is, as with many things, capitalism.
You see, it isn't a production problem, it's a distribution problem.
We produce way more food than we need,
but we don't get it to the people that really need it.
Capitalism is built on a barbaric ראשונגס,
where those that have the money to pay,
get the products and services they desire,
while those that don't,
can't get even the most basic essentials.
Undercapitalism,
milk would sooner go to the cat of a wealthy owner than to a poor male-nour-nourish child.
This problem of distribution is made worse with the fact that international capitalist institutions
essentially force underdeveloped countries to grow cash crops rather than to develop a self-sufficient food system for the country's needs.
When they can't meet their own needs,
they resort to loans or to aid,
both which are systems designed to further entrench these underdeveloped
countries into their neo-colonial status.
The real tragedy, or comedy,
depending on how you hear it,
is the supposed solutions provided to this problem.
It's even become the punchline of many comedy routines.
Cleanse,
thinning out the herd,
essentially mass murder.
It's interesting how outright elimination of entire populations is viewed as a fix,
even jokingly,
sooner than systemic and sustainable solutions like decreasinging fertility rates and improving our cultural production in the countries most plagued by the overpopulation non-problem.
Why provide family planning, birth control and education to young people in the developing world when you can instead slowly kill them off?
Why help develop industrial agricultural production,
so as to help countries become self-sufficient,
when you can make what נוסף גרמי עשויות נראה כמו childs play?
I want to even mention how wasteful meat production is,
for example,
in terms of water and grain usage,
and I say this as a meat lover myself.
The entire narrative feeds into the idea of barbaric,
asיג,
and אפריקאי הורדים סייפיינים אוף רסוצים בלי לתת משהו משמעותף.
Racism always plays a role,
and in the case of this question,
racist colonial attitudes are in the driver seat.
משהו שמחזר ביותר מבין מהקבוצות האלה על איך הווסטרנר
המדינות כלכלית כמו 100 בנגלדשים.
אנשים שמחים על מספר החלק של ילדים שיש בקומה שיש בקומה של ראשונה.
It's conveniently never mentioned that an indian woman with,
say,
to match the environmental and resource impact of a single American child.
All this is not even mentioning how nearly half of all food in the U.S. for example, is either left to rot or deliberately thrown out.
Why is this conversation pointed in the correct direction?
Why is there no talk about how companies like Nesli,
for example,
are privatizing water,
a natural right of everything that's being on earth?
Why is there no talk about how the very top of the population
wildly overconsumים באלצות אלקטריטה ובחירות האלה?
Mind you,
I'm not saying we should de-popולate the first world instead,
not at all.
What I'm saying is that a sustainable and prosperous world is possible.
We just need a shift in our mindset.
Overpopולation
Overpopulation is a subject that grabs headlines.
It's sensational, it's scary.
In your documentary, you kind of build it around the ideas and writings of Hans Rosling.
What first attracted you to Rosling's ideas?
And why did you decide that he would kind of be the center point of the documentary?
Talking about misconceptions,
I mean, I think the first one was that we were kind of making that assumption that population meant overpopulation.
And when we first started researching
the topic,
רוזלינג's TED talks came up and I felt like every single time I watched one,
some basic assumption that I had made about the world was being turned on its head.
And so that became kind of a thematic basis for the film.
You broke the movie into three chapters,
each in a different part of the world,
each kind of exemplifying a different aspect of this debate.
And the first chapter was set in China,
where it's very well known at this point that the one-child policy has been a giant backfire.
Lots of social problems there.
And you follow up בעצם.
You follow a 29 year old man who is searching for a wife in a pool where there aren't as many single women as there are single men.
Do you think that
government's are going to keep trying to do these kinds of things,
to control the population and should they be doing anything along those lines?
I think that there will always be government's that will intervene in a way that will prove to have
unintended consequences, and that's what that story is about.
Yes, you know,
education, their careers, and maybe they want to get married when they're 30. But it's the 30 year old man who want to marry the 22 year old. So it's like this love triangle dynamic that's being played out on a national scale in these urban centers.
And there's a lot of pressure on,
on young people and also on the traditional mindset.
You're talking about,
kind of the individual choices that people are making,
that governmentss are not able to predict,
not necessarily. And you document a lot of top-down approaches like that, whether it's the Chinese policy or governments giving away cars to have people sterilized themselves or give away cars to have people to have more babies. What is the role of personal choice in solving or kind of
abating the overpopulation?
Right. So the example of giving away cars is, I think, a perfect example of a disconnect.
The people who participate in these kind of campaigns,
you know, they get sterilized, they get a chance to win a little car. They have more babies in Russia, they have a chance to win a big car.
If you talk to those families, as we did,
they were going to make those decisions anyway. They didn't have anything to do with the chance of winning a vehicle.
So I think again, it's looking at what do people really need?
What do they really want?
So when we're looking at individual choices and what people need,
אם you look at the example,
In Uganda, it's really about the basics.
It's about having access to education,
healthcare, it's autonomy, it's poverty alleviation, it's all the basics.
I think the film is about trying to look at the issue from a different perspective different and to ask ourselves, are we are we asking the right questions or are we still in this old mindset where we think it's all about overpopulation?
Because it's not.
What was really striking in the movie is the way that when
women's choices women's men's choices in particular are constrained,
the fertility rate goes up.
What role does expanding the individual rights of women and protecting women's rights in particular,
play into this debate?
When women have access to more choices,
it doesn't mean that they stop having kids.
And it doesn't mean that they're necessarily going to have
more kids.
What we find is that when women have access to,
again, all the things that you need to have a decent chance of life,
they tend to gravitate towards two children per woman.
Obviously, there's some variation.
But I think what you see is that in giving more opportunity,
it's a stabilizing influence.
I think there's a, there also is a misconception about the idea that if people have maybe more recess,
there's more opportunity,
that they're going to have more kids,
that somehow there's a Darwinian going on. If you deny things from people, then they'll have fewer kids, because they can't take care of them.
That's not how it works.
The fear that people have about overpopulation often is that in these other countries,
whether it's inndia or China,
that they're just going to keep growing and they're going to
consume all the earth's resources.
That doesn't seem to be accurate.
I think in wealthier countries,
there tends to be a lot of handwriting about high fertility rates, people having too many babies, because somehow we think that's going to take away from what we have.
But really, what we should be concerned about is that high fertility rates happen in places where that's an indication that there is a lot of suffering on the ground in a lot of places.
A lot of countries in sub-סהרן אפריקה,
which are very high poverty levels, women don't have a lot of choices.
People tend to, it's almost like a visceral,
and all דרוויניאנים כאילו דארוויניאנים כאילו אנסטינקטים.
People have to try to just,
אתה יודע, אני חושב שזה
מפחד, אני חושב שזה מפחד עליהם לדעת על המספחדות.
That מפחד, כאילו מפחד על היסטוריה,
מכיוון שזה מפחד כל כך להגיד בשביל האנשים האנשים באנשים כאלה לדעת עליהם,
האם יש איזשהו איזשהו אופציה לבחור את זה?
ואיך זה מפחד על איך אנחנו חושבים על הדברים האלה?
זו שאלה גדולה,
כי אני חושבת שהאנשים האלה לא מעיבדים את הדיברת, זה בעצם מפחד את הדיברת. אנחנו נמצאים מאנשים מאנשים. זו שאלה שיכולים להשתמש אליו.
כי אם משהו נכון ונכון ויש משהו שיכול לעשות, אז אתה יכול להתחיל לבחור.
אז אני חושבת,
לקבל את הנשק מהאנס רוזלינג,
ההצדרה היא,
תראו, תראו את מה שאנחנו נכנסים עם זה.
אתם חושבים שזה נכון ונכון, אבל זה לא נכון.
There are these pockets where there's things need to change. There's other things that actually are doing quite well. Let's really take a realistic look.
So I think in that way there's something that can be very helpful, just about basic knowledge. And I think that was one thing that was really open,
to realize some very basic things about what's happening in the world right now that are not
that are not widely known, and it drives Hans crazy.
The movie is misconception, premiering at טרייבקה.
Just you, thank you very much for talking to us.
It's been a pleasure, thank you.
![מיקס קליפים [2024]](/storage/thumb/videos/V018106_150.jpg)
![מיקס קליפים [2023]](/storage/thumb/videos/V017157_150.jpg)
![מיקס קליפים [2020] - עם כתוביות באנגלית](/storage/thumb/videos/V016615_150.jpg)
![חוזרים בעבר - מיקס - חלק 2 [3:30 שעות!]](/storage/thumb/videos/V015619_150.jpg)
![מיקס קליפים [2022] 3 שעות!](/storage/thumb/videos/V015525_150.jpg)
![מיקס קליפים [2021] - עם כתוביות באנגלית](/storage/thumb/videos/V014960_150.jpg)
![הכל יודוך | הרב אמנון יצחק [שיר]](/storage/thumb/videos/V015560_150.jpg)
![ושמחת בימיך | הרב אמנון יצחק [שיר]](/storage/thumb/videos/V015558_150.jpg)
![מחרוזת שירי קפ"ז | הרב אמנון יצחק [שיר]](/storage/thumb/videos/V014860_150.jpg)
![[שיר] נאד נפוח • ביצוע: הרב אמנון יצחק](/storage/thumb/videos/V014415_150.jpg)
