Episode 2: 2.1 Kids: A Stable Population

why is tfr higher in developing countries?

It is not because of higher infant mortality rate. It is because the women are less educated and these populations are still growing at unsustainable rates.the TFR for stable population has to be 2.07 regardless of infant mortality rates or non-child bearing women or for whatever reason. For populations that have higher mortality rate, that just means that the childbearing women have to have higher child count per chil bearing woman to make up for the women or baby girls that died. But the average child count per average woman includes those that dies at birth. Is just a matter of math which the author obviously didn't get to in school.

Great video, thanks!

Clear, communicative and scientifically sound. However the earth's population is still growing rapidly, depleting fishing grounds, animal populations and forests, and we're poisoning water and lands. We need to ratchet down the population to about half what it currently is.

Sexist and Racist?!

I am thoroughly offended by your pseudo-scientific videos. In the second video, you mention "poorer countries", and the stick figures are given SPEARS and TURBANS simultaneously...these are terrible generalizations and caricatures of real human beings, whom you have marginalized with your treatment.

You later say "SOME women choose not to have children"... the three figures representing these women are a SCIENTIST, a BUSINESSWOMAN, and a CRAZY CAT LADY. Do you see nothing wrong with this horrific stereotyping!? Seriously... it perpetuates the myth that career women cannot have children, a myth that has been detrimental to society in many ways. It is highly damaging for you to propagate these images...

Finally, your main point is a concern that WESTERN SOCIETIES are not replacing themselves. The GLOBAL POPULATION of HOMO SAPIENS (which includes individuals in the "poorer countries" you mention) is growing at an ENORMOUS rate. The human species is fine; you seem to be concerned only with the continuation of Western Societies, to the detriment of the rest of the world. This is elitist and insulting!

Year Population 1950 2 525

Year Population
1950 2 525 779
1955 2 761 651
1960 3 026 003
1965 3 329 122
1970 3 691 173
1975 4 071 020
1980 4 449 049
1985 4 863 602
1990 5 320 817
1995 5 741 822
2000 6 127 700
2005 6 514 095
2010 6 916 183
2015 7 324 782
2020 7 716 749
2025 8 083 413
2030 8 424 937
2035 8 743 447
2040 9 038 687
2045 9 308 438
2050 9 550 945
2055 9 766 475
2060 9 957 399
2065 10 127 007
2070 10 277 339
2075 10 409 149
2080 10 524 161
2085 10 626 467
2090 10 717 401
2095 10 794 252
2100 10 853 849

these are your numbers right?

Growth Rates

Where are you getting your statistics of current growth rates?


Why don't you post a video on human's impact on animals and the environment? What is the site trying to achieve? Have people breed more and continue destroying the environment and ocean?

Straw Man

Just because this website is arguing that a diminishing population is bad for any country, does not mean that this website is in favor of over exploiting natural resources or any action that damages the environment or animals.


The author is not saying we(humanity) should behave irresponsibly but rather the population does not result in war, food shortages, and other social issues.

This site is an embarrassment

This site is an embarrassment to science and real intellect. To any youth who comes across this site, please make sure to learn science in school or read peer-reviewed scientific journals. They hold much more merit than some psuedo-science site like this.


Global warming is a myth, too. Pollution occurs the worst where there are millions of people in a small area, like Los Angeles or San Francisco, where liberalism and immorality thrive. As seen in Pittsburgh, pollution can be remedied. Cities could follow the New York City model, with an abundance of public transportation and vertical building.

OMG this is rich

I could say the word "China" and demolish your entire argument.

Agreed - Have Not Seen Anything About Natural World

Having read with some interest (and disappointment) through a fair part of this site - I've not seen anything at all about the natural world. The oceans - arguably - are dying. Wildlife in many parts of the world is disappearing. Surely we should be aiming to:-

* REDUCE population and the impact of man on the planet - significantly
* Increase the standard of living of all
* Find new economic models which don't rely on endless growth
* Live and work longer so older people help support even older people

I'm not advocating killing anyone. I am very much in favor of limiting how many children people have (preferably by societal imperative). I am in favor of improving the lot of the poor. However I also care hugely about the life we are supposed to share the planet with.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue for "more people" for "more people"'s sake. In the West, having more than two children is grossly selfish.


This site is trying to show people that overpopulation is myth. We're not destroying the environment and ocean. Animals were brought into the world for us humans. Think about it - if we kill off the human race through abortion and myths like the world is overpopulated, then the human race will cease to exist, but because we care about animals than unborn babies, animals will still live in the world ALL BY THEMSELVES. We need food. If you had a dog, and you had no food, would you eat your dog so you could survive or would you starve to death? I'd rather eat my dog. I want there to be generations after me.

Please be better informed before judging an entire species

Umm, no, you are mistaken. "People" are not what is destroying the planet. Yes, the planet is being destroyed and yes those who are responsible happen to be humans. But only a small number of human societies is to blame. Yours/mine is one of them.
The !Kung, the Warao, the Kuna, and numerous others are not at fault and are as much of victims as the animals and plants and the soil are.
Humanity through the ages has not destroyed its environment, or there would nothing left by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The government of Ecuador, which is where some of those tribes are located, does do those things, but the tribes within it's borders are not necessarily interested in doing that, or guilty of it.
Even things that we might tend to blame on "primitive" groups of people are not really their fault, but ours. If they mow down monkeys with machine guns for example and over-hunt, guess who brought the machine guns and guess who messed up other areas of their life so they are resorting to that? Taking as much as you can get for as little as possible, or"negative reciprocity" is not that common among human societies as a whole.
A lot of this comes info from anthropology textbooks, "Victims of Progress" by John Bodely 6th edition, and "Essence if Anthropology" 2nd edition.
It also comes from lectures by anthropology prof who works in Ecuador a lot, and some adventurous friends who have visited the Kuna and others. Traditionalists among native american communities are not guilty of these things either, and probably know better solutions than you'll find here or anywhere. Don't indite the whole species for our, and your, crimes.

Maybe we can start asking the

Maybe we can start asking the people that believe in overpopulation to give up their lives so we can have more space and less impact on the environment. I'm sure that will make a huge difference.


i think it is just proving that overpopulation is fake....


You're assuming that because there is people, there has to be destruction on the environment and ocean. Yes, there's a big history of human kind doing just that, but people can also be educated and as we see today more of us are conscious of the environmental impact we have in the world, and if you take a look around, a lot is being done to help the environment. I think that all this site is trying to achieve is to rightly and accurately inform us of what the reality of overpopulation is, which is that it is not true!


Very interesting information, with the focus on societies rather than on the environmental impact of human population growth. Societies go extinct all the time. As a species, Homo sapiens is NOT in danger of extinction - not remotely. We're in pretty good company with rats and roaches, I reckon. All this means to me is that societies will change profoundly. e.g. Nova Scotia, at a 1.47 rate, isn't replacing it's population and has been losing its younger generations through migration elsewhere. Is the NS society dying? Yes. Will bringing in immigrants save it? As a society maybe, as a culture no. Each new immigrant brings new cultural practices and perceptions. A new culture and a more diverse gene pool is likely to result.

Great explanation. More and

Great explanation. More and more people are waking up to the facts. We need more and more people to clean up the mess that we made in the first place.