Environmental Econ: Crash Course Economics #22

Adriene: Welcome to Crash Course Economics. I’m Adriene Hill Jacob: And I’m Jacob Clifford. Economics is about choices, and how we use our scarce resources. It’s not just about producing and consuming, it can also be about conserving. Adriene: Maybe counterintuitively, economics has a lot to add to discussions of how we can balance our desire for prosperity and growth, with the need to protect our natural resources. Today we're going to look at environmental economics and think about how economics can help us keep our planet livable. [Theme Music] Pollution is going to happen, it’s a by-product of human existence and there is no way that we can get rid of it all. In fact, one of the ways we know about earliest the societies is by looking at their trash heap, something archaeologists call middens, because it sounds better than “dumps.” But the fact that humans produce all kinds of waste doesn’t mean that we have to embrace islands of trash floating in the oceans, a layer of smog over industrial cities, and toxic chemicals in our rivers. For sake of simplicity though, we’re going to focus on one type of pollution: carbon dioxide emissions. They’re one of the primary greenhouse gases.

These greenhouse gases basically blanket the earth and are causing climate change. CO2 levels are the highest they've been for millions years which is why environmentalists consider it a “planetary emergency.” There's a lot of effort going into how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, how to make cities more resilient to climate change, but in the interest of time we’re going to focus on efforts to reduce the amount of new pollutants getting spewed into our atmosphere. Jacob: The economic solution is pretty simple. Step one, identify the sources of the most air pollution. Done. We know exactly what it is. It’s factories that burn fossil fuels for energy, industries that use oil and coal to produce things, and vehicles with internal combustion engines. Step two, decrease the supply of these technologies and products or decrease the demand for them. That’s it, it’s simple.

But, the implementation of these policies gets complicated. Let’s look at decreasing supply. As we mentioned in the last video, one of the biggest problems with having countries independently enforce environmental regulations is the Tragedy of the Commons. No one owns the atmosphere, so there is very little incentive for countries to keep it clean and switch to expensive green technologies if no one else is going to. It’s not like there is some global environmental police punishing countries for polluting. While a country like Trinidad and Tobago has a huge carbon output per capita, its small population means it’s only producing a small fraction of global CO2. The other option is to decrease the demand for fossil fuels, possibly by finding alternate green energy sources. But we’re already very reliant on fossil fuels, and markets have made the production of those fuels very cheap. So, any new type of energy will have a hard time beating the established system.

So we can either wait patiently for new technologies to develop and get cheaper, or we can speed up the process by manipulating markets with government subsidies, taxes, and regulations. Adriene: In the case of pollution, there are long-term side effects, like climate change, that consumers often don’t take into account when they buy products. Remember negative externalities? When the full cost of a product doesn’t line up with the costs that manufacturers or consumers pay? Pollution represents a market failure — a situation where markets fail to produce the amount that society wants. To address this, some economists argue that government intervention is not only justified, but essential. There are all kinds of different ways intervention can happen — all of them meant to encourage producers and consumers to choose to pollute less.

One solution is for the government to come out and set very specific rules about how much specific industries can pollute. Forget markets. You're gonna follow our pollution rules. Another way governments encourage people to pollute less is by providing price incentives. Those incentives can encourage individuals to make choices that are better for the environment. The government could add taxes to gasoline purchases, or, on the other hand, provide subsidies for people who drive electric cars. Governments can also create permit markets — basically setting a limit on how much firms can pollute, and allowing those firms to buy and sell pollution permits. You’ve probably heard these called “cap and trade”. Proponents of cap and trade argue that it can successfully limit emissions, without creating hard and fast rules that might hinder economic growth.

And, governments can subsidize the development of a specific technology or industry—in an effort to make that technology more competitive with the alternatives. A country might help support the development of solar or wind energy. As of 2014, around 10% of the energy consumed in the United States came from renewable sources, which is pretty much in line with the global average. Current predictions are that by 2040 15% of the world energy consumption will come from renewable sources. But, alternative energy sources, for the most part, just aren’t cheap enough yet, so the majority of our energy is likely to continue to come from non-renewable sources, at least for now. Jacob: We don’t have the time to sit back and wait for new technologies to get cheaper, and there's no guarantee that the technologies that the government picks will be cost effective. Perhaps the solution is not to get rid of fossil fuels, but instead be more efficient with those fuels. But that has drawbacks, too. Some energy economists argue that the expected gains from energy saving technologies, are offset by something called the rebound effect. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

Adriene: Let’s say Hank uses a gallon of gas to drive to work everyday. Then, partially to help the planet but mostly to help his wallet, he buys a new fuel efficient car that only takes half a gallon of gas for the same commute. He saves money and there's less pollution. It is a win-win. But the rebound effect says that the benefits of energy efficiency might be reduced as people change their behavior. With the money he saves, Hank might start driving more than he normally would or he might go on a vacation in Hawaii. That leads to more consumption and possibly even more emissions. Also, if greater fuel-efficiency makes driving less expensive it might encourage more people to buy cars and increase the overall use of gasoline. And even if people didn't increase their driving, the new fuel efficiency could decrease the demand for gas, making fossil fuels cheaper and more readily available for other uses. The possibility of the rebound effect doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest in energy saving technologies. It just means that we have to keep in mind how consumers will behave. It’s also the reason why it's important to have economists involved in the discussion of environmental policy.

The tools of economics can help analyze the incentives and figure out what might work best. Thanks Thought Bubble. Okay, so we’ve identified another problem. But before you get so angry that you kick over a barrel of oil and light it on fire, keep in mind that there is hope. Most countries are actively trying to address the problem of greenhouse gases. The international community has been trying for decades to work together to protect the environment with varying success. There are international treaties that commit countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. UN negotiations are underway to create a new climate change agreement — that could be adopted in December 2015. Private companies and governments are also funding research into green technology. In the U.S. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated billions to fund renewable energy.

China is also vowing to clean things up, and, in fact, leads the world in renewable energy investment. So, now that most countries recognize there is a problem, the hope is that they’ll figure out a way, or more likely a lot of ways, to start addressing it. Environmental economists say that is not just governments and producers that need to change, it’s also consumers. Conserving and consuming more thoughtfully likely need to be a part of our daily lives if we want to protect the environment. But just bringing our reusable grocery bags to the store isn’t going to save the planet, even if it says it on the bag. Bigger and more costly interventions like improving insulation and changing thermostats might have more impact, but we need to recognize individual action alone isn’t going to be enough. Industries, governments, and individuals; we’re in this together. Thanks for watching, we’ll see you next week.

Crash Course Economics is made with the help of all these fine people. You can support Crash Course at Patreon, a voluntary subscription service where your support helps keep Crash Course free for everyone forever. And you get great rewards! Thanks for watching and DFTBA..

Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21

Hi. I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today we're going to talk about the most important case the Supreme Court ever decided ever. No, Stan, not Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company vs. Sawyer. Although, that is one of my favorites. Loves me some sheet and tube. And no, it's not Ex parte Quirin. Although I do love me some inept Nazi spies and submarines. And no, it is not Miller v. California. Get your mind out of the gutter Stan. We could play this game all day, but this episode is about judicial review: the most important power of the Supreme Court and where it came from. Don't look so disappointed. This is cool! [Theme Music] When you think of the Supreme Court, the first thing you think about, other than those comfy robes, is the power to declare laws unconstitutional. The term for this awesome power, the main check that the court has on both the legislative and executive branches, is judicial review.

Technically, judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine and invalidate actions undertaken by the legislative and executive branches of both the federal and state governments. It's not the power to review lower court decisions. That's appellate jurisdiction. Most people think of judicial review as declaring laws unconstitutional, and that definition is okay. The legal purist will quibble with you since judicial review applies to more than just laws. Appellate courts, both state and federal, engage in some form of judicial review, but we're concerned here with the federal courts especially the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has the power to review the following: One, Congressional laws a.k.a. statutes! Statutes. Since judicial review is a form of appellate activity, it involves upholding or affirming the validity of laws, or denying it, invalidating the law in question. You might think that the Supreme Court does this a lot, but it doesn't and historically it almost never happened before the twentieth century.

If the court were always striking down congressional statutes, it would be hard for people to know which laws to follow, and you'll remember that one of the main things that courts do is create expectations and predictability. For instance, you could predict that I would eventually be punching this eagle! Another reason why they don't invalidate laws often is that if the Court frequently overruled Congress, the Court would seem too political and people would stop trusting its judgment. If the Court has any power at all, it largely stems from its prestige and reputation for being impartial and above politics. No one has any problems with the Supreme Court decisions, at all. Two, the Court can also overturn state actions which include the laws passed by state legislatures and the activities of state executive bureaus, usually the police.

The power to review and overturn states comes from the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. Most of the time that the Supreme Court extends civil rights, it comes out of a state action. A good example is Brown vs. Board of Education where the Court struck down the idea of separate accommodations being equal in the context of state public schools. Three, the Court can review the actions of federal bureaucratic agencies. Although, we usually defer to the bureaucrat's expertise if the action is consistent with the intent of the legislature which the Court usually finds it is. The Court almost never strikes down Congressional delegation of power to the executive. Although, you might think that it should. The fourth area where the Court exercises judicial review is over Presidential actions. The Court tends to defer to the President, especially in the area of national security. The classic example of the Court overturning executive action happened in U.

S. vs. Nixon where the Justices denied the President's claim of executive privilege and forced him to turn over his recordings relating to the Watergate scandal. More recently, the Court placed limits on the President's authority to deny habeas corpus to suspected terrorists in Rasul vs. Bush. So, the Supremacy Clause gives the Court the authority to rule on state laws, but where exactly in the Constitution does the power of judicial review come from? Trick question! It's not there, go look ahead, look. I'll wait. See, not there. Wow, you went through that whole thing really quickly. Fast reader. The crazy thing is that the power of judicial review comes from the Court itself. How? Let's go to the Thought Bubble. The Supreme Court granted itself the power of judicial review in the case of Marbury vs.

Madison. You really should read the decision because it's a brilliant piece of politics. The upshot of the case was that Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Court had the power to review, uphold, and strike down executive actions pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, and in doing this, to strike down part of that federal law. How he got there was pretty cool. So, Marbury was an official that President John Adams, at the very end of his term, appointed to the position of Justice of the Peace. When Marbury went to get his official commission certifying that he could start his job, James Madison, who was Secretary of State, refused to give it to him. So, Marbury did what any self-respecting petitioner would do, he went to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus that would force Madison to give Marbury his job. This is what he was supposed to do according to the Judiciary Act of 1789. What Marshall did was brilliant! He ruled that yes, Marbury had a right to the commission but that the Supreme Court could not grant his writ because the law directing them to do so was unconstitutional.

This is brilliant for two reasons. First, by the time the time the case came before the Court, Thomas Jefferson was President. Those of you who remember Crash Course U.S. History will recall that that less handsome man told you that Jefferson was a Democratic Republican while Adams, Marbury, and even Marshall were all Federalists. By ruling against his own party, Marshall made a decision that was favorable to Jefferson and thus, likely to be supported. The second move was even cooler. Marshall's ruling took the power of writs of mandamus away from the Court, making it look weaker, while at the same time giving the Court the power to declare the law that had granted it the mandamus power in the first place unconstitutional. So by weakening the Court in this instance, like Daredevil going blind as a kid, Marshall made it much stronger for the future, like Daredevil getting stronger in the future. Thanks, Thought Bubble! So that's where judicial review comes from, but that still leaves many questions.

A big question is, why has this ruling stuck around and hasn't been overturned by other laws or later court decisions? Another question is, is judicial review a violation of separation of powers? Some say that it's judges making laws and thus an anti-democratic usurpation of the legislature's power. Let's talk about this rulings longevity first. Remember when I said last time that the Supreme Court rulings are binding in lower courts? You don't remember do ya? You were sleepin'. Wake up! Well, in general, Supreme Court precedents are binding on future Supreme Courts too because of the principle of stare decisis, which is Latin for "let the decision stand." This doesn't mean that future Supreme Court's can never overturn the decisions of prior Courts, it's just that they try very hard to not do it. This idea of precedent is one way that judges can be said to make laws. Appellate decisions are like common law in that they are binding on future courts and constrain their decisions and because they don't have to be grounded in a specific statute.

Other courts have to follow the higher court's interpretation of the law, and this interpretation has the effect of redefining the law without actually rewriting the statute. On the other hand, appellate decisions are technically not common law in that they are only binding on courts, not executive agencies or legislatures. They are, however, signals to courts and legislatures about how courts will rule in the future. Maybe an example will help. If you watch cop shows, or you get arrested a lot, you probably know something about Miranda vs. Arizona which gave us the Miranda Warning. You have the right to remain silent and all that stuff. Hopefully, you've never heard that in person, though. But hey, we're not here to judge. That's what the courts are for! Bahahahaha. Okay.

In that case, the Supreme Court threw out Miranda's conviction because he hadn't been told he had the right to remain silent. Without knowing that he didn't have to talk, he made a confession that got him convicted. The court didn't rewrite Arizona's law but it sent a signal to Arizona's law enforcement agencies, and those in all the other states, that in the future courts would throw out the convictions of defendants who hadn't been informed of their rights. As a result, police procedures changed in every state, and now the police are supposed to read the Miranda Rights to anyone they arrest. So those are the very basics of judicial review. We've probably raised as many questions as we've answered, but that's why we're making a bunch of these videos! So we can teach it all! All of it! Anyway, the big concern for many is that cases like Marbury vs.

Madison, which give courts the power to strike down pieces of legislation, overturn the judgment of the elected representatives that made the laws and violate the idea of separation of powers. Well, that is a thorny issue, but it's one that we don't have time to de-thorn today. For now, understand that judicial review is how the courts work in practice and not necessarily a defined power granted by the Constitution. Just remember, the executive and legislative branches also operate with a lot of implied powers that aren't explicitly granted to them in the Constitution. That's because the governance of the United States has evolved and changed over time to hopefully, suit the needs of the country as they change over time. Thanks for watching.

Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course U.S. Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the help of these nice people who have the right to remain silent. Thanks for watching. You have the right to stop watching..

Japan in the Heian Period and Cultural History: Crash Course World History

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today we’re going to return to medieval times. Mr. Green? Mr. Green? Finally, we get to watch jousting and eat with our hands and root for the Blue Knight. Yeah, No, Me from the Past, for starters, Medieval Times doesn’t closely reflect Europe in medieval times. And furthermore, we’re not going to be talking about Europe in medieval times, although we will be talking about kings and courts and aristocratic intrigue, but we’re gonna be talking about all those things in Japan. So discussions of Japanese history often focus on the Tokugawa period because it’s got ninja and samurai, but much of the foundation of Japanese culture dates to the Heian period between 782 and 1167 CE. And when I say Japanese culture, I do mean culture, because the achievements of the Heian period were primarily artistic, especially in literature.

So for most of this episode, we’ll be looking at cultural history as opposed to like economic or political history. As a novelist, and also a consumer of culture, I’m a big fan of cultural history. What I love about it is that it embraces the human imagination. I mean, you can’t just make up economic theories. Just kidding, you can. Anyway, for our purposes, Heian culture is the high culture of the upper-upper-class aristocracy, and obviously focusing on this tiny sliver of the upper class leaves out the experience of most Japanese people. But we know a lot more about the elite than we know about everyone else because it was the elite who were doing all of the writing things down and they were writing about the people they found the most interesting – themselves. In fact one of the reasons we know a great deal about the Heian aristocracy is because of Japan’s first great novel: The Tale of the Genji, by Lady Murasaki Shikibu. Now the historian James Murdoch called the Heian aristocracy “An ever-pullulating brood of greedy, needy, frivolous dilletanti – as often as not foully licentious, utterly effeminate, incapable of any worthy achievement”.

But when you boil all the unnecessarily fancy words out of that quote, that sounds like people I’m very interested in learning about. In fact, I love some fallicentuousness. So one of the first things we learn from texts about the Heian aristocracy is that the aristocracy was dominated by a craze for things Chinese. Now Chinese visitors to Japan thought the country was backwards and out of the way and uncivilized. But one of the reasons the Japanese seemed backwards to Chinese visitors is that the Japanese in the 10th century admired Tang China, which had flourished a couple of hundred years earlier. But there was also the fact that the Japanese blended Chinese ideas, especially Chinese Buddhism, with native traditions. In fact one of the most interesting aspects of Heian Japan was the overall attitude of the aristocracy, which was characterized by a love of color, and grandeur, and ceremony, and ritual, that was tinged with some Buddhist-inspired ideas.

You know, it’s sort of like how everyone in Canada wears powdered wigs and knee breeches to look like 18th century England. And one of the central ideas in Buddhism is that everything beautiful, and also everything not beautiful, is fleeting. Like historian Ivan Morris wrote that in the literature of the time, there was a quote “feeling that the familiar order of things will soon come to an end.” Which by the way is always an appropriate feeling. So the center of aristocratic court life was the capital, Heian Jyo, which during the Heian golden age may have had a populations as high as 100,000 people, making it much larger than most European cities at the time. It may have been a glorious capital but we don’t really know because most of the city was destroyed by earthquakes, or possibly fires, or possibly wars, or just the desire for new construction. We’re not sure. We also know that the Heian aristocracy was rigidly hierarchical, with society divided into about 30 grades based on one’s birth. The top 4 grades were reserved for princes, and the top 3, known as the Kugyō, received all the most important privileges, including governmental posts and revenues from special rice land.

These people in the highest ranks could send their children to university, wear ceremonial dress, they were given lighter punishments when they committed crimes. Can you imagine a world in which rich people systemically receive lighter sentences for crimes committed than poor people? These rules were so detailed that they even determined what type of fan you could hold. The top 3 ranks got to hold 25-fold fans. But when The Tale of the Genji was written, this rank system, like all those ranks, applied to less than 1/10th of 1% of the total population, so we’re really talking about the elites. As Ivan Morris put it: “Members of the upper class are almost all related to each other. They are totally uninterested in everyone outside their charmed circle and exceedingly sensitive in judging the precise social level of each person who does belong. In Murasaki’s milieu, to determine a person’s milieu was no simple diversion, but a matter of overriding importance.” Now that description reminds me a lot of my high school experience.

Aristocrats dominated the government, which over time became more and more ceremonial and ritualistic. In fact by the 10th century, much government work was carried out at night and consisted almost entirely of ceremonies. The nice thing about doing boring ceremonial work at night though: there was a lot of wine. So yeah, that doesn’t make for like, excellent government efficiency. Heian Japan’s economy was not much better than its governance. There was very little trade and attempted land reform, which was supposed to grant every citizen a parcel of public domain land, totally failed. Meanwhile, aristocrats accumulated vast agricultural land holdings, and by the 10th century court nobles were largely supported by these tax-free estates called manors. Now interestingly, the nobles didn’t technically own the land outright, as they did in much of Europe. Instead they owned the rights to income from the land and then those rights could be transferred to their heirs, so it was similar to ownership, but it wasn’t quite ownership. Also different from Europe: upper-class Japanese women could hold the rights to a manor, and thus have a rather impressive degree of economic power.

And that matters a lot because women played a key role in the flourishing of Heian literary culture that makes this period of history so interesting to study in the first place. Like over all this inefficient corrupt cronyism of Japan’s government and economy definitely weakened this state. But it also provided time and money for the aristocracy to make beautiful and interesting things. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Heian aristocrats were expected to feel melancholy over the transience of existence. “In Murasaki’s time,” according to Ivan Morris “periodical protestations of melancholy and gloom were essential for people who regarded themselves as sensitive,” and sensitivity especially to art was the hallmark of aristocratic breeding. The aristocratic gentleman is exemplified by prince Genji himself: quote “With his gentle nature, his sensitivity and his wide range of artistic skills, who represented the ideal of the age and who set the tone for the social and cultural life of the good people” Buddhism was very influential on the aristocrats aesthetic ideal that beauty must be cultivated because it is so impermanent.

This quote from the tale of Genji illustrates this focus on impermanence: “‘Like the waterfowl that play there on the lake, I too am floating along the surface of a transient world’ I could not help comparing them with myself. For they too appeared to be enjoying themselves in the most carefree fashion; yet their lives must be full of sorrow.” Stan, are you sure that’s from the tale of Genji? I think I’ve seen that quote attributed to me on Tumblr. But we don’t only know about the emotional state of the aristocracy, we also know about their pastimes. We refer to nobles as the leisure class for a reason after all, they spent a lot of time playing games, and engaging in contests. Poetry contests were popular, as were board games, like Go, and much of their time was taken up with ceremonies and rituals. Here is an example from the court calendar: “18th day: Bowman’s Wager, the new year’s celebrations are concluded by an archery contest which is held in his majesties presence between officers of the inner and middle palace guards.

This is followed by a banquet during which court dances are performed and prizes awarded to the winning side. Members of the losing side are forced to drink the cup of defeat.” Thanks, Thought Bubble. I’d like to make an announcement here at Crash Course from now on whenever we refer to anyone losing anything we will say that they were forced to drink from the cup of defeat. So you know other than pure Game of Thrones style drama, this highly ritualized very insular social order of the elites of the elites of the elites isn’t usually the kind of stuff we’d study at Crash Course. But first, thinking about the lives of the Heian aristocracy tells us something about the lives of the rich and powerful generally. Like obviously they had to increasingly separate themselves from each other to feel more and more wealthy and powerful.

Which progressively led to them being more and more separated from, you know, the vast, vast majority of people living in Japan. But also they produced and consumed cultural artifacts that came to define the style of the age but also have continued to shape culture. Heian aristocracy and the documents that describe it tell us a lot about women, who as we’ve seen are often left out of historical narratives. The Heian period, at least culturally, was dominated by women, particularly Murasaki Shikibu and Sei Shōnagon. So in some ways at least, unlike almost everything we’ve studied, our view of the period is dominated by women’s perspectives, although it is the perspective of the most privileged women. And what we see is consistent with a lot of upper-class mores: these women are obsessed with their looks, and especially with their clothes which were cumbersome and heavy. They were expected to wear their hair very long, preferably reaching to the ground. They had to powder their faces and blacken their teeth and they lived the circumscribed lives typical of upper-class women throughout the world.

Although there were some legal protections that they enjoyed: like we talked about how they could have income from property. Laws also protected them from physical violence, specifically prohibiting a husband from beating his wife, which might not sound like that big of a deal but compared to women’s lives in Europe, that was a big improvement. And upper-class women in Heian Japan were all literate and educated, although their education was limited to the types of cultural skills that would make them attractive to men: poetry, music, calligraphy, maybe some literature. Disciplines like history and law and philosophy were mostly off limits. And that brings me to something I want to talk about: all of these privileges: from the heavy, cumbersome clothes that make it difficult to move to the kinds of education women could have or the kinds of limited legal protections they could have, all of that is evidence of a patriarchy. So we see through these women’s stories the way that they were able to express themselves and their philosophies and the way that they lived in the world.

So women like Murasaki Shikibu lived constrained, cloistered lives, but of course there were opportunities available to them that weren’t available to men. And that’s what’s so exciting about being able to read their narratives. We just don’t have many equivalents to that in Europe at the time. That noted, these women, like their male counterparts, spent most of their lives indoors, and communicated mostly by intermediaries or letters. Women couldn’t show themselves to men or make conversation with them. But there was a great deal of interest and intrigue around love and romance, not least because Heian gentlemen were expected to be polygamous and also to engage in extramarital affairs. But just because sexual relations were often divorced from marriage and love affairs were common doesn’t mean that they lacked emotional consequences.

In the stories you read about Heian Japan everybody is always worried that they’re going to like, fall out of favor with their lover or their husband or their whatever. It’s so exciting! To read about, I mean, I’m sure if you’re living inside of it it would make you very anxious. Also when courtship and marriage had political dimensions, as they did in the highest noble ranks, women were often in danger of being displaced by a more advantageous match. And we know from the stories that all of this combined into pangs of jealousy and fear of being abandoned and then pain when you actually were abandoned. And those kinds of stories, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, have a kind of universality about them. The last thing I want to say here is that power works differently when you’re not in power, right? Like if you’re a student in a high school classroom the teacher has the power, but you have some power.

And the most interesting thing about the stories from the Heian aristocracy is the ways that women used the power that they did have to bring about change in their own lives and in their communities. So by looking at history through the lens of literature we get a very different perspective than if we were to focus on government documents, or archaeology, or descriptions of war. This helps us to try to develop a sense of how people at the time felt, although we’re only dealing with a very limited group of people, obviously. The cultural achievements of the Heian Period, described and exemplified by The Tale of Genji, were considerable, especially when compared to what Europeans were accomplishing at the time. And it’s another reminder that we need to be careful when we talk about the 9th and 10th centuries as the Dark Ages.

It’s also interesting that the Heian Period in Japan wasn’t particularly successful politically or economically, but that it did lead to great cultural achievements. And almost all of the literary achievements were made by women, which as Morris points out is “a rare, if not unique, phenomenon in cultural history.” For Heian Japan the historical record was written primarily by women. And while The Tale of Genji doesn’t discuss politics or economics the way that we usually imagine them, and while it describes a world that leaves out 99% of Japanese people during the period, it has a lot to tell us about the way that at least some people felt and lived, which is more than can be said for a lot of history books. And that’s a type of history that most of us can relate to more than stuff with generals and kings in it. For instance when I look at the history of my own life I find that generals and kings have played a very minor role. Jealously on the other hand: not insignificant. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week.

Crash Course is filmed here in the Chad & Stacey Emigholz Studio in Indianapolis. Thank you for watching and as we say in my hometown: don’t forget to be awesome..

The Science of Overpopulation

So I assume you know that there’s a lot of people on this planet. As of last week, Wednesday, I think, was when we turned over to seven — I –, nobody knows. But nobody knows exactly how many people there are, it’s kinda hard to keep track; it’s a big planet. But there are about seven billion people on the Earth right now. And they keep getting born, all the time. In fact, for every 2 people who die, about 4 are born. Every second, there are about four babies introducing themselves to this world, and there are less than two people saying goodbye to it. So, easy math here, our world’s population is growing by about 2.5 people per second. And as a reminder of this, during this video I’m going to have 2.5 ping pong balls being thrown at me every single second throughout the entire rest of the video. Who’s hitting me in the face every single time? [Intro] Ok, instead of the balls, uh, were just gonna do a clock because I get nosebleeds pretty easily, and I don’t want you to have to see that. So 7 billion people, it’s hard to actually get your mind around how many people that is, maybe if you were to just like sit down and count to 7 billion, it would take you like 200 years or something.

On the other hand, there is plenty of space for them. If you took 7 billion people and stood us shoulder to shoulder like we were at a Sting concert, those 7 billion people could fit in an area the size of Los Angeles. We can fit on the Earth. There’s space for us all. So as long as there’s space for us all, what’s the big deal about having 7 billion people? Well it turns out people have been thinking about this for a long time, since around 1800, when the world first clocked 1 billion people. I know what you’re thinking, you’re like 1 billion, that’s nothing, haha. Well at that time all the economies in the world were based on agriculture. How much stuff we could grow with human hands, farm animals, maybe a scythe and a wooden plow or something.

So that kind of technology, a billion people was really pushing it. And the first like big-time thinker guy, to totally have a cow about there just being too many freakin’ people was a British economist named Thomas Malthus. Thomas Malthus calculated that human populations tend to grow exponentially, while the ability of humans to feed each other tends to grow more linearly. And so our growth as a species tends to outstrip our ability to feed everyone. And when that happens, it’s pretty obvious what happens, you get the famine, and the starvation. And for the people who are left over who don’t die of those things, they can get taken care of by disease and war. Basically, Malthus thought that humanities natural state was to be cruel, miserable, pathetic and sniveling in a pile of dirty underpants. In his essay on the principle of population, Malthus observed… “The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation.

They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should their success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.” Diseases also have an easier time taking hold, and of course starvation can kill off a lot of people as well. Though he did make some pretty good points, as long as humanity is well-fed, we’re a pretty nice lot of people. But I have this problem too; when my blood sugar just gets a little bit low, I start killing all of my neighbors — that’s not actually true. When you and your family’s lives are threatened by starvation there’s a lot of things that you will do for food, including go to war. However, what Mister Doom and Gloom didn’t predict was the frickin’ Industrial Revolution- which not only allowed the production of much more food with far fewer laborers, it was also the impetus for this.

Uh, yeah. What that there is, is uh, the population of the Earth busting through Malthus’s ceiling and then his atmosphere and then his ozone layer and then his mesosphere and then his – probably be pretty impressed by this. If you’re not impressed yet, ah, just keep staring at it. I can wait. I got all day. It took humanity fifty thousand years to go from zero to one billion people, and then to get from one billion to seven billion, about two hundred. So wow, Industrial Revolution, thank you for allowing us to grow more food using machines, and for the fast and efficient transportation that it takes to move all that food around to the people who needed it, and thanks for the medical advances too, which help us understand things like the importance of soap and the way that diseases worked, and as a result, humans now live about four decades longer than the average guy in the eighteenth century.

Yeah! Industrial Revolution! So Malthus might have been right about how frickin’ stupid it was to be a human if the Industrial Revolution had not happened. So now, the world’s population is growing at about 1.1 percent per year, which is a tiny bit better than the 1.3 percent per year that got us here. If this current rate continues by 2050, we should have about 9.3 billion people on the planet. So the question is: at what point are these numbers going to outstrip our ability to feed all of the people on the planet? It turns out actually that the question isn’t how many people can the Earth accommodate, it’s more like: how many rich people can the Earth accommodate? Because people in general, they tend to demand stuff for their survival like uh, oxygen, water, and food. But rich people, we have different expectations. We, for example, in America have a lot of agricultural crops, and we have to use a lot of fresh water to water those agricultural crops.

Do you want to take a guess at the number one irrigated crop in the United States of America? Unless you’ve heard this statistic before, you were wrong! It’s grass! It takes more water to create lawns than it does to create all of the corn in America. We’re using it like crazy; though it is a pretty scarce resource, we can use less than one percent of the water on our planet. Most of it is salt water that we cannot use to drink or irrigate crops, and 70 percent of our freshwater is frozen in glaciers. So clean freshwater, non-negotiable and scarce. So what’s next? Ah, food. The world’s combined food output could feed around 11 billion people, and yet, there are 1 billion people who need food. So yeah that’s one of the most pathetic and infuriating things about our planet. So if there’s enough food for 11 billion people, and there’s 7 billion people and a billion of them are hungry, who is eating all of our food? Food, is eating all that food.

A huge amount of the food that we grow in America gets uh, in turn eaten by livestock. It’s so hard to say the truth, which is that, but, rich people can do what they want. Now when I say ‘rich’ it’s important to note that I’m not talking about like, uh, the 99 percent versus the 1 percent rich. I’m talking about if you have running water, electricity that comes into your home, a computer that you can watch youtube videos on, and regularly can afford to eat meat – you are a rich person on the earth, and you, you know sometimes we just have to come to terms with the fact that we – even those of us who don’t have it great in America – have it better off than a whole lot of other people. There’s a lot of people in the world who don’t get that. If you can have a hot shower, that’s like the peak of luxury to me. So assuming that you are a first worlder, that you live in a developed country in Europe, or you live in America or Japan, you consume on average as much stuff as 32 Kenyans.

And now the number of well-off people in the world is starting to increase dramatically and quickly, and this is what we’ve always wanted for the world. So now we have all these moderately well-off people walking around all over the planet, and it’s great! Except that they require more. In the meantime though, a huge percentage of all of the babies that we’re talking about being born right now aren’t being born to these rich people in the developed world. They’re being born in developing nations, and so the population isn’t just growing. It’s growing in this weird, sort of scary, lopsided way. Fact is, people in a lot of developed countries have kinda stopped having babies. Like Japan for example, everybody’s like ‘Japan what are you doing? Why aren’t you having any babies??’ and Japan’s like ‘Uhh don’t know kinda don’t feel like it.’ So on average, Japanese people are having about one baby per household. They’re not even replacing themselves, compared to two or three babies in America or like, five or six in most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

So developing nations are having a baby boom, and that’s what happens when you get, you know, vaccines and antibiotics and safe water and better sanitation. You get fewer babies dying, and we are all completely and totally in favor of fewer babies dying, I hope. But it also means that there are going to be a lot of new Sub-Saharan Africans in the next 50 years or so, and that is where a lot of the 1 billion currently hungry people are already living. So while those of us in the developed world are not having any babies at all and yet consuming enough food for like, four truckloads of babies, the governments in developing countries are struggling with where to put all of these new people and how to feed them all. And you also get what is known as a ‘youth bulge’. A lot of developing nations are currently seeing a huge explosion in people between the ages of 15 and like 29. And all of those youth are out there, looking for the same jobs, all at the same time, feeling generally hormonal as youth do, and being pretty unhappy with their lot in life. Some social scientists conjecture that youth bulges like this have been responsible for nearly every insurrection in history, from the English revolution in 1640 to the more recent Arab Spring.

And neither of those things were bad things, but we should be aware that there may be more of it coming. And another thing that Reverend Malthus never thought of is: what happens when humanity gets together and takes over the whole frickin’ world? Seriously, because it turns out that there are actually supposed to be some other things living on this planet with us. Through our desire for more space and more stuff, we’re putting pressure on pretty much every habitat on earth. So much so that worldwide, 52 species of mammal, amphibian and bird move one category closer to extinction every single year. You know, this world is pretty big, but there’s only so much room and it turns out that Bengal tigers aren’t particularly well-suited to high rise living. So the more there are of us, the fewer of literally everything else there is, except for like, things that we enjoy eating, and petting – dogs and cats as well; their populations continue to grow. So happy birthday new people, welcome to Earth. I’ll try not to screw it up too much for you. If you’re interested in more things to do with global population, please check out the description below.

There will be links in there for our source materials. You can also ask us questions and leave ideas for future episodes of SciShow in the comments and get in touch with us on Facebook and Twitter as well. Goodbye..