World Population Increase

[MSTER232]

The UN has stated that the world population now stands at 7 billion. There are a diverse amount of predictions for the future, one stating that that figure may be doubled by the year 2100.
How will we face the difficulties that may arise in the future? Discuss.

7 billion is quite a lot of people, and the population rises very quickly considering that more babies are being born somewhere around the world as we speak. But I very much doubt that any of us here would still be alive by 2100.

As for solving the issues that may come in the future, I am not quite sure yet but we will have to come up with something quick because time passes very quickly .

 

[sumbrownkid]

A world population increase just means its going to be more difficult maintaining and distributing resources. Not necessarily a catastrophe is imminent.

 

[Danoff]

As for solving the issues that may come in the future, I am not quite sure yet but we will have to come up with something quick because time passes very quickly .

Think about what was accomplished between 1900 and 2000. Now relax

Here's an interesting clip:



Nuclear power to generate fresh water (desalination), diesel fuel, obviously electricity for homes, even light, water etc. for growing crops.

We're fine people.

 

[Jubby]

A world population increase just means its going to be more difficult maintaining and distributing resources. Not necessarily a catastrophe is imminent.

I've been thinking, I don't think births are bad... it's how they're born, raised, and live. Self sufficient families that nurture, educate, and apply their knowledge would be able to produce for 10 billion people. Too much greed, stupidity, and recklessness exists for half that amount to be stable for a few hundred years.
*I just used random numbers, they do not represent any scientific research

 

[MSTER232]

I've been thinking, I don't think births are bad... it's how they're born, raised, and live. Self sufficient families that nurture, educate, and apply their knowledge would be able to produce for 10 billion people. Too much greed, stupidity, and recklessness exists for half that amount to be stable for a few hundred years.
*I just used random numbers, they do not represent any scientific research

I agree with this post that greed isn't going to get us anywhere in the near future.

 

[urataman]

I've been thinking, religion has a strong influence in the population increase. A whole lot more so than greed.

Just imagine one of those many who believe in god, Christians, Taoists, Muslims etc.
Will they wholeheartedly believe in science. look at stats and data, and then wholeheartedly cut down on energy expenses to prevent global warming? Or have less babies to slow down population growth?

Can global warming make a Taoist in China stay home instead of wasting 10 litres of petrol driving to a temple to burn incense?

NO WAY, they will carry on with their daily routine, eating as much as they want to, switching on whatever that consumes electricity whenever wherever and having as many babies as they want to.

WHY SO? Because God didn't say not to.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Religion just says it great to have children. They don't say how many a couple should have...

Do people use religion as excuse? Of course. Remember people interpret the religion, God just wrote it.

 

[Dotini]

Even if "global warming", anthropogenic or otherwise, is a sustained geophysical fact, which I doubt it is, it has little harmful effect on the global ability to feed a growing population. Actually, It might be helpful in sustaining a longer growing season.

However, if Earth were suddenly to enter something like a mini-ice age, then immediate harm would be done to food supplies, causing instant price increases, mass malnutrition, famine and civil unrest.

Of course the current population of 7 billion is unsustainable, not only in terms of locally available fresh water, food and fuel, but most particularly in the rather novel idea that its expectations of a satisfying, rewarding and useful life cannot be met.

This is because television and widespread use of cellphone technology has prompted a revolution in what people know is available to do and to consume in developing and developed countries around the world.

When people's desires become frustrated and thwarted, they become mad, resentful, angry and rebellious. And then the dogs of anarchy and war are loosed.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Encyclopedia]

Even if "global warming", anthropogenic or otherwise, is a sustained geophysical fact, which I doubt it is, it has little harmful effect on the global ability to feed a growing population. Actually, It might be helpful in sustaining a longer growing season.

However, if Earth were suddenly to enter something like a mini-ice age, then immediate harm would be done to food supplies, causing instant price increases, mass malnutrition, famine and civil unrest.

Of course the current population of 7 billion is unsustainable, not only in terms of locally available fresh water, food and fuel, but most particularly in the rather novel idea that its expectations of a satisfying, rewarding and useful life cannot be met.

This is because television and widespread use of cellphone technology has prompted a revolution in what people know is available to do and to consume in developing and developed countries around the world.

When people's desires become frustrated and thwarted, they become mad, resentful, angry and rebellious. And then the dogs of anarchy and war are loosed.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Very good post. It's inevitable that we're going to have big problems ín the future as you can't really limit their right to consume without limiting your own. At least not if you're an honest person. They have equal right to buy nice stuff for their hard earned cash as you and me.

 

[Anathema]

This is something I had to study for a debate class. The entire series can be found at overpopulationisamyth.com

Very informative and well written.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

This is something I had to study for a debate class. The entire series can be found at overpopulationisamyth.com

Very informative and well written.

As someone wrote on You-tube overpopulation has nothing to do with how many people you can put in Texas but about limited resources. Overpopulation has been shown many times in labs with bacteria.
This is a much better video explaining the problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
.

 

[Keef]

It just so happens that bacteria aren't as clever as humans when it comes to producing needed resources quickly and efficiently. We've still got a loooong way to go in terms of speed and efficiency. Many things could be done way better than how they're done now. Bacteria don't have the ability to make those changes.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

It just so happens that bacteria aren't as clever as humans when it comes to producing needed resources quickly and efficiently. We've still got a loooong way to go in terms of speed and efficiency. Many things could be done way better than how they're done now. Bacteria don't have the ability to make those changes.

It has nothing to do with being clever as it's just basic math as shown in the you-tube video I linked.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It has nothing to do with being clever as it's just basic math as shown in the you-tube video I linked.

Care to explain? I don't have 80 minutes to spend on flawed maths.

 

[Keef]

I think what he's saying is that Japan is smaller than Kansas and Oklahoma combined, less than half as useful, yet over 19 times more densely populated and it still works fine.

Err, no, I don't think that's what he's saying.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I think what he's saying is that Japan is smaller than Kansas and Oklahoma combined, less than half as useful, yet over 19 times more densely populated and it still works fine.

Err, no, I don't think that's what he's saying.

Huh? Would a huge city like New York work fine without America's farmland or without power from surrounding areas? America so far works just fine driving SUV's and trucks but that's because oil is imported from other counties.

Care to explain? I don't have 80 minutes to spend on flawed maths.

I would be interested to learn where his math is flawed. It would be great if his math was flawed.

 

[hellnback]

Wish I could find the article I read a couple of years ago re overpopulation (as current) is a myth.

Basically it said the world production of food was more than enough to feed the worlds population adequately, the problem was the consumption of this food production was anything but shared equally. It went further and said the 'food waste' of uneaten servings in the USA actually was more than some individuals in Africa got on a daily basis...

It theorised that the world population could nearly double and the current food production would, in theory, feed it.

Personally I think this is probably 'more' true than not. Plus in the time that the world will double population I believe our food production will increase even more.

Sure there is always going to be famines and isolated product shortages but when you look at it in its entirity, there is enough food... now how you go about giving the under nourished the over-indulgers over-indulgement is another question... one I don't believe will ever be solved.

Where the equilibrium of 'overpopulation' and food production meets, and when, I guess depends on the rate of population increase over and above the food production increase... and the food side currently has a head start... that is all things remaining equal... (and truth be told there is alot of land that we could use at any time to increase food production with possibly only a seasonal delay)

 

[niky]

In terms of absolute numbers, there IS more than enough food to feed everyone.

But, given the current rate of resource consumption, elasticity of production and sources of renewable energy, we don't have enough easily replenishable or renewable resources to maintain a western-style lifestyle for ten billion people.

And energy is what is needed to plant, harvest, process and transport that food. Without energy, it would be difficult to feed over ten billion. The whole population would be reduced to subsistence farming... Which wouldn't be much fun.

One problem not often touched upon is the loss of arable land. A problem faced in America during the dust bowl... a problem faced in Brazil as deforestation... and a problem faced in China due to inefficient farming methods. Topsoil isn't eternal. It needs to be created, it needs to be nurtured and it needs to be replenished. Which means a farm has to rotate land use to let soil recover, further limiting the available food supply.

 

[PeterJB]

I think what he's saying is that Japan is smaller than Kansas and Oklahoma combined, less than half as useful, yet over 19 times more densely populated and it still works fine.

Err, no, I don't think that's what he's saying.

I've always felt that Britain has no excuse really for having constant issues with money and employment, when you consider that Japan is more or less the same size, with less habitable land, and twice and many people. Yet they seem to get along alright.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Wish I could find the article I read a couple of years ago re overpopulation (as current) is a myth.

Basically it said the world production of food was more than enough to feed the worlds population adequately, the problem was the consumption of this food production was anything but shared equally. It went further and said the 'food waste' of uneaten servings in the USA actually was more than some individuals in Africa got on a daily basis...

It theorised that the world population could nearly double and the current food production would, in theory, feed it.

Even if that's true if population continue to grow at present rate it will double in less than 70 years. During those 70 years (in one person lifetime) we have to produce more food than all the food produced throughout man's history. If you could divide out today's the food more evenly the population growth rate would likely to increase make the population double even faster.
.

 

[BobK]

Nothing new here.

 

[niky]

Even if that's true if population continue to grow at present rate it will double in less than 70 years. During those 70 years (in one person lifetime) we have to produce more food than all the food produced throughout man's history. If you could divide out today's the food more evenly the population growth rate would likely to increase make the population double even faster.
.

The more worrisome part is whether we'll have enough energy to harvest and transport all that food.

As I pointed out here:
Peak Oil. Now.

We are demonstrably at an oil peak, as supply has been relatively inelastic in response to huge demand and catastrophic price swings. Peak coal is only a few decades off. Alternatives are not panning out as well as we'd hoped.

This ties in with food production. Manual food production is barely above break-even in terms of return-on-energy-investment. Which is why third world farmers starve while well-equipped American farmers can be paid not to farm...

I find it funny that the myth site cites Brazil somewhere... As that is one country that's burning through a ton of bio-capital every year in terms of deforestation, merely to support agriculture. Granted, not all of that is for food, but it is still a big waste if that farmland is not converted back into jungle after a certain amount of time... Nothing to do with global warming... it's just proper preservation of topsoil.

 

[Dotini]

Just curious, but does human life have a point, purpose or reason to it?

If we knew that, it would possibly make the question of population easier to answer.

Perhaps the main purpose is to reproduce? Perhaps it is to maximize individual pleasure? In either of those cases, then wouldn't the maximum possible population serve the purpose?

Let us say that 4 out of 7 billion people are leading happy, pleasurable lives. If we increased the population to 9 billion, but stayed at only 4 billion happy, would the purpose be served?

If we increased the population to 14 billion, reached a figure of 8 billion happy, then declined in population and happiness thereafter, could we then say that humanity had fulfilled its purpose?

Does the term "sustainability" have any place in a discussion of population?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[05XR8]

So, when aliens make a pitstop on earth, will the sign read "Population: India"?

 

[Dotini]

In the past ten years research has continued on population growth. It looks to have slowed.

When and why did the world population grow? And how does rapid population growth come to an end? These are the big questions that are central to this research article.

The world population increased from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.9 billion today.

The world population growth rate declined from 2.2% per year 50 years ago to 1.0% per year.

Other relevant research:

Future population growth – This article focuses on the future of population growth. We explain how we know that population growth is coming to an end, and present projections of the drivers of population growth.

Life expectancy – Improving health leads to falling mortality and is, therefore, the factor that increases the size of the population. Life expectancy, which measures the age of death, has doubled in every region in the world as we show here.

Child & infant mortality – Mortality at a young age has a particularly big impact on demographic change.

Fertility rates – Rapid population growth has been a temporary phenomenon in many countries. It comes to an end when the average number of births per woman – the fertility rate – declines. In the article we show the data and explain why fertility rates declined.

Age Structure – What is the age profile of populations around the world? How did it change and what will the age structure of populations look like in the future?

World Population Growth

When and why did the world population grow? And how does rapid population growth come to an end?

ourworldindata.org

IMHO, it may slow some more as our increasingly globalized and interdependent world comes under a global regime of economic sanctions/warfare that deprives whole populations of their source of food and energy.

 

[TexRex]

So, when aliens make a pitstop on earth, will the sign read "Population: India"?

 

[05XR8]

I don’t keep up on the population growth and heard over the radio, India succeeded China’s record of population. I found that amazing.

If the population of the USA was to outgrow China and the sign read ”Population USA” or any other country or continent, why wouldn’t I still do that?

 

[Danoff]

If things stay the way they are the hole over Antarctica will be closed up by 2066, though hopefully we'll keep moving forwards on further reducing pollution and maybe speeding that up a little more.

The ozone hole is closing under higher global populations and you want that to change? Why do you want fewer people?

 

[Keef]

I don’t keep up on the population growth and heard over the radio, India succeeded China’s record of population. I found that amazing.

If the population of the USA was to outgrow China and the sign read ”Population USA” or any other country or continent, why wouldn’t I still do that?

You were about six months early. This year in 2023 is when estimates suggest India's population finally surpassed China's, partly because China's pop is dropping rapidly and will continue to do so for decades. Unfortunately for India, the pop growth is not being matched by infrastructure and societal growth, and the cultural growth they really need to stabilize various aspects of society. It's coming along but slowly. There are various movements throughout India to try and modernize or "civilize" society and create the organization and personal responsbility required to really breed success.

 

[EngieDiesel]

The ozone hole is closing under higher global populations and you want that to change? Why do you want fewer people?

I'm not exactly sure how you misread that, but said I was hoping the repairing of the ozone layer would be sped up, not that I wanted it reversed. I'm also not sure why you quoted this into an entirely different thread than where i posted it, and several weeks after I said it, but whatevs I guess.