Slashdot Mirror
The Uncertain Future of Global Population Numbers
An anonymous reader writes "The question of global population is a pretty crucial one; how many people will there be in ten years? In forty? The New York Times notes research done by a group called the Worldwatch Institute, research that concludes world population figures are too fluid to make any sort of educated guesses. Childbearing populations combined with severe resource shortages in some parts of the world make pinning down a global headcount unfeasible for ten years from now, let alone out to 2050. The article continues beyond its original borders, as well, with commenters in the field of population studies noting we don't even have a good grasp on how many people were alive in 2007."
2007: Too many.
Future: Way too many.
As populations grow out of control, lack of food and resources in some parts of the world will limit population growth, and as diseases and virus' change, our antibiotics are becoming less effective. I think the issue with population levels, and the rapid rate of growth that we are seeing, is far more worrysome than global warming. At least in my opinion. I think we are starting to approach a critical mass point, where we are going to have to start doing something, start making large changes soon. Whether it be global warming, over-population, or some other issue, each is only one of many "Holy crap what are we going to do?" problems. I would love to see the release of Duke Nukem Forever, but will we really be around to see it? :-)
-Eric-
~Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder~
Population is tied in with technological advancements which allow for the natural equilibrium to be artificially shifted. Overpopulation leads to conflict which leads to technological advancement and population reduction. The technological advancement resulting from the conflict enables future generations to strain the earth's capacity to unprecedented levels.
Population has always been tied to economic and survival factors. When you see famine in Africa, you think why do they have more kids? They think they need more kids so that one or two might survive. It's exactly the same for most animals.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
I can't even tell if I'm an optimist or a pessimist by this standard, since it seems clear that both cases are true. I don't know why it is pessimistic to believe population will grow to 9 billion, I'd think that was the "good news" scenario, where mortality declines and resources are used more effectively, the way both trends have gone for the past several hundred years.
Sure, when a society gets to a certain economic and technological stage, your birth rate declines (and in some first world countries is already below the replacement rate). So as the rest of the world catches up to our standard of living, we'll eventually reach some sort of rough global population plateau, but I seriously doubt we're going to hit that limit in a matter of decades. Africa could easily hold another one or two billion people with no new technology, just economic maturity.
Yeah, peak oil and whatever other resource issues crop up will be a pain in the butt to deal with, but eventually they will be dealt with and the population will keep growing. Even the looming global disaster of fresh water is just a single technology breakthrough away from being an interesting historical footnote.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
... let half a million immigrants in every year
... a huge 3rd-world immigration problem
... immigration has transformed a once cohesive population
... Iceland with almost zero immigrationSo, Mr. Huntington, what do you think is the world's greatest problem today?
Eliot Spitzer? Is that you?
...I really wanted to write counterpoints to everything you said, but it's a total waste of breath.
The topic at hand here is GLOBAL population, not the British immigration policy. I can't figure out if if you are a British or an American troll, you seem to fit both categories well. Let's assume you could be either...
Are the midwestern youngsters moving to NYC seeking career opportunities otherwise unavailable in their hometowns part of your evil immigration problem, or is it only the Mexicans? Or is it the Canadians moving to London vs. all the Polish people who moved there in the last few years?
You threw in a "liberal" or socialist or whatever cheap-shot crap at the end of your post, and since the discussion at hand is about uncertainty of future population estimates, I have one question for you: what is the "liberal" stand on abortion?
To be more crass, go fuck yourself because no-one else will, (thus not contributing to the solution of overpopulation cause).
Also fuck everyone who moded the parent insightful. It's hate speech at best...
Yes we are all organic, the input of energy from oil and coal over the last 100/200 yrs has been reflected in a food and population explosion (germ theory was an added bonus). However, the byproducts from that energy boost have screwed up the environment to such an extent it will show up in the fossil record as 'the sixth great extinction' (along with a global layer of plastic dust). Vast tract of ocean are no longer productive, changes in storm tracks are screwing with harvests, even Santa's castle is melting.
Econimists are now saying we must account for waste as a cost (insurance underwriters were saying it first), we need them (among others) to find a 'soft landing' for when oil declines and coal becomes expensive (due to sane emmision controls). However when I look at the politics and past civilization that have succum to rapid environmental change, I think it's more than likely that we will see a global population crash this century. Of course we will call the crash a war and blame the whole thing (including the initial shortage of resources), on the loser's nastyness.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"When you kill one, it is a tragedy. When you kill ten million, it is a statistic."
I would be very surprised if there will be more than 3 billion people living in 2050.
That's quite an exaggeration. I would be surprised if there will be less than 8 billion. After doing extensive world traveling in 2007, I think non-travelers forget exactly how absolutely huge the earth is. Of course there will be some individual nations (like China, to name just one) that start to give us a window into what happens to an overpopulated land area, but I don't believe it will become a global problem before it's too late.
And it doesn't matter what kind of government you have. China is having ground water problems. They're currently working on a huge river project to redirect one of their major rivers to go north. They're cutting through mountains to make it happen. http://www.icivilengineer.com/Big_Project_Watch/China_River_Diversion/
In a socialist government, they can say, "hmmm, this is a problem. Everyone stop what you're doing and fix it." Much like what Brazil did to restructure their use of fuel. Now they're using E10, and now they're oil independent.
In a capitalist government, can't predict when it would happen... but SOME day people will say, "WAIT A SECOND! People don't LIKE the effects of overpopulation! If we think of a way to solve that... I bet we could make some money!"
In any case, predictions that there will be a global problem anywhere near 2050 are entirely premature; and people that don't think mankind will find a way to survive (if survival is threatened) are naive.
Agreed, but that does not mean it always can. So long as all our eggs are in one basket, we are constrained with finite space, and therefore, finite resources. With unchecked population increase, consumption will inevitably overtake maximum production limits, likely resulting in precipitous—and immensely uncomfortable—population decline.
The quantitative questions are being addressed. (What is that upper limit? When will we reach it?) However, whether will we choose wise reproductive habits receives much less attention. I think we would rather not find ourselves under the hardships of overpopulation.
While the first two questions remain outstanding, it appears we may be deciding favorably on the qualitative point, and my angst may be for nothing. Global population increase is slowing; the trend of declining birth rates is not limited to industrialized nations.
snip
The world population was already in decline before these "runaway population" projection supporters tooted their horns. And since then, world population increase has been anything but exponential. China's population shrank markedly due to birth control; the Western countries (including Russia) have all shrunk substantially in population, and India is moving that way now. From what orifice do you pull this information?
The only significant country with a factual decline in population is Russia, or a little wider, parts of the Former Soviet Union.
China's population is still increasing rapidly even though the government does since decades it's best to control it, your statement to the opposite is plain stupid. What we should be trending and looking at predicting is what the next politically-foisted, crack theory will be. Just look back over the past 5 years, and you'll see an obscene amount of variance in just the "global warming/cooling/etc." argument; look back 30 years, and they're using the same models to predict something different still: the globe is cooling, new ice age - oh wait, it's warming, and we'll all look like overdone chicken by 2010... oh, what's that? 2008 is the coldest year on record in 30+ years so far? That's what applied science is all about, you continually adjust your experiments with the latest knowledge.
And the latest knowledge (that's not the same as the last few years of data!) does indicate a troubled temperature balance on earth, contrary to a couple of cold and wet years in the mid-eighties of last century.
Would you be informed about the issues around global temperature you'd know it is a gradual process of many years, even decades and centuries.
Individual years, even more so seasons are insignificant. And the same thing applies to population hokum. You can not predict something this complex: there are simply too many factors, internal and external, which have sway. It is significantly more complex than the global warming/cooling argument, because it directly depends (and bases most of its assumptions) on the global warming/cooling expectations. Then you've got cultural changes (ie, women having fewer/almost no children - which is exactly what happens when countries become "westernized", and what was directly overlooked/unknown in the "explosive population" projections), wars, famines, poor land management, extinction of bees (needed to fertilize all flowering plants), epidemics/panemics, and any number of other things. Yes these predictions are difficult, but no where as impossible as you seem to think.
There are vasts amount of data available that link population against significant factors and many scientists are working on the important questions.
Should we stop making these projections just because a potential pandemic or big meteor could entirely change the outcome? I think not! * while some of it was noble, it went about it in such a reckless, dishonest manner that the message was largely discredited through the approach. yet enough was absorbed by members of my generation that much of the stupid policies and beliefs impregnated in our minds at a young age, and have taken root now that we are adults. yay, brainwashing. In a place of power you would be a dangerous and reckless person!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The earth is a closed eco-system, unless we head for the stars. There have been many studies of population growth in closed systems. They end with a lot of suffering.
It's quite possible that human population will trend nicely towards an equilibrium, however, our very economic system is based on perpetual growth and not equilibrium. It is a matter of time until we see some limiting factor in the natural world, that will prevent that magic 5% year-on-year growth. At this point, investment will collapse, and we'll be forced to develop equilibrium based economics.
It is worrying that we are tending more and more to keep our system going by drawing down on our resources faster, instead of being conservative and clever about our use of the planet. If human population is going to gently move to towards equilibrium, then there must be careful consideration of sustainable development. If we continue our hack-n-slash approach, we may well end up with a disaster on our hands. We are already seeing signs of imminent future problems with arable land, energy resources, fresh water and climate change.
Perhaps it would be sane to penalize obviously myopic economic activities, like mining oil-sands, trawler fishing, and massive deforestation. Unfortutely, our economic system is structured such that companies can gain "growth" by hiding costs in externalities. That is precisely the problem with "next-quarter" economics, and characterizes much of the mentality of wall-street.
Our growth based economic system is a tradition that has grown out of the folkways of antiquity. It is no more or less wise than bacteria growing exponentially across an agar jell. This economic system co-exists with, and is ultimately subordinate to the matter-energy relationship that we have with the planet. This is analogous to the bacterial growth hitting the edge of the petri dish.
Perhaps you could try to argue that we'll just find cleverer and cleverer ways of doing things. Blind faith in the genius inventor is an excuse for pillaging the world right now. It's just that the scientific method that gave us the industrial revolution is the same scientific method that is saying we need to curb carbon emissions. The problem isn't with science, but with myopic greed and stubborn ignorance about our relationship with the world.
Expect human society to behave no wiser than the bacteria on the agar jell. We'll consume ever faster, and change our ways only after significant insurmountable problems arise. This situation is analogous to how a person sinks into depression, and then resolves to significant change after they realize that depression is not living.
We learnt nothing from the extinction of the dodo. There will be many more dodos in the future.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I'm always a bit baffled by people who are just *SO* disgusted by China's government-mandated birth control.
It's something that most other countries on the planet will probably have to do eventually; WTF do they want a country with a huge population and out-of-control birth rates to do? Let people breed as they want, seeking to meet immediate, individual needs, so that they can collectively cause a huge starvation die-off a couple of decades later? Or collectively enforce birth control so the die-off doesn't happen and everyone's standard of living can start going up?
Don't get me wrong, China's government sucks, but this seems to be the single issue that people always bring up when talking about how repressive they are, and I just don't see it. Given similar circumstances, I'd HOPE our government would do the same thing--we've just not had to deal with that problem yet.