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.
... and all still on the same rock.
We need to get out more.
I'm sure the population numbers are "fluid" but I think sure we can safely say it's monotonically increasing (albeit not in a strictly mathematical sense).
No, the GP is right on this one. I'm far more concerned with overpopulation, because it's a driving force for the causes of global warming. As grossly overpopulated areas industrialize - and grow - so to will CO2, CFC, et al, emissions. And that's aside from the other obvious impacts on the environment overpopulation has, including the need for vast amounts of natural resources, which has and will lead to the destruction of the largest forests on this planet.
Growing populations are clearly more of a detriment to the environment than global warming, which is still arguably "part of nature". By your own admission, there are many variables in climate change, and given our inability to determine even the most basic weather phenomenon or reach consensus on global warming, the *certain* effects the overpopulation are far greater AND more likely.
... 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?
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.
You state that as fact, but as far as I know the concept of "carrying capacity" is not defined or even studied. Whilst it makes intuitive sense that there must be some limit, it also makes sense that this limit would itself be fluid - changing with the march of technology and changes in living standards. I've never seen anybody calculate a carrying capacity for 21st century Earth, especially not scientifically. People who use the term invariably assume it must be lower than our current population - how much lower is usually pulled out of thin air.
Your list of societies is disingenous - you list a primitive, fully collapsed society like Easter Island right alongside Great Britain, which last time I lived there imported half its food because you can't grow strawberries there year round, not because it was about to collapse. Britain could feed itself tomorrow simply by converting some of its farming capacity from meat production to cereal production.
Also, the green revolution was triggered mostly by the development of nitrogen fertilisers, weed killers and crop varieties that could handle being treated with them. Although we use hydrogen from natural gas to make nitrogen fertilisers today, you can produce it using electrolysis without problem. And whilst it's true that today farm machinery is mostly gasoline powered, that's something independent of the green revolution. If you haven't already read it, I suggest checking out Stanifords Food to 2050 for a data-based analysis of whether the green revolution can be sustained.
Only a small proportion of Icelands power comes from geothermal. Most of it is hydro. Iceland has much bigger problems than electricity anyway - there's basically nothing there, and whilst it has energy in abundance the economy is mostly based on industrial fishing. Once the fish stocks are exhausted, there'll be little left to sustain it.
Ah ha, I knew it. As soon as I read the term "carrying capacity" I was waiting for the ass-pulled number. Why 3 billion? Why not 2, or 4? Or 100 million? I don't see any particular constraints on slow population growth - it's been boringly linear for most of the 20th century in most developed countries, and in large parts of Europe is going to head sharply downwards soon due to natural demographic trends anyway. Whilst places like Africa or Chian might get miserable, Africa is already miserable and there's no obvious reason why in the long term China would see different population trends from other developed countries.