Earth's Population To Hit 7 Billion This Year

MikeChino writes "The UN Population Division just announced that the world's human population will hit 7 billion by Halloween 2011. The increase of one billion people in the past 12 years is worrying, especially since the global population only reached one billion total in the early 19th century. In the next 20 years, our population growth is predicted to rise to 8 billion people as our demand for food increases by 50 percent, water by 30 percent and energy by 50 percent." Not everyone finds it to be worrying per se.

Comments

7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[Concern]

This only ends one way, and any fool can see it.

But sure, argue both sides. Have as many kids as you want. I couldn't guess their odds of living to 70, but I am willing to bet that this is that "magic" generation, and they will see suffering and mass death unprecedented in all of human history.

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[improfane]

Population control.

We cannot sustain this a constant growing population.

Call me immoral but people should stop having as many kids as they are.

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[osu-neko]

This only ends one way, and any fool can see it.

Indeed. Considering the lack of imagination and thinking skills required to only see one possibility, it's unsurprising that any fool sees it that way. Intelligent people, on the other hand, see many possibilities, because they keep thinking even after seeing the first one.

But sure, argue both sides. Have as many kids as you want. I couldn't guess their odds of living to 70, but I am willing to bet that this is that "magic" generation, and they will see suffering and mass death unprecedented in all of human history.

Welcome to the vast club of people who've made this same determination over the millennia.

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[captainpanic]

This only ends one way, and any fool can see it.

With increased energy generation, food production and water purification?

Currently, we still experience exponential growth. Even the quickest growth figures of the UN and other institutions do not predict that to continue for much longer. Either we slow it down ourselves to our own people (in peace), or we;ll do it to other people (in war)... or mother nature will to it to us.

Maybe we can double the number again... if we carry on on the exponential curve, that might be already in 50-60 years. Then we would have 14 billion people. That would mean 1000 extra cities the size of New York or LA.

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[RsG]

Actually, from an article on energy production I read a while back, the current projection is for the population to stabilize at 9 billion by midcentury.

(Source) It's mostly about energy sources, but it cites population projection figures in the third paragraph.

The reason given is rising standard of living. People living in abject poverty (and I don't mean first world slums, I mean abject poverty which is something most slashdotters have never seen firsthand) have lots of kids. Raise them out of poverty to a standard of living that includes such luxuries as medicine, clean water, adequate food and shelter and they have fewer kids. This is human nature, and it's as true for the western world as it is elsewhere. Our population growth didn't slow until our conditions improved, so why should we expect otherwise elsewhere?

Further to this, it is not necessary for the first world to elevate the developing world in order to accomplish this. They're doing that by themselves. We tend to have a very nineteenth century attitude to the rest of the planet, believing that it is only through our guidance that they can rise above savagery, but the reality is that with the exception of countries held in poverty by war, corruption or constant disaster, most of the developing world is quite capable of elevating themselves, and are doing exactly that. Note the qualifier about "war, corruption or disaster" preventing this; the Congo remains a bloody mess as do many of it's neighbours, but they aren't the only type of developing nation.

So we will eventually hit population stability. Now the catch is that the global demand for energy will more than double in the process. Given that many of our energy sources are either environmentally disastrous or finite, this is going to become a problem, as is competition for other natural resources. So we're not out of the woods, but Malthusian predictions about population growth are as wrong now as they were when they were new.

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK ... do something, pull out gun, and remove yourself from the population.

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[captainpanic]

OK ... do something, pull out gun, and remove yourself from the population.

Please note the slight difference between not making a child at all, and killing one.
We are discussing the "not making so many children", and you try to kill the discussion by implying murder or suicide is the only option.

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[captainpanic]

Hitler and Stalin were geniuses ahead of their times.

Please note the slight difference between not making a child at all, and killing one.
We are discussing the "not making so many children", and you try to kill the discussion by implying murder or suicide is the only option.

(Yes, the same response as to the other anonymous coward who suggested pulling a gun).

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[Urban Garlic]

So this is where I am compelled to insert my rant about population -- there is a very well known, almost fool-proof scheme for reducing the birth rate of any society, but it is at odds with may cultures' traditional values, and it has a generational lag-time, so it requires both courage and vision. For this reason, it is not widely adopted.

The strategy is this: Send girls to school.

If women are empowered culturally, and have expectations of building their own lives and careers, their preferences regarding children change. If they are taught to think independently, they will choose partners with similar preferences, and the birth rate will fall.

Every first-world country has already completed this trajectory, and in many cases, it was wrenching, and the social costs were high, but in the end, these societies attained a very high standard of living with a low birth rate.

The good news is, in most societies in the world, this is already underway. Increasing wealth and the perpetually-rising middle class helps a lot with this. It's likely that, in 100 years, we will be wringing our hands over how to continue to grow the economy in the face of a shrinking global population.

Re:7 billion? No wait, 8? 9?

[tverbeek]

The pre-requisite to sending girls to school in most of these societies is giving the family the financial security that they can risk losing that girl as either a worker (e.g. on the family farm) or as a future source of dowry income.

"It's likely that, in 100 years, we will be wringing our hands over how to continue to grow the economy in the face of a shrinking global population."

Why? The only reason we need to continually "grow the economy" is because the population is growing. If we had a stable population, we could have a stable economy and relax a bit.

Unsustainable growth

[improfane]

I must be old and grumpy and cynical.

Humans consistently underestimate exponential growth. If you have a bigger population, it will grow faster.

Who honestly thinks humans are immune from population cycles of the animal kingdom? of overpopulation killoff? We're due for a war soon. War is just human's way of normalizing the population for resources.

I don't want kids and it annoys me when I see massive families. What does that make me? A dead end in genetic material or "Idiocracy" in the making?

Re:Unsustainable growth

[Mindcontrolled]

Who is "we"? The winners of the Great Resource Grab of the last century? What percentage of the world population is "taking joyrides for fun"? What percentage is throwing away more food than they eat? Seen the oil prices lately? They are gonna stay there - and go up further. Production has been on a plateau for years and that is not because demand has gone down - as shown by the price trend. You are aware of the declining availability of fresh water in large areas of the world? You are aware that fisheries are collapsing all over the place?

Immoral

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me immoral but people should stop having as many kids as they are.

But don't take me wrong. The immorality is probably not where you think it is, but in the double measure you are applying. Most of the families with high number of children are located in 3rd world countries. Today, having more than 3 kids is something pretty uncommon in 1st world countries. I was raised in a country who moved from extremely poverty to great wealth in a couple of generations, and what it was common with my grandgrandparents (7 or more kids per family) now is reduced to 1 or 2 kids in average. The population increase in most European countries is due to immigration.

What I mean is that the number of kids is something that tends to autocontrol itself. Once a certain wealth level is achieved, the number of kids per family is reduced.

So, yes, your message is immoral, because what is needed is not severe population control measures, but wealth balancing measures. Erradicate the so called 3rd world, and you will find that the population will stabilize itself.

This is why trying to save people is a bad idea

[Targon]

I know I'll get down rated for this, but with the concerns of global food supplies not being enough, and the growing global population, should we REALLY be trying to save people from starvation who will never be able to provide for themselves? Starvation is the thing that keeps societies from growing faster than the increase in food production, so why encourage third world countries to continue to increase their populations when they can't feed themselves?

There is a basic concept, if you have a resource, trade it for a resource you do not have, and that includes money. If there is an entire nation that has no resources to trade and they are not capable of growing their own food, then the population will starve, the population will go down, and things balance out. Helping rebuild after a natural disaster is one thing, but if after 20+ years a country can't recover, then why should we continue to help? The world as a whole does not need money pits, and the world as a whole does not need a "food pit" that will never be able to trade resources for food.

Helping people in your own country would make far more sense, since if you can elevate THOSE people out of poverty, they may be able to become productive and to add value to society as a whole. If you want to adopt people and bring them into your own country, then fine, bring them in, and make them productive.