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?

[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?

[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.

Doug got it right a long time ago.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

Population decline

[Compaqt]

Given decreases in TFR, it's possible the world will experience a population decline this century.

The total fertility rate is below replacement level for many countries of the world. The main exception is sub-Saharan Africa.

Most of the Anglo- and Eurosphere is in decline. The US is in decline natively, and only growing due to immigration.

Re:Population decline

[Compaqt]

India's TFR is declining as well. Granted population continued to increase due to previous high TFRs, but it also seems headed toward 2 or below.

"The government said that the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) across the country had declined to 2.6 in 2008 from 2.9 in 2005." From one of the first hits on Google.

That's a huge decrease in just a few years. 0.3 points in 3 years. The same link says half the Indian states are at replacement level (2.1).

Also from the 1st Google SERP, 7 Indian states are below replacement level.

Review your math....

[Mathinker]

The second derivative of the world population has been negative for a while now. In other words, this will end with the population stabilizing at some level. Quite possibly (but, of course, not certainly) without any catastrophic natural or human-made disaster.

Probably not what you were thinking?

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.