Slashdot Mirror


World Population Expected To Hit 7 Billion In Late October

kkleiner writes "A new report documents the prodigious rate at which the world's population is growing. It was just 1999 when we reached 6 billion. And now within the next month or two we will have surpassed 7 billion. What does the continued increase in world population mean for humanity and for the the planet?"

11 of 522 comments (clear)

  1. Duh by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What does the continued increase in world population mean for humanity and for the the planet?"

    War

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Duh by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      War

      Unlikely. Nearly all population growth is occurring in developing countries. They would handily lose any war with the industrialized countries where most of the food is grown and consumption takes place. Most industrialized countries are at or near zero growth, with some experiencing negative growth (they are shrinking in population).

      For whatever reasons, industrialization leads to lower population growth. What's needed to arrest global population growth is to provide education, engineering expertise, contraception, and economic assistance to developing nations so they can modernize their economies ASAP. Providing food, water, and medicinal aid actually exacerbates the problem. They increase survival rates in developing countries without doing anything to stem their high population growth rates, making it that much harder to modernize those countries and increasing their future reliance on foreign aid.

      In other words, as contradictory as it may seem, modernization towards self-sufficiency and economic globalization combat global population growth. Anti-globalization and reliance solely on humanitarianism allow it to continue or even exacerbate it.

  2. In related news by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    Around 40% of the corn produced in the US goes to ethanol.

    It's obviously not a question of whether we can support 7 billion people, since we basically are, but whether we can support the increasing growth rate. If you look at this graph, you can see the population is projected to level off around 10billion or so. And if you look even closer, you can see it's really a question for India (and to a lesser degree, Africa): can India handle its massive population growth? If so, then the world can handle it, too. If not, then they are going to suffer a lot.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:In related news by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's obviously not a question of whether we can support 7 billion people, since we basically are, but whether we can support the increasing growth rate.

      Increasing growth rate?

      Growth rate over this last billion was 1.3% per year.

      Growth rate over the immediately previous billion was 1.5% per year.

      When we went from three billion to four billion, population growth rate was 2.1% per year.

      Looks like a steadily declining growth rate to me....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  3. Re:Ehrlich was right, just a little early. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And, for some miraculous reason, coincidental with the stabilization of world population, oil will replenish, as will the aquifers, the fisheries will certainly recover and the eroded topsoil will miraculously be blown back on the land, the salt water invading the coastal fertile lands will draw back, energy will be plenty all of a sudden once more, and, of course, idiots will stop spewing bullshit on slashdot, yes?

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  4. Re:Alarmism by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ehrlich didn't forsee the massive productivity increase in the agricultural sector in the seventies - however, this increase had an unintended consequence. We now use 9 kJ of oil to produce 1 kJ of food. And guess what - well, don't just guess, just have a look at the oil prices and the production rates of the major fields. We are not starting to drill off-shore in the deep arctic ocean because easily available oil is aplenty.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  5. Re:The Texas Myth by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an illustrative statement about earth maximum human occupancy, I think it puts things in perspective a bit.

    Actually, I make the point that it doesn't. "Occupancy" doesn't begin to cover it. To quote:

    So even at a wildly optimistic guess, 98.3% of the space you take up is just in support. Where you live is your least important use of space...

    The key implication I'd hope you take away from this is that humans use a lot more land than just the square feet they are standing on. Think about how much space your house or apartment takes up, and your car and/or bike, and the place where you work, and the parks where you play, and the restaurants you go to, and the movies theaters you visit, and so on and so on. People take up a heck of a lot of room.

    Then think about how much water you use, and food you eat, and various objects you use and buy and wear out. Think about the fact that space and resources are needed to supply those.

    No, I don't want people to feel guilty about living. But if we're going to sensibly discuss overpopulation, we need to understand how much land people really use, and reason from that.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  6. Re:7 Billion Zombies by slack_justyb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I usually don't feed trolls but I would dare say, that the majority of the Earth's population would not agree with you. Let's take a look at the two countries that make up over a third of the world. China and India... Well there's not much to look at. The people there are doing okay but far from all the nice USA vices that you have listed, except maybe the coal fired power plants.

    Your message seems to be targeted to 1st world nations and I hate to break it to you, but the first world nations aren't the biggest, except maybe the US (who is 3rd in population) and Russia (who is 10th in population). The biggest nations in the world have an organic diet, basically whatever food they find. Swim only in non-chlorinated pools, or discharge channels whichever comes first. Exercise...Well that's not exactly top on their list when they are starving. Have never even heard the word chiropractor. Do not even have an option to "Big Pharma". (sarcasm) In fact look at how wonderful the people in India are doing.(/sarcasm)

    When it comes down to it, if I had to choose between "clean" water and actual clean water. I'd choose the latter over crapping myself to death. I don't know where this idea of, "we're making the Earth worst," came from but the underlying point is that the Earth came built with all kinds of stuff to make our lives horrible, very, very horrible. It is through burning fossils, radiating ourselves, hacking birds with forty foot grinders, and pumping our food supply full of wonderful artificial crap; that you actually have survived long enough to type your rant on the things that have kept you alive. (AKA, it's real hard to take that jog though the fresh country air when some animal is tracking you for food, or to swim in a non-chlorinated pool when you have Polio from swimming in non-chlorinated pools)

    Everything in this world has a trade-off, nothing is perfect and that includes the ecosystem with or without us. Intelligence breeds destruction as you may see it. I, however, believe that we have within our grasp the ability to ensure our own survival either on or off of this lump of rock we call Earth. There will be things that we must give up and there will be things we must accept going forward. There will always be people who cannot stand change, who fight advancement; either because they fear it or poorly understand it. You, dear troll, have no idea, nor do you care to understand. It's just easier that way isn't it? By all means, move out to the *real* country of the African savannah or the the south-central regions of Utah. Let me know how you like it.

  7. Re:So let's make fossil fuels MORE expensive! by vbraga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Our consumption of their resources is *why* they consume less. You are the cause of their resource scarcity.

    No.

    This is one of the most retrograde ways of thinking available to the third world. A good deal of the Left in Latin America adopt this thesis (read Eduardo Galeano, an Uruguayan author, for an example). But the third world is sucks because it's own failings. I'm a citizen of Brazil so I'll take the examples from here since I know it's history better.

    Back when Brazil was a Portuguese colony it showed an amazing period of growth when gold as discovered in the current Minas Gerais state (indeed, Minas Gerais means General Mines). Since the gold industry created a small middle class, a small number of industries (textiles) and trade (food, from southern Brazil and leather from northeastern Brazil) was developed internally. This could be the seed for Brazil starting it's own industry early on it's history. By 1785 the Portuguese taxed us to hell (the "derrama", a full fifth of all gold profits besides normal taxes) and then prohibited the industry at all to be developed in the colony. Besides a few angry manifestos, the Brazilians did nothing. It should be noted that Brazilians had no representation in the Portuguese Cortes.

    Ten years before the Americans fought their independence war. It was the time for Brazil to do the same. We didn't. We never did, actually. Brazil stopped being a colony after Portugal was invaded by Napoleon and the royal family fled to Rio de Janeiro. Brazil was then elevated to the status of United Kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and Algarves. By 1822 a royal prince "gave" the Brazilian independence and took the crown to himself. As part of "reparations" Brazil gave (a lot of) money to Portugal and promised not to conquest the other Portuguese colonies. Instead of kicking their asses back to Europe, like the Americans did to the English.

    My country own history is similar to much of the history of Hispanic America and Africa. The third world is shitty because of it's own failing and nothing else. Of course, the first world did nothing to help but it's not it's responsibility. It's a dog eat dog world and countries should look for themselves.

    --
    English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
  8. Re:7 Billion Zombies by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Informative

    7 BILLION PEOPLE. That's an insane amount of people putting an extreme burden on our delicate ecosystem. Earth is already at the brink of death, it's been estimated that when we hit 10 billion, there's no turning back.

    While Dr. Bob is clearly a troll, it's amazing to me the number of non-trolls that accept this part as absolutely true without need for proof. High population isn't killing the environment, inefficient consumption of resources is killing the environment. Per capita, US citizens use far more energy, and put out far more CO2 than the average for the world. We have 4.5% of the world's population, but contribute 18.5% of the CO2 emissions.

    The only way more people = environmental destruction is if we refuse to tighten our belts and the rest of the world decides they want to live as wastefully as we do. We need to stop feeling entitled to use and abuse resources however we feel like at the moment simply because previous generations could get away with it.

  9. Re:Population Growth Areas.. by mikkelinen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You realize leveling 1st world countries would just reboot things back into the same right? It's not a solution, just delaying everything.