Slashdot Mirror
World Population Grows Beyond 7 Billion
First time accepted submitter assertation writes in with a LA Times feature about the booming world population and the strain it puts on the environment and governments. "After remaining stable for most of human history, the world's population has exploded over the last two centuries. The boom is not over: The biggest generation in history is just entering its childbearing years. The coming wave will reshape the planet, and the impact will be greatest in the poorest, most unstable countries."
Taco's wife needs to stop having kids.
"Earth is too small a basket for mankind to keep all its eggs in." Robert A. Heinlein
It all starts at 0
It also means that you've only got a 0.0000000143% chance of getting that coveted first post.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And fertility rates are dropping everywhere, and more people than ever are choosing to simply not have children. Of course by mentioning that, this article wouldn't be nearly as alarmist, so it was conveniently omitted.
Liberty in your lifetime
The only problem with exploding population is that it's not profitable to move all the food around so some people throw 50% away and some people starve.
Oh and as for governments, they don't scale. We need to start chopping everything up into smaller bits.
....that if i had a button which if pressed, would kill every man, woman and child; I would push it without hesitation.
By bringing middle classes to developing nations. People who don't have to have litters to ensure that one child survives have one or two children, below the replacement rate. People who have careers and money to spend and cultural activities to take part in don't spend so much time screwing. And when they do, they realize that having extra children will prevent them from enjoying those luxuries.
In short, the fight against overpopulation is the same as the fight against global inequality.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The top 1% is based on income, not population.
I may have found a contributing factor to you not being in the 1% ...
and still none for the average /.er. ;-(
How many of those people starve to death everyday? People who cannot provide for their kids need to make a conscious effort to stop having them.
It usually works the other way - when child mortality rate is high, you hedge your bets by getting more children so at least some grow up.
If the present day is the right hand side, things always look more stable in the past. It's always been a J-curve, though.
Let's just move Mars closer to the sun so it would be a more hospitable place.
UN's "medium" estimate is that population will reach about 10 billion and then plateau. Of course, projecting population 90 years in the future is an inexact science at best. On thought on resource consumption: an individual human being's resource consumption is, to a large degree, a factor of his or her standard of living. Consider the per capita resource consumption of developed, western countries vs. sub-Saharan Africa. One could reasonably argue that it will prove impossible to maintain the current global mean standard of living as population increases, ergo environmental stress may not end up increasing linearly with population.
Obligatory TED links, that might actually be a bit more insightful than TFA.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html
While I am skeptical that we'll have enough resources either way, I think that humans are going to have to adapt hard or the entire race will just fade away. This won't necessarily be a problem for a few generations, but there is very little left in this world that is untouched, or that we can leave untouched. Solutions to the energy crisis aside, food and water are still major concerns, and we can't infinitely increase the amount of farming, because we'll also need to increase our living spaces; however, this is unless we go full Tokyo and build above and below ourselves and learn to live in cramped situations. Even still, it will be an incredibly difficult feat to convince most Westerners that they aren't allowed cars anymore and that they need to walk or use trains to go to work. I don't mind myself, since I'm a student who uses trains and busing all the time, but few people want to give up the luxury of driving to work in favour of using a subway system (similar to how most east asian countries operate).
In the meantime, I'm going to be developing my zombie formula so that I can do my part to end overpopulation. Call me if you can help, I'm trying to put a patent together so I can sue others who want to destroy the Earth while the zombies and lawyers (?difference) take over.
Oceans and deserts are even closer, and probably the investment needed to sustain a lot of people is smaller.
"We need regulations that strictly govern who is allowed to reproduce and how many babies can be born. That is unpleasant and almost unthinkable but it must be done." *** And may I suggest we begin the sterilization with YOU!
the us native-born reproductive rate is 2.
2.1 is required for the population to stay the same.
The US only has a growing population because of the higher birth rate among immigrants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#United_States
"There is very little left in this world that is untouched, or that we can leave untouched"
I'm not sure how true this is. In terms of natural resources (mines, forestry, oil) things will get tougher. However, there are lots of places with places for people.
However, most people tend to
a) Prefer to live in the big, already-crowded cities
b) Not want to start new towns
Technology allows us to cultivate land that was previously quite un-usable. The big problem is that we're dirty pests that tend to f*** up said land. If we could clean up our act ecologically, perhaps we could integrate better into the large amount of landmass that's still available.
Actually, if this graph is to be trusted, it's very far from an exponential growth. You can see two breaks: one at about -5000, where the population started growing; and one at about 1700, where the growth rate increased dramatically. Also a hint for another, more recent break (~1950?), where the growth rate increased again. (Note for the mathematically impaired: an exponential growth means a straight line in a log graphic. You can divide this graphic in 3-4 different straight lines, so you have 3-4 different growth rates at different points in time)
With the advent of medicine, however, mortality rates plummeted but birth rates did not.
I'm not sure that's the case - at least not here in the US. If you go back to my parents generation all the families had 5-7 children without fail. Some had more than that (my grandfather on my mother's side came from a family of 14).
Fastforward to modern times. None of my aunts or uncles had more than 3 kids per family. Between my own generation I'm seeing more like 1 or 2 kids per family. Part of it may be the increased cost of raising children - part of it may be the increased number of women in the workplace (where each child is not only time off from work for recovery but without a parent at home each is another daycare bill). I'm sure a large part of it is simply the invention of birth control.
Regardless, birth rates per family (if not for the planet as a whole) seem to have come down significantly in the last 50 years.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I think the US is one of the exceptions, where the more affluent population continues to have more than multiple children.
Can you share a source that cites just how many more than multiple? :)
"This natural inequality of the two powers, of population, and of production of the earth, and that great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that appears to me insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society."
Thomas Malthus, 18th century.
People have been saying that the "end is near" since human beings developed speech. None have been right. Ockam's razor and the law of induction tells me they won't be in the future.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Unless I'm missing some hidden factor that forces groups of people's net worths to be exactly equal, then I'd say that "assuming everyone is worth a different amount" is a very valid assumption. Even if you magically redistributed everything to be exactly equal, that would end as soon as one person wanted extra pepperoni on their pizza.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
I think the US is one of the exceptions, where the more affluent population continues to have more than multiple children.
The intelligent hardworking people I know have two, one, or no children. The dumbest and poorest just keep pushing them out. It's exactly like the movie Idiocracy.
It doesn't help that we have a social system that rewards low income high birth rate. My wife and I will have to make a tough decision when it comes to offspring #2. Can we afford it or not? If we can't, I'll get snipped and we'll just go on working to pay for other people's children through welfare, food stamps, WIC, EIC, Section 8, school lunch vouchers, head start, etc, etc, etc. Our standard of living would improve if we both just quit working and had more children.
:wq
You can't be serious.
Okay, I'll bite. What is this glorious math that you understand that we've all apparently missed? Because near as I can tell, the top 1% of any group is going to be equal in number to 1% of the sample size. Since the sample size here is 7B, we can say that the top 1% will be made up of 70M. How the wealth is distributed among the members of that top 1% is wholly irrelevant in determining how many are in the top 1%.
If you kill yourself then the effect is the same, from your point of view.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
More than 490.000.000.000 tonnes of meat, 600.000.000 colour blind people, 700.000.000 people with Herpes, 70.000.000 people with syphilis, 140.000.000 severely mentally retarded people and an equal amount of highly intelligent people. And the list goes on if you talk about percentages! Oh, and while I am at it, one would need 280 grams of Botulinum type A toxin to kill half of them.
I'm not saying one should, but one could. I don't want to ruin anyone's day you know...
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Biology got us into this situation.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Your question is too vague. Do you mean what percentage of people fall within the top 1% of personal wealth? That doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with population.
"top 1%" requires definition of what the 1% applies to specifically, and how it's measured.
For example, suppose you add up all the total wealth, then take 1% of that and figure out how many people are in that category? You will come out with a different number than if you take the wealthiest person and the poorest person, and take 1% of that range and figure out how many people fall in that 1%.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I *think* he's trying to point out two different measurements.
First, you have the subset of people who own the top echelon of the world's wealth (though this measurement is far easier to parse as owners of 99% of all wealth instead of the top 1% of wealth owners; I digress). Second, you have the 1% of the population that have the highest net worth. These two numbers are not necessarily the same; I'd think the first group is far larger than the second, but I'm not really sure.
Exactly *why* he believes the phrase "the 1%" refers to that first group of people, I can't tell you. I always understood it to meant that 1% of the population controlled more wealth than the other 99% (as an extreme symbol, anyway; I don't believe this is strictly true based on the numbers I've seen). I believe most people understand the phrase to mean this subset of the population.
Firstly, TFA is dead wrong in stating that human population has been relatively stable throughout most human history. This is blatantly false, for anyone who has bothered to look at the historical record. In pre-history, human populations have varied wildly, from up to several dozen million to possibly as low as several tens of thousands. Likewise, once "civilization" has started, human populations have obeyed a rather steadily increasing geometric curve. We notice now because we're finally at the heel portion of the hockeystick curve where the numbers start increasing quickly.
Secondly, the decline in number of children per woman is primarily tied to increasing Woman's Rights in a society. The closer women are treated like property (both culturally and legally), the higher the number of children borne, and the inverse when women and men are treated equally. Women's Rights is also closely correlated (and, likely a causative factor) in development of a significant middle class. Religion only has an impact in so far as it affects Women's Rights (which, it certainly can have a very negative impact).
Also, there are two major factors that aren't really addressed in TFA: lack of energy, and water. Advanced civilizations require ludicrously larger amounts of power than low-tech societies, and, even with conservation, this isn't going to change. We need power to run our 1st world countries, and the more everyone else tries to emulate us, power requirements will be exponential (probably high exponential) in growth. Until we have real clean energy, this energy demand and the side effects of providing energy is going to be the number one environmental pressure. On the other hand, (decreasing) access to clean water for both drinking and agriculture is something that is radically reshaping societies, as we can't really de-salinize enough to make a difference at this point, and we're well on our way to draining many historical water sources out of existence. Water will be the new oil which people fight over, likely very, very soon. It's already a major friction point in the Middle East and Indian subcontinental areas.
To quote the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
New Orleans should never have happened IMHO. Much of it is below sea level. Effectively, it's a giant bowl. The pumps are constantly moving water out 24/7. That's a lot of energy being used on a daily bases just to keep it from flooding.
Life is not for the lazy.
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Actually, if we're going to go there, I am... and comfortably so. Although the reality is the 99% of the 1% have a lot more in common with the bottom 1% of the 99% than the 1% of the 1%.
And, of course, my original post was mocking your brain fart, not really attempting to make any socio-political statement about any correlation of internet gaffes to wealth or the intelligence or lack thereof of any particular income bracket.
Now, I suppose the fact that everyone else seems to understand that and you missed it might suggest an additional set of evidence related to my original assertion, so perhaps the joke was a little too close to home.
Oh I see that "ichthus" has posted it already:
"Hans Rosling: Religions and babies" --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78
This entire stupid fucking argument is why Slashdot is becoming less and less the place for me to get my tech news and discussion. Fuck all of you guys.
Feel better now? Got that off your chest, did'ja? You aren't the 1st to voice that opinion here. You will be missed. Though no super-techie, I've found a lot of intelligent, stimulating back & forth opinions and arguements here covering a wide range of subjects that affect us all. And I learn an awful lot here. One thing I've learned is that Slashdot has seemed to evolve and change over the years. Change pisses some people off, can't help that. I can't see being an editor here and pleasing all the people all the time.
More than 490.000.000.000 tonnes of meat
So, if I understand correctly, the average human weighs 70 tonnes? And my Doctor says I am obese.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The Netherlands?
Not the same situation. While you can also question the wisdom of "reclaiming land from the sea" as the Dutch have done, they did it in modern times using dikes. Further, the Dutch have a stable landmass with bedrock underneath. New Orleans literally goes away over time without fresh annual flooding, as it's nothing but delta silt built up over time with no bedrock underneath. People can't live with flooding, but without flooding, the landmass eventually goes away. New Orleans may be the single worst place to build a city in North America. And nothing we do can change that.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The birth rate decline in western nations correlates best with raising educations. If this is the true cause, improving educations in third world nations is the solution. A more educated populace will decide on their own that having so many children is a bad idea.
If you examine the logistics it's basically impossible with any feasible technology to launch people into orbit faster than they are currently being born. Now if we get Star Trek transporters that may change.
I was a lurker on SD for ~5 years, finally decided to make an account, got excellent karma, etc - and realized I can't post in any discussion I do modding in. I find it impossible to spend mod points, because any topic I get engaged enough in to reasonably moderate posts I want to contribute to. I much prefer the reddit system to the SD system in that regard, especially since the quality of posts has fallen since so few people are actively spending their mod points it seems.
Not science, technology. Learn the difference.
Since you want to split hair -
Where are you going to get any advancement in technology without advancement and more understanding in Science?
Technology advanced by trial and error for millennia before science AWKI existed. Maybe you could say that trial and error is a form of science, but I wouldn't. Trial and error doesn't require understanding *why* the new idea works better.
Even today technology isn't entirely science-driven. We have rigorous mathematical approaches to engineering, but we still get sent beck to the drawing board whenever a bridge collapses or an airplane falls out of the sky.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade