Slashdot Mirror
World Population Could Reach Nearly 11 Billion By 2100
vinces99 writes "A new analysis shows that world population could reach nearly 11 billion by the end of this century, according to a United Nations report issued June 13. That's about 800 million, or about 8 percent, more than the previous projection issued in 2011. The change is largely because birth rates in Africa have not declined as quickly as had been expected, according to Adrian Raftery of the University of Washington's Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences. The U.N. estimates use statistical methods developed at the center. The current African population is about 1.1 billion and it is now expected to reach 4.2 billion, nearly a fourfold increase, by 2100, Raftery said."
How the hell is the NSA supposed to keep track of all those people?!?!
No technology can change the absolute fact that we have finite land and finite energy.
Eventually, Malthus will be right.
Predictions of Malthusian nightmares rarely seem to take birth control into account. We should keep in mind that effective hormonal birth control has only been widely available in the West since the seventies. In that short (yes, very short) amount of time it had to become both cheap enough and socially acceptable enough to make a demographic dent. We're only beginning to see the effects but even so 48% of the world's population lives in countries with sub-replacement fertility rates. Immigration props up most of the developed world demographically, but even so countries with some of the most advanced economies, like Germany and Japan, are experiencing a contraction of their populations. Indeed the latter, with its aversion to immigration, faces demographic collapse.
There's a lot of reason to be concerned about pressure of resources as the developing world grows and developing economies advance. But much of the increased pressure is caused by people taking on aspects of Western life--consumerism, purchase of electronic conveniences which become apparent necessities (cell phone, computers, etc), and the increasing use of cars. But aside from stable polities, few things make life more comfortable in the West than birth control. If there was a bit of lag time, and indeed a small amount, before widespread adoption of birth control in the West would make a demographic difference, why should we not expect developing countries to follow suit shortly?
Technology hasn't yet stopped us from consuming natural resources faster than the Earth can replace them. Nor has it raised fuel efficiency in automobiles as quickly as the price of gasoline has been rising. So that "deus ex machina" that technology will solve all our problems doesn't seem to be working.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Actually 30 year projections when it comes to population are pretty accurate as the people who will be having children in thirty years are already born and hence their number is exact, all that is missing is the reproduction rate, which moves slowly.
This is a common mistake by people who are not familiar with population projections. Thirty year time spans are "short" when it comes to population whereas they are absurdly long for almost anything else.
Water is a bit more of a concern.
At current growth rates, the weight of humans would equal the weight of the planet in 500 years.
At current energy growth rates since the 1600's, the earth will be hotter than boiling water in under 400 years.
Clearly something has to give.
So less energy per person- lower quality of life- less water per person.
Deer do just fine until they wipe out their environment and die off. No war needed.
When population density is high enough, minor disruptions in food and water delivery, or a disease can kill a lot of people really fast.
Typical bad plague single pass would kill about 140 million people now. That's just 2%.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.