Slashdot Mirror
New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100
vinces99 (2792707) writes Using modern statistical tools, a new study led by the University of Washington and the United Nations finds that world population is likely to keep growing throughout the 21st century. The number of people on Earth is likely to reach 11 billion by 2100, the study concludes, about 2 billion higher than widely cited previous estimates. The paper published online Sept. 18 in the journal Science includes the most up-to-date numbers for future world population, and describes a new method for creating such estimates. "The consensus over the past 20 years or so was that world population, which is currently around 7 billion, would go up to 9 billion and level off or probably decline," said corresponding author Adrian Raftery, a UW professor of statistics and of sociology. ... The paper explains the most recent United Nations population data released in July. This is the first U.N. population report to use modern statistics, known as Bayesian statistics, that combines all available information to generate better predictions.
Most of the anticipated growth is in Africa, where population is projected to quadruple from around 1 billion today to 4 billion by the end of the century. The main reason is that birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa have not been going down as fast as had been expected. There is an 80 percent chance that the population in Africa at the end of the century will be between 3.5 billion and 5.1 billion people.
Most of the anticipated growth is in Africa, where population is projected to quadruple from around 1 billion today to 4 billion by the end of the century. The main reason is that birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa have not been going down as fast as had been expected. There is an 80 percent chance that the population in Africa at the end of the century will be between 3.5 billion and 5.1 billion people.
No, those are too far away and hostile. Clearly, space is the answer.
I favor the solution of everyone on Earth living in one mega-city the size of Texas: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2...
they're unpopulated for a reason. the logistics behind supporting any reasonable habitat for a dense population aren't so workable. namely water. mostly water. Which, according to the UN and a few other NGO's, will be sort of a big deal during this time frame.
Most of the anticipated growth is in Africa, where population is projected to quadruple from around 1 billion today to 4 billion by the end of the century.
You mean, the continent that can barely feed itself and is the source of deadly plagues (Ebola, etc.) is somehow going to support four times it's current population? I'd like to see how that is feasible...
It's not finding places for people to live, it is finding land to grow the food necessary to feed people in the style to which they have become/are becoming/will become accustomed to. Basic food prices have been spiking for the last several years, although it hasn't shown up in significant changes in the super market yet because most of the cost of processed food comes from the processing not the ingredients. (If the price of corn doubles it adds only 11 cents to the cost of a quarter pound hamburger: http://www.g-feed.com/2012/08/...) After years of stability, the rate at which virgin forest land is being converted to agricultural production has also started to increase again, likely because increases in crop productivity has slowed to a crawl in many of the most productive agricultural regions of the world: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2...
Reproducing at the rates third world countries "enjoy" is also extremely greedy.
One that's as cheap, energy dense and as easy to handle at room temperature as oil, coal, natural gas and so on.
If we *don't* do this, then I'm fairly sure that after we hit 11 billion by 2100, we'll be lucky to hit 50 million by 2200. Fewer, if we try and solve our resource problems by throwing nukes at one another, which sounds likely.
Like all species, we simply consume resources until the population crashes. What we've been so far with technology is "lucky." There's always been another *cheap* and *easy* resource to exploit. Short of a breakthrough in battery technology and thorium reactors (or fusion) that's not going to happen again.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
How do you accomplish the former without the latter?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
West, just by the fact of existing, messed up Africa.
Before white men's ships arrived, Africans were living in their tribal villages leading simple agricultural or hunter/gatherer lives. Just as people all over the world have been doing for ten thousand years. It was no paradise, but they had a balance with natural forces where the population wouldn't grow faster than the food supply.
Then comes the white man with his antibiotics and high-yielding maize (which he got from the New World Indians, but that's another story). Suddenly infant mortality went down and crop yields went up and population could grow like crazy. But Africans never developed the institutions and social structures necessary to support a densely populated society that the Europeans and East Asians did. African nations today still run pretty much like they did thousands of years ago, local warlords taking power. Except now it's millions of people instead of a few villages.
Africans would've been infinitely better off left completely to their own devices. Would they still be living in stone age primitive societies? Yes. Would it be preferable to what they have now? Yes.
Don't get overexcited about your 1%. If Earth's population was 70 million, not 7,000 million, those 70 million could pollute all they wanted and they would not put significant strain on resources of this planet. Now, 100x as much, and suddenly every fart can tip the scale.
People have bred themselves out of this planet's comfort zone and all the talk we hear is "OMG! Japanese population will shrink! OMG! China's population will also eventually shrink a bit! Don't they think about economy! There must be more consumers to consume!". And that's from politicians.
So sustainability? Bullshit. For as long as there a buck to be made, and another Farmville seed to be sold to some idiot, everyone will want more idiots to consume consume consume.
We are no where near sustainability. No where fucking close. Maybe if there was only 1% of the people left, with 99 out of a 100 dead, maybe then we can talk about sustainability. Until then, all we'll get is more Darfur type conflicts until (maybe?) the lucky few can get off this planet.
If third world countries become richer the should have less children, so 2 birds with one obese stone.
There are countries that are socialist, (e.g. Nordic countries) compared to the US and doing quite well, better based on quality of life measures.
Don't get me wrong capitalism as severed the world well, it has increase its production capability nicely, but times have changed, we have reached a point where we are now not struggling to survive, on the contrary our excesses are now killing us, we are now simply consuming for the sake of consuming, there is no reason our economic system shouldn't change to meet our current needs.
The world is not black and white, and not even shades of gray. There is no need either one or the other, you can be in between, their may also be other alternatives, we can throw in the mix as well. If we limit our thinking to Capitalism vs Communism we limit the possible solutions we can come up with.
Which is socialist. You do not understand that capitalism and socialism are not opposites.
Play Command HQ online