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.
Ebola or some other virus doesn't wipe out a third of the world population.
The number of people on Earth is likely to reach 11 billion by 2100
Nope; before then we'll have a good solid pandemic, or war, or famine, or hey - maybe all three! That will make a significant dent in the existing population.
At least, one could hope :)
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
...all the comments about "Bayesianism is better than Frequentism" or "Why didn't the authors use this Frequentist analysis?" start popping up. Not that I'm advocating for one over the other, just arguing that they're both tools that are often used for the same nail without realizing that you need to hold them slightly differently for them to actually work the way they're supposed to.
I hope a carpentry analogy is acceptable in lieu of a car analogy.
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
Vast areas of Earth remain unpopulated. In no particular order:
Sure, some of the above would require some work to make comfortable, but it can be done even with today's technology — by 2100 even an individual (or a family) would convert surroundings to their tastes. And it would certainly be easier, than moving an appreciable quantity of people off-Earth...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
peak oil, food shortage.
Look, I know the west (EU/NA/etc.) is largely responsible for the mess that is now Africa, but if we keep giving them everything they need to procreate, they're going to keep procreating; and apparently, like rabbits.
Maybe it's time we cut them off and let them fend for themselves. Yes, some will die, but at least they'll reach a sustainable population level based on their largely crappy agricultural abilities. Subsidizing these poor countries isn't a requirement, they need to learn on their own.
The article mentions it vaguely but I predict this growth will be limited more by major outbreak of some disease or diseases.
Possibly some form of influenza or other nasty bug like airborne ebola should wipe medium portion of the population at some point in the future.
Alternatively, or should I say additionally rising pollution levels at highly populated areas will cause health problems at increasing rate.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Maybe its time to stop shipping food aid to Africa. That and the lack of sanitation (Ebola anyone?) should keep the population down there. 11-3=8 billion.
Oh boy, that'll make for a lot of zombies.
You just know that we will either wipe ourselves out with nukes or there will be an epidemic that will kill off a good bit of the population.
Now the Republicans are going to use this as a justification for their continued plans to murder minorities and the poor. Of course that is the way of their kind. They killed 250 million in the last century, and now some of them claim that they are aiming for ten times that number this century! Given that the Bush Crime Family only murdered 60 million in the Middle East, they are way behind on the pace to achieve that goal.
The portion of the population which breeds under given circumstances will come to dominate the population.
It might be expressed as a particular religion, simple horniness combined with resistance to using birth control, or myriad other ways.
But that part of the population will be a larger percentage over time and finally come to dominate the population.
There is an exception-- a universe 133 scenario. The population in those experiments collapsed and did not recover.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Who's the Malthusian now, bitches?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Just turn off the movie or put the book down and get back to reality.
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...
Go to Bangladesh, they are like 20 Billion already scaled to size...
I come to Slashdot only to read sigs. One you are reading is mine.
The Stardate is 5423.4. The Federation starship Enterprise arrives at the planet Gideon to begin diplomatic relations and invite the inhabitants to join the Federation. Gideon is reported to be a virtual paradise where the people live incredibly long lives in a nearly germ-free environment, but they refuse to allow anyone but Captain James Kirk from the Enterprise, to beam down. Upon beaming down, however, Kirk learns that the population has exploded to the point where the planet can barely contain the populace. Gideon's leaders plan is to infect the people with a human virus in an attempt to "control" the overpopulation problem caused by the people's long lifespans in a germ-free environment. So, as I see it, the problem is easily solved. Find a alien with a virus for which we have no cure.
The problem isn't land for people to live. It is a problem of living cultural and also food.
On to the next manufactured, unfalsifiable, post normal scientific scare monster.
Or else we'll wish we were.
No wonder world leaders make such short sighted decisions.
Plus the fact that nobody has perfected the crystal ball technology yet.
There's no way we can estimate the margin of error on this study until another study debunks this one, just as this one has debunked a previous one.
I cannot imagine what a horrific mess the world would be with that many people. War and disease I think will make that unlikely.
It's a shame the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement just didn't catch on. www.vhemt.org
According to my calculations, (do your own) world poulation is increasing between 130k and 180k humans per day. That means the great 2012 tsunami in Indonesia that killed an estimated 230 thousand only flattened the growth curve for two days.
Now imagine what it will take to flatten or reduce population growth over several years.
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.
Famine, plague, war, or birth control. Choose. I guess you have. -Malthus.
Too late. Game over.
The West will begin mining the harbors and cratering the airports so nothing can leave. They will landmine the jungle. Anything that leaves is sunk or shot. Snipers sans Frontieres. Quarantine with extreme
prejudice.
Civilization is a choice. Make it. Soon.
Or don't, and the population goes back to the under-billion level before the West started feeding everyone...
Decreasing excess human population. That's what is good for.
And we have quite a few potential human population decreases being set up right now - ISIS and Russia are just waiting to decrease some extra human population.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Assuming there is not a big plague or natural disaster, then I think their number is very conservative. I think it will be much higher.
5 billion chinks, 5 billion paky's, 1 billion niggers.
Somebody got to clean the toilet's.
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...
Bono.
To save the World, we need to ban U2 music.
I'm probably being a bit ignorant, but how much would this affect CO2 emissions? I know we're trying to reduce it where possible, however, where the population increases (by this much) I imagine that there's a lot more CO2 being produced simply by new people living. Or does it get offset by increased agriculture (or something like this)?
I'll be long gone and I've made sure that I created no annoying descendants too. I've done my part for population control. It's partially how a rationalize my 16MPG Mustang GT, hour long hot showers, and keeping my thermostat at 60 degrees all summer long. I'm bad but I've made sure that I'm the last of my line. Now get off my lawn!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Ohhh fancy! :)
Of course given global warm... or climate change or whatever, that would make much more of Canada hospitable, like North Bay or even Sudbury!
Though given that much of the non-populated near arctic is tundra on top of granite I am not sure how feasible that really is. Also much of the northern parts are only accessible by ice bridges really in winter, which would actually mean that less of the area is actually available for settlement.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Exactly.
Ignoring peak oil, global warming and assuming widespread incest, my model predicts a world population 120B in 2100!
(posting to undo errant mod)
With what energy and what resource are they supposed to do that ? And how would america midwest react to a few dozen million people from subsahara coming to live ? It is difficult to say with internet but I have the strong feeling that your post were a joke posted in sarcasm really.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Carpet-nuke Russia, China (Including North Korea and Vietnam), India (Including Pakistan) and Africa. That, right there, will chop out 4 billion people, cutting the world population in half.
we need global encouragement for people to not have more than 2 children. I nice slow draw down to 3 billion over many decades.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Looking at the population over time it looks like 11 biliion in 80+ years seems low. Considering that it's now close to 1 billion every decade added to the population , we are soon going to reach a doubling, and more than likely will see closer to 15 billion by 2100.
How is he incorrect, though?
Disease is a significant problem in Africa and India. Neither are exactly nice places to live for most of their inhabitants, which is why so many of them try to move to Western nations. Overpopulation is a huge problem in both areas.
We, as Westerners, need to stop hiding behind political correctness. It's the only way the problems in those areas will ever get dealt with properly.
Africans and Indians do need to stop reproducing if there just aren't enough resources to sustain the population that already exists, never mind any new people. It's just common sense. Adding more people when there aren't enough resources to go around is just going to make a bad situation even worse.
If they can't figure this out on their own, then it is up to Westerners to inform them of the situation and how to deal with it.
Much if not most Midwest land seems devoted to wall to wall food production, hardly what I'd consider to be unpopulated free space. Have you ever seen it from a plane? There's also the issue of aquifer reserves.
Considering how quickly the planet went from under a billion during the Roman empire (that we know of) to 7 billion in 2014, and the increased birthrate and better mortality rate, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes faster than 2100.
I also fully expect it to not even be 9 billion by that time unless there are several paradigm shifts in every aspect of humanity. Considering we can't even feed, house, or employ a gigantic amount of those 7 billion right now, if things don't improve, that number will stay 7 billion. You say "Oh we just need advancements." We haven't advanced much since 1918, have we? Still have one of the same pistols in active duty. Still using the same design principles in machine guns. Still have people making and using the same chemical weapons. Still have the same governments in charge. Same banks in charge. A lot of the same medicine, but some improved medical procedures.
Install a big solar hot water heater, put reflective polyisocyanurate panels on all your windows, have some more insulation blown into your roof. If you have the money, buy a Tesla Roadster. High performance electric cars are still energy efficient. Don't feel guilty about the Mustang if you can't.
While you're at it, replace your water guzzling lawn with artificial turf. It will get real hot in the summer, and it will not need to be mowed.
The thing is, population will continue to grow even long after the resources collapse, because it has some delay between the behavior changes and the economic situation. This just makes things even more likely to end with the nuke option.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Loss of agriculture due to increasingly unstable climate change, loss of petroleum, large events triggered by the redistribution of cold, heat, drought, storms, winds, snows, loss of icecaps, franking, nuclear accidents and ramping radioactive pollution. war over OS 3 on moon and expanding China, Pakistani, North Korean and Russian Axis in conflict with Indian, Japanese, US and British Allies; past peak agriculture. Past peak clean water, past peak oil production, pre peak nuclear failures and the resistance of nuclear accidents to any solutions what so ever, loss of aquifers to fracking chemical brews, resurgence of resistant diseases, loss of food value to genetic engineering. All leads to a sustainable population of between 0 to a 3 billion my estimate.
Humanity will have been extinct for at least 50 or more years by then..so the population will never get there. Once ebola gets out of Africa and goes airborne the population will ne dropping like a stone. Whoever remains will end up at war over what remains and that'll be all she wrote.
and Germany. And the Netherlands. And a tonne of other countries where Socialism works just fine thank you very much. What _doesn't_ work is mixing American Style right-wing Reagan-Thatcher politics in. See the UK's collapsing economy for that, or wealth inequality in the U.S. that's gone back to pre-Black Tuesday leves.
/. article on that one too) what the _heck_ do we do with 'em all. The world _doesn't_ need ditch diggers....
Also, there's this little think called progress. I'm too lazy to google for the Robert Reich infographic that show that productivity is up 80% since 1979 but wages are only up 8% (and that proves wages stopped growing in America in 1979). Forget all that. We're rapidly automating away just about every job. Even _China_ is replacing workers with robots. When robots are cheaper than Chinese slave labor you know you have a problem.
So, when we don't need people to work 20 hours a week let alone the 50 they're doing now (you can google the
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
One that's as cheap, energy dense and as easy to handle at room temperature as oil, coal, natural gas and so on.
Well, there is coal. That's not going away by 2100 despite your assertion.
Like all species, we simply consume resources until the population crashes.
Which is incorrect. As the paper notes, most of the population growth comes from Africa and Asia. The developed world actually is a population sink - the overpopulation problem has been fixed there. What responsibility am I supposed to have for population growth elsewhere in the world? And what power am I supposed to have to fix that?
Too true. We could be the heroes of mankind, or at least heroes of a proud and healthy nation: so doable, yet so not done. It hurts.
-kgj
So with oil projected to run out in 2038-2042 we'll will just keep growing when there is no way to grow or move food!
I think this is a great thing because the current population has eaten almost all the large fish in the sea and is busy building dead spots growing stuff on land. So dead ocean helps our population grow!
Man, all this doom and gloom about "Road Warrior days" coming up as fuel runs out*.. Good news, we'll be at 11 billion in 2100! Breed away kids, there is a great future!
Also good to know that climate change is not happening and will not affect humanity!
*alternate energy? Have you seen the stories the Kochs buy? Yeah, not big wind while it kills eagles, solar cooks eagles too! OMG, off shore wind messes with seals! Breeder reactors? OMG TERRARISTS!
Best stick to coal and oil until 2100!
That theory assumes that growth can be virtually unlimited, when it's not. At this point in time, the only energy source we have that can deal with providing the transportation, food growing, and energy needs of the population is fossil fuels. If we continue using fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate, global warming is going to decimate food production. And millions upon billions are going to starve to death, if we aren't killed off by some plague or a nuclear war first.
Still, it does bother me that the biggest population growth centers are those least capable of supporting an increasing population. That makes the likelihood of wars that much greater.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
As Hans Rosling has been explaining it for years...
Why are so many people dismissive of the alleged fusion generators coming in a few years? Is there no truth to many researchers claiming fusion is only a few years away? 2022 for commercial ones according to Lockheed Martin? Are they not to be trusted?
... I'm old enough that I won't be around to see it.
No. Coal is not going away. Oil isn't going away. Natural gas isn't going away. There's never been an issue with the total quantity of hydrocarbons. What we're running out of are hydrocarbons that are:
1) Inexpensive enough to run an interdependent web of supply chains utterly dependent on *cheap* transportation fuel.
2) Have a high enough net energy return to justify both their production AND enough left over to run an industrial scale civilization of the current size.
Capitalism dictates that you go for the resource that gives you the most bang for the buck first in order to maximize profit. We've done that. It's downhill from here. I suggest you google "oil" and "EROEI" to get the figures.
The fact that population growth isn't local doesn't invalidate anything. If African countries can manage resource diversion to their population, they will. Your lack of control and/or responsibility also changes nothing. This looks unlikely today due to the military power imbalance. After 20 to 50 years of Chinese occupation and development, however, I wouldn't make that bet at all.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
That's the estimate I've heard for a few years, not 9 billion. 10-11 billion followed by a decline. If it was 12+ then I'd be taking note.
You better eat your GMO veggies.
Capitalism dictates that you go for the resource that gives you the most bang for the buck first in order to maximize profit. We've done that. It's downhill from here. I suggest you google "oil" and "EROEI" to get the figures.
Capitalism is merely private ownership of capital. It doesn't "dictate" that you go for anything in particular. Nor does it dictate that things have to go "downhill" merely because the absolutely cheapest resource is no longer present.
There's also this thing called "invention" which tends to change the game. I think by 2100 we'll have figured out adequate replacements for cheap petroleum while retaining our vast transportation network. And I think we'll find out then that we've had those alternatives around for a number of decades now.
These projections are not prophecy.
Please watch these videos from Hans Rosling. They are very informative about this particular subject. Africa is making progress and it should not be assumed that their population growth rate will continue as it is.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling
This one in particular: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth