Slashdot Mirror
'The World Might Actually Run Out of People' (wired.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: By 2050 there will be 9 billion carbon-burning, plastic-polluting, calorie-consuming people on the planet. By 2100, that number will balloon to 11 billion, pushing society into a Soylent Green scenario. Such dire population predictions aren't the stuff of sci-fi; those numbers come from one of the most trusted world authorities, the United Nations. But what if they're wrong? Not like, off by a rounding error, but like totally, completely goofed?
That's the conclusion Canadian journalist John Ibbitson and political scientist Darrel Bricker come to in their newest book, Empty Planet, due out February 5th. After painstakingly breaking down the numbers for themselves, the pair arrived at a drastically different prediction for the future of the human species. "In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline," they write. "Once that decline begins, it will never end." But Empty Planet is not a book about statistics so much as it is about what's driving the choices people are making during the fastest period of change in human history.
That's the conclusion Canadian journalist John Ibbitson and political scientist Darrel Bricker come to in their newest book, Empty Planet, due out February 5th. After painstakingly breaking down the numbers for themselves, the pair arrived at a drastically different prediction for the future of the human species. "In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline," they write. "Once that decline begins, it will never end." But Empty Planet is not a book about statistics so much as it is about what's driving the choices people are making during the fastest period of change in human history.
Most trusted world authorities - the UN?! The same UN that puts Sudan on the "Human Rights Committee"?
At least there will always be an infinite supply of hype and silly speculative "news" stories. They'll be just as insightful when the writers are all robots.
"...it will never end."
I had a problem with that statement. That's a pretty impossible statement to make. We don't even know what will happen in a generation, or two generations. To say "it will never end" is absurdist.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Clearly, demonstrably, populations reproduce and continue to exist barring extinction events like asteroid strikes, famine, and plagues.
Social changes, where it is too expensive to raise children so couples frequently have only a single child. If your birthrate falls below 1.0 and nothing convinces people to reverse the trend then the scenario is quite realistic.
It's all bullshit futurist conjecture and there is zero evidence to support it. So while it is a plausible possibility, it is not a cause for concern.
Iâ(TM)m done worrying about shit. Deforestation? Cool. Plastic filling the oceans? Bitchen. Millennials getting fat-cancer? Rad. Mass-shootings? Sucks to be you not having a gun with which to return fire if you wanted to live, Nuclear annihilation? Wake me when its over.
What is this bullshit about? Human extinction even without nukes? Excellent. All of you can fuck off, as a species. I simply am out of give-a-shit at this point. This life has been exhausting, to tell you the truth.
Today, I learned the guy who was fixing to replace the guy who either was, or was not, the guy in the photo in blackface or in the KKK getup may be replaced by someone who was accused of sexually assaulting some bitch a decade ago.
We are left abandoned to King Donald I by the so-called Democratic Party because they cannot stop eating their own and anyone who may have ever fucked up in any way, no matter what he has done since or whom he has become, must be destroyed, ESPECIALLY if he has a penis.
Fuck it. I am officially done giving a shit.
I haven't read the initial research or the article but I'm 100% certain that both are wrong.
People LIKE the process of making children and most of us like raising children, but it is very expensive: 233k in 2015, excluding college education.
Follow the money. Governments don't provide proper incentives to compensate us for it.
You change the laws so that childcare, health care for kids, lunchs, and college are all free, all without any paperwork and we will have a baby boom the likes you never saw.
Population starts going down, that is the kind of thing we will do.
Right now, immigration from poor countries to developed countries tends to stop us from having those kinds of laws. Partly because of racism, partly because the immigration means the problem is not as severe.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And you vastly underestimate the access to health care and education in the "shithole countries". The world view of the West often is stuck in the 1970ies and 1980ies and has not gotten much update since then. 80% of the world population now has better health care coverage than Western countries in the 1960ies, when the baby boom came to an end, and the average time a girl somewhere in the world of today visits school is eight years. And thus, the baby boom for 80% of the world has actually ended.
Health care and women's education are the main factors that drove reproduction rates down, not stable governments or wealth. They do help, but are less important than you think.
Evidently the UN team never watched Idiocracy. Carl's Jr Or perhaps they are part of it. Mountain Dew.
Perhaps their study found that AI will perfect a fidget spinner more enjoyable than eating or Sex. Taco Bell.
Or we'll get so politically correct that we all get assigned to one night of Rehab. Carl's Jr.
See you in 500 years.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
In other words, this trend of population increasing won't last forever.
But, this new trend that I'm looking at will last forever. I don't know about the book being promoted, but the article doesn't mention running out of people.
The slow down in population especially in "1st world nations" is due to many factors which are not environmental, or resource base.
* The availability of cheap, safe and effective birth control.
* The microeconomics costs in having a child.
Currently our economic model, while on the large scale more population is better for the economy on the whole. It is a hindrance to the family, as a child is expensive and can set a middle class family back years in terms of money. This combined with birth control has turned raising a child as something almost considered a Hobby for a lot of people. In rural countries, a child become a member of your workforce, thus becomes an economic strength to your family.
I can see the population dropping for a while, but as we are starting to see in ageing countries like Japan and France, additional intensives to try to increase child birth.
In terms of resources, our technology to increase output still seems to be able to keep up with growth. Sure we get some Hippy dippy stuff with people complaining about GMO, preservatives, and radiation treatment. But we have the ability to feed the world for a while.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Except for the T-Rex, which failed in the focus group
12 billion will be the top.
Until then, every watches TV, posts on Facebook and tweets instead of having sex.
PS. If you haven't watched his TED talks, you should do so now, they are amazing.
From your own post it seems stable government is key.
You mention areas with civil unrest having high rates for example. You also mention functioning schools.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
You think those things would've happened without stable governments?
I'm not about to dive into the crazy numbers, but it's not that unreasonable a prediction. It won't go down to zero as then the conditions will change and people will change their behavior again.
We can all basically say that most of the developed world is in a condition of low birth rate and that includes most of Asia as well. North America, Europe, China, Japan...
That's a huge chunk of the Earth on the 2 kids or less bandwagon. You can probably throw in a whole bunch of other places like Brazil and parts of Latin America as well.
You then have to factor in the social changes going on throughout the world. Women's rights and what not are being found in even the most remote places on Earth. In often doesn't manifest itself in ways you think. Remember that Malala Yousafzai girl from tribal Pakistan who shot to fame fighting for education. These issues really are reaching even the most remote areas.
I'm from a conservative Muslim background, which I guess people still see as patriarchal, but even there we see the issues. Men and women alike not wanting to get married or limiting children. Even in a place like Saudi Arabia where you might picture the most patriarchal, the fertility rate is close to 2.
The idea of being the head patriarch to huge numbers of kids isn't appealing to many men in most countries. It's seen more as a liability today, perhaps limited to the truly wealthy or very remote regions.
You also take into account technology which means a lot of kids to work the farm or provide for the family is lessened.
Anything can happen in the world, but you can easily see how in one or two generation we could be facing population stabilization or even decline. It doesn't sound implausible at all.
So what if human population peaks at 10B, 11B or 20B. By definition it has to peak sometime, at least on Earth. The planet cannot sustain 500 billion people concurrently, at least with current technology and practices. And even if it could, it couldn't sustain 500 trillion people. There has to be a limit. Maybe we're close. Maybe we're not. We still potentially have a ways to go. We could build floating cities, and use all land for crops. We could turn the Sahara and other deserts into farmland. We could build floating farms to grow even more food. All that could allow for more people, but there will be a limit. I suspect there will be a pandemic sooner or later that will wipe out 90% or more of the human race. Then those left will start over again. By the time they build civilization back up, it will happen again. Rinse and repeat.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
If it's true, we're heading towards a complete world economic collapse. The world's economy is built on debt we assume to paid by future generations. When the population no longer grows, the resulting social upheaval will be immense. The concerns from global warming are trivial in comparison.
Like all overpopulated species, Nature will take care of it.
It won't be pleasant or pretty, but it will happen.
Folks will either start starving to death / dehydration or a disease will wipe out a significant number due to high population density.
You see it in any species who overpopulate an area. Too many mouths to feed and not enough food / water.
The resources just aren't there.
From the linked article at Wired: "In the Philippines, for example, fertility rates dropped from 3.7 percent to 2.7 percent from 2003 to 2018."
Fertility rates are children per woman, not percent. Journalists.
There's good evidence that female education is the dominant factor affecting fertility rate. A stable government is generally necessary, but not sufficient, for high female education rates.
There are lots of examples of stable governments that had big population growth problems though. Bangladesh is the usual case study. The government tried all kids of programs aimed at reducing the birth rate and nothing much worked. Then the education department, completely independently, decided it would be a good idea for girls to go to school, and the fertility rate fell from one of the highest in the world to close to replacement.
On the whole, wouldn't we be better off with just a billion humans around? Why must we always increase our overall numbers?
Has Rosling said the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Every country that undergoes industrialization shifts into a negative growth pattern eventually, with only some extremely limited exceptions (e.g. the high birth rate among the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel keeps that country in growth mode).
Early in the process government policy can distort this (the high birthrates encouraged in China and Saudi Arabia in the 1950s and 1960s) but as industrial society touches more of the population this rate inevitably falls. China pushed this along in the 1970s with its "One Child" policy, now abandoned, but China will not shift back into positive growth, the normal process of falling birth rates has taken hold.
But industrialization is not the only process that brings down birth rates, and may only be an enabling factor, rather than the true driving force. Bangladesh is the poster example for this. A conservative Muslim nation, that is one of the poorest in the world, it is now below the replacement rate. It did not take industrialization or becoming wealthy to do it, it was entirely the choice of the female population there. This phenomenon was entirely unexpected, until it happened, That is what this book is alluding to - educating women brings down birthrates by itself, and may be why it correlates with industrialization and wealth in the first place.
If you look at UN population projections by region you see every region in the world is projected to peak in population during this century and begin declining. Except for one, Africa. Continuous growth is projected there. What this book is arguing is that female education will bring down the birthrate there also, like it did in Bangladesh. The difference between UN and author projections for population in 2100 is due almost entirely due to differences in population projections for Africa.
I think the authors are likely correct in this regard.
But is the world population fated to shrink away to nothing now?
We don't know of a trend that will reverse it at present. Some countries are already heavily affected by declining (and aging) populations - Japan, Italy, Russia, Serbia (perhaps the lowest birthrate in the world), for example - and none of these has found a way to halt it yet.
But the Industrial Revolution was not predicted, the Green Revolution was not predicted, the fall of birth rates with industrialization was not predicted, and the fall in the birth rate of Bangladesh without industrialization was not predicted. That some future change in world human societies might stabilize populations globally certainly cannot be ruled out. It may be simply that no society currently affected by declining population has yet undergone a sufficient and necessary transformation - providing enough support and incentive to make higher rates of child-bearing attractive.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Nah, that happened eons ago. You're a simulation running in a low-entropy computer run in slow-time, power by a black hole farm. You're good for 10^100 years or so.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
". It won't go down to zero as then the conditions will change and people will change their behavior again."
I think that's the 'trigger' here. The headline is absolutely ABSURD to suggest that the world is going to 'run out of people'. LONG before that happens, as you said, the future population would act to prevent that in some way.
From subsidies to encourage childbirth up to the desired steady-state, or perhaps new family unit structures will evolve to change the way child rearing responsibilities are distributed... vat babies raised by robots... its the future... who knows.
Maybe some sort of singularity happens but instead of retaining our identities we all just all merge into one global consciousness supported by an internet of electronics and vat-brains maintained by robots... so population: 1 or 0 or ??... plus the Amish.
"Anything can happen in the world, but you can easily see how in one or two generation we could be facing population stabilization or even decline. It doesn't sound implausible at all."
It sounds inevitable.
Guy 1: What are you doing in bed with my wife?!
Guy 2: Do not worry sir, this is not what you think. I'm a genetics engineer!
The Greeks and Romans weren't destroying entire ecosystems and devastating entire oceans and sources of fresh water....
Yes, yes, they were. In fact, even the indigenous folks of the North American content were doing it -- they hunted the Woolly Mammoth to extinction and they didn't even have running water or horses.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The Greeks and Romans weren't destroying entire ecosystems
Yes they were. North Africa was known as "the breadbasket of the Roman Empire". Today it is the Sahara Desert. Destructive farming practices destroyed millions of tonnes of topsoil. They also exterminated many species, including the North African Elephant.
People don't change.
People might not change but their environment surely does. Up until recently, most humans lived in mud huts and were one poor harvest away from starving to death. Half their children died before age 5. And by "recently" I mean 50-100 years ago, compared to 10,000 years of recorded history.
Compare that to today. About a billion people today live in dire poverty, out of 7 billion. A billion people is a lot but having "only" one seventh of our population in that situation is revolutionary. We've never been this wealthy or healthy, historically speaking. And being healthy and wealthy definitely changes how you behave.
Please don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying six billion people are living in McMansions and have trouble deciding which sports car to drive to work. Most of the world is still pretty poor compared to my neighborhood in California. All I'm saying is they're much better off than the subsistence farmers throughout most of human history.
The Greeks and Romans weren't destroying entire ecosystems
Yes they were. North Africa was known as "the breadbasket of the Roman Empire". Today it is the Sahara Desert. Destructive farming practices destroyed millions of tonnes of topsoil. They also exterminated many species, including the North African Elephant.
Sahara oscillates between desert and savanna due to solar forcing with a period of 41,000 years (Ref.)
I can find no support whatsoever of any Roman influence in the wikipedia article.
In fact, whether human activity is a factor at all is debated
If it was a factor, then earlier than the Roman empire.