The Uncertain Future of Global Population Numbers 279
An anonymous reader writes "The question of global population is a pretty crucial one; how many people will there be in ten years? In forty? The New York Times notes research done by a group called the Worldwatch Institute, research that concludes world population figures are too fluid to make any sort of educated guesses. Childbearing populations combined with severe resource shortages in some parts of the world make pinning down a global headcount unfeasible for ten years from now, let alone out to 2050. The article continues beyond its original borders, as well, with commenters in the field of population studies noting we don't even have a good grasp on how many people were alive in 2007."
Easy question, easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Future: Way too many.
Re:Easy question, easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Far future: none.
You forgot the last one, which shows we should take more notice of the preceding figures.
Self limiting to a certain extent? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Eric-
Re:And your evidence is...? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Self limiting to a certain extent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Then I must notify you that you are thinking an unacceptable thought. With all the fluidity and complexity and variables in population change, it's okay to admit we can't predict, but with all the fluidity and complexity and variables in climate change, we can be certain of Global Warming.
Re:Self limiting to a certain extent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And your evidence is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And your evidence is...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, when a society gets to a certain economic and technological stage, your birth rate declines (and in some first world countries is already below the replacement rate). So as the rest of the world catches up to our standard of living, we'll eventually reach some sort of rough global population plateau, but I seriously doubt we're going to hit that limit in a matter of decades. Africa could easily hold another one or two billion people with no new technology, just economic maturity.
Yeah, peak oil and whatever other resource issues crop up will be a pain in the butt to deal with, but eventually they will be dealt with and the population will keep growing. Even the looming global disaster of fresh water is just a single technology breakthrough away from being an interesting historical footnote.
Re:Self limiting to a certain extent? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the GP is right on this one. I'm far more concerned with overpopulation, because it's a driving force for the causes of global warming. As grossly overpopulated areas industrialize - and grow - so to will CO2, CFC, et al, emissions. And that's aside from the other obvious impacts on the environment overpopulation has, including the need for vast amounts of natural resources, which has and will lead to the destruction of the largest forests on this planet.
Growing populations are clearly more of a detriment to the environment than global warming, which is still arguably "part of nature". By your own admission, there are many variables in climate change, and given our inability to determine even the most basic weather phenomenon or reach consensus on global warming, the *certain* effects the overpopulation are far greater AND more likely.
Re:Carrying capacity overshoot (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Mr. Huntington, what do you think is the world's greatest problem today?
Re:Carrying capacity overshoot (Score:1, Insightful)
The topic at hand here is GLOBAL population, not the British immigration policy. I can't figure out if if you are a British or an American troll, you seem to fit both categories well. Let's assume you could be either...
Are the midwestern youngsters moving to NYC seeking career opportunities otherwise unavailable in their hometowns part of your evil immigration problem, or is it only the Mexicans? Or is it the Canadians moving to London vs. all the Polish people who moved there in the last few years?
You threw in a "liberal" or socialist or whatever cheap-shot crap at the end of your post, and since the discussion at hand is about uncertainty of future population estimates, I have one question for you: what is the "liberal" stand on abortion?
To be more crass, go fuck yourself because no-one else will, (thus not contributing to the solution of overpopulation cause).
Also fuck everyone who moded the parent insightful. It's hate speech at best...
Re:And your evidence is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Econimists are now saying we must account for waste as a cost (insurance underwriters were saying it first), we need them (among others) to find a 'soft landing' for when oil declines and coal becomes expensive (due to sane emmision controls). However when I look at the politics and past civilization that have succum to rapid environmental change, I think it's more than likely that we will see a global population crash this century. Of course we will call the crash a war and blame the whole thing (including the initial shortage of resources), on the loser's nastyness.
maybe J. Stalin had a point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Carrying capacity overshoot (Score:3, Insightful)
That's quite an exaggeration. I would be surprised if there will be less than 8 billion. After doing extensive world traveling in 2007, I think non-travelers forget exactly how absolutely huge the earth is. Of course there will be some individual nations (like China, to name just one) that start to give us a window into what happens to an overpopulated land area, but I don't believe it will become a global problem before it's too late.
And it doesn't matter what kind of government you have. China is having ground water problems. They're currently working on a huge river project to redirect one of their major rivers to go north. They're cutting through mountains to make it happen. http://www.icivilengineer.com/Big_Project_Watch/China_River_Diversion/ [icivilengineer.com]
In a socialist government, they can say, "hmmm, this is a problem. Everyone stop what you're doing and fix it." Much like what Brazil did to restructure their use of fuel. Now they're using E10, and now they're oil independent.
In a capitalist government, can't predict when it would happen... but SOME day people will say, "WAIT A SECOND! People don't LIKE the effects of overpopulation! If we think of a way to solve that... I bet we could make some money!"
In any case, predictions that there will be a global problem anywhere near 2050 are entirely premature; and people that don't think mankind will find a way to survive (if survival is threatened) are naive.
Re:Self limiting to a certain extent? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the article, it was estimated that the U.S. was going to reach a peak of 1.1Billion
Yeah, sounds like an underpopulation problem to me. The article had very rose colored glasses on and completely ignored major factors, like overcrowding and deterioration of available physical resources.
Overpopulation is not just a problem in the future, it's a problem now, dammit.
Re:Easy question, easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
People have been saying that since Malthus and predicting a massive population collapse. The funny thing is, civilization keeps finding ways to accommodate larger numbers.
You should also note that most industrialized countries are pretty close to zero-population growth without immigration -- Europe is a little below ZPG, America a little above. You want to stabilize the population, focus on industrializing the Third World.
Re:Easy question, easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
So therefore: the world will never suffer population collapse. Good thinking 86.
Re:Easy question, easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
There is an upper limit. (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed, but that does not mean it always can. So long as all our eggs are in one basket, we are constrained with finite space, and therefore, finite resources. With unchecked population increase, consumption will inevitably overtake maximum production limits, likely resulting in precipitous—and immensely uncomfortable—population decline.
The quantitative questions are being addressed. (What is that upper limit? When will we reach it?) However, whether will we choose wise reproductive habits receives much less attention. I think we would rather not find ourselves under the hardships of overpopulation.
While the first two questions remain outstanding, it appears we may be deciding favorably on the qualitative point [census.gov], and my angst may be for nothing. Global population increase is slowing; the trend of declining birth rates is not limited to industrialized nations.
Re:Infuriatingly presumptuous bastards (Score:3, Insightful)
The world population was already in decline before these "runaway population" projection supporters tooted their horns. And since then, world population increase has been anything but exponential. China's population shrank markedly due to birth control; the Western countries (including Russia) have all shrunk substantially in population, and India is moving that way now.
The only significant country with a factual decline in population is Russia, or a little wider, parts of the Former Soviet Union.
China's population is still increasing rapidly even though the government does since decades it's best to control it, your statement to the opposite is plain stupid.
And the latest knowledge (that's not the same as the last few years of data!) does indicate a troubled temperature balance on earth, contrary to a couple of cold and wet years in the mid-eighties of last century.
Would you be informed about the issues around global temperature you'd know it is a gradual process of many years, even decades and centuries.
Individual years, even more so seasons are insignificant.
There are vasts amount of data available that link population against significant factors and many scientists are working on the important questions.
Should we stop making these projections just because a potential pandemic or big meteor could entirely change the outcome? I think not!
There is plenty of evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite possible that human population will trend nicely towards an equilibrium, however, our very economic system is based on perpetual growth and not equilibrium. It is a matter of time until we see some limiting factor in the natural world, that will prevent that magic 5% year-on-year growth. At this point, investment will collapse, and we'll be forced to develop equilibrium based economics.
It is worrying that we are tending more and more to keep our system going by drawing down on our resources faster, instead of being conservative and clever about our use of the planet. If human population is going to gently move to towards equilibrium, then there must be careful consideration of sustainable development. If we continue our hack-n-slash approach, we may well end up with a disaster on our hands. We are already seeing signs of imminent future problems with arable land, energy resources, fresh water and climate change.
Perhaps it would be sane to penalize obviously myopic economic activities, like mining oil-sands, trawler fishing, and massive deforestation. Unfortutely, our economic system is structured such that companies can gain "growth" by hiding costs in externalities. That is precisely the problem with "next-quarter" economics, and characterizes much of the mentality of wall-street.
Our growth based economic system is a tradition that has grown out of the folkways of antiquity. It is no more or less wise than bacteria growing exponentially across an agar jell. This economic system co-exists with, and is ultimately subordinate to the matter-energy relationship that we have with the planet. This is analogous to the bacterial growth hitting the edge of the petri dish.
Perhaps you could try to argue that we'll just find cleverer and cleverer ways of doing things. Blind faith in the genius inventor is an excuse for pillaging the world right now. It's just that the scientific method that gave us the industrial revolution is the same scientific method that is saying we need to curb carbon emissions. The problem isn't with science, but with myopic greed and stubborn ignorance about our relationship with the world.
Expect human society to behave no wiser than the bacteria on the agar jell. We'll consume ever faster, and change our ways only after significant insurmountable problems arise. This situation is analogous to how a person sinks into depression, and then resolves to significant change after they realize that depression is not living.
We learnt nothing from the extinction of the dodo. There will be many more dodos in the future.
Re:And your evidence is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's something that most other countries on the planet will probably have to do eventually; WTF do they want a country with a huge population and out-of-control birth rates to do? Let people breed as they want, seeking to meet immediate, individual needs, so that they can collectively cause a huge starvation die-off a couple of decades later? Or collectively enforce birth control so the die-off doesn't happen and everyone's standard of living can start going up?
Don't get me wrong, China's government sucks, but this seems to be the single issue that people always bring up when talking about how repressive they are, and I just don't see it. Given similar circumstances, I'd HOPE our government would do the same thing--we've just not had to deal with that problem yet.
Re:Easy question, easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy question, easy answer (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally think this is as absurd of an issue as the other extremists causes, but it is something to be aware of. I don't understand Lunar environmentalism, or the desire to preserve Mars as some sort of international version of Yellowstone (actually more drastic... they don't want any human structures on Mars), but there is a group that doesn't want human development off of the Earth. Watch for it, and how new human settlements will have to start with environmental regulations from h***.
It will be real interesting just how far those who get up there decide to take all that legal BS and tell the people of the Earth to shove it.
So if it isn't one thing, it will be another.