World Population Could Reach Nearly 11 Billion By 2100 322
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."
30-Year Projections Are Useless (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a problem here (Score:1, Insightful)
That's ok. Thanks to abortion, homosexuality, and selfishness there will be plenty of room here.
Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
I fully expect this comments section to be full of "but what about all the resources we need for..." fears about "overpopulation". Where there's a will, there's a way. The zero population growth people would have us believe that the numbers are very different from what they really are, but the world can produce a lot more food than we do, and with minimal changes, it could be greatly increased.
Re:Hey people... (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. They seem hell-bound to reestablish starvation and sickness as the main means of population control.
Re:Fearmongering in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Food sure, but water? No desalinization is expensive and we already have water problems without a solution here in the First World. Imagine how much more trouble it causes the 3rd World.
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless we can support that much life with food, water and other resources, war for diminishing resources will wipe out enough population before we even get close to that.
Reverend Malthus wrote the same in 1798 in "An Essay on the Principle of Population", and was wrong then. Malthusian predictions have been wrong ever since.
I fear there will be great loss of life in the region due to war, but such resources are only scarce where local governments force them to become so to gain control over their people.
Technology improves faster than population grows. As population growth rate has been slowing down (as a %) and technological improvements have only come at a faster pace, it's a mystery why people think the problems will get worse.
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
No technology can change the absolute fact that we have finite land and finite energy.
Eventually, Malthus will be right.
Re:Won't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
hope you are right.
You *hope* he is right?! You *hope* billions of people are killed from war, famine, and hunger? These words actually formed in your brain and trickled out onto your keyboard? Really?!
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's the problem with trends. Assuming they go on forever means that, for example, everyone should now have about 52 model-Ts in their garage. That said... the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.
Except that the growth rate has been decreasing for a while now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate [wikipedia.org]
Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[5] The CIA World Factbook gives the world annual birthrate, mortality rate, and growth rate as 1.915%, 0.812%, and 1.092% respectively.[6] The last 100 years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity[7] made possible by the Green Revolution.[8][9][10]
The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 88.0 million in 1989, to a low of 73.9 million in 2003, after which it rose again to 75.2 million in 2006. Since then, annual growth has declined. In 2009, the human population increased by 74.6 million, which is projected to fall steadily to about 41 million per annum in 2050, at which time the population will have increased to about 9.2 billion.[5] Each region of the globe has seen great reductions in growth rate in recent decades, though growth rates remain above 2% in some countries of the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, and also in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.[11]
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The horse poop will be 6ft deep in Chicago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Read a headline from the 1890's in the Tribune when they estimated the horse poop would be 6ft deep by 1920 in the streets. Of course then came the automobile. That's the problem with all these long term prediction models. Things change in ways they never can account for.
Re:Won't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Yields per acreage are actually stalling ... and we haven't even hit peak phosphorus yet. Also a fair amount of the technology we use to increase yields is not exactly side effect free, insecticides for instance are killing bees and making people retards.
How is the Egyptian government keeping water scarce?
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
He will be correct if and when the population stops growing due to lack of resources.
He will finally be completely wrong if and when the population stops growing due to prosperity and educated females.
Until then, go away chicken little.
Re:What?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Surprisingly, neither the models nor future results are much affected by public opinion, no matter what public opinion happens to be at the moment. One of these 2 methods is really useful for forecasting, the other not so much.