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."
What?!? (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell is the NSA supposed to keep track of all those people?!?!
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Silly, when the big scooper trucks grab people up and feed them into the food chain the NSA will just file them under Project Make Room!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Silly, when the big scooper trucks grab people up and feed them into the food chain the NSA will just file them under Project Soylent Green!
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Finally, a good reason to stick with IPv4.
Re:What?!? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.businessinsider.com/analyst-world-population-will-peak-at-85-billion-in-2030-2012-11 [businessinsider.com]
Even as population trends, this 11 billion by end of century figure is not believable. We can't predict the weather or climate change, but we can easily predict population growth and the African population growth angle is absolutely not justified in a non-speculative sociology realm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What?!? (Score:4, Funny)
There can only be so many different people.
The trick is to spot all the doubles and save on diskspace and computing power!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Africa will still be a pathetic continent with no human development
I don't know about you, but human development in Africa was way ahead of human development on other continents for hundreds of thousands of years. That's got to count for something.
Re:What?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
human development in Africa was way ahead of human development on other continents for hundreds of thousands of years.
Primitive man didn't first leave Africa that much evolutionarily sooner than did H. Sapiens.
That's got to count for something.
Not really. Why do you think they left?
Won't happen (Score:5, Interesting)
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:5, Funny)
Eventually, Malthus will be right.
Eventually, the universe will reach heat death where all useful energy has been used.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, Malthus will be right.
Eventually, the universe will reach heat death where all useful energy has been used.
That's not going to happen.
Also, technological advances are a CONSEQUENCE of large populations. Small populations huddle around fires. Large populations are in everyone's best interest.
Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Informative)
Water is a bit more of a concern.
At current growth rates, the weight of humans would equal the weight of the planet in 500 years.
At current energy growth rates since the 1600's, the earth will be hotter than boiling water in under 400 years.
Clearly something has to give.
So less energy per person- lower quality of life- less water per person.
Deer do just fine until they wipe out their environment and die off. No war needed.
When population density is high enough, minor disruptions in food and water delivery, or a disease can kill a lot of people really fast.
Typical bad plague single pass would kill about 140 million people now. That's just 2%.
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: (Score:3)
... resources are only scarce where local governments force them to become so to gain control over their people.
Currently true. However, there are hard limits as to how many people a certain tract of land will support.
Re: (Score:3)
We know the practical limit is somewhere below that number.
I did some calculations about 10 years ago: 484,246 sq mi (1,254,197 sq km) are needed for 6 billion people to live, 4 persons per lot, in lots that are 60'x150' (a nice US suburban plot). That is ~ California, Texas and Missouri. Alternatively, France, Spain and The United Kingdom. Does *not* include street, employment, etc.
296,443 sq mi (767,787 sq km) are needed for 6 billion people to live at the same population density as Manhattan, New York. That is ~ Arizona or Nevada. Alternatively, that ~ double the size of Japan or Zimbabwe. *Does* include streets and employment.
Presumably you are also not counting the farming acreage needed to supply food for that many people.
Re: (Score:2)
Because population growth is relatively easy to model and has a nice continues slope.
Predicating productivity growth (which is what really matters) is hard. Technological is only one part of productivity and is the hardest to model. It is not a nice curve. It’s lumpy – with huge fits and starts. Billions were spent on computers between 1960 to 1980 with little effect on productivity. In the 1980s the code was crack and massive productivity gains. Few people guess that the internet would have su
Re: (Score:2)
Billions were spent on computers between 1960 to 1980 with little effect on productivity. In the 1980s the code was crack and massive productivity gains.
What do you mean by "the code was crack"? Has that anything to do with the war on drugs?
Also, IT alone won't save you. It's just a tool, a lever that - I hope - will allow researchers in other areas to come up with ideas that will transform our industry and agriculture so that we won't be surprised when the need to switch to other sources of energy and raw inputs arises eventually. And you know what? In that role, computers have been put to work from the very beginning. No need to wait for PCs for kids to p
Re: (Score:2)
"Technology improves faster than population grows"
So far.
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.
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: (Score:2)
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.
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.
The question isn't whether the planet can support that number, but what kind of life will be possible in that future. We may wind up breeding ourselves into anarchy as all but the richest of us struggle to keep enough food on our plates an
Re: (Score:3)
the population has been increasing at an accelerating rate and there's no sign that it's going to slow down.
Actually there are plenty of signs that it is going to slow down. So many signs that population is expected to peak around the year 2011 and start decreasing.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends. Much of the population growth has been fueled by one thing - oil. The availability and low cost of oil pretty much created the population boom. After all, at the start of the 20th century, the world was only 2B or so (just over 1B at
Re: (Score:2)
Population growth is not fueld by oil
That idea is completely retarded.
Population is growing by poverty. By having no TV. By WANTING children to pay for the elderly parents. By fucking (because you have no TV, or for that matter no birth controll) by living in the third world.
More or less all 1sr world countries population is onthe decline.
In the 3rd world javing many childrens is considered necessary to survive.
Change that mindset and the population will shrink.
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: (Score:3)
Err, did you just try to prove the research wrong by quoting from the numbers that the research proved wrong? Here's a clue: those numbers on wikipedia are wrong. That's what the article is about.
I realise it's tradition not to read the article, but to completely ignore the point of even the summary seems excessive, no?
OK, I'll try to do this as disdainfully as the AC:
Err, did you just try to claim that "the research" on future trends "proved wrong" historical demographics data? Here's a clue: those numbers quoted on the historical population and its growth rate were not questioned by the UN/UW research. That's not what the article is about.
I realize it's a tradition not to understand anyone's comments, but to completely fail to understand that even the summary is talking about projections while my comments were talking a
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
I agree it won't happen, but it won't happen for other reasons.
Studies like this invariably project current statistical trends onward as though they will never change. But that's BS, because they always change.
If we take PAST studies, for example, even from just a few decades ago, we were told that China and India would have way more than twice as many people as they currently do. Further, food production trends were also projected as linear so even the population we really do have would have been sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From a global point of view there are not many "diminishing" resources.
Only oil comes too mind directly, coal we still have for millenia and natural gas likely for hundrets of millenia.
All other resources are always here. Iron, aliminium, glass ... all this can be recycled.
So the wars are not really about resources (as you can easily get rid of your dependency on 'oil').
They are about POWER.
Re: (Score:3)
Good for him. Unfortunately food is not the issue, Potable water is.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for him. Unfortunately food is not the issue, Potable water is.
I'd like to see the water that couldn't be put in a pot.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming it takes about 0.2 kWh to boil one's daily water needs at 365 days == 73kWh per person per year. Even if you assume that only half of the population requires water boiling, that's 175200000 kWh more electricity being expended on boiling water yearly or about 12k US household's current yield which actually doesn't seem so bad as long as the grids are in place to provide it to those that need it, and of course there's the supply of relatively clean desalinated water available (which themselves can ad
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see the water that couldn't be put in a pot.
I think you're making a joke, but there are too many idiots spouting arrant stupidity to tell whether or not you're serious.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see the water that couldn't be put in a pot.
Silly boys! Of course Pot needs water. Duuuuhh!
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: (Score:2)
Let's say you take in 30 familys into your home, you share all your resources and your space with them. That's about what it will be like.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but couldn't you hope that people stop shooting out babies rather than hope that worldwide wars and famines take care of it? I know that's not realistic. I kind of share the GP's sentiment. Who hopes for famine and war?
Except it won't happen. Even in this day and age, there are many people whocelebrate people having as many babies as possible. In some of the countries that we have helped extend life span, their culture is involved with a lot of procreation, and you just don't change that over night.
Then there is the resentment of "people tellin' me what to do" which can be pretty extreme in some cases, the biblical encouragement, and some people just seem to have a drive to have a lot of children.
I'll be surprised if
Re: (Score:2)
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?!
Yes.
How come?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we are special. How many giraffe civilizations are there? Which manatee invented the internet, I'd like to meet him... Animals don't even drink beer.
And the planet doesn't have a perspective, because it's not a sentient being.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point was "humans are special to other humans, but not to anyone or anything else" The universe doesn't need us, we need the universe.
Re:Won't happen (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Julian Simon made a career of making 10 year bets on issues of shortage, longevity, and general health, vs. gloom-and-doomers.
That's a wild overstatement. He made two such bets, one with Paul Ehrlich over metals prices and one with David South over timber prices; he won the first bet and lost the second. This isn't "made a career" of anything, and it has all the predictive power of flipping a coin.
30-Year Projections Are Useless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Still makes a catchy headline though.
Re:30-Year Projections Are Useless (Score:5, Informative)
Actually 30 year projections when it comes to population are pretty accurate as the people who will be having children in thirty years are already born and hence their number is exact, all that is missing is the reproduction rate, which moves slowly.
This is a common mistake by people who are not familiar with population projections. Thirty year time spans are "short" when it comes to population whereas they are absurdly long for almost anything else.
Re:30-Year Projections Are Useless (Score:5, Informative)
That assumes there are no epidemics, wars, economic depressions, or other fluctuations.
No, it doesn't. All those have a modest impact on the combined population of the world. I.e. save a global pandemic or thermo-nuclear world war III, those figures will come to pass.
we could easily have another 1918 flu
Easily as in "it hasn't happened in 100 years and the probability is now ever lower with all the latest medical advances"
or world war which kills 10%+ of the population.
WWII, the deadliest global war ever killed 2.5% of the population.
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: (Score:2)
Food is not all that is needed. Education, a _perspective_, freedom, clean water, health care etc. are not likely to be available to most of these people. And even food is doubtful. This planet is already massively over-populated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your statement, but have to point out that this is a result of teaching. We could easily become a society that teaches something else if people tried. It's hard to read "The Republic" and why it could work. More than being "hard", it requires that people in power give up their power. The people need to be compelled to force that change, and begin teaching society to be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You donate all your spare time to anyone that needs it with no benefit to yourself?
Just to play devil's advocate here. Getting paid is not the only benefit you get from doing things.
Re: (Score:2)
A cure for religion would be handy too.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, but the fact is that without modern fertilizers we'd already be starving from lack of food (rather than idiocy as it is right now).
"Inorganic fertilizer use has also significantly supported global population growth — it has been estimated that almost half the people on the Earth are currently fed as a result of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer [wikipedia.org]
So, yes, Virginia, we're overpopulated by natural standards. It's only science keeping us afloat. And [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:2)
You're saying something is presently costly, not that it's impossible or even that difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually desalinization is coming down in price rapidly, in part because of better osmotic processes in part because cheaper and more efficient solar energy makes it more economical (bonus: most places where water is scarce are sunny).
Re: (Score:2)
If the food is going to be produced in the western economy it's going to have to be sold for enough money to cover the cost of increasingly expensive fertilizer, seed, land, labor, and fuel that mechanized agriculture uses. If it's going to be produced in the under-developed parts of the world, the productivity of the local farmers is going to have to be increased dramatically. There's no plausible mechanism for that sort of
Re: (Score:2)
If we had moved to sustainable living, I would agree with you. That is not what we have, and there is no push from Governments to make us cleaner.
Instead of addressing pollution, we argue about "global warming" as if that is the root cause of our woes. It's not, but people are too stupid to see reality. Lobbyists pump money into politicians pockets to ensure that we can keep on polluting, and arguing everything except for the obvious.
If we cleaned up, it would still take a long time for ocean dead zones
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Things like shark fining,
I hardly think placing surcharges on sharks will solve sustainability issues...
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, so many of our current problems -- climate change, environmental exploitation, pollution, energy scarcity, food costs and in many cases, political conflict are magnified greatly by large populations.
It's really hard to see the benefit to human civilization that a global population of 8 or 10 billion brings versus 2 billion. Many of the extra 6 billion people are in poverty, live squalid lives and contribute to political instability. Those that aren't in poverty drive resource exploitation (e
Re: (Score:3)
...the world can produce a lot more food than we do, and with minimal changes, it could be greatly increased.
Patently absurd, unless your definition if minimal change mean "whatever change is needed bar the consequences." The US, Europe, and Middle East were practically deforested over the last 2000 years. Thousand of species have forced to extinction. The Great Plains of the US are now a great desert. Stalin did pretty much the same thing in Russia. The great reefs of the world are on a decline and probably unrecoverable. And, what, climate change/global warming doesn't exist either? Our footprint is on th
Or... (Score:2)
Climate change could cause drought and famine in many 3rd world countries where most of the growth is happening, and we end up with half that population
And if every one of those 11 billion... (Score:2)
...gave Dr. Evil a million dollars he'd have (da daaa dadada dadada) 11 MILLION BILLION DOLLARS!!!!
Muahahaaha! Muahahaha!!!!
but wait (Score:2)
Earth to Humans: Failure to Launch? (Score:2)
We need a Paula [imdb.com]. Vulcans? Hell, I'd take Vogons at this point.
Paula: Look, many young men who should be able to move out, simply can't. It's called "failure to launch". And that's where I come in. Young men develop self-esteem best during a romantic relationship, so I simulate one. We have a memorable meeting. We get to know each other over a few casual meals, he helps me through an emotional crisis, then I meet his friends, if he has any... Then I let him teach me something... But the bottom line is, he bonds with me. He lets go of you. He moves out.
10 billion (Score:2)
Don't Trust Long Term Predictions (Score:3)
I wouldn't put much faith in long term predictions. 2100 is 87 years away. 87 years ago, it was 1926. In 1927, the world's population reached 2 billion (up from 1 billion in 1804). Had they made a prediction then, they would have likely guessed that we'd hit 3 billion by 2049. Maybe 4 billion if they thought we were doubling population numbers. In addition, if someone from 1926 tried predicting what the technology of 2013 would be like, I highly doubt they'd be anywhere close.
My prediction? In 87 years, the world will look in many ways the same and in many ways vastly different in ways that I couldn't begin to imagine at this point.
I'll be dead by then... (Score:2)
So I'm doing my part!
That scene keeps playing over and over in my head (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Not if Carbon Dioxide has anything to say about it.
The Daleks will help control the population growth (Score:4, Funny)
Exterminate, EXTERMINATE!
2100? (Score:2)
Easy fix (Score:3)
Free software engineering degrees. The massive increase in geek population will no doubt cause reproduction rates to plummet. Throw in government-subsidized WoW accounts and we'll have negative population growth in 4 years tops!
Malthusian Horror Fantasies (Score:5, Interesting)
Predictions of Malthusian nightmares rarely seem to take birth control into account. We should keep in mind that effective hormonal birth control has only been widely available in the West since the seventies. In that short (yes, very short) amount of time it had to become both cheap enough and socially acceptable enough to make a demographic dent. We're only beginning to see the effects but even so 48% of the world's population lives in countries with sub-replacement fertility rates [un.org]. Immigration props up most of the developed world demographically, but even so countries with some of the most advanced economies, like Germany and Japan, are experiencing a contraction of their populations. Indeed the latter, with its aversion to immigration, faces demographic collapse.
There's a lot of reason to be concerned about pressure of resources as the developing world grows and developing economies advance. But much of the increased pressure is caused by people taking on aspects of Western life--consumerism, purchase of electronic conveniences which become apparent necessities (cell phone, computers, etc), and the increasing use of cars. But aside from stable polities, few things make life more comfortable in the West than birth control. If there was a bit of lag time, and indeed a small amount, before widespread adoption of birth control in the West would make a demographic difference, why should we not expect developing countries to follow suit shortly?
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.
Back to normal (Score:2)
The UN has consistently overestimated population growth since 1980. They issue low, medium and high projections with the low variant being the one that consistently comes to pass.
The sole exception is Africa where growth over the last 10 years has exceeded the low variant. Now they have swiftly corrected this mistake by making an absurd 4 billion people in Africa projection. So we are back to normal UN population division working mode. Their motto is: population growth wildly overestimated the world over.
I don't really think this will slow down (Score:3, Interesting)
I've said for years it won't slow down like they think.
You are already seeing subcultures in the 1st world which are breeding at a higher rate for a variety of reasons (religion is significant).
If you view humans as a virus- those which breed quickly seem plausible to become the dominant group in the population.
Sad, because the earth is a paradise at about 2 to 3 billion.
We are way past the earth's carrying capacity and it's too late to change anything.
I expect that, like deer, we'll do fine until there is a glitch, virus, etc. and then a billion or more will die fairly quickly. Hopefully after I'm dead of natural causes.
We are making a lot of progress on disease so I'm thinking disruption of food delivery or destruction of water supply is more likely-- lots of aquifers being drawn down now.
Re: (Score:2)
Manufactured plague please, Nature is far more creative then we could ever be.
Re: (Score:2)
...elderly friend of mine who is absolutely certain that the entire threat from population growth is entirely due to the horrible white races he is part of.
Technically he is has a point. There is a direct, almost perfect correlation between poverty and population growth. Given that much of the poverty on an international scale is due to the fact that the more developed nations do nothing to cooperate with furthering world development, and in many cases actually work to prevent it, there is certainly some blame to be placed there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. They seem hell-bound to reestablish starvation and sickness as the main means of population control.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you noticed that people are still having sex
All the denouncement had absolutely no effect
Parents and counselors constantly scorn them
But people are still having sex
And nothing seems to stop them
Do you realise that people are still having sex
They've been told not to, perhaps they are perplexed
When you see them holding hands
They're making future plans
To engage in the activity
Do you understand me
People are still having sex
Lust keeps on lurking
Nothing makes them stop
This safe things not working
People are s
Re: (Score:2)
Selfishness? No, Selfishness is having too many kids, it's rather selfless to not reproduce.
Re: (Score:3)
Selfishness? No, Selfishness is having too many kids, it's rather selfless to not reproduce.
Selfishness is not having kids but expecting that you're going to be cared for by other peoples kids. It's selfishness when it's done by the individual, and it's selfish when it's done as an "immigration" policy. Face it. We, as a culture, transformed sex into a sport, and now we survive by stealing other peoples children. It's worst in North America... this continent is where genetic material comes to die.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Social Security is stealing" argument.
Wonderful.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much. Most of that population growth comes from other areas, like China or India.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened when we fed them in the 80s?
They made twice as many starving people.
Feeding them resulted in even MORE people starving.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, but it turns out the solution is not just providing food aid either. Something is very wrong somewhere. And sorry for swears in OP, but overpopulation is my hot button.