I read with interest the thread in SSSF and was surprised by the laissez faire attitude and conviction that it is of little importance and will just sort itself out. This despite our population could easily double by this time next century, when the planet is already gowning trying to maintain the current population.

Annual world population growth rate

The “Annual world population growth rate” presented in SSSF is very misleading and simply not correct. As an example: >>The population growth rate is tanking: has been for fifty years. So, nothing needs to be done to curb population growth: the plateau looms.

OTOH a fair question is: what are we doing now to prepare for the economic effects of zero population growth?<<

>>The “population growth rate” is the rate at which the number of individuals in a population increases in a given time period, expressed as a fraction of the initial population. Specifically, population growth rate refers to the change in population over a unit time period, often expressed as a percentage of the number of individuals in the population at the beginning of that period.<<

It does NOT mean the human population has peaked, but the RATE of growth has decreased. Our population is still growing, currently by “83 million annually” or “1.1% per year.” We are NOT in negative growth!

>>Global human population growth amounts to around 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.616 billion in 2018. It is expected to keep growing, and estimates have put the total population at 8.6 billion by mid-2030, 9.8 billion by mid-2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. Many nations with rapid population growth have low standards of living, whereas many nations with low rates of population growth have high standards of living.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
———————————————————————————————

The green line is the lowest projection of the total human population, whereas the blue is the more realistic, but there is a consideration margin for adjustment between the green and red lines.
—————————————————————————————————
You may also be interested in the following:

World Population Milestones

10 Billion (2055)

The United Nations projects world population to reach 10 billion in the year 2056.
8 Billion (2023)

World population is expected to reach 8 billion people in 2023 according to the United Nations (in 2026 according to the U.S. Census Bureau).
7.7 Billion (2018)

The current world population is 7.7 billion as of October 2018 according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometers. The term “World Population” refers to the human population (the total number of humans currently living) of the world.

Sustainable figures for world population are around 2 to three billion.

Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level

The Sustainability of Human Populations: How many People can Live on Earth

So taking the population to ten billion is going well over sustainability levels and will only lead to lower quality of life and conflict over available resources.

It’s not just that the problem is sorting itself out (people have having fewer children in every part of the globe, causing a rapid decline in population growth), it’s that the coming population plateau has economic effects that our shortsighted governments are unprepared for.

dv said:

It’s not just that the problem is sorting itself out (people have having fewer children in every part of the globe, causing a rapid decline in population growth), it’s that the coming population plateau has economic effects that our shortsighted governments are unprepared for.

Which at the earliest will not be until well into the next century. It is predicted that 11.2 billion people will be alive on this planet in 80 years time and it is unlikely to end there. Have you been seduced by the loaves and fishes myth? Population growth is applicable to some advanced countries, but that is far from being universal. What is wrong, don’t you believe our population is likely to hit 11.2 billion within the lifespan of children born today?

dv said:

It’s not just that the problem is sorting itself out (people have having fewer children in every part of the globe, causing a rapid decline in population growth), it’s that the coming population plateau has economic effects that our shortsighted governments are unprepared for.

Some kind of economic cost for over population based on degrading each square meter of fertile land.

Also some kind of economic cost for over population geared with rises in climate change.

That sort of thing, and other things that will come to light.

The USA was the first country to show a decline in birth rate (total fertility). But the birth rate there is back up again and climbing.

Birth rate is also climbing throughout Europe, Spain for instance, and in Australia, but those are still low.

Birth rate is coming down in India and Pakistan, which is primarily why whole world figures look so good.

I don’t usually respond to Permeatefreads, but since on this occasion I totally agree with what he said, and totally disagree with what dv said, I guess I’m pretty safe.

Quite apart from the fact that it is never a good idea to use projection of statistics to make predictions, especially about the future, there are several factors that suggest that if left to itself, population growth will start to rise again, or at least level off at a number greater than zero:

1. To the extent that the desire to have lots of children is an inherited trait, people who are inclined to have lots of children will have more children who are inclined to have lots of children than people with the opposite inclination.

2. In humans, evolution is strongly affected by social factors, including religious requirements, so religions that actively encourage large families and/or discourage birth control will tend to grow more quickly than religions that do the opposite, or are neutral.

3. To the extent that falling growth rates are a product of rising standards of living, the proportion of the population with a low standard of living will tend to rise, since they will have more children.

All 3 of these factors will take at least a couple of generations before they start to become significant; i.e. they will not have had much effect on the figures so far, but they will in the future (starting about now).

mollwollfumble said:

The USA was the first country to show a decline in birth rate (total fertility). But the birth rate there is back up again and climbing.

Birth rate is also climbing throughout Europe, Spain for instance, and in Australia, but those are still low.

Birth rate is coming down in India and Pakistan, which is primarily why whole world figures look so good.

Sorry, was incorrect.

Correction, in USA the total fertility was climbing from 1975 to 2006, then dropped when the GFC hit.

Throughout most countries in Europe, not Poland or Austria, there was a rise in total fertility from 1995 to 2008, then a drop.

Russia has seen a rise in total fertility since 1999, which is good because it was very low back then.

The total fertility in some east Asian countries has been rising after hitting a low in about 2002. Again, it was very low back then.

I don’t usually respond to Permeatefreads, but since on this occasion I totally agree with what he said, and totally disagree with what dv said, I guess I’m pretty safe.

—

I don’t agree with any of you and yet I feel quite safe.

mollwollfumble said:

Correction, in USA the total fertility was climbing from 1975 to 2006, then dropped when the GFC hit.

Throughout most countries in Europe, not Poland or Austria, there was a rise in total fertility from 1995 to 2008, then a drop.

Russia has seen a rise in total fertility since 1999, which is good because it was very low back then.

The total fertility in some east Asian countries has been rising after hitting a low in about 2002. Again, it was very low back then.

Those are the countries that already had a low birth rate. A rise in birth rate followed by a downward correction seems the norm. That’s OK.

Let’s look at some more countries.

This graph is 8 years out of date unfortunately.

India’s doing very well (but I’m missing the most recent 5 years).
10 year old total fertility data for Pakistan, it was still high then but well on the way down.
10 year old fertility data for Nigeria was still piss-awful.

Overall, the world is doing quite well. Almost all countries are converging towards a near-constant population. Somewhere around 2.05 children per woman.

Have you seen this. Size of circle represents population. I see Pakistan is down on the 10 year old figures, back then it was closer to 3. Ditto Nigeria, ten years ago it was nearly 6.

The global financial crisis dropped the USA back below 2. It was above 2.1 and rising in 2006.

dv is right – falling population growth (not to mention the much worse falling population) will completely destroy humanity’s current economic model that depends on perpetual growth. No one has done much and most people have done nothing, to understand what we need to do to re-gear our economies for zero population growth, while still sustaining quality of life, and smaller economic growth based on scientific, technological and efficiency improvements only.

As for the validity of the projections, I agree that predictions can’t be completely accurate, but there’s no reason to suggest that birth rates will suddenly start climbing in an environment of factors that specifically keep them low, e.g.

- general human safety
- increased education of women
- increased education generally
- increased freedom of individuals to make their own decisions
- increased economic prosperity and quality of life
- decreased religious identification

…all put downward pressure on birthrates. Short of WWIII, I can’t see them going up again significantly.

Kothos said:

dv is right – falling population growth (not to mention the much worse falling population) will completely destroy humanity’s current economic model that depends on perpetual growth. No one has done much and most people have done nothing, to understand what we need to do to re-gear our economies for zero population growth, while still sustaining quality of life, and smaller economic growth based on scientific, technological and efficiency improvements only.

As for the validity of the projections, I agree that predictions can’t be completely accurate, but there’s no reason to suggest that birth rates will suddenly start climbing in an environment of factors that specifically keep them low, e.g.

- general human safety
- increased education of women
- increased education generally
- increased freedom of individuals to make their own decisions
- increased economic prosperity and quality of life
- decreased religious identification

…all put downward pressure on birthrates. Short of WWIII, I can’t see them going up again significantly.

Look, the banks are already getting away with paying negative net interest on investments.

I don’t see any economic problem with declining population, it’s just a shift from a debit economy to a credit economy isn’t it? A switch in sharemarket investment strategies not a collapse of share prices.

Population growth is not necessary for real economic growth which is mainly caused by rising productivity.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Population growth is not necessary for real economic growth which is mainly caused by rising productivity.

They both end up making inflation.

The world needs to restrict the number of children a couple can have but they didn’t really work well in China so perhaps a different method to what they use. No births allowed for a decade at least, probably two or more decades so the dying reduce our population and aren’t replaced by babies being born. Then for every person that died one child is allowed and allocated in a “random “ lottery. It would never work or even be viable but besides a great big war or pandemic what else would reduce population growth

Cymek said:

The world needs to restrict the number of children a couple can have but they didn’t really work well in China so perhaps a different method to what they use. No births allowed for a decade at least, probably two or more decades so the dying reduce our population and aren’t replaced by babies being born. Then for every person that died one child is allowed and allocated in a “random “ lottery. It would never work or even be viable but besides a great big war or pandemic what else would reduce population growth

Stop putting warnings on things and let stupid people kill themselves.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t usually respond to Permeatefreads, but since on this occasion I totally agree with what he said, and totally disagree with what dv said, I guess I’m pretty safe.

Quite apart from the fact that it is never a good idea to use projection of statistics to make predictions, especially about the future, there are several factors that suggest that if left to itself, population growth will start to rise again, or at least level off at a number greater than zero:

1. To the extent that the desire to have lots of children is an inherited trait, people who are inclined to have lots of children will have more children who are inclined to have lots of children than people with the opposite inclination.

2. In humans, evolution is strongly affected by social factors, including religious requirements, so religions that actively encourage large families and/or discourage birth control will tend to grow more quickly than religions that do the opposite, or are neutral.

3. To the extent that falling growth rates are a product of rising standards of living, the proportion of the population with a low standard of living will tend to rise, since they will have more children.

All 3 of these factors will take at least a couple of generations before they start to become significant; i.e. they will not have had much effect on the figures so far, but they will in the future (starting about now).

Without turning it into a anti religion thread, my wife is a Mormon (I’m not).
We have discussions around how the church encourages large families which I think is highly irresponsible regardless of ones means to support them, they still have an environmental impact even if you can afford to raise them

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

The world needs to restrict the number of children a couple can have but they didn’t really work well in China so perhaps a different method to what they use. No births allowed for a decade at least, probably two or more decades so the dying reduce our population and aren’t replaced by babies being born. Then for every person that died one child is allowed and allocated in a “random “ lottery. It would never work or even be viable but besides a great big war or pandemic what else would reduce population growth

Stop putting warnings on things and let stupid people kill themselves.

You could or be really callous and once you aren’t able to work anymore (old ages, disability. etc ) you are culled, I imagine getting rid of everyone over retirement age would be a couple of billion.

Cymek said:

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

The world needs to restrict the number of children a couple can have but they didn’t really work well in China so perhaps a different method to what they use. No births allowed for a decade at least, probably two or more decades so the dying reduce our population and aren’t replaced by babies being born. Then for every person that died one child is allowed and allocated in a “random “ lottery. It would never work or even be viable but besides a great big war or pandemic what else would reduce population growth

Stop putting warnings on things and let stupid people kill themselves.

You could or be really callous and once you aren’t able to work anymore (old ages, disability. etc ) you are culled, I imagine getting rid of everyone over retirement age would be a couple of billion.

Logan’s Run

Bogsnorkler said:

Cymek said:

Divine Angel said:

Stop putting warnings on things and let stupid people kill themselves.

You could or be really callous and once you aren’t able to work anymore (old ages, disability. etc ) you are culled, I imagine getting rid of everyone over retirement age would be a couple of billion.

Logan’s Run

Yes The Carousel

Cymek said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Cymek said:

You could or be really callous and once you aren’t able to work anymore (old ages, disability. etc ) you are culled, I imagine getting rid of everyone over retirement age would be a couple of billion.

Logan’s Run

Yes The Carousel

Grandparents are quite important in the eyes of children… lost knowledge, familial support, intergenerational learning…

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

The world needs to restrict the number of children a couple can have but they didn’t really work well in China so perhaps a different method to what they use. No births allowed for a decade at least, probably two or more decades so the dying reduce our population and aren’t replaced by babies being born. Then for every person that died one child is allowed and allocated in a “random “ lottery. It would never work or even be viable but besides a great big war or pandemic what else would reduce population growth

Stop putting warnings on things and let stupid people kill themselves.

Arts said:

Cymek said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Logan’s Run

Yes The Carousel

Grandparents are quite important in the eyes of children… lost knowledge, familial support, intergenerational learning…

Yes so its not really a viable option, not sure how you can reduce population without burdening one or two specific generations. If you stop people having children for more than a couple of decades (even 20 years might be too long) then you don’t have enough replacements for those too old to work anymore.

Offer free sterilisations and add an incentive decent enough for people to take up the offer.
$100,000 for example if you get sterilised before having any children and reduced payout for the number of children you already have and over a certain amount just the free part. I bet so many babies are unplanned and whilst they are probably not unwanted once born (most anyway) they might never have existed if the “accident” didn’t occur

Arts said:

Cymek said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Logan’s Run

Yes The Carousel

Grandparents are quite important in the eyes of children… lost knowledge, familial support, intergenerational learning…

Hippy.

Cymek said:

Arts said:

Cymek said:

Yes The Carousel

Grandparents are quite important in the eyes of children… lost knowledge, familial support, intergenerational learning…

Yes so its not really a viable option, not sure how you can reduce population without burdening one or two specific generations. If you stop people having children for more than a couple of decades (even 20 years might be too long) then you don’t have enough replacements for those too old to work anymore.

Japanese are investing a lot in robotics in aged care.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Arts said:

Grandparents are quite important in the eyes of children… lost knowledge, familial support, intergenerational learning…

Yes so its not really a viable option, not sure how you can reduce population without burdening one or two specific generations. If you stop people having children for more than a couple of decades (even 20 years might be too long) then you don’t have enough replacements for those too old to work anymore.

Japanese are investing a lot in robotics in aged care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roujin_Z

Ian said:

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

The world needs to restrict the number of children a couple can have but they didn’t really work well in China so perhaps a different method to what they use. No births allowed for a decade at least, probably two or more decades so the dying reduce our population and aren’t replaced by babies being born. Then for every person that died one child is allowed and allocated in a “random “ lottery. It would never work or even be viable but besides a great big war or pandemic what else would reduce population growth

Stop putting warnings on things and let stupid people kill themselves.

Some actual John Deere warning symbols

Arts said:

Grandparents are quite important in the eyes of children… lost knowledge, familial support, intergenerational learning…

And when they get a bit older – how quickly can they die so I can inherit.

I suspect the countries with a high birth rate are those where contraception is still too expensive for most of the population. eg. in Nigeria, the minimum wage is about to be increased to $100 per month.

As for crazy warning messages – they’re good fun. What I hate is meaningless icons.

mollwollfumble said:

Arts said:

Grandparents are quite important in the eyes of children… lost knowledge, familial support, intergenerational learning…

And when they get a bit older – how quickly can they die so I can inherit.

I suspect the countries with a high birth rate are those where contraception is still too expensive for most of the population. eg. in Nigeria, the minimum wage is about to be increased to $100 per month.

As for crazy warning messages – they’re good fun. What I hate is meaningless icons.

I’m surprised that Nigeria even has a minimum wage.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Arts said:

Grandparents are quite important in the eyes of children… lost knowledge, familial support, intergenerational learning…

And when they get a bit older – how quickly can they die so I can inherit.

I suspect the countries with a high birth rate are those where contraception is still too expensive for most of the population. eg. in Nigeria, the minimum wage is about to be increased to $100 per month.

As for crazy warning messages – they’re good fun. What I hate is meaningless icons.

I’m surprised that Nigeria even has a minimum wage.

Me too. There’s a big stink about it in the newspapers right now. N25000 = $100 AUD. By Now I mean October 9, 2018.

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/10/minimum-wage-stalemate-as-govt-insists-on-n25000/

Also, keep in mind that Phillipines & India’s Total Fertility is now well on the way down, which is pretty fantastic given this.

Kothos said:

dv is right – falling population growth (not to mention the much worse falling population) will completely destroy humanity’s current economic model that depends on perpetual growth. No one has done much and most people have done nothing, to understand what we need to do to re-gear our economies for zero population growth, while still sustaining quality of life, and smaller economic growth based on scientific, technological and efficiency improvements only.

As for the validity of the projections, I agree that predictions can’t be completely accurate, but there’s no reason to suggest that birth rates will suddenly start climbing in an environment of factors that specifically keep them low, e.g.

- general human safety
- increased education of women
- increased education generally
- increased freedom of individuals to make their own decisions
- increased economic prosperity and quality of life
- decreased religious identification

…all put downward pressure on birthrates. Short of WWIII, I can’t see them going up again significantly.

The point is, human population is NOT falling, only the rate it is falling, which at the earliest will not be for over 80 years. Meanwhile we and everything else must try to live with more pressing problems than our economic ones, and that is survival.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

dv is right – falling population growth (not to mention the much worse falling population) will completely destroy humanity’s current economic model that depends on perpetual growth. No one has done much and most people have done nothing, to understand what we need to do to re-gear our economies for zero population growth, while still sustaining quality of life, and smaller economic growth based on scientific, technological and efficiency improvements only.

As for the validity of the projections, I agree that predictions can’t be completely accurate, but there’s no reason to suggest that birth rates will suddenly start climbing in an environment of factors that specifically keep them low, e.g.

- general human safety
- increased education of women
- increased education generally
- increased freedom of individuals to make their own decisions
- increased economic prosperity and quality of life
- decreased religious identification

…all put downward pressure on birthrates. Short of WWIII, I can’t see them going up again significantly.

The point is, human population is NOT falling, only the rate it is falling, which at the earliest will not be for over 80 years. Meanwhile we and everything else must try to live with more pressing problems than our economic ones, and that is survival.

Well I’m not long for this mortal coil but my grandchildren have it all before them.

PermeateFree said:

The point is, human population is NOT falling, only the rate it is falling, which at the earliest will not be for over 80 years. Meanwhile we and everything else must try to live with more pressing problems than our economic ones, and that is survival.

Our economic problems and survival are heavily related.

If people can’t be convinced a course of action is economically viable, they won’t do it, survival or no.

And I was thinking more along the lines of, our welfare is paid for by taxes that employ the young and working. What happens when there are fewer young and working than there are pensioners? Who does the work and where do the taxes come from?

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

The point is, human population is NOT falling, only the rate it is falling, which at the earliest will not be for over 80 years. Meanwhile we and everything else must try to live with more pressing problems than our economic ones, and that is survival.

Our economic problems and survival are heavily related.

If people can’t be convinced a course of action is economically viable, they won’t do it, survival or no.

And I was thinking more along the lines of, our welfare is paid for by taxes that employ the young and working. What happens when there are fewer young and working than there are pensioners? Who does the work and where do the taxes come from?

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

The point is, human population is NOT falling, only the rate it is falling, which at the earliest will not be for over 80 years. Meanwhile we and everything else must try to live with more pressing problems than our economic ones, and that is survival.

Our economic problems and survival are heavily related.

If people can’t be convinced a course of action is economically viable, they won’t do it, survival or no.

And I was thinking more along the lines of, our welfare is paid for by taxes that employ the young and working. What happens when there are fewer young and working than there are pensioners? Who does the work and where do the taxes come from?

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

Perhaps the Earth can support 11 billion people but everyone reduces the impact they have as much as possible.
I bet if you examined the lifestyles of most people you’d find it verges on worse case scenario for the environment and could (but probably not would) be able to be drastically altered

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

The point is, human population is NOT falling, only the rate it is falling, which at the earliest will not be for over 80 years. Meanwhile we and everything else must try to live with more pressing problems than our economic ones, and that is survival.

Our economic problems and survival are heavily related.

If people can’t be convinced a course of action is economically viable, they won’t do it, survival or no.

And I was thinking more along the lines of, our welfare is paid for by taxes that employ the young and working. What happens when there are fewer young and working than there are pensioners? Who does the work and where do the taxes come from?

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

The population doesn’t have to reduce for these economic effects to take place – they are already happening just with the decline in growth rate.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

Our economic problems and survival are heavily related.

If people can’t be convinced a course of action is economically viable, they won’t do it, survival or no.

And I was thinking more along the lines of, our welfare is paid for by taxes that employ the young and working. What happens when there are fewer young and working than there are pensioners? Who does the work and where do the taxes come from?

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

Perhaps the Earth can support 11 billion people but everyone reduces the impact they have as much as possible.
I bet if you examined the lifestyles of most people you’d find it verges on worse case scenario for the environment and could (but probably not would) be able to be drastically altered

I think you forget that most people on this planet have far less affluent lives than yourself, and everyone of them have a desire to reach and even exceed your standard. So people having less impact on the resources is NOT going to happen no matter what!

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

Our economic problems and survival are heavily related.

If people can’t be convinced a course of action is economically viable, they won’t do it, survival or no.

And I was thinking more along the lines of, our welfare is paid for by taxes that employ the young and working. What happens when there are fewer young and working than there are pensioners? Who does the work and where do the taxes come from?

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

The population doesn’t have to reduce for these economic effects to take place – they are already happening just with the decline in growth rate.

Are you familiar with what the growth rate is? It will have nothing to do with population growth for AT LEAST 80 years, in the meantime the population is still GROWING.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

Perhaps the Earth can support 11 billion people but everyone reduces the impact they have as much as possible.
I bet if you examined the lifestyles of most people you’d find it verges on worse case scenario for the environment and could (but probably not would) be able to be drastically altered

I think you forget that most people on this planet have far less affluent lives than yourself, and everyone of them have a desire to reach and even exceed your standard. So people having less impact on the resources is NOT going to happen no matter what!

Probably not, but their are things we can do but don’t, you could create entire industries and numerous jobs from trying to clean up our damage. I thought why on earth aren’t we creating an industry to clean up the oceans you could employ thousands of drones to clean up plastic return to a mothership to offload and back again. Clean up rubbish everywhere you find it.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

The population doesn’t have to reduce for these economic effects to take place – they are already happening just with the decline in growth rate.

Are you familiar with what the growth rate is? It will have nothing to do with population growth for AT LEAST 80 years, in the meantime the population is still GROWING.

How do you stop that though, free sterilisation so accidents no longer happen might help somewhat but if we don’t make babies we will eventually die out and we need people to replace those no longer able to work.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

The population doesn’t have to reduce for these economic effects to take place – they are already happening just with the decline in growth rate.

Are you familiar with what the growth rate is? It will have nothing to do with population growth for AT LEAST 80 years, in the meantime the population is still GROWING.

Are you familiar with what I wrote? I wrote the economic problems with a lower growth rate have already begun. I didn’t say the population isn’t growing.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps the Earth can support 11 billion people but everyone reduces the impact they have as much as possible.
I bet if you examined the lifestyles of most people you’d find it verges on worse case scenario for the environment and could (but probably not would) be able to be drastically altered

I think you forget that most people on this planet have far less affluent lives than yourself, and everyone of them have a desire to reach and even exceed your standard. So people having less impact on the resources is NOT going to happen no matter what!

Probably not, but their are things we can do but don’t, you could create entire industries and numerous jobs from trying to clean up our damage. I thought why on earth aren’t we creating an industry to clean up the oceans you could employ thousands of drones to clean up plastic return to a mothership to offload and back again. Clean up rubbish everywhere you find it.

A lack of population growth is NOT affecting Australia at this point in time. However you must consider the populations and what is happening in the rest of the world, of which the solutions you suggest must address.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

The population doesn’t have to reduce for these economic effects to take place – they are already happening just with the decline in growth rate.

Are you familiar with what the growth rate is? It will have nothing to do with population growth for AT LEAST 80 years, in the meantime the population is still GROWING.

Are you familiar with what I wrote? I wrote the economic problems with a lower growth rate have already begun. I didn’t say the population isn’t growing.

The fact we want continual profit increase and economic expansion isn’t viable especially as we live with finite resources, that mindset needs to change

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

The population doesn’t have to reduce for these economic effects to take place – they are already happening just with the decline in growth rate.

Are you familiar with what the growth rate is? It will have nothing to do with population growth for AT LEAST 80 years, in the meantime the population is still GROWING.

Are you familiar with what I wrote? I wrote the economic problems with a lower growth rate have already begun. I didn’t say the population isn’t growing.

Please tell me HOW a lower growth rate is creating economic problems, when the population growth is INCREASING?

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you forget that most people on this planet have far less affluent lives than yourself, and everyone of them have a desire to reach and even exceed your standard. So people having less impact on the resources is NOT going to happen no matter what!

Probably not, but their are things we can do but don’t, you could create entire industries and numerous jobs from trying to clean up our damage. I thought why on earth aren’t we creating an industry to clean up the oceans you could employ thousands of drones to clean up plastic return to a mothership to offload and back again. Clean up rubbish everywhere you find it.

A lack of population growth is NOT affecting Australia at this point in time. However you must consider the populations and what is happening in the rest of the world, of which the solutions you suggest must address.

Yes but why has nothing seriously been considered I mean we have leaders that are meant to lead our nations and they do nothing or at the best piecemeal solutions.

Cymek said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Are you familiar with what the growth rate is? It will have nothing to do with population growth for AT LEAST 80 years, in the meantime the population is still GROWING.

Are you familiar with what I wrote? I wrote the economic problems with a lower growth rate have already begun. I didn’t say the population isn’t growing.

The fact we want continual profit increase and economic expansion isn’t viable especially as we live with finite resources, that mindset needs to change

Pull the other leg, it’s got bells on it.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Are you familiar with what the growth rate is? It will have nothing to do with population growth for AT LEAST 80 years, in the meantime the population is still GROWING.

Are you familiar with what I wrote? I wrote the economic problems with a lower growth rate have already begun. I didn’t say the population isn’t growing.

Please tell me HOW a lower growth rate is creating economic problems, when the population growth is INCREASING?

More population yes, but people live longer need money and care and less young people to look after them and put money into the economy

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Kothos said:

Are you familiar with what I wrote? I wrote the economic problems with a lower growth rate have already begun. I didn’t say the population isn’t growing.

The fact we want continual profit increase and economic expansion isn’t viable especially as we live with finite resources, that mindset needs to change

Pull the other leg, it’s got bells on it.

Yes I know

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

Are you familiar with what I wrote? I wrote the economic problems with a lower growth rate have already begun. I didn’t say the population isn’t growing.

Please tell me HOW a lower growth rate is creating economic problems, when the population growth is INCREASING?

More population yes, but people live longer need money and care and less young people to look after them and put money into the economy

But this will not happen for decades.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

The point is, human population is NOT falling, only the rate it is falling, which at the earliest will not be for over 80 years. Meanwhile we and everything else must try to live with more pressing problems than our economic ones, and that is survival.

Our economic problems and survival are heavily related.

If people can’t be convinced a course of action is economically viable, they won’t do it, survival or no.

And I was thinking more along the lines of, our welfare is paid for by taxes that employ the young and working. What happens when there are fewer young and working than there are pensioners? Who does the work and where do the taxes come from?

Well there will be NO population reduction this century, which will continue well into the 22nd. too. IF it does stabilise in over 100 years time, the population will STILL be over 11 billion people and must reduce from that, and as it takes around 80 years for these things to work their way through the system, it will be well over 200 years before a real population reduction will take and considerably longer to return to even current levels. Also as Australia is on a idiotic immigrant high, then there is next to no possibility of a population reduction with few people needing to look after the non-working aged. The demands that an excess number of people are having on the environment, which even now cannot support them, IMO is by far the most pressing problem.

So have another world war. That should reduce the population a bit.

Realistically we are kind of screwed, too little too late.
I can see it being made worse as regions of the planet out of bounds for exploitation will be opened up and ruined and the high likelihood of regional wars between super powers over resources. Weaponisation of space and that’s really scary as it gives nations the idea of first strike nuclear war being winnable

Cymek said:

Realistically we are kind of screwed, too little too late.
I can see it being made worse as regions of the planet out of bounds for exploitation will be opened up and ruined and the high likelihood of regional wars between super powers over resources. Weaponisation of space and that’s really scary as it gives nations the idea of first strike nuclear war being winnable

Population growth makes politicians look good because it creates demand and economic growth. Hence we get all the propaganda about the few paying the bills of the aged, which gives them the opportunity to bring vast numbers of migrants into the country. However the infrastructure is not designed to handle a large population expansion and it creates many problems of living within a city environment. But rather than fix it up, they now want to send them off to the bush where there are few jobs, so they can dismiss the problem of overpopulation and still look good. I might be cynical about politicians, but I doubt it.

PermeateFree said:

A lack of population growth is NOT affecting Australia at this point in time. However you must consider the populations and what is happening in the rest of the world, of which the solutions you suggest must address.

It is beginning to – there was a growth reduction after the baby boomer years and just that blip set off fire alarms all over the place about how their welfare will be supported once they no longer work.

Cymek said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Are you familiar with what the growth rate is? It will have nothing to do with population growth for AT LEAST 80 years, in the meantime the population is still GROWING.

Are you familiar with what I wrote? I wrote the economic problems with a lower growth rate have already begun. I didn’t say the population isn’t growing.

The fact we want continual profit increase and economic expansion isn’t viable especially as we live with finite resources, that mindset needs to change

I quite agree with you.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Please tell me HOW a lower growth rate is creating economic problems, when the population growth is INCREASING?

More population yes, but people live longer need money and care and less young people to look after them and put money into the economy

But this will not happen for decades.

It’s already happened in some countries.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

A lack of population growth is NOT affecting Australia at this point in time. However you must consider the populations and what is happening in the rest of the world, of which the solutions you suggest must address.

It is beginning to – there was a growth reduction after the baby boomer years and just that blip set off fire alarms all over the place about how their welfare will be supported once they no longer work.

How can you say that? We are bringing into this country around 250,000 migrant every year. These are not old people, but young and family people, so where is this problem of not having enough people to pay the aged when they retire? It is NOT a problem!

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

A lack of population growth is NOT affecting Australia at this point in time. However you must consider the populations and what is happening in the rest of the world, of which the solutions you suggest must address.

It is beginning to – there was a growth reduction after the baby boomer years and just that blip set off fire alarms all over the place about how their welfare will be supported once they no longer work.

How can you say that? We are bringing into this country around 250,000 migrant every year. These are not old people, but young and family people, so where is this problem of not having enough people to pay the aged when they retire? It is NOT a problem!

The entire reason why we are bringing them in is precisely because our governments have lacked the creativity to deal with the problem of an aging population in any other way.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

It is beginning to – there was a growth reduction after the baby boomer years and just that blip set off fire alarms all over the place about how their welfare will be supported once they no longer work.

How can you say that? We are bringing into this country around 250,000 migrant every year. These are not old people, but young and family people, so where is this problem of not having enough people to pay the aged when they retire? It is NOT a problem!

The entire reason why we are bringing them in is precisely because our governments have lacked the creativity to deal with the problem of an aging population in any other way.

It is because Aussies are too smart tohave more kids than they can afford.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

More population yes, but people live longer need money and care and less young people to look after them and put money into the economy

But this will not happen for decades.

It’s already happened in some countries.

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

But this will not happen for decades.

It’s already happened in some countries.

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

I am reasonably sure that God isn’t listening.

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

Wars, famine, disease, droughts, floods all used to work but I think it has got outof hand since then.

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

We’d need to get rid of what a billion people at least, so a big war or mass genocide

Cymek said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

We’d need to get rid of what a billion people at least, so a big war or mass genocide

more like 2 or 3 billion. not an easy task.

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

Education, education is the solution to much of our problems.
If we can get to the kiddies early and tell them they might be gay……………..and get the gay population to over 50%….well we’re half way there.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

Education, education is the solution to much of our problems.
If we can get to the kiddies early and tell them they might be gay……………..and get the gay population to over 50%….well we’re half way there.

Many sci-fi authors of well known status, have put this proposal forwards in many ways over the past fifty years.

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

1 child per couple for a few hundred years ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

1 child per couple for a few hundred years ?

Even my maths is better than that.

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

Ban contraception, pipe Barry White music everywhere

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

1 child per couple for a few hundred years ?

Even my maths is better than that.

It was more of a question.

What did your maths come up with ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

1 child per couple for a few hundred years ?

Even my maths is better than that.

It was more of a question.

What did your maths come up with ?

lots more than hundreds of years at one child per couple..

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

That is why we are stuffed. Just look at nature when organisms exceed the capacity of their environment to support them. It ain’t pretty.

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

WWIII

Michael V said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

WWIII

Even that is outdated.

Bogsnorkler said:

Cymek said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

We’d need to get rid of what a billion people at least, so a big war or mass genocide

more like 2 or 3 billion. not an easy task.

Simple. De-nuclearise by using the bombs in WWIII. Win-win.

A virus to stop re reproduction ?

A cure that costs the same as one extra life on the resources of the environment ?

Michael V said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Cymek said:

We’d need to get rid of what a billion people at least, so a big war or mass genocide

more like 2 or 3 billion. not an easy task.

Simple. De-nuclearise by using the bombs in WWIII. Win-win.

Cull everyone over 70

Michael V said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Cymek said:

We’d need to get rid of what a billion people at least, so a big war or mass genocide

more like 2 or 3 billion. not an easy task.

Simple. De-nuclearise by using the bombs in WWIII. Win-win.

There is no win involved in nukes.

Earth Abids

A really great little read. it is about fifty years since I read it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

A virus to stop re reproduction ?

A cure that costs the same as one extra life on the resources of the environment ?

Yeah. We will need to allow some huge catastrophes.

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Bogsnorkler said:

more like 2 or 3 billion. not an easy task.

Simple. De-nuclearise by using the bombs in WWIII. Win-win.

Cull everyone over 70

What would the numbers drop down to with voluntary euthanasia world wide?

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Bogsnorkler said:

more like 2 or 3 billion. not an easy task.

Simple. De-nuclearise by using the bombs in WWIII. Win-win.

Cull everyone over 70

Oi. Can’t kill the smart survivors.

Read the book I referred to Earth Abides”:http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/reviews/apocalypse-then-earth-abides-by-george-r-stewart/

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Bogsnorkler said:

more like 2 or 3 billion. not an easy task.

Simple. De-nuclearise by using the bombs in WWIII. Win-win.

Cull everyone over 70

That’s not enough by the looks of it

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Simple. De-nuclearise by using the bombs in WWIII. Win-win.

Cull everyone over 70

What would the numbers drop down to with voluntary euthanasia world wide?

It could certainly reduce the burden of the grey brigade.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Michael V said:

Simple. De-nuclearise by using the bombs in WWIII. Win-win.

Cull everyone over 70

What would the numbers drop down to with voluntary euthanasia world wide?

I thought of that as well, monetary incentive, your mortage is paid off

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

That is why we are stuffed. Just look at nature when organisms exceed the capacity of their environment to support them. It ain’t pretty.

So, time to stop worrying about the inevitable and start to enjoy the high life now.

so no one has an answer?

:-)

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

That is why we are stuffed. Just look at nature when organisms exceed the capacity of their environment to support them. It ain’t pretty.

So, time to stop worrying about the inevitable and start to enjoy the high life now.

That’s why drugs are so popular.

Bogsnorkler said:

so no one has an answer?

:-)

If there was an answer, it would be being enacted.

Higher taxes worldwide for families over one, with higher taxes for Each additional child.

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

I cannot see how to make it happen, but something like this:

Some key resource that every country needs should be set up and controlled as an international cooperative. On land not under the direct control of any nation, an international zone. Nation states contribute to the running cost of producing this material (whatever it might be) and contribute to the collective military defence of the zone against hostile aggression. Every year or month or whatever is convenient, each country gets a dividend in the form an allocation of this physical product. Basically getting it as cost price. Countries can use their allocation domestically or on-sell it.

In return, countries sign up to a list of civilised things like no aggressive territorial expansion, human rights, education (including health/sex education) for all children, and the rights of women including the right to legal contraception and abortion. Breaking these committments would result in forfeiture of some or all of their allocation.

It ends wars, promotes education which in turn lowers birth rate, and takes a key resource out of corporate control and competition.

If this resource could be a substitute for oil and fossil fuels it would be even better.

Paid abortions ?

or some other incentives not to have children ?

Bogsnorkler said:

so no one has an answer?

:-)

Elastration

Promote the pill for women and men worldwide.

Tax incentives for couples on the pill.

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

I cannot see how to make it happen, but something like this:

Some key resource that every country needs should be set up and controlled as an international cooperative. On land not under the direct control of any nation, an international zone. Nation states contribute to the running cost of producing this material (whatever it might be) and contribute to the collective military defence of the zone against hostile aggression. Every year or month or whatever is convenient, each country gets a dividend in the form an allocation of this physical product. Basically getting it as cost price. Countries can use their allocation domestically or on-sell it.

In return, countries sign up to a list of civilised things like no aggressive territorial expansion, human rights, education (including health/sex education) for all children, and the rights of women including the right to legal contraception and abortion. Breaking these committments would result in forfeiture of some or all of their allocation.

It ends wars, promotes education which in turn lowers birth rate, and takes a key resource out of corporate control and competition.

If this resource could be a substitute for oil and fossil fuels it would be even better.

boiling down humans for their fat?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Promote the pill for women and men worldwide.

Tax incentives for couples on the pill.

People who have no children need no incentives. They are filthy rich by not having ankle biters. It is educating the ones who can’t stop popping them out that they’d be able to afford their fags and booze if they didn’t have kids.

An environmental tax for each additional child.

Tax breaks for smaller homes and cars.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Promote the pill for women and men worldwide.

Tax incentives for couples on the pill.

People who have no children need no incentives. They are filthy rich by not having ankle biters. It is educating the ones who can’t stop popping them out that they’d be able to afford their fags and booze if they didn’t have kids.

Better education of consequences of large families.

Sterilisation virus disguised in a flu vaccine that targets everyone over a certain age, say 30

Tau.Neutrino said:

An environmental tax for each additional child.

Tax breaks for smaller homes and cars.

Separate tax penalties for each additional bedroom, starting from three rooms going up , four, five, six bedroom homes etc

Bogsnorkler said:

so what is the solution to reducing the world’s population?

What trumpshithole is doing.

Hurricane season is good pickings.

Removing safety regulations.

Then there’s the healthdon’tcare system.

Bogsnorkler said:

so no one has an answer?

:-)

See my previous post.

Overpopulation is Solvable

Squaring up to difficult truths: how to reduce the population

What are feasible ways of decreasing the population ethically?

10 Effective Ways to Control Population

How to Stop Population Growth—Humanely

Human population planning

Bogsnorkler said:

so no one has an answer?

:-)

You seem to be dismissing banana radiation rather lightly.

Educating the religious on a one child policy that large families is not Gods way, family numbers are their own choice.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so no one has an answer?

:-)

You seem to be dismissing banana radiation rather lightly.

pottassium 40 has a place but it ain’t gunna be a cure-all.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bogsnorkler said:

so no one has an answer?

:-)

You seem to be dismissing banana radiation rather lightly.

Radiation of ones banana would help reduce the population

Promoting and building smaller homes would have a positive impact on the environment.

We could nuke China and India, that’s nearly 3 billion

Make family planning mandatory.

Cymek said:

We could nuke China and India, that’s nearly 3 billion

Pressure larger countries to reduce their populations.

Start sanctions against countries that have high numbers of population over the sustainability horizon .

Tax breaks for delayed families ?

Tax breaks for each abortion ?

Cymek said:

Sterilisation virus disguised in a flu vaccine that targets everyone over a certain age, say 30

to be fair, those who wait until over 30 to have children generally have fewer than those who start in their early 20’s

Arts said:

Cymek said:

Sterilisation virus disguised in a flu vaccine that targets everyone over a certain age, say 30

to be fair, those who wait until over 30 to have children generally have fewer than those who start in their early 20’s

Yeah I was just trying to think of an age to start at

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

But this will not happen for decades.

It’s already happened in some countries.

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

It’s already happened in some countries.

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

There is never any shortage of new people. There are so many couples capable of making babies that there will never be any shortage of new people.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

It’s already happened in some countries.

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

opens popcorn

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

It’s already happened in some countries.

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

ROFL.

Kothos, arguing with permate is like arguing with Paul H :)

Witty Rejoinder said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

opens popcorn

helps self to popcorn. ugh, forgot i hate the crap.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

It’s already happened in some countries.

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

oh dear, DO has got to you too?

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

ROFL.

Kothos, arguing with permate is like arguing with Paul H :)

And who was the best at that?

Bogsnorkler said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

oh dear, DO has got to you too?

Hehehehe

Who’s using Boris’ handle?

sibeen said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Kothos said:

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

oh dear, DO has got to you too?

Hehehehe

Who’s using Boris’ handle?

Boggy has the humour gene.

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

ROFL.

Kothos, arguing with permate is like arguing with Paul H :)

Oh, okay – thanks, you’ve probably saved me a lot of time. Maybe years!

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

It’s already happened in some countries.

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

Can you read, because you don’t appear to be able, or are you (rather poorly) trying to make a strawman!

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

It has ONLY happened where they do not bring migrants into the country like Japan, plus it is not a serious problem even there. What better time to curb human population when the planet is in such a dire situation. I think they are a very smart people, there are only a certain number of people this planet can support, why do we wish to run headlong into the problem and make it worse? If you think we need more people, then god help us.

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

ROFL.

Kothos, arguing with permate is like arguing with Paul H :)

sibeen has anyone ever pointed out that you are not very logical.

Kothos said:

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

ROFL.

Kothos, arguing with permate is like arguing with Paul H :)

Oh, okay – thanks, you’ve probably saved me a lot of time. Maybe years!

Well you have been back-peddling for some time Kothos and now the forum bully boys have given you the opportunity to back out and save face. You are rather silly though and are only cutting off your nose to spite your face. Still it’s your life and if you want to live in ignorance than why should I worry, I was just trying to point you in the right direction.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

Jesus Christ Almight – go back through the thread and find where I said we need more people. And try and find your medication because you’re obviously off it.

ROFL.

Kothos, arguing with permate is like arguing with Paul H :)

sibeen has anyone ever pointed out that you are not very logical.

What annoys me about you sibeen is you will ignore logic, honesty and scientific fact, purely to attack and discredit a person just to be nasty. You are a very low person with little moral statue.

PermeateFree said:

Well you have been back-peddling for some time Kothos and now the forum bully boys have given you the opportunity to back out and save face. You are rather silly though and are only cutting off your nose to spite your face. Still it’s your life and if you want to live in ignorance than why should I worry, I was just trying to point you in the right direction.

Put up or shut up PF. The entire thread is here. Find where I said what you say I said. Should be easy.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Well you have been back-peddling for some time Kothos and now the forum bully boys have given you the opportunity to back out and save face. You are rather silly though and are only cutting off your nose to spite your face. Still it’s your life and if you want to live in ignorance than why should I worry, I was just trying to point you in the right direction.

Put up or shut up PF. The entire thread is here. Find where I said what you say I said. Should be easy.

shakes head in a sorrowful manner

Kothos, Kothos, Kothos, what did I tell you not but a few short hours ago.

shakes head in a sorrowful manner

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Well you have been back-peddling for some time Kothos and now the forum bully boys have given you the opportunity to back out and save face. You are rather silly though and are only cutting off your nose to spite your face. Still it’s your life and if you want to live in ignorance than why should I worry, I was just trying to point you in the right direction.

Put up or shut up PF. The entire thread is here. Find where I said what you say I said. Should be easy.

Where have I said, that you said, etc., etc. Try reading my posts again and you will discover what you are saying is not fact, but YOUR interpretation.

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Well you have been back-peddling for some time Kothos and now the forum bully boys have given you the opportunity to back out and save face. You are rather silly though and are only cutting off your nose to spite your face. Still it’s your life and if you want to live in ignorance than why should I worry, I was just trying to point you in the right direction.

Put up or shut up PF. The entire thread is here. Find where I said what you say I said. Should be easy.

shakes head in a sorrowful manner

Kothos, Kothos, Kothos, what did I tell you not but a few short hours ago.

shakes head in a sorrowful manner

Oh look, Irish yoga.

PermeateFree said:

Where have I said, that you said, etc., etc. Try reading my posts again and you will discover what you are saying is not fact, but YOUR interpretation.

FMD it was like 5 posts ago.

—-
PermeateFree said:
If you think we need more people, then god help us.
—-

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

Put up or shut up PF. The entire thread is here. Find where I said what you say I said. Should be easy.

shakes head in a sorrowful manner

Kothos, Kothos, Kothos, what did I tell you not but a few short hours ago.

shakes head in a sorrowful manner

Oh look, Irish yoga.

The pose PE usually adopts when he loses the argument.

Lots of people seem to be against immigration (refugees and otherwise) in Australia, if its due to our inability to sustain them then its valid assuming its applied to all immigrants not just certain groups. However many nations aren’t stable or friendly to its population and people leave in droves to go elsewhere. Do the more affluent nations have an obligation to help the less fortunate especially as they have directly or indirectly caused many of the problems, especially say if they were sold weapons by the rich nations that are then used against the people. Or is it too bad how sad and everyone for themselves

Cymek said:

Lots of people seem to be against immigration (refugees and otherwise) in Australia, if its due to our inability to sustain them then its valid assuming its applied to all immigrants not just certain groups. However many nations aren’t stable or friendly to its population and people leave in droves to go elsewhere. Do the more affluent nations have an obligation to help the less fortunate especially as they have directly or indirectly caused many of the problems, especially say if they were sold weapons by the rich nations that are then used against the people. Or is it too bad how sad and everyone for themselves

Cymek said:

Lots of people seem to be against immigration (refugees and otherwise) in Australia, if its due to our inability to sustain them then its valid assuming its applied to all immigrants not just certain groups. However many nations aren’t stable or friendly to its population and people leave in droves to go elsewhere. Do the more affluent nations have an obligation to help the less fortunate especially as they have directly or indirectly caused many of the problems, especially say if they were sold weapons by the rich nations that are then used against the people. Or is it too bad how sad and everyone for themselves

Then you would a never ending stream of humanity.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/africas-population-explosion-will-change-humanity-2015-8?r=US&IR=T

More than half of the world’s population growth will be in Africa by 2050

https://qz.com/africa/1016790/more-than-half-of-the-worlds-population-growth-will-be-in-africa-by-2050/

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Where have I said, that you said, etc., etc. Try reading my posts again and you will discover what you are saying is not fact, but YOUR interpretation.

FMD it was like 5 posts ago.

—-
PermeateFree said:
If you think we need more people, then god help us.
—-

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

AND you think this was directed exclusively at you? Jesus your ego must be enormous.

Ian said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

shakes head in a sorrowful manner

Kothos, Kothos, Kothos, what did I tell you not but a few short hours ago.

shakes head in a sorrowful manner

Oh look, Irish yoga.

The pose PE usually adopts when he loses the argument.

What enlargement have I lost? It seems to be to be the same old old boys club attacking someone they don’t like. Never mind the facts, never mind the science and chuck honesty out the window.

PermeateFree said:

Ian said:

PermeateFree said:

Oh look, Irish yoga.

The pose PE usually adopts when he loses the argument.

What enlargement have I lost? It seems to be to be the same old old boys club attacking someone they don’t like. Never mind the facts, never mind the science and chuck honesty out the window.

What enlargement have I lost? = What argument have I lost?

Kothos said:

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

I think there’s something quite profound about that statement.

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

I think there’s something quite profound about that statement.

And if you are good, he will come around to your place a fix your washing machine.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Where have I said, that you said, etc., etc. Try reading my posts again and you will discover what you are saying is not fact, but YOUR interpretation.

FMD it was like 5 posts ago.

—-
PermeateFree said:
If you think we need more people, then god help us.
—-

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

LOL. That post is now on sibeen’s wall above his monitor.

Bogsnorkler said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Where have I said, that you said, etc., etc. Try reading my posts again and you will discover what you are saying is not fact, but YOUR interpretation.

FMD it was like 5 posts ago.

—-
PermeateFree said:
If you think we need more people, then god help us.
—-

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

LOL. That post is now on sibeen’s wall above his monitor.

Bogsnorkler said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Where have I said, that you said, etc., etc. Try reading my posts again and you will discover what you are saying is not fact, but YOUR interpretation.

FMD it was like 5 posts ago.

—-
PermeateFree said:
If you think we need more people, then god help us.
—-

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

LOL. That post is now on sibeen’s wall above his monitor.

Beside his Carlton poster.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Kothos said:

FMD it was like 5 posts ago.

—-
PermeateFree said:
If you think we need more people, then god help us.
—-

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

LOL. That post is now on sibeen’s wall above his monitor.

Beside his Carlton poster.

Don’t you mean the invalid stout one? You know, the stout you have when you’re not having a stout.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Kothos said:

FMD it was like 5 posts ago.

—-
PermeateFree said:
If you think we need more people, then god help us.
—-

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

LOL. That post is now on sibeen’s wall above his monitor.

Beside his Carlton poster.

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Where have I said, that you said, etc., etc. Try reading my posts again and you will discover what you are saying is not fact, but YOUR interpretation.

FMD it was like 5 posts ago.

—-
PermeateFree said:
If you think we need more people, then god help us.
—-

Anyway, I see sibeen was right and I should probably take his advice.

AND you think this was directed exclusively at you? Jesus your ego must be enormous.

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Bogsnorkler said:

LOL. That post is now on sibeen’s wall above his monitor.

Beside his Carlton poster.

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Dammit, replied to the wrong comment. Oh well.

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Bogsnorkler said:

LOL. That post is now on sibeen’s wall above his monitor.

Beside his Carlton poster.

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Steady lad…steady.

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Beside his Carlton poster.

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Steady lad…steady.

Mouse went crazy just before I hit the Quote button – responded to the wrong comment :-/

Kothos said:

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Steady lad…steady.

Mouse went crazy just before I hit the Quote button – responded to the wrong comment :-/

Who knows? Anyway back to the regular program.

Kothos said:

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Beside his Carlton poster.

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Dammit, replied to the wrong comment. Oh well.

Yeah you’re an idiot. Hint: read what is written, rather than taking your worst possible interpretation.

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Beside his Carlton poster.

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Steady lad…steady.

Oh look a Melbourne pigeon.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Lots of people seem to be against immigration (refugees and otherwise) in Australia, if its due to our inability to sustain them then its valid assuming its applied to all immigrants not just certain groups. However many nations aren’t stable or friendly to its population and people leave in droves to go elsewhere. Do the more affluent nations have an obligation to help the less fortunate especially as they have directly or indirectly caused many of the problems, especially say if they were sold weapons by the rich nations that are then used against the people. Or is it too bad how sad and everyone for themselves

Then you would a never ending stream of humanity.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/africas-population-explosion-will-change-humanity-2015-8?r=US&IR=T

More than half of the world’s population growth will be in Africa by 2050

https://qz.com/africa/1016790/more-than-half-of-the-worlds-population-growth-will-be-in-africa-by-2050/

That’s a real worry. For starters, Africa’s agriculture can’t support a population that large. Then there are the huge racial divisions within Africa and wars that result from that (eg. Rwanda). Third, increasing population gives increasing poverty which leads to inability to buy contraceptives which leads to faster increasing population.

Fourth, population growth is very uneven within Africa … no … looking more closely at this chart, practically every single country with a higher TFR than the Philippines is in Africa (the notable exception being Iraq) and practically every single country in Africa has a higher TFR than the Philippines (the exceptions being South Africa, Morocco, Libya and Tunisia).

If poverty could be overcome first, eg. in the form of free contraception, then the situation would be much better. The other way it would become better would be greatly enhanced emigration out of Africa. Mass migration out of a country always follows a war in that country in which the USA/UN becomes involved.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Kothos said:

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Steady lad…steady.

Oh look a Melbourne pigeon.

I hope that’s a statue of Bolte. Oh good, it is, he deserves a good pigeon.

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

Kothos said:

Yeah – the biggest hint was that you were directly responding to something I wrote, and then used the word “you”. But, you know, perhaps English is your third language so maybe you were talking to the wall.

Dammit, replied to the wrong comment. Oh well.

Yeah you’re an idiot. Hint: read what is written, rather than taking your worst possible interpretation.

Okay, you’re crazy. I guess I’m satisfied now. Bye and have a nice life.

Kothos said:

PermeateFree said:

Kothos said:

Dammit, replied to the wrong comment. Oh well.

Yeah you’re an idiot. Hint: read what is written, rather than taking your worst possible interpretation.

Okay, you’re crazy. I guess I’m satisfied now. Bye and have a nice life.

I’m pleased to assist, at least you can now see where you went wrong.

The UN’s recent estimates for population, taken as being accurate at July 1, in millions.

Although there was already a downward trend in absolute annual population growth, fair to say that the Covid era has shaved an extra 15 to 20 million compared to what would have been predicted on the basis of 2017 to 2019 data. Partly this would be in deaths but also in depressed birthrates in many places.

The annual growth of 65.8 million is the lowest absolute growth since 1962.

The growth of 0.83 is by far the lowest in the range of years tracked by the UN (since 1950).
My BOTE estimates suggest that population growth in the last years of WW2 would have been lower than this.

Presumably we will see some rebound in population growth in the coming years.

YEAR	POP	GROWTH	%GROWTH
1950	2499322
1951	2543130	43808	1.753
1952	2590271	47141	1.854
1953	2640279	50008	1.931
1954	2691979	51701	1.958
1955	2746072	54093	2.009
1956	2801003	54930	2.000
1957	2857867	56864	2.030
1958	2916108	58241	2.038
1959	2970292	54184	1.858
1960	3019233	48941	1.648
1961	3068371	49137	1.627
1962	3126687	58316	1.901
1963	3195779	69093	2.210
1964	3267212	71433	2.235
1965	3337112	69900	2.139
1966	3406417	69305	2.077
1967	3475448	69031	2.027
1968	3546811	71363	2.053
1969	3620655	73844	2.082
1970	3695390	74735	2.064
1971	3770163	74773	2.023
1972	3844801	74638	1.980
1973	3920252	75451	1.962
1974	3995517	75266	1.920
1975	4069437	73920	1.850
1976	4142506	73069	1.796
1977	4215772	73267	1.769
1978	4289658	73885	1.753
1979	4365583	75925	1.770
1980	4444008	78425	1.796
1981	4524628	80620	1.814
1982	4607985	83357	1.842
1983	4691884	83899	1.821
1984	4775836	83952	1.789
1985	4861731	85895	1.799
1986	4950063	88333	1.817
1987	5040984	90921	1.837
1988	5132294	91309	1.811
1989	5223704	91410	1.781
1990	5316176	92472	1.770
1991	5406246	90070	1.694
1992	5492686	86440	1.599
1993	5577434	84747	1.543
1994	5660728	83294	1.493
1995	5743219	82491	1.457
1996	5825145	81926	1.426
1997	5906481	81336	1.396
1998	5987312	80831	1.369
1999	6067758	80446	1.344
2000	6148899	81141	1.337
2001	6230747	81848	1.331
2002	6312407	81660	1.311
2003	6393898	81491	1.291
2004	6475751	81853	1.280
2005	6558176	82425	1.273
2006	6641416	83240	1.269
2007	6725949	84532	1.273
2008	6811597	85649	1.273
2009	6898306	86709	1.273
2010	6985603	87297	1.265
2011	7073125	87522	1.253
2012	7161698	88572	1.252
2013	7250593	88895	1.241
2014	7339013	88420	1.219
2015	7426598	87584	1.193
2016	7513474	86877	1.170
2017	7599822	86348	1.149
2018	7683790	83967	1.105
2019	7764951	81161	1.056
2020	7840953	76002	0.979
2021	7909295	68342	0.872
2022	7975105	65810	0.832

dv said:

population, taken as being accurate at July 1, in millions.

YEAR	POP	GROWTH	%GROWTH
1950	2499322
1951	2543130	43808	1.753
1952	2590271	47141	1.854
1953	2640279	50008	1.931
1954	2691979	51701	1.958
1955	2746072	54093	2.009
1956	2801003	54930	2.000
1957	2857867	56864	2.030
1958	2916108	58241	2.038
1959	2970292	54184	1.858
1960	3019233	48941	1.648
1961	3068371	49137	1.627
1962	3126687	58316	1.901
1963	3195779	69093	2.210
1964	3267212	71433	2.235
1965	3337112	69900	2.139
1966	3406417	69305	2.077
1967	3475448	69031	2.027
1968	3546811	71363	2.053
1969	3620655	73844	2.082
1970	3695390	74735	2.064
1971	3770163	74773	2.023
1972	3844801	74638	1.980
1973	3920252	75451	1.962
1974	3995517	75266	1.920
1975	4069437	73920	1.850
1976	4142506	73069	1.796
1977	4215772	73267	1.769
1978	4289658	73885	1.753
1979	4365583	75925	1.770
1980	4444008	78425	1.796
1981	4524628	80620	1.814
1982	4607985	83357	1.842
1983	4691884	83899	1.821
1984	4775836	83952	1.789
1985	4861731	85895	1.799
1986	4950063	88333	1.817
1987	5040984	90921	1.837
1988	5132294	91309	1.811
1989	5223704	91410	1.781
1990	5316176	92472	1.770
1991	5406246	90070	1.694
1992	5492686	86440	1.599
1993	5577434	84747	1.543
1994	5660728	83294	1.493
1995	5743219	82491	1.457
1996	5825145	81926	1.426
1997	5906481	81336	1.396
1998	5987312	80831	1.369
1999	6067758	80446	1.344
2000	6148899	81141	1.337
2001	6230747	81848	1.331
2002	6312407	81660	1.311
2003	6393898	81491	1.291
2004	6475751	81853	1.280
2005	6558176	82425	1.273
2006	6641416	83240	1.269
2007	6725949	84532	1.273
2008	6811597	85649	1.273
2009	6898306	86709	1.273
2010	6985603	87297	1.265
2011	7073125	87522	1.253
2012	7161698	88572	1.252
2013	7250593	88895	1.241
2014	7339013	88420	1.219
2015	7426598	87584	1.193
2016	7513474	86877	1.170
2017	7599822	86348	1.149
2018	7683790	83967	1.105
2019	7764951	81161	1.056
2020	7840953	76002	0.979
2021	7909295	68342	0.872
2022	7975105	65810	0.832

holy fuck

dv said:

The UN’s recent estimates for population, taken as being accurate at July 1, in millions.

Although there was already a downward trend in absolute annual population growth, fair to say that the Covid era has shaved an extra 15 to 20 million compared to what would have been predicted on the basis of 2017 to 2019 data. Partly this would be in deaths but also in depressed birthrates in many places.

The annual growth of 65.8 million is the lowest absolute growth since 1962.

The growth of 0.83 is by far the lowest in the range of years tracked by the UN (since 1950).
My BOTE estimates suggest that population growth in the last years of WW2 would have been lower than this.

Presumably we will see some rebound in population growth in the coming years.

YEAR	POP	GROWTH	%GROWTH
1950	2499322
1951	2543130	43808	1.753
1952	2590271	47141	1.854
1953	2640279	50008	1.931
1954	2691979	51701	1.958
1955	2746072	54093	2.009
1956	2801003	54930	2.000
1957	2857867	56864	2.030
1958	2916108	58241	2.038
1959	2970292	54184	1.858
1960	3019233	48941	1.648
1961	3068371	49137	1.627
1962	3126687	58316	1.901
1963	3195779	69093	2.210
1964	3267212	71433	2.235
1965	3337112	69900	2.139
1966	3406417	69305	2.077
1967	3475448	69031	2.027
1968	3546811	71363	2.053
1969	3620655	73844	2.082
1970	3695390	74735	2.064
1971	3770163	74773	2.023
1972	3844801	74638	1.980
1973	3920252	75451	1.962
1974	3995517	75266	1.920
1975	4069437	73920	1.850
1976	4142506	73069	1.796
1977	4215772	73267	1.769
1978	4289658	73885	1.753
1979	4365583	75925	1.770
1980	4444008	78425	1.796
1981	4524628	80620	1.814
1982	4607985	83357	1.842
1983	4691884	83899	1.821
1984	4775836	83952	1.789
1985	4861731	85895	1.799
1986	4950063	88333	1.817
1987	5040984	90921	1.837
1988	5132294	91309	1.811
1989	5223704	91410	1.781
1990	5316176	92472	1.770
1991	5406246	90070	1.694
1992	5492686	86440	1.599
1993	5577434	84747	1.543
1994	5660728	83294	1.493
1995	5743219	82491	1.457
1996	5825145	81926	1.426
1997	5906481	81336	1.396
1998	5987312	80831	1.369
1999	6067758	80446	1.344
2000	6148899	81141	1.337
2001	6230747	81848	1.331
2002	6312407	81660	1.311
2003	6393898	81491	1.291
2004	6475751	81853	1.280
2005	6558176	82425	1.273
2006	6641416	83240	1.269
2007	6725949	84532	1.273
2008	6811597	85649	1.273
2009	6898306	86709	1.273
2010	6985603	87297	1.265
2011	7073125	87522	1.253
2012	7161698	88572	1.252
2013	7250593	88895	1.241
2014	7339013	88420	1.219
2015	7426598	87584	1.193
2016	7513474	86877	1.170
2017	7599822	86348	1.149
2018	7683790	83967	1.105
2019	7764951	81161	1.056
2020	7840953	76002	0.979
2021	7909295	68342	0.872
2022	7975105	65810	0.832

Population growth is not a good statistic on its own to indicate what is going on now or even towards the end of the century, because the base population figure continues to rise, meaning statistically, the growth rate in percentage terms must decrease each year as the bell-shape of the global population graph begins to summit, although population numbers will continue to increase until the top of the bell is reached. Therefore, it is folly to only place emphasis on one statistic and ignore the other.

Even with the larger population growth rate figure of the past three years, the total population number continued to rise and will most likely do so over the next eighty years, when it will level off and only then will the population number begin to fall. Humans have a long lifespan, and it takes at least three generations before population size differences have any substance and then you have another three generations before global population levels return to their current level.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The UN’s recent estimates for population, taken as being accurate at July 1, in millions.

Although there was already a downward trend in absolute annual population growth, fair to say that the Covid era has shaved an extra 15 to 20 million compared to what would have been predicted on the basis of 2017 to 2019 data. Partly this would be in deaths but also in depressed birthrates in many places.

The annual growth of 65.8 million is the lowest absolute growth since 1962.

The growth of 0.83 is by far the lowest in the range of years tracked by the UN (since 1950).
My BOTE estimates suggest that population growth in the last years of WW2 would have been lower than this.

Presumably we will see some rebound in population growth in the coming years.

YEAR	POP	GROWTH	%GROWTH
1950	2499322
1951	2543130	43808	1.753
1952	2590271	47141	1.854
1953	2640279	50008	1.931
1954	2691979	51701	1.958
1955	2746072	54093	2.009
1956	2801003	54930	2.000
1957	2857867	56864	2.030
1958	2916108	58241	2.038
1959	2970292	54184	1.858
1960	3019233	48941	1.648
1961	3068371	49137	1.627
1962	3126687	58316	1.901
1963	3195779	69093	2.210
1964	3267212	71433	2.235
1965	3337112	69900	2.139
1966	3406417	69305	2.077
1967	3475448	69031	2.027
1968	3546811	71363	2.053
1969	3620655	73844	2.082
1970	3695390	74735	2.064
1971	3770163	74773	2.023
1972	3844801	74638	1.980
1973	3920252	75451	1.962
1974	3995517	75266	1.920
1975	4069437	73920	1.850
1976	4142506	73069	1.796
1977	4215772	73267	1.769
1978	4289658	73885	1.753
1979	4365583	75925	1.770
1980	4444008	78425	1.796
1981	4524628	80620	1.814
1982	4607985	83357	1.842
1983	4691884	83899	1.821
1984	4775836	83952	1.789
1985	4861731	85895	1.799
1986	4950063	88333	1.817
1987	5040984	90921	1.837
1988	5132294	91309	1.811
1989	5223704	91410	1.781
1990	5316176	92472	1.770
1991	5406246	90070	1.694
1992	5492686	86440	1.599
1993	5577434	84747	1.543
1994	5660728	83294	1.493
1995	5743219	82491	1.457
1996	5825145	81926	1.426
1997	5906481	81336	1.396
1998	5987312	80831	1.369
1999	6067758	80446	1.344
2000	6148899	81141	1.337
2001	6230747	81848	1.331
2002	6312407	81660	1.311
2003	6393898	81491	1.291
2004	6475751	81853	1.280
2005	6558176	82425	1.273
2006	6641416	83240	1.269
2007	6725949	84532	1.273
2008	6811597	85649	1.273
2009	6898306	86709	1.273
2010	6985603	87297	1.265
2011	7073125	87522	1.253
2012	7161698	88572	1.252
2013	7250593	88895	1.241
2014	7339013	88420	1.219
2015	7426598	87584	1.193
2016	7513474	86877	1.170
2017	7599822	86348	1.149
2018	7683790	83967	1.105
2019	7764951	81161	1.056
2020	7840953	76002	0.979
2021	7909295	68342	0.872
2022	7975105	65810	0.832

Population growth is not a good statistic on its own to indicate what is going on now or even towards the end of the century, because the base population figure continues to rise, meaning statistically, the growth rate in percentage terms must decrease each year as the bell-shape of the global population graph begins to summit, although population numbers will continue to increase until the top of the bell is reached. Therefore, it is folly to only place emphasis on one statistic and ignore the other.

Even with the larger (smaller) population growth rate figure of the past three years, the total population number continued to rise and will most likely do so over the next eighty years, when it will level off and only then will the population number begin to fall. Humans have a long lifespan, and it takes at least three generations before population size differences have any substance and then you have another three generations before global population levels return to their current level.

dv said:

Presumably we will see some rebound in population growth in the coming years.

You are such a pessimist.

But presumably I agree.

Interesting that in spite of everything, the actual numbers of population growth were higher last year than for most years of the “baby boom”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Presumably we will see some rebound in population growth in the coming years.

You are such a pessimist.

But presumably I agree.

Interesting that in spite of everything, the actual numbers of population growth were higher last year than for most years of the “baby boom”.

don’t worry Russia have set out a brilliant incentive scheme for encouraging population growth

There have been several reports from across Russia of people with no military service or parents of young children being called up in the draft, despite guarantees from Russia’s defence minister that they would be excluded.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Presumably we will see some rebound in population growth in the coming years.

You are such a pessimist.

But presumably I agree.

Interesting that in spite of everything, the actual numbers of population growth were higher last year than for most years of the “baby boom”.

People who want to see a brighter future, but ignore reality think me a pessimist, but if you know anything about the direction the world is going there is no other way. The future looks dire, very dire and it will impact on everyone.