Some new demography stats out of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Dynamics department, or UNDESAPD as they don’t like to be called.

The UN DESA 2019/2020 population estimates indicate that population growth for has declined to 1.04% p.a., it’s lowest level since the 1940s.
This compares with 1.21% p.a. in 2009/2010, or 1.29% in 1999/2000.

By continental region, the growth rates are:
Europe 0.06% p.a.
North America 0.62% p.a.
Asia 0.86% p.a.
Latin America and the Carib 0.90% p.a.
Oceania 1.30% p.a.
Africa 2.49% p.a.

The crude death rate is stable, and the crude birth rate is in decline.

The actual annual deathcount in increasing, and the annual birthcount appear to be in a plateau. Some caution should be applied in interpreting this, as the birthcount reached a local peak previously in 1987, only to rebound after around 1998.

Global population is expected to increase to 7.79 billion by mid-year 2020.

what is the estimated population turning point

SCIENCE said:

what is the estimated population turning point

Less than twice the current world population. One projection from 2017 is: “The current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100”

Africa is the big question mark, as shown in the following figure. But soaring African population tends to be followed by genocidal war. Unlike Asia, Africa is not suited to high-density living.

Well I suppose those bloody boomers will start dying at a reasonable rate any time now, so that’s something.

SCIENCE said:

what is the estimated population turning point

UN DESA’s latest report has a “median model” estimate that only extends to 2100. Under this model, population is still growing in 2100 (albeit slowly, at 0.03% per annum).

If I extend this a little using their general trends and quadratic extrap, their median model predicts a peak of 10.9 billion in 2103.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

what is the estimated population turning point

UN DESA’s latest report has a “median model” estimate that only extends to 2100. Under this model, population is still growing in 2100 (albeit slowly, at 0.03% per annum).

If I extend this a little using their general trends and quadratic extrap, their median model predicts a peak of 10.9 billion in 2103.

How confident are you? Want to have a small wager on that?

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

what is the estimated population turning point

UN DESA’s latest report has a “median model” estimate that only extends to 2100. Under this model, population is still growing in 2100 (albeit slowly, at 0.03% per annum).

If I extend this a little using their general trends and quadratic extrap, their median model predicts a peak of 10.9 billion in 2103.

How confident are you? Want to have a small wager on that?

Can I keep the ante?

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

UN DESA’s latest report has a “median model” estimate that only extends to 2100. Under this model, population is still growing in 2100 (albeit slowly, at 0.03% per annum).

If I extend this a little using their general trends and quadratic extrap, their median model predicts a peak of 10.9 billion in 2103.

How confident are you? Want to have a small wager on that?

Can I keep the ante?

Yes your good offices can be utilised to this end, you can hold it in trust until the appointed time when the metrics will be analysed by an independent tribunal and the monies allocated accordingly.

To give you an idea of the level of uncertainty, the UN DESA also publish “high fertility” and “low fertility” bound-models. In the former, the population is still growing at around 0.7% p.a. in 2100. In the latter, population peaks at around 8.9 billion in 2055, and has declined to 7.3 billion by 2100.

Though I suppose the grimmer souls among us can imagine scenarios where the population is much lower…

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

what is the estimated population turning point

UN DESA’s latest report has a “median model” estimate that only extends to 2100. Under this model, population is still growing in 2100 (albeit slowly, at 0.03% per annum).

If I extend this a little using their general trends and quadratic extrap, their median model predicts a peak of 10.9 billion in 2103.

How confident are you? Want to have a small wager on that?

Sure, why not.

dv said:

To give you an idea of the level of uncertainty, the UN DESA also publish “high fertility” and “low fertility” bound-models. In the former, the population is still growing at around 0.7% p.a. in 2100. In the latter, population peaks at around 8.9 billion in 2055, and has declined to 7.3 billion by 2100.

Though I suppose the grimmer souls among us can imagine scenarios where the population is much lower…

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

To give you an idea of the level of uncertainty, the UN DESA also publish “high fertility” and “low fertility” bound-models. In the former, the population is still growing at around 0.7% p.a. in 2100. In the latter, population peaks at around 8.9 billion in 2055, and has declined to 7.3 billion by 2100.

Though I suppose the grimmer souls among us can imagine scenarios where the population is much lower…

Yes. Was watching a video yesterday. Still 16,000 nuclear bombs in the world, I think that’s the correct number.

PermeateFree said:

Millennials will be too busy trying to secure housing to protest about the damaged planet

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

To give you an idea of the level of uncertainty, the UN DESA also publish “high fertility” and “low fertility” bound-models. In the former, the population is still growing at around 0.7% p.a. in 2100. In the latter, population peaks at around 8.9 billion in 2055, and has declined to 7.3 billion by 2100.

Though I suppose the grimmer souls among us can imagine scenarios where the population is much lower…

Yes. Was watching a video yesterday. Still 16,000 nuclear bombs in the world, I think that’s the correct number.

Yep. Confirmed that number. The video said.

“Despite all these (arms limitation) agreements, there are still more than 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world today”.

Now, peak peace was 1992-1995, so if symmetry applies, we’re heading for a nuclear WW3 in 2040.

It could be much sooner. Just watch the SBS News.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Yes. Was watching a video yesterday. Still 16,000 nuclear bombs in the world, I think that’s the correct number.

Yep. Confirmed that number. The video said.

“Despite all these (arms limitation) agreements, there are still more than 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world today”.

Now, peak peace was 1992-1995, so if symmetry applies, we’re heading for a nuclear WW3 in 2040.

It could be much sooner. Just watch the SBS News.

If its to be believed the Russians and Chinese are developing or have developed hypersonic missiles amongst other nuclear weapons might decide to see if they work.
I wonder what you’d actually win if you won a nuclear war the territory you gained wouldn’t exactly be prime real estate and you still have the fallout spreading elsewhere, its a no win scenario no matter what.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yes. Was watching a video yesterday. Still 16,000 nuclear bombs in the world, I think that’s the correct number.

Yep. Confirmed that number. The video said.

“Despite all these (arms limitation) agreements, there are still more than 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world today”.

Now, peak peace was 1992-1995, so if symmetry applies, we’re heading for a nuclear WW3 in 2040.

It could be much sooner. Just watch the SBS News.

If its to be believed the Russians and Chinese are developing or have developed hypersonic missiles amongst other nuclear weapons might decide to see if they work.
I wonder what you’d actually win if you won a nuclear war the territory you gained wouldn’t exactly be prime real estate and you still have the fallout spreading elsewhere, its a no win scenario no matter what.

Hence the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yep. Confirmed that number. The video said.

“Despite all these (arms limitation) agreements, there are still more than 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world today”.

Now, peak peace was 1992-1995, so if symmetry applies, we’re heading for a nuclear WW3 in 2040.

It could be much sooner. Just watch the SBS News.

If its to be believed the Russians and Chinese are developing or have developed hypersonic missiles amongst other nuclear weapons might decide to see if they work.
I wonder what you’d actually win if you won a nuclear war the territory you gained wouldn’t exactly be prime real estate and you still have the fallout spreading elsewhere, its a no win scenario no matter what.

Hence the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Exactly so I wonder if the scenario would be someone just wanting to watch the world burn

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

If its to be believed the Russians and Chinese are developing or have developed hypersonic missiles amongst other nuclear weapons might decide to see if they work.
I wonder what you’d actually win if you won a nuclear war the territory you gained wouldn’t exactly be prime real estate and you still have the fallout spreading elsewhere, its a no win scenario no matter what.

Hence the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Exactly so I wonder if the scenario would be someone just wanting to watch the world burn

There are some religious types who would want to bring on such a war as they think it is part of the prophecy…

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

If its to be believed the Russians and Chinese are developing or have developed hypersonic missiles amongst other nuclear weapons might decide to see if they work.
I wonder what you’d actually win if you won a nuclear war the territory you gained wouldn’t exactly be prime real estate and you still have the fallout spreading elsewhere, its a no win scenario no matter what.

Hence the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Exactly so I wonder if the scenario would be someone just wanting to watch the world burn

There are other nuclear doctrines.

NUTS for example, “is a hypothesis regarding the use of nuclear weapons often contrasted with mutually assured destruction (MAD). NUTS theory at its most basic level asserts that it is possible for a limited nuclear exchange to occur and that nuclear weapons are simply one more rung on the ladder of escalation….

“During the late 1970s and the 1980s, the Pentagon began to adopt strategies for limited nuclear options to make it possible to control escalation and reduce the risk of all-out nuclear war, hence accepting NUTS. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Presidential Directive 59 which endorsed the NUTS strategic posture committed to fight and win a nuclear war, and accepted escalation dominance and flexible response.”

esselte said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Hence the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Exactly so I wonder if the scenario would be someone just wanting to watch the world burn

There are other nuclear doctrines.

NUTS for example, “is a hypothesis regarding the use of nuclear weapons often contrasted with mutually assured destruction (MAD). NUTS theory at its most basic level asserts that it is possible for a limited nuclear exchange to occur and that nuclear weapons are simply one more rung on the ladder of escalation….

“During the late 1970s and the 1980s, the Pentagon began to adopt strategies for limited nuclear options to make it possible to control escalation and reduce the risk of all-out nuclear war, hence accepting NUTS. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Presidential Directive 59 which endorsed the NUTS strategic posture committed to fight and win a nuclear war, and accepted escalation dominance and flexible response.”

AFAIK NUTS was abandoned because the Soviets were “untrustworthy”

Tamb said:

esselte said:

Cymek said:

Exactly so I wonder if the scenario would be someone just wanting to watch the world burn

There are other nuclear doctrines.

NUTS for example, “is a hypothesis regarding the use of nuclear weapons often contrasted with mutually assured destruction (MAD). NUTS theory at its most basic level asserts that it is possible for a limited nuclear exchange to occur and that nuclear weapons are simply one more rung on the ladder of escalation….

“During the late 1970s and the 1980s, the Pentagon began to adopt strategies for limited nuclear options to make it possible to control escalation and reduce the risk of all-out nuclear war, hence accepting NUTS. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Presidential Directive 59 which endorsed the NUTS strategic posture committed to fight and win a nuclear war, and accepted escalation dominance and flexible response.”

AFAIK NUTS was abandoned because the Soviets were “untrustworthy”

NUTS is still part of the strategy of some nuclear nations. Pakistan is one that comes to mind. There was another, I read yesterday, what was it? No can’t remember. Yes I can, India and China, both as recently as 2001.

The USA still keeps some NUTS weapons in its “Enduring stockpile”. Partly because they are not banned by any arms limitation treaty.

The “dial a yield” weapons with yields that can be dialled down to 0.1 kT are pretty ubiquitous.