why do people believe the earth’s population will eventually level out?

is it because..we’re.. all going to starve and die?

sarahs mum said:

why do people believe the earth’s population will eventually level out?

is it because..we’re.. all going to starve and die?

I’m not sure it actually crosses most of our minds, most of the time.

sarahs mum said:

why do people believe the earth’s population will eventually level out?

is it because..we’re.. all going to starve and die?

Demographer’s models come up with this outcome because
a) the population growth rate has been dropping for ~25 years and is now dropping quite strongly
b) the area of the world in which the statistical fertility rate is below replacement level continues to grow
c) development and fertility rate are strongly (negatively) correlated, and in almost all of the world the development indices continue to increase.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

why do people believe the earth’s population will eventually level out?

is it because..we’re.. all going to starve and die?

Demographer’s models come up with this outcome because
a) the population growth rate has been dropping for ~25 years and is now dropping quite strongly
b) the area of the world in which the statistical fertility rate is below replacement level continues to grow
c) development and fertility rate are strongly (negatively) correlated, and in almost all of the world the development indices continue to increase.

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

i would imagine that will be covered under “death rate”.

roughbarked said:

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

Soylent Green will eliminate and starvation.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

Soylent Green will eliminate and starvation.

I suppose we will try and adapt to eating jellyfish?

In the 1970s, the population was growing at a little over 2% pa. It is now growing at 1.1% pa and the decline is monotonic. In absolute terms, in the late 1980s the population was growing at 90 million per annum and this has declined to 74 million per annum now.

Of course, demographers use all of the data available including national data, age and sex distribution and fertility trends at different ages. The decline in statistical fertility is more or less universal, with only a handful of exceptions such as Afghanistan and Burundi.

It is of course possible that, at some time in the future, all of these trends will reverse globally, perhaps due to some unforeseen political or cultural change. But demographers can only model using the data they have.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

why do people believe the earth’s population will eventually level out?

is it because..we’re.. all going to starve and die?

Demographer’s models come up with this outcome because
a) the population growth rate has been dropping for ~25 years and is now dropping quite strongly
b) the area of the world in which the statistical fertility rate is below replacement level continues to grow
c) development and fertility rate are strongly (negatively) correlated, and in almost all of the world the development indices continue to increase.

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

Given that food production continues to grow faster than the population rate, it is reasonable to suspect that starvation will continue to be limited to areas of failed government such as North Korea and western Somalia.

There were regular famines in India more or less continuously from 1750 up to 1950 but none since 1950. This is actually the longest period without famine in India since 1750, despite the increase in population, due to economic expansion and improved food technology.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

Soylent Green will eliminate and starvation.

You’re living in the 70’s man! The Japan nuclear disaster is the Soylent 2.0

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

Soylent Green will eliminate and starvation.

You’re living in the 70’s man! The Japan nuclear disaster is the Soylent 2.0

I’m surprised wookie hasn’t put it forward as a sequel conspiracy to 9/11. ie, everybody is looking at the terrrorist plotline, now is the perfect time to slip in a massive strike on the poorer peoples of the world who have to eat what comes out of the accident. Illuminati controls the labor force population once again!

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Demographer’s models come up with this outcome because
a) the population growth rate has been dropping for ~25 years and is now dropping quite strongly
b) the area of the world in which the statistical fertility rate is below replacement level continues to grow
c) development and fertility rate are strongly (negatively) correlated, and in almost all of the world the development indices continue to increase.

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

Given that food production continues to grow faster than the population rate, it is reasonable to suspect that starvation will continue to be limited to areas of failed government such as North Korea and western Somalia.

There were regular famines in India more or less continuously from 1750 up to 1950 but none since 1950. This is actually the longest period without famine in India since 1750, despite the increase in population, due to economic expansion and improved food technology.

As I said, we will have to dispense with depending upon finding fish in the sea.

It is now growing at 1.1% pa and the decline is monotonic

who isn’t having babies..?

sarahs mum said:

It is now growing at 1.1% pa and the decline is monotonic

who isn’t having babies..?

who wants mine is the question I’m asking? I’ve got a very good sample available!

As I said, we will have to dispense with depending upon finding fish in the sea.

—
or things pollinated by bees

sarahs mum said:

As I said, we will have to dispense with depending upon finding fish in the sea.

—
or things pollinated by bees

If people keep messing with frogs I might end up getting more than a little stompy!

sarahs mum said:

It is now growing at 1.1% pa and the decline is monotonic

who isn’t having babies..?

Lots of people are not having babies.

The area of the map shown in light or dark blue is below fertility=2. Replacement fertility is more like 2.2 or 2.3, so a lot of the “green” area is also below replacement fertility. It is really only subsaharan Africa and some other dribs and drabs that are driving that 1.1%, and the fertility rate in most of subsaharan Africa is also dropping.
It is driven by development: once you have economic stability and security, there is little advantage to having a bunch of kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

Here’s another map showing Natural Increase (birth rate minus death rate). The dark blue countries have fewer births than deaths. The light blue countries are keeping ahead by less than 1%. The dark blue keeps growing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_increase

http://www.worldmapper.org/

Worldmapper is a collection of world maps, where territories are re-sized on each map according to the subject of interest. There are now nearly 700 maps. Maps 1-366 are also available as PDF posters. Use the menu above to find a map of interest. In 2009 we added a series of maps of the world’s population using a gridded cartogram approach: Worldmapper Population Atlas If you are interested in more background on map projections, read the short introductions about Worldmapper and map projections and gridded cartograms as a map projection.

On the other hand, a flat or declining population will also have its problems, pertaining to the aging population and no prospect for an intrinsically increasing total market. And, if food production keeps going up like it is, the food surplus might lead to global obesity.

sarahs mum said:

It is now growing at 1.1% pa and the decline is monotonic

who isn’t having babies..?

obviously, the young ones.

dv said:

Here’s another map showing Natural Increase (birth rate minus death rate). The dark blue countries have fewer births than deaths. The light blue countries are keeping ahead by less than 1%. The dark blue keeps growing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_increase

Looks like eastern Europe is quite bunninged.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Demographer’s models come up with this outcome because
a) the population growth rate has been dropping for ~25 years and is now dropping quite strongly
b) the area of the world in which the statistical fertility rate is below replacement level continues to grow
c) development and fertility rate are strongly (negatively) correlated, and in almost all of the world the development indices continue to increase.

Yep. all that and, the starving thing.

Given that food production continues to grow faster than the population rate, it is reasonable to suspect that starvation will continue to be limited to areas of failed government such as North Korea and western Somalia.

There were regular famines in India more or less continuously from 1750 up to 1950 but none since 1950. This is actually the longest period without famine in India since 1750, despite the increase in population, due to economic expansion and improved food technology.

I think you overlook Global Warming and climate extremes that will need to be mitigated to ensure our current rate of food production, let alone an additional 2 billion people will require. Not to forget about clothing, housing and all the things we demand today to live a fulfilling existence.

Suppose they are fruit bats.. er one of the FF types. Flapping is obvious but not so much of that as screeching .. really frightening screeching. As if either they are fighting or bunningsing. Not that there is much in the way of fruit available. I’m putting it in bags as fast as I can.. Bunningsed Fruit Fly.

The Flying Foxes have been here for years but the sounds are different somehow. Might be a while since they have been noticeable.

Since I did that List of countries by natural increase article three years ago, Finland, Denmark, Moldova have joined the list of countries with a negative natural increase.

During that three years, 167 of the countries in the CIA table had a decrease in natural increase rate. 52 had an increase in the natural increase rate.

Note that the CIA lists certain dependencies in this list of “countries”.

dv said:

Since I did that List of countries by natural increase article three years ago, Finland, Denmark, Moldova have joined the list of countries with a negative natural increase.

You did the List of countries by natural increase three years ago … snap … I did the total fertility ratio (TFR) of all countries three years ago.

A total fertility ratio below 2.1 implies an eventual decrease in population. Back when I was looking at this, countries with a TFR below 2.1 included almost all of North and South America, almost all of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. The level of TFR in some European countries, particularly Spain, had dropped to 1.3.

The most populous countries with a TFR well above 2.1, India and Pakistan, had a TFR that was dropping rapidly.

That left equatorial Africa as the main problem. TFR there was not only very high but fluctuating up and down seemingly randomly. I eventually concluded that the fluctuations were largely because of the poor quality of census data in these countries, and the high TFR was because of the cost of reliable contraception.

So, given the low and dropping TFR, is the population of the Earth going to fall back to zero. I concluded not. Firstly because the USA, the first large country to exhibit a sub-sustainability TFR over a long period of time has now climbed back up to 2.1. Other countries with a low TFR, including Spain and Australia, are now showing an increase in TFR back towards 2.1. The USA is worth watching, how high will their TFR rise?

My personal prediction. Following on from similarities between modern USA and ancient Rome, the final crushing defeat of the USA will lead to an economic catastrophe that will see the population of the entire developed world crash to levels smaller than those in the year 1700, perhaps even as small as 10% of those levels.

dv said:

In the 1970s, the population was growing at a little over 2% pa. It is now growing at 1.1% pa and the decline is monotonic. In absolute terms, in the late 1980s the population was growing at 90 million per annum and this has declined to 74 million per annum now.

Of course, demographers use all of the data available including national data, age and sex distribution and fertility trends at different ages. The decline in statistical fertility is more or less universal, with only a handful of exceptions such as Afghanistan and Burundi.

It is of course possible that, at some time in the future, all of these trends will reverse globally, perhaps due to some unforeseen political or cultural change. But demographers can only model using the data they have.

It is not only possible, there are good reasons to think that it is at very least sufficiently probable to warrant consideration of the consequences, and what action might be worthwhile to avoid negative consequences (such as population control through a combination of mass starvation and resource wars*).

Whilst it is true that demographers can only model using existing data, it is not true that politicians and others involved in long term policy planning should only consider predictions based on the extrapolation of past trends.

• That was a negative consequence, not a proposed policy change.

I suppose as the population levels out the mad demand for growth will not be a measure of prosperity anymore.
Countries that don’t grow for two months wont be labelled as being bastards and in recession and Standard and Paws wont take away all their credit rating points.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/climate-inaction-idINDEE88P05P20120926

http://grist.org/news/explaining-the-100-million-to-die-from-climate-change-claim/

mollwollfumble said:

My personal prediction. Following on from similarities between modern USA and ancient Rome, the final crushing defeat of the USA will lead to an economic catastrophe that will see the population of the entire developed world crash to levels smaller than those in the year 1700, perhaps even as small as 10% of those levels.

Which Country performs the ‘coup de grace’ on the USA?

I wouldn’t be holding my breath over this one.

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

My personal prediction. Following on from similarities between modern USA and ancient Rome, the final crushing defeat of the USA will lead to an economic catastrophe that will see the population of the entire developed world crash to levels smaller than those in the year 1700, perhaps even as small as 10% of those levels.

Which Country performs the ‘coup de grace’ on the USA?

I wouldn’t be holding my breath over this one.

No population thread is complete without some wacko predictions about population collapse. As usual Molly is advised to stick with science threads in the future.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

My personal prediction. Following on from similarities between modern USA and ancient Rome, the final crushing defeat of the USA will lead to an economic catastrophe that will see the population of the entire developed world crash to levels smaller than those in the year 1700, perhaps even as small as 10% of those levels.

Which Country performs the ‘coup de grace’ on the USA?

I wouldn’t be holding my breath over this one.

No population thread is complete without some wacko predictions about population collapse. As usual Molly is advised to stick with science threads in the future.

You discount it as a possibility that should be considered?

Witty Rejoinder said:

No population thread is complete without some wacko predictions about population collapse. As usual Molly is advised to stick with science threads in the future.

The concern I’d have with the way the growth rates of the world are changing is in demographic balances. China has created the worst case size wise with it’s male/female birth rates. What will the results of those social pressures be on such a scale and long term?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

No population thread is complete without some wacko predictions about population collapse. As usual Molly is advised to stick with science threads in the future.

The concern I’d have with the way the growth rates of the world are changing is in demographic balances. China has created the worst case size wise with it’s male/female birth rates. What will the results of those social pressures be on such a scale and long term?

They’ll probably institutionalise poligamy with many husbands to one wife! ;)

The Rev Dodgson said:

You discount it as a possibility that should be considered?

The only way I can see population levels falling by so much is in the case of a global nuclear war and in that case the USA wouldn’t be the only nation to have it population fall by so much. I consider the idea that the USA alone will suffer some sort of societal collapse to be so remote it is negligible.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You discount it as a possibility that should be considered?

The only way I can see population levels falling by so much is in the case of a global nuclear war and in that case the USA wouldn’t be the only nation to have it population fall by so much. I consider the idea that the USA alone will suffer some sort of societal collapse to be so remote it is negligible.

I think Moll was suggesting that a collapse of the US institutions would contribute to a collapse in ‘western’ growth rates. idk if that is another question off the top of my head

Witty Rejoinder said:

I consider the idea that the USA alone will suffer some sort of societal collapse to be so remote it is negligible.

Well that would probably be the case if they didn’t have a traitorous godless communist muslim in charge!

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You discount it as a possibility that should be considered?

The only way I can see population levels falling by so much is in the case of a global nuclear war and in that case the USA wouldn’t be the only nation to have it population fall by so much. I consider the idea that the USA alone will suffer some sort of societal collapse to be so remote it is negligible.

Conventional wars + disease + starvation have done a pretty good job at reducing populations in the past. I don’t see any reason to suppose it couldn’t happen again.

I don’t think mollwoll suggested that the USA would be the only country to have a population collapse.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

No population thread is complete without some wacko predictions about population collapse. As usual Molly is advised to stick with science threads in the future.

The concern I’d have with the way the growth rates of the world are changing is in demographic balances. China has created the worst case size wise with it’s male/female birth rates. What will the results of those social pressures be on such a scale and long term?

They’ll probably institutionalise poligamy with many husbands to one wife! ;)

It seems strange to me that population imbalance in China is seen as a bigger problem for the future than the continued growth of populations in South Asia and Africa.

According to Omegafour SARS AIDS and Bird Flu was going to wipe us out, I don’t know what happened there.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The concern I’d have with the way the growth rates of the world are changing is in demographic balances. China has created the worst case size wise with it’s male/female birth rates. What will the results of those social pressures be on such a scale and long term?

They’ll probably institutionalise poligamy with many husbands to one wife! ;)

It seems strange to me that population imbalance in China is seen as a bigger problem for the future than the continued growth of populations in South Asia and Africa.

I wasn’t stating it as so. I was only bringing up an individual demographic. I am not familiar with the technicalities of those you mention.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

They’ll probably institutionalise poligamy with many husbands to one wife! ;)

It seems strange to me that population imbalance in China is seen as a bigger problem for the future than the continued growth of populations in South Asia and Africa.

I wasn’t stating it as so. I was only bringing up an individual demographic. I am not familiar with the technicalities of those you mention.

The government of china are aware of their position. Can such a positioned be reliable planned for?

Peak Warming Man said:

According to Omegafour SARS AIDS and Bird Flu was going to wipe us out, I don’t know what happened there.

It is still a pretty potent threat with todays speed of connectivity, give a flu a week to incubate and it can be in all the worlds cities before its seriousness is realised. Imagine if a sneezing taxi driver doing a regular airport run was the Antrhrax Mary?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Conventional wars + disease + starvation have done a pretty good job at reducing populations in the past. I don’t see any reason to suppose it couldn’t happen again.

I cannot see conventional warfare, disease or starvation disrupting modern industrialised economies in the way they have affected past societies. An outbreak of disease on the scale of the Spanish Flu would be our greatest danger IMO and if we survived it in the early twentieth century I think we would cope even better now.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

They’ll probably institutionalise poligamy with many husbands to one wife! ;)

That premise would have to make an interesting fictional study

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

They’ll probably institutionalise poligamy with many husbands to one wife! ;)

That premise would have to make an interesting fictional study

They are importing Indian ladies as well.

You could always pay certain people not to have babies

Encourage people that can’t look after children NOT to have babies

It will be cheaper than funding the spawn for the rest of their life

Government debt went from 98 billion in 2007 to 460 billion in 2013 funding all kinds of garbage

Skunkworks said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

They’ll probably institutionalise poligamy with many husbands to one wife! ;)

That premise would have to make an interesting fictional study

They are importing Indian ladies as well.

I’m thinking 500 years from now. China begins by institutionalising poligamy as a peoples emergency and duty to prosperity. After some time the propaganda that it uses to promote it as an ideal socially metabolises the practice so that participants become religiously involved with it. Chinese males develop a sense of themself as pious monks bonded by oath to their priestess. The females become acutely educationally developed beyond anything the males of their society have time for. The rest of the world develops in contrast with only singular smaller nations publically condoning their practices.

???

nice thread people…

cos i read this..

“Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activism”

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt

and the story about the pacific ocean being broken.

and the story about the muttonbird deaths.

and, well, i am already miserable.

Again on tonight’s Q&A.

Listen to the “world’s most dangerous idea” at 58 minutes.

Gawd :(

sibeen said:

Again on tonight’s Q&A.

Listen to the “world’s most dangerous idea” at 58 minutes.

Gawd :(

Hmmm… Having listened to Peter Hitchens for all of 2 minutes, I’d say that Peteropher Hitchens, if such a person existed, would probably have a fairly balanced view of the world.

Thank goodness they had a moderate like Germaine Greer on the panel.

For those interested Q@A is repeated today at 1.

Is there a correlation between the crawling space available for toddlers and kids to play, and population growth?

And what of pet dog populations, this’d be an interesting one also.

I suppose I am talking of the ‘free range resource space’.

Skunkworks said:

For those interested Q@A is repeated today at 1.

Or just watch the last two minutes on I-view :)

Skunkworks said:

For those interested Q@A is repeated today at 1.

I’ve never seen Mr Mutant so incensed as he was watching it last night. Whoa.

Divine Angel said:

Skunkworks said:

For those interested Q@A is repeated today at 1.

I’ve never seen Mr Mutant so incensed as he was watching it last night. Whoa.

Who was he incensed with?

Hitchens.

Divine Angel said:

Hitchens.

That’s all right then :)

Another interesting thing might be the structure of the range (profile) of liabilities covered by insurers and how this correlates with population growth over different areas. This and the free range resource space available for having children.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Hitchens.

That’s all right then :)

I’ve just done some in depth research on the Hitchens brothers (read the first paragraph of their Wikipedia articles), and discovered that they were born in the same years as my older brother and I. Interestingly (to me at least) we share the same opposing views on life the universe and everything, but the other way round, and probably about 50% as extreme.

I wonder if it is common for brothers to take balancing opposing views, around the general community median value, or if it’s just coincidence.

Suggestion being that insurers, insurance and the behaviours of the insured are influencing population growth.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Hitchens.

That’s all right then :)

I’ve just done some in depth research on the Hitchens brothers (read the first paragraph of their Wikipedia articles), and discovered that they were born in the same years as my older brother and I. Interestingly (to me at least) we share the same opposing views on life the universe and everything, but the other way round, and probably about 50% as extreme.

I wonder if it is common for brothers to take balancing opposing views, around the general community median value, or if it’s just coincidence.

It certainly is the case with my brother and I.

That insurance influences the free range resource space.