Human population growth - fun fact
Discussion
jonby said:
LordGrover said:
The growth is alarming.
This is a really interesting, entertaining and engaging lecture on population growth I'd highly recommend to anyonehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
amongst other things, it highlights why population will peak and plateau at 11 billion. It also references which continents will make up the bulk of that future growth and which are more or less static
By 2100, only 10% of the worlds population will be in North America and Western Europe, with Africa quadrupling form it's current size
Number of children has levelled off at 2 billion, however population growth will continue as those children have children
It's mostly to do with mortality rates and birth rates
He has a really interesting way of approaching relative wealth connected to travel - the billion poorest people in the world want a good pair of shoes to walk in. The next level are struggling to afford a bicycle. Those in the category one order down from us in the west (on c $10 per day) are working to afford one car for the family. The richest billion fly in airplanes and the super wealthy fly in their own planes
As I say, whilst you may think it's a really dry topic, this lecture is not dry at all
Even if we manage that, Nature itself may well come up with a solution to control a particular species that has grown dominant, but as mentioned before, nature, being nature, means that the solution it comes up with may not be humane.
Lord.Vader said:
Mrr T said:
LordGrover said:
The growth is alarming.
That's population not growth. Growth in the sense of births over deaths has been declining since I think 1965. It's estimated it will be negative in 20 to 30 years. The population is getting larger because economic growth means people live longer.
It isn’t difficult, there are too many people, think of any eco-system and it has a maximum number of organisms it can support, we seem to ignore that for humans.
We cull badgers, deer and elephants but as humans we believe we are too important and that everyone needs to be saved.
It took until the year 1804 for 1B people, by 2100 10.8B, who all need fuel, food, living space, jobs, etc.
Humans are the biggest contributor to climate change, because there are simply too many of us.
The eco system for man is very different for man than any other animal because man can change the eco system. Just look at the increase in crop yield over the last 30 years for the main crops.
Mrr T said:
Lord.Vader said:
Mrr T said:
LordGrover said:
The growth is alarming.
That's population not growth. Growth in the sense of births over deaths has been declining since I think 1965. It's estimated it will be negative in 20 to 30 years. The population is getting larger because economic growth means people live longer.
It isn’t difficult, there are too many people, think of any eco-system and it has a maximum number of organisms it can support, we seem to ignore that for humans.
We cull badgers, deer and elephants but as humans we believe we are too important and that everyone needs to be saved.
It took until the year 1804 for 1B people, by 2100 10.8B, who all need fuel, food, living space, jobs, etc.
Humans are the biggest contributor to climate change, because there are simply too many of us.
The eco system for man is very different for man than any other animal because man can change the eco system. Just look at the increase in crop yield over the last 30 years for the main crops.
Must admit that has cheered me up no end. Think I will go out and order another massively over engined diesel car. since now I know that doing that, wont affect anybody. or anything. Peachy!
Pan Pan Pan said:
And yet we are continuously hearing that humans have messed up the planets climate, That square miles of rain forest are being cut down every day, that the oceans are being depleted of fish, that species are being lost to extinction almost daily, that we are extracting more not less mineral resources from the Earth. That many coastal communities will soon be under threat from flooding, that many areas are being devastated by colossal forest fires. So either humans are affecting the planet or they are not.
And it is not a matter of space, the entire population of the Earth could fit onto the isle of Wight, it is a matter of the viability of land for all species. That is why people live in some areas, but not in others, and some why areas are unfit for humans, and only just survivable for the hardiest of other species.
Try this simple experiment. Hold a party for twenty guests, and bring in enough food and drink for that number, plus a bit more, Then invite a hundred and twenty guests, Notice what happens to the food and drink?
Why on a finite planet, with finite resources (unless of course you believe that they are in fact infinite?) do some people believe it is OK , or even morally correct to increase the numbers of a particular species, to the point that its available resources are consumed as quickly as possible, and to the detriment of just about every other habitat, and species we share the planet with?
Because that is exactly what we are currently doing.
Still If that is what people want to do, and think we should, then that is absolutely fine, But doing this they must NOT then start bleating about the effects that doing this has. Some people it seems, want to have their (human) cake, but still think they can eat it too. In time nature WILL show them just how wrong they are.
I wouldn’t worry yourself too much we won’t be around long enough to find out.And it is not a matter of space, the entire population of the Earth could fit onto the isle of Wight, it is a matter of the viability of land for all species. That is why people live in some areas, but not in others, and some why areas are unfit for humans, and only just survivable for the hardiest of other species.
Try this simple experiment. Hold a party for twenty guests, and bring in enough food and drink for that number, plus a bit more, Then invite a hundred and twenty guests, Notice what happens to the food and drink?
Why on a finite planet, with finite resources (unless of course you believe that they are in fact infinite?) do some people believe it is OK , or even morally correct to increase the numbers of a particular species, to the point that its available resources are consumed as quickly as possible, and to the detriment of just about every other habitat, and species we share the planet with?
Because that is exactly what we are currently doing.
Still If that is what people want to do, and think we should, then that is absolutely fine, But doing this they must NOT then start bleating about the effects that doing this has. Some people it seems, want to have their (human) cake, but still think they can eat it too. In time nature WILL show them just how wrong they are.
I think you are correct that nature will win out eventually. With our without us.
Pan Pan Pan said:
jonby said:
LordGrover said:
The growth is alarming.
This is a really interesting, entertaining and engaging lecture on population growth I'd highly recommend to anyonehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
amongst other things, it highlights why population will peak and plateau at 11 billion. It also references which continents will make up the bulk of that future growth and which are more or less static
By 2100, only 10% of the worlds population will be in North America and Western Europe, with Africa quadrupling form it's current size
Number of children has levelled off at 2 billion, however population growth will continue as those children have children
It's mostly to do with mortality rates and birth rates
He has a really interesting way of approaching relative wealth connected to travel - the billion poorest people in the world want a good pair of shoes to walk in. The next level are struggling to afford a bicycle. Those in the category one order down from us in the west (on c $10 per day) are working to afford one car for the family. The richest billion fly in airplanes and the super wealthy fly in their own planes
As I say, whilst you may think it's a really dry topic, this lecture is not dry at all
Even if we manage that, Nature itself may well come up with a solution to control a particular species that has grown dominant, but as mentioned before, nature, being nature, means that the solution it comes up with may not be humane.
As above, total population on the planet will grow by less than 50% at which point we peak and plateau. Most of that growth being in Africa
Pan Pan Pan said:
Mrr T said:
Nope that's crap. Population growth rate today is only 1.08% and has been falling since 1962. Its will be about 0% by 2100.
The eco system for man is very different for man than any other animal because man can change the eco system. Just look at the increase in crop yield over the last 30 years for the main crops.
So what you are saying is that humans are NOT responsible for any adverse effects on the Earths climate, or any habitats, and the species in them. We are not burning fossil fuels, more than we were a few decades ago, and that we can carry on doing exactly what we have been, and are doing, and that everything will be fine, and we don't need to worry about anything whatsoever?The eco system for man is very different for man than any other animal because man can change the eco system. Just look at the increase in crop yield over the last 30 years for the main crops.
Must admit that has cheered me up no end. Think I will go out and order another massively over engine diesel car. since now I know that doing that wont affect anybody. or anything. Peachy!
I also think we will be able to support that level of population.
It's clear that habitat loss has had a major affect on many species, as has pollution. As to CC I am a luke warmer with large error bars. It clear as the population continues to we need to do all we can to protect nature. Fortunately, economic growth makes that possible as well as creating leisure time to enjoy it.
The real issue with current population growth is the aging of many populations.
https://www.nypost.com/2013/07/11/adult-diapers-to...
Johnniem said:
Has anyone mentioned yet what will happen to world population when the cure for 'the big C' is found? Or will we, the first world nations, make it too expensive for the rest of the world to afford?
Suggest you look at the linkCancer is not in the top 3.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/t...
Mrr T said:
Not sure who's post you are reading but I do not say any of those things. I am saying population growth is slowing and will reach 0 in about 2100, with a world population of about 10.5bn.
I also think we will be able to support that level of population.
It's clear that habitat loss has had a major affect on many species, as has pollution. As to CC I am a luke warmer with large error bars. It clear as the population continues to we need to do all we can to protect nature. Fortunately, economic growth makes that possible as well as creating leisure time to enjoy it.
The real issue with current population growth is the aging of many populations.
https://www.nypost.com/2013/07/11/adult-diapers-to...
I agree with this - if you look at the current birth rates in most countries that you would expect them to be high (apart from Africa) they are lower than you would think (India is 2.33 for example, only just above replacement). To make the peak as early as possible, we need to ensure people (especially girls) in the developing world are educated. With education we should also see more efficient farming that uses less land to produce a given yield. I would argue the priority for tackling climate change in the long term should be education in the developing world above marginal improvements to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. I also think we will be able to support that level of population.
It's clear that habitat loss has had a major affect on many species, as has pollution. As to CC I am a luke warmer with large error bars. It clear as the population continues to we need to do all we can to protect nature. Fortunately, economic growth makes that possible as well as creating leisure time to enjoy it.
The real issue with current population growth is the aging of many populations.
https://www.nypost.com/2013/07/11/adult-diapers-to...
Mrr T said:
I also think we will be able to support that level of population.
For sure.It will be at a poorer standard of living than we have today, and we will have destroyed a lot of the natural environment in the process, but 11 billion vegans living frugally is certainly possible. Yay humanity!
Edited by otolith on Friday 6th December 16:41
otolith said:
Mrr T said:
I also think we will be able to support that level of population.
For sure.It will be at a poorer standard of living than we have today, and we will have destroyed a lot of the natural environment in the process, but 11 million vegans living frugally is certainly possible. Yay humanity!
I’m not sure why anyone thinks that population growth stopping at “just” 10.8 billion is not a problem. That is almost 50% more people than today. Currently out global footprint is about 1.7 planet earth’s ie we are using natural resources far faster than the plant can renew them. 50% more people and rising living standards with fixed resources is not a good mix.
Nickgnome said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Mrr T said:
LordGrover said:
The growth is alarming.
That's population not growth. Growth in the sense of births over deaths has been declining since I think 1965. It's estimated it will be negative in 20 to 30 years. The population is getting larger because economic growth means people live longer.
Saying the birth rate is declining (from unsustainable levels) is just playing with words, and is not the same as saying the human population is declining, because the fact is it is still increasing.
If we want to go on churning out billions more humans, when there are some who are already saying that it humans have already messed up the world and its climate now, then so be it, We will have to take on the chin, any consequences that arise from doing so.
Hans Rosling, now deceased, undertook some interesting analysis of population growth and tried to explain how as baby mortality decreased and contraception became readily available that countries saw birth rate increases drop year on year.
China had a go at the one child policy which has caused a major imbalance between the working population and those older ‘retired’ people.
Perhaps somebody would like to calculate the average density of the global population per hectare. I think we may be surprised how much space there actually is and our perceptions are distorted my our view of cities.
I would contend that most of the global issues are caused by mismanagement of resource and the massive disparity between those with wealth and those without.
Our continued adherence to continued and unabated consumerism is unsustainable in its current form.
In the world there are 52 people per kilometre squared based on 7,700,000,000 people and 148,940,000 km2 of area
Assuming my sums are correct...
Vanden Saab said:
In the UK there are 274 people per kilometre squared. based on 66.44m people and 242,495km2 of area.
In the world there are 52 people per kilometre squared based on 7,700,000,000 people and 148,940,000 km2 of area
Assuming my sums are correct...
Thank you. They look pretty good to me. In the world there are 52 people per kilometre squared based on 7,700,000,000 people and 148,940,000 km2 of area
Assuming my sums are correct...
So if the UK is circa 6% developed then globally it would be about 1%. Give or take.
Doesn't the above somewhat overlook the fact that vast swathes of the planets land mass in nigh uninhabitable? Habitable land mass would be a far better barometer. Either way, nearly 50% increase in population over the next 81 years doesn't sound particularly tenable (or sensible) to me.
trackdemon said:
Doesn't the above somewhat overlook the fact that vast swathes of the planets land mass in nigh uninhabitable? Habitable land mass would be a far better barometer. Either way, nearly 50% increase in population over the next 81 years doesn't sound particularly tenable (or sensible) to me.
I am one of those born in the past 81 years, so obviously I’m happy that the population has increased.Kawasicki said:
trackdemon said:
Doesn't the above somewhat overlook the fact that vast swathes of the planets land mass in nigh uninhabitable? Habitable land mass would be a far better barometer. Either way, nearly 50% increase in population over the next 81 years doesn't sound particularly tenable (or sensible) to me.
I am one of those born in the past 81 years, so obviously I’m happy that the population has increased.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff