Human population growth - fun fact

[otolith]

trackdemon said:

But then, telling folks they're not allowed to have 6 children when they want a large family poses it's own moral dilemma. It's a shame folks aren't more considered independently; having children does more environmental damage than running a V8 sportscar all your life.

Some people round here find it objectionable that anyone disagrees with the state not subsidising people to have 6 kids.

[Nickgnome]

Digga said:

No problem getting the rest of the world up to UK population density at all. I mean they all have sufficient rainfall and clean drinking water and there'll be no need at all for massive deforestation. No, absolutely fine.

I do not agree with any argument that proposes we are OK and the draw bridge should be drawn up for others. Poverty and ignorance is not a legitimate reason for unreasonable population control methods.

Commercialisation has caused many natural resources to be plundered and wasted for centuries. There is now a political battle occurring to persuade everyone that resource management is a good thing if we want all nations to achieve a reasonable lifestyle.

Solyent green could, of course could be the solution. Ultimate recycling.

[Nickgnome]

otolith said:

Some people round here find it objectionable that anyone disagrees with the state not subsidising people to have 6 kids.

How many families in the UK have 6 children?

Doesn’t child benefit stop at 2?

What would you propose to do with these additional children?

[jonby]

trackdemon said:

But then, telling folks they're not allowed to have 6 children when they want a large family poses it's own moral dilemma. It's a shame folks aren't more considered independently; having children does more environmental damage than running a V8 sportscar all your life.

So one point covered in the video I keep referencing (I promise I'm not connected or on commission !) is that when mortality rates rise, people have less children. So in less developed countries, where there was (and in some still is) a high rate of infant death, people have more children to compensate for the unavoidable horrific statistics that some are likely to die young. When the mortality rate improves, they have less children

Also, educating people about birth control and making it more readily available has an impact on birth rates

Of course some people will always have more children, for example the more observant followers of certain religions, and there are defintiely arguments for people to be responsible because of the environment, general resources, etc but actually, the birth rates come down naturally as countries become wealthier, for the reasons above

[Vanden Saab]

Nickgnome said:

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.

So if the UK is circa 6% developed then globally it would be about 1%. Give or take.

Assuming again that my sums are correct each UK person gets just over 4,000 m2 to themselves.
In the world it is 19,230 m2 each.
To bring the rest of the world up to UK density would mean another 35 billion people 5x the present level. It seems 11 billion is no problem if that is where it levels out. It isn't like we are all squashed together...

[Nickgnome]

jonby said:

trackdemon said:

But then, telling folks they're not allowed to have 6 children when they want a large family poses it's own moral dilemma. It's a shame folks aren't more considered independently; having children does more environmental damage than running a V8 sportscar all your life.

So one point covered in the video I keep referencing (I promise I'm not connected or on commission !) is that when mortality rates rise, people have less children. So in less developed countries, where there was (and in some still is) a high rate of infant death, people have more children to compensate for the unavoidable horrific statistics that some are likely to die young. When the mortality rate improves, they have less children

Also, educating people about birth control and making it more readily available has an impact on birth rates

Of course some people will always have more children, for example the more observant followers of certain religions, and there are defintiely arguments for people to be responsible because of the environment, general resources, etc but actually, the birth rates come down naturally as countries become wealthier, for the reasons above

Completely true as researched by Hans Rosling. Improved child survival rates reduces family size as does much improved contraception availability.

Women often do not want big families but if contraception is not readily available the inevitable happens.

It’s a pity some here do not do a little research, as the information has been available for years.

[Nickgnome]

Vanden Saab said:

Assuming again that my sums are correct each UK person gets just over 4,000 m2 to themselves.
In the world it is 19,230 m2 each.
To bring the rest of the world up to UK density would mean another 35 billion people 5x the present level. It seems 11 billion is no problem if that is where it levels out. It isn't like we are all squashed together...

I concur 11bn should not be a problem. We still need to make the global standard of living much more equitable though and that is a big ask.

People in general are not prepared to sacrifice anything when it comes down to it.

[Mrr T]

jonby said:

So one point covered in the video I keep referencing (I promise I'm not connected or on commission !) is that when mortality rates rise, people have less children. So in less developed countries, where there was (and in some still is) a high rate of infant death, people have more children to compensate for the unavoidable horrific statistics that some are likely to die young. When the mortality rate improves, they have less children

Also, educating people about birth control and making it more readily available has an impact on birth rates

Of course some people will always have more children, for example the more observant followers of certain religions, and there are defintiely arguments for people to be responsible because of the environment, general resources, etc but actually, the birth rates come down naturally as countries become wealthier, for the reasons above

Almost. In the first paragraph i think you mean mortality rates fall not rise.

There are other factors. In many 3rd world countries it not just about mortality rates but also with no ability to save Parents relied heavily on children to support them when they get old. As they get better off this is no longer a factor.

Also wealth allows increased leisure. Its seems once people get to enjoy life they want less children.

[otolith]

Nickgnome said:

otolith said:

Some people round here find it objectionable that anyone disagrees with the state not subsidising people to have 6 kids.

How many families in the UK have 6 children?

Doesn’t child benefit stop at 2?

What would you propose to do with these additional children?

Refrain from having them, like a normal person.

[trackdemon]

Vanden Saab said:

Nickgnome said:

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.

So if the UK is circa 6% developed then globally it would be about 1%. Give or take.

Assuming again that my sums are correct each UK person gets just over 4,000 m2 to themselves.
In the world it is 19,230 m2 each.
To bring the rest of the world up to UK density would mean another 35 billion people 5x the present level. It seems 11 billion is no problem if that is where it levels out. It isn't like we are all squashed together...

But that's oversimplistic. How much of that 19,230m² is inhabitable? There's vast swathes of deep forest, acrid desert, and enormous mountains. Folks don't live in the outback, up the Himalayas or in the jungle for good reason. How much is left? How much has services provided to it - roads, power, water etc?....

[trackdemon]

otolith said:

Nickgnome said:

otolith said:

Some people round here find it objectionable that anyone disagrees with the state not subsidising people to have 6 kids.

How many families in the UK have 6 children?

Doesn’t child benefit stop at 2?

What would you propose to do with these additional children?

Refrain from having them, like a normal person.

I chose 6 anecdotally - there's plenty folks with that many, but it is quite a lot. I thinks it's bs that the state should be expected to fund folks desire to procreate - that's how we ended up with career mums. Can't afford them? Don't have them.

[Kawasicki]

People don’t usually live in remote places because they normally don’t have to. There is so much space that is not utilized.

Humans like to live in cities...really big cities.

I drove from Melbourne to Adelaide a few years back. Green fields for 1000km, little village every hour or so. Massively underutilised for food production...because we already have too much food.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Nope, it’s predicted at 1.1% through 2100, culminating in a global population of appx 10.8B.

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.

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 you know better than the UN then? See below. I won’t hold my breath for an acknowledgement.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/

So what? More food great, so even more energy being expanded to grow even more food for an even greater population, it’s a Jenga Tower waiting to collapse.

[Vanden Saab]

trackdemon said:

Vanden Saab said:

Nickgnome said:

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.

So if the UK is circa 6% developed then globally it would be about 1%. Give or take.

Assuming again that my sums are correct each UK person gets just over 4,000 m2 to themselves.
In the world it is 19,230 m2 each.
To bring the rest of the world up to UK density would mean another 35 billion people 5x the present level. It seems 11 billion is no problem if that is where it levels out. It isn't like we are all squashed together...

But that's oversimplistic. How much of that 19,230m² is inhabitable? There's vast swathes of deep forest, acrid desert, and enormous mountains. Folks don't live in the outback, up the Himalayas or in the jungle for good reason. How much is left? How much has services provided to it - roads, power, water etc?....

Less than 6% of the UK is built on...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901294

Therefore around 1% of the world is built on.... How much of the other 99% do you think is uninhabitable?

[Wilmslowboy]

Its not just about the number of humans, it also about how much they consume.


The typical American consumes over 300 litres of water a day, the typical African around 20 litres a day.

[Mothersruin]

Population, mass immigration, gumballs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCcFNL7EmwY

[Digga]

Nickgnome said:

Digga said:

No problem getting the rest of the world up to UK population density at all. I mean they all have sufficient rainfall and clean drinking water and there'll be no need at all for massive deforestation. No, absolutely fine.

I do not agree with any argument that proposes we are OK and the draw bridge should be drawn up for others. Poverty and ignorance is not a legitimate reason for unreasonable population control methods.

Commercialisation has caused many natural resources to be plundered and wasted for centuries. There is now a political battle occurring to persuade everyone that resource management is a good thing if we want all nations to achieve a reasonable lifestyle.

Solyent green could, of course could be the solution. Ultimate recycling.

If humankind does not stop plundering the planet, there will be no ladder to pull up, let alone safe haven to pull it up to.

[Vanden Saab]

Wilmslowboy said:

Its not just about the number of humans, it also about how much they consume.


The typical American consumes over 300 litres of water a day, the typical African around 20 litres a day.

I know there a lot of whales in the USA but 300 litres a day?

[Mothersruin]

Was reading a book by Niall Ferguson about the British Empire and one of the figures that really jumped out at me was when India gained independence, the population was below 400,000 - it's now nearly 1,400,000,000 - Fakinell!

[Esceptico]

Vanden Saab said:

Wilmslowboy said:

Its not just about the number of humans, it also about how much they consume.


The typical American consumes over 300 litres of water a day, the typical African around 20 litres a day.

I know there a lot of whales in the USA but 300 litres a day?

That would be a lot of soda but of course it means consumes, not drinks. That figure would probably include the water required to irrigate fields for food, washing, water losses in pumping due to poor infrastructure etc.