Human population growth - fun fact
Discussion
Vanden Saab said:
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. 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.
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...
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?
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?The typical American consumes over 300 litres of water a day, the typical African around 20 litres a day.
Average big flush 13 litres? 5 a day? That's 200 litres without even trying....
Esceptico said:
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.
We already today produce enough food to feed 10bn people, unfortunately a good percentage does get wasted. I also thought those figures around how much resources we're using were disputed.
Sensationalising these stories just turns off the moderate listener and all you're left with are hysterical teenagers, it's not the answer.
Edited by ChocolateFrog on Friday 6th December 19:18
LordGrover said:
The growth is alarming.
Less so if you look at the growth rate
That spike in your graph is basically the industrial revolution, which isn't just something that happened 200 years ago in Manchester but something that is still going on across most of the world.
The net result is that like in Victorian Britain people are living longer and having more children who survive childhood. However shortly after that they start to control reproduction, having smaller families later in life.
We are nowhere near an absolute limit on space or natural resources. Look at the enormous swathes of just Canada and Russia that are fertile and sparsely populated. Those two countries alone could probably support another 7 billion in food and water.
A bigger problem will be when the aging population and declining birth rates we see in Europe and Japan become a global phenomenon.
Esceptico said:
Land that is not built upon is mainly used indirectly for agricultural purposes so your comment is a bit silly. How much of the UK is not used for habitation or agriculture? Or that land how much could be used for habitation or agriculture? The first number will be high the second number low.
It was in the link I posted that you replied to 34.9% of land is natural. That does not mean it couldn't be used but that it isn't at least in the UK with the rest of the world having a much lower population density a 50% increase is very easy as we have 5x the density compared to the average country Lord.Vader said:
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.
Humans are the biggest contributor to climate change, because there are simply too many of us.
^^^ ThisWe cull badgers, deer and elephants but as humans we believe we are too important and that everyone needs to be saved.
Humans are the biggest contributor to climate change, because there are simply too many of us.
We not only save the sick and the lame (plus the criminals and insane) frequently at huge cost but also help them breed, we are the only creatures promoting the growth of inferior specimens.
I admit it's easy to say until your friends / family are the ones being culled.
I suspect it will end in wars over resources - then we all lose.
Donotgogentle said:
I suspect it will end in wars over resources - then we all lose.
In conjunction with wars over whose chief magic fairy is the best...Or a combination of both.
Ironic really, as one is fighting over getting what someone else has & the other is fighting so that they have the same thing you do.
Esceptico said:
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?The typical American consumes over 300 litres of water a day, the typical African around 20 litres a day.
Also, any shortages are only of fresh water. Find a way of desalinating sea water cheaply or for the world to continue to get richer and it's no longer an issue. That's the great thing about an increasing population, more clever people, more ideas.
Dr Jekyll said:
8
Get it in perspective though. If everyone in Africa used 20 litres a day, that's 25 billion litres. Normally about 3 times that goes over Victoria falls every day.
Also, any shortages are only of fresh water. Find a way of desalinating sea water cheaply or for the world to continue to get richer and it's no longer an issue. That's the great thing about an increasing population, more clever people, more ideas.
Something that the Malthusians never get.Get it in perspective though. If everyone in Africa used 20 litres a day, that's 25 billion litres. Normally about 3 times that goes over Victoria falls every day.
Also, any shortages are only of fresh water. Find a way of desalinating sea water cheaply or for the world to continue to get richer and it's no longer an issue. That's the great thing about an increasing population, more clever people, more ideas.
A more cheerful take on the J shaped graph posted earlier:
For most of human history famine, war and pestilence have been the lot of most of the human race, and this has kept the population down despite the typical woman having several children throughout her short life.
Presently the planet supports 7 billion people. Many, almost certainly a majority, in comfort, health and security their grandparents could not have dreamed of. That means food is cheaper now, with 7 billion than it was in 1800 with 1 billion. More than 7 times cheaper. The average human being is a net producer of food, water and all the other resources human beings need.
Nor does he attain them by diverting rivers on ti his land or eating his neighbours. This is battle deaths per 100,000 people from 1400 to 2000.
This covers the whole period of the population explosion.
And lastly, as I said before it's anyway self regulating. As people get richer they choose to have fewer children. Population will probably peak this century amd future generations struggling to pay 8 billion pensioners will wonder why on earth people thought we were having too many children.
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. 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.
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...
And not only for living space but large enough areas for growing food
And allowed for the possible effects of our changing climate
I believe humans make the mistake of thinking the Universe gives a f
k. The planet was here billions of years before we popped up, and will be here billions of years after we’re gone. When the end of time rolls around there will be no evidence that our star system even existed. Humankind, or even life as we know it, is an infinitesimally tiny blip in a cosmic clock spanning unimaginable eons. When the dust settles, I’m pretty sure no one is going to care.
On balance, it’s probably not worth worrying about.
k. The planet was here billions of years before we popped up, and will be here billions of years after we’re gone. When the end of time rolls around there will be no evidence that our star system even existed. Humankind, or even life as we know it, is an infinitesimally tiny blip in a cosmic clock spanning unimaginable eons. When the dust settles, I’m pretty sure no one is going to care. On balance, it’s probably not worth worrying about.
Kenny Powers said:
I believe humans make the mistake of thinking the Universe gives a fk. The planet was here billions of years before we popped up, and will be here billions of years after we’re gone. When the end of time rolls around there will be no evidence that our star system even existed. Humankind, or even life as we know it, is an infinitesimally tiny blip in a cosmic clock spanning unimaginable eons. When the dust settles, I’m pretty sure no one is going to care.
On balance, it’s probably not worth worrying about.
Indeed, my PoV too.k. The planet was here billions of years before we popped up, and will be here billions of years after we’re gone. When the end of time rolls around there will be no evidence that our star system even existed. Humankind, or even life as we know it, is an infinitesimally tiny blip in a cosmic clock spanning unimaginable eons. When the dust settles, I’m pretty sure no one is going to care. On balance, it’s probably not worth worrying about.
trackdemon said:
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?
What is the acceptable number.
What do you do with ‘carelessly’ born children?
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Or we might not. We could settle on a new steady state. Which if you look carefully at that J curve is what we did before when agriculture developed.
At a cost. None of this stuff is free. The cost is that we’re all going to have to settle for a poorer standard of living. otolith said:
No, crass ignorance is not knowing about contraception or personal responsibility.
Yo are ducking 5ne question.What do you do with the carelessly born children?
Please evidence this is a major problem to the UK economy compared to sat the state pension.
Anecdotal prejudice is not good enough.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff