Human population growth - fun fact

[Esceptico]

With big numbers it is sometimes hard to get to grips with them. In trying to put human population growth into context I thought I would compare with the global population of a random, large, wild mammal.

Apparently there may only be 3,200 wild tigers in the world. Every minute we add (net of deaths) another 160 people to the planet. Therefore in just 20 minutes there are more new people than the entire population of tigers.

No wonder the environment is fked.

[Dynamic Space Wizard]

How many people die every minute?

[LordGrover]

The growth is alarming.

[fido]

Dynamic Space Wizard said:

How many people die every minute?

That's net growth.

[paulrockliffe]

Esceptico said:

No wonder the environment is fked.

That's quite the leap. We have evolved to be able to live in extremely high densities without killing each other and all over the planet. Tigers have not, so regardless of human activity they couldn't possibly exist in comparable numbers. The same applies to all comparable mammals.

Have you seen how many insects there are?

The number of bacteria will make your head pop.

[boyse7en]

paulrockliffe said:

Esceptico said:

No wonder the environment is fked.

That's quite the leap. We have evolved to be able to live in extremely high densities without killing each other and all over the planet. Tigers have not, so regardless of human activity they couldn't possibly exist in comparable numbers. The same applies to all comparable mammals.

Have you seen how many insects there are?

The number of bacteria will make your head pop.

I think that's missing the point. We may have evolved (adapted?) to live in high densities, but the amount of infrastructure required is still vast. London, for example, holds a lot of people in a small space, but it produces virtually no food, water, building materials etc to support that population - that all comes from utilising vast tracts of land elsewhere causing the environmental impact.

[Kawasicki]

The environment is clearly in a good enough state to support a huge growth in human population.

[Mrr T]

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.

[Pan Pan Pan]

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.

Yet the World Health Organization has stated that the global human population is growing at NET rates of between 287, and 342 thousand new humans per DAY.
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.

[jonby]

LordGrover said:

The growth is alarming.

This is a really interesting, entertaining and engaging lecture on population growth I'd highly recommend to anyone

https://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

[crofty1984]

From 1.65 billion to 7 billion in only 100 years? Wow.

[Dr Jekyll]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Yet the World Health Organization has stated that the global human population is growing at NET rates of between 287, and 342 thousand new humans per DAY.
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.

The point is that the decline of the birth rate means that population will start declining.

To use the low number of Tigers as evidence that the world is being messed up is simplistic. As Matt Ridley pointed out. Tigers are actually holding steady. Lions, who tend to live in poorer countries than Tigers,, are declining. Wolves, who tend to live in richer and densely populated countries, are increasing. A benign environment for biological diversity is something poorer countries can't afford.

[Pan Pan Pan]

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 is not a difficult graph to read, and is of course the real hockey stick graph.
But as we all know when countries get economic growth, they consume and emit even more per capita.
Worse still, when countries with already colossal populations start to achieve economic growth, they begin colossal consumption of Earth resources, and this is followed by colossal increases in the emissions they produce when meeting the demands of their own citizens and those of the other countries they supply to.
Whichever way you want to cut it, more people means more problems for the Earth.

[Nickgnome]

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.

Yet the World Health Organization has stated that the global human population is growing at NET rates of between 287, and 342 thousand new humans per DAY.
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.

The UK is one of the areas where population density is considered high, yet less than 6% is actually built on. So what would the global average be? 4% possibly, but probably less.

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.

[PSB1]

Well, yes. There's a very obvious correlation with the industrial revolution. We've become adept at systematically maximising the planet's resources and in turn pumping out billions more 'little miracles' (as Bill Hicks described us).

But there are clearly limits to how far this can be pushed. 'Earth Overshoot Day' https://wwf.panda.org/?350491/Earth-Overshoot-Day-... illustrates this.

I tend to cling onto the Hans Rosling analysis https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/20... but that's probably desperation.
[Edit, posted before seeing the reply above.]

Edited by PSB1 on Friday 6th December 13:59

Edited by PSB1 on Friday 6th December 14:00

[anonymous-user]

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.

[jonby]

Nickgnome said:

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.

Hans Rosling is the presenter in the video link in my post above

He really did have a brilliant knack of getting his message across

Sorry to hear he's now deceased

[Dr Jekyll]

Pan Pan Pan said:

It is not a difficult graph to read, and is of course the real hockey stick graph.
But as we all know when countries get economic growth, they consume and emit even more per capita.
Worse still, when countries with already colossal populations start to achieve economic growth, they begin colossal consumption of Earth resources, and this is followed by colossal increases in the emissions they produce when meeting the demands of their own citizens and those of the other countries they supply to.
Whichever way you want to cut it, more people means more problems for the Earth.

They also find more resources and find ways to control damaging emissions. For example famines, common 50 years ago when the world population was smaller, are now almost a thing of the past. That's what people consuming more actually means in practice.

For another example London's air is cleaner than it has been for centuries, and so is the Thames. In the 19th century there was serious discussion of moving parliament out of London to avoid the pollution.

[Pan Pan Pan]

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.

Yet the World Health Organization has stated that the global human population is growing at NET rates of between 287, and 342 thousand new humans per DAY.
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.

The UK is one of the areas where population density is considered high, yet less than 6% is actually built on. So what would the global average be? 4% possibly, but probably less.

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.

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.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dr Jekyll said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

It is not a difficult graph to read, and is of course the real hockey stick graph.
But as we all know when countries get economic growth, they consume and emit even more per capita.
Worse still, when countries with already colossal populations start to achieve economic growth, they begin colossal consumption of Earth resources, and this is followed by colossal increases in the emissions they produce when meeting the demands of their own citizens and those of the other countries they supply to.
Whichever way you want to cut it, more people means more problems for the Earth.

They also find more resources and find ways to control damaging emissions. For example famines, common 50 years ago when the world population was smaller, are now almost a thing of the past. That's what people consuming more actually means in practice.

For another example London's air is cleaner than it has been for centuries, and so is the Thames. In the 19th century there was serious discussion of moving parliament out of London to avoid the pollution.

I sincerely hope you are not one of those who complains about the loss of species, or of square miles of rain forest, in the Amazon, or you support those who think humans are messing up the planet, and its climate, or the fact you have to wait longer for a GP appointment or hospital operation, or the fact that that nice open space you used to like is now covered by houses, or that more of the UK is being covered with roads, and yet we are still caught up in congestion Or the fact that as soon as a shortage of anything from bread to fuel is announced, the supermarkets and garages get cleaned out in hours. Because all theses things, and many many more, are the symptoms of planet and a country that is being overcrowded NOW. Just how much better do you think things will get, when we have added billions more to the planet in just a few years?