Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: Michael Hardner on March 22, 2019, 05:42:41 am
-
The world population will decline in the next century. We're still in the immigration/growth mindset and so we'll likely end up at 50-100 million before we go back down.
Japan hates immigrants, so we're going to get a preview of what Depopulation looks like there first:
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/qvqwdw/japan-is-giving-away-abandoned-houses-for-free?utm_source=vicefbuk&fbclid=IwAR1O6hVBvvEiMggWMkkbogB2axCgItncBmHvQ34Iutq5Ry_42w-TjVi8VYc
"It’s understood that Japan’s akiya glut is due in part to the nation’s dramatically ageing population. As more and more Japanese citizens either kick the bucket or shuffle into retirement homes, an increasing number of houses around the country are being left empty without anyone to live in them. There aren’t enough young people around to fill the void, and those that are present are taking longer to have families."
-
Where do you get the notion that the population will decline?
The median estimate for future growth sees the world population reaching 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100 assuming a continuing decrease in average fertility rate from 2.5 births per woman in 2010–2015 to 2.2 in 2045–2050 and to 2.0 in 2095–2100...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
-
Many models predict population decline.
-
Growth rate in is 1.07% down from 1.09, 1.12, 1.14 % in the previous years.
-
The rate of growth is declining slightly. The population is still growing though.
Please provide a cite for your claim.
-
Where do you get the notion that the population will decline?
Why do you assume that poor nations will be forever poor?
Every human society has started to decline in population once it reaches a certain wealth level.
The only way population will continue to grow is if the Africa and India stay poor.
-
Why do you assume that poor nations will be forever poor?
Every human society has started to decline in population once it reaches a certain wealth level.
The only way population will continue to grow is if the Africa and India stay poor.
Please provide a cite that the population of the earth is headed down, or projected to.
-
Please provide a cite that the population of the earth is headed down, or projected to.
It's not projected happen overnight but there are a number of studies that say it's the way we are heading. And as has been suggested, as poor countries climb out of poverty birth rates will likely decline.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98371&page=1
-
Please provide a cite that the population of the earth is headed down, or projected to.
Yeesh. This is one of those basic facts that everyone should already know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
It will start heading down. The only debate is about when (i.e. 2050 or 2150).
-
Do you guys read the links you post? Projected to be 10 billion by 2100.
Please show me the cite for a decrease in population.
Even if it starts to decline in a hundred years or so, there will still be 5 billion more people than now!! You guys can’t read.
-
Earth overshoot day is now August 1, meaning we consume the earths ability to regenerate resources each year in the first seven months. Famine, pollution and disease will eventually take care of population growth.
-
Futurists/scientists predict the AI singularity will happen by 2050. That's predicted to create a technological explosion unlike anything we can even imagine. In other words, we have no idea what technology will be like in the 2nd half of the century, and we'll have no idea what the consequences of that will be on population. By the end of this century some scientists believe humans could achieve immortality (things like stem cells, genetic manipulation, cell regeneration etc). So predictions are meaningless.
-
Do you guys read the links you post? Projected to be 10 billion by 2100.
The link says:
It will start heading down. The only debate is about when (i.e. 2050 or 2150).
Try reading it again.
Hint: if it starts declining in 2150 then it will be higher than now in 2100.
-
The rate of growth is declining slightly. The population is still growing though.
Please provide a cite for your claim.
The growth rate is trending to zero, then it will go negative.
-
The growth rate is trending to zero, then it will go negative.
Only in Europe
-
Only in Europe
The growth rates I quoted were for the world. Tim is right - nobody seems to know this and think that human growth will continue indefinitely.
-
Cool fact: Since 5000 BCE, India and China (current borders) have always had by far the highest population in the world. Prior to 5000 BCE? Mexico and Brazil.
-
Prior to 5000 BCE? Mexico and Brazil.
I would have though northern Africa.
-
Cool fact: Since 5000 BCE, India and China (current borders) have always had by far the highest population in the world. Prior to 5000 BCE? Mexico and Brazil.
I thought we had been advised the earth was only 6000 years old! Oh right, this is not mlw. Sorry, carry on.
-
I would have though northern Africa.
Well from 10,000 BCE until around 5000 BE it was Mexico followed by Brazil. Before that I'm not sure, since humans didn't populate the Americas until around 15,000 years ago. I'm sure Africa/middle east is in there at some point.
-
The growth rate is trending to zero, then it will go negative.
Cite.
The wiki article mentions that the trends indicate continued growth to slightly downward negative growth.
What study are you looking at that definitively points to negative trend in the next century?
-
Well if growth goes down, then eventually it goes below zero.
-
Well if growth goes down, then eventually it goes below zero.
No citation = Useless thread.
Back up your claims MH.
-
oh ffs
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
-year -population -pct growth
2019 7,714,576,923 1.07 %
2018 7,632,819,325 1.09 %
2017 7,550,262,101 1.12 %
2016 7,466,964,280 1.14 %
2015 7,383,008,820 1.19 %
2010 6,958,169,159 1.24 %
2005 6,542,159,383 1.26 %
2000 6,145,006,989 1.33 %
-
Thank effing god it's going down.
-
The growth rates I quoted were for the world. Tim is right - nobody seems to know this and think that human growth will continue indefinitely.
I am speaking in terms of actual numbers, not percentages. I agree that population growth rate will eventually slow down, but it will not decrease, until there is a large war. I expect there to be a genocide so great that it will make the Holocaust pale in comparison. Global warming will eventually make s**t hit the fan, and powerful countries will do what human beings always do- kill each other off when resources and land make coexisting impossible.
My bet is 2030.
I also think it could happen much sooner if Trump wins the 2020 election.
-
oh ffs
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
-year -population -pct growth
2019 7,714,576,923 1.07 %
2018 7,632,819,325 1.09 %
2017 7,550,262,101 1.12 %
2016 7,466,964,280 1.14 %
2015 7,383,008,820 1.19 %
2010 6,958,169,159 1.24 %
2005 6,542,159,383 1.26 %
2000 6,145,006,989 1.33 %
Seriously? ::)
That’s not even a cite for your claim... ffs
-
(https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/2_Probabilistic%20Projections/1_Population/1_Total%20Population/World.png)
-
Most projections do not have the population declining in the next century.
-
I am speaking in terms of actual numbers, not percentages. I agree that population growth rate will eventually slow down, but it will not decrease, until there is a large war.
It's basic math. It's like saying "I agree with addition, however 1+1 will not equal two".
The growth rate IS slowing down and when you slow down to zero, you next start backing up. Math.
-
Seriously? ::)
That’s not even a cite for your claim... ffs
Well, it's a projection. I showed you why it's very reasonable, even expected, that rate goes negative. But it's still a projection. What would satisfy you - an expert who says that will happen ?
-
OK @the_squid I found this:
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98371&page=1
Despite a growth burst that more than doubled the global human population over the past 50 years, a study released today predicts it will peak at 9 billion by the year 2070 and then begin to decline.
"People thought for many years that we would breed ourselves out of existence," says Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics and history at State University of New York at Stonybrook and co-author of the study appearing in this week's Nature. "They thought we'd produce so many children, there would be no standing room left on the planet. But now it seems our population will peak.
"And that's an optimistic message."
The study is the first to pinpoint an end to the burgeoning population. The scientists estimate there is an 85 percent chance the species will taper to about 8.4 billion by the year 2100. The current world population is counted at 6.1 billion.
This is good news for the planet, and for humans also - although certain ideas we have such as work, government, and welfare will need to change.
My prediction: I would think that a more inclusive, collaborative and tribalized governance will emerge. That would bode well for the poorest among us, but would bode poorly for the idea of objective, democratic law-based justice. The emergence of written law vs. tribal law came with the development of writing and is recorded in the bible. As we move back to tribal-based justice, the "law" and rules of governance should revert.
But things like alienation, poverty, and extreme wealth disparity also came out of the written word so we could see those things start to fade. I'm talking a 100-year time horizon here, so please don't come at me with "what about Trump ?" arguments....
-
It's basic math. It's like saying "I agree with addition, however 1+1 will not equal two".
The growth rate IS slowing down and when you slow down to zero, you next start backing up. Math.
It's just smoke and mirrors.
What is the point of celebrating that the Earth is increasing by 80,000,000 people a year instead of 95,000,000? The World population is still growing in absolute numbers, and at the end of the day, that is all that matters. We cannot sustain this growth today, as deforestation, global warming, wars and conflicts, and species extinction are increasing. When the World's population starts declining by 20,000,000 a year then we can be festive.
-
OK @the_squid I found this:
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98371&page=1
This is good news for the planet, and for humans also - although certain ideas we have such as work, government, and welfare will need to change.
You are being pretty selective with your sources. Most articles I have read project the Earth population to be over 9 billion by 2050, and 10-11 million by 2100. I think the UN projections are more accurate:
"The current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new United Nations report being launched today. With roughly 83 million people being added to the world’s population every year, the upward trend in population size is expected to continue, even assuming that fertility levels will continue to decline."
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html
-
Ok, but the thread is not about what the top number will be, but about what will start happening after.
-
Ok, but the thread is not about what the top number will be, but about what will start happening after.
We will never know. The threshold has arguably been reached. It's only a matter of time before a catastrophic event takes place, that will kill off 1/2 the population of the World.
-
We will never know. The threshold has arguably been reached. It's only a matter of time before a catastrophic event takes place, that will kill off 1/2 the population of the World.
We will never know because we'll likely be dead. My due date is 2048. Of course this doesn't take into account a comet hit or something.
I think I remember this coming up before and people derailing it for some reason...
-
Please provide a cite that the population of the earth is headed down, or projected to.
Nobody really knows. Tim is citing modernization theory which argues that less developed nations will follow the same path as more developed nations. We're seeing that this isn't necessarily the case. For example, they're beginning to suffer the long-term chronic ailments of wealthier nations (like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease), but are still faced with infectious disease problems that you don't see in more developed areas.
One counter argument to the modernization theory from Kingsley Davis back in 1963 was that people need to recognize their means in order for there to be a fertility decline. Well what does that mean? In a society that is mostly rural and depends on subsistence labour (e.g., domestic agriculture), more bodies means more help to survive. As mortality declines and people live longer, it costs more to support those people. Developed countries shifted to industrial labour in urban centres from domestic agriculture in rural settings. More children meant more mouths to feed and more expenses for the family. They're no longer adding to the family resources, but rather taking away from them.
The modernization theory that Tim's perspective is based on, whether he knows it or not, assumes that less developed countries will become wealthier, which they almost certainly will. However, that assumption is based on the idea that wealthier means they will become more industrialized and urban, which does not necessarily hold true.
Davis' argument is that people need to recognize the need to stop having as many children before a fertility decline will happen. What I am suggesting here is that people come to that recognition based on social organization. Modern fertility decline happens when societies are organized such that reproducing becomes more of a burden on families than a benefit. Developed nations have a long way to go before this is the case.
Another important thing to consider is how patterns of migration have changed and how that relates to fertility decline and the (in my opinion) wrong idea that less developed nations will follow the same path as developed nations. European crowding lead to wealthier nations branching out and settling colonies. They became crowded and then expanded. Today, on the other hand, we have more South to North migration, where people from less developed countries in the South are moving to the more developed countries in the North for economic opportunities. This is the economic inverse of the previous situation (rich countries slow population expansion by migrating to less wealthy areas versus people from less developed areas moving into more developed areas). This stream of migration makes it more difficult for the less developed areas to expand both in terms of their economies as well as populations, which makes it less likely that there will be a fertility decline in those regions any time soon.
None of this yet takes into account population ages (more developed countries have aging populations, which leads to less fertility against younger populations), population education (more educated populations have fewer children because they spend more time in school before starting families), and a number of other variables that influence fertility.
-
Most projections do not have the population declining in the next century.
People in this discussion are confusing "population number" with "growth rate." It would take a sustained negative growth rate for the population number to decline. That's what you're getting at and people are missing.
-
No. The growth rate at - .1% would mean population decline.
And did you just quote a population theory published before the pill's impact?
And why do I get a weird feeling that this topic is political somehow?
-
No. The growth rate at - .1% would mean population decline.
And did you just quote a population theory published before the pill's impact?
And why do I get a weird feeling that this topic is political somehow?
You have an issue with me posting a population theory published before the pill's impact but not with someone else's opinion who's based on a theory that well predates that? We're talking about theoretical perspectives here and their implications and how they inform research. Do you have a more modern theory that we should subscribe to? Or shall we all just post a bunch of random data with no way to interpret its broader meaning?
-
You have an issue with me posting a population theory published before the pill's impact but not with someone else's opinion who's based on a theory that well predates that? We're talking about theoretical perspectives here and their implications and how they inform research. Do you have a more modern theory that we should subscribe to? Or shall we all just post a bunch of random data with no way to interpret its broader meaning?
I don't think I do have a theory. I have data only. And some projections by experts.
-
The growth rate at - .1% would mean population decline.
That is true, but we haven't reached that rate yet. The rate might continue to decline and become negative, or possibly it could continue to decline but never reach zero (like a limit equation). In practice, we have seen some countries with negative growth rates (Japan, Germany, Greece, Russia, Romania, Poland). There are about 40 overall with negative growth, but many of them are isolated islands (Japan, Cuba, Greenland, Maldives, Cook Islands, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Micronesia, etc.). Many others have had significant civil unrest and/or seen their populations emigrate. Germany is the one with a significant negative growth rate that seems to stand out: major continental location, large population, stable economy and social order, etc.
One interesting statistic to map to growth rate would be population density, at least in the inhabitable part of the country.
-
Speaking of population fluctuations, I found this interesting.
https://www.facebook.com/yevgeny.gindilis/videos/10213295025185704/