Human Population Growth & Overpopulation

[ramonmercado]

Genius, Ramon! Cull farmers, create a massive food shortage, everybody but the cannibals dies of starvation.

Many farmers are only kept going by EU handouts. They engage in uneconomic activity.

 

[INT21]

About alternative energy sources...General Motors is developing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and anticipates being able to build them cheaply enough to mass market them around 2010.

Well, that didn't pan out so well.

 

[MrRING]

I was listening to Alie Ward's episode of Ologies that talks to a Futurist who says that overpopulation is now considered a racist trope more so than reality. Is that truly the case of what science thinks?
https://www.alieward.com/ologies/futurology
Here is the quote from the transcript section of the website:

Alie:I've been worried about overpopulation.
Roseon't worry about it.
Alie:Oh, okay. Really? 'Cause I've been worried about it since,like, high school.
Rose:Yeah. So this was a huge topic in the 1980s which is maybe when you and I were both in high school.
Alie:Yes.
Rose:I guess the ‘90s. Largely, a lot of it came out of, honestly, just racism of like, [with light sarcasm]“Oh, all of these countries like India,and China,and places in Africa suddenly have all these people, and they're gonna, like,want rights, and they're not gonna want us to just tell them what to do. And oh, suddenly we have an overpopulation issue.” And I think that a lot of that...There's a lot of really good work done by researchers and scholars that basically say that is not the problem. The problem is racism, you know, or the problem is distribution of resources among the people on Earth. There area lot of people on Earth, but if you want to talk about what's the problem with climate change? Overpopulation is pretty low on the actual list. If we all stop having children right now, the climate will still warm. You know, that's not necessarily what'shappening. So yeah, I think that there's been a lot of really interesting stuff. Mother Joneshad a big series about this,I think,a couple of years ago, about trying to push back on this narrative of overpopulation and reveal that a lot of people who first posited this as ‘the problem’were basically just racists.

This seems to fly in the face of reality to me, but what thinks the board here?

And in other news, where is our Overpopulation thread that used to exist here? Packed in with Judge Crater?

 

[gordonrutter]

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/human-population-growth-overpopulation.39958/

 

[MrRING]

I thought it used to be in New Science... please merge this with the other thread or leave on it's own until the question gets answered if possible!

 

[EnolaGaia]

And in other news, where is our Overpopulation thread that used to exist here? Packed in with Judge Crater?

The most recent posts have been moved into the compendium thread on population growth and overpopulation.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... This seems to fly in the face of reality to me, but what thinks the board here? ...

It's a facile attempt to change the narrative on population issues by switching from "the world as it demonstrably works" to "an idealized world that's never really operated to date."

In principle, the earth's carrying capacity for humans equals or exceeds the current human population. However, this assumes a lot of optimization and efficiencies which simply don't exist. For example, the human race is theoretically capable of producing enough food for everyone (or even more ... ), but problems with logistics / transportation / marketing / economics / etc. prevent all this theoretical food from being produced and uniformly distributed worldwide.

Insofar as the areas most adversely affected lie in the un- / under-developed world one might reasonably correlate and contrast excesses versus deficiencies along roughly racial / cultural lines. This does little or nothing to address the overarching issue of global carrying capacity and whether or how this theoretical capacity should be treated as a boundary condition or a fixed point in planning.

 

[AnonyJ]

Quite, we need a global pandemic. Or ideally, several.

*gets to work in laboratory whilst cackling manically*

Bleedin' heck, Ogdred, I KNEW it was you! Busted!......

 

[Ogdred Weary]

Bleedin' heck, Ogdred, I KNEW it was you! Busted!......

Bollocks, my shit would have a 107% death rate.

Sorry, will have, when I finish it.

 

[eburacum]

Insofar as the areas most adversely affected lie in the un- / under-developed world one might reasonably correlate and contrast excesses versus deficiencies along roughly racial / cultural lines.

That's right. Population in almost every country in the world is stable or in decline, except in Africa. Africa is poor, and poor countries are not capable of making the demographic transition to low population growth. And why is Africa poor? largely because of racism. Racism in the West, where the powers-that-be see Africa as a source of wealth and resources, and have little regard for the well-being of the majority of the population; and racism in the East, where the Chinese see the Africans as secondary in importance to the well-being of their own citizens, so (once again) treat Africa simply as a source of wealth and resources. All the while the African population increases.

This does little or nothing to address the overarching issue of global carrying capacity and whether or how this theoretical capacity should be treated as a boundary condition or a fixed point in planning.

Global carrying capacity is determined by the thermodynamics of the planet, and we haven't hit those limits yet. Given foreseeable technology we could feed a population of 100 billion, or more. Floating agriculture could cover the Pacific Ocean, for example. Mind you, this would disrupt the natural world irrevocably. We should probably avoid that.

 

[eburacum]

Once again, the African growth curve compared to other locations, and how it affects world demographics. By 2100 Africa will hold 40% of the world's population. Everywhere else the population problem will resolve itself.

 

[AnonyJ]

Once again, the African growth curve compared to other locations, and how it affects world demographics. By 2100 Africa will hold 40% of the world's population. Everywhere else the population problem will resolve itself. View attachment 27826

Indeed, the continent of Africa is about 40 years behind Asia, and 60-70 years behind Europe. As education and healthcare makes inroads, expect many African countries' TFRs to fall to 2 and lower.

The tempo and momentum effects of births panning out along several generations means this takes at least 3 generations' worth of time to be visible.

As Europe and North America has had to get used to a majority (currently) Asian world, expect the same in a generation's time when the majority of humans will be African.

From the thread 'Proactive Human Population Reduction' :

Yes - when contraception and education is widely available, family sizes do tend to fall and even if one woman has 4 or 5 children there are others who have none. That's why the overall birth rate vs. overall death rate is important here, not individual family size.

However due to the population momentum effect and the tempo effect, these changes are only seen in generations, or centuries, and not decades. It's going to get a bit hairy around 2050 if consumption and environmental habits don't change!

An interesting article here about the various stages of demographic transition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition Most of the 'first world' is already in stage 4 - declining populations, catching up fast is China & India with most of Asia and southern Americas already in stage 3. To quote Hans Rosling: Don't Panic!

 

[oxo66]

Once again, the African growth curve compared to other locations, and how it affects world demographics. By 2100 Africa will hold 40% of the world's population. Everywhere else the population problem will resolve itself. View attachment 27826

I don't understand this chart. It seems to show China's population less than 1 billion and falling, and India's population less than 1 billion and only rising slowly?

oxo

 

[eburacum]

I don't understand this chart. It seems to show China's population less than 1 billion and falling, and India's population less than 1 billion and only rising slowly?

oxo

My apologies. It is a chart showing the population who are of working age:15-59. I expect that in many locations this is an underestimate, because people work before 15 and after 59.
https://www.hoover.org/research/africa-2050-demographic-truth-and-consequences

 

[charliebrown]

The British NHS has decided since it is understaffed for female patients, that it now legal in England to buy cheap birth control pills with no restrictions.

These birth control tablets are progesterone only to reduce blood clots, but you can not skip a dose.

Under 18 has to talk to a pharmacist.

I think this is great for women’s health !

 

[MorningAngel]

A Plan To Tax Women For Being 'Childless'? Welcome To Gilead​

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...cle-tax-childless_uk_62c2a896e4b00a9334ea7083

 

[ChasFink]

Are not most of the world's problems caused by overpopulation? General morality of it all aside, wouldn't it be better to encourage some kind of controlled reduction in the population?

 

[Xanatic*]

The overpopulation is rather specific to certain places though.

 

[ChasFink]

The overpopulation is rather specific to certain places though.

Yes, but the world - and most places in it - has a LOT of humans compared to other species. And the world population has increased to about 250% of what it was when I was born. The ideal population densities can be argued, but the continuing increase in world population means something's gotta give at some point.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Yes, but the world - and most places in it - has a LOT of humans compared to other species. And the world population has increased to about 250% of what it was when I was born. The ideal population densities can be argued, but the continuing increase in world population means something's gotta give at some point.

I think the problem we have now is that there are a lot of people moving from parts of the world (that have water shortages and an unavailability of useful crop-growing land) to parts of the world that grow crops and have water. When all those people have moved over, there will be no crop-growing land and massive water shortages. That is the nightmare future scenario, if nobody does anything.
The key is water.
Solution? The rest of the world needs to help the third world countries with their water supplies and their ability to grow crops. Stop bombing people - and dig wells, set up desalination plants, plant trees.

 

[Trevp666]

Oh there's plenty enough water. It's just mainly not where people need it, when they need it there.

 

[Trevp666]

EG.

Lake Michigan-Huron has a surface area of 45,300 sq mi, and contains 2,029 cu mi of fresh water. (Cubic MILES)
In 2019 the average water level rose from May to June by 5.6 inches. That might not sound a lot, but it increased the volume of water by approximately 4.8 trillion gallons of additional water in one month.
The United States Geological Survey states the average person uses 86 gallons of water per day.
Based on Michigan’s population, the water added to Lakes Michigan and Huron in June is enough water for every person in Michigan for 16 years.

 

[Trevp666]

86 gallons of water per day?
I need to up my game to get anywhere near the average person then.
If I add together all the water I use for coffee, cooking and washing etc I doubt I use more than about 3 or 4 gallons.

 

[Mythopoeika]

86 gallons of water per day?
I need to up my game to get anywhere near the average person then.
If I add together all the water I use for coffee, cooking and washing etc I doubt I use more than about 3 or 4 gallons.

Yeah, I don't use that much either.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Oh there's plenty enough water. It's just mainly not where people need it, when they need it there.

Well, yes.
Most of North Africa/the Middle East has these problems because (apart from wealthy Gulf states) not enough is being done to supply clean, fresh drinking water or water for farming purposes. The water is right there, off the coast. Or deep down in a huge aquifer that hasn't been tapped yet.

 

[Floyd1]

Well, yes.
Most of North Africa/the Middle East has these problems because (apart from wealthy Gulf states) not enough is being done to supply clean, fresh drinking water or water for farming purposes. The water is right there, off the coast. Or deep down in a huge aquifer that hasn't been tapped yet.

Yes. Israel has for many years used 'drip irrigation' and considering that in the southern part they get around 1.5cm of rain a year it is quite amazing how much produce they manage to grow there. Even in parks you will see hosepipes with tiny holes in them snaking around trees and plants keeping everything watered. They also desalinate as well, and of course, I think they are taught from an early age to not waste water either.

Egypt has the Nile and a few aquifiers, and it's the poor quality of the water as much as the scarcity of it that is often a problem. As you say, it could be quite easily fixed, (especially bearing in mind how many Billions of Dollars Egypt makes from Suez canal revenues every year).
The money just doesn't go to the right people and causes unfortunately.

 

[charliebrown]

What I have trouble accepting is when I was young the U.S. population was 150 million and the world population was 3 billion.

Now the U.S. population is over 300 million and the world population is 8 billion.

This blows my mind.

 

[charliebrown]

The UN claims that on November 15, 2022, the world population will be 8 billion.

India, Africa, and The Middle East will explode in population.

Europe, China, and other countries will slow in population growth and some countries will be negative growth.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

86 gallons of water per day?
I need to up my game to get anywhere near the average person then.
If I add together all the water I use for coffee, cooking and washing etc I doubt I use more than about 3 or 4 gallons.

In the US, water usage also contains all the water used to manufacture goods, including agriculture. In the link below, scroll down and look at the US map's water usage by state. The big difference in water usage by states is not that some people don't use much showering (!) but in the types of agriculture and the climate.

https://www.epa.gov/watersense/how-we-use-water

I live in the hot dry desert, Arizona, and we are running out of water. Sort of. Currently and historically, about 75-80% of all water usage is for agriculture. The inherent silliness of this is hard to fix because of property rights laws; water rights are owned, bought, and sold.

For our UK Forteans: it seems you get a lot of rain, which I suspect makes it more difficult to understand desert agriculture. In Arizona, some places get less than 6 inches of rainfall a year. When I lived in Florida, it would regularly rain more than 2 inches a day during the rainy season.

 

[Trevp666]

But I don't manufacture goods or grow crops.
Surely the water usage for that is listed for the companies that do it?
It doesn't make sense to apportion out that water usage equally across everyone in the population because there will be people that don't use those goods or eat those foods.
In the UK water usage is 'metered' in a lot of properties, both residential and commercial. If not metered then a standing charge for supply is used.
I remember one time a few years back when the weather forecast was advising that due to the 'drought' conditions that were covering much of the UK at the time, that 'hosepipe bans' were coming into effect. As they were announcing this, it was raining so heavily here that I was half expecting to see my hosepipe float past.