Human Population Growth & Overpopulation

[Ogdred Weary]

It won't.

War and famine might not, though a widespread enough famine and a nuclear would.

Falling birth rates globally will do so though. Age at death previously increased, I believe its falling many places too.

 

[Xanatic*]

Millennials are apparently expected to live shorter lives than their parents.

 

[Cochise]

Part of the answer, in Western countries at least, would be to change the tax and related systems so older people could carry on working more easily. Attitudes to older workers need to change as well. It's not just that people are living longer, they are staying relatively fit longer.

The last thing the planet needs is to encourage reckless population growth.

Edit: as in the book Dune, it might at some point be necessary to ban robots / 'AI' from doing jobs humans can do. AI simply moves more money to those who already have lots of it while making the poor poorer.

 

[Ogdred Weary]

Millennials are apparently expected to live shorter lives than their parents.

Good.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Good.

It's a bit unfair though, isn't it?

 

[Ogdred Weary]

It's a bit unfair though, isn't it?

Quite.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Life isn’t fair though is it?
I’d like to end up as a bitter, misanthropic, jaded 150 year old shot by a jealous world class footballer for bedding his supermodel girlfriend but it’s not going to happen is it?

 

[Frideswide]

Edit: as in the book Dune, it might at some point be necessary to ban robots / 'AI' from doing jobs humans can do. AI simply moves more money to those who already have lots of it while making the poor poorer.

The Butlerian Jihad!

 

[maximus otter]

Fewer and faster: Global fertility isn't just declining, it's collapsing​

While the most recent UN forecast sees a possible population peak of nearly 10.4 billion in the mid-2080s, plenty of other experts see our species’ numbers cresting at a far lower level — and much earlier:

https://populationmatters.org/news/2023/01/the-world-of-population-projections/

When University of Pennsylvania economist Jesús Fernández-Villaverde calculates global fertility rates, he finds them “falling much faster than anyone had realized before.” Something more like that UN Low Scenario in the above chart.

So I look at the fertility of the planet as a whole in 2023. According to my calculations, it’s already 2.2. That means that the planet in 2023 — I'm not talking about the United States, I'm not talking about North America, I'm not talking about the advanced economies, I'm talking about the planet — is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s.

...for the very first time in the history of humanity — humans have been around for 200,000 years — we are below replacement rate in terms of fertility. … My argument is the United Nations is underestimating how fast fertility is falling. Instead of 2084, I'm pushing this to 2060, let's say. And instead of 9.7, I will say that we will peak around 9.2, 9.1, and then we are going to start falling."

https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/fewer-and-faster-global-fertility

maximus otter

 

[AnonyJ]

Fewer and faster: Global fertility isn't just declining, it's collapsing​

While the most recent UN forecast sees a possible population peak of nearly 10.4 billion in the mid-2080s, plenty of other experts see our species’ numbers cresting at a far lower level — and much earlier:

https://populationmatters.org/news/2023/01/the-world-of-population-projections/

When University of Pennsylvania economist Jesús Fernández-Villaverde calculates global fertility rates, he finds them “falling much faster than anyone had realized before.” Something more like that UN Low Scenario in the above chart.

So I look at the fertility of the planet as a whole in 2023. According to my calculations, it’s already 2.2. That means that the planet in 2023 — I'm not talking about the United States, I'm not talking about North America, I'm not talking about the advanced economies, I'm talking about the planet — is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s.

...for the very first time in the history of humanity — humans have been around for 200,000 years — we are below replacement rate in terms of fertility. … My argument is the United Nations is underestimating how fast fertility is falling. Instead of 2084, I'm pushing this to 2060, let's say. And instead of 9.7, I will say that we will peak around 9.2, 9.1, and then we are going to start falling."

https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/fewer-and-faster-global-fertility

maximus otter

This is good news for us as a population on a single planet!

This is a subject I've studied as an amateur for quite a while - https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...tion-growth-overpopulation.39958/post-1885858 for example -

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!

The next few decades will be a bit feisty as the boom peaks, individual countries will feel overcrowded due to immigration, and the demographics of the world are going to change even more (more people from the continent of Africa, as opposed to Asia now), but if we manage not to nuke or pollute ourselves to death there is great hope for the future. We'll just be much browner as a global population, that's all.

 

[charliebrown]

It is estimated that in the U.S. it costs $230,000 to raise a child until 18 years old.

I think that is a good contraceptive.

 

[Cochise]

Fewer and faster: Global fertility isn't just declining, it's collapsing​

While the most recent UN forecast sees a possible population peak of nearly 10.4 billion in the mid-2080s, plenty of other experts see our species’ numbers cresting at a far lower level — and much earlier:

https://populationmatters.org/news/2023/01/the-world-of-population-projections/

When University of Pennsylvania economist Jesús Fernández-Villaverde calculates global fertility rates, he finds them “falling much faster than anyone had realized before.” Something more like that UN Low Scenario in the above chart.

So I look at the fertility of the planet as a whole in 2023. According to my calculations, it’s already 2.2. That means that the planet in 2023 — I'm not talking about the United States, I'm not talking about North America, I'm not talking about the advanced economies, I'm talking about the planet — is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s.

...for the very first time in the history of humanity — humans have been around for 200,000 years — we are below replacement rate in terms of fertility. … My argument is the United Nations is underestimating how fast fertility is falling. Instead of 2084, I'm pushing this to 2060, let's say. And instead of 9.7, I will say that we will peak around 9.2, 9.1, and then we are going to start falling."

https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/fewer-and-faster-global-fertility

maximus otter

A decline is arguably a good thing. A collapse probably not.

But that was a most informative and encouraging post - I was wrongly under the impression the planet population was irretrievably running out of control.

 

[maximus otter]

Global fertility rates set to crash, triggering ‘staggering’ social change


Global fertility rates are set to fall dramatically over the next 80 years leading to “staggering social change,” according to a study published in The Lancet.

By 2100, 97 per cent of the world’s countries will have a shrinking population, modelling has projected.

To maintain its population size, a country requires a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman. By 2050, researchers suggest that number will have dropped to 1.83, and to a further 1.59 by 2100.

In 13 countries, including Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Saudi Arabia, rates are predicted to fall below one child per female.

In Britain, that number recently dropped to 1.49 – the lowest rate ever recorded…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ty-crash-triggering-staggering-social-change/

maximus otter

 

[Cochise]

Global fertility rates set to crash, triggering ‘staggering’ social change


Global fertility rates are set to fall dramatically over the next 80 years leading to “staggering social change,” according to a study published in The Lancet.

By 2100, 97 per cent of the world’s countries will have a shrinking population, modelling has projected.

To maintain its population size, a country requires a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman. By 2050, researchers suggest that number will have dropped to 1.83, and to a further 1.59 by 2100.

In 13 countries, including Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Saudi Arabia, rates are predicted to fall below one child per female.

In Britain, that number recently dropped to 1.49 – the lowest rate ever recorded…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ty-crash-triggering-staggering-social-change/

maximus otter

If I can go a bit metaphysical - could it be that nature/Gaia/God(s) will not permit overcrowding? My info on this is sadly dated and only gleaned from dodgy sources, but I understood that mammals like rats stop breeding when a certain level of overcrowding is reached?

I don't know of any actual science that supports that - one of my esteemed colleagues on here might.

 

[Floyd]

If I can go a bit metaphysical - could it be that nature/Gaia/God(s) will not permit overcrowding? My info on this is sadly dated and only gleaned from dodgy sources, but I understood that mammals like rats stop breeding when a certain level of overcrowding is reached?

I don't know of any actual science that supports that - one of my esteemed colleagues on here might.

The trouble is, the pesky humans keep inventing ways of keeping themselves alive for far longer than should probably be the case.

 

[Cochise]

The trouble is, the pesky humans keep inventing ways of keeping themselves alive for far longer than should probably be the case.

I'm not sure we've actually extended potential human lifespan, just made it more likely that an individual will 'max out' as it were.

 

[Stormkhan]

If I can go a bit metaphysical - could it be that nature/Gaia/God(s) will not permit overcrowding? My info on this is sadly dated and only gleaned from dodgy sources, but I understood that mammals like rats stop breeding when a certain level of overcrowding is reached?

I don't know of any actual science that supports that - one of my esteemed colleagues on here might.

I recall reading a book outlining The Catastrophy Theory by Rene Thom. In (very) brief, it suggested that many systems possess a self-regulating mechanism that is 'triggered' by circumstances in order to restore order to that system. Like economic 'bubbles' - which are expanding - inevitably burst; were the economy stable, it wouldn't burst.
I admit that it's been decades since I read it (I've long lost the book) but the theory stuck in my mind.

 

[AnonyJ]

If I can go a bit metaphysical - could it be that nature/Gaia/God(s) will not permit overcrowding? My info on this is sadly dated and only gleaned from dodgy sources, but I understood that mammals like rats stop breeding when a certain level of overcrowding is reached?

I don't know of any actual science that supports that - one of my esteemed colleagues on here might.

I don't know about humans as compared to rodents but the key triggers to a fall in total fertility rates are:

1) universally-available education, especially for girls and women
2) improved healthcare and disease prevention
3) access to reliable contraception for both men and women

I am sure nature/Gaia/God approves. I hope they do!

Once these three resources are available in any culture, just watch the birth rate plummet. It happened in northern and western Europe in the late 1950s-1960s, spread eastwards and westwards and is now going south. The effects take 2-3 generations to be felt though, due to the momentum and tempo effect of population. Absolute poverty is dropping fast. India is currently in 'stage 3' of the demographic transition, about 60 years behind the UK for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition has some useful, in-depth information and charts

The main challenges over the next 50 years as a global people will be how to care for elders and the disabled with fewer younger people and the acceptance of the fact that the majority of the planet's people will be of African birth/heritage and probably highly mobile.

We also need to try not to pollute or nuke ourselves into extinction in the meantime.

 

[Mythopoeika]

If I can go a bit metaphysical - could it be that nature/Gaia/God(s) will not permit overcrowding? My info on this is sadly dated and only gleaned from dodgy sources, but I understood that mammals like rats stop breeding when a certain level of overcrowding is reached?

There was an experiment done with rats that were fed well and allowed to breed as much as they liked, in cramped conditions.
IIRC, this led to a population boom, followed by a population crash as the rats stopped breeding.

 

[charliebrown]

Abortion, women’s health, and contraception have been an explosive topic in the U.S. for years.

Now for the first time, one can buy an all progesterone, over the counter, birth control tablet.

Progress has been made for women’s rights and population control.

 

[Xanatic*]

We just need to give everyone student debts. Great for keeping people from reproducing.

 

[Analogue Boy]

We just need to give everyone student debts. Great for keeping people from reproducing.

Having a kid is the greatest damage you can do to the planet. Any environmentalist with kids is an ultimate hypocrite.

 

[brownmane]

There was an experiment done with rats that were fed well and allowed to breed as much as they liked, in cramped conditions.
IIRC, this led to a population boom, followed by a population crash as the rats stopped breeding.

I have heard of this, but never actually read about the experiment. I recall, and most likely incorrectly, that in overcrowded conditions, the rats started to cannibalize each other.

 

[Cochise]

Having a kid is the greatest damage you can do to the planet. Any environmentalist with kids is an ultimate hypocrite.

Can't agree with that. Having more than two children, maybe yes. Although even today accidents happen.

 

[Mungoman]

It's a first world problem only:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262884/countries-with-the-highest-fertility-rates/

 

[Ogdred Weary]

I have heard of this, but never actually read about the experiment. I recall, and most likely incorrectly, that in overcrowded conditions, the rats started to cannibalize each other.

It's a good job no one round these ways has been doing that.

Oh, and don't pay attention to the missing posters thread, nothing to see there...

 

[AnonyJ]

Having a kid is the greatest damage you can do to the planet. Any environmentalist with kids is an ultimate hypocrite.

True - in a way. The richest 50% of the planet is fuelling climate change and environmental damage. The remaining 50% have very little effect, thus it is 'us' doing the damage and not some poor people in a faraway place having children.

Eg., From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59157836 :

 

[Xanatic*]

Have we had the Valeriepieris circle? It shows how rather skewed the overpopulation is. More people are living inside that circle than outside of it.

 

[maximus otter]

True - in a way. The richest 50% of the planet is fuelling climate change and environmental damage. The remaining 50% have very little effect, thus it is 'us' doing the damage and not some poor people in a faraway place having children.

Eg., From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59157836 :

View attachment 74969

Proceeds from the assumptions that the climate is changing unnaturally, and that humanity is causing / contributing to that change.

l - and a large and growing proportion of the public - do not agree with those assumptions.

maximus otter

 

[AnonyJ]

Have we had the Valeriepieris circle? It shows how rather skewed the overpopulation is. More people are living inside that circle than outside of it.

View attachment 74970

At the moment - we are at peak 'Chindia' now - after 50-80 years we* should see a different geographical focus of population.

*as in us, the human species, all sharing the same planet that Buckminster-Fuller called Spaceship Earth.