Zero-Sum Game, the worlds population

[XMan]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've read in biology class that the population of the world is expected to level off in 2050 anyways.

i recall being taught that global population is represented by a bell curve and that 'leveling off' is not a factor.

Most of the world is not breeding at a rate sufficient to maintain equilibrium. A birthrate of 2.1 per couple is typically considered the necessary for a static population. The United States is one of the highest in the western world at 2.07.

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

From "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Very interesting book for those who'd like to learn about demography and potentional ramifications thereof. Now you know why Russia had a "take a day off and make babies" day.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've read in biology class that the population of the world is expected to level off in 2050 anyways.

i recall being taught that global population is represented by a bell curve and that 'leveling off' is not a factor.

Most of the world is not breeding at a rate sufficient to maintain equilibrium. A birthrate of 2.1 per couple is typically considered the necessary for a static population. The United States is one of the highest in the western world at 2.07.

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

From "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Very interesting book for those who'd like to learn about demography and potentional ramifications thereof. Now you know why Russia had a "take a day off and make babies" day.

Pure government propaganda.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've read in biology class that the population of the world is expected to level off in 2050 anyways.

i recall being taught that global population is represented by a bell curve and that 'leveling off' is not a factor.

Most of the world is not breeding at a rate sufficient to maintain equilibrium. A birthrate of 2.1 per couple is typically considered the necessary for a static population. The United States is one of the highest in the western world at 2.07.

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

From "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Very interesting book for those who'd like to learn about demography and potentional ramifications thereof. Now you know why Russia had a "take a day off and make babies" day.

Pure government propaganda.

LOL. Way to back up your assertion with a source.

Sorry, unless you have figures that show otherwise, most "first-world" countries are not in danger of population explosions.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Some areas can support more then others. Canada can probably support the population of China, provided the fertile land is used for nothing but farming. Then you have places in Africa that see starvation on a massive scale.

Also it seems that birth rates are linked to standard of living and education. Poor uneducated people have many children, more so in poor nations where having many kids is a asset, basically like getting a tractor to plow your fields but in their case it is a bunch of children to do the work when they get older. Canada's population is actually shrinking, with immigration keeping the total population stable.

A easier way to help lower population growth would be to teach children (at a appropriate age before they become sexually active) about how the human reproductive system works, what contraceptive methods are available , how effective they are and how to use them. But religion can get in the way of this, teaching that sex is dirty and should never be talked about and/or the belief that sex outside marriage is immoral and thus forbidden to talk about. Even in the most wealthy nation on earth this is sometimes the case and so far has failed miserably with abstinence only sexual education that withholds information about contraception and removal of myths such as the "pull out" technique (also leaves them vulnerable to STD's but I guess that could help counter any growth).

Then you have the curing of most major disease which did keep populations down, so in some places you have the same birth rate as before but with a lower death rate. As much as I hate to say it, when/if they cure HIV(AIDS) there will being a F***ing massive population explosion in developing nations that are hard hit by this assuming the population isn't already devastated. With the end of HIV you'll also see a end to the push of contraceptive education compounding the problem even more. But it will likely be countered by famine which will kill off a lot of people.

My solution, bring the standard of living in all nations to the level where population growth levels out (increased use of resources will be countered by lower populations and hopefully new technology such as viable renewable energy), proper sexual education, incentives to limit the number of children to 2 or less, migration of populations from "low yield" areas to "high yield" areas (when the birth rate slows other wise it's pointless) and removal of religious barriers to use of contraception and/or encouraging large families.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
My solution, bring the standard of living in all nations to the level where population growth levels out (increased use of resources will be countered by lower populations and hopefully new technology such as viable renewable energy), proper sexual education, incentives to limit the number of children to 2 or less, migration of populations from "low yield" areas to "high yield" areas (when the birth rate slows other wise it's pointless) and removal of religious barriers to use of contraception and/or encouraging large families.

I agree, the population is decreasing in just about every first world country. The opportunity costs for children in a first world country are extremely high. There is a high cost to the family for medical bills and food. There is a high cost to society for their education and other social programs. At the same time, children are now pure consumers. In years past, children could be producers by working on the family farm or in factories (ethics aside) but with the decrease in manual labor and the agrarian society this has been minimized. The economic forces seem to be very effective in controlling the population and if this were extended to other areas of the world I think we would see similar population growth reductions. The only real problem is bringing up the standard of living and doing so without placing too much of a strain on the resources consumed.

 

[First]

By the time overpopulation in the world is a serious problem, we'll probably be able to inhabit Mars or the moon by utilizing new-age PV solar cells.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: TallBill
I've read in biology class that the population of the world is expected to level off in 2050 anyways.

i recall being taught that global population is represented by a bell curve and that 'leveling off' is not a factor.

current forcasts have population not even reaching 9 billion, and dropping to 8.5 by 2100. Already, most of the world lives in counties at or below the replacement level, and only a few countries still have extraordinary birth rates.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: RU482
time to restart the eugenics machine. It's been a good 65 yrs or so

real numbers now , not phony government numbers. At present rate of growth, World population will more than double in forty years, Because that years % includes last years births % and the real numbers are staggering. Same with consumption % increase over forty years . Is staggering. Marshal law is the only way they can stop that part of it. Thats not what their worried about, Something else going on . Those 300 camps they built prove it.

you're a fucking idiot.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: RU482
time to restart the eugenics machine. It's been a good 65 yrs or so

real numbers now , not phony government numbers. At present rate of growth, World population will more than double in forty years, Because that years % includes last years births % and the real numbers are staggering. Same with consumption % increase over forty years . Is staggering. Marshal law is the only way they can stop that part of it. Thats not what their worried about, Something else going on . Those 300 camps they built prove it.

you're a fucking idiot.

Understatement of the century.

 

[miketheidiot]

with current technology and land usage, the world can probably feed about 2-3 times its current population at a minimum.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
with current technology and land usage, the world can probably feed about 2-3 times its current population at a minimum.

So then the starvation that exists today is a function of.....??

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
with current technology and land usage, the world can probably feed about 2-3 times its current population at a minimum.

So then the starvation that exists today is a function of.....??

The same thing that cause starvation 100 years ago for the most part. People in the 30's predicted the world could not sustain 6 billion people. The readily predicted that 6.5billion would mean a decent into anarchy in the US as people fought over scrap food.

 

[Cattlegod]

I'm calling bull on the population cap. It is proportional to the level of technology we have. Why can't we just build huge mile high by several mile wide hydroponic skyscrapers that can grow all the food we need. Then build on top of that building all of the residential housing. If needed, we can continue to build under ground all of the housing units etc.

There is only a cap if we don't change our ways. We will change our ways because it is in us to reproduce and pass our genes on. We will find a way.

 

[Zebo]

I dunno. I just got back from fishing all day and did not see a soul for 5 miles. Caught a mess of crappie and wished for someone to talk to but all my friends work.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
with current technology and land usage, the world can probably feed about 2-3 times its current population at a minimum.

So then the starvation that exists today is a function of.....??

..... too many people living in areas that can not support their numbers and lacking infrastructure/money to bring in enough food to sustain them. I would also imagine a lack of industrial framing tractors along with good framing techniques that can vastly increase the yield of their crops. Then there is natural disasters which will destroy crops such as disease, bugs and drought which can make the problem far worse. AND you have war which disrupts the growing of crops and raising live stock, along with creating a large population unable to sustain themselves.

While there are other areas that are vastly under used which can support a far greater population then it currently supports.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
with current technology and land usage, the world can probably feed about 2-3 times its current population at a minimum.

So then the starvation that exists today is a function of.....??

badly broken distribution

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I'm calling bull on the population cap. It is proportional to the level of technology we have. Why can't we just build huge mile high by several mile wide hydroponic skyscrapers that can grow all the food we need. Then build on top of that building all of the residential housing. If needed, we can continue to build under ground all of the housing units etc.

There is only a cap if we don't change our ways. We will change our ways because it is in us to reproduce and pass our genes on. We will find a way.

I wish I could get people to think about this issue, not in terms of how many people can possibly subsist at near-starvation level on a given amount of land and resources, but rather, given a certain level of technological development, how many people relative to the amount of land and resources available will facilitate or at least allow for the highest possible standard of living for those people?

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I'm calling bull on the population cap. It is proportional to the level of technology we have. Why can't we just build huge mile high by several mile wide hydroponic skyscrapers that can grow all the food we need. Then build on top of that building all of the residential housing. If needed, we can continue to build under ground all of the housing units etc.

There is only a cap if we don't change our ways. We will change our ways because it is in us to reproduce and pass our genes on. We will find a way.

I wish I could get people to think about this issue, not in terms of how many people can possibly subsist at near-starvation level on a given amount of land and resources, but rather, given a certain level of technological development, how many people relative to the amount of land and resources available will facilitate or at least allow for the highest possible standard of living for those people?

It is all about the quality of life. I certaintly don't believe the entire world could live at the same quality of life the U.S. lives at. Yes the U.S. could probably support 5 times its population just using food as a ruler. However, it is just impossible to base population caps on food sustainability issues. Just imagine the current issues we face in everday life, imagine 5 times the number of people in every aspect of your life (airlines/roads/vacation spots/etc.). Imagine 5 times the number of coal/nuclear/natural gas power plants. Five times the amount of water consumption with all the drought issues we are facing.

Food just isn't a ruler for population sustainability.

 

[CycloWizard]

As Cattlegod said, all of the things mentioned in the OP are addressable by improvements in technology. The only thing that would limit population that's not is land, but even that can be manipulated to some extent. The question is whether the investment in this technology will allow it to keep up with population growth, and I think it will based on the observation that it has to this point.

 

[m1ldslide1]

One thing to keep in mind is that as humans expand, biodiversity contracts. Biodiversity isn't a t-shirt slogan for a smelly latte-sipping jerkwad, but is actually necessary for all species in order to survive catastrophic events, such as, say, climate change, nuclear war, an asteroid collision, etc. In other words, if you don't have backup food sources, you starve and die, and then whatever creature used you as a backup food source will starve and die, and the effects will cascade. This process will compound itself with the increased population growth (and potentially increased MMGW) and we may end up with a smoldering wasteland of a planet in a couple of hundred years.

I'm one of those goofy optimists however who hopes that with the right kinds of technology and efforts to preserve the planet and various life forms inhabiting it, we may just be OK. Unfortunately getting countries like India and China, let alone developing African nations to observe regulations of this nature will be nearly impossible. It may be too late for us already.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
with current technology and land usage, the world can probably feed about 2-3 times its current population at a minimum.

So then the starvation that exists today is a function of.....??

The same thing that cause starvation 100 years ago for the most part. People in the 30's predicted the world could not sustain 6 billion people. The readily predicted that 6.5billion would mean a decent into anarchy in the US as people fought over scrap food.

So you think that food production, agriculture, and distribution are above 90% capacity?

 

[Darthvoy]

The problem I see is that technology has allowed those who would otherwise perish through natural selection to survive and thereby exacerbating the natural resource problem we are/will have. Through breakthroughs in medicine and technology we are, in effect, contaminating the human population because we are allowing people with genetic diseases to propagate and therefore spread them into the general population. We are going against nature's plan. We are already seeing consequences overpopulation is having on earth, mainly pollution.

*Takes Ayn Rand hat off*

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
with current technology and land usage, the world can probably feed about 2-3 times its current population at a minimum.

So then the starvation that exists today is a function of.....??

Poor and lazy people.

Seriously, Africa has a ton of land to use for farming. Why can't the continent with the most useable farming land, and least amount of people (except antartica) produce enough food for themselves?
Basically put they are lazy and or to dumb to get over all the tribal differences. Africa did use to produce most of it's own food, but the rebels and "natives" took over the farms the whites ran (that did very well). They took the land, killed or ran off the farmers and left the land and never used it.
It's sheer stupidity now that I think about it.

As far as the world population limits, they will reach a peak at some point. At that point, resources will become scarce and war will errupt around those resources and the populations will be curtailed.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
The problem I see is that technology has allowed those who would otherwise perish through natural selection to survive and thereby exacerbating the natural resource problem we are/will have. Through breakthroughs in medicine and technology we are, in effect, contaminating the human population because we are allowing people with genetic diseases to propagate and therefore spread them into the general population. We are going against nature's plan. We are already seeing consequences overpopulation is having on earth, mainly pollution.

*Takes Ayn Rand hat off*

Genetic research is coming along quite nicely. Maybe in 100 years no child in a developed nation will need glasses, and no more genetic diseases.

The human population is also to the point some say that there are too many people interbreeding/migrating for further evolution to occur. We would need to go back a good thousand years to insure isolated populations that can quickly adapt to diseases to get what you want. But then you have them more vulnerable to natural disasters.

And once again you have developed nations who's population (when excluding immigration) are shrinking with high survival rates of the sick which may cure the root cause of those diseses, then you have developing nations with high birth rates along with high death rates of the sick. When/if they become a developed nation their birth rates should fall in line with the trend of lower birth rates along with getting access to cures to genetic disorders/diseases. We will eventually see the human population growth level out and maybe even shrink.

With regards to standard of living and resources, not everyone needs as much waste as the USA and other similar nations. With a increased population wanting goods, you'll have a push to develop technology to meet demand such as viable renewable energy and intensive recycling to make use of limited resources. This would also mean less garbage, less waste and less pollution. Excesses will have to be trimmed, but people will still get to work on time, have a comfortable place to live with their home computer and a pet dog/cat. If the only way you'll get a high standard of living is to reduce waste/excess to minimal levels then it will be done with great vigor provided that the population is not a bunch of complete idiots.

If someone tomorrow says "Ooops, we only have 10 years of oil left p.e.r.i.o.d.", aside from a global economic melt down you will see massive push for renewable energy as there is insane amounts of money to be made suddenly in this field because everyone needs it. He who comes up with the most efficient/cheapest/easiest to bring online will be one of the richest people on earth. Plastics will be slower to be replaced but will be.

You can also do state enforced population control by limiting families to 1 or two babies. As much as people don't like it, China is a very successful nation that is still improving rather then a failed nation with massive starvation (government policies that have caused starvation are another story).

On a different note, today we are seeing migration within countries from rural to urban areas. This can give a false impression of a population increase. This can be addressed by spreading out what is attracting all these people, good city planning and good mass transportation (I don't mean failed services that some places have).

And so ends my rant.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

this is one of those problems that will fix itself