So Much for the Overpopulation Scares?.......

[exchemist]

This finding seems to imply the population of the world is on course to stabilise and may even shrink:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

Or is that an incorrect inference to draw?

 

[iceaura]

As with climate change (and partly in consequence) the overpopulation has already passed some tipping points - the current population cannot be sustained by the current technology, and it's still growing. We are in a collapse zone already.

Having an overage comprising disproportionately old people will change things a great deal - that's a rare circumstance, of which we have little experience. Russia immediately after WWII might be worth looking at.

The one thing everybody seems to agree with is that non-rich old people will have to keep working - no retirement. Apparently the robot revolution is not going to help the non-rich.

 

[Seattle]

As I recall, "we" are defining non-rich to be the poor. Everyone other than the poor are "rich".

 

[billvon]

This finding seems to imply the population of the world is on course to stabilise and may even shrink:

That would be nice. Unfortunately such predictions have been wrong before.

Decreasing our population helps with climate change, pollution, oil depletion, traffic, management of disease, border disputes . . . almost everything.

 

[Jeeves]

This finding seems to imply the population of the world is on course to stabilise and may even shrink:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

Or is that an incorrect inference to draw?

Not really. Problem #1: the decline in birth rate is in the developed - more or less prosperous nations, and #1a: that decline is mainly in the prosperous classes of those nations. That just means the wealth is being concentrated in fewer people, making each of those people more powerful, compared to the "other" classes. So, the increase of those populations will be in the poor segments, who will also face diminished income opportunities and keep getting poorer.IOW - a gradual return to feudalism.
Problem#2: the global population increase continues in the poorest geographical regions, where birth control is all but unknown and women's rights, non-existent. In these same regions, water shortages and related conflict force out more people as economic refugees. Those regions will soon become uninhabitable due to climate change and industrial pollution, so the global population will be squeezed into a steadily decreasing area - into lands occupied by the prosperous, declining populations. These lands are defended by well-equipped armies, but the "developed" countries have been making huge profits on arming "developing" countries: while the conflicts may be unequal, the technological sophistication of the defenders may be offset by the sheer number of invaders.

On the other hand, famines, hurricanes, rising sea water and a war on every border will certainly help reduce the overall numbers. Failing that, as the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps break up, there will be ice-floes on pretty well every ocean shore to put the old people out on.

 

[exchemist]

That would be nice. Unfortunately such predictions have been wrong before.

Decreasing our population helps with climate change, pollution, oil depletion, traffic, management of disease, border disputes . . . almost everything.

Well let's hope this trend continues, then. Of course what is does mean is that the older people will need to go on on being economically productive for longer. Speaking as someone who took early retirement at 57, I feel a vague sense of guilt about this. But there we are.

 

[Write4U]

From the OP link.

Whenever a country's rate drops below approximately 2.1 then populations will eventually start to shrink (this "baby bust" figure is significantly higher in countries which have high rates of death in childhood).

This is false or at least misleading. This statistic references "fertility rates", and does not provide any insight into the "exponential function" in a steadily growing population (growth rate).

First, let's consult the "exponential function" which says that the doubling time of a steady population growth of 2% = 35 years (1% = 70 yrs)

Thus, only an absolute "zero percent population growth" will result in a stable number and only a negative growth rate will result in a decline in population.

Note that while the projected growth rate has somewhat flattened out @ 11.2 billion, the total population is still increasing, not declining, even as the fertility rate has dropped to 0.1%

But eventually the growth rate must reach zero to avoid a further increase in population and collapsing the earth resources and ecosystem. Any growth rate in excess of zero results in an increase in population. (see Albert Bartlett;

Of course the other option to population control is a good nuclear war wiping out 90 % of mankind, then we could start all over again.

 

[Jeeves]

Of course the other option to population control is a good nuclear war wiping out 90 % of mankind, then we could start all over again.

Ah, but in what form?

 

[billvon]

Of course the other option to population control is a good nuclear war wiping out 90 % of mankind, then we could start all over again.

Or (simpler) educate women. Educating women reduces birthrate dramatically. Not as much fun, perhaps.

 

[Jeeves]

Or (simpler) educate women. Educating women reduces birthrate dramatically.

Only if you also empower them. It's no use educating women, if they have no autonomy of choice and no access to birth control.
This is the main reason fertility is lowest in the most liberal countries/states, where women are treated as more or less equal. By an odd coincidence, the standard of living also tends to be higher in those places.

 

[billvon]

Only if you also empower them. It's no use educating women, if they have no autonomy of choice and no access to birth control.

Actually it is. Studies have shown that if you educate women - and do nothing else - number of children per woman goes down. (The other factors you mention surely help as well.)

 

[iceaura]

Or (simpler) educate women. Educating women reduces birthrate dramatically. Not as much fun, perhaps.

More fun.
The guys who spent their teens launching bottle rockets and their twenties rigging tannerite spectacles - they don't know what they missed.

 

[Write4U]

More fun.
The guys who spent their teens launching bottle rockets and their twenties rigging tannerite spectacles - they don't know what they missed.

Oh, so few know the great adventure to be had with experiments of calcium carbide in "capped tubes" and use them as cannons....
Mean stuff.

Applications of calcium carbide include manufacture of acetylene gas, and for generation of acetylene in carbide lamps; manufacture of chemicals for fertilizer; and in steelmaking.

Calcium carbide is used in toy cannons such as the Big-Bang Cannon, as well as in bamboo cannons. In the Netherlands calcium carbide is used around new-year to shoot with milk churns.

Calcium carbide, together with calcium phosphide, is used in floating, self-igniting naval signal flares, such as those produced by the Holmes' Marine Life Protection Association.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide

 

[Write4U]

Ah, but in what form?

I am willing to bet, not much different than the first time around.... ?

trog·lo·dyte, NOUN
1. a prehistoric cave dweller.
2. a person of degraded, primitive, or brutal character.
3. a person living in seclusion.
4. a person unacquainted with affairs of the world.
5. an animal living underground.

 

[Jeeves]

I am willing to bet, not much different than the first time around.... ?

Except, that was a reply to nuclear war wiping out 90%.
That's a lot of radioactive fallout blowing around the globe in post-climate-change, post-apocalypse windstorms.
And that's a lot of DNA fragment recombinants.

 

[exchemist]

From the OP link.
This is false or at least misleading. This statistic references "fertility rates", and does not provide any insight into the "exponential function" in a steadily growing population (growth rate).

First, let's consult the "exponential function" which says that the doubling time of a steady population growth of 2% = 35 years (1% = 70 yrs)

Thus, only an absolute "zero percent population growth" will result in a stable number and only a negative growth rate will result in a decline in population.

Note that while the projected growth rate has somewhat flattened out @ 11.2 billion, the total population is still increasing, not declining, even as the fertility rate has dropped to 0.1%

But eventually the growth rate must reach zero to avoid a further increase in population and collapsing the earth resources and ecosystem. Any growth rate in excess of zero results in an increase in population. (see Albert Bartlett;

Of course the other option to population control is a good nuclear war wiping out 90 % of mankind, then we could start all over again.

...[unclick]....
Completely wrong. You have confused the fertility rate with the population growth rate (the red line on your chart).

The fertility rate is the mean number of children per mother. If male and female children were produced in equal numbers, it would obviously need to be 2.0 to maintain a stable population. In fact it needs to be 2.1 to maintain stability, due to the slight excess of male children that is born.

So, for those populations mentioned, they are indeed due to decline in absolute numbers. With increasing affluence more and more parts of the world will fall into this category. This is why your red line tails off on the right hand side of your chart. The article I posted suggests that the rate of tailing off may be steeper than your graph shows, depending on what data went into preparing it. This is what the debate is about: the rate of fall-off in growth rate vs. the rate of use of resources etc.

...[click]....

 

[Write4U]

Completely wrong. You have confused the fertility rate with the population growth rate (the red line on your chart).

You're right as it relates to the chart. Sloppy of me. I noticed it after edit had expired. Thanks for reading my posts. I do value your input.

However,

From the OP link.
This is false or at least misleading. This statistic references "fertility rates", and does not provide any insight into the "exponential function" in a steadily growing population (growth rate).

Is still a valid observation.

It just did not apply to the chart.

The gist of my post is still valid. As long as we have any kind of steady population growth, the exponential function holds. 1% growth p/yr = doubling time every 70 yrs.

Year 2100 population total 11.2 billion @ 0.1 % growth = doubling time every 700 yrs. Still increasing......

p.s. The 2% mentioned in the OP article does pertain to "fertility rate" which is the difference between births and deaths.

 

[exchemist]

[

p.s. The 2% mentioned in the OP article does pertain to "fertility rate" which is the difference between births and deaths.

Rubbish.

Fertility rate is what I told you in post 16. That is exactly how it is used in the article, viz. the mean number of children born to each woman. I quote: " The total fertility rate is the average number of children a woman gives birth to in their lifetime"


Try to control this mental illness of yours and stop making shit up.

 

[sculptor]

birth rate by country:

 

[sweetpea]

Sorry if I'm not on topic, but I find this picture interesting.

The world's human population now exceeds 7.5 billion, but all those people are not distributed evenly over the available land.

More people live inside the highlighted circle than outside of it.

From here