Earth 2050: Population Unknowable?

Ters

Ters

Bio-Boosted
March 14, 2008, 11:17 am

By Andrew C. Revkin

How many people will inhabit the planet before population growth finally levels off? The figure most commonly used is 9 billion by 2050, up from 6.7 billion today ? an extraordinary number, considering that there were only 1 billion humans in 1830. (Right now there are a billion people just between the ages of 10 and 19.) But there?s a growing debate about this projection and what it means.

Optimists cite plunging fertility rates in some countries as evidence that Earth?s human passenger list will not reach 9 billion. Pessimists see a chance of zooming well past that mark, and they add that with all the signs of strained resources (what?s the price of oil today?), this trajectory will lead to some hard knocks. Some say we?ve already shot over the edge of the cliff and, like Wile E. Coyote in the old cartoons, simply haven?t noticed.

Now the Worldwatch Institute, a nonpartisan Washington research group studying the issue for many years, has come out with a fresh analysis concluding that there is so much variability in fertility rates that we can?t know with any confidence how many people the future holds. The study notes, for example, that the fertility rate is rising in the United States, violating the age-old dictum that rich countries don?t make lots of babies. The group sees hints that global numbers could well go higher.

The condition of women?s lives remains a central influence on fertility trends. A summary of the trends report by Robert Engelman, Worldwatch?s vice president for programs ?World Population Growth: Fertile Ground for Uncertainty,? has been posted. The full report costs $10. Some highlights are below:

Although the average woman worldwide is giving birth to fewer children than ever before, an estimated 136 million babies were born in 2007. Global data do not allow demographers to be certain that any specific year sets a record for births, but this one cer*tainly came close. The year?s cohort of babies propelled global population to an estimated 6.7 billion by the end of 2007.

The seeming contradiction between smaller-than-ever families and near-record births is easily explained. The number of women of childbearing age keeps growing and global life expectancy at birth continues to rise. These two trends explain why population continues growing despite declines in family size. There were 1.7 billion women aged 15 to 49 in late 2007, compared with 856 million in 1970. The average human being born today can expect to live 67 years, a full decade longer than the average newborn could expect in 1970.

Only the future growth of the reproductive-age population is readily predictable, however: all but the youngest of the women who will be in this age group in two decades are already alive today. But sustaining further declines in childbearing and increases in life expectancy will require continued efforts by governments to improve access to good health care, and both trends could be threatened by environmental or social deterioration. The uncertain future of these factors makes population growth harder to predict than most people realize.

There?s more on this coming in a new book by Mr. Engelman, which I just received and will read shortly and explore here. It?s called ?More: Population, Nature and What Women Want.?

My colleague Nicholas Kristof is working on a book on women in poor places, which I?m sure will do much to reveal the challenges that impede the progress of that half of the human race.

When girls in deep poverty have to spend their days toting water or collecting firewood instead of going to school, that?s a population problem in the end, as well as a simple, and avoidable, waste of human potential.
Click to expand...

Source:
 
Well, time to flee this dustbowl.

Lets carry on the human infection to infinity and beyond!
 
2012.

>__________________________>

real: I'm not adding to it cos i'm not having kids. =D
 
There's always space underground, TTGL-esque.

I love that Wile E Coyote reference :cry
 
with all the things they're putting in the drinking water, the population probably wont go over 9 BIllion. lets wait and see.
 
Well, isn't 2050 or so around the time Mao's millions begins to die off too? We might see a significant if not dramatic drop in global population as the Chinese baby boom becomes a bust.
 
Dr. Obvious said:
Humans are the cancer that is killing the planet.
Click to expand...

I've always found this attitude hilarious. The earth has been through 10 times worse than us, its been through numerous sets of mass extinctions and always bounces back. To the planet we're barely a case of fleas, if we killed ourselves and nearly every creature on the planet it would shake us off and go on like nothing happened.

Back on subject though we really do need to start imposing limitations on births in all countries. I'm tired of tv specials about families with 18 kids.
 
This is of course assuming a giant black hole doesn't randomly appear next to the planet.:LOS
 
Back on subject though we really do need to start imposing limitations on births in all countries. I'm tired of tv specials about families with 18 kids.
Click to expand...

I find myself agreeing. 2 seems to be the perfect number. 3 is a little excess, but you find morons with like 20 kids or shit like 17 children while you are dirt poor.
 
I'm guessing all the rich people would move to the moon and earth will become a slum bucket. And the limiting children thing. People say there should be a limit but in reality people don't like it. (like China)
 
Is there even enough water and food to support 9 billion people? As there are more people there is less room for farm land, so I don't see how we can get past 9 billion without some major starvation issues.
 
Well with all the abortion in europe the population should go down....but places like India and Africa where condoms are worth 3 cows people cant afford em and are too dumb to withdraw :zaru
 
this is good news that we are finally realizing our earlier naive assumptions that "population growth is exponential" were just that, naive. as economies develop people have way less children
 
Kieuseru said:
Is there even enough water and food to support 9 billion people? As there are more people there is less room for farm land, so I don't see how we can get past 9 billion without some major starvation issues.
Click to expand...

We're beyond what we can really support right now. We use fossil fuels for fertilizer and to harvest and ship food. As that dwindles our capacity to produce and ship food will diminish and even with the numbers we have right now we're fucked. It doesn't take 9 billion people.
 
AbnormallyNormal said:
this is good news that we are finally realizing our earlier naive assumptions that "population growth is exponential" were just that, naive. as economies develop people have way less children
Click to expand...

Thank God half the world isn't in shit condition or religiously driven to keep having children. :zaru
 
Seaneleth said:
Thank God half the world isn't in shit condition or religiously driven to keep having children. :zaru
Click to expand...

ok except in some parts of the world there is actually population DECLINE. immigration is the key to solving it, we need to become more tolerant of "foreigners"
 
I know, some places in the world are declining, so some of those governments try to whip up the fires of patriotism or will give out money hand over fist in order to get people to breed. Russia and Norway, respectively. Declines may not mean as much as you think, especially if that gets real big.
 
I'd give it more time. It might.

Either way, it's not going to do more than slow things down. Instead of 12 billion by 2050, it may just be 9 or 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom