World population approaching 7 billion

[Sejon]

We're not far off from the 7 billion landmark (which will be reached in 2011 or 2012, depending on the statistics bureau in question).

With that coming up, I thought it'd be interesting to ask what people's predictions are, with regards to the human population.

Are we overpopulating the planet?

Is worldwide poverty hypothetically a solvable issue, or are there simply not enough resources for equitable distribution of wealth considering modern demands and a bloating population?

When we hit resource crises like peak oil, are we screwed? Or are you confident alternative energy will be sufficient, and fully integrated, before any kind of Malthusian catastrophe happens?

What will the future look like demographically? I used to think (or rather, hope) that the world was becoming increasingly secularized, but the countries with the highest population growth rates are culturally more religious. Secular nations in Europe, by contrast, are either stable or seeing declining populations.

Do you think the racial heterogeneity of countries like Brazil will be the case practically worldwide?

One curious thing to note is the rate of population growth worldwide has been declining (fortunately, although not as quickly as one would hope) ever since its peak growth in the 1950's and 60's, and that some projections show that it'll stabilize by around 2070 or so, at which point I believe it'll be around 11-12 billion. Crickey.

Well, in any case, this is one of the main reasons why I won't be having any children.

[Magus]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

There's gonna be a helluva lot more poop to deal with, that's for sure.

Here's some light bedtime reading about most of your concerns:




And here's a review to give you a gist of what the guy says:
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/03/14/davis/

If anything we can move to those space colonies they got in orbi--

Oh.

[The Toecutter]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

Are we overpopulating the planet?

Yes. For everyone on Earth to live with the resource consumption of the average American, there would be enough resources for about 2 billion people, assuming nothing were left for the biosphere. That being said, we don't necessarily need such a high level of resource consumption to have a high standard of living; much of the consumption associated with our lifestyle has been engineered into place by governments and business seeking to maximize economic growth, at all costs.

Is worldwide poverty hypothetically a solvable issue, or are there simply not enough resources for equitable distribution of wealth considering modern demands and a bloating population?

World poverty is in theory solvable. We have the resources to put everyone at a high living standard(not American living standard, but comparable to that of a European), if any only if, the following criteria are met:

1) We need to reduce our resource footprint for the same living standard. This means we need to have mass transit readily available in all major population centers to reduce automobile use. We need to have electric cars in use of gasoline ones. We need to divert far few resources to military endeavours and conquest, and stop wasting resources trying to control people's lifestyle choices(such as drug use). We need to use much more renewable energy and place an emphasis on conservation; if this means the energy and power companies make less money, then so be it! Factory farming needs to be discouraged, along with the use of petroleum pesticide-dependent and energy-intensive GMOs; this would mean less meat would be available for consumption(about 1/3 or less what the average American enjoys), BUT the meat would be of much higher quality and wouldn't have the nasty health side-effects associated with today's factory farmed meat(this would also dramatically increase land available for feeding people, and fresh water supplies, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions).

The resource consumption of the average American could easily be cut to 1/3 of what it is without any significant reduction in living standard(in some areas, living standard would improve), but it would take time to implement these modifications to our society, and a lot of people who have grown rich milking the profits gained from such consumption wouldn't be able to make nearly as much money any longer, hence their opposition to such measures over the last century. The rich have grown exponentially rich by increasing waste as much as possible, and using the government to rig markets in a way favorable to maintaining this paradigm.

Currently, the wealthiest 1% of the world's population accounts for one-third of the resource consumption on this planet and owns more than half of the wealth. The top 20% have middle class living standards, for reference(enough wealth to own autos if desired, live in nice homes, have plenty of food, potential to attend college, ect. This top 20% still includes the upper middle class). The bottom 90%, which still accounts for half the world's middle class, consumes LESS than the top 1%.

2) Religion needs to be removed from politics. The Catholic church is one particularly egregious example of the effect religion has had on politics in the third world; steadfast in their zeal to end birth control, the church is largely responsible for population explosions in latin America, Indonesia, and other nations. The Catholic Church isn't the only culprit, but was used as an example.

3) Wasteful behavior on part of industry needs to no longer be subsidized. End all subsidies to giant agribusiness, auto manufacturers, defense contrators, ultility companies(eg. remove subsidies for the 20th century era nuclear power plants, and solar photovoltaics are at an advantage in comparison), banks, and their ilk. Make companies pay for the effects of their pollution, so that rebates can be given to the public(and NOT the government). Eventually, this will encourage alternatives to the current behavior. Government needs a *massive* spending reduction so that taxes can be reduced, in order to compensate for the massive economic shrinkage that would result from the measures outlined above. Social welfare will also need to be discouraged; many around the world are becoming dependant upon it without accumulating any skills useful to society. However, there also needs to be enough work for everyone and that work has to pay them enough to live on; if this means businesses will have to settle with a 5% profit margin instead of a 15%+ one, dramatically reduce overhead and increase dramatically localization, and cut working weeks to 20 hours a week while providing a wage increase to compensate, so be it.

The overall goal of what is describe above is for the potential to earn income to be redistributed more evenly, and for the government to get a shrinking piece of it as well. This leaves more of the resource pie for individual people who aren't filthy ****ing rich. The problem is that the power elite in our society will *never* let anything like this happen without a major fight. Note the security surrounding all of the G8 and G20 conferences as of late.

When we hit resource crises like peak oil, are we screwed? Or are you confident alternative energy will be sufficient, and fully integrated, before any kind of Malthusian catastrophe happens?

Read the Hirsch report. Alternative energy needs to begin to be adopted at least 20 years in advance for it to stave off the effects of peak oil. IMO, a crash program similar to what occured to U.S. manufacturing in WWII could allow that shift 10 years before peak oil.

Peak oil, unfortunately, has already occured(light sweet crude peaked in 2005), without such a shift having been started years after the fact. I'm preparing accordingly. Much of the economic crisis we are seeing today is due to peak oil(although the housing bubble was the main trigger in the U.S. so far, on its own it would have been devastating, and the same can be said for peak oil). Peak oil will prevent a permanent recovery with regard to the economy because every time 1st worlders will have an increase in disposable income, energy prices will rise accordingly to take the surplus value(and has been happening over the last few years). The same is occuring in the 3rd world with relation to food(currently very oil intensive to produce, and by design. Too few companies control the world's food now). Expect oil prices to look like a roller coaster, with the long term trend being an exponential function upward.

What will the future look like demographically? I used to think (or rather, hope) that the world was becoming increasingly secularized, but the countries with the highest population growth rates are culturally more religious. Secular nations in Europe, by contrast, are either stable or seeing declining populations.

The nations that are more religious and/or more socially conservative tend to also have a greater degree of poverty, reduced opportunities for education, and a power elite class having a greater share of the wealth than in more secular nations. It seems not to matter whether the nations in question are communist, capitalist, or socialist. See the GINI index.

The 3rd world is going to keep exploding in population, until their living standards reach a high level. Unfortunately, as long as the top 1% are consuming more than the bottom 90%, the resources for this to occur will NEVER be there.

People in the 3rd world have lots of children due to high IMR, low wages and no child labor laws(this makes children economic assets), and because without any prospect of being able to afford healthcare, parents in their old age will need their children to care for them. Big business likes this because it induces a yet large labor surplus, driving down wages further. Goverment likes this because it encourages growth of the military, given a lack of alternatives other than starving to death; tin pot dictators the world over and fascistic business interests alike make use of this without restraint.

IMO, if you want to see what the future will look like in a few decades after resource shortages have wreaked havoc on the world we know, look at today's African nations such as Nigeria, Mali, or the Congo. Demographically, all races are going to be much poorer, and things we currently view as necessities, such as electricity, running water, or long distance travel, are going to be difficult to obtain commodities.

Do you think the racial heterogeneity of countries like Brazil will be the case practically worldwide?

Probably. Resource shortages will create a large amount of turmoil everywhere, and people will always be looking for a batter place to live. This means lots of immigration, often illegal. This also means governments will waste yet MORE precious resources trying to control the movement of the population...

One curious thing to note is the rate of population growth worldwide has been declining (fortunately, although not as quickly as one would hope) ever since its peak growth in the 1950's and 60's, and that some projections show that it'll stabilize by around 2070 or so, at which point I believe it'll be around 11-12 billion. Crickey.

The world cannot sustain 10 billion, let alone more. There will be a massive dieoff if population is not put in check. If China is any indicator, the "one child" policy and government attempts to control a woman's reproduction won't work, either. Reproductive control only seems to work when voluntary on part of the woman in question, and for that to happen, living standards have to rise to discourage more children(make them economic liabilities instead of assets).

Well, in any case, this is one of the main reasons why I won't be having any children.

I probably won't be having any either. I wouldn't want to bring a child into such a world.

[American Hero]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

I'd say this problem will be solved the same way it always has. We'll get overpopulated, then do to disease and a lack of resources a lot of us will die. Problem solved.

[John Mora]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

The thing is, discussing world overpopulation among intellectuals isn't going to solve anything because the problem's happening among the poor in countries like India and China.

[josh]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

[DarkwingChuck]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

The thing is, discussing world overpopulation among intellectuals isn't going to solve anything because the problem's happening among the poor in countries like India and China.

And mormons.

[Wavelength]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

My prediction is that the world population is going to keep increasing, because there's no way in hell that the poorest countries in the world are going to bring their birth rates below 2-3 babies per fertile woman, and I think the average lifespans in such countries, on average, is increasing (not fast enough, but increasing nonetheless).

We are going to tap out on resources, probably before we have enough sustainable ones (energy, water, recycling of matter, perhaps food as well) to avoid experiencing a temporary decline in living standards. I do think we'll come up with solutions before things really go to hell, though.

A better question to discuss might be whether higher population is a virtue or a vice. I think it's something we should aspire to. Life is a really precious gift, and the more people that get to experience it, the better, in my mind. And the more people there are, the more ideas there are and the more work that gets done, which means a future with better technology, more interesting places, and (perhaps) better ideas about how to run a government.

Obviously, we can't take it too quickly--if the population increased tenfold in the next 30 years, it would have the very opposite effect on technology, places, and government, and really we'd all be screwed. But even if we have to share a little more of our pie now, we might benefit from more people being there to create a bigger pie in the future.

[Denmo]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

Let's all reproduce so we can bring life in to the world to experience how ****ty it is.

[Caciss]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

That's the way to look at it!

[Ryner]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

We need to get rid of crappy countries like Belize while we still can!

[orius]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

A better question to discuss might be whether higher population is a virtue or a vice. I think it's something we should aspire to. Life is a really precious gift, and the more people that get to experience it, the better, in my mind. And the more people there are, the more ideas there are and the more work that gets done, which means a future with better technology, more interesting places, and (perhaps) better ideas about how to run a government.

There's both good and bad in it though.

A high population growth is producing Malthusian pressures, that's unmistakable to begin with. And like Terr said, religion is not helping. The Catholic church, evangelical Protestants and Muslims are the worst culprits here because of the Abrahamic obsession with breeding, and because religious leaders like having lots of followers. If WWIII breaks out because of a shortage of resources, they don't give a damn. Taking the moral high ground on abortions and artificial family planning isn't helping when women are having more children they can afford and sometimes face serious or life threatening complications from childbirth either.

A lot of it is in the cultures too, women have less rights, and often have a financial need for marriage. Most men however, aren't going to bother marrying them unless they get kids out of the relationship, and it doesn't help when the woman already has kids from a previous relationship. Too many people and not enough resources is the sort of thing that breeds violence, terrorism, unstable societies, and so on. Population pressures also lead to wars too, because when your own nation can no longer support the population, it's often easier to just invade a neighboring state and take what they have. Casualties from such wars can also relieve the pressure. This is not a thing of the past either, since such conflicts have been a big problem for African nations in recent years.

Overpopulation is really the world's single biggest environmental problem. Global warming to me pales in comparison, especially since I think that pressures from overpopulation contribute to the anthropogenic causes of global warming in the first place. More people means a higher consumption of fossil fuels, deforestation and so on. Problem is that most of the greens I think are afraid to admit the overpopulation angle, because much of the explosive population growth is occuring in Latin America, Africa, and Asia and pointing out overpopulation might make them look racist. It doesn't help that forcing population controls on them might very well smack of white supremacy in the first place.

But low population growth has its problems too. All these social programs we have like Social Security, Medicare and the like that are funded through wage taxes need more people paying into the system than collecting benefits. However, developed nations, not just America, are having problems with these programs because people have been having smaller families over the last 40-50 years. Programs that were designed when people normally had 4 or more kids aren't going to work right when they have only 1 or 2, and increasing life expectancy isn't helping either, since these programs are paying out money longer than they were designed to as well.

As Terr also said, forcing people to have less kids also works poorly. China's one child policy has a lot of problems. First, there's a gender inbalance since many families preferred boys over girls. Second, there's also problems related to the ones I mentioned in the paragraph above, not enough people to care for their parents when they reach old age.

Then there's the final protential problem with low population growth, and that is decreased genetic diversity. Less children over many generations could spell trouble for human evolution as a whole, and could also imperil our survival.

What we need to do is find a balanced sustainable middle ground that doesn't deny people the right to have children.

[Cutter De Blanc]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

WE NEED TO MOVE TO MARS

[Red Dragon]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

We need to give these 3rd world countries with nothing to do but ****, something else to do.

Either that or try and make them not attracted to one-another.

In either case I think the solution is video games.

[Sejon]

Re: World population approaching 7 billion

A better question to discuss might be whether higher population is a virtue or a vice. I think it's something we should aspire to. Life is a really precious gift, and the more people that get to experience it, the better, in my mind.

That's a good point to raise. But it made me think about the fact that the ever-increasing ubiquity of human presence is bringing other species to extinction, and dramatically reducing Earth's biodiversity. Shouldn't forms of life other than our own be considered a precious gift also, for the sake of variety rather than uniformity? My opinion is that if we're in an environment devoid of other life -- Mars, or space colonies, for instance -- that we needn't have any qualms proliferating insofar as our resources will allow. But Earth is a home humanity has an obligation to share. Or at least that's how I feel.

What we need to do is find a balanced sustainable middle ground that doesn't deny people the right to have children.

I remember a suggestion that potential parents should pay to purchase a licence to have any child that is beyond a certain designated allotment, and that such an initial cost alone, while not exorbitant compared to costs of raising in the long-term, would at least motivate them to seriously consider whether or not they can raise an additional child. I thought that seemed like a good compromise between a strict one-child policy, and an absence of any population regulation policies.