PDA

View Full Version : How long do you think it will be before human population levels out?



Dustin2128
July 31st, 2010, 01:04 AM
The demographic transition model shows that after a society hits the post industrial stage (most first world countries) population usually levels out and starts to decline, leveling off again at a certain point, with a few exceptions such as the U.S. and France. I agree with the current prediction of population growth leveling out in the early 22nd century at around 9 or 10 billion, and extrapolate a drop to about 3-5 billion before it becomes stable in the late 23rd century. That of course is barring major wars, societal collapse, climate disasters, or the discovery of a way to make the human lifespan indefinite (with which it would drop much faster after a couple years of growth).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Stage5.svg/329px-Stage5.svg.png

_h_
July 31st, 2010, 01:12 AM
With the way things are, humans most likely won't be around in the 23rd century.

Dustin2128
July 31st, 2010, 01:19 AM
With the way things are, humans most likely won't be around in the 23rd century.
Assuming the planet can handle it without killing us off then. Also, I agree.

_h_
July 31st, 2010, 01:23 AM
Assuming the planet can handle it without killing us off then. Also, I agree.

The planet won't kill us off, we would kill ourselves off first.

linux18
July 31st, 2010, 01:32 AM
5,000,000,000,000
MAX possible global population
were 1% of the way there

Dustin2128
July 31st, 2010, 01:43 AM
5,000,000,000,000
MAX possible global population
were 1% of the way there
where did you get that figure from? maybe if earth was an ecumenopolis (like Coruscant in star wars) pulling in resources from dozens of off-world colonies, just maybe, but otherwise I'd place it around 10 billion.

handy
July 31st, 2010, 01:55 AM
It is expected that we'll peak mid 21st century. Roughly half as many more than we are now, again. Then we will drop back a little.

All of this is providing we don't have any other effects to exacerbate the already critical hunger situation that exists in many parts of the world.

As the ice fields of the world continue to diminish, this will cause a variety of effects, one primary effect is the lack of water coming out of the Himalayas to an area that currently holds nearly half of the worlds population - China & India.

Some predict that this will cause many Chinese to go north into Russian territory, which will very likely cause conflict.

linux18
July 31st, 2010, 01:57 AM
where did you get that figure from? maybe if earth was an ecumenopolis (like Coruscant in star wars) pulling in resources from dozens of off-world colonies, just maybe, but otherwise I'd place it around 10 billion.
new york city population density stretched across all land masses ~ 5 trillion, now combine that with improved food technology (which will have to be rooftop) and it seem pretty self-sustaining. you just need to get used to hydroponic vegetables and mushrooms. but you'll have the benefit of riding an elevator everywhere.

murderslastcrow
July 31st, 2010, 02:06 AM
Hopefully we'll be smart enough to better manage our resources before that happens. We need to nourish a more optimistic view of our nature as a society, rather than just talking about how despotic everything is. The reason people don't make change happen is because they believe it's pointless to try. This isn't true.

But yeah, who knows? The world's never been a more crazy place to live in.

Dustin2128
July 31st, 2010, 02:19 AM
new york city population density stretched across all land masses ~ 5 trillion, now combine that with improved food technology (which will have to be rooftop) and it seem pretty self-sustaining. you just need to get used to hydroponic vegetables and mushrooms. but you'll have the benefit of riding an elevator everywhere.
I wouldn't want a city stretching across earth... now the moon or an asteroid, that would be great.

handy
July 31st, 2010, 02:01 PM
I wouldn't want a city stretching across earth... now the moon or an asteroid, that would be great.

You may find the documentary "The Mars Underground" (2007) stimulating? It is a great documentary based on the Robert Zubrin, Mars direct & the NASA version called Mars semi-direct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3REZZWeWcU

linux18
July 31st, 2010, 04:12 PM
I wouldn't want a city stretching across earth... now the moon or an asteroid, that would be great.
YOU might not want that, but the future population's options are that or death.

TNT1
July 31st, 2010, 04:28 PM
The planet won't kill us off, we would kill ourselves off first.

http://www.vhemt.org/
http://www.vhemt.org/vhemt.gif

Npl
July 31st, 2010, 04:38 PM
YOU might not want that, but the future population's options are that or death.Or birth control.
Apart from the grim outlook of living under a "farm" city layer, theres no way we can sustain the water, energy and oxygen necessary to support life of 5 trillion people.

linux18
July 31st, 2010, 05:34 PM
Or birth control.
Apart from the grim outlook of living under a "farm" city layer, theres no way we can sustain the water, energy and oxygen necessary to support life of 5 trillion people.
sure we can, this kind of population level is over a thousand years away, by then who knows what kind of technology we will have

YeOK
July 31st, 2010, 05:49 PM
The best TED talk I ever saw covers the subject, with actual facts.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html



Well worth a watch.

Also,

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen .html

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

and his own site, where you can see the statistics for yourself.

http://www.gapminder.org/

nubimax
July 31st, 2010, 06:09 PM
The population will increase till our own pollution Kills us all off. Just like yeast do when you are making wine.
M.

murderslastcrow
July 31st, 2010, 06:27 PM
Yeah, those Wine developers need to watch it.

Paqman
July 31st, 2010, 07:31 PM
Predicting population in the future is always fraught with trouble (just ask Malthus), it all depends on what model you use.

I agree with the OPs premise that population growth does slow in post-industrial societies though. It's reasonable to think that Africa and Asia will go through a similar transition to Europe and North America, and end up with low or negative population growth. 9 or 10 billion doesn't sound like an unsustainable world population, so I hope it pans out like that.

I find the idea that we'll somehow go extinct within a mere couple of centuries a little bit silly. We've been through tougher times in our past than anything we're going to face in that time, and we were far less numerous, widespread, and well-equipped for survival than we are now.

Superkoop
July 31st, 2010, 07:42 PM
I find the idea that we'll somehow go extinct within a mere couple of centuries a little bit silly. We've been through tougher times in our past than anything we're going to face in that time, and we were far less numerous, widespread, and well-equipped for survival than we are now.

Two months later the headlines read:
VIRUS SPREADS: 100 MILLION DEAD IN LAST 24 HOURS
"We're not as equipped as we thought," says UN

Dustin2128
July 31st, 2010, 07:51 PM
sure we can, this kind of population level is over a thousand years away, by then who knows what kind of technology we will have
Population growth may be hard to model, but have you looked at the demographic transition model? After a while, children become more expensive, have 99.9% survival rates, etc., and it seems (and is) fine to just have one or two. Not to mention in 1000 years I have no doubt that we will have perfected a treatment to give indefinite lifespans to all humans, which will really drop it. Think, if you can live however long you want barring accidents (nanobots would also cure almost every disease I can think of) why have children now? Why not in 100 years? why not in 300? And even with city farming, there is no way for 5 trillion humans to live on earth without significant exoplanetary resources being shipped back. It just does not compute.

Superkoop
July 31st, 2010, 08:08 PM
Population growth may be hard to model, but have you looked at the demographic transition model? After a while, children become more expensive, have 99.9% survival rates, etc., and it seems (and is) fine to just have one or two. Not to mention in 1000 years I have no doubt that we will have perfected a treatment to give indefinite lifespans to all humans, which will really drop it. Think, if you can live however long you want barring accidents (nanobots would also cure almost every disease I can think of) why have children now? Why not in 100 years? why not in 300? And even with city farming, there is no way for 5 trillion humans to live on earth without significant exoplanetary resources being shipped back. It just does not compute.

Psychologically this is going to really screw us all up, if we can live indefinitely, eventually there will be mass epidemics of people committing suicide. After a long enough time of living, people get tired, and if people get tired after 100 years, just imagine how tired people will be after 500 years...
This concept might work if it is gradually given to the populations of the next millenia, but if it's abruptly thrown on us, it will really screw people up.
Also, the prospect of not being allowed to give birth is very scary for a number of people... having offspring is an essential part of being human, at least for most.
Thus, I believe things will stay as the are for a very long time, people won't be able to handle these things in just matter of a couple centuries, it's to rough on the mind and human psyche.

JDShu
July 31st, 2010, 08:20 PM
Population levels will probably level out when we manage to eliminate poverty. I have no idea when that will happen.

Paqman
July 31st, 2010, 09:54 PM
Two months later the headlines read:
VIRUS SPREADS: 100 MILLION DEAD IN LAST 24 HOURS
"We're not as equipped as we thought," says UN

There's no such thing as a virus with a 100% mortality rate. Killing all your hosts is not a successful reproductive strategy.

linux18
July 31st, 2010, 11:21 PM
Now I'm laughing at how seriously we are taking this. this kind of thing is a looooooong way off and we'll all be dead. In fact, we could be dead before linux kernel 4.

FreshP
July 31st, 2010, 11:28 PM
new york city population density stretched across all land masses ~ 5 trillion, now combine that with improved food technology (which will have to be rooftop) and it seem pretty self-sustaining. you just need to get used to hydroponic vegetables and mushrooms. but you'll have the benefit of riding an elevator everywhere.

Haha, so where will the oxygen be prduced?? No trees? Or you think that trees within a city can produce enough oxygen.

new newb bie know none
July 31st, 2010, 11:35 PM
Human population will be 0 in 2012.
Source: Fox News

linux18
August 1st, 2010, 03:34 AM
Haha, so where will the oxygen be prduced?? No trees? Or you think that trees within a city can produce enough oxygen.
I'm saying rooftop agriculture when the whole world's landmass is one giant building, almost like living underground but not quite. besides 70% of our oxygen comes from algae, plankton, seaweed so a few genetic modifications will allow them to cover any tree-based loss.........screw it i'll be dead by then i wont care and neither should you.

handy
August 1st, 2010, 04:15 AM
Yeh! Who gives a stuff about our children or their children?

kajankow
August 1st, 2010, 04:25 AM
The world's never been a more crazy place to live in.

You said it. I can not agree with you more on that statement.

jerenept
August 1st, 2010, 04:29 AM
Human population will be 0 in 2012.
Source: Fox News

:P:lolflag:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-begins-preparations-for-nations-final-year,2358/

I find these guys more dependable.

Dustin2128
August 1st, 2010, 05:02 AM
Psychologically this is going to really screw us all up, if we can live indefinitely, eventually there will be mass epidemics of people committing suicide. After a long enough time of living, people get tired, and if people get tired after 100 years, just imagine how tired people will be after 500 years...
This concept might work if it is gradually given to the populations of the next millenia, but if it's abruptly thrown on us, it will really screw people up.
Also, the prospect of not being allowed to give birth is very scary for a number of people... having offspring is an essential part of being human, at least for most.
Thus, I believe things will stay as the are for a very long time, people won't be able to handle these things in just matter of a couple centuries, it's to rough on the mind and human psyche.
Nah, the indefinite lifespan thing would be voluntary of course, and I don't remember saying anything about not being allowed to have offspring, elaborate please? Besides, do you really think any logical governing body would force its populace to become indefinitely long lived?

yester64
August 1st, 2010, 06:07 AM
I am not sure what the source is of this chart, but i think there are some factors forgotten.
If the earth population grows, and it will, then there are some more problems ahead with water and food.
Water resources are getting more scarce and food production might be a also a problem since you need water to grow food.
At this very moment half of the population on earth does not even have access to clean water and the needed food supplies.
Water supply will be a top topic in the future and cause war's between nations.
The culprit will be the question like this.
How much of a population can earth sustain?
This is related to a population decline or growth.
Also in a
a) western civilization people tend to produce lesser babies
b) like China states enforce birth control
c) poorer countries produce more babies to sustain the likelyhood of survival

The chart did not mention a lot of information and is a general assumption. Or?

Dustin2128
August 1st, 2010, 06:22 AM
I am not sure what the source is of this chart, but i think there are some factors forgotten.
If the earth population grows, and it will, then there are some more problems ahead with water and food.
Water resources are getting more scarce and food production might be a also a problem since you need water to grow food.
At this very moment half of the population on earth does not even have access to clean water and the needed food supplies.
Water supply will be a top topic in the future and cause war's between nations.
The culprit will be the question like this.
How much of a population can earth sustain?
This is related to a population decline or growth.
Also in a
a) western civilization people tend to produce lesser babies
b) like China states enforce birth control
c) poorer countries produce more babies to sustain the likelyhood of survival

The chart did not mention a lot of information and is a general assumption. Or?
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_Transition
This models population growth in developed nations as observed from the transition to preindustrial to industrial to postindustrial. Most are western of course, but japan and russia also have declining population. China enforces birth control because they had to- and thus artificially advanced to stage 4, being an industrializing nation before. Many of the poorer countries in the world, especially in Africa, are stalled in stage 2 or 3 because of diseases like AIDS and malaria, which of course as you pointed out require people to have more children just so that some survive. However, there is no reason that the entire world can't advance to stage 4/5, it's just that they.. well.. haven't yet.

As for water supply, new technologies are becoming available for cleaning previously undrinkable water like saltwater, one in particular is like the water chip in fallout. Basically it's a 1 x 1 clear chip that that you run water through at about 1 gallon an hour per chip requiring the energy of a (slow, but an array could work well) and it filters out the impurities. I'm sorry about the ambiguity but I read about it in popsci a few months ago, I'll try and find the article.

EDIT:Found it. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/low-power-desalination-and-purification-technology-brings-clean-water-remote-villages
Also, for clarity (from the article)
'An eight-inch-wide array of the desalination chips can produce four gallons of clean water every hour, while only using as much electricity as a light bulb.'

chessnerd
August 1st, 2010, 06:26 AM
I predict a peak near the middle of the century at around 12 billion. At that point, the population growth will begin to decline as birth control becomes more readily available and more countries implement population controls. I think that the worldwide average family size going forward will become a bit less than 4 (maybe 3.9) and, very slowly, the population will begin to drop going into the 22nd century. Hopefully we will have learned how to better live with our environment by that point, or we won't survive to see a 23rd century.

I have no citations, this is just what I assume from my general knowledge of population trends after taking a few college-level classes that deal with psychology, sociology, and ecology. We actually looked at charts just like this in Environmental Studies and learned about the population trends in Pre- and Post-Industrial eras for cultures.