Bruce Schneier (circa 2015): As we look back at the post-industrial age and wonder "How could they have been oblivious to the pollution of the industrial age", 20 years from now, people will look back at present day and wonder "How could they have let so much information pollution with absolute disregard".
Or gee, why didn't they do something about overpopulation. A problem already known for 40 years in 2019. But no, now there are 25B people on the planet and it is crowded, hungry and thirsty. But the pope says no birth control and so do most countries.
Not sure where you got the extra like (as I type this) but this is just stupidly ignorant blather. You have never Googled actual population growth projections even once in your life it appears.
Every part of the world, except Africa, is already on track to have a declining population once the current demographic surge passes through its reproductive years. It will take some time for this to happen in Africa, being the poorest region on the planet, but just as with the poor, underdeveloped countries of Eurasia and the Americas, they will enter below replacement level birth rates also eventually.
Current projections have world population peaking at about 11 billion on about 2100 (this is a 50% increase from the present).
You can find projections that assume that the birth rates in Africa, unlike every other part of the world will never turn around, and leads to somewhat higher figures by 2100, but that is statistics abuse -- believing that current trends never change, despite evidence everywhere else that they do. Even the argument that the birth rates in Africa will never decline because it will remain poor (and assuming that that condition is perpetually true) ignores Bangladesh -- one of the poorest countries in the world, with a conservative culture, but is below the replacement rate right now.
The problem is we are already overpopulated, which is my point and probably why I got the like. It is going to be ugly as the poor countries decide they want to live like the rich ones do. Just exactly where are all those resources going to come from? As a simple example. China is more or less stabilized. Would you say they are using more or less resources than they did in the 70's, when 1 child was adopted?
Current projections have world population peaking at about 11 billion on about 2100 (this is a 50% increase from the present).
Oh, well then, there's nothing to worry about./s
When I was a kid, the world population was about half what it is today. If the world could get back to 3.5 billion, there might be a chance of fighting climate change before we all cook.
At the current 7 billion, there is little if any chance.
If the world peaks at 11 billion as you say, the world will be so hot that most will be starving, have no fresh water and no shelter.
What will they do then? Riot, turn to fascism, and blame you.
Nope, any hint of pushing out contraceptives to the third world gets an immediate veto from the powers that be. Just takes one politician to claim that we're funding abortion and the plan dries up and blows away.
Your prediction is left over from the 70s. Population growth is predicted to level off and decline, potentially as soon as the 2030s. In twenty years people may well be trying to figure out how economies work with shrinking markets.
Due to people living for a number of years, the only way to slow or stop population growth much faster would be slaughter.
Population growth is predicted to level off and decline, potentially as soon as the 2030s.
A bit fucking late. If the world population had "levelled off" 30 years ago, we might have had a chance to defeat global warming. Thanks to people like you, we are all well and truly fucked.
Due to people living for a number of years, the only way to slow or stop population growth much faster would be slaughter.
Or a forced reduction in fertility, perhaps by means of an engineered virus. If that sounds unpalatable, the Catholic Church should have stopped opposing birth control forty years ago.
It turns out the Catholic church isn't nearly as relevant as many people think. The rate of fertility is more about (general) education, freedom and access to information, particularly of women, as it is about preaching.
Too much reproductive control would cripple our civilization and doing so at a non-catastrophic rate won't bring the population peak much sooner than it's already going to happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The population problem is essentially solved. But just like the ozone layer or
I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do?
-- Raoul Duke
In 2039, 2019 will be like 1970s viewed from 2019 (Score:1)
Bruce Schneier (circa 2015): As we look back at the post-industrial age and wonder "How could they have been oblivious to the pollution of the industrial age", 20 years from now, people will look back at present day and wonder "How could they have let so much information pollution with absolute disregard".
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
I think they will look back and think: “Why didn’t they prevent climate change?” They knew it would happen for 30 years already back then!
Re:In 2039, 2019 will be like 1970s viewed from 20 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In 2039, 2019 will be like 1970s viewed from 20 (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure where you got the extra like (as I type this) but this is just stupidly ignorant blather. You have never Googled actual population growth projections even once in your life it appears.
Every part of the world, except Africa, is already on track to have a declining population once the current demographic surge passes through its reproductive years. It will take some time for this to happen in Africa, being the poorest region on the planet, but just as with the poor, underdeveloped countries of Eurasia and the Americas, they will enter below replacement level birth rates also eventually.
Current projections have world population peaking at about 11 billion on about 2100 (this is a 50% increase from the present).
You can find projections that assume that the birth rates in Africa, unlike every other part of the world will never turn around, and leads to somewhat higher figures by 2100, but that is statistics abuse -- believing that current trends never change, despite evidence everywhere else that they do. Even the argument that the birth rates in Africa will never decline because it will remain poor (and assuming that that condition is perpetually true) ignores Bangladesh -- one of the poorest countries in the world, with a conservative culture, but is below the replacement rate right now.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Current projections have world population peaking at about 11 billion on about 2100 (this is a 50% increase from the present).
Oh, well then, there's nothing to worry about./s
When I was a kid, the world population was about half what it is today.
If the world could get back to 3.5 billion, there might be a chance of
fighting climate change before we all cook.
At the current 7 billion, there is little if any chance.
If the world peaks at 11 billion as you say, the world will be so hot
that most will be starving, have no fresh water and no shelter.
What will they do then? Riot, turn to fascism, and blame you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, any hint of pushing out contraceptives to the third world gets an immediate veto from the powers that be. Just takes one politician to claim that we're funding abortion and the plan dries up and blows away.
Re: (Score:2)
Just takes one US politician to claim that we're funding abortion...
FTFY
The main problem then is that US politicians follow a bogus form of Christianity?
Re: (Score:2)
Your prediction is left over from the 70s. Population growth is predicted to level off and decline, potentially as soon as the 2030s. In twenty years people may well be trying to figure out how economies work with shrinking markets.
Due to people living for a number of years, the only way to slow or stop population growth much faster would be slaughter.
Re: (Score:2)
Population growth is predicted to level off and decline, potentially as soon as the 2030s.
A bit fucking late.
If the world population had "levelled off" 30 years ago, we might have had a chance to defeat global warming.
Thanks to people like you, we are all well and truly fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Due to people living for a number of years, the only way to slow or stop population growth much faster would be slaughter.
Or a forced reduction in fertility, perhaps by means of an engineered virus.
If that sounds unpalatable, the Catholic Church should
have stopped opposing birth control forty years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out the Catholic church isn't nearly as relevant as many people think. The rate of fertility is more about (general) education, freedom and access to information, particularly of women, as it is about preaching.
Too much reproductive control would cripple our civilization and doing so at a non-catastrophic rate won't bring the population peak much sooner than it's already going to happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The population problem is essentially solved. But just like the ozone layer or