What is the critical mass for humans on Earth?

[Narz]

How high do you think the population will rise before our numbets finally begin to fall again? What year? What will nature/God/etc. do to balance us out? War? Disease? Flooding & natural disasters? Or will humans take the matters of population control into their own hands before the natural order has to take care of things for us?

What says you?

- Narz

 

[QuoVadisNation]

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

These guys claim to have their facts straight, and I’m not one who likes to argue. If you’re thinking about a decline then I guess I would say modernization like such is the case with Japan. Families in modern countries are having less and less children, but I never looked into it. My guess for a decline would have to be Godzilla

 

[taper]

The earth can easily support 20 billion people, if we're not to picky about what we eat, and manage the available resources correctly. I'm not sure if it would be a pleasant place to live, but it is possible.

I think the most likely method of population reduction will be disease. All countries are woefully unprepared for an epidemic on the scale of the black plague a few centuries ago. If one starts, such as if AIDS becomes airborne, or Ebola hits a population center, etc, 100's of millions will die.

 

[cgannon64]

I've read that all of the current human race could live in a city the size of Texas with a population density less than that of New York.

If we had a fascist dictator running the world, we could probably fit a huge amount of people...

 

[elfangor801]

If we had a fascist dictator running the world, we could probably fit a huge amount of people...

Exactly . If everyone wanted everything regulated to keep stuff in check, we could probably fill up two or three continents and farm the others.

 

[BasketCase]

If I remember correctly, the U.S. currently uses about one-eighth of its total land area for farming (and is a major food exporter, so there's a very generous margin for error). So around 50 billion people should be doable....

Naturally that's not allowing for food obtained from fishing, or underground hydroponic farms, or Star Trek style food synthesizers that convert energy into cheeseburgers, or----

 

[Colonel]

If we dont do it ourselvesin 2012 then that metor will hit in 2028.

 

[Shadylookin]

current theory is that the population will level off at around 11 billion, as for how much the earth can hold that all depends on what kind of standard of living you want everyone to have

 

[BasketCase]

If we dont do it ourselvesin 2012 then that metor will hit in 2028.

If you're talking about the meteor I think you're talking about, that one was degraded to a threat level of 1 (it was originally 4; everything else on the threat list is level 0 or 1 and basically has next to no chance of hitting Earth). Current chance of impact: .00016.

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[E-Raser]

The most propable scenario for a worldwide decrease of population is in my opinion the flue. 1918 the flue mutated to a real killer virus with a world wide track. Due to medics of the WHO they are seriously afraid of this. Most propably it will develope in Asia because of the close connection of billions of chickens and men. This makes it more propable that a mutated virus can jump between the species than elsewhere.
So if another virus appears like the Spanish flue of 1918 it will spread to a pandemia with light speed. Until a vaccazine will be available it will be too late for most, exspecially because it will be impossible to produce the vaccazine in such a mass.

So if population decrease appears I guess the "plaque" scenario is the most propable.

2nd place I consider a meteor impact. But this may still last a "bit".

3rd place thermonuclear war. I think it is not very propable. Although humans are quite dumb they may not be that dumb (hopefully)

4th place King Kong on acid- this could be a serious threat though.

 

[Pariah]

The earth can easily support 20 billion people, if we're not to picky about what we eat, and manage the available resources correctly. I'm not sure if it would be a pleasant place to live, but it is possible.

AAGHH!! I hope not! Some of us value solitude... a world of 20 billion wouild mean cramming 5 in a room for every suburban home... the air in cities would be unbreathable with so much farting... Certainly wouldn't be much else left living on Earth apart from humans if that were the case! There'd probably by mass hysteria with such inescapable, constant crowding. And transport would be virtually impossible: pedestrian jams everywhere worse than any football stadium.

The 11-billion peak figure seems acceptable.. but by then (the middle of this century) technological and climatic change will have drastically shifted the support capacity of the Earth's land surface. The ideal world would have a population of less than 1 billion and high technology, sustainable agriculture, plenty of food; high living standards for all.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Countries like India and China although now booming in population may start to taper as they become more industrialise, especially China. the United States grew very quickly, then leveled as it was modernized.

 

[Taliesin]

If all of China's population alone were to attain the standard of living enjoyed by the average-- AVERAGE-- G7 citizen, the human impact on the Earth would double. If the entire world of 6 billion people were to do so, our impact would increase twelve-fold.
Something to think about.

 

[Mungaf]

From what I've read, the human population is set to reach a peak of 10-12 billion between 2050 and 2100 and then either stabilize or start declining, probably the latter. It's rather relieving to think that there aren't going to be 30 billion people on the Earth, like they were predicting 30 years ago.

Oh yeah, and the average fertility rate for Chinese women is actually lower than that of American women. Without any immigration to speak of, they arent growing so fast. What worries me about population growth is the tendency of less advanced regions to have skyrocketing populations (Africa & Middle East) while more advanced ones (Europe, North America, East Asia) have slow growth or shrinking populations.

 

[BasketCase]

What worries me about population growth is the tendency of less advanced regions to have skyrocketing populations (Africa & Middle East) while more advanced ones (Europe, North America, East Asia) have slow growth or shrinking populations.

I spent a few minutes thinking this over, and it actually makes sense.

Humans have no natural predators. That means population must be controlled by other factors: war, disease, starvation, or birth control.

The first three of those factors will not work as long as the world community keeps trying to eliminate them--and our current ethical system requires us to try to eliminate them. The fourth is being attempted, but is having only limited success; it is considered morally unacceptable to impose birth control by force, therefore not all citizens of overpopulated areas will practice it--and the less advanced the people, the harder it will be to get them to practice it (think language barriers and religious issues).

Here in the First World, on the other hand, we have fairly easy access to birth control--and we're educated enough to know why we should use it. Hence it's more widely practiced.

So, either we'll find a way to get birth control working worldwide (not likely), or the first three methods (war, disease, and starvation) will simply overload the world's capacity to combat them.

 

[Pariah]

So, either we'll find a way to get birth control working worldwide (not likely),.

No indeed, not with powerful religions condemning birth control across huge parts of the globe.

A good standard of medical care and diet overall is probably the best way to reduce the number of children people have, paradoxical as it may seem.

 

[Masquerouge]

What worries me about population growth is the tendency of less advanced regions to have skyrocketing populations (Africa & Middle East) while more advanced ones (Europe, North America, East Asia) have slow growth or shrinking populations.

You shouldn't. There's a thing called "demographic transition", that explains quite well why advanced states have a much, much, much lowere growth than less advanced ones.
Basically, it goes like this : when a country is poor, agricultural and undevelopped, its birth rate is quite high (more than 7 kids per family) due to lakc of birth control, lack of women's education, and cultural / religious traditions, BUT its death rate is also quite high, due to poor medications, high death rate of babies, lack of hospital and such.
Then comes progress. The thing is, progress goes much much faster than society can cope. So you actually have a period of a century or two during which any population will benefit from progress, that is, will significantly lower its death rate, BUT the birth rate will remain really high because it takes time for society to adapt. That's the time when the population will dramatically increase. All "advanced" nations went through such a phase.
Then when progress manage to impact culture and traditions, the birth rate decrease : women work and thus have less time for children, pill, condoms and birth controls are widely spread and acknowledged, having lots of children to help in the farm is no longer necessary...

So basically, just wait, and soon every nation in the world will have a low birth rate AND a low death rate. Demographic transition is an unusual and non permanent state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtran.htm

 

[boogaboo]

The world will never pass the 20 billion mark because of education.

Weather will only be worse and worse (the critical pollution for this has long been passed), causing many human casualties, and triggering wars in order to relocate entire nations.

I'm not sure if your grandchildren will live inside some air-conditioning system, or if they could ever walk peacefully outside their bubble.
It is also possible that the air would simply be too toxic for humans (nevermind these soon to be extinct other LAND spiecies).

Then, ofcourse, we'll continue to pollute ourself to death -
New diseases will emerge, Gaia will strike back.

That's my most optimistic view.
I currently REALLY hate humans.
I see the egoistic destruction all around me, where exploitation of land and creatures are at a (near) maximum level.

This period of human history will be remembered as the time we murdered our planet, didn't care about it, and succeeded in exploiting most humans to do so for a small minority of them (i.e US+EU+some other)

I'm half hopeful for the future and half wanting humanity to be extinct ASAP.
Only one thing is certain.
Don't make kids.

 

[BasketCase]

The History Channel had a special on that sort of thing--every generation has a Doomsday clan in it, that thinks their generation will be the last.

They're always wrong.

Now, excuse me--I gotta shut off my PC and put out the flames that are spouting from the monitor after bugaboo's last post....

 

[boogaboo]

The History Channel had a special on that sort of thing--every generation has a Doomsday clan in it, that thinks their generation will be the last.

They're always wrong.

I don't think my generation will be the last - there are enough generations to come and suffer.
However, people will live a worse and worse life.
For me - I am the last generation since I won't make kids.
You can decide for yourself.
And yes, I'm having a very bad day.