What'll the world population be in 2100?

[Narz]

Fun poll. Back up your answer (by posting).

 

[DvD-IT]

7-10. Space colonization should be a necessary option for that age. Technology would probably advance further into the deeps of space colonization since overcrowding should become a serious issue by then, therefore pushing world governments to look at the stars.
By 2100 therefore, there should be a massive shift of population from the world to other planets - yet not enough to make the world devoid of human life.

And no, I don't believe any human-made catastrophes will ever occur (global warming, WWIII-nuclear warfare and such).

 

[soul_warrior]

more than 15 billion.

considering the rapid growth rate of the last 100 years humanity will grow to much more.

humanity will become even more urbanized, agriculture will keep on developing, and everybody will be happy.

by then WW3 should have ended, one way or the other (im hoping for "the One way" myself )

 

[El_Machinae]

Over 15 billion; more if sentient computers are given rights.

If some theories on accelerating change are correct, predicting life in 2100 would be akin to someone in 1800 predicting what life would be like in 2000

 

[jamiethearcher]

not quite 15 billion. Thats a long time, but China is making efforts to curb population growth, it depends on what India does.

 

[spankey]

I said that it wouldn't quite be 15 billion. The big change will be in demographics. Western countries are greatly outdistanced in the population growth rates. Europe especially will be depopulated due to negative birth rates and the population will be replaced by those of mideastern/asian origin.
North America will be much more hispanic in demograpics as well. Japan is tough to call, negative birth rate, but I am not sure who would be allowed to move in.

 

[Elrohir]

Somewhere between 7-10 billion, I think. The world's population growth is falling, and somewhere between 2030-2060 it will actually peak at about 9 billion, and begin to fall. (According to our best estimates, anyway) Eventually it will stop falling, and rebound, but
I'm not entirely sure when that will be, or how significant the rebound will be by 2100. 7 billion strikes me as a good number, though.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're right; you certainly should not apply the 2% growth rate that we've enjoyed the last couple centuries.

I think that the motivation and need for children is changing in significant ways.

 

[Leha]

I see Chukchi Husky is optimist

 

[tossi]

We will all die!

 

[Masquerouge]

Somewhere between 7-10 billion, I think. The world's population growth is falling, and somewhere between 2030-2060 it will actually peak at about 9 billion, and begin to fall. (According to our best estimates, anyway) Eventually it will stop falling, and rebound, but
I'm not entirely sure when that will be, or how significant the rebound will be by 2100. 7 billion strikes me as a good number, though.

I agree. The more China develops, the more likely their people will stop having kids, just like in the Western world. It might take a bit longer for India.
Once these two have stabilized, no other country can make a significant impact on the world population.

 

[Leonel]

I chose the 10 - 15 billion if there isn't a nuclear exchange by then. My reasoning is that surely a majority of developing nations would reach developed status by that time and it's been shown that the more industrialized a country is, the more working native women there are and thus less babies being born. But the full industrialization of many developed countries may take until around 2100 to fully mature and eventually the population will plateau and eventually drop later on in history.

 

[Rossiya]

If there is no devestating world war, then I suppose the population will continue to grow as it has been in the past years.

 

[DarthCycle]

7-10. However, if we look at the events between 2000 and 2006, the next 94 will have a lot of turbulence in many forms, to say the least.

I think one the major factor that will change the world economy, hence demographics, is the interruption of the abundance of cheap energy, like oil.

This, in my opinion, will radically change the way we live, especially in cities. Huge suburbs in major cities are only viable when cheap energy is available to drive your car around. If filling your gas tank cost you 20 US$ per gallon, you'll think again about buying a house that is a 1h drive from work. If another energy source is found however, that might still be viable of course.

However we might still have to adopt an economic system where the local economy in all its form (agriculture, manufacturing, services) will be vital since importing goods from around the world won't be as viable, economically speaking. It will be too expensive (due to the high cost of energy) to carry goods from a continent to another one.

World trade is only viable when this simple formula can be applied for any single good:
(foreign) cost of production + labor cost + tranportation cost < (local) cost of production + labor cost

Some will argue that some product cannot be made locally and they are right. But will you be willing to pay 40$ for a box of fruits from the middle-east that cannot be harvested locally? There's a good chance that you won't, hence the availability of this product will drop if not stop all together.

All of the above will create huge stress in the world economy, it will radically slow down in my opinion, and demography will definitively slow down and stabilize.

One could argue that all of this could be the recipe for a WWIII scenario.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

3 to 5 billion. Closer to 3. To make a long story short, due to global warming, which is a fact, therell be widespread famine, breakdown of the current global economic system, disease, displacement of huge numbers of people,and wars as a result of all of these climate change related factors. When the smoke clears Im saying around 3 billion will be left. Im being optimistc.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Over 15 billion.

You never specified the species.

 

[Paradigne]

I think there will be a surge of population, then we will have an epidemic that will bring the numbers down again...

 

[tomsnowman123]

At some point there is going to be a large dip in population. I just don't know when. I think in 94 years we'll still be ok, but I remember reading that we are not extrememly far (at the current growth rate) from where the population will reach one person for every square metre of land. That obviously won't work.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Including me, the population will be 7 billion.

 

[Masquerouge]

At some point there is going to be a large dip in population. I just don't know when. I think in 94 years we'll still be ok, but I remember reading that we are not extrememly far (at the current growth rate) from where the population will reach one person for every square metre of land. That obviously won't work.

That is completely and utterly false. 6 billion square meters is actually 6,000 square kilometers, a very small piece of land, 1/6 of Switzerland.
10 times that, 60 billion people and thus 60 billions square meters, is still only 60,000 square kilometers, a tenth of France.