World population 11 bil. by 2100

[Loppan Torkel]

As you just admitted yourself, the new estimate isn't all that different. Yet "they" decided to sensationalize it just as you did in the OP.

By bringing it up?
I'll try to be clear.. Do you foresee any potential regional issues in Africa if this report is true?

 

[bhsup]

You've watched too much Star Trek and overestimate the future.

Just an FYI, but Earth in the Star Trek world really went to hell in a handbasket before they got their act together. Global war (retcon from TOS where it was averted...), concentration camps for the down and outers, etc...

God Bless Gabriel Bell and Zefram Cochrane!!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It was averted in TOS? Hmm I thought it happened right after Khan left the planet.

Oh well I am probably wrong as I haven't seen all of TOS.

 

[Formaldehyde]

By bringing it up?

How is it any different from all the other fear mongering based on sheer speculation regarding supposed population growth which have become so prevalent? Population growth which has actually not occurred in European countries despite dire prophesies to the contrary?

I'll try to be clear.. Do you foresee any potential regional issues in Africa if this report is true?

The history of Africa is largely a matter of "potential regional issues". I doubt that will change in the foreseeable future. But I doubt it will be due to projected population growth that doesn't appear to have much of a basis in fact. As I already showed, the population growth of Nigeria is quite similar to that of the US. I fail to see why it would dramatically increase when the trends show just the opposite occurring.

What is your point in bringing all this up in this particular context? Why would estimated population growth necessarily mean any of this would occur:

Given the instability in many nations in Africa and other growing regions - is there any possibility, in your minds, these regions won't descend into larger wars between nations, ethnicities and religious groups?

Don't you think there will be any progress in Africa during the next 87 years which would cause the opposite to occur? That sectarian conflicts might decrease and become resolved instead of the increasing?

 

[Winner]

Resources are infinite and potentially 100% "green". Its just a question of technology.

Sigh. Yes, on and abstract, theoretical level. That's not the point, though. We're talking about a near-term problem, so arguing with magic-level technology is nothing but a distraction.

It boils down to EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested). The industrial revolution which made the living standard of the rich world possible happened only because we had access to high EROEI fuels. This means that the whole industrialization model which leads to high living standards and thus low fertility is rapidly becoming unattainable to the poorest of the developing countries. "Green" tech is sustainable but the EROEI sucks, so only countries wealthy enough to make the initial investment can hope to reap the benefits. Those who are trying to get on the industrialization bandwagon only now have simply come too late.

But do you really expect the U.N. to admit that the road to high living standards they've been preaching for the last 50 years is a blind alley? I though so.

Why don't we try to discuss the topic instead of this obvious red herring?

I *am* discussing the topic. You on the other hand are presenting us with an obvious wishful thinking and pretend that it somehow constitutes an argument. Address the key issue - how do you ensure growth in the poor countries that is needed to bring their fertility rates down, when the world is rapidly approaching its resources peak? Or do you dispute that the rapid growth of our economy and consumption of goods has been possible only due to the access to cheap natural resources, especially energy resources?

It was averted in TOS? Hmm I thought it happened right after Khan left the planet.

Oh well I am probably wrong as I haven't seen all of TOS.

AFAIK there were the Eugenic Wars in the late 20th/early 21st century, and then the Third World War in the 2nd half of the 21st century. Only then did things get better for humans, as result of the First Contact with the Vulcans and the invention of warp drive.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

How is it any different from all the other fear mongering based on sheer speculation regarding supposed population growth which have become so prevalent? Population growth which has actually not occurred in European countries despite dire prophesies to the contrary?

Why is this called fear mongering instead of raising awareness? Had it been climate change or peak oil, you wouldn't had any objections.

The history of Africa is largely a matter of "potential regional issues". I doubt that will change in the foreseeable future. But I doubt it will be due to projected population growth that doesn't appear to have much of a basis in fact. As I already showed, the population growth of Nigeria is quite similar to that of the US. I fail to see why it would dramatically increase when the trends show just the opposite occurring.

Nigeria has a population of 162 million and is slowly growing at essentially the same rate as the US.

I clicked the wiki link and found this quote -

According to the United Nations, the population of Nigeria will reach 390 million by 2050. In 2100, the population of Nigeria will reach 730 million.[2] According to the United States Census Bureau, the population of Nigeria will reach 402 million by 2050. Nigeria will then be the 4th most populous country in the world.

So, the US will have a slow growth to.. 1,2 billion by 2100?!

What is your point in bringing all this up in this particular context? Why would estimated population growth necessarily mean any of this would occur:

Don't you think there will be any progress in Africa during the next 87 years which would cause the opposite to occur? That sectarian conflicts might decrease and become resolved instead of the increasing?

I hope progress will be made, but I doubt we'll see a decrease of conflicts in this region. It might be good to be aware of a potential disaster and prepare for it, if it seems likely to happen. I'm not sure why you're so selective in what you choose to believe. I don't see this UN report as sensationalist.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Why is this called fear mongering instead of raising awareness?

Heh.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

A new superpower will born in Africa this century, the most super of supers, while those of China and USA will fall due to bureaucracy, outdated ideologies and demographical problems. Greater Africans will keep their mother continent free from white ex-segregationists and, eventually, neoneocolonize their ex-exploiters, Arabs, Europeans, and Americans. That will be long-awaited vengeance for the Black Race. Fresh and young imperial identity will produce a new mentality free from the degeneracy of long senescent western and eastern mindsets. This new mentality provided, the Black Supersuperpower will be the first to truely touch worlds other than Earth and populate them.

Given the instability in many nations in Africa and other growing regions - is there any possibility, in your minds, these regions won't descend into larger wars between nations, ethnicities and religious groups?

That which grows is finally grown one day. And that which was fully grown comes to death that day.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

^dafuq?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I recall similar population guesses about Germany roughly this far into the past that never came true. I don't believe any of this will work out how we think.

Incidently, 2100 will mark 100 years since the last living Irishman was born, according to demographic studies.

 

[innonimatu]

11 billion people?

...

I like people!

So... it's a good thing.

 

[TheLastOne36]

11 billion people?

...

I like people!

So... it's a good thing.

Would you like seeing yet more people living in poverty-stricken conditions then?


If we are going to discuss the idea of larger and growing populations being a positive thing, let's discuss the notion that a growing population is a required necessity for economic growth, rather than the simpleminded "More Population = Bigger Country = Better" that was my worldview when I was 8 years old.

 

[GoodGame]

It was averted in TOS? Hmm I thought it happened right after Khan left the planet.

Oh well I am probably wrong as I haven't seen all of TOS.

According to wikipedia the lore has both the Eugenics war and a nuclear war and 'Space Seed' Khan is about 1990s while the 3rd nuke war that sets a holocaust is about 2050ish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek#Eugenics_Wars_and_World_War_III

 

[innonimatu]

Would you like seeing yet more people living in poverty-stricken conditions then?

If we are going to discuss the idea of larger and growing populations being a positive thing, let's discuss the notion that a growing population is a required necessity for economic growth, rather than the simpleminded "More Population = Bigger Country = Better" that was my worldview when I was 8 years old.

I cannot ever fail to notice that those concerned with the alleged excessive reproduction of poor people are never actually taking steps to bring those very same poor people out of poverty. Apparently the problem is not that they are poor, but that they breed to much... makes it so much simpler to blame them and only them for their condition.

I couldn't care less about "economic growth". I care about people being human beings, and all treated as such. Not as statistics. The purpose of life is not "economic growth", it is living. And if some people in their quest for that happen to have a large number of children, that's up to them. If you don't like it, make it so that they are actually happier with fewer children.

 

[bhsup]

According to wikipedia the lore has both the Eugenics war and a nuclear war and 'Space Seed' Khan is about 1990s while the 3rd nuke war that sets a holocaust is about 2050ish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek#Eugenics_Wars_and_World_War_III

Yeah, TOS wasn't exactly that great about continuity even within TOS. And then the other series came along and they abandoned a lot of TOS lore in an effort to really nail stuff down for that time forward. ANYWAY, my point which brought up the Star Trek to being with was that even in Star Trek, which is all sunshine and bunnies, they went through hell and back before they got to the sunshine and bunnies.

Anyway, screenshot from netflix for The Omega Glory...

 

[TheLastOne36]

I cannot ever fail to notice that those concerned with the alleged excessive reproduction of poor people are never actually taking steps to bring those very same poor people out of poverty. Apparently the problem is not that they are poor, but that they breed to much... makes it so much simpler to blame them and only them for their condition.

No, they breed too much because they are poor, and it leads to them entering a vicious cycle of less resources being distributed onto increasingly more people.

Cut out the red herring from your posts please. If they are to get out of the vicious cycle noted above, then one of the first steps that needs to be taken is reducing the birth rate. I can think of two states who have done this recently, China and Bangladesh, and both countries have/are climbing out of poverty.

I couldn't care less about "economic growth". I care about people being human beings, and all treated as such. Not as statistics. The purpose of life is not "economic growth", it is living. And if some people in their quest for that happen to have a large number of children, that's up to them. If you don't like it, make it so that they are actually happier with fewer children.

Of course, that is my point of view as well. I was merely framing the discussion in my last post as there are many people(as evidenced by this thread) who do believe that living conditions rise solely from GDP growth.

I disagree with the notion that people choosing to have more/less kids has anything to do with happiness. It is a direct result of economic/living conditions in their given society/environment. Mothers in underdeveloped countries won't be having any less kids because you gave their household free access to HDTV. Not when they still need 5 kids who survived past 3 years to work the fields.

 

[Winner]

I cannot ever fail to notice that those concerned with the alleged excessive reproduction of poor people are never actually taking steps to bring those very same poor people out of poverty. Apparently the problem is not that they are poor, but that they breed to much... makes it so much simpler to blame them and only them for their condition.

I couldn't care less about "economic growth". I care about people being human beings, and all treated as such. Not as statistics. The purpose of life is not "economic growth", it is living. And if some people in their quest for that happen to have a large number of children, that's up to them. If you don't like it, make it so that they are actually happier with fewer children.

One has to to be amused by such 'selfless' anthropocentric suicidalism. What was the saying about good intentions and the road to hell?

Bringing people out of poverty in the developing world requires fast economic growth. Specifically, it requires a rate of economic growth (expansion of economy) FASTER than the rate of population increase, which in some of developing countries is pretty significant. It can therefore be said that population increase directly SLOWS DOWN their climb out of poverty. In your crude words, breeding faster makes them poorer, so it is in their interest to control their population with adequate policies, instead of waiting for natural demographic tendencies to bring fertility down further down the line.

Spoiler :

Then there is of course the fact that we simply do not have the resources to enable another 5 billion of people to follow the same route to industrialization and welfare the West and a some other places took. Bummer.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why is this called fear mongering instead of raising awareness? Had it been climate change or peak oil, you wouldn't had any objections.

Again, just look at the OP. That isn't "raising awareness". It is an attempt to engage in sheer speculation with no real basis in fact.

And I can't wait for you to criticize the climate change deniers the next time the topic arises in this forum.

I clicked the wiki link and found this quote - So, the US will have a slow growth to.. 1,2 billion by 2100?!

Again, past growth rates really have nothing to do with what will likely occur in the future. The same "logic" has caused some to imagine that France would now be predominately Muslim. That Israel will soon have a majority of Arabs.

I hope progress will be made, but I doubt we'll see a decrease of conflicts in this region. It might be good to be aware of a potential disaster and prepare for it, if it seems likely to happen. I'm not sure why you're so selective in what you choose to believe. I don't see this UN report as sensationalist.

It isn't the UN report that is "sensationalist". It doesn't mention any of the issues which you raised in the OP. Now did it?

How exactly are you planning to "prepare" for events which will likely not occur 87 years from now?

I *am* discussing the topic. You on the other hand are presenting us with an obvious wishful thinking and pretend that it somehow constitutes an argument. Address the key issue - how do you ensure growth in the poor countries that is needed to bring their fertility rates down, when the world is rapidly approaching its resources peak? Or do you dispute that the rapid growth of our economy and consumption of goods has been possible only due to the access to cheap natural resources, especially energy resources?

Why do you think the economic growth in poor countries would parallel the issues that modern countries face? It is apples and oranges.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Again, just look at the OP. That isn't "raising awareness". It is an attempt to engage in sheer speculation with no real basis in fact.

It's a UN-study I cited and linked to. I also asked a question about the stability in the region based on the new information put forth by the researchers. There's no unfair info in the OP. The region that will have their population increased the most is already unstable. The question whether a population increase, as predicted in the UN-report, will further destabilize the region or not, is valid.

And I can't wait for you to criticize the climate change deniers the next time the topic arises in this forum.

..and join in the dog-pile? I'm no climate change denier and I've no interest in debating that topic at the moment. I bet that discussion is very fruitful on both sides.

Again, past growth rates really have nothing to do with what will likely occur in the future. The same "logic" has caused some to imagine that France would now be predominately Muslim. That Israel will soon have a majority of Arabs.

That has nothing to do with this UN-report though. I'm glad you've backed off your earlier position though. I'll leave it at that.

It isn't the UN report that is "sensationalist". It doesn't mention any of the issues which you raised in the OP. Now did it?

How exactly are you planning to "prepare" for events which will likely not occur 87 years from now?

The authors of the UN-report revised some numbers about the growth in Africa. I raised what I perceive as issues now, that are likely to increase in the future. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion. I'd be glad if you could point out exactly what you find acceptable and what you are arguing against.
We don't have to prepare for any events 87 years from now. Their projection is probably incorrect in the end. I just don't see how Africa could remain stable for 87 years if the population rises the way they predict.
I don't understand how sticking the head in the sand is better than raising a concern..?

 

[MobBoss]

The large population will be united and peaceful in honor of the pyramid I will be entombed in by then.

So you are planning on kicking the bucket at the Luxor in Vegas?

Worse ways to go out.