World population will likely peak at 10 billion

[Aroddo]

Hans Rosling had a question: Do some religions have a higher birth rate than others -- and how does this affect global population growth? Speaking at the TEDxSummit in Doha, Qatar, he graphs data over time and across religions. With his trademark humor and sharp insight, Hans reaches a surprising conclusion on world fertility rates.


Link to video.

Graphs are important tools for visualizing data. And even though the truth lies in the data, it is not of any use to us if no one can see the truths hidden inside. And while even graphs have limits - especially when it comes to comparing a multitude of data points to each other - Hans Rosling manages to make highly complex developments blindingly obvious with his creative way of data visualization.


Edit: Found a more up-to-date video of Rosling, in which me merges several of his famous TED talks into one. It misses a minute of audio near the beginning, but is otherwise fine.


Link to video.

 

[gay_Aleks]

All hail Eurabia and Amurabia, in any case it seems.

 

[CavLancer]

Very interesting vid, thank you Aroddo.

 

[Glassfan]

I like TED talks, and this one was interesting. The bubble-graph (after 5min) was illustrative and fascinating. The ending box-metaphor for the "great-fillup" was very low-tech cool.

But how useful as a predictive model? Resource extinction, the growth of contagious disease, technological change and other unexpected dysfunctions may play major roles in population suppression.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think I have a wee bit of a man-crush on Hans Rosling. Gosh! what a charismatic speaker. Some of my favorite bits were the panning to the audience, to show people grinning from ear to ear at how amusing it was. I think there were hundreds of eureka! moments that night, as people had their thinking switched. Then, we'll see what happens as the number of people viewing this talk increases.

 

[Aroddo]

But how useful as a predictive model? Resource extinction, the growth of contagious disease, technological change and other unexpected dysfunctions may play major roles in population suppression.

he obviously only visualized past data and from that he can extrapolate trends.
so any prediction he makes with his model needs to be qualified with "provided that
#1 climate change doesn't destroy too much too rapidly
#2 alternative energy sources replace the loss of fossil fuels
#3 the next asteroid doesn't wipe out too much of the human race
#4 WW3 on an exctinction level doesn't happen
..."

But apart from that, the trend that was accelerated by the industrial revolution didn't even pause for WW1 or WW2.

 

[Glassfan]

he obviously only visualized past data and from that he can extrapolate trends.
so any prediction he makes with his model needs to be qualified with "provided that
#1 climate change doesn't destroy too much too rapidly
#2 alternative energy sources replace the loss of fossil fuels
#3 the next asteroid doesn't wipe out too much of the human race
#4 WW3 on an exctinction level doesn't happen
..."

#5 the singularity
#6 Zombiapocalypse

I think the likeliest candidates would be climate change reducing food supply and generating wars, and technofix - the development of a universal, cheap birth control method.

 

[Winner]

10 billion? Nope, sorry, won't happen. Roslings optimism may be catchy, but it's based on flawed assumptions (I don't blame him, the whole human growth model is based on denial and a number of logical fallacies).

With the environmental/resource collapse in the pipeline and scheduled for 2040-2060, the human population is set for a crash, unfortunately due to all the old, well-known, and tragic causes: war, famine, disease. This will sadly hit the poorest countries the worst; there will never be a Nigeria of 700 million people as the U.N. likes to predict. There will be a huge graveyard.

 

[CavLancer]

Some pandemic...but it won't respect rich or poor.

 

[classical_hero]

So much pessimism in this thread.

 

[Aroddo]

There is no resource collapse 'scheduled'.
All energy needs can be met by renewable sources, provided sense wins over greed.

Food? No problem either, unless the free market plans to speculate with food and water.

The prediction that the world population will peak at a manageable level is the greatest bit of good news for the future of our world for a long time!

 

[El_Machinae]

With the environmental/resource collapse in the pipeline and scheduled for 2040-2060

Where are you getting such a hard date? I see a lot of hand-wavey extrapolations, but rarely such specific ones. If this were true, worrying about global warming, oceanic acidity would be a waste of time, except as a way of corralling supporters who don't know about your coming collapse

 

[Domen]

Hans Rosling had a question: Do some religions have a higher birth rate than others -- and how does this affect global population growth?

Surely some countries have much higher birth rates than some others:

 

[Winner]

There is no resource collapse 'scheduled'.
All energy needs can be met by renewable sources, provided sense wins over greed.

It can't, not in the time we have left. Going 100% renewable requires going to a lower-energy state for the whole of human civilization. Since higher living standards and the overall high complexity of modern civilization are a symptom of energy surplus, one has to conclude that a reverse in the energy curve will likewise mean lower living standards and a decrease in overall complexity (=aka collapse).

It's not unavoidable, but there are very few examples of civilizations which have managed to successfully "soft land" on a lower energy state.

Food? No problem either, unless the free market plans to speculate with food and water.

It's a massive problem, going to get worse as the available soil is irrecoverably lost to soil erosion (in large part due to overuse to feed bloated human populations) and climate change turns some of the current breadbaskets into arid deserts (Great Plains, the Eurasian steppes, parts of Africa and south America).

Also:



Tum-du-du...doom.

The prediction that the world population will peak at a manageable level is the greatest bit of good news for the future of our world for a long time!

Too bad it's based on a wishful thinking.

Where are you getting such a hard date? I see a lot of hand-wavey extrapolations, but rarely such specific ones. If this were true, worrying about global warming, oceanic acidity would be a waste of time, except as a way of corralling supporters who don't know about your coming collapse

Peak oil followed by the rugged plateau, followed by a steep decline beginning in a decade or two. Combine it with the growing environmental problems around the world and the growing scarcity of other key resources (some of the basic metals especially) and you see that by the middle of this century, we're in deep, deep trouble. +-10 years either way, to provide for unexpected developments.




Basically, to maintain our living standards, we need to replace all the hydrocarbon decline with renewables, and we need to do that extremely fast (I believe this is not realistic, given that EROEI of renewables is generally lower and such a massive retooling of the economy would require a plethora of other resources, which are also growing scarce or their obtaining requires a lot of energy/is too environmentally damaging). Also, this graph includes coal, but using it on such a scale is going to undermine all efforts at combating climate change; i.e. the "renewableisation" needs to be even faster and steeper.

I don't think its realistic. And since all predictions by the UN are usually based on the assumption of "it's gonna be fine, we'll figure something out", I remain very sceptical.

 

[Domen]

Here a similar opinion: Basically, to maintain our living standards, we need to replace all the hydrocarbon decline with renewables, and we need to do that extremely fast (I believe this is not realistic, given that EROEI of renewables is generally lower and such a massive retooling of the economy would require a plethora of other resources, which are also growing scarce or their obtaining requires a lot of energy/is too environmentally damaging). Also, this graph includes coal, but using it on such a scale is going to undermine all efforts at combating climate change; i.e. the "renewableisation" needs to be even faster and steeper. I don't think its realistic. And since all predictions by the UN are usually based on the assumption of "it's gonna be fine, we'll figure something out", I remain very sceptical.

 

[El_Machinae]

Those are some pretty pessimistic assumptions regarding nuclear and solar.

 

[Winner]

Those are some pretty pessimistic assumptions regarding nuclear and solar.

I agree, but they're based on the observed rate of growth. What's more important is that even if you double them, you still end up with energy-per-head decline.

I want to stress the enormous problems of retooling to fully renewable-based energy sources.

1) Renewables have lower EROEI. This is a hard fact that isn't going to way because of "technology". To build a XZ capacity based on renewables, you require Y-times more energy than if you were building the same capacity based on conventional fossil fuels. This energy HAS TO come from somewhere - and fossils are already declining/will begin to decline fast.

2) Electricity to run appliances is only a part of our total energy use. A major part (transportation, energy used in primary sectors such as mining and agriculture) are fuels and they are CONSIDERABLY more difficult to replace. Although personal transportation could be electrified relatively quickly, to do the same with cargo transportation, trans-oceanic shipping, air transportation, mining trucks, combine harvesters, etc. is far more difficult.

3) Renewables often need resources which are themselves becoming scarce. This will be compounded by the increased cost of their extraction due to 2).​

---

When I say we're heading for a collapse, I am not sure if it will be a global, apocalyptic collapse, or a localized series of collapses in the most vulnerable regions followed by massive recessions and drops in living standards in First World societies, which will, however, eventually recover and lead a global recovery and clean-up of the mess.

One way or another, I am afraid billions won't live to see the day when the human species learns to live sustainably.

 

[El_Machinae]

EROEI is good when taking a snapshot, but it's not a great tool when thinking consecutively. Yes, on any individual instance, using oil is a superior method of 'getting something done', but that's not really what builds capacity. Capacity is is built by using energy to build more energy production. So, while building your second nuclear power plant is still much energetically cheaper if you use coal, if you use the energy from your first plant, the net amount of coal consume goes down per unit capacity.

I think both nuclear and solar have the potential to bloom, so using today's growth rate is not the way to go. I mean, as a 'worst case', fine, but these two power sources can follow exponential trends.

 

[Kozmos]

There's quite a few stuff that's in the works that is less known, US researchers made a rather huge leap in non-ITER based fusion that might bring it decades along. Artificial photosynthesis also made a big break recently. Tesla roadsters are amazing in every aspect and their cost will only go down as they market share eventually rises. Solar roadways are in testing right now, looking very promising. Some consortium's are working on tapping the Sahara and resolving the problems with environmental abrasions. There was this recently released combined wind-solar plant detailed in an article on Arxiv I think that was rather ingenious. We probably will have ups and downs like we always have and go through some rather lean times but I'm no longer concerned about our energy-starvation.

 

[Winner]

EROEI is good when taking a snapshot, but it's not a great tool when thinking consecutively. Yes, on any individual instance, using oil is a superior method of 'getting something done', but that's not really what builds capacity. Capacity is is built by using energy to build more energy production. So, while building your second nuclear power plant is still much energetically cheaper if you use coal, if you use the energy from your first plant, the net amount of coal consume goes down per unit capacity.

I am not sure I follow. We need to replace the installed fossil fuel capacity with renewables, but in order to do that, we need a lot of energy that needs to come from somewhere. If we had unlimited time, sure, then we use energy from renewables (or nuclear, which I kinda count as renewable) to build more renewables — which is possible in so far as EROEI is greater than 1. But we are working against time because fossils will soon start declining rapidly with nothing at hand to replace them. This in turn will hamper our ability to install renewables to replace the lost capacity, leading to a vicious circle.

I think both nuclear and solar have the potential to bloom, so using today's growth rate is not the way to go. I mean, as a 'worst case', fine, but these two power sources can follow exponential trends.

Even if they did, we still can't electrify cargo transportation/ocean shipping/air travel/mining equipment/agriculture. At least not significantly enough and in time. Especially the food situation may go down the crapper pretty fast once fuel/fertilizer shortages begin to undermine harvests.

The sad fact is that we still do not have a good enough substitute for oil which could replace oil in all its uses. The most we could do now is to RAPIDLY cut down on those uses of oil where adequate substitutes exist, in order to conserve oil for the essential uses to last long enough before we figure something out.

But that's not how the market works; it will very efficiently suck up the last remaining cheap oil and spend it on superfluous nonsense, so that we're truly and utterly screwed when we're going to need it for survival.

One way or another, globalisation will soon be dead in its tracks, since it depends on cheap transportation. Good news for 1st world industry, bad news for developing countries.