Population Control

Dec 2011
2,207
One would wonder if overpopulation in Sub-Saharan Africa could result in selection pressures there that would result in eugenic fertility there (with the population there becoming smarter due to the smarter people there having more children).
I don't understand that. Usually, as people become more educated, they have fewer children.

This link does show the projected figures as of 2017.
Projections of population growth - Wikipedia
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,473
Australia
Here is the graph that you included in your earlier post.
View attachment 20332
As far as I can see the population will still be increasing, though markedly more slowly, in 2050.

I would really love to believe that the population will peak in that year and start falling, but from what I read the peak won't be reached until about 2100.

The latest predictions by demographers in the 2010s shows that, because of continued high fertility in Africa, growth won't stop, even by 2100, although it will be only 0.1% pa by then. Of course, nobody can be certain what will happen 80 years in the future. There are a actually a range of predictions, the median being a population peak of 10.7 billion at or soon after 2100.
View attachment 20333
Projections of population growth - Wikipedia
If you aren't going to read the sources already given then there is no point participating. The UN calculations are wrong. They are based on the assumption that Fertility rates will remain unchanged for the next fifty years and they don't account for the gender imbalance in India and China. Read the study I've already presented. It is the best research available.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,743
SoCal
I don't understand that. Usually, as people become more educated, they have fewer children.

This link does show the projected figures as of 2017.
Projections of population growth - Wikipedia
Sure, but fertility is eventually going to go back up as a result of high-fertility people making up a larger and larger percentage of the total population. For instance, even in the US right now, some people in urban areas still have a lot of children--and their descendants are going to make up a larger and larger share of the total population over time.
 
Dec 2011
2,207
If you aren't going to read the sources already given then there is no point participating. The UN calculations are wrong. They are based on the assumption that Fertility rates will remain unchanged for the next fifty years and they don't account for the gender imbalance in India and China. Read the study I've already presented. It is the best research available.
I went back to your earlier post and found, and quoted, the graph you presented, which shows the population still growing at 2050. I can't see the link to this study that shows the UN calculations are wrong.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,232
The issue is one of extrapolation. A common statistical fallacy is to base long term predictions on short term data - the global warming lobby do that all the time. As I previously stated, warming is linked to human activity which is based on human population. Now whether it's literally expontential or not, the fact is human population is growing somewhat fast. It already worries many experts who have already stressed that current agriculatural limits cannot keep pace much longer, hence the plans to farm under the sae and get us used to eating insect protein which is far more productive (if a good deal less tasty).

I don't like this idea that the population will reach a figure and level out. Nature doesn't quite work that way. Although sustainable average populations appear stable, the reality is peaks and troughs due to competition, enviroment, predation, resources, or other relevant factors. The Rabbit & Fox diagram, as I posted previously. That's all very well but it does not allow for disaster. the excessive population postulated as 'stable' will be more vulnerable to disaster than currently. Pandemics in particular will be far more dangerous because of population density. But even on a more mundane scale, the food supply will not automatically keep pace without production issues, and any number of influences can place unwanted stress or worse upon the system - exactly the potential future I mentioned. Add to that the increasing specialisation of Humanity (qv the urban civilisation and reliance on infrastructure to trade resources). I cannot forsee a happy eternity under that paradigm, and no optimism, regardless of whether you own a dictionary or not, will change the potential for radical reductions in numbers. And that all assumes we get along in our new crowded future. Face it. Humanity is kidding itself if it thinks it can go on expanding. After all, if we're worried about our production of greenhouse gases now, what happens when there's ten times as many humans? The futre is Human. The future is hot. The future is wobbly.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,473
Australia
I went back to your earlier post and found, and quoted, the graph you presented, which shows the population still growing at 2050. I can't see the link to this study that shows the UN calculations are wrong.
The graph stops at 2050. If you projected it through, it will peak sometime in the following decade and then decline. We've covered this multiple times already.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions