What is the future of humanity?

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,144
This is demonstrably wrong. I've already presented you with the most comprehensive and widespread demographic study ever conducted and it is unequivocal that poverty does not determine Fertility Rate. It has a minor influence but the overwhelming primary factor is female education. There is a direct correlation that can be traced back for decades. Until you read the study I provided it would be best to keep your uninformed opinion out of this.
Your faith in one study is demonstratable. There are others, and they paint a different picture. In any case the future of Mankind does not really need a gang of experts to demonstrate - it's already evident and one needs only understand what a hopeless creature Homo Sapiens is. Oh sure, we're doing well right now - but we're outside of containable numbers already and population is increasing exponentially whether these experts like it or not. I'm sorry my largely negative views don't agree with your sanguine vision of the future, but that's the problem with prediction - people like to cling to concepts that are familiar or comfortable to them. As an observer of the natural world, I am aware that large populations of a species lead to one result - their decline. This is also demonstratable and the 'Rabbit & Foxes' diagram so simple to understand that it's taught in junior schools.
 
Aug 2014
3,810
Australia
Is this the link you are referring to? World Population and Human Capital in the Twenty-First Century
It is a publication that requires payment of £120. What specifically does it say about the relationship between poverty and fertility rate?
Poverty indirectly affects the Fertility Rate in that it contributes to the education level, but it is female education that directly correlates with the Fertility Rate. Fertility Rates can be reduced in even the poorest regions by introducing state-funded education programs. The book presents many case studies proving it.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2014
3,810
Australia
Your faith in one study is demonstratable. There are others, and they paint a different picture. In any case the future of Mankind does not really need a gang of experts to demonstrate - it's already evident and one needs only understand what a hopeless creature Homo Sapiens is. Oh sure, we're doing well right now - but we're outside of containable numbers already and population is increasing exponentially whether these experts like it or not. I'm sorry my largely negative views don't agree with your sanguine vision of the future, but that's the problem with prediction - people like to cling to concepts that are familiar or comfortable to them. As an observer of the natural world, I am aware that large populations of a species lead to one result - their decline. This is also demonstratable and the 'Rabbit & Foxes' diagram so simple to understand that it's taught in junior schools.
I think the world is screwed but it isn't because of population growth. It is screwed because our economic models fall apart when the population is aging and/or shrinking. Automation will eventually fix this but there will be a period of severe social unrest and turmoil beforehand. We are seeing the start of it right now.

You need to look up the meaning of "exponential". The human population has never expanded exponentially in its entire history.
 
Last edited:
Your faith in one study is demonstratable. There are others, and they paint a different picture. In any case the future of Mankind does not really need a gang of experts to demonstrate - it's already evident and one needs only understand what a hopeless creature Homo Sapiens is. Oh sure, we're doing well right now - but we're outside of containable numbers already and population is increasing exponentially whether these experts like it or not. I'm sorry my largely negative views don't agree with your sanguine vision of the future, but that's the problem with prediction - people like to cling to concepts that are familiar or comfortable to them. As an observer of the natural world, I am aware that large populations of a species lead to one result - their decline. This is also demonstratable and the 'Rabbit & Foxes' diagram so simple to understand that it's taught in junior schools.
This "one study" has no less than 25 contributors. You write that there are other studies but don't given any information about this different picture that you say they paint.
Calling Homo Sapiens "a hopeless creature" is to me just a slogan, with not much meaning and no evidence.

I prefer to listen to what the "experts", who explain their methodologies, instead of you, because you don't show data or methodology.

I am aware that large populations of a species lead to one result - their decline
What does that mean? Take one species, the Nile Crocodile. It has been in existence for millions of years. Maybe its population was bigger at some point in the past. But it still exists. The human population is set to continue growing, level off, then have a gradual decline. There is no immediate prospect of a sudden sharp decline, if that is what you mean.
 
Aug 2014
3,810
Australia
The human population is set to continue growing, level off, then have a gradual decline. There is no immediate prospect of a sudden sharp decline, if that is what you mean.
The most likely scenario presented in the book is the population peaking at (IIRC) 9.4 billion in the 2050's followed by a sharp, not a gradual, decline. We would be seeing a decline right now except that lifespans are still increasing in many parts of the world

This "one study" has no less than 25 contributors. You write that there are other studies but don't given any information about this different picture that you say they paint.
The one quoted by most people, including wikipedia, is the UN study, which has been comprehensively dismantled in the above-mentioned book. It relies on the flawed assumption that fertility rates will remain unchanged for the next fifty years.
 
Last edited:
Likes: VHS

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,281
Brassicaland
The most likely scenario presented in the book is the population peaking at (IIRC) 9.4 billion in the 2050's followed by a sharp, not a gradual, decline. We would be seeing a decline right now except that lifespans are still increasing in many parts of the world


The one quoted by most people, including wikipedia, is the UN study, which has been comprehensively dismantled in the above-mentioned book. It relies on the flawed assumption that fertility rates will remain unchanged for the next fifty years.
If we assume natural aging and dying, we would witness fairly massive deaths of the baby boomers 10 or 30 years from today.
Some of the baby boomers with shorter than average lifespan are already ending their current existence.
Let’s imagine the world after the last baby boomer exits the scene.
 
The "baby-boom" of the post-war years only occured in the West, adding some 100 million (if that) to its population in the late 1940s, 1950s and into the 1960s. I regard that as mostly a rebound from the previous years when fertility was held back because of recession and war. The whole Western baby-boom is pretty small on a world scale, for example China alone added about 200 million to its population in the 1960s. I don't need to tell you that the world population has gone up at least 4 billion since then. Fertility rates are easing back, but the African baby boom continues, which is projected to increase its population by another 2 billion in the next generation.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
Haven't read that Russell book.

The future of Humanity? Vance Packard wrote some books in the 1960's which seem prescient today:

I've only read two of his books; ' The Wastemakers' and 'The Hidden Persuaders.'

If you haven't read any of his books, they are certainly worth a look. Any decent library should have a few .

Vance Packard - Wikipedia
What does 'spectacularly aggressive' really mean?
What about shooting a person during an argument about a parking space? Or perhaps going to war over the assassination of a minor royal and his wife?

I still think we will manage to make this planet uninhabitable and humans will slowly become extinct. The planet will survive just fine. OR we may have a massive pandemic which obliterates 95% of the human population. OR a world war with similar results, The species may devolve to a world population about the same as it was ion Roman tImes. I think the overall figure was around 200 million, with 60 million in the Roman empire.

The issue does not cause me to lose any sleep. With any luck I'll be dead before any of these thing reach the point of severe personal inconvenience- --In the meantime, I live as if my actions make the slightest difference for the better..
 

Similar History Discussions