World population About To Reach 8B By November

[oil&gas]

We would be dumping less garbage, waste and pollutants into
our environment with a smaller population. It is just common
sense. Only the feeble-minded would believe Earth can survive
unchecked population growth.

 

[canada-man]

most people live in crowded cities. rural areas outside the cities are mostly empty

 

[oil&gas]

Most people living in crowded cities will not survive if all the sparsely populated
lands become as crowded as the cities.

 

[op12]

If this type of stuff interests you then check out Peter Zeihan on YouTube. The age demographics in most countries are on a downturn and the global population will be turning downwards in a few decades.

We may not even hit 9 billion especially if the wheat, fuel and fertilizer situation caused by Putin's war in Ukraine kicks in.

 

[Pleasure Hound]

Now I just need everyone in the world to send me 1 dollar $ .

Not everyone in the world HAS one dollar....

 

[Pleasure Hound]

Oh fuck, we have too many people, the environment, won't somebody please think of the children, panic
Actually fertility rates are dropping and soon global population will be going down.
Pensions, health care, economic growth, won't somebody please think of the old people, panic we need moar people

I might be an old fuck, but we could use with a gently declining population as far as I am concerned.
600 to 700 million would be a wonderful population level if all at 1st world level. Enough for some advancement, entertainment production etc but much gentler on the environment and more time to solve problems as they start to show up.

Very well said. I would hold the population at around 4 billion, around what it was in 1945.....

 

[Pleasure Hound]

Human overpopulation is one of the biggest myths we keep needing to debunk. The reason is because this belief has an insidious effect, in some cases leading to profound acts of evil.

How so? First, let's start with the obvious. A belief in human overpopulation is often rooted in racism. Today, those who claim the world is overpopulated point to Africa, India, and Southeast Asia -- in other words, places where impoverished people of color live. They never point to New York City, London, or Paris. Back in the 1840s, the English thought that there were too many Irish people, which is why they didn't bother helping to feed them during the potato famine.

Second, a belief in overpopulation is factually incorrect. Humans are not cockroaches or bacteria. We do not reproduce exponentially until the food runs out. Instead, as a nation becomes richer and more developed, people naturally have fewer children, choosing to invest more of their time and resources into raising one or two children instead of ten. That's been the pattern in every rich country around the world, including the United States.

Despite this, global population models often projected that humanity would continue growing well into the 22nd Century before peaking at around 11 or 12 billion people and then declining. But some demographers are starting to question this. Last year, Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson wrote a book called Empty Planet that claimed that the human population would peak and decline this century, beginning in roughly 30 years. Now, a new study confirms this view.


The Incredible Shrinking Man

Published in The Lancet, a study from the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that the world population, which now stands at 7.8 billion, will peak in 2064 at 9.7 billion (95% CI: 8.8 billion to 10.9 billion) then fall by 2100 to 8.8 billion (95% CI: 6.8 billion to 11.8 billion). If the UN's Sustainable Development Goals are met, which include education and access to contraception, the authors project a population of 6.3 billion (95% CI: 4.8 billion to 8.7 billion) by 2100, smaller than it is today.

Shockingly, the paper predicts that some countries will see their populations cut in half or more by 2100. Poland, for instance, currently has a population of just under 38 million and is projected to fall to 15.4 million (95% CI: 12 million to 21 million) by the end of the century. (Part of the reason for the dramatic decline in Eastern European populations is due to emigration.) Even China is expected to shrink by roughly half, from 1.4 billion today to 732 million (95% CI: 456 million to 1.5 billion).

A Smaller, Older World

Such a demographic shift will have enormous implications. Not only will the world be smaller, it will be older. How do we keep the global economy healthy if there are far more older, retired people than younger, working people? How will we pay for the healthcare of all the elderly people? Will we need an army of robots to take care of them? Japan is already headed in that direction.

By now, the overpopulation myth should be dead and buried. There isn't a single scrap of data to support it. Instead, we should focus on reality and the consequences that accompany it.

Source: Stein Emil Vollset et al. "Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study." Lancet. Published online: July 14, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2

Overpopulation Myth: New Study Predicts Population Decline This Century | American Council on Science and Health (acsh.org)

You did read the title of the post right? Just checking for a friend.....

 

[Pleasure Hound]

most people live in crowded cities. rural areas outside the cities are mostly empty

So? They still use resources, right?

 

[Y_Diner]

We would be dumping less garbage, waste and pollutants into
our environment with a smaller population. It is just common
sense. Only the feeble-minded would believe Earth can survive
unchecked population growth.

The Earth will survive and go on.Imagine as if someone ignored their health consistently for 60 years. Will have some massive health problems, but won’t die. Will be very very very unpleasant to live on, perhaps un-inhabitable for most life.
Truly makes me very Sad.
Our only home.
To live on Mars or the moon would suck; until we fuck up those systems.
Coping with booze and

 

[NotADcotor]

Very well said. I would hold the population at around 4 billion, around what it was in 1945.....

It was around 2 billion back then, it was 4 billion around 1980 when I was developing pubes.

 

[Pleasure Hound]

It was around 2 billion back then, it was 4 billion around 1980 when I was developing pubes.

I stand corrected.....

 

[barnacler]

The Earth will survive and go on.Imagine as if someone ignored their health consistently for 60 years. Will have some massive health problems, but won’t die. Will be very very very unpleasant to live on, perhaps un-inhabitable for most life.
Truly makes me very Sad.
Our only home.
To live on Mars or the moon would suck; until we fuck up those systems.
Coping with booze and

Of course, you have no proof whatsoever of all of this. The facts so far are that human quality of life is increasing dramatically along with the population.

 

[IM469]

I am sure there is a girl just for you. Problem is she is a farm girl living deep in the Congo basin and you will never meet her. Pity, I understand she is very pretty and sexually adventurous, just waiting for her hubby.

.... all the ingredients for long lasting relationship - do you happen to have her phone number ?

 

[Y_Diner]

Of course, you have no proof whatsoever of all of this. The facts so far are that human quality of life is increasing dramatically along with the population.

Where is your proof?
More technology does not equate higher quality of life. More products such as smart tvs, cars, fridges, the by product or waste that goes into creating your new iPhone, or bougie homewares or home building materials, quite certain thise materials, that waste is not compostable, or recyclable. Guess you missed the memo that mentions “progress” comes with a hefty cost.

Why don’t you go visit a thiid world country and ask those people if they feel their quality of life is improving? If you don’t give AF to travel that far and deal with people that I am sure you believe are beneath you, visit slums or govt housing projects and ask them the same? If you don’t care to do that either (I’ll take that bet) do F all, and continue life in your bubble.

 

[barnacler]

Where is your proof?
More technology does not equate higher quality of life. More products such as smart tvs, cars, fridges, the by product or waste that goes into creating your new iPhone, or bougie homewares or home building materials, quite certain thise materials, that waste is not compostable, or recyclable. Guess you missed the memo that mentions “progress” comes with a hefty cost.

Why don’t you go visit a thiid world country and ask those people if they feel their quality of life is improving? If you don’t give AF to travel that far and deal with people that I am sure you believe are beneath you, visit slums or govt housing projects and ask them the same? If you don’t care to do that either (I’ll take that bet) do F all, and continue life in your bubble.

READ:

Factfulness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have visited many third world countries.

I have never understood why someone makes a statement that they have no idea whatsoever whether it is true or not!

 

[barnacler]

Thomas Malthus and Amadeus Mozart were contemporaries.

8 billion people on a fragile planet, what could go wrong? Politicians are too stupid to realize that growth is unsustainable, population growth and food production are not congruent. To make matters worse, the rainforests (the lungs of the planet) are systematically being burned away. That means fresh water will dissipate back out into space, lost forever. Less water, less food a great dying will happen.

When Malthus postulated his theory, he had no idea how accurate he was. Mozart depicts humanity's fate. Kurt Moll makes a fearsome looking Grim Reaper!

Earth is NOT fragile, it is incredibly robust, tough.

 

[barnacler]

We would be dumping less garbage, waste and pollutants into
our environment with a smaller population. It is just common
sense. Only the feeble-minded would believe Earth can survive
unchecked population growth.

No, it is not common sense.

More people = more specialization, more efficiency, more people doing more things, including scientific research on how to solve exactly the problems you describe.

 

[oil&gas]

Tell that to India so they can eliminate their hunger problem
without putting a lid on population growth.

 

[NotADcotor]

Where is your proof?
More technology does not equate higher quality of life. More products such as smart tvs, cars, fridges, the by product or waste that goes into creating your new iPhone, or bougie homewares or home building materials, quite certain thise materials, that waste is not compostable, or recyclable. Guess you missed the memo that mentions “progress” comes with a hefty cost.

Why don’t you go visit a thiid world country and ask those people if they feel their quality of life is improving? If you don’t give AF to travel that far and deal with people that I am sure you believe are beneath you, visit slums or govt housing projects and ask them the same? If you don’t care to do that either (I’ll take that bet) do F all, and continue life in your bubble.

FFS, yeah how would ones life be improved via better access to entertainment, transportation, preservation of food. What a bunch of queer fags, much like that asshole who thought stone tools would make life better. Losers. Not saying there is a downside, but I'd rather live today in the first world than in the 1700's

Also your second paragraph is special needs. 1: If buddy did go to the third world, isn't he just adding to the problem, all just to settle some internet bullshit. 2: Canada dude, if you can't find someone from the third world, you need to leave your basement more often. 3: I am sure those people would prefer some of the tech you turn your nose down at and yet use yourself, I guess those people are not as important as his majesty. 4: Loads of people in the third world have reached middle class standards of living, being lifted out of abject poverty, it sucks for those who haven't yet... but still. 5: The irony of talking down to someone implying they don't care and accusing him of being in a bubble when poor people want the technology you are putting down.6: You ignoring the benifits of the 100s of millions or billions who have been lifted out of poverty into a middle class existance in the third world because there are still poor people [whose lives a still probably a little bitter due to the tech they can access] is a lot like the difference between an activist and a SJW, an activist notes a building is not wheelchair acccessable and goes about building ramp, people like you would just try to make walkers feel bad about their "ableism"

 

[NotADcotor]

Earth is NOT fragile, it is incredibly robust, tough.

It's also where I keep all my stuff.