Live data from Hacker News

World Population Growth

ourworldindata.org

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: World Population Growth

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think earth is going to be able to support 9 billion people without some sort of dramatic paradigm shift in the way, as a species, we consume things

9 billion is 1.6 billion more people than we have today. What dramatic paradigm shift do we need for the earth to be able to support such a modest increase?

It would be a "modest increase" if we had spare carrying capacity. Instead, what we have now is a situation that is going from bad to worse, but since the crisis is unfolding in slow motion, most people do not recognize it as such; after all, most people alive today have either never seen what a good situation looks like, or where too young to grasp the meaning of the changes they observed back then.

The (human) carrying capacity of Earth was estimated to be around 2 billion, which was surpased sometime in the late 1920's. Contrary to other comments here, that does not mean that after you hit population 2,000,000,0001 we all die (we clearly did not). Instead, what it means is that given the technological level we had at that time, we'd consume renewable resourses faster than they can renew themselves, and we'd also produce waste faster than the environment can degrade it. Otherwise, more than 2B people would cause environmental degradation, which would itself reduce the carrying capacity in the long term.

Please note this definition is tied with humans technological level. It is not set in stone, since we have some degree of control over our impact in the environment, and we have the ability to use the same resources in a more efficient way. The big tragedy of 20th century is that this fact was not recognized but for a handful of theorists, and therefore it was not a political and economic goal to explicitly manage the carrying capacity of Earth. As of 2016, the situation is still the same.

By example, we gained a bunch of technologies that allows us to do the same stuff more efficiently. Given explicit economic incentives, we might have... maybe doubled our carrying capacity (CC=4B). Unfortunatelly, because this was not a goal itself, we engaged in a buch of economic practices that negated much of this benefits, so if we are generous these might have been reduced by half (e.g. CC=3B). Also given that population growth was not arrested back in the 1970's, but only slowed down, the carrying capacity has not improved at all (CC=2B).

Currently, environmental degradation is going in overdrive. We have lost a lot of time, and the resources we need to make an orderly transition are already commited to keep the system going. Population will go down, one way or the other. I don't believe in a single sharp die off many apocalyptic thinkers profetize, but adding and extra 1.6B mouths to feed will make the downward tendency of the curve more steeper than it needs to be.

Re: World Population Growth

#62
post #50

In a large part thanks to this guy, who invented a process for extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere - an invention that now feeds half the Earth's human population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process Cheers, Fritz

Radiolab had a great episode on Haber:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-proble...

Re: World Population Growth

#63
This paper http://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/geas_jun_12_carrying_ca... by a UN group surveyed studies of the "carrying capacity" of the Earth. The bad news is that the largest number of studies say we are near the bounds of capacity. Worse, many studies say we have overshot sustainable capacity.

But there many studies that claim carrying capacity is much higher than current population, and that the projected 16 billion simultaneous living humans is within capacity.

It seems like whether we have a soft landing at the end of the oil age could dominate any calculation. The ability of renewables to scale up is only just crept past the starting line of a long, but necessarily urgent race. I'm not very enthusiastic about the odds.

Re: World Population Growth

#64

All I can say is, if you want to maintain that standard of living in western democracies, you'd better get used to immigration.

Japan appears to contradict this. There might be a debt default, but that will mostly be contained within Japan.

Re: World Population Growth

#65
post #50

In a large part thanks to this guy, who invented a process for extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere - an invention that now feeds half the Earth's human population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process Cheers, Fritz

In a large part thanks to this guy

You mean due to the process discovered by Fritz Haber.

It isn't the case that if he hadn't discovered the process in 1909 that in 2016 the human species would still be without it.

Re: World Population Growth

#66
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an anecdote. I have coworker friend who is from india, and he told me most of the men in his family die from heart attacks from age 40-50. I thought it was weird as heck, but when I researched it showed they had 4x for heart issues against the general population in america. https://stanfordhealthcare.org/stanford-health-now/2015/sout...

Any idea of why this might be?

[My limited knowledge and reading of this is reflected here]

There are genetic, dietary and lifestyle factors. Genetically and historically, people were used to famines and lower availability of food. So the body evolved to store up whenever food consumption increases. This applies to large parts of the population in Africa too.

With affluence and affordability improved drastically in the last few decades, people tend to eat more and richer food, which forces the body to store as fat. This triggers Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and heart disease. Diet wise, the consumption of dairy is quite high (not as high as some developed countries though) - significantly higher than consumption in the past. This combined with genetics makes things worse, and a lot of lacto-vegetarians also tend to suffer from the lifestyle diseases mentioned above.

Re: World Population Growth

#67
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an anecdote. I have coworker friend who is from india, and he told me most of the men in his family die from heart attacks from age 40-50. I thought it was weird as heck, but when I researched it showed they had 4x for heart issues against the general population in america. https://stanfordhealthcare.org/stanford-health-now/2015/sout...

Any idea of why this might be?

1. their traffic intersections appear to be extremely stress-inducing because it requires hyper-vigilance.

2. the heat indices of that country can be quite astonishing

Re: World Population Growth

#68

If there are heritable traits that lead to people having more kids in a developed world environment then at some point evolution will take over and we'll start to see exponential growth again.

This assumes that biological evolution is the only systematic effect on population growth rate. I would argue that the fact that we have decreased infant mortality at the same time as decreased population growth is evidence that there are other systematic pressures limiting population growth.

There are certainly things about that modern world that are pushing population growth rates lower. The availability of birth control and more legal rights for women prominently among them. That's why the population growth rate should be leveling out in 80 years or so.

But looking forward maybe 800 years, if there are alleles which tend to make people more likely to want and have kids then I would expect the prevalence of those alleles to increase and the birth rate to rise again. When I look around at my social groups most of the people I know enjoy sex but there's a lot of diversity in how much people are interested in having kids. I don't have any basis for saying if that's a heritable trait or not. But if it is heritable then I'd expect people like that to be the majority before all that long and in the long term population growth to become exponential again.

And in the very long speed of light limitations mean that the resources available to humanity can grow cubicly at best so if exponential growth resumes Malthus will be with us again at some point.

Re: World Population Growth

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that biological evolution is the only systematic effect on population growth rate. I would argue that the fact that we have decreased infant mortality at the same time as decreased population growth is evidence that there are other systematic pressures limiting population growth.

There are certainly things about that modern world that are pushing population growth rates lower. The availability of birth control and more legal rights for women prominently among them. That's why the population growth rate should be leveling out in 80 years or so. But looking forward maybe 800 years, if there are alleles which tend to make people more likely to want and have kids then I would expect the prevalenc…

Religion is a much stronger predictor of number of children than any genetic factor. Religion is typically passed on to children, but not genetically!

Re: World Population Growth

#70
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an anecdote. I have coworker friend who is from india, and he told me most of the men in his family die from heart attacks from age 40-50. I thought it was weird as heck, but when I researched it showed they had 4x for heart issues against the general population in america. https://stanfordhealthcare.org/stanford-health-now/2015/sout...

Any idea of why this might be?

South Asians have a high predisposition to metabolic syndrome - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=india+metabolic+syndrome+genetic+predis...
Post reply on HN