The Lancet: World population projections by 2100 • Hacker News Board

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#21

Post by nl » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:40 PM UTC

aaron695 wrote: post #12

The Gates foundation has a interest in keeping estimates of the population down low. It's important to help promote global community now, today when it matters. And given how rich countries progress, extrapolation to poor countries make sense. But it's not how it will go down, look at attempts 80 year ago what they thought 2020 would be Not a great example, but it's well under - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_stu…

> The Gates foundation has a interest in keeping estimates of the population down low.

The paper says:

Role of the funding source The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

> But it's not how it will go down, look at attempts 80 year ago what they thought 2020 would be

> Not a great example, but it's well under -

> https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_studies/study033.pdf

They estimated 2025 US population to be between 225M and 392M depending on the projection methodology used. The current population of the US is 328M, so this seems pretty good for an estimate 70 years ago!

> Longevity will mean increased fertility.

This would seem a bold claim. It hasn't anywhere in the world so far, and the correlation between increased longevity and decreased birthrates is very strong.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#22

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:43 PM UTC

These studies are fascinating but I think they should stay away from such detailed predictions as 'in the reference scenario, the USA was forecasted to once again become the largest economy in 2098'. That's just way too far out to make any meaningful statements about a simple ordering of economies in relative size.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#23

Post by nl » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:46 PM UTC

godmode2019 wrote: post #16

"The global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84–10·9) people and decline to 8·79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100." Baseline of 9.73 billion. "China was forecasted to become the largest economy by 2035 but in the reference scenario, the USA was forecasted to once again become the largest economy in 2098" That sounds like they they forecast war? Also "meeting the Sustainable Development Goals tar…

> That sounds like they they forecast war?

Err why would you say this? You can read the report and it explains the falling fertility rate in China.

> Is the 2.4 billion people missing people a form of genocide or just good heath?

It's different projections based on different fertility rates.

That's an extraordinarily insulting claim to those who actually have suffered genocide.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#24

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #18

I find these predictions fascinating to think about. Did we get them right this time? I remember that we were taught about the idea of overpopulation in school. As I understand, it was believed in the 60s and 70s that the world population would keep massively increasing. People were worried about overpopulation. At this point we know that that's not true - it seems that essentially all rich countries see a decline in…

Female empowerment is what is listed in the paper and what is generally accepted.

I've typically heard two drivers:

1) children turned from an economic boon/necessity to a sink. They can start helping with farm work pretty early, not quite so much when the industry work, they have to be somewhat older and can't tag along when the parents are working.

2) women could spend their time working and earning money. They could start to support themselves.

We've been able to accelerate this trend by offering access to contraception and decreasing infant mortality.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#25

Post by pps43 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:12 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #18

I find these predictions fascinating to think about. Did we get them right this time? I remember that we were taught about the idea of overpopulation in school. As I understand, it was believed in the 60s and 70s that the world population would keep massively increasing. People were worried about overpopulation. At this point we know that that's not true - it seems that essentially all rich countries see a decline in…

> we were taught about the idea of overpopulation in school

That's a problem with school education. They give the wrong models. Exponential growth is impossible in nature because at some point it runs out of steam and fizzles out. Logistic curve or probit is a much better abstraction.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#26

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

ggm wrote: post #10

It stands out that a worldwide event like coved won't alter the trajectory as far as I an see, on these trends. If i missed something long lasting on the natural reproductive rates of these economies id love to know. Whats strongly causative of the decline is literacy, especially women's literacy, and women's body autonomy and reproductive rights. US opposition to WHO and to funding contraception and abortion is (tha…

The sheer scale of the natural birth and death rate is hard to comprehend. Most major world events with major death and suffering barely show up in the population chart

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#27

Post by Zenbit_UX » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #24

Aerroon wrote: post #18

I find these predictions fascinating to think about. Did we get them right this time? I remember that we were taught about the idea of overpopulation in school. As I understand, it was believed in the 60s and 70s that the world population would keep massively increasing. People were worried about overpopulation. At this point we know that that's not true - it seems that essentially all rich countries see a decline in…

Female empowerment is what is listed in the paper and what is generally accepted. I've typically heard two drivers: 1) children turned from an economic boon/necessity to a sink. They can start helping with farm work pretty early, not quite so much when the industry work, they have to be somewhat older and can't tag along when the parents are working. 2) women could spend their time working and earning money. They cou…

Not just empowerment but education. The higher educated a woman is the more TFR goes down.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#28

Post by albertTJames » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:30 PM UTC

"Approximately correct projection of world population by 2100, given that nothing horrible happens by then."

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#29

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

aaron695 wrote: post #12

The Gates foundation has a interest in keeping estimates of the population down low. It's important to help promote global community now, today when it matters. And given how rich countries progress, extrapolation to poor countries make sense. But it's not how it will go down, look at attempts 80 year ago what they thought 2020 would be Not a great example, but it's well under - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_stu…

Bringing up UBI is way more important than longevity imo.

There's two major forces that we could see UBI have when applied on a lifetime scale:

1) if citizens get it when they are born then having children could be economically rational again for some non trivial income bracket

2) if we actually do see more and more content unemployed citizens they could have the time and interest in having kids

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#30

Post by aaron695 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:50 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #21

aaron695 wrote: post #12

The Gates foundation has a interest in keeping estimates of the population down low. It's important to help promote global community now, today when it matters. And given how rich countries progress, extrapolation to poor countries make sense. But it's not how it will go down, look at attempts 80 year ago what they thought 2020 would be Not a great example, but it's well under - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_stu…

> The Gates foundation has a interest in keeping estimates of the population down low. The paper says: Role of the funding source The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. > But it's not how it will go down, look…

> The funders had no role in study design,

The Funders know how it'll come out.

Studies don't take into account the leaps that will happen because we don't know what they are. Things don't just continue as the previous 80 years. These jumps happened even when we didn't have the internet to super charge stuff.

> 2025 US population to be between 225M and 392M

That's 2050 in the document.

2020 is 210 - 305 million estimate. (pdf p29)

> decreased birthrates is very strong.

But not fertility. You won't be living to 120 without being a healthy and fertile 60 year old. It's fun to have work as number one for 20 years, but if it's easy to have kids in your 40's without IVF things will change.