Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#51

Post by cozzyd »

m0zg wrote: post #47
crispyporkbites wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just about money, the enjoyment/benefits of having a child decreases dramatically with each child you have. Having more than 1/2 children is really tough on, particularly on the mother, both physically and mentally. If you have the choice most people will not opt for more than 2 or 3.

I heard the opposite, directly from people who have a lot of kids (one person I know has 13): it doesn't matter all that much in terms of labor how many you have if you have 3 or more. The first one is a lot of work, after that the increase is marginal. They begin to take care of each other more, which I think you will agree is a desirable thing for any human to learn early on. It's _slightly_ easier in terms of _mar…

The cost of housing also goes up significantly...

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#52

Post by mensetmanusman »

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 WHO praises China’s perfect handling of imprisoning doctors who discover new virus.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#54

Post by nl »

aaron695 wrote: post #30
nl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 estim…

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

> That's 2050 in the document.

Yes, you are right, my apologies.

2025 predictions are between 221M and 318M (table, page 16) which makes their "projection B" scenario almost exactly correct.

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

Page 29 is a table called "Relative comparison of dependant and productive groups in the United States". There are no population numbers.

Page 25 has a graph which you maybe referring to. That doesn't have numbers, but they seem to be plotting the numbers from page 16.

> But not fertility. You won't be living to 120 without being a healthy and fertile 60 year old.

What evidence do you have of that? Increased life expectancy for women so far hasn't been matched by an increase in fertility beyond 40 years old.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#55

Post by aaron695 »

nl wrote: post #54
aaron695 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 estim…

>> 2025 US population to be between 225M and 392M > That's 2050 in the document. Yes, you are right, my apologies. 2025 predictions are between 221M and 318M (table, page 16) which makes their "projection B" scenario almost exactly correct. >2020 is 210 - 305 million estimate. (pdf p29) Page 29 is a table called "Relative comparison of dependant and productive groups in the United States". There are no population num…

> Increased life expectancy for women so far hasn't been matched by an increase in fertility beyond 40 years old.

You've said this with some certainty, were are you getting this from? This doesn't fit with all current data about general health and longevity, so I'd like to see who's saying this and what their case is.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#56

Post by vmurthy »

DrFalkyn wrote: post #45
ilstormcloud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Added to this, their economy has boomed due to not having to invest in future generations. Can you clarify on what you mean by that please? Are you referring to pollution an environmental degradation?

Adults can work more and be more productive if they don’t have to take care of children

By productive if you mean only time-wise, don't forget that single kid families can increase consumption of goods with the saved Yuan leading to higher GDP as well.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#57

Post by vmurthy »

shalmanese wrote: post #9
Someone wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China’s predicted population decrease is a logical consequence of its one child policy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy ) If you compare https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/1980/ with https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/ , you see how drastic its effect on China’s population pyramid was. Drastically fewer kids means fewer parents 20-30 years later. (There also is a bit of an effect of ric…

Population Pyramid estimates the 2100 population of China to be 1.06B which is 45% higher than the 732M figure estimated by Lancet. 1B feels like a lot more realistic estimate than 750M.

The most interesting thing for me in this report coming out is that societies/governments taking note of this might incentivise outcomes. E.g., if China thinks that 750M is too low keeping its longer term interests, it might tweak the 1-child policy or encourage immigration etc by 2050.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#58

Post by nl »

aaron695 wrote: post #55
nl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 2025 US population to be between 225M and 392M > That's 2050 in the document. Yes, you are right, my apologies. 2025 predictions are between 221M and 318M (table, page 16) which makes their "projection B" scenario almost exactly correct. >2020 is 210 - 305 million estimate. (pdf p29) Page 29 is a table called "Relative comparison of dependant and productive groups in the United States". There are no population num…

> Increased life expectancy for women so far hasn't been matched by an increase in fertility beyond 40 years old. You've said this with some certainty, were are you getting this from? This doesn't fit with all current data about general health and longevity, so I'd like to see who's saying this and what their case is.

The ovarian reserve doesn't somehow increase with increased longevity. The chart from Wikipedia is as good as anything on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_reserve#/media/File:Wa...

The ovarian reserve only decreases from birth, so it becomes less and less likely for a woman to conceive as they get older.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility also notes: A review in 2012 came to the result that therapeutic interventions to halt or reverse the process of reproductive ageing in women is limited, despite recent reports of the potential existence of stem cells which may be used to restore the ovarian reserve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_maternal_age has some further good reading on this.

Re: The Lancet: World population projections by 2100

#59

Post by snovv_crash »

7374ureuruu wrote: post #49
DrFalkyn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults can work more and be more productive if they don’t have to take care of children

This is a non-issue for most asian countries. Grandparents and women who couldn't keep up with men in professional settings become caretakers. China's biggest issue is its population bomb not a lack of people to watch the kids.

It isn't just at a young age that kids need watching, and time isn't the only resource invested in children.

Think of the percentage of any modernizing economy that goes into things like food and clothing for children, education and educational materials, transport, energy consumption. The reduced output of parents who are tired from looking after or arguing with children. And this is for something that won't start putting value back into the economy for a good 18 years from initial investment.

Skip this, and instead of food and clothes for children adults can spend on housing, transport, take risks with starting businesses without the chance of hungry dependants, etc

Post reply on HN