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

World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

worldometers.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 191 posts

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#171

Post by Balgair »

Veedrac wrote: post #146
birksherty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very selfish view. More people also means more energy need, more recourses use, more garbage too. There is not unlimited recourses to exploits. Watch Earthling to see only one part of human needs. All the advances are due to exploitation all natural recourses to the max and it created climate change and extinction of many species. But whenever people talk about progress they don't care about this and turn a…

There is plenty of clean energy, here on Earth, using existing technologies. There is even more than that if we go proactively grab a fraction of the the billions of galaxies of resources just meaninglessly burning themselves away.

> More people also means more energy need, more recourses use, more garbage too.

Also, the per capita usage of energy/garbage/resources tends to decrease as populations go up. The net, of course, increases, but the per capita decreases. Combine that with cleaner fuels are were set to get carbon neutral as a globe by ~2080, if I'm remembering correctly (I may not be!)

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#172

Post by hilbert42 »

kmlx wrote: post #136
hilbert42 wrote: post #92

These stats are frightening. In the past I recall seeing several different sets of figures for the amount of food the average human consumes in a lifetime. One estimate was about 70 tons and the other was 100 tons. (If anyone has better or more definite figures then let's hear about them.) Now, if we consider the other resources every new human will also consume during his or her lifetime - houses, vehicles, white go…

> ever since I read Anne and Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book The Population Bomb hasn’t that whole idea been proven wrong already? isn’t it a 70s myth that never materialised? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation#Critici...

I did say that Ehrlich's timeline was inaccurate. I'm also familiar with the counter arguments. Other than comments I've already made in replies to others I've nothing futher to add as it would invite addional political criticism.

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#173

Post by Balgair »

Jensson wrote: post #95
erklik wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I don't genuinely understand this pessimism. More people means more brains, more intelligence, more energy to achieve things. More people means more Einstiens, Newtons, Da Vincis etc. I do think our systems need changing. Our society currently incentivizes the smart people into something that's not entirely productive but wishing for less people, hmm, I don't know. I feel like this is the start of history, not t…

> More people means more brains, more intelligence, more energy to achieve things. More people means less energy and resources per person though, and people with little resources wont be using their brains to solve problems. Likely more people would have the opportunity to become Einstein's or similar if the population stayed at 1 billion than at 10 billion simply because we would have so much more raw resources to i…

> I don't see the benefit of adding another billion people who have to live a life in poverty.

Fortunately, we've made huge strides in this area in the last few decades. Global poverty is at an all time low and is decreasing. The same is true for food, female empowerment, family sizes, suicide, plastics, etc.

The world, really actually is getting better on a lot of major measures.

Yes, there are big challenges ahead. But as a species, we're honestly doing okay, maybe even better than okay.

There's a lot of data backing all this enthusiasm up. I'd link to a few papers, but GapMinder[0] is the best place I've seen where all the data is collated and searchable. They have great graphing interactives too [1]. GapMinder is an effort by the late-great Hans Rosling. You may remember his as that Swedish doctor from the TED talks [2]. I'd suggest any HN readers to dive into the site and see. They have a great little quiz[3] to help you renormalize yourself to current data as well.

All hope is not lost! Things really are going to be okay-ish. Not the same, but not terrible. Our work is not in vain.

[0] https://www.gapminder.org/

[1] https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$chart-type=bubbles&url=v1

[2] https://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling

[3] https://upgrader.gapminder.org/

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#174

Post by hilbert42 »

akudha wrote: post #166
erklik wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I don't genuinely understand this pessimism. More people means more brains, more intelligence, more energy to achieve things. More people means more Einstiens, Newtons, Da Vincis etc. I do think our systems need changing. Our society currently incentivizes the smart people into something that's not entirely productive but wishing for less people, hmm, I don't know. I feel like this is the start of history, not t…

more energy to achieve things What things though? It is mostly materialistic, isn't it? We are more comfortable than ever. We can talk to a person on the other side of the planet anytime we want. Yet, we don't know our neighbors. More people are lonely, more people are single etc. We live longer today, yet my generation seems less happy than my parents' generation. When I was a 10 year old, I played outside all day.…

"When I was a 10 year old, I played outside all day. Can you imagine letting your 10 year old by himself, outside the house, all day today?"

Exactly. The trouble is that those who weren't there to experience the freedom we had as kids and the resilisence and self confidence it instilled and developed in us simply don't understand.

It's a tragedy really.

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#175

Post by paulryanrogers »

Veedrac wrote: post #146
birksherty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very selfish view. More people also means more energy need, more recourses use, more garbage too. There is not unlimited recourses to exploits. Watch Earthling to see only one part of human needs. All the advances are due to exploitation all natural recourses to the max and it created climate change and extinction of many species. But whenever people talk about progress they don't care about this and turn a…

There is plenty of clean energy, here on Earth, using existing technologies. There is even more than that if we go proactively grab a fraction of the the billions of galaxies of resources just meaninglessly burning themselves away.

No humans live outside near earth orbit. Talk of other galaxies may be premature.

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#176

Post by pclmulqdq »

smallerfish wrote: post #163
pclmulqdq wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not remotely the same. Technologies in agriculture, energy production, and human health have all followed this path. By the way, it isn't just fracking that defeated calls of "peak oil" - deepwater drilling came the time before that, and offshore drilling the time before that, and so on. People have been crying "peak energy" and "peak food" reliably for the last 150 years, and we're still growing as a species.…

It's absolutely the same. You're predicting the future based upon the trajectory of the past. In 2019 you'd probably have ridiculed the idea of a pandemic occurring, based on us having "solved" the various outbreaks that took place in the prior 20 years; or in 2021 you'd have ridiculed the idea of a land war in Europe based on the relative peace achieved in the previous 70+ years. The past 50 years have shown abundan…

There are, but our species is not even remotely close to them. Also, we aren't even remotely close to exploiting all the resources in the solar system.

By the way, a land war in Europe over Ukraine has been very likely since Crimea and the election of Zelensky, which some people believe was rigged by the CIA. It was only a matter of time. The evidence from 80 years ago is there.

I am suggesting that the entire course of history is marked by the expansion of available resources to the human race. Not a cherrypicked 70 years.

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#177

Post by hilbert42 »

erklik wrote: post #153
luke2m wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>More resources are used. Yes. However, thinking of it on a universal scale, even resources are "infinite". That's what people thought about oil, trees, etc. before.

and they were right? Resources are practically infinite on a universal scale. We just keep progressing and we will get there. Trees are literally infinite. Just plant enough of them while you cut them down. Oil is not, but oil is energy, and energy is also practically infinite as long as we do it cleanly, and we have the capability to do so that today.

"Trees are literally infinite. Just plant enough of them while you cut them down."

Nice in theory but there's a big, big problem in the interim: in many instances that interim exceeds 300-plus years before there's a solution (if there's a practical one at all)!

Many of the world's best timbers have been exploited to the point of extinction and the few trees that remain in the wild are strictly controlled by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) in that the export trade is strictly banned (just like elephant tusks - that means exporting any quantity no matter how small is illegal). Even so, illegal logging is now out of control and it's reducing their remaining numbers to critically low levels.

Demand for timbers such as the dalbergias: Brazilian Rosewood - Dalbergia nigra, Cocobolo D. Retusa, etc. and many other depleted species such as Lignum vitae is already so high that - like the drug trade - there are instances where people in the illegal trade are killing one another over 'territory' and the 'rights' to illegal smuggling.

Many good hardwood tree can take many hundreds of years to mature and despite many, many decades of the very best science chemical engineering has devised, it hasn't come anywhere near producing good artifical verions of these timbers. If we immediately started a planting operation of Manhattan Project size proportions to repopulate these trees to the level they were two hundreds years ago it would still take several hundreds of years before the world had sufficient timber to meet current (let alone the future) demand. And that's just the beginning of supply problems in the lumber industry.

So what's your solution for the next few hundred years?

Incidentally, in China, rosewoods (dalbergias) are revered with almost mystical significance, they are symbols of huge cultural and personal importance. With its newfound wealth, Chinese demand for these now rare timbers has skyrocketed and the Chinese will pay almost any amount to get their hands on them. As the population of more affluent Chinese grows, this problem will get steadily worse.

Now consider this is only one of many similar environmental problems the world is currently facing.

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#178

Post by matthewdgreen »

siva7 wrote: post #93
hilbert42 wrote: post #92

These stats are frightening. In the past I recall seeing several different sets of figures for the amount of food the average human consumes in a lifetime. One estimate was about 70 tons and the other was 100 tons. (If anyone has better or more definite figures then let's hear about them.) Now, if we consider the other resources every new human will also consume during his or her lifetime - houses, vehicles, white go…

Who says that everyone has to eat meat? And who are you to command that millions or billions of people shouldn’t be born in the future?

There’s a lot of future.

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#179

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Jensson wrote: post #95
erklik wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I don't genuinely understand this pessimism. More people means more brains, more intelligence, more energy to achieve things. More people means more Einstiens, Newtons, Da Vincis etc. I do think our systems need changing. Our society currently incentivizes the smart people into something that's not entirely productive but wishing for less people, hmm, I don't know. I feel like this is the start of history, not t…

> More people means more brains, more intelligence, more energy to achieve things. More people means less energy and resources per person though, and people with little resources wont be using their brains to solve problems. Likely more people would have the opportunity to become Einstein's or similar if the population stayed at 1 billion than at 10 billion simply because we would have so much more raw resources to i…

> More people means less energy and resources per person though

Does it? It does if we're at the level of cutting wood to feed our individual fireplaces, and there's only so much wood around. But we don't live in that world any more.

You need a large number of people to be able to manufacture giant windmills in... Texas, I think? Installed in Wyoming, with generators built in Switzerland. Combined with solar panels built in China. This is to replace oil from North Dakota, drilled with equipment manufactured in Texas, piped to whereever. And that's replacing coal dug in Wyoming, hauled hundreds of miles by locomotives built in Pennsylvania or Texas or Mexico or Canada.

That takes people. It takes a lot of people, connected to each other, to give us a world where we're not just competing for who can chop down more of the few remaining local trees.

Re: World Population Clock: 7.96B People (2022)

#180

Post by wngr »

maneesh wrote: post #31
croes wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's the birth rate in India or the african countries?

India has dropped to just above replacement rate (2.2 births per women), down from just under 6 births per women in 1960 Africa fertility rate is dropping around 1.5% per year annually for the region as a whole. Increasingly technologized populations drop fertility fast

Survival rate is probably up compared to 1960.
Post reply on HN