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

I estimate human population to peak in 2065

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#21

Post by maxerickson »

baq wrote: post #20
maxerickson wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy will be cheaper in 10 years than it has ever been in history. Progress is pretty likely to continue.

Can the World Get Richer Forever? http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/03/bbc-questions-in...

So make a point. That I have optimism for my lifetime doesn't mean I'm blind to there being real actual physical limits.

OP is talking like grim meathook future is coming quick (linking food production to petroleum production). I was answering that.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#22

Post by fleitz »

earthtolazlo wrote: post #16

Why do almost no population projections take climate change into account? We're rapidly heading towards a much less habitable earth. The projections I've seen with Africa at a population of 3-4 billion people by 2100 would be laughable if the whole situation wasn't so damn tragic.

Because current projections don't reach population levels where we exhaust the capacity of the earth, at best we'd face reduced material wealth.

Why the situation tragic? The universe does not care the sea levels or temperatures are different from what they were in 1700, just as the universe does not lament the great oxidation event which wiped out most of the species inhabiting the planet at the time.

In fact I'd argue that most humans are elated that cyanobacteria 'destroyed' the planet.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#23

Post by mfsamuel »

himlion wrote: post #18
tbirrell wrote: post #11

"The table above already shows that birth rates go to zero by 2065." Uh.... This seems incorrect. Sure we can extrapolate the declining birthrate all the way down to zero, but realistically it will level out somewhere since humans will never stop producing more humans. Granted it might be a lower birthrate, but never 0.

I assume he is talking about net birth rate.

He is not, and that is the primary flaw in this analysis.

Estimates that the recent declines in birth rate will continue until 0 annual births, once the birth rate stops the death rate continues at pace, and kills everyone eventually.

Flawed in many ways, but that is the biggest mistake. A good example would be the temperature has dropped 20 degrees in the last month at this rate we will reach absolute 0 in around 2 years.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#25

Post by WildUtah »

VLM wrote: post #7
kobeya wrote: post #3

What if people aren't dying in 2065?

Medical care is unaffordable / unsustainable in the high HDI countries and doesn't exist in the low HDI countries. Would have been interesting to look at the impact on the high HDI countries of mass invasion and demographic replacement. Many of those countries won't be in the "very high" category much longer. That will have the obvious impact on birth rates etc. Ditto long term trends in income inequality, in that po…

Health care is affordable and sustainable in most of the high HDI countries and, in any case, has little to do with life expectancies.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#26

Post by fleitz »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #15

There's no testable prediction in this model. He also just assumes some naive correlations based on some graphs, without doing any rudimentary statistics (e.g. chi squared to check if the correlations are even notable), and then plugs the numbers in and see's what he comes out with. Instead, he should base his model on data from say 2000, and then predict the population in 2015, and then if that's correct, he might b…

Yup, reverse malthusianism.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#27

Post by lintiness »

earthtolazlo wrote: post #16

Why do almost no population projections take climate change into account? We're rapidly heading towards a much less habitable earth. The projections I've seen with Africa at a population of 3-4 billion people by 2100 would be laughable if the whole situation wasn't so damn tragic.

you think the earth's climate 100 years out is remotely predictable?

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#28

Post by rokosbasilisk »

baq wrote: post #20
maxerickson wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy will be cheaper in 10 years than it has ever been in history. Progress is pretty likely to continue.

Can the World Get Richer Forever? http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/03/bbc-questions-in...

wow fascinating read.

If global resources are finite, it would explain the drive to colonize space.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#29

Post by [deleted] »

fleitz wrote: post #22
earthtolazlo wrote: post #16

Why do almost no population projections take climate change into account? We're rapidly heading towards a much less habitable earth. The projections I've seen with Africa at a population of 3-4 billion people by 2100 would be laughable if the whole situation wasn't so damn tragic.

Because current projections don't reach population levels where we exhaust the capacity of the earth, at best we'd face reduced material wealth. Why the situation tragic? The universe does not care the sea levels or temperatures are different from what they were in 1700, just as the universe does not lament the great oxidation event which wiped out most of the species inhabiting the planet at the time. In fact I'd ar…

[deleted]

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#30

Post by earthtolazlo »

fleitz wrote: post #22
earthtolazlo wrote: post #16

Why do almost no population projections take climate change into account? We're rapidly heading towards a much less habitable earth. The projections I've seen with Africa at a population of 3-4 billion people by 2100 would be laughable if the whole situation wasn't so damn tragic.

Because current projections don't reach population levels where we exhaust the capacity of the earth, at best we'd face reduced material wealth. Why the situation tragic? The universe does not care the sea levels or temperatures are different from what they were in 1700, just as the universe does not lament the great oxidation event which wiped out most of the species inhabiting the planet at the time. In fact I'd ar…

Just about every model shows significant increases in drought and desertification across most of the world's currently arable land with more than a couple of degrees of warming, which is the path we're currently on. Couple that with the fact that most land at far northern latitudes does not have the soil quality necessary to support large-scale agriculture, and we're looking at global famines that billions of people are unlikely to survive.
Post reply on HN