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

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#51

Post by reasonattlm »

kobeya wrote: post #3

What if people aren't dying in 2065?

Not as much of a difference as you might think:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/

"A common objection against starting a large-scale biomedical war on aging is the fear of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation). This fear is only exacerbated by the fact that no detailed demographic projections for radical life extension scenario have been conducted so far. This study explores different demographic scenarios and population projections, in order to clarify what could be the demographic consequences of a successful biomedical war on aging. A general conclusion of this study is that population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only (from 9.1 to 11.0 million). Moreover, if some members of society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.), then the total population size may even decrease over time. Thus, even in the case of the most radical life extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation), but rather on such potential obstacles to a success of biomedical war on aging, as scientific, organizational, and financial limitations."

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#52

Post by stcredzero »

earthtolazlo wrote: post #30
fleitz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

we're looking at global famines that billions of people are unlikely to survive

If I were part of a shadowy oligarchic cabal running the world, I'd be willing to trade-in worldwide chaos for the 21st century equivalent of a Hydraulic empire, where technologically enabled food production replaces irrigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire

Conspiracy trash aside, if there are billions to be made helping the world avoid yet another Malthusian disaster, someone will make it.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#53

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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…

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

The rest of us would be elated if you grew a sense of empathy for your fellow humans.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#54

Post by pierrec »

Balgair wrote: post #40
anton_tarasenko wrote: post #32

A polite reminder: some people predict population dynamics for living. For example, the World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/population-projection... If you look for dinosaurs, the WB also have a 1984 report on topic: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/496471468156899142... (see p. 186, "Population data supplement") The UN, IMF, and most national agencies also release their numbers. In general, w…

Ok, so for everyone that can barely use that terrible website, the number that they have in 2050 is 9.71 billion. Someone else can try to figure out how to download that data and then give an actual estimate as to when the population will flat-line. Maybe find a way to get it into excel and then apply a log fit to it, or soemthing. Hell, I ain't gonna mess with that terrible site again. Edit: Forgot to thank my paren…

It seems their data is based on UN research, who publishes regular population projections. The latest revision, published in 2015, apparently only goes up to 2100, at which point they still predict growth. However, if you look at projected growth as it's presented in this article:

http://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/rapid-slowdown-...

You can see that the growth is rushing towards zero and almost crosses it in 2100, giving a maximum sometime around 2115. But I wouldn't really count on any projection's accuracy that far into the future: what really sticks out is how the historical growth is extremely jagged, driven by crises and revolutions, then becomes ridiculously smooth as soon as it turns into a projection. It just screams out "this is a very rough approximation and probably wrong".

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#56

Post by eli_gottlieb »

stcredzero wrote: post #52
earthtolazlo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

we're looking at global famines that billions of people are unlikely to survive If I were part of a shadowy oligarchic cabal running the world, I'd be willing to trade-in worldwide chaos for the 21st century equivalent of a Hydraulic empire, where technologically enabled food production replaces irrigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire Conspiracy trash aside, if there are billions to be made helping…

>Conspiracy trash aside, if there are billions to be made helping the world avoid yet another Malthusian disaster, someone will make it.

Who made their millions off the Irish potato famine, other than the British businesspeople who caused the famine by making Irish food unaffordable to the Irish?

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#57

Post by rokosbasilisk »

philipkglass wrote: post #45
rokosbasilisk wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

finite resources on earth can lead to meagar resources which stop infinite growth is what I took from that paper. So we'd have to get resources from elsewhere like asteroid mining or space colonization.

Fundamental properties of nature , like the finite speed of light, preclude infinite growth. To maintain 2% annual growth in human energy consumption, in just a few thousand years we'd need to have built Dyson swarms around every star in our galaxy (and beyond). Faster-than-light travel becomes necessary to sustain that growth rate in less than 2600 years. The BBC asked a bad question and got an obvious answer. (Mayb…

Wow thats a good point about japan. Do you know why there is so much negativity about low growth there ?

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#58

Post by kobeya »

Udo wrote: post #19
kobeya wrote: post #3

What if people aren't dying in 2065?

That's a huge "what if", on top of what's already an impossible-to-predict situation. But if we're going to entertain this, we should also factor in the other circumstances that are likely to come with this scenario: I spent a chunk of my life adjacent to bio/med research and my conclusion is radical life extension by purely biological means will probably remain unfeasible. Genetically, we're millions of years worth…

First, I don't think you are adequately compensating for the availability of new technologies, such as medical molecular nanotechnology, which we will certainly have by 2065. The entire approach to medicine that we use now is likely to be obsoleted in that time frame, leading to the eradication of most terminal diseases.

Second, one doesn't have to eliminate biological death entirely to muck up those forecasts. We know from super-centenarians that those who are lucky enough to not suffer any life threatening conditions nevertheless kick the bucket around age 120. Even if that's not fixed by 2065, it's almost double the average life expectancy and that is not factored at all into the OP's calculations.

Third, birthrates are currently constrained by menopause in women. Most women don't have more than a few children in the developed world because they are biologically incapable of having more. And although men have the capability to have "2nd families" (with another woman later in life after their previous children are grown), women do not. Defeating/controlling menopause is therefore more likely to result in either larger families, women choosing to have a second family at a later stage in life, or women who would have otherwise missed their chance having a family at all. Again, fertility advances are not factored into the OP's calculations.

Thus although I could argue that biological immortality is not "unfeasible", I don't need to. The OP has failed to factor in reasons why the death rate will go down and the birth rate will go up, making his charts too conservative.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#59

Post by [deleted] »

anton_tarasenko wrote: post #32

A polite reminder: some people predict population dynamics for living. For example, the World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/population-projection... If you look for dinosaurs, the WB also have a 1984 report on topic: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/496471468156899142... (see p. 186, "Population data supplement") The UN, IMF, and most national agencies also release their numbers. In general, w…

[deleted]

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#60

Post by kobeya »

reasonattlm wrote: post #51
kobeya wrote: post #3

What if people aren't dying in 2065?

Not as much of a difference as you might think: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/ "A common objection against starting a large-scale biomedical war on aging is the fear of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation). This fear is only exacerbated by the fact that no detailed demographic projections for radical life extension scenario have been conducted so far. This study explores differ…

That study is flawed. It's "optimistic" scenario still assumes menopause and therefore a fixed number of children per woman in the population. Yet a level of medical technology that can eliminate aging entirely would also be able to reset the biological clock (or create artificial wombs, etc.).
Post reply on HN