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

World Population Growth

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: World Population Growth

#71

Post by hx87 »

dagaci wrote: post #27
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #5

One thing that is a little bit off in the analysis is the statement "China, India and Africa are (and have been for a long time) the most populous regions in the world" Actually, according to that data, Africa only overtook Europe in population between 1980 and 1990. I remember when that happened, because I'd always assumed Africa had far more people. They will, but it hasn't been for 'a long time'. It was quite rece…

Until extremely recently Africa has (with the exception of the Nile delta) been very under-populated. Even today it's regions do not rank amongst the most populated regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density (with the exception of the Nile delta) Historically Africa had very little population growth compared to the tiny population that survived the "out-of-africa" exit. I would speculate: part of the re…

Scarcity of reliably arable land combined with extreme disease burdens probably have something to do with that.

Re: World Population Growth

#72

Post by hx87 »

crpatino wrote: post #61
davidiach wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9 billion is 1.6 billion more people than we have today. What dramatic paradigm shift do we need for the earth to be able to support such a modest increase?

It would be a "modest increase" if we had spare carrying capacity. Instead, what we have now is a situation that is going from bad to worse, but since the crisis is unfolding in slow motion, most people do not recognize it as such; after all, most people alive today have either never seen what a good situation looks like, or where too young to grasp the meaning of the changes they observed back then. The (human) carr…

A couple of questions about your numbers:

> was estimated to be around 2 billion

By whom? A source would be nice, which is why I generally refrain from using passive tense when stating facts.

> Also given that population growth was not arrested back in the 1970's, but only slowed down, the carrying capacity has not improved at all

How exactly does population growth affect carrying capacity? If I have a car with 7 seats, its passenger capacity is the same whether I have no passengers or 6 passengers. If population is an intrinsic factor in carrying capacity, then whatever definition of carrying capacity you are using is inadequate.

Re: World Population Growth

#73

Post by hx87 »

dharma1 wrote: post #50

In a large part thanks to this guy, who invented a process for extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere - an invention that now feeds half the Earth's human population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process Cheers, Fritz

Don't forget Carl Bosch! Everyone forgets Bosch for some reason. You can't just have chemist discover a process, you need a chemical engineer to make it work on an industrial scale.

Re: World Population Growth

#74

Post by collyw »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #35
collyw wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My simplistic version is that our economy is basically a ponzi scheme that needs new entrants to fuel the "growth".

Actually not the children, as they are the expense It needs the people in the productive age. Immigration of young adults is economically the best solution in short term as it leaves the expense of growing them up to the other societies.

Assuming they will be economically active.

Re: World Population Growth

#75

Post by erispoe »

weatherlight wrote: post #41
WildUtah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peak population isn't coming in the next few centuries. The 2008 UN data these charts are based on had mistaken data on African growth. African fertility is much higher than expected then and continues not to fall. The later 2100s in these charts now look to add several more billion and growing, almost all in Africa. Or from Africa; migration from poorer and overcrowded countries means Europe will probably be majorit…

I really don't think earth is going to be able to support 9 billion people without some sort of dramatic paradigm shift in the way, as a species, we consume things

Medieval economy relied heavily on wood consumption, in a very unsustainable way. Forests were cut down way faster than they could renew and, if no technological change happened, they would have hit a wall pretty violently.

But they didn't. Instead, people and societies adapted.

The lesson of that is that you cannot extrapolate our current technology and the resources we consume in the future and assume that everything will stay the same.

It's like saying medieval societies should have stopped growing so they could sustain on the wood they cut down.

Re: World Population Growth

#76

Post by sytelus »

As population is one of the indicative of productivity (although a weak one), you can see how many big events were driven by population growth. For example,

- During World War II, US had more people then Germany, France and UK combined. This certainly enabled deployment of massive armies on many front and huge amount of weapon production.

- Japan's population suddenly started rising and overtook many western countries. Its increased productivity might be the reason why this tiny country felt it can take on the world.

- India and China are odd balls. India had massive population since very early times compared to European countries.

-Somewhere in 1870, US population crossed a threshold and became the most populated western country.

-Population for 2100 AD is estimated at 10 billion.

Re: World Population Growth

#77

Post by hx87 »

Symmetry wrote: post #68
drabiega wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that biological evolution is the only systematic effect on population growth rate. I would argue that the fact that we have decreased infant mortality at the same time as decreased population growth is evidence that there are other systematic pressures limiting population growth.

There are certainly things about that modern world that are pushing population growth rates lower. The availability of birth control and more legal rights for women prominently among them. That's why the population growth rate should be leveling out in 80 years or so. But looking forward maybe 800 years, if there are alleles which tend to make people more likely to want and have kids then I would expect the prevalenc…

That 800 year extrapolation assumes that humans won't have access to genomic modification though, which is unlikely. In any case, the number of kids one has is highly culturally and environmentally dependent--the same people whose great grandparents had 4-6 children now routinely have 1-2. Even in a purely natural-selection sense, if "having more kids" were significantly heritable, the process should have been running for all of human history, and it's not like we're having 400 kids per woman these days. Besides, r-strategists don't always beat out k-strategists.

Re: World Population Growth

#78

Post by erispoe »

WildUtah wrote: post #45
weatherlight wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think earth is going to be able to support 9 billion people without some sort of dramatic paradigm shift in the way, as a species, we consume things

We're well on our way to 15+ billion without pause on the current UN projections, so hang on for a scary ride.

Imagine what 15 billion brains can do.

Re: World Population Growth

#79

Post by hx87 »

Lazare wrote: post #11
CalRobert wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? I'm pretty in favour of open borders as an immigrant myself but that statement could do with some supporting evidence.

It's not so much a question of evidence as basic math. Imagine a society with 100 people. A working adult can create 50 widgets per year, and there's 15 kids and 5 retirees. The economy produce 80 * 50 = 4000 widgets per year, which gives a per capita income of 40 widgets. You can have whatever tax, welfare, or income redistribution policies you like, but there's only 4000 widgets to go around. Great. Now let's say 5…

3% is a pretty low number for productivity gains during a span of time when 60% of the existing workforce retires. As little as 24% increase in productivity, or 8 years of 3% annual increases, is enough to have a gain in your example.

Re: World Population Growth

#80

Post by erispoe »

Zigurd wrote: post #64
Frogolocalypse wrote: post #3

All I can say is, if you want to maintain that standard of living in western democracies, you'd better get used to immigration.

Japan appears to contradict this. There might be a debt default, but that will mostly be contained within Japan.

Because Japanese debt is owned by Japanese households, yes. But if it decreases their standard of living, it's not a contradiction, it supports the point. They will pay the price of refusing immigration.
Post reply on HN