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

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#71

Post by dscul »

goradyne wrote: post #68
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.

1. NOT the whole world is heating up. It varies and some places are cooling, but no, generalise. 2. Areas like Russia and upper Asia will provide more arable land, these countries will experience a boon 3. The problem isn't the world, the problem is the sky high population growth in Africa/Middle East. Google "Population of ANY AFRICAN/MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY "

I think everyone wishes you could be correct but the situation where tundra/permafrost areas warm to a point that it is possible farm would cause a catastrophic release of Carbon on par with direct human activity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13079066

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#72

Post by kristianp »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #53
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…

>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.

He/She is probably referring to the "Great Oxygenation Event"

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

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#73

Post by merkleee »

hughes wrote: post #43
mfsamuel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How would any reasonable person think that all humans will completely stop having children? It makes about as much sense to me to continue the trend below zero, and assume that eventually people start consuming children.

Hey, it worked for interest rates.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#74

Post by pierrec »

Balgair wrote: post #62
pierrec wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok, I get what the article you linked to is saying, but I think it's really uninformative. Those graphs are the derivative of the population. What I would most like to see is the absolute number of people on earth over time and then into the future. The derivative, though important, is not as useful (to me) as the absolute number. Hans Rosling has some good TED talks on it, but I think they are probably out of date b…

The graph for the actual population projection was basically linked in the article:

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/

(you have to select "WORLD" in the drop-down)

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#75

Post by pierrec »

naasking wrote: post #61
pierrec wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You can see that the growth is rushing towards zero and almost crosses it in 2100, giving a maximum sometime around 2115. You're not reading that data correctly, or perhaps, you're simply not accounting for the death rate. The death rate will surpass the growth rate in those projections somewhere between 2050-2080, which means population peak will be in that time frame, not a century from now.

Hmm, I think you're the one that's not reading it correctly. The growth rate takes into account both death and birth rates. As Balgair points out, it's simply the derivative of the total population. And the UN's projections do not show population peaking between 2050-2080.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#76

Post by ralfd »

disordinary wrote: post #65
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.

We're already seeing governments like Russia imploring people to reproduce and giving incentives to do so. Also low birth rates in developed countries are in-part affected by the need for both parents to build careers, if the world economy collapses because of declining population (which results in a lack of growth and also soaring healthcare expenses) then we'll probably see reproduction increase again - especially…

Birth rate will never decline to zero, as the next generation will be biased more to whatever it was what made their parents to get kids, and less to what made people childless. For example in the extreme case that Facebook would make people sterile, than some day simply the Amish will rule the US.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#77

Post by eli_gottlieb »

kristianp wrote: post #72
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

He/She is probably referring to the "Great Oxygenation Event" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

I know. I just think we ought to care about our own conspecifics more than about pre-Oxygenation bacteria.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#78

Post by AnimalMuppet »

goradyne wrote: post #68
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.

1. NOT the whole world is heating up. It varies and some places are cooling, but no, generalise. 2. Areas like Russia and upper Asia will provide more arable land, these countries will experience a boon 3. The problem isn't the world, the problem is the sky high population growth in Africa/Middle East. Google "Population of ANY AFRICAN/MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY "

But the problem is, as you go further from the equator, you get less square miles per degree of latitude. So if we lose arable land around the equator, and gain it in Siberia, that's still a net loss of arable land.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#79

Post by fleitz »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #56
stcredzero wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a huge simplification of the famine. The root causes of the famine are generally attributable to rental law in Ireland and the disincentives it created towards farmers investing in land and/or farms scaled to the right size for economies of scale.

Re: I estimate human population to peak in 2065

#80

Post by fleitz »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #77
kristianp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He/She is probably referring to the "Great Oxygenation Event" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

I know. I just think we ought to care about our own conspecifics more than about pre-Oxygenation bacteria.

I think you're confusing not having empathy / caring with not sharing your political views.
Post reply on HN