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

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: World Population Growth

#91

Post by dharma1 »

falsestprophet wrote: post #65
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

In a large part thanks to this guy You mean due to the process discovered by Fritz Haber. It isn't the case that if he hadn't discovered the process in 1909 that in 2016 the human species would still be without it.

Sure, just like if Einstein hadn't discovered relativity someone else possibly/probably would have. And maybe in another part of the multiverse someone else did. It's still interesting to trace back the chain of events that lead us to where we are today, and examine the agents of some of the most impactful events, however incidental they may be

Re: World Population Growth

#92

Post by hx87 »

crpatino wrote: post #87
hx87 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sea…

Ok, this are complex questions... but I will try to address them as best as I can. 1. The guy who first came with the 2 Billion figure in the 1920s was the scientist Raymond Pearl, though the copncept of 'carrying capacity' as we understand it today did not exist. Pearl's work was for the most part statistic/economic; It was Eugine Odum who later picked up that earlier work in the 1950s and applied it to the ecology…

Thanks for the background info, and I think you have a good point about carrying capacity degradation. I don't think "degradation" is a single variable though--it's a trade off current well-being, future well-being, and for a lack of a better word, "nature". We can absolutely provide a high standard of living for 9-11 billion people, but to do so we have to discard our desire to "preserve" the world as it is and actively take control of it to a far greater extent than we do now, i.e. large scale geoengineering.

Re: World Population Growth

#93

Post by WildUtah »

erispoe wrote: post #86
WildUtah wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of clever high-IQ people and engineers will continue falling. It's only the nations and cultures that don't value learning and invention that are expanding.

Care to elaborate on that?

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/our-dumb-world/

and

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

Re: World Population Growth

#94

Post by crpatino »

erispoe wrote: post #78
WildUtah wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assume an infinite number of brains.

Is it still possible to figure out a way to break the Laws of Nature? Yes or no, please.

Re: World Population Growth

#95

Post by logfromblammo »

jackmott wrote: post #18
agd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is a pyramid scheme. Get more and more new people in to pay for those already there. If immigration falls or stop rising you suddenly have a problem. A more robust, sustainable solution is to improve productivity via other means (including automation).

or just be ok with having less shit.

...or murder the retirees, and take their widgets.

The apparently abhorrent option is still an option, if you get desperate enough.

Re: World Population Growth

#96

Post by sangnoir »

agd wrote: post #13
Lazare wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What you're describing is a pyramid scheme. Get more and more new people in to pay for those already there. If immigration falls or stop rising you suddenly have a problem. A more robust, sustainable solution is to improve productivity via other means (including automation).

> What you're describing is a pyramid scheme. Get more and more new people in to pay for those already there

That's how retirement works in most countries. The tax burden mostly falls on the "productive age" (18-65), so until automation pays as much taxes as the humans it replaces (corporate tax dodging considered), retirees in countries with shrinking populations are screwed.

Re: World Population Growth

#97

Post by eveningcoffee »

collyw wrote: post #74
eveningcoffee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, yes. And do not trying intentionally destroy your society.

Re: World Population Growth

#98

Post by b_emery »

WildUtah wrote: post #84
b_emery wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way to long run sustainability is central control of population with mandatory birth limits This is demonstrably not true. Look at Japan and western Europe: declining population. Its a function of economic situation (no need for more than 1-3 children) and female reproductive choice. If we give that to the world, the population problem goes away. The mathematics of population dynamics work for animals, rou…

There are people, even in Japan, that want a whole mess of children. That preference is heritable. Each generation has more of these people because they're the ones that reproduce. Eventually those fertile and natal enthusiasts will dominate the population and exponential growth resumes. The current situation is a temporary response to an external shock, specifically to reliable contraception. But Malthusian conditio…

I respectfully disagree. Your assumption about the preference being heritable is questionable.

Re: World Population Growth

#99

Post by Lazare »

agd wrote: post #13
Lazare wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What you're describing is a pyramid scheme. Get more and more new people in to pay for those already there. If immigration falls or stop rising you suddenly have a problem. A more robust, sustainable solution is to improve productivity via other means (including automation).

Keep in mind that immigration is actually a small part of this; the much much more important element is birth rates. The core issue in the US is that we made promises based on an economy where the baby boom generation was working to support their parents in retirement, but we're going to need to pay up in an economy where millennials are working to support the baby boom generation in retirement.

> A more robust, sustainable solution is to improve productivity via other means (including automation).

Sure, that would be nice. It's also completely impossible. Productivity growth has never, ever, ever grown fast enough to bail us out of the hole we're in now, and we have zero (repeat, zero) ideas on how we could possibly change that.

Productivity growth will not save us.

Post reply on HN