No Population Bomb
theratchet.ca
No Population Bomb
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: No Population Bomb
#2Interesting article but a bizarre conclusion. We may not encounter another population bomb but we are in the process of living through one right now. "The longest period of exponential population growth for any organism… ever. " If that doesn't describe a population bomb, nothing does.
Re: No Population Bomb
#3Interesting article but a bizarre conclusion. We may not encounter another population bomb but we are in the process of living through one right now. "The longest period of exponential population growth for any organism… ever. " If that doesn't describe a population bomb, nothing does.
It can describe the bomb that went off a long time ago.
Re: No Population Bomb
#4Check out another talk by Hans Rosling where he visually demonstrates that 10 billion figure: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.h...
Re: No Population Bomb
#5Interesting article but a bizarre conclusion. We may not encounter another population bomb but we are in the process of living through one right now. "The longest period of exponential population growth for any organism… ever. " If that doesn't describe a population bomb, nothing does.
I think the term "population bomb" as it is used here means reaching a critical point in the population where it because a kind of natural disaster characterized by famine and other problems that result from running out of natural resources, etc.
Re: No Population Bomb
#6http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/09/overpopulation.ph...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/
"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."
-----
In the long term, there's no reason not to expect further exponential growth once human psychology and physiology are removed from the picture as the main drivers of whether or not population expands. The earth could support vastly more people than it does even with today's technology. Once it is possible to create intelligences very rapidly, and when there are non-human intelligence creators involved in the picture, I'd expect to see a vast explosion of sentience and colonization.
Re: No Population Bomb
#7"If current economic development trends continue we should expect the average person's income in India and China (for example) to reach the same levels of the U.K., U.S.A., and Japan by 2048."
This is within my expected lifetime, and my children will be at the peak of their careers during that time. It will be a different world.
I'm reminded of Yancy Fry Sr.'s advice to Fry: "Someday, you may face adversities so preposterous, I can't even conceive of them."
Re: No Population Bomb
#8Really informative article. But comparing us to regular organisms is certainly a mistake.
I do believe the UN conclusion is correct by 2050 our birth/death rate will match and a decrease in population.
Re: No Population Bomb
#9Population drives consumption and resource use. The clock has been ticking since the population exceeded the estimated ecological carrying capacity of the earth. In this sense, the population today puts us in a much more urgent situation than it would otherwise be.
Re: No Population Bomb
#10I wonder if the lower frequency in nation-state warfare is an effect of increasing education levels of females?