How to estimate the future global population

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on estimating future global population growth, particularly for the year 2050. Participants reference the Verhulst model and logistic growth curves as mathematical frameworks for predicting population dynamics. Key factors influencing population growth include age-class distributions, fecundity, and mortality rates, with significant emphasis on how human intervention can alter these variables. The conversation highlights the complexities of modeling population growth due to unpredictable social and technological changes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Verhulst model for population growth
  • Familiarity with logistic growth curves
  • Knowledge of fecundity and fertility definitions in population ecology
  • Awareness of demographic factors such as age-class distributions and mortality rates
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Verhulst model and its applications in population studies
  • Explore logistic growth models and their relevance to human populations
  • Study the impact of age-class distributions on population dynamics
  • Investigate the role of technological advancements in altering carrying capacity
USEFUL FOR

Demographers, ecologists, policymakers, and anyone interested in understanding the complexities of global population predictions and the factors influencing demographic changes.

kthouz
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody!
I have been reading about the evolution of population growth since 1950 till now. It had many factors such as development of technology, of medecine, ...
Now i want to calculate the future population growth let's say for example for 2050. In those readings i found also those estimations but my problem is what type of models to they use to predict it? For example i know the IPAT model that describe the impact of population on environment. As there exist that one, do there exist one that can predict the future population?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
The population in 2050 will likely be somewhere between 0 and 50 billion. IMHO if you want to be more precise with any certainty you'll simply have to wait until 2050.
 
Please, i just need mathematical proofs! Being there should be one of them but not a scientific one.
 
One of the reasons it is hard to model is because K - carrying capacity - can and has been changed by humans, mostly through technology.

google for Verhulst model or logistic difference model. Modern models are generally based on some sort of logistic growth curve.
 
jim mcnamara said:
google for Verhulst model or logistic difference model. Modern models are generally based on some sort of logistic growth curve.

Thanks a lot! This replied to my question. Is it possible to combine this last model, i.e Verhulst model, with the IPAT model to predict the population that should live on Earth such that it is in equivalent with the environment!? Of course it is another question but if there are some pre-made models for this calculation, please let me know.
 
This http://www.arcytech.org/java/population/facts_math.html
seems to have a decent discussion of age-class distributions, predator-prey (or morbidity and death rates), emigration & immigration, density-dependent inhibition, fecundity - and so on.

age-class distributions and the age of onset of menses (controls fecundity) are the biggest determinants for modern human population growth in developed countries - period.

Example: a female having one child at age 15 has more impact on pop. growth rate than does a female who starts having children at age 28 and has three offspring. A population (all things being equal which they never are) made of females of type #1 has a higher Malthusian r than does a population of type #2.
 
I'm not sure if you're using fecundity correctly...unless your example wasn't meant to illustrate fecundity at all. Terms such as fertility and fecundity are frequently misused.

Fecundity is basically live birth rate per insemination attempt. You can't really compare the fecundity of the 15 y.o. and 28 y.o. in your example without knowing how many times each has had unprotected intercourse.

Fertility refers to the number of conceptions per insemination attempt, whether or not they lead to a live birth.

These terms both get tricky with humans, though, because we don't just mate once per ovulatory cycle. So, sometimes you can determine fertility rate as a ratio of conceptions to ovulatory cycles in which insemination was attempted, and fecundity as the ratio of live births to those same ovulatory cycles.

These aren't terribly useful numbers in predicting human population changes, though, as they refer more to potential for offspring production. More useful would be generation intervals (as your example illustrates between the 15 y.o. vs 28 y.o. having a first child) and actual numbers of offspring over a woman's reproductive lifespan.

The biggest difficulty, as has been pointed out in this thread already, is that humans can tinker with their own variables, making most models pretty useless. Will there be another medical breakthrough in the next 40 years that increases lifespan significantly? Will people's views on things like euthanasia change significantly enough to shorten the average lifespan? In talking about global population, what political influences will change in the next 40 years? Will infant, child and maternal mortality be significantly reduced in developing nations? It's all imprecise at best.

At least I can predict that immigration and emigration are not likely to be significant within the next 40 years...otherwise we'll have some really interesting S&D discussions. :biggrin:
 
Moonbear said:
I'm not sure if you're using fecundity correctly...unless your example wasn't meant to illustrate fecundity at all. Terms such as fertility and fecundity are frequently misused.

I disagree. Not that the terms are misused - but what fecundity means.

Please Reference Chapter 52 -
Campbell, N.A., Reece, J.B. et al. (2008). Biology.
8th edition. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc.

Fecundity, as defined by most texts in the field of population ecology,
is the live birth rate for females, period. Not corrected for any other factors,
sort of a max possible r as in N1=N0*e^rt. We take a very mammal-centric view.

It is not a measure of the potential number of oocytes or copluations or anyhting else.
It is the observed value.

Let's use humans.

Assume menses starts at age 15, ends at age 50; menstrual cycle
duration is 28 days; and our perfectly average woman never becomes pregnant;
one follicle matures per period. This gives:
eggs produced == (365.25 * 35)/28 ~ 456 follicles shed. Human do not have
450 offspring - so this measure is pointless. Rates of intercourse resulting
in fertilization are affected by all sorts of things - nutrition, for example.

This is the basic reason why Population Ecologists use fecundity to mean
birth rate as it was observed. Not follicle production, copulation rates or anything else.

Sorry for the late reposnse to Moonbear's post but this little post took me
30 minutes -- time which I don't have in large quantities anymore. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
46
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K