News Is Overpopulation an Important Issue? Examining Solutions

[WhoWee]

I'd have to look, but the topic is world population. People have suggested that the resolution to overpopulation is to remove restrictions on immigration and allow anyone to move anywhere they want, no restrictions. Just let all of the people suffering in bad parts of the world to move into the good parts. I won't continue with their scenarious.

I watched a documentary recently that reminded me of the difficulties regarding the growth of the US. After the Civil War, roughly 150 years ago, the plains opened up to settlement because of the trans-continental railroad. People in Nebraska (for instance) acquired land (160 acres ?) for $10 under the Homestead Act and about 40,000 took advantage almost immediately. The first problem they encountered was a lack of building materials. Accordingly, they built sod houses and shared their homes with insects, snakes, etc. At first the farming went well aside from the 400+ tornadoes that threatened their earthen homes. Next came a few trillion locust that ate the crops - about half of the settlers returned East. It took another decade to make it work and within 2 decades the plains became the breadbasket of the US - self sufficiency was achieved.

My guess is there are a few war-weary places in Africa (for instance) that have fertile soil and people looking for an opportunity - it could work there as well with a sustained effort, lot's of work, and a little luck.

 

[Evo]

I watched a documentary recently that reminded me of the difficulties regarding the growth of the US. After the Civil War, roughly 150 years ago, the plains opened up to settlement because of the trans-continental railroad. People in Nebraska (for instance) acquired land (160 acres ?) for $10 under the Homestead Act and about 40,000 took advantage almost immediately. The first problem they encountered was a lack of building materials. Accordingly, they built sod houses and shared their homes with insects, snakes, etc. At first the farming went well aside from the 400+ tornadoes that threatened their earthen homes. Next came a few trillion locust that ate the crops - about half of the settlers returned East. It took another decade to make it work and within 2 decades the plains became the breadbasket of the US - self sufficiency was achieved.

My guess is there are a few war-weary places in Africa (for instance) that have fertile soil and people looking for an opportunity - it could work there as well with a sustained effort, lot's of work, and a little luck.

No, they're talking about all of the poor from sub-saharan African countires, India, China, moving to places like the US without any immigration laws.

 

[leontd]

The real question is not if whether over population is an issue but rather how to construct a stability system it will not be a conundrum.

 

[WhoWee]

No, they're talking about all of the poor from sub-saharan African countires, India, China, moving to places like the US without any immigration laws.

One of my friends has been sending back photos from a war-torn place in Africa that is dependent upon foreign aid for food - he's been there about 4 months. The grass and plants are plentiful as are reptiles, apes and many others. There is no excuse for these people to not be able to grow crops of some type to sustain themselves and others in the region.

 

[shashankac655]

Just let all of the people suffering in bad parts of the world to move into the good parts. I won't continue with their scenarios.

people suffering in the bad or poor parts of the world are poor people right? so they can never afford to live in expensive western or american cities or places ,it is the rich or the upper middle class people of these countries who move to the US or other developed countries.

So the poor people actually stay in their own country and it is the middle class and the rich who move around, right?

 

[WhoWee]

people suffering in the bad or poor parts of the world are poor people right? so they can never afford to live in expensive western or american cities or places ,it is the rich or the upper middle class people of these countries who move to the US or other developed countries.

So the poor people actually stay in their own country and it is the middle class and the rich who move around, right?

If someone currently lives in a grass hut with an earthen floor - actually "dirt poor" - why would they need to be moved into a new or expensive city? Why subject them to the culture shock?

An upgrade to a small but secure structure built with wood, steel, plastic, or concrete featuring exposed walls and a floor would be quite appreciated. Running water into a sink basin, a toilet, and a light bulb plugged into the end of an extension cord would be a luxury.

 

[Galron]

I think with equity of wealth and technology population tends to become a less serious problem. Populations in Europe for example are almost stagnant overall. If we could bring other countries up to our economic and socio-political level then there's no doubt that the same trend would be reflected in other populations. Also with technological advance comes lower birth rates, in Pakistan for example this is particularly true. In some areas it's quite startling: average sibling numbers have decreased almost exponentially in line with technological advance and access to contraception etc.

It's not so much a problem with population. Europe has massive food surpluses that go to waste most often because of the inequity of the systems the world has. In the 19th century there were many doom and gloom speculations about growing populations, but as ever technology more than outstripped the demands to feed the populace etc at least in developed nations.

Speaking for the UK immigration trends tend to work in our favour, many people come to our country, pay taxes and invest their time and effort doing jobs quite often we wouldn't and don't want to do, they are rewarded and often return to their country of origin and that's not just North Europeans either. There is also a big skills shortage in skilled trades that immigrants fill.

Emigration and immigration in the UK are roughly equal and have been for some time.

 

[mheslep]

Emigration and immigration in the UK are roughly equal and have been for some time.

I think that is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6194354/Mohammed-is-most-popular-name-for-baby-boys-in-London.html"

Mohammed is now the most common name for baby boys born in London

 

[Galron]

I think that is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6194354/Mohammed-is-most-popular-name-for-baby-boys-in-London.html"

It's a fact overall the emigration/immigration levels balance out. Most people just look at what is coming in and ignore the overall trend. The trend generally shows a stagnation, most people who come in eventually leave, overall it tends to balance out. There is an illusory growth in immigration where the radical and often racist proponents will quote short term stats, but it is nonsense.

If you want me to quote statistics year on year I will.

Taking just high population centres (who incidentally have higher than average immigration rates as an overall in comparison with low population centres or x) into account and then posting a silly anecdotal account, is, frankly worthless. Look at the actual figures over the whole country.

 

[Hells]

Wait, are you saying that net immigration is zero because the immigrants return or that successful people exit UK?

 

[shashankac655]

No, they're talking about all of the poor from sub-saharan African countires, India, China, moving to places like the US without any immigration laws.

I'd have to look, but the topic is world population. People have suggested that the resolution to overpopulation is to remove restrictions on immigration and allow anyone to move anywhere they want, no restrictions. Just let all of the people suffering in bad parts of the world to move into the good parts. I won't continue with their scenarios.

If someone currently lives in a grass hut with an earthen floor - actually "dirt poor" - why would they need to be moved into a new or expensive city? Why subject them to the culture shock?

An upgrade to a small but secure structure built with wood, steel, plastic, or concrete featuring exposed walls and a floor would be quite appreciated. Running water into a sink basin, a toilet, and a light bulb plugged into the end of an extension cord would be a luxury.

that's exactly what i was saying ,there is no question of poor people in the developing world moving into the developed world

 

[MarcoD]

that's exactly what i was saying ,there is no question of poor people in the developing world moving into the developed world

Well, as a policy that wouldn't make a lot of sense. The problem is not what the Earth can sustain at the moment, but what the Earth can sustain the moment we practically run out of oil. All the agriculture of the western world is mechanized, in the end, it just transforms oil into food. I have no idea if we can even feed the western population if oil becomes scarce.

In the long run, these people might even be better off with a, for us, backward model of human-intensive but sustainable agriculture.

 

[mheslep]

It's a fact overall the emigration/immigration levels balance out. Most people just look at what is coming in and ignore the overall trend. The trend generally shows a stagnation, most people who come in eventually leave, overall it tends to balance out. There is an illusory growth in immigration where the radical and often racist proponents will quote short term stats, but it is nonsense.

If you want me to quote statistics year on year I will.

Taking just high population centres (who incidentally have higher than average immigration rates as an overall in comparison with low population centres or x) into account and then posting a silly anecdotal account, is, frankly worthless. Look at the actual figures over the whole country.

The Telegraph story was not an annecdote, but drawn from an ONR announcement. Here's more ONR data:

[UK] Net migration is 239,000 for year ending Dec 2010, up from 198,000 year ending Dec 2009.
Emigration is at its lowest since June 2005 at 336,000. Immigration remains steady at 575,000

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2011/msqr.html

Or 1.5 to 2 million in the last decade, and that reflects only the known immigration.

 

[mheslep]

...Also with technological advance comes lower birth rates, in Pakistan for example this is particularly true.

In what sense do you mean? Pakinstan's birth rate is just under four. Mexico, for instance, has a birth rate near replacement level.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...country:PAK:MEX:BRA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

 

[estro]

Mother Nature will address the problem in due course. It might not be pretty.

Every word is cut in stone.
[Translated hebrew expression [it means I could not agree more], hope it's holds its meaning in English.]

 

[flyingpig]

I thought Japan was encouraging birthrates?

 

[mheslep]

I thought Japan was encouraging birthrates?

The birth rate there has in the last couple years stopped its sharp decline, and was up http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...y&idim=country:JPN&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en" and that will decline must accelerate absent a major birth rate uptick, or a sudden, miraculous "y'all come" change to immigration attitudes.

 

[DoggerDan]

Well, as a policy that wouldn't make a lot of sense. The problem is not what the Earth can sustain at the moment, but what the Earth can sustain the moment we practically run out of oil. All the agriculture of the western world is mechanized, in the end, it just transforms oil into food. I have no idea if we can even feed the western population if oil becomes scarce.

Worldwide,* it looks like we have about 64 years left. However, some countries, like Saudi Arabia, have a lot more oil left than other countries such as the U.S. Our reserves, in terms of years, is just one decade, which is one of the reasons we buy so much foreign oil. Canada, meanwhile, has enough to last them 181 years. If they shared it with us, though, it wouldn't last long.

In the long run, these people might even be better off with a, for us, backward model of human-intensive but sustainable agriculture.

Provided the sun holds out, agriculture will be sustainable. Most people might very well indeed have to become farmers, though!

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country

 

[mheslep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Fertilizer", is also needed to sustain modern agriculture. The hydrogen in ammonia is currently obtained from natural gas.

 

[Galron]

Wait, are you saying that net immigration is zero because the immigrants return or that successful people exit UK?

Neither, I am saying overall it balances out. The actual numbers of immigrants in the UK is low compared to somewhere like the US. However the BNP would have you believe that we are being invaded and our culture eroded, it is nonsense.

The Telegraph story was not an annecdote, but drawn from an ONR announcement. Here's more ONR data:

The Telegraph is nearly as bad as The Daily Fail. Question your sources political leanings, The Telegraph is very right wing, there may be some truth to the article but it is spun in a very uninformative and bigoted way usually in The Telegraph. The immigrants, they're tekin r jerbs!

From the wiki:

Political stance

The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times.[15] The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.[15] Even when Conservative support was shown to have slumped in the opinion polls and Labour became ascendant in them (particularly when leader Tony Blair rebranded the party as "New Labour" on becoming leader after the death of John Smith in 1994), the newspaper remained loyal to the Conservatives. This loyalty continued after Labour ousted the Conservatives from power by a landslide election result in 1997, and in the face of Labour election wins in 2001 and the third successive Labour election win in 2005.

Net migration is 239,000 for year ending Dec 2010, up from 198,000 year ending Dec 2009.
Emigration is at its lowest since June 2005 at 336,000. Immigration remains steady at 575,000
Study remains the most common reason for migration to the UK (228,000). 78 per cent are from outside the EU
People migrating to the UK for a definite job is at its lowest since March 2004 at 110,

This statistic means almost nothing. In a recession people upping sticks and moving out is going to be low, so that will upset the figures. Like I say broad trends are much more informative than short term ones.

The trend may look like there is large immigration and low emigration in the short term, and given a single year but generally overall the populations numbers of immigrants aren't growing at anywhere near the levels some right wing organisations would have you believe if they are to any extent at all. 92% of the country are White British people or of mixed British/x descent (a very small minority). Of the rest only a small minority are from outside of Europe and most of those coming from places like Poland return.

In times of hardship the immigrants are always the first target, it's historically always been true, from Germany to anywhere in Europe. Seldom is there much justification. The only country I can really think of that does have a problem with immigration is the US and mostly that is an illegal immigration problem. Whilst I'm not saying illegal immigration is not a problem in the UK, it is not anywhere near as significant as some tabloids like to make out, although it is definitely an important issue. Legal immigration is a positive benefit to this country.

 

[mheslep]

...
This statistic means almost nothing. In a recession people upping sticks and moving out is going to be low, so that will upset the figures. Like I say broad trends are much more informative than short term ones.

Ok, here are the broad trends. http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...y&idim=country:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en", roughly coinciding with the rise of the European Union. If you can provide any other references, please do so; anything else is it seems to me is off topic.

 

[Galron]

Ok, here are the broad trends. http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...y&idim=country:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en", roughly coinciding with the rise of the European Union. If you can provide any other references, please do so; anything else is it seems to me is off topic.

Immigrant numbers as a percentage of UK citizens have remained stagnant for nearly 20 years. There were 86% white nationals with more than one generation living here in 1990, there are exactly the same proportion now. Nothing more needs to be said. You're just buying into racist right wing propaganda. If you care that much vote BNP, it would be a wasted vote but someone's got to do something about the immigrants coming over and stealing our jobs. Increases in immigration don't mean anything, how many of these people will return to their country of origin after say 5/6 years. The fact is a vast proportion of immigrants eventually return home. Your graph doesn't show that, the only thing that does is the ethnic diversity tables, and they are pretty much stagnant and have been for decades.

UK Population has been pretty much stagnant at 60 million for about 30 years also btw.

2001 Census ethnicity results

According to the 2001 Census, the ethnic composition of the United Kingdom was:[14]
Ethnic group↓ Population↓ Proportion of total UK population↓
White British 50,366,497 85.67%

_________________________________

White (other) 3,096,169 5.27%*
White Irish 691,232 1.2%
Mixed race 677,117 1.2%


______________________

Indian 1,053,411 1.8%
Pakistani 747,285 1.3%
Bangladeshi 283,063 0.5%
Other Asian (non-Chinese) 247,644 0.4%
Black Caribbean 565,876 1.0%
Black African 485,277 0.8%
Black (others) 97,585 0.2%
Chinese 247,403 0.4%
Other 230,615 0.4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

I'm panicking, the data from 1991 is pretty much identical btw.






*(Mostly North European immigrants most of whom fill job shortages, and jobs that English people don't want to do. Most of whom return home anyway.)

 

[mheslep]

I'm not particularly interested in pursuing ethnic makeup here, other than to establish immigration facts. Regardless of how many may come and leave later, net immigration into the UK is a ~million per year and the trend is increasing at a ~hundred thousand per year.

UK 1991 to 2001

...Data was collected for Great Britain and comparison shows that the ethnic minority population there grew from 3.0 million in 1991 to 4.6 million in 2001, a rise of 53 per cent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England#Ethnicity" and percentage change of each group over that time (my calculation):
White:*British 0.3%
White:*Irish -10.6%
White:*Other 42.3%
Asian*or*Asian British:*Indian 37.5%
Asian or Asian British:*Pakistani 40.2%
Asian or Asian British:*Bangladeshi 39.5%
Asian or Asian British:*Other South Asian 58.8%
Black*or*Black British:*Caribbean 8.6%
Black or Black British:*African 65.5%
Black or Black British:*Other 30.6%
Mixed 48.7%
Chinese*or*Other:*Chinese 99.2%

 

[Galron]

I'm not particularly interested in pursuing ethnic makeup here, other than to establish immigration facts. Regardless of how many may come and leave later, net immigration into the UK is a ~million per year and the trend is increasing at a ~hundred thousand per year.

UK 1991 to 2001http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England#Ethnicity" and percentage change of each group over that time (my calculation):
White:*British 0.3%
White:*Irish -10.6%
White:*Other 42.3%
Asian*or*Asian British:*Indian 37.5%
Asian or Asian British:*Pakistani 40.2%
Asian or Asian British:*Bangladeshi 39.5%
Asian or Asian British:*Other South Asian 58.8%
Black*or*Black British:*Caribbean 8.6%
Black or Black British:*African 65.5%
Black or Black British:*Other 30.6%
Mixed 48.7%
Chinese*or*Other:*Chinese 99.2%

Your not interested in facts, ok, hope that works out well for you.

The net population of the UK has been fairly stagnant around 60 million for 30 years and doesn't seem to be increasing at any particularly worrying rate, populations in Europe are generally stagnant or increasing extremely slowly. That's another inconvenient fact that you aren't interested in as well. You should probably stop reading the Daily Mail and Telegraph at this point. Clearly they are making you jump to silly conclusions based on nothing. Neither is immigration overall significant in the long term, nor is ethnic diversity shifting, nor is our population growing at any real rate. Ovepopulation scare mongerings bark has always been worse than its bite.

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/...ry&idim=country:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

Notice the trend for Europe is actually decreasing.

net immigration into the UK is a ~million per year

Who cares?

No no it is not, it is that in the short term.

 

[DoggerDan]

I agree. I think that is why we have moved this conversation from what should we do to what would be an ideal number.

I'm all for minimizing our impact, and am a minimalist camper. According to some, however, the ideal number of humans on this planet is 0. I've yet to see any of these folks recycle 100% within the confines of their 1/4-acre lots. They flush their toilets into municipal waste the same as I do.

I see their point, though, as any number of humans on the planet will have an impact. But so do bears, termites, and algae. Should we eliminate them in the sake of all fairness, as well?

Course not, so let's not paint ourselves out of the picture, either.

The thing about various systems competing for natural resources is that there's no "best" answer. If one system, say, humans, grows larger, the others adjust. If it grows too large you may have extinctions, but hasn't Earth always had extinctions? I read that something like 90% or more of all animal life on this planet has become extinct over time, but we're not exactly hurting for diversity, are we? Sure, diversity is currently down, but it always goes down during times of environmental stress. That's normal, just like when it occasionally snows in Florida.

We'll reach over-population when the effects of our level of population itself causes decreases in our population. That happens on a local basis in various places around the world, mainly through famine and disease, the same as deer populations will hit a ceiling if their numbers are not kept in check through natural predation, or, since we eliminated most of their predators, if their numbers are not kept in check through programmed culling (hunting).

When it begins happening on a global scale, I'll worry. I think we're far from that at this point in time. However, that situation is resting on a fragile presumption involving available means of energy required for large-scale production and transportation of food. Absent oil or a suitable replacement, I think we're beyond a sustainable human population.

 

[mheslep]

Here is one way how communities can overcome a severe crisis in resources. Cuba in the early nineties went to a severe crisis because of 80% of their foreign trading with the former east-european countries being lost within a couple of years. This video is about how they solved their problems.

?v=M5o9wJdwYzc

(insert the youtube.com url before, i can't post a link atm)

Robheused, welcome to PF. Couple questions: 1) Could *you* summarize here the response to Cuba's resource limitations? 2) On what basis is the organization "Community Solutions", the maker of that video, credible? Is it possible CS is a propaganda outlet for the Castro regime?

 

[benny61]

Unless we adopt a Chinese attitude there is no way to legally or ethically control the entire worlds population. Tried reading through these 12 pages here, but I think the topicn has gone slightly array.

 

[mheslep]

Unless we adopt a Chinese attitude there is no way to legally or ethically control the entire worlds population. Tried reading through these 12 pages here, but I think the topicn has gone slightly array.

What Chinese 'attitude'? The Chinese government does employ forced control of reproduction. As for whether force is required (much less morally acceptable), see the fertility rate in these countries:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...ZE:PRT:ROM:POL:LVA:AUT:LIE:LTU&hl=en&dl=en_US

 

[mheslep]

Thanks.

As to your question:

1. Summary of response to resource limitations

Well a lot of things needed to be done to replace almost 80% of foreign trade in just a few years, like:

* diversification of all foreign trade relations, esp. focusing on trade partners in latin america.
* exploration and production of domestic oil fields
* replacing tractors with oxes, fertilizers with bio-fertilizers, urban gardening, etc.
* organizing repair and replacements for equipment for which there were no more trading partners.
* a lot of improvising
etc.

Thanks.

2. Why is community solutions (maker of the movie) credible?

On what basis you think they may not?

Cuba does not have a free press, and punishes residents for speaking critically of the government. That does not necessarily mean this movie is misleading, but I am more skeptical as a consequence.

Or, is any movie depicting Cuba outside of the framework of the usual ant-communism by definition suspicious of "collaboration with the Castro regime"?

If for a moment we grant Cuba is often cast in an undeserved stereotype, that does not also mean a non-stereotypical message is accurate either.

Further, the experience the Cubans have had with such a crisis, although it might bring about the idea that other countries could learn something from it, is in no way comparable with what the rest of the world is going to experience when resource limits constrain all kinds of resources and economic activities.

*Why* is Cuba's situation not comparable with the rest of the world? The movie does not address that question, *the* question to my mind, satisfactorily. Other countries have had their primary foreign oil supplies cut off, including the US, without nearly starving the population.

 

[aquitaine]

Further, the experience the Cubans have had with such a crisis, although it might bring about the idea that other countries could learn something from it, is in no way comparable with what the rest of the world is going to experience when resource limits constrain all kinds of resources and economic activities. In fact, let's hope not, because if the western world would need to go through a resource scarcity in which near to 80% off all trades drop down to zero in a couple of years, I would assume all hell would break loose.

Actually the Cuban experience proves absolutly nothing. Cuba's situation was entirely political, a long standing embargo from the US combined with the sudden collapse of their only benefactor prompted the crisis. If anything this is a lesson in how not to manage a geo-political crisis.

And another thing, the Peak Oil "crisis" isn't here. There's still huge quantities of oil that haven't been touched in the South China and in the Arctic. Even when Peak Oil finally happens, it's not like all the oil we use will suddenly vanish the next day. Beware the doom mongering that surrounds this topic.

 

[Astronuc]

Coincidentally, the US Agency for International Development has a program from yesterday through tomorrow to discuss various issues related to the US and the global economy.

https://usaid.crowdhall.com/ (this link may be temporary)

Folks can pose questions. One will recognize familiar names among the panelists.

 

[mheslep]

...
What do you think is inaccurate about the movie?

Aside from the film producer's repeated acceptance of annoying Cuban government platitudes like the "special period", the film omits several facts that are directly relevant to the theme of the film, and misleads in conclusions drawn.

1. The film points out that transportation ground to a halt after the fall of the USSR due to the large use of fuel by its existing fleet and farm equipment, and attributes this problem not to the type of transportation equipment but to the plight of fossil fuel powered vehicles in general. Yet any modern visitor to Cuba is immediately struck by the time warp of 1950s era cars and buses running on the streets, meaning the Cuban fleet uses three, even four times more fuel per mile than the best modern vehicles, with similar ratios in air emissions. I suspect the same is true between the Cuban tractor and a modern John Deere.

2. The film attributes the plight of Cuban agriculture to a straw man caricature of modern agriculture that according to the film has severely damaged Cuban soils. Yet it is known that in ~1970 as part of a central plan Castro commandeered an estimated one million people in a disastrous slash and burn attempt to make Cuba into a one crop sugar cane power house. The impacts of such an attempt on the soil I expect were still relevant at the time of the collapse of the USSR.

There are others, enough for now.

Because Cuba was highly dependend on a small number of foreign trade partners, and that situation was due to the world situation, the cold war (the US embargo put on Cuba after the Cuban revolution), and most of the world was not affected economically by the fall of socialist countries as Cuba, perhaps only the DPRK can be mentioned as having had comparable (or even worse: mass starvation!) consequences due to that.

Circular answer. Yes Cuba was dependent on the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. The question is why? Canada and Mexico are the 2nd and 3rd largest producers of oil and gas in the W. hemisphere. Canada and Mexico have no embargo with Cuba. Consider why Cuba was not able to obtain adequate fuel from Canada. Again Cuba is not singular in its loss of foreign fuel supplies. In the 73 mid east oil embargo Europe and Japan were particularly dependent on mid east oil/gas. Their economies also slowed significantly as a consequence but no where near the point of starvation as reported in the film about Cuba.

The primary fault with the film IMO is it completely omits the responsibility of Cuba's political environment and central planning over the years, now laying the blame instead on nebulous modern technology, industry, agriculture, and fossil fuels, with some smiling Mariachi bands in the background to make the tale appealing.

 

[mheslep]

Recognize that the fertility rates for most of the world's largest countries (by population) have already fallen to near or below the replacement rate, including China. India is on tract to fall below replacement in the next ten years. This leaves Nigeria and Pakistan as the explosive growth centers, requiring attention. Some major countries like Japan and S. Korea have a combination of extreme low birth rates and low immigration meaning that, should the trend continue, within several generations time they won't exist in anything more than geographic terms.

Update on US figures:

CDC just released its 2011 US birth rate / fertility rate report. CDC states the 2011 US rate was the lowest ever reported. General fertility rate 62/1000 women, total fertility rate 1.89 (the metric used by the World Bank in the links above).

 

[lisab]

Update on US figures:

CDC just released its 2011 US birth rate / fertility rate report. CDC states the 2011 US rate was the lowest ever reported. General fertility rate 62/1000 women, total fertility rate 1.89 (the metric used by the World Bank in the links above).

Wow, interesting. I wonder if there will be a baby boom as the economy recovers, to fill the pent-up demand.

Demand for babies...?! Well you know what I mean.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Wow, interesting. I wonder if there will be a baby boom as the economy recovers, to fill the pent-up demand.

Demand for babies...?! Well you know what I mean.

Wouldn't count on it. I doubt it'll rise above 2.0. This is encouraging news, btw. A cursory glance at TFRs throughout the world show a pretty solid correlation between education and sane population growth levels. The problem of the future (think in fifty years when China goes below a billion people) will be underpopulation, not overpopulation. Mark my words.

 

[mheslep]

A more immediate problem will likely be an inversion of the age demographic, where typical family groups include a total of four grandparents, two parents, and one child.

 

[Evo]

World overpopulation continues to be a serious, growing (no pun intended) problem.

That's an optimistic scenario, one that assumes the worldwide average birthrate, now 2.5 children per woman, will decline to 2.1.

If birthrates stay where they are, the population is expected to reach 11 billion by midcentury — akin to adding three Chinas.

Under either forecast, scientists say, living conditions are likely to be bleak for much of humanity. Water, food and arable land will be more scarce, cities more crowded and hunger more widespread.

On a planet with 11 billion people, however, all those problems will be worse.

The outcome hinges on the cumulative decisions of hundreds of millions of young people around the globe.

The relentless growth in population might seem paradoxical given that the world's average birthrate has been slowly falling for decades. Humanity's numbers continue to climb because of what scientists call population momentum.

So many people are now in their prime reproductive years — the result of unchecked fertility in decades past, coupled with reduced child mortality — that even modest rates of childbearing yield huge increases.

"We're still adding more than 70 million people to the planet every year — which we have been doing since the 1970s," said John Bongaarts, a leading demographer and vice president of the nonprofit Population Council in New York. "We're still in the steep part of the curve."

Think of population growth as a speeding train. When the engineer applies the brakes, the train doesn't stop immediately. Momentum propels it forward a considerable distance before it finally comes to a halt.

U.N. demographers once believed the train would stop around 2075. Now they say world population will continue growing into the next century.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...on-matters1-20120722-html,0,7213271.htmlstory

 

[Angry Citizen]

World overpopulation continues to be a serious, growing (no pun intended) problem.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...on-matters1-20120722-html,0,7213271.htmlstory

Most of this growth is coming from Africa, India, and the Middle East. Of the three, India is the most interesting. Its population is not educated, but education programs are effective and will work quite well at reducing their growth rate in the coming decades. But also its death rate is not very high, at least as compared to the Middle East and especially Africa. I suspect India will overtake China in population within the next few decades.

If the Arab Spring pans out, expect to see a lower Arab growth rate as well.

It sounds cold, but continued instability and growing desertification will likely keep the African population from exploding for a long time.

The nightmare scenario is not likely to happen by my estimation.

 

[Evo]

Most of this growth is coming from Africa, India, and the Middle East. Of the three, India is the most interesting. Its population is not educated, but education programs are effective and will work quite well at reducing their growth rate in the coming decades. But also its death rate is not very high, at least as compared to the Middle East and especially Africa. I suspect India will overtake China in population within the next few decades.

If the Arab Spring pans out, expect to see a lower Arab growth rate as well.

It sounds cold, but continued instability and growing desertification will likely keep the African population from exploding for a long time.

The nightmare scenario is not likely to happen by my estimation.

The problem seems to be with emmigration into other countries, IIRC.

 

[mheslep]

Most of this growth is coming from Africa, India, and the Middle East. ...

Most of the global population *growth* is coming from China and India, for now. The primary places where the *rate* of population growth is still strongly positive include Africa, especially Nigeria, the Middle East, and Pakistan.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Most of the global population *growth* is coming from China and India, for now.

Don't count on China exhibiting growth for long. They've essentially neutered themselves (no pun intended) with the one-child policy, especially with the lopsided m/f ratio. Their population is going to be, eh, problematic in a few decades. That's also one reason why I'm not jumping on the "Superpower China" bandwagon like many other people. Their economy is going to be so focused on providing for the security of the elderly that their workforce won't be able to do much else. Think the American "Baby Boomer" problem but about five times larger.

 

[OmCheeto]

A more immediate problem will likely be an inversion of the age demographic, where typical family groups include a total of four grandparents, two parents, and one child.

Unless of course, we go back to the good old days where people worked till they died.

employment to population ratio. 65 and older males​

http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html
Year Male Female
1948 64.6 69.9

The graph and statistic make it look like nearly half of the men did work until they died back in '48.

And it does appear we are trending back, only this time

employment to population ratio. 65 and older females​

the ladies appear to be coming along for the ride.

hmm... It would probably take grandpa, grandma, mom, and dad all working to pay for daycare for that one kid...