9 Billion Earthlings by 2300

[JohnnyO]

Clickity Click

Glad I won't be around in 300 years to see that the worlds population has reached 9billion.

Is it just me or does that number seem low?

[octothorp]

Yeah, that seems like a reasonably healthy number--better than the 12 billion I've heard predicted in the past. As urbanization increases and food production methods become more efficient, it seems as though we could, by 2300, actually have a global infrastructure that could support 9 billion without too much strain on the environment.

[Cowperson]

I thought the number was going to be 11 billion by 2100, which was scaled back to 9 billion by 2100.

Either way, that's a fair sized rise in global population.

Unless there is a global war like, say, The Eugenics War as recalled by Captain Kirk.

Cowperson

[Maritime Q-Scout]

they basically said it was a guess, as any deviation in any one of the variables would cause numbers to drastically change.

I liked some of their hypothesis, but again impossible to test.

Assuming HIV/AIDS spreading slows in 2010, and a cure if eventually found

Assuming no major natural disasters, or major events that effect migration, that would almost surely happen.

Assuming no major civil war, or wars for that matter.

Assuming birthrate drastically falls to 1.85 down from 2.83 in 2000. *IF* the birth rate remains the same (which it won't but still) expect to see 134 Trillion Earthlings (and you think you have trouble finding a parking space at the mall now!)

So really it's all guesses, 9 billion does seem low to me, but I'm not a population forecaster.

[FlamesAddiction]

All species have a natural carrying capacity and population growth cannot continue forever. There comes a point where the population either planes out or crashes. Based on current technology and available resources, 9 billion is the maximum the planet can sustain (in theory).

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Nov 5 2004, 10:43 AM


Assuming birthrate drastically falls to 1.85 down from 2.83 in 2000.

Just a correction there. 1.85 isn't the fertility rate they're predicting. They say that if it falls to 1.85, the population will actually shrink to 2.3 billion. I don't think the article actually says what fertility rate they're predicting, but it would be somewhere between 1.85 and 2.35.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

sorry misread on my behalf (I wasn't studing the article, just a quick back and forward).

[Cowperson]

Meanwhile, Russia's population is in catastrophic decline.

And Europe will see its population fall as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3984951.stm

Cowperson

[octothorp]

Interesting article on Russia, Cowperson. I definitely saw that in effect when I was in Siberia back a few years ago.

I'd be very interested to know what the predictions are for Canada. I seem to recall reading recently that the Canadian population would actually be in decline were it not for immigration. It wouldn't suprise me if, 300 years from now, we were only at about 38 million or so.

[Five-hole]

Good story, Cow.

Oddly, you'll find that the more advanced the nation, generally the far lower the population growth rate. I wouldn't be surprised to see a trend that the more socialist the economy, the lower the birth rate as well.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

never mind.

[Clarkey]

I thought I remembered one of my professors saying that population was supposed to peak in 2050. I guess there are all sorts of varying forecasts out there.

[peter12]

Originally posted by Five-hole@Nov 5 2004, 12:33 PM
Good story, Cow.

Oddly, you'll find that the more advanced the nation, generally the far lower the population growth rate. I wouldn't be surprised to see a trend that the more socialist the economy, the lower the birth rate as well.

Not very odd. With capitalist society comes high surplus, thus the need for many children to work the farm decreases.

Cost of raising children increases dramatically so parents will only have very few and concentrate all their resources on them to make them successful in life.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by octothorp@Nov 5 2004, 06:25 PM
Interesting article on Russia, Cowperson. I definitely saw that in effect when I was in Siberia back a few years ago.

I'd be very interested to know what the predictions are for Canada. I seem to recall reading recently that the Canadian population would actually be in decline were it not for immigration. It wouldn't suprise me if, 300 years from now, we were only at about 38 million or so.

Another interesting country to look at is Japan, which, I think, is fairly racially homogenous and has little immigration, a low birth rate and an aging population.

The USA and Canada are fairly aggressive importers of people from around the world.

Will Europe and Japan have to make that same transition. Can their cultures stand it?

In roughly 1970, National Geographic had an issue exploring population trends which I'm pretty sure hinted at 7 billion by 2000. We ended up a little short of that. I'll look the issue up when I get home - an inheritance from my father, NG's from 1963 onward.

Cowperson

[Incinerator]

Whatever, it's beyond all of our lifetimes, why worry about it? Just live it up lol...

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Incinerator@Nov 5 2004, 12:58 PM
Whatever, it's beyond all of our lifetimes, why worry about it? Just live it up lol...

Yeah, and that line of thinking has got us where we are today: a trashed, overpopulated, dying planet. Woo hoo. :angry:

[Bertuzzied]

Unless the Peak Oil theory hits. Then with billions dead our population would settle at 1.5 billion. Scary stuff!( if you were 10 years old.) hehe

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/