64,974,748,284,874,298,473,628,964,836,637
or thereabouts. 
dhanson, Who, or what, is the Club of Rome?
I think the UN’s predictions have been notoriously low. Do you believe the US Census Bureau’s predictions?
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
Aaaaargrrgghhh!
I hate being sucked into this mess.
Which, of course, is why they have constantly had to be revised downward!
Have you ever in your life actually read any of the messages to which you respond?
If the U.N. estimates future populations and they continually have to change those estimates by lowering the numbers as they get closer to the target dates, that clearly indicates that they overestimated the populations. Their estimates are notoriously too high, not too low.
Tom~
John John wrote in the OP:
John John later quoted the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1996 world population profile as stating:
So, according to your own data, the rate of population increase over the last 10 years was 2.00% per year, while the projected rate of population increase over the next 25 years will be 1.07% per year.
Sounds like good news to me!
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
tom
Thomas, you are sooooooo challenged. UN has faulty data and underestimates population. You need to rely on more accurate information, as provided by Sierra Club, Greenpeace, ZPG, Population Council, to name a few.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
quote:
These projections also show world population reaching a level of 7.6 billion persons over the next quarter century
So, according to your own data, the rate of population increase over the last 10 years was 2.00% per year, while the projected rate of population increase over the next 25 years will be 1.07% per year.
Sounds like good news to me!]]tracer
Going from 6 billion to 7,6 billion in 25 years sounds like good news to you? Adding 1.6 billion more people in just 25 years is good? That’s like say, “the bad news is your gonna die but the good news is you have one year to live.”
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
Before I begin, John Johnknow that accusing anyone of living in L.A. is a flame of the worst order. Take it to the Pit, please.
All right. Because you obviously won’t listen to actual facts, preferring to listen to political groups’ misinterpretation of those facts, and because I’m concerned that the learned heads of dhanson and *Akatsukami and others are about to explode, I declare the right to hijack to this thread.
Your most recent theory regarding the UN’s alleged bias in population studies is pure claptrap, since the UN insists on spending megabucks on population measures despite the findings of their very own scientists. Which segues nicely into my hijacking.
There are essentially two things behind the modern “population control” movement. The first is the desire of corrupt governments to receive foreign dollars, which said governments can redirect for their own nefarious purposes.
The other is racism. That’s right, you read correctly. The rich white populace of the world running around telling the poor black and brown people in the world that the Big Problem[sup]TM[/sup] is that they are having too many babies is racist. The fact that the motivation is not bigotry, but rather a different kind of ignorance entirely, does not make the proposed polices any less racist in outcome.
So rather than blathering on about how we should be telling the poor people of the world just how many babies is the correct amount for them (I presume that this is your population control prescriptive, as opposed to actually killing people), why don’t you spend some time trying to devise ways in which some of these new poor people might become new rich people, with increasing access to the bounties that this earth and its resourceful people make available to you and me?
Here, I’ll start you off. First, instead of less immigration, the rich countries of the world (the U.S. first and foremost) should have more. And not just professors and programmers and professional athletes, either, but cab drivers and dishwashers and accountants and machinists and students and chefs. Second, the rich free countries of the world (again, the U.S. first) should do more to ensure the spread of the freedom and capitalism that have allowed us to prosper. That means no more supporting evil regimes, no more loaning money to “friends” like Indonesia and Singapore that suppress dissent, no more “crony capitalism” to bail out fiscally irresponsible governments like Brazil.
I trust you can pick up from there. Best of luck.
Manhattan
I guess I lost my head.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
John John writes:
And they get their population data from…?
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
akats
Andorra
United Arab Emirates
Afghanastan
Antigua and Barbuda
Anguilla
Albania
Armenia
Netherlands Antilles
Angola
Argentina
Ascension Island
American Samoa
Austria
Aruba
Azerbajan
bosnia
Barbados
Bangladesh
Belgium
Burkina Faso
Bulgaria
Bahrain
Burundi
Benin
Bermuda
Brunei
Brunei Darussalam
Bolivia
Brazil
Bahamas
Bhutan
Belarus
Bouvet Island
Botswana
Byelorussian SSR
Belize
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Central African Republic
Congo
Cantons of Helvetia
Confederation Helvetique
Switzerland
Cote D’Ivoire
Cook Islands
Chile
Cameroon
China
Colombia
Commercial Organization
Costa Rica
Czechoslovakia
Cuba
Cape Verde
Christmas Island
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Deutschland
Germany
Djibouti
Denmark
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Algeria
Ecuador
Educational Institution
Eslovaquia
Estonia
Egypt
Western Sahara
Spain
Ethiopia
Finland
Fiji
Falkland Islands
Malvinas
Micronesia
Faroe Islands
France
Gabon
Great Britain
Grenada
Georgia
French Guiana
Guernsey Islands (inc Alderney, Sark and Brethou Islands)
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greenland
Gambia
Guinea
Government
Guadeloupe
Equatorial Guniea
Greece
Guatemala
Guam
Guinea Bissau
Gyana
Hong Kong
Heard and McDonald Islands
Honduras
Croatia
Hrvatska
Haiti
Hungary
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
The Isle of Man
India
British Indian Ocean Territory
Iraq
Iran
Iceland
Italy
Jersey Island
Jamaica
Jordan
Japan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Cambodia
Kiribati
Comoros
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Korea - Democratic People’s Republic of
North Korea
Korea - Republic of
South Korea
Kuwait
Cayman Islands
Kazakhstan
Lao
Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic
Laos
Lebanon
Saint Lucia
Liechtenstein
Sri Lanka
Liberia
Lesotho
Letonia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Lybia
Morocco
Monaco
Moldova
Madagascar
Marshall Islands
Military
Macedonia
Mali
Myanmar
Mongolia
Macau
Northern Mariana Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Montserrat
Malta
Maldives
Mauritius
Malawi
Mexico
Malaysia
Mozambique
Namibia
New Caledonia
Niger
Networking Organisation
Norfolk Island
Nigeria
Nicaragua
Netherlands
Norway
Nepal
Nauru
Neutral Zone
Niue
New Zealand
om
org Oman
Non-profit Organization
Panama
Peru
French Polynesia
New Guinea
Papua
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Pakistan
Poland
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Pitcairn
Puerto Rico
Portugal
Palau
Paraguay
Qatar
Reunion
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Solomon Islands
Seychelles
Sudan
Sweden
Singapore
Saint Helena
Slovenia
Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands
Slovakia
Sierra Leone
San Marino
Senegal
Somalia
Suriname
Sao Tome and Principe
Soviet Union
U.S.S.R.
El Salvador
Syria
Syrian Arab Republic
Swaziland
Turks and Caicos Islands
Chad
French Southern Territories
Togo
Thailand
Tajikistan
Tokelau
Turkmenistan
Tunisia
Tonga
East Timor
Turkey
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Taiwan
Tanzania
uz Ukraine
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States Minor Outlying Islands
United States
United States of America
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Venezuela
Virgin Islands (UK)
Virgin Islands (US)
Vietnam
Vanuatu
Wallis and Futuna Islands
Samoa
Yemen
Zuid Africa/South Africa
Zambia
Zaire/Democratic Republic of Conga
Zimbabwe
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
Akatsukasmi, one thing you all fail to grasp when you quote declining birth rates is, billions more people will be have the projected 2.5 births instead of few numbers having 3, 4.
If 4 million people have 4 births with high mortality rate, as opposed to 7 million having 2.5 births with decreased mortality rate, which will be the greater number?
Get fresh batteries. Are you anywhere near Southberry,Woodbury Ct?
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
In just one decade we went from 5 to 6 billion people on the planet. What is the limit that this planet can sustain without degredation to the environment?
250 million. Humans don’t react very well when they are jammed in among each other.
Mark
“Think of it as Evolution in action.”
Gee, John John, that list looks an awful lot like the list of member nations of the U.N. So, are you saying that the Sierra Club, et al. take the same data that the U.N. does, and throw out the parts that they don’t like, or that they somehow have a different source of data from these nations?
As for declining fertility rates, you seem to have not grasped the fact (perhaps because the Sierra Club daren’t admit it) that fertility rates are dropping through the replacement rate, and, contrary to the U.N.‘s previous and Bongaarts’ current beliefs, aren’t rebounding.
As for your little arithmetic conundrum:
it depends on the mortality rates; I’ll have to re-read the IIASA studies to decide what the use of “high” vs. “low” mortality is.
Since we’re doing these arithmetic puzzles, what will result in the higher population in 2100: 6 million people whose crude birth rate drops from 2.5 to 1.5 in that period, or 6 million people whose crude birth rate stays at 2.2?
I’m not particularly near Southbury now, BTW, but I will be in a couple of hours.
Mark Serlin writes:
Which, of course, explains why the Netherlands is in a constant state of bloody, internecine gang warfare. We must get Coldfire to drop by here and regale us with tales of the atrocities committed in that conflict.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
John-John says:
This would be laughable if it weren’t so scary. These should be the last organizations one should trust for objective, unbiased findings.
The more politicized an organization is, the more there is a chance for bias. This goes for left-wing, right-wing, green-wing, whatever.
Groups with a ‘cause’ depend on a wide political base (votes and money) in order to propagate their message and implement their ideas. This in itself is not a bad thing. There are all sorts of causes with varying degrees of nobility (depending on whose opinion you listen to). We expect this from politicians, activists, concerned citizens, etc… Again, I’m not saying this is bad.
The nefarious part is when political groups try to disguise themselves as scientific and unbiased. Unsuspecting people may actually believe that the groups mentioned above are apolitical or objective. They are not. They have a definite agenda, and surprise, surprise, the only findings they cite will support their cause. Imagine that.
It’s bad enough when the bias comes in the interpretation of research results or statistical findings; but when the actual results/findings are jimmied or ignored, well, all credibility is lost. The organizations listed above have zero credibility in my book, not because of their general intentions, but because of their ‘propagate the message at all costs’ mentality, which requires that the message look a certain way, regardless of reality.
John-John, here is a challenge to you. Provide me a few citations for original research funded by one of the groups you mentioned and published in a widely-accepted,peer-reviewed, scientific publication such as Science, Nature, Ecology, Ecological Monographs, Marine biology, American Naturalist, Coepia, JEMBE, Limnology and Oceanography, to name a few. I realize I run the risk of hijacking this thread into biology rather than population growth, but that is my area. Maybe we can proceed along parallel thought lines. You demographers may want to add other publications pertinent to your specialty.
Articles published in lay magazines do not count for this challenge, nor do interpretations of other people’s research.
And do not merely post a list of articles you happen to agree with. I’m already accusing you of selective perception and the interpretive twisting of the research of others; you don’t need to embarass yourself further by reinforcing that image.
drivemaster
Which is why I discount the UN and some of their findings on this matter. Very Third World, Left Wing.
I’ll try to drop a line to the organizations and see if they’ll provide me with what you’ve asked.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
Drive, I’ve just sent off three emails to get the info you requested. If I’m able to I’ll post what they send me, although I already know that you will disparage them when, and if, they do not agree with your view.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
Another list of countries. I think ** John John** is just trying to see how long he can make this thread go.
Maybe this post will start Page Five?
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Yeah, that’s right, John. The UN bases its whole operating philosophy on inflating the population for nefarious purposes.
Quick, John you must alert the authorities!!!
[sorry jab1, still page 4]
The UN?
left wing?
compared with the Sierra Club and Greenpeace???
you’re kidding, right?
[still page 4]
