6 billion?

posted 11-11-1999 05:30 PM

dhanson

I’m in a bit of a quandry as to why these groups differ in projections sharing the same numbers? Is the UN actually in agreement with these other groups but just uses the lower variant so as not to alarm the world abouot the inevitable? Do the other groups use the higher variant to alarm the world to take action and head off problems in teh future?

You mistake attack with question. You will of course note that I did not hide the information I received, but, instead, chose to share it for your evaluation?

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

Veg

You don’t bring anything to the table, except your appetite for feuding over that which you do not know.

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

John John, I think what you are missing is the selective way in which your organizations are using the data. They are posting selective excerpts in order to make the situation seem worse than it is.

Have a look at this chart:
<table border=0>
<tr align=center>
<td>
Figure I. World population size: past estimates and medium-, high- and low fertility variants, 1950-2050

  *(billions)*

<img src=“popin.org” border=0>
<font size=-1>Source: United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 1998 Revision, forthcoming.</font>
</th>
</tr>
</table>

These are the projections until the year 2050 for the three variants. Notice that they look fairly similar. This is because there is a fair amount of inertia in population growth. If today’s population suddenly decided to have only one child each, the population would still grow, until the parents who had the kids died. When the children reach reproductive age, the growth in population will slow, but there will still be people from the previous generation who can have kids, so it won’t slow as much. But the population will begin to age, since the youngest component is the smallest. As the age bubble moves through the population, replacement slows, and then suddenly you hit a point at which the only contributers to population growth is the generation that was one half the size of its parent’s generation. Now as the old population dies, you start to see a radical decrease in the size of the population. But it takes time, because humans live 80 years or more.

So, the really important question is, “What happens after 2050, when those of us alive now start to die?”

Have a look at this next chart:<center>
<table border=0>
<tr align=center>
<td>
Figure II. Proportion of total population aged 0-14 and 60 and over, more
and less developed regions, 1950-2050

  (medium variant projections)

  &lt;img src="http://www.popin.org/pop1998/f1-2.gif" border=0&gt;
  &lt;font size=-1&gt;*Source*: United Nations Population Division, *World Population Prospects: The 1998 Revision*, forthcoming.&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;

</tr>
</table>
</center>

The striking thing is that the youngest generation is shrinking rapidly under the medium variant model. The real effect of this will be seen after the year 2020 or so, as the much larger, older percentages of the population start to die. The process will then begin to accelerate.

My point? If you want to overestimate the ‘bad news’ in the population projections, ignore what happens after 2050. Or, do a linear extrapolation using a short segment of the growth curve. This is what ZPG has done in the past. A straight-line extension of the population numbers gets you a constantly increasing population. So, you write something like this, “Using the U.N.'s numbers, the population will increase from 6 billion in 2000 to 10.5 billion in 2050. If that rate of increase stays the same, by 2100 there will be 15 billion people on the planet.”

The statement uses the U.N.'s numbers (the high variant), and it’s factually correct, but it’s highly dishonest. Because the U.N’s numbers don’t suggest anything of the sort.

Looking at the graphs, it’s easy to see that the slope of the curve is decreasing on the medium and low variant models. It’s also decreasing on the high variant, but it’s not easy to see on this graph. In fact, on the low variant the population actually begins to decrease after about 2037, after reaching a peak of 7.5 billion.

More dishonest tactics: I can even make statements like this - “Even the U.N’s lowest estimate, the ‘low variant’ has the population increasing by 1.5 billion over the next 30 years. At that rate, there will still be over 10 billion people on the planet by 2100. That’s the best we can hope for!” Again, this statement is factually correct, but neglects the far more important point that under the low variant the population will begin to collapse after this date, hitting 3.6 billion by 2100.

THAT is why the statements from your organizations don’t seem to match the data.

This page has gotten so hard to read because of the lack of right, left borders. My fault, sorry. Can we fix that somehow, or just fill up the page in order to start a new page? Will the new page be free of the border problem?

I’ve seen those charts and get the impression that no matter whose interpretation you use there will be an increase over present figures, which is really the point, if you think present figures are too high. Where does the UN get it’s figures from? I think they partially rely on the US Census Bureau.

hanson, if we are not taking care of the present world population what makes you think we’ll do better with a few billion more?

From the UN, which you might find interesting:
THE STATE OF WORLD POPULATION 1999
C H A P T E R 2
Population Change and People’s Choices

Population Continues to Grow, and to Grow Older
At the beginning of the 20th century, the world’s population was approximately 1.5 billion; by 1960 it had doubled; and by late 1999, it had quadrupled to 6 billion. The global population is unlikely ever again to grow as fast as it has in the last few decades and particularly the past 12 years, in which a billion people were added.

Annual additions to the global population rose from 47 million per year in 1950–1955 to a peak of 86 million in 1985–1990. This unprecedented growth was the net result of faster declines in mortality than in fertility, both from initially high levels. As a consequence, the fourth, fifth and sixth billion marks in global population were achieved in only 14, 13 and 12 years, respectively.3

Today, a “demographic transition” from high fertility and mortality to low fertility and mortality is under way or has already occurred in much of the world. In many respects, the less-developed regions are now about halfway through this transition, approximately where the more-developed regions were a half-century ago.

Death Rate Cut by Half
The most important story behind the rapid rise from 3 to 6 billion people since 1960 is the unprecedented drop in mortality. This trend actually began in the 19th and early 20th century, but intensified after World War II as basic sanitation, clean drinking water and modern health care became more available in larger areas of the world. Since 1950, the death rate has been cut in half, from about 20 to fewer than 10 deaths per year per thousand people. At the same time, average global life expectancy has risen from 46 to 66 years.

The world’s population is healthier from infancy through old age than it ever has been. Global infant mortality has fallen by two thirds since 1950, from 155 per thousand live births to 57 per thousand; this rate is projected to be reduced by a further two thirds by 2050. Maternal mortality has also declined, but much more slowly and less generally (see Chapter 3). Other promising health trends include improvements in immunization levels and health education.

One positive effect of lengthening life-spans and better medical treatment has been that the annual number of deaths actually fell by more than 10 per cent between 1955 and 1975 even as nearly 1.5 billion people were added to the world population. Subsequently the number of deaths began to increase. The current number of deaths per year, 52 million, is the same as in 1950, when the population was less than half the size it is today.

Death rates have declined substantially in the less-developed regions since 1950, but have remained roughly constant in the more-developed regions because of their greater proportion of older people.

Fertility is Declining, but Unevenly
The number of births per year rose from 98 million in 1950 to a peak of 134 million in the late 1980s, and is projected to remain just under 130 million for the next 20 years while death rates slowly rise as the global population ages.

Although only a very few countries have declining populations, 61 countries (with about 44 per cent of the world’s population) already have below-replacement fertility rates (less than 2.1 births per woman). The number of such countries is projected to grow to 87 by 2015, encompassing about two thirds of the world’s population.

On the other hand, in 2050, 130 countries will still have positive growth rates, 44 of them above 1 per cent per year, about the rate observed in more-developed regions in 1965.

In 1950-1955, the average fertility rate in the more-developed regions was 2.8 children per woman; it has since dropped to 1.6 and is projected to begin a slow rise, to 1.8, by the middle of next century. In the less-developed regions, the fertility rate was almost 6.2 in 1950; it was slightly less than 3 by 1999, and is projected to fall to less than 2.1 by 2045.

Death rates have fallen by half since 1950,
accounting for much of the rapid growth of world population.

Fertility has declined most quickly in Latin America and Asia, less rapidly in North Africa and the Middle East, and much more slowly in sub-Saharan Africa. Asia’s fertility fell sharply in the last 50 years, from 5.9 to 2.6 children per woman. Sub-Saharan Africa’s has dropped much more slowly, from 6.5 to 5.5. Latin America and the Caribbean have seen a decline from 5.9 to 2.7, North Africa and Western Asia from 6.6 to 3.5.

Europe’s fertility rate fell from 2.6 to 1.4, well below replacement level. On the other hand, Northern America’s fertility fell from 3.5 in 1950-1955 to 1.8 in the late 1970s, and then rebounded to the 1.9 to 2.0 range, where it has remained. It is projected to stay around 1.9 to the middle of the 21st century.

Variations between and within regions, and among different population groups within countries, remain considerable. Some nations, such as Brazil and the Republic of Korea, have moved swiftly to near-replacement level or below; others, such as Nigeria and Guatemala, have seen only a slight fall in fertility rates. However, the pace of decline has varied dramatically in different parts of both Brazil and Nigeria.

Hopes of finding a simple and consistent explanation for the demographic transition 4 have been repeatedly dashed by the realities of data on local experiences.5 In fact, there is no tight statistical link between development indicators and fertility rates, and the reasons for fertility decline are widely debated by demographers, economists and policy makers. While development is still considered an important factor, it remains unclear why fertility transitions occur earlier in some places than others. The pace of development does not appear to affect the initiation or the rate of fertility transition. However, once a transition has begun, fertility declines more rapidly in countries with higher levels of development.6

Helping women and men to realize their family size desires
It seems clear that the family size desires of men and women are influenced by a variety of factors: mortality declines; increased social opportunity, especially for women; employment opportunities; incomes; and educational access. Women and men cannot realize these desires, however, without the means to translate social opportunity and choice into action. The creation and progressive strengthening of population programmes over the last 30 years 7 — along with the development and distribution of more-effective and safer forms of contraception — has been a crucial catalyst in reducing fertility rates.8 Population programmes have been given credit for about half the decline in fertility since 1960. 9
Since the ICPD, they have adopted an approach based on individual rights and needs.

Population programmes have been crucial
in reducing fertility rates in the past 30 years.

The spread of information about family planning techniques and new ideas about social issues — including the rights of women to reproductive health and equality of opportunity — facilitates the fertility transition.10 Discussion and debate among relatives, friends and neighbours, the diffusion of ideas between communities, and mass media images trigger changes in preferences and fertili

John John, that article repeated, albeit in more detail, everything that I have said.

[li]The population will continue to grow for some time regardless of fertility rates, because of momentum.[/li]
[li]A generation from now, growth of the population will be dictated by average fertility rates throughout that period[/li]
[li]The reasons for lowering fertility are not clearly understood, but there is no doubt that the entire world is undergoing a decrease in fertility. We don’t understand why some countries are decreasing faster than others, however.[/li]
[li]There is no doubt that the world’s population will grow by at least one billion people over the next 50 years, but after that it could A) continue to grow, B) Stabilize at around 11 billion by 2100, or C) Shrink to as little as 3.6 billion people.[/li]
So, do we agree on these conclusions? Let’s get past the ‘my data is better than yours’ stuff.

Something you won’t see in any of this data: There have been a number of recent papers which indicate fertility decrease is continuing even faster than the last U.N. numbers in 1998. Expect another adjustment to the U.N. models in 2000 or 2001, and expect it to revise the numbers downwards yet again.

If anything is frightening about these numbers, it’s the possibility of a global population meltdown. The percentage of population in developed nations is dropping rapidly. Under the low variant model, many countries will suffer serious problems with respect to care for the elderly and a lack of manpower to provide basic services. Japan is particularly vulnerable, because it doesn’t have a lot of immigration, and the fertility rate is still dropping there. The big worry is that Japan’s population will be cut in half, with most of those left being of retirement age. The size of the productive workforce may be so small that the elderly can’t be cared for. The U.S. and Canada are facing the same problems, but not to the same degree because of immigration.

One more thing: If you accept these numbers, there is no point arguing about whether the Earth can handle another 1.5 billion people. It’s going to get them, under all three variants. There’s nothing we can do about that, because the processes that cause it are already in motion.

Unless of course you advocate genocide.

So, the discussion of the population problem can really only concern itself with the situation after 2050, when any steps we could take now will have an effect.

dhanson

Since we have established that we share data, the argument of whose is better is moot. I think INTERPRETATION of the data is at issue. I will allow that the organizations I follow may use the high variant to impress the need for change. This is not a bad thing. Would you agree? I also feel that without them the population bomb would tick much faster. Would you agree?

You of course realize that another 1.5 billion in the next decade would have a destabilizing effect on the world?

I c&p’d your post so I could read it better.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

John John writes:

Yet the U.N. publication that he quotes to support this includes such phrases as “Death Rate Cut by Half”, “The world’s population is healthier from infancy through old age than it ever has been”, and “Throughout the developing world, literacy and years of schooling have increased for both males and females over the last four decades”.
Now, the publication does refer to the “impact of AIDS”, which is a serious and immediate problem in terms of death and suffering. It seems not to mention food distribution (food *production/i>, however, is adequate). Both of these, however, are more political than technical in both their causes and solutions, as dhanson and divemaster have previously pointed out.
(The mention of “political” solutions, incidentally, inevitably leads us into questions of “policy”. If we suppose that people will be resistant to following necessary policies on handling sewage, why should we imagine that they will meekly submit to “policies” on limiting family size?)
In the OP of this thread, you wrote:

Note that that question is very different from “how many people should this planet have?”. The former question is more technical, the latter question more philospohical. Considering the latter question also leads to another question: “If another nation or group radically disagrees with our answer, what do we do about it?”


“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

Geez, Rich, next thing you know, Kingsley’s gonna show up and call you a “thread killer.” :wink:

Well, that depends on how it is presented. If it is presented as the U.N.'s conclusion without mentioning the other models, it’s intellectually dishonest. The high variant represents the upper bound on what the U.N. considers possible, but is not the most likely result. And it is getting more and more unlikely every day as new data comes in to verify the other two models.

But these organizations don’t stop there. As I said, a common tactic is to to do a straight-line extension of the population function and use that as an ‘estimate’. Since all three variants have a curve that is decreasing in slope, any straight-line extrapolation would result in an estimate that would be way too high. Whenever you see phrases like, ‘At the current rate of growth’, or ‘if things don’t change’, you can guess that someone has jiggered with the real numbers in order to inflate a claim.

John John wrote about Veg:

I know you are, but what am I?

Lord, is this page hard to read.

(Doing what I can to start a new page.)


Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.

I just emailed David B…hopefully he can fix the sidescrolling problem.

Yeah, this is too hard to read. Will Dave B be able t ofix it?


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

John John

email from POP Council

I think all the organizations are in agreement that the World Population is growing steadily.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

Normal borders again. Thank you. Was that you, David B.?

It is not growing ‘steadily’. The rate of growth is slowing. And in the near future, population growth will most likely stop, and even begin to reverse itself.

I’m a fan of hard numbers. Rather than just spouting platitudes about the hungry and the growing population, let’s get specific: How much population is ‘too much’? And why? And what price are you willing to pay to reduce it, both in terms of cash and human rights? If you are going to take political action, you have a responsibility to have an answer to those questions.

First, it seems clear to me that we are nowhere near any limits in terms of the population causing extra human suffering, other than in localized areas. We’ve doubled the Earth’s population in the last 50 years, and at the end of that time we have more resources available than we ever had, we grow more food per capita than we ever have, and humans live longer and better than they ever have. Our ability to cope with increased population has grown much faster than the population itself, and it looks like this trend is increasing. So… will 7.5 billion hurt our standard of living? How about 9 billion? 20 billion?

The second issue is one of damage to the planet. If you see humans as being a sort of parasite outside of nature, then there is no question that a population of even one human does ‘damage’. So what level of population is tolerable? And why?

In partial answer I’d note that pollution levels have been going down in most major cities, and that an important factor is that we are in the process of converting from a heavy-industry industrial economy into an information economy. Our ability to produce wealth is relying less on brute force manipulation of our environment and more on ‘soft’ technologies that rely on intelligence. This is also a trend that is escalating. Smart cars are more fuel efficient and cleaner. Telecommuting trades hydrocarbon burning for bits on a phone line. Computer-controlled machining produces parts with much less cutting waste. CAD/CAM design allows more parts to be stamped out of metal blanks. And the list goes on, and on, and on.

dhanson

WORLD POPULATION IS GROWING. That is what your beloved source, UN, says.

"Population Council demographer John Bongaarts who gets his information from UN source: Current trends in reproductive behavior differ sharply between regions and should not be confused. “In the already crowded developing world, despite plummeting fertility rates, both the number of births and population size will keep growing,” he says. "The expected addition of several billion more people will hamper ongoing efforts to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development."

A fast, short recap. All these organization share information on world population figures, low, mid and high variant but differ on the interpretation of which variant they adopt as probable in the future. They all say that we will add billions more in a short time, if current trends continue, as they seem to be. Since you love numbers it cannot escape you that more numbers, as predicted by all, producing more births with low mortality will produce greater population. Greater population means more of a drain on resources, poverty, hunger and the potential for land grab wars. remember our current energy source is finite. We seem to dumb to use the sun and wind more.

How would the world intervene to stop the burgeoning world population? I’m not sure, but that is one of the topics I was hoping to discuss in this thread. Something should be done to head off disaster.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

Yup, it was me. (What’d you think, some other message board God came in? :wink: )


Dave b.

There shall be no craven images or strange Gods before thee.

Oh,and, thanks, Falcon, for thinking of alerting Dave to the prob.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille