# What would be the ideal world population? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 16, 2015, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150 "2015-03-16T22:33:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e79b87/32.png) [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Joker_and_the_Thief)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/21 "2015-03-17T16:05:38Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > This thread isn’t about genocide or eugenics, it’s just a simple opinion poll. You don’t have to explain how to get to the desired number, just what the desired number would be. Looking at the ends without considering the means is intellectual masturbation. The methods that would have to be used to reduce the population are so morally repugnant they change the result of what is desirable. Frankly, this whole discussion reeks of an overarching sense that “those people” aren’t good enough for this world. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/22 "2015-03-17T16:32:44Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > Frankly, this whole discussion reeks of an overarching sense that “those people” aren’t good enough for this world. Yea, well, have you seen how some of “those people” drive? And some of them can’t even speak English! ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/23 "2015-03-17T16:37:47Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I wonder what they think of the process whereby we select and eliminate 90 to 99% of the current population. Or slower, but almost equivalently, require 90 to 99% of the current population to not reproduce. By force if necessary, and it will be necessary. You can get to a lower population without force. As people get richer, they reproduce less. Doesn’t take that many generations of less-than-replacement reproduction to get down to 10% or even 1%, assuming we have the technology to maintain our standard of living with a smaller population. I think the ideal population is far bigger than 10 billion. Sure, there are problems with energy use and environmental protection, but more people means more art, more innovation, more progress. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/24 "2015-03-17T16:44:24Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > The methods that would have to be used to reduce the population are so morally repugnant they change the result of what is desirable. You mean like getting everyone in the world to the first-world level of economic standing, so populations naturally level off and decline? And giving everyone the birth control they want? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/25 "2015-03-17T17:05:38Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > Any of the people I do Living History with, a majority of the Amish – lots of different people. Being interested in a particular historical period isn’t the same as wanting to actually live in that period as opposed to the present-I’m fascinated by the Romans and the early Anglo-American colonists but that doesn’t mean I want to live in Rome in 100 AD or in 1700 Boston. Even the Amish have benefited from modern medicine and the like. > [@](#): > > Turn back the clock to say 1750 or earlier? I could manage that. Yes I’m sure most people would agree with you about the desirability of life expectancy being 35, half of children dying before the age of five, the population being regularly ravaged by typhus, smallpox, and dysentery; and famine still being a danger for most of the world population. :dubious::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e79b87/32.png) [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Joker_and_the_Thief)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/26 "2015-03-17T17:19:24Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > You can get to a lower population without force. As people get richer, they reproduce less. Doesn’t take that many generations of less-than-replacement reproduction to get down to 10% or even 1%, assuming we have the technology to maintain our standard of living with a smaller population. > > I think the ideal population is far bigger than 10 billion. Sure, there are problems with energy use and environmental protection, but more people means more art, more innovation, more progress. This is not true. The US population birthrate is [approximately 1.86 children per couple](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/us/us-sees-decline-in-births-for-sixth-year.html?_r=1), while the average [generational interval is 25 years](http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/03/01/how-long-is-a-generation/). If birthrates all over the world instantly collapsed to US levels, it would take ~800 years to reach 10% of our current population and ~1,600 years to reach 1% of the population. In reality, it would take even longer, since birthrates in less-developed countries will take a long time to reach western levels. Math: number of years to reach target population=generation interval_ln(target percentage)/ln(total fertility rate_.5) > [@bup](#): > > You mean like getting everyone in the world to the first-world level of economic standing, so populations naturally level off and decline? And giving everyone the birth control they want? So we need to drastically reduce the amount of people on this earth because we cannot support the current population at a western standard of living. And to to reduce the amount of people, we will raise everyone to a western standard of living. Flawless logic. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/27 "2015-03-17T18:58:24Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > This is not true. The US population birthrate is [approximately 1.86 children per couple](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/us/us-sees-decline-in-births-for-sixth-year.html?_r=1), while the average [generational interval is 25 years](http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/03/01/how-long-is-a-generation/). If birthrates all over the world instantly collapsed to US levels, it would take ~800 years to reach 10% of our current population and ~1,600 years to reach 1% of the population. In reality, it would take even longer, since birthrates in less-developed countries will take a long time to reach western levels. > > Math: number of years to reach target population=generation interval_ln(target percentage)/ln(total fertility rate_.5) Keep in mind that US birth rates are higher than many European countries. That could shorten your calculations by a bit Also, third-world rates are dropping rapidly. Africa should be close to the break-even point by 2100. Now… whether 80 years to break-even and 800 years to 10% seems “long” is relative, I suppose… but given that it took it up a couple thousand to get here, reversing that trend in less than one thousand seems solid to me. In any event, we do have reserves of key resources that I think (with some technology) can easily maintain the current population. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/28 "2015-03-17T19:02:10Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Being interested in a particular historical period isn’t the same as wanting to actually live in that period as opposed to the present-I’m fascinated by the Romans and the early Anglo-American colonists but that doesn’t mean I want to live in Rome in 100 AD or in 1700 Boston. Even the Amish have benefited from modern medicine and the like. > > Yes I’m sure most people would agree with you about the desirability of life expectancy being 35, half of children dying before the age of five, the population being regularly ravaged by typhus, smallpox, and dysentery; and famine still being a danger for most of the world population. :dubious::rolleyes: Not to mention- no Internet! No cross-communities at all, or almost. You would probably never meet someone outside of your small town or village. You’d marry within and so would your kids. I would never, ever turn back the clock, not even for ten billion dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/29 "2015-03-17T20:26:45Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > Looking at the ends without considering the means is intellectual masturbation. The methods that would have to be used to reduce the population are so morally repugnant they change the result of what is desirable. Frankly, this whole discussion reeks of an overarching sense that “those people” aren’t good enough for this world. Bullhooey. Yes, this is intellectual masturbation. That’s what we do here. Look at the poll regarding the Zombie Apocalypse and Racism. Are you telling me we’re forbidden to talk about it because there aren’t any Zombies? Geddaddahere. We can presume, without loss of generality, that the reduction in population came about voluntarily, by universal consensus, without regard to “those people,” applying universally, across all boundaries of race, ethic origin, religion, or language. We can ever presume that some people will still have immense families. Others won’t. You leap to the most unfavorable conclusion, without one microgram of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/30 "2015-03-17T20:43:08Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > So we need to drastically reduce the amount of people on this earth because we cannot support the current population at a western standard of living. Really? Can you back that up? ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/31 "2015-03-17T20:52:22Z")
In the name of Athena daughter of Metis, etc., who the fuck voted for less than 10,000? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/32 "2015-03-17T20:52:29Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Really? Can you back that up? I believe he was attempting Socratic irony with that post; however, he misunderstood my point, so he was left saying something that doesn’t refute what I said nor represent his viewpoint. I _think_. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/33 "2015-03-17T20:54:04Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I wonder what they think of the process whereby we select and eliminate 90 to 99% of the current population. Or slower, but almost equivalently, require 90 to 99% of the current population to not reproduce. By force if necessary, and it will be necessary… You mean the process whereby we raise the worldwide standards of living and education, especially for women, such that people naturally gravitate towards less than replacement levels of children? _That_ horrible, horrible process? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/34 "2015-03-17T21:38:30Z")
Oh, but it comes with social pressure and even incentives and rewards! It’s social engineering, and you know who else practiced that! ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/35 "2015-03-17T21:46:08Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > This is not true. The US population birthrate is [approximately 1.86 children per couple](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/us/us-sees-decline-in-births-for-sixth-year.html?_r=1), while the average [generational interval is 25 years](http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/03/01/how-long-is-a-generation/). If birthrates all over the world instantly collapsed to US levels, it would take ~800 years to reach 10% of our current population and ~1,600 years to reach 1% of the population. In reality, it would take even longer, since birthrates in less-developed countries will take a long time to reach western levels. What makes you think that the current US birthrate is the right number to use here? In the 60s, the US birth rate was 3.5 or so, and we were clearly on a trajectory for explosive population growth. But it has halved in about 50 years. The same thing happened to the global birth rate. No reason to expect that it won’t continue to drop, and continued drops in birthrates could result in 10% or 1% of current population levels _much_ more quickly than 800 years. > [@](#): > > So we need to drastically reduce the amount of people on this earth because we cannot support the current population at a western standard of living. And to to reduce the amount of people, we will raise everyone to a western standard of living. Flawless logic. I think you’re conflating multiple issues. The original thread isn’t about a necessity to reduce the population for environmental concerns. It’s just about what people would prefer the population to be. And the post you’re quoting was just a response to a question about how the population could be reduced. We (maybe) can’t support the current population at a western standard of living with current technology and energy sources. If we assume that we aren’t going to get better technology and that we need to reduce the population in the near term, then I agree that non-coercive means to reduce the population will probably not be effective. But both of those assumptions are assumptions you’ve introduced to this thread. And at least the first one is probably wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/36 "2015-03-17T21:55:47Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > Looking at the ends without considering the means is intellectual masturbation. The methods that would have to be used to reduce the population are so morally repugnant they change the result of what is desirable. Frankly, this whole discussion reeks of an overarching sense that “those people” aren’t good enough for this world. Werd. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/37 "2015-03-17T22:36:23Z")
Given the trajectory of technology, industrialization and medicine, I find it hard to choose any option other than 10+ billion. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/38 "2015-03-17T22:41:14Z")
2-4 billion. Do I get to pick which people? Because that is important too. One benefit of a larger population is more smart people and problem solvers. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/39 "2015-03-18T00:31:35Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Presumably you’re a man! Guilty. Although I do know a few women who, even with all you point out, would be willing as well. > [@Velocity](#): > > But what if you need, say, heart surgery someday? Where’s the technology? I’ve been living on technology, so to speak, since I was 29. If everyone is in the same boat as me I don’t know what I would be missing so no harm and no foul. And after watching several loved ones die of _old age_ I question if more is always better. > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Being interested in a particular historical period isn’t the same as wanting to actually live in that period as opposed to the present-I’m fascinated by the Romans and the early Anglo-American colonists but that doesn’t mean I want to live in Rome in 100 AD or in 1700 Boston. Even the Amish have benefited from modern medicine and the like. > > Yes I’m sure most people would agree with you about the desirability of life expectancy being 35, half of children dying before the age of five, the population being regularly ravaged by typhus, smallpox, and dysentery; and famine still being a danger for most of the world population. :dubious::rolleyes: Being interested in is a world away from those of us who actually do spend a lot of time and effort living as our ancestors did. And you can roll your eyes all you want but come up with the tech and I’m betting I could fill the first 50 slots for a one way trip by Saturday. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150/40 "2015-03-18T02:48:04Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > Guilty. Although I do know a few women who, even with all you point out, would be willing as well. Yes and there are some women who support ISIS. Probably more in fact. > [@](#): > > I’ve been living on technology, so to speak, since I was 29. If everyone is in the same boat as me I don’t know what I would be missing so no harm and no foul. And after watching several loved ones die of _old age_ I question if more is always better. Average life expectancy in the 18th Century was around 35 not because everyone died in the prime of their lives before they got old and disgusting but because a large propotion of individuals died in their infancy. Dying even painfully and protractedly in old age after having lived a real life is better than not having experienced life at all. Of course if you grew old, dying would have been an even worse experience in 1750. And here we are both assuming knowledge-and yet you claim you’d rather live in 1750. > [@](#): > > Being interested in is a world away from those of us who actually do spend a lot of time and effort living as our ancestors did. And you can roll your eyes all you want but come up with the tech and I’m betting I could fill the first 50 slots for a one way trip by Saturday. Yes and you’d get more volunteers if someone invented a time machine to go back to Antietam to aid the Southern Confederacy or to save Von Paulus’s army at Stalingrad. Of course you didn’t bother addressing any of my points. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-ideal-world-population/715150.md?page=3)