World Population Guesstimates: We A-Headin' *Down*

[smac97]

Here: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.single.html

Some excerpts (emphases added):

The world’s seemingly relentless march toward overpopulation achieved a notable milestone in 2012: Somewhere on the planet, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the 7 billionth living person came into existence.

...

A somewhat more arcane milestone, meanwhile, generated no media coverage at all: It took humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6 billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown. (The 2 billionth, 3 billionth, 4 billionth, and 5 billionth took 123, 33, 14, and 13 years, respectively.) In other words,

the rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.

And then it will fall.

This is a counterintuitive notion in the United States, where we’ve heard often and loudly that world population growth is a perilous and perhaps unavoidable threat to our future as a species. But population decline is a very familiar concept in the rest of the developed world, where fertility has long since fallen far below the 2.1 live births per woman required to maintain population equilibrium. In Germany, the birthrate has sunk to just 1.36, worse even than its low-fertility neighbors Spain (1.48) and Italy (1.4). The way things are going,

Western Europe as a whole will most likely shrink from 460 million to just 350 million by the end of the century. That’s not so bad compared with Russia and China, each of whose populations could fall by half.

...

American media have largely ignored the issue of population decline for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened here yet. Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration. This has helped us not only by directly bolstering the number of people calling the United States home but also by propping up the birthrate, since immigrant women tend to produce far more children than the native-born do.

But both those advantages look to diminish in years to come. A report issued last month by the Pew Research Center found that immigrant births fell from 102 per 1,000 women in 2007 to 87.8 per 1,000 in 2012. That helped bring the overall U.S. birthrate to a mere 64 per 1,000 women—not enough to sustain our current population.

Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.

Why is this happening? Scientists who study population dynamics point to a phenomenon called “demographic transition.”

“For hundreds of thousands of years,” explains Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics at Stony Brook University, “in order for humanity to survive things like epidemics and wars and famine, birthrates had to be very high.” Eventually, thanks to technology, death rates started to fall in Europe and in North America, and the population size soared. In time, though, birthrates fell as well, and the population leveled out. The same pattern has repeated in countries around the world.

Demographic transition, Sanderson says, “is a shift between two very different long-run states: from high death rates and high birthrates to low death rates and low birthrates.” Not only is the pattern well-documented, it’s well under way: Already, more than half the world’s population is reproducing at below the replacement rate.

...

In developed countries, childrearing has become a lifestyle option

tailored to each couple’s preferences. Maximizing fertility is rarely a priority. My wife and I are a case in point. I’m 46, she’s 39, and we have two toddlers. We waited about as long to have kids as we feasibly could because we were invested in building our careers and, frankly, enjoying all the experiences that those careers let us have. If wanted to pop out another ankle-biter right now, our ageing bodies might just allow us to do so. But we have no intention of trying. As much as we adore our little guys, they’re a lot of work and frighteningly expensive. Most of our friends have just one or two kids, too, and like us they regard the prospect of having three or four kids the way most people look at ultramarathoning or transoceanic sailing—admirable pursuits, but only for the very committed.

That attitude could do for Homo sapiens what that giant asteroid did for the dinosaurs.

If humanity is going to sustain itself, then the number of couples deciding to have three or four kids will consistently have to exceed the number opting to raise one or zero. The 2.0 that my wife and I have settled for is a decent effort, but we’re not quite pulling our weight.

Are we being selfish? Or merely rational? Our decision is one that I’m sure future generations will judge us on. Assuming there are any.

How many times have Mormons been scolded by their critics for advocating large families? We've been told that large families are a blight on the planet, and that the Church's teachings on this point are irresponsible, even selfish.

And yet this article seems to suggest that Mormons are picking up the demographic slack, and that people who are choosing to have fewer children are "not quite pulling (their) weight."

So huzzah for the Mormons! Demographic heroes! Saving humanity from self-imposed extinction since 1830! (Oh, and huzzah for Catholics and Muslims too!)

Also, I would be interested to see data about fertility rates of self-identified secularists.

Thanks,

-Smac

[halconero]

I gotta get married.........

[rongo]

This also means that power will shift in favor of those who do have (and value) large families. In societies that have average family sizes of "one-point-something," demographic groups that continue to have 4-7 children per couple on average will gain exponentially disproportionate power and influence over generations (if it is sustained over generations).

[The Nehor]

I see our plan for world domination is on track. Good to hear. Also good to know that flourinating the commies' water supply lowered their fertility as planned. When do we start Phase II?

[Calm]

Russia is concerned enough about the drop that they are engaging in incentives for women to get pregnant....and stay pregnant, iirc. It will be interesting to see how far countries will go to incentivise having larger families once the decrease in population starts messing with revenue intake. If people aren't having more kids because it is so "frighteningly expensive" then the government may need to step in and subsidise more than it is currently doing, hopefully in a way that encourages those who want kids to have them rather than turning motherhood into a moneymaking proposition.

Another way to drop costs is to stop expecting that part of the requirement for healthy kids is expensive extracurricular activities and high end possessions. It is always astonishing to me how so many well off couples complain about the cost of raising children when middle and lower income families manage well enough and count every penny spent a blessing no matter the struggle.

[Kenngo1969]

I gotta get married.........

Ay, there's the rub!

[Kenngo1969]

... It will be interesting to see how far countries will go to incentivise having larger families once the decrease in population starts messing with revenue intake. ...

It already is: when Social Security was inaugurated in the 1930s (1935 or so), the ratio of those paying in to those receiving payments was something like 13:1. Now, it's more like 3:1 ... and falling! They may not want to admit it, but that statistic is really messing with the dreams of those who envision a Cradle-to-Grave Entitlement State. (Or maybe they just don't care, thinking that they can just enact their pet program(s) and let those who are still here when the bills come due (since they won't be) worry about that!

[thesometimesaint]

There is actually a $2 Trillion surplus in SS. Any shortfall after 2030(When the last of the Boomers retires) can easily be handled by lifting the SS tax cap on incomes over $110 thousand dollars.

[Analytics]

There is actually a $2 Trillion surplus in SS. Any shortfall after 2030(When the last of the Boomers retires) can easily be handled by lifting the SS tax cap on incomes over $110 thousand dollars.

“Surplus” is the wrong word. The Social Security trust fund has over $2.5 trillion in assets, but it is insufficient and forecast to run dry in about 20 years. If nothing is done to increase revenue, decrease benefits, or change the law, by default everybody’s benefits will drop so that each year’s taxes pay for that year’s benefits. This would be about a 20% drop in benefit level.

It already is: when Social Security was inaugurated in the 1930s (1935 or so), the ratio of those paying in to those receiving payments was something like 13:1. Now, it's more like 3:1 ... and falling! They may not want to admit it, but that statistic is really messing with the dreams of those who envision a Cradle-to-Grave Entitlement State.

Actually, it’s messing with the dream of being able to retire at 65 in general. Private retirement schemes face the same demographic reality. A few lucky ones will be able to have a long and comfortable retirement, but the vast majority will need to keep working until they no longer can.

So huzzah for the Mormons! Demographic heroes! Saving humanity from self-imposed extinction since 1830!

And hooah for those with limit their families to zero- to-two kids! Saving the world from apocalyptic overpopulation since 1928 (the year penicillin was discovered).

[blackstrap]

Ah yes,penicillin and all the other cillins, what a bane on human natural selection. What we really need is a good old fashioned 1918 flu epidemic and a couple of big world wars and a ruthless social intervention to keep the population down to acceptable levels.

" A Modest Proposal " comes to mind.

[go_utes01]

What we need is some sort of final solution to get rid of those undesirables that are currently leading to "apocalyptic overpopulation." The myth of overpopulation is just that.

[The Nehor]

There is actually a $2 Trillion surplus in SS. Any shortfall after 2030(When the last of the Boomers retires) can easily be handled by lifting the SS tax cap on incomes over $110 thousand dollars.

This is the best solution. Someone should also kick off World War III so we get a new baby boomer generation. Someone get on that.

[thesometimesaint]

What we need is some sort of final solution to get rid of those undesirables that are currently leading to "apocalyptic overpopulation." The myth of overpopulation is just that.

No one here is talking about getting rid of people. We're talking about the difference between the average couple having 2 children and 3 children. 2 is not enough for replacement and 3 is too many.

Just depends on how well you want to live. Without outside resources one cow on one acre lives very well, two cows on one acre not much different. At 10 cows on one acre life becomes hard, at 10,000 cows on one acre life becomes problematic. Same goes for people.

[Analytics]

No one here is talking about getting rid of people. We're talking about the difference between the average couple having 2 children and 3 children. 2 is not enough for replacement and 3 is too many.

Just depends on how well you want to live. Without outside resources one cow on one acre lives very well, two cows on one acre not much different. At 10 cows on one acre life becomes hard, at 10,000 cows on one acre life becomes problematic. Same goes for people.

Exactly. We need to figure out a way to live in balance with our environment. IF the population grew exponentially, it would absolutely reach the point where the environment couldn’t sustain it, and the resulting death would be horrific.

In terms of the long-term well-being of humanity, the fact that we are no longer growing exponentially is a wonderful thing. The fact that this wonderful thing is happening largely because of the free choices of individuals is the best possible scenario.

[go_utes01]

You made your original point about the discovery of penicilin potentially leading to what you termed "apocalyptic overpopulation" as if the discovery of life-saving medicines or technology that prolong lives is somehow a bad thing. That was what I was responding to. We are nowhere near apocalyptic overpopulation. I have faith in human ingenuity (with some heavenly inspiration) that has been shown to contradict your point about cows. The population of the earth has been increasing and your implied correlation of the quality of life necessarily decreasing is simply false. In other words, humans are not cows. We have found ways to make our pasture more productive and allow for a greater number of cows to enjoy it and edify one another in the process.

[thesometimesaint]

You made your original point about the discovery of penicilin potentially leading to what you termed "apocalyptic overpopulation" as if the discovery of life-saving medicines or technology that prolong lives is somehow a bad thing. That was what I was responding to. We are nowhere near apocalyptic overpopulation. I have faith in human ingenuity (with some heavenly inspiration) that has been shown to contradict your point about cows. The population of the earth has been increasing and your implied correlation of the quality of life necessarily decreasing is simply false. In other words, humans are not cows. We have found ways to make our pasture more productive and allow for a greater number of cows to enjoy it and edify one another in the process.

People just like any other living creature be it people, cows, or porcupines needs food, water, and some type of shelter. The environment must provide it or life becomes problematic. On this planet there are finite resources, and this is the only planet we know of that can support life as we know it.

How do you know that? What is the correct number of people we can support given what resources we have?

I'm a big fan of science. But there are limits to what it can do. The Green Revolution in food production was wonderful. However it is highly dependent on fossil fuels. Something God isn't making fast enough, to meet our ever expanding wants for the stuff. So we have to either cut down on our wants, or some people will have to go without. Going without food is kinda tough.

Of course God can save us from our own folly, but that tract record isn't a good measure. He seems to let us do pretty much as we want while here on earth.

Edited January 11, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Analytics]

You made your original point about the discovery of penicilin potentially leading to what you termed "apocalyptic overpopulation" as if the discovery of life-saving medicines or technology that prolong lives is somehow a bad thing. That was what I was responding to. We are nowhere near apocalyptic overpopulation. I have faith in human ingenuity (with some heavenly inspiration) that has been shown to contradict your point about cows. The population of the earth has been increasing and your implied correlation of the quality of life necessarily decreasing is simply false. In other words, humans are not cows. We have found ways to make our pasture more productive and allow for a greater number of cows to enjoy it and edify one another in the process.

The nature of reality is that we can’t grow exponentially forever. Sure, people are a resource and technology can dramatically change the carrying capacity of the planet. Nevertheless, those things have boundaries. Exponential growth does not.

If you haven’t taken time to watch “The Most Important Video You’ll Ever See”, please take a look.

The reason the dramatic improvements in mortality that we enjoy aren’t leading to apocalyptic overpopulation is because a lot of people are choosing to have fewer kids. People having fewer kids is a wonderful thing because it allows those who want more kids to responsibly do so.

[thesometimesaint]

Exactly. We need to figure out a way to live in balance with our environment. IF the population grew exponentially, it would absolutely reach the point where the environment couldn’t sustain it, and the resulting death would be horrific.

In terms of the long-term well-being of humanity, the fact that we are no longer growing exponentially is a wonderful thing. The fact that this wonderful thing is happening largely because of the free choices of individuals is the best possible scenario.

Agreed.

[go_utes01]

I am all for individuals making their own decisions concerning how many children they want/have (although I am 100% against using evil methods to control the number of children, e.g. killing unborn babies or infanticide). What I am against is what I perceive as some people shaming others into having less children, or implying that having children will lead to the destruction of the earth or an apocalypse (you know, like some of the rhetoric in this very thread). The truth is we are nowhere near the current carrying capacity of the planet and we have no real idea what that number will be in the future with technological innovation.

It reminds me of the overpopulation hysteria of 60's and 70's and the "Population Bomb" - how did those predictions turn out?

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..

However, in reality the global death rate has continued to decline substantially since then, from 13/1000 in 1965–74 to 10/1000 from 1985–1990. Meanwhile the population of the world has more than doubled, while calories consumed/person have increased 24%.

Edited January 11, 2013 by go_utes01

[Tacenda]

I am all for individuals making their own decisions concerning how many children they want/have (although I am 100% against using evil methods to control the number of children, e.g. killing unborn babies or infanticide). What I am against is what I perceive as some people shaming others into having less children, or implying that having children will lead to the destruction of the earth or an apocalypse (you know, like some of the rhetoric in this very thread). The truth is we are nowhere near the current carrying capacity of the planet and we have no real idea what that number will be in the future with technological innovation.

It reminds me of the overpopulation hysteria of 60's and 70's and the "Population Bomb" - how did those predictions turn out?

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..

However, in reality the global death rate has continued to decline substantially since then, from 13/1000 in 1965–74 to 10/1000 from 1985–1990. Meanwhile the population of the world has more than doubled, while calories consumed/person have increased 24%.

Years ago, a neighbor's daughter attended Weber College where the professor brainwashed them (her husband too) from ever having children. It was so odd, they even married in the temple. But since have lived in communes etc., not in Utah. Now they are back in Utah, but still no kids, bad for the environment I guess. And they would have been good parents but made the environment no. 1.

[go_utes01]

Years ago, a neighbor's daughter attended Weber College where the professor brainwashed them (her husband too) from ever having children. It was so odd, they even married in the temple. But since have lived in communes etc., not in Utah. Now they are back in Utah, but still no kids, bad for the environment I guess. And they would have been good parents but made the environment no. 1.

Sad.

[thesometimesaint]

I am all for individuals making their own decisions concerning how many children they want/have (although I am 100% against using evil methods to control the number of children, e.g. killing unborn babies or infanticide). What I am against is what I perceive as some people shaming others into having less children, or implying that having children will lead to the destruction of the earth or an apocalypse (you know, like some of the rhetoric in this very thread). The truth is we are nowhere near the current carrying capacity of the planet and we have no real idea what that number will be in the future with technological innovation.

It reminds me of the overpopulation hysteria of 60's and 70's and the "Population Bomb" - how did those predictions turn out?

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..

However, in reality the global death rate has continued to decline substantially since then, from 13/1000 in 1965–74 to 10/1000 from 1985–1990. Meanwhile the population of the world has more than doubled, while calories consumed/person have increased 24%.

I am too. Absolute numbers is less important than quality. But that doesn't mean quantity doesn't matter. If one knows themselves well enough to have just two-three children. It would be ludicrous to insist that they have ten, just to fulfill some religious desire to fill the whole earth.

Math matters. It takes an average of 2.33 children per couple to meet replacement. Three children produces more than replacement. It is impossible to have a third of a child. So some couples must have less than 3. I prefer the voluntary route. Which over time will stabilize the population.

To go blindly on the faith that somehow in the future we'll figure out how to feed, house, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for an ever increasing population is dangerous nonsense. We are using our resources faster than God is making them. In the short run that can be done, and may even lead to economic advantage, but over the long run it is unsupportable.

http://en.wikipedia....orld_population

It is estimated that if we all lived like Indian peasant farmers we could carry about 15-20 billion people. However even the peasant Indian farmers don't want to live like that. They just like us want a nice middle class lifestyle. Where are the resources now to do that?

Edited January 11, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Analytics]

I am all for individuals making their own decisions concerning how many children they want/have (although I am 100% against using evil methods to control the number of children, e.g. killing unborn babies or infanticide). What I am against is what I perceive as some people shaming others into having less children, or implying that having children will lead to the destruction of the earth or an apocalypse (you know, like some of the rhetoric in this very thread).

What about the reverse of that? Specifically, pressuring people to have large families because if they don’t, they’ll be driving the race to extinction? We’re hearing that rhetoric in this thread, too.

The truth is we are nowhere near the current carrying capacity of the planet and we have no real idea what that number will be in the future with technological innovation.

The carrying capacity depends upon many things: technology, lifestyle, standards of living, and the extent we find intrinsic value in nature and biodiversity. If everybody on the planet started living the American lifestyle, we’re probably over the carrying capacity right now. On the other hand, if everybody would be content to live in cities as densely populated as New York and we were willing to plow under the Brazilian rainforest to make way for corporate high-yield food production, sure, we have room to grow.

It reminds me of the overpopulation hysteria of 60's and 70's and the "Population Bomb" - how did those predictions turn out?

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..

Sure, commercial farming produced a green revolution, multiplying our ability to produce food and saving us—at least temporarily—from the crisis Ehrlich predicted. But that doesn’t mean there are an unlimited number of future green revolutions in the hopper. How many more times can we double food production? Is the responsible thing to encourage the world population to grow exponentially until we find out?

Edited January 11, 2013 by Analytics

[Gillebre]

If the planet can't handle that many people, what's going to happen when X number of billions of God's exalted children keep a home on celestial earth?

[ERayR]

There is actually a $2 Trillion surplus in SS. Any shortfall after 2030(When the last of the Boomers retires) can easily be handled by lifting the SS tax cap on incomes over $110 thousand dollars.

Wrong again. There is $2 Trillion in government IOU's. The money is all used up by other government programs.