Be Fruitful and Multiply ...

[Crown]

... Now what?

Ran into some interesting statistics while reading The Millennial Project; Colonising the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps (a great read). What caught my eye is that our world has an averged population growth rate of 2% (some areas higher, others lower), which amounts to a doubling of the world population every 35 years.

So I decided to make a little excel spreadsheet (god I love excel), and got the following;

Code: Select all

Year	Population	Planets
2000	6.00E+09	2.50E-01
2035	1.20E+10	5.00E-01
2070	2.40E+10	1.00E+00
2105	4.80E+10	2.00E+00
2140	9.60E+10	4.00E+00
2175	1.92E+11	8.00E+00
2210	3.84E+11	1.60E+01
2245	7.68E+11	3.20E+01
2280	1.54E+12	6.40E+01

Now some notes;

1. The starting year is 2000, with a population of 6 billion.
2. I made the assumption that an Earth like planet can hold a maximum of 24 billion people, with changes in our dietry habits and energy production.
3. So by the year 2070 we have effectively maxed out the Earth.

So my question is, what happens now? Sure population rates can be lowered, however this will require a massive change in world living standards, and it isn't too hard to imagine that such a massive change wouldn't be brought around till much later than 2070. So what happens till then?

By the year 2280 we are going to need a nice little inter-stellar Empire going to sustain us with 64 planets (obviously assuming we don't first move into a 'Dyson Sphere' configuration with the bulk of humanity in space habitats than terrestrial proper).

Is there hope for our species?

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm pretty sure the long-term sustainable population for Earth is far less then 24 billion, less then it is even currently. Though I also thing your projections aren't remotely accurate because HIV/AIDS is going to kill most of Africa and may take a big chunk out of India and China.

[Shinova]

Birth rates could start going down as everyone either becomes developed like Western nations or go under, thanks to HIV or other similar dieseases.

[LadyTevar]

Birth rates could start going down as everyone either becomes developed like Western nations or go under, thanks to HIV or other similar dieseases.

I can give unequivacal proof that the death rate is equal too, and in the case of West Virginia, slightly higher, than the rate of birth.

Last count: 10,200 births v/s 10,600 deaths.
(figures approx., because I've not been in to work in 5 days, and I'm going by the book number they're on. One book = 500 people, both books were less that half full)

[Tosho]

Did you rule in the fact that countries tend to get into bitch slapping contests known as war? On the proper scale (i.e. WWIII) a big chunk of the Earth's Pop. could be destroyed, not to mention the infastructure.

[Xenophobe3691]

Did you rule in the fact that countries tend to get into bitch slapping contests known as war? On the proper scale (i.e. WWIII) a big chunk of the Earth's Pop. could be destroyed, not to mention the infastructure.

As well as the resources needed to rebuild, and the resources needed to even maintain the small post-war population...

[kojikun]

i dont know whatll happen but i wont be hre to find out!

[TrailerParkJawa]

I hope the world population levels off at around 8-9 billion. Its already way over crowded. I think for some people figuring out how many people can live on the Earth is a some academic game. They throw out figures like 12 billion people can have a good life on Earth, without even understanding what 12 billion means. Tired of waiting in traffic? Tired of long lines at the ski resort, tired of seeing field after field replaced with development. Welcome to population growth.

[NapoleonGH]

You also forgot something, the planet needs are much smaller than that, earth itself will reach equalibrium at 1 stage and we will never be able to remove a significant part of its population, so each of those planets then that we do get are in fact starting off the population equation with somehting like 50,000-maybe as many as a million even. but we will never be able to remove a significant part of the earth's populaton from earth

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Most of the population is growing in the developing world, and some industrialized nations are actually facing population loss due to low birth rates, so I guess disease and famine will eventaully wipe out large parts of the population in developing nations until they become more industrialized and birth rates lowered. And might the amound of people the earth can sustain increase if technology improved?

[Shinova]

I hope the world population levels off at around 8-9 billion. Its already way over crowded. I think for some people figuring out how many people can live on the Earth is a some academic game. They throw out figures like 12 billion people can have a good life on Earth, without even understanding what 12 billion means. Tired of waiting in traffic? Tired of long lines at the ski resort, tired of seeing field after field replaced with development. Welcome to population growth.

I would like to add that the worry about overpopulation has nothing to do with being overcrowded.


*takes fellow SDnetters to Long Beach and points at that endless expanse of blue*


There's 70% of the Earth out there. With proper tech, building habitats on that is not impossible to conceive.

The problem, like everyone said, is the lack of resources.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I would like to add that the worry about overpopulation has nothing to do with being overcrowded.


*takes fellow SDnetters to Long Beach and points at that endless expanse of blue*


There's 70% of the Earth out there. With proper tech, building habitats on that is not impossible to conceive.

The problem, like everyone said, is the lack of resources.

Overpopulation and overcrowding are often the same. That was my whole point. Do you want to live in a bubble in the ocean? If so good for you, but most people want a Single Family Home with a yard, located near good climates, good jobs, and good schools. Guess what. All those areas are already developed. So population growth only adds to the crowding in those areas. Now of course pop growth in Nigeria doesn fuck up shit here in San Jose, but population growth in CA does.

[Alyeska]

The third world is where the vast majority of the population increases are coming from. It is a not very well known fact that the current birth rates in the United States are not enough to maintain its population. The primary reason most western civilization countries are still rising in population is because of imigration.

[Tsyroc]

... Now what?

Ran into some interesting statistics while reading The Millennial Project; Colonising the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps (a great read). What caught my eye is that our world has an averged population growth rate of 2% (some areas higher, others lower), which amounts to a doubling of the world population every 35 years.

Interesting book. Kind of depressing in a way because it at least suggests what humans could be capable of if we bothered to try.

[Enforcer Talen]

I love statistics like that.

my plan shall work!

[TrailerParkJawa]

The third world is where the vast majority of the population increases are coming from. It is a not very well known fact that the current birth rates in the United States are not enough to maintain its population. The primary reason most western civilization countries are still rising in population is because of imigration.

I think most people here know this. Its certainly true in the US. If it was not for immigration the primary source of growth would be among Latino's , poor ones at that.

[Uraniun235]

Did you rule in the fact that countries tend to get into bitch slapping contests known as war? On the proper scale (i.e. WWIII) a big chunk of the Earth's Pop. could be destroyed, not to mention the infastructure.

*snort* Really? And how will the U.S. or Russia somehow be drawn into a major nuclear conflict?

Jesus, the world is not some fucking tinderbox ready to explode at any given moment.

[Enforcer Talen]

we're working on it tho.

[NapoleonGH]

Did you rule in the fact that countries tend to get into bitch slapping contests known as war? On the proper scale (i.e. WWIII) a big chunk of the Earth's Pop. could be destroyed, not to mention the infastructure.

*snort* Really? And how will the U.S. or Russia somehow be drawn into a major nuclear conflict?

Jesus, the world is not some fucking tinderbox ready to explode at any given moment.

It isnt? Im sorry but with the US threatening to attack N. Korea at some point, India and Pakistan having nukes ready to go off at each other at any moment (and i would bet everything on earth that china would not be able to stay out of such a conflict even if it tried). Those two ALONE could kick off world war three. India vs Pakistan in a war has 2 definites. 1. Any war that starts with conventional weapons will not end that way, 2. no way other countries wouldnt become involved.

[Hobot]

I've heard it said that if by 2100 we are completely efficient at gathering resources the earth will only be able to support a comfortable standard of living for 2 billion people. I can't remember the source but I'll look for it...

[Hobot]

Here: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-growth.htm

Just how much of a problem can be seen in a famous 1994 Cornell study. (6) A team led by Dr. David Pimentel found that the world will probably be able to handle no more than 2 billion people by the year 2100. They arrived at this conclusion by considering the future "carrying capacity" of the land -- that is, the amount of available resources needed to sustain a level population. These resources primarily consist of fertile land, fresh water, fossil fuel energy and a diversity of helpful natural organisms. Changes to some of these factors are quite predictable -- for example, humans are expected to run out of fossil fuel in the next 35 years. (The Cornell team used the most optimistic figures for their calculations.) The team found that the carrying capacity at the turn of the next century would provide only 2 billion with a modest but comfortable standard of living. But, as you can see from the population chart, current population trends should reach 11 billion by then.

[TrailerParkJawa]

-- for example, humans are expected to run out of fossil fuel in the next 35 years. (The Cornell team used the most optimistic figures for their calculations.) The team found that the carrying capacity at the turn of the next century would provide only 2 billion with a modest but comfortable standard of living. But, as you can see from the population chart, current population trends should reach 11 billion by then.

[/quote]

The various chicken littles have been saying we are going to run out of oil in 35 years, for the last 35 years. I remember being told in 1989, there was only about 15 years of oil left. God, that professor was full of so much crap. At first I believed him, but as the semester went on it became
clear he was more about ranting than anything else.

[NapoleonGH]

the most conservative calc for us running out of fossil fuels that I have seen is on the order of 2080, with many more going as far as 2100+, rememeber though that there are plenty of new technologies that will extend this further and make fossile fuels irrelevant, plus we can make synthetic gasoline (New Zealand does it) so fossile fuel limits are bull

i can believe we can only have 2billion living at an american level of consumption, but considering the waste, a decent standard of living could be maintained for many.

[HemlockGrey]

tired of seeing field after field replaced with development

Well, no, not really, I've never grasped the aesthetic value of 'empty space'.

[TrailerParkJawa]

tired of seeing field after field replaced with development

Well, no, not really, I've never grasped the aesthetic value of 'empty space'.

Most people value open space, wether its for flying kites, bird watching, walking the dog, bike riding, growing a cop, ranching what have you.

I wasnt refering to empty lots if thats what you thought I meant.