Overpopulation Revisted

[kmoody]

I wanted to continue this discussion on overpopulation, but I feel that the original thread has been bogged down with too many tangents.

To simplify, say people now live 500 years on average, and this doesn't evolve anymore because people will always die from diseases, accidents (or whatever else). If there are less than 2 children per woman (it would be more precise to say on average less than one per person), the number of people on earth will grow for say 400 years and then go down.

I believe the logic made by this is erroneous by the simple, ungrounded assumption that people will live 500 years on average. With all due respect, I do not feel it is possible for any of us to speculate how long the average lifespan will in fact be. Therefore, it is more prudent to base any calculations regarding overpopulation with the assumption of unlimited lifespans.

I should note that accidental death constitutes approximately 80,000 deaths per year in the United States, which reduces the live birth rate in our calculations by a mere 2%, and is negligible for our current purposes. It should be noted that these calculations are roughly based, and are based on full working age-ending therapies by 2050, and do not take into account birthrate reduction of 2% every year over the course of time. I suspect that certain allowances will be made for particular individuals to produce more children, thus the 2% is entirely negligible because it will be distributed to the population.

Population 1:
Population trend based on a starting population of 9 billion (see reference below) in 2050, and increasing by approximately 9 billion per year (4.5 billion males, 4.5 billion females). This is obviously based on 2 children per female, and does not taper off assuming unlimited or exceptionally prolonged lifespan. Furthermore, it is based on reproductive cycles. With great bias given to your proposed theory (i.e., assuming reproduction by females by the age of 40, which is considerably higher than the average) we can still expect exceptional population hikes by and following 400 years. Over 50 billion seems quite unmanageable, although that is purely speculation.

Population 2:
Population two is based on all of the same assumptions as the prior, except that it is based on one child (as you state the average should be) per female. As such, we can expect the population to taper off somewhere around 20 billion, but it is certainly not likely to decrease in any truly significant way following that point.



I would be particularly interested in a more detailed breakdown of population trends and more importantly, the projected human carrying capacity of the Earth. Again, I would like to stress that this is a rough projection, based on public articles (not scholastic journals) and with quite a few assumptions (like negating the 2% accidental death) which may in fact be of the utmost significance over the course of 400 years. Of course, Zeno of Elea has shown us that even a 50% accidental death rate would eventually be negligible based on the nature that the reduction factor is not a set number, but rather, a percentage. Please share your thoughts.

Sources:
Accidental Death Statistics
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/topte...dentsfull.html

United States Population Statistics
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/us.html

United States Birth Rate Statistics
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922289.html

Population Projection of the World in 2050
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=11

Zeno of Elea
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PRESOC.HTM

[AgeVivo]

nice job. the 500years were just to show that whether it is 200 years or 1000 years it probably doesn't change much for the coming 100y, and also to show what happens if we reach lifespan plateaux

I like the distinction between
a) birth is reduced => a population plateau is found
b) birth is not reduce => high overpopulation.

[robillarde]

there should be compulsary vaccinations against pregnancy in countries that are poverty-stuck, human rights of the child come first- preventing life would be paramount interest of unborn children rather than seeing them starve/exploited and all manner of horrific stuff- sanctions ought be threatened to developing countries by the UN etc - 'vaccinate (with option for reversal, naturally) until your country is 1. not in military conflict with another country or with itself and 2. Not starving or in too much debt- get some skills and trade going. Also a an Interantional Abstinence Day once a year could be fun, though maybe there would be a backlash next day..

[robillarde]

a licence ought also be compulsory to have children- by a globally ratified consortium that could impose sanctions otherwise- why not? Why is this NOT the case? Things are working NOW? NOT

[fonclea]

Originally Posted by robillarde

there should be compulsary vaccinations against pregnancy in countries that are poverty-stuck, human rights of the child come first- preventing life would be paramount interest of unborn children rather than seeing them starve/exploited and all manner of horrific stuff- sanctions ought be threatened to developing countries by the UN etc - 'vaccinate (with option for reversal, naturally) until your country is 1. not in military conflict with another country or with itself and 2. Not starving or in too much debt- get some skills and trade going. Also a an Interantional Abstinence Day once a year could be fun, though maybe there would be a backlash next day..

It reminds me something, in swizerland Gipsy females were almost automaticaly sterilized.

I found that in french....http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/199...DAN/12537.html

[Lord Timothy]

I think we also forget that after a while, people will realize they have more time, and don't have to rush to get married and have children. We could probably expect a lot longer generation time as well after the third or fourth generation. That tends not to be factored into these statistics.

[robillarde]

Originally Posted by Lord Timothy

I think we also forget that after a while, people will realize they have more time, and don't have to rush to get married and have children. We could probably expect a lot longer generation time as well after the third or fourth generation. That tends not to be factored into these statistics.

Yes Lord Timothy. I was recently wondering how to get some of my loved ones out of 'the trance' to the goal. I'd really appreciate some tips if you have any? It's quite difficult until you've done some proper research yourself?

[robillarde]

...population could be controlled a bit also by promotion of good sex (see Tantra etc) celebrating gayness and improving gadgets for personal use.

[jonano]

here I have found a literature on wikipedia:

For example, if the human population could continue to grow indefinitely at its 1994 rate, in 1,900 years the mass of the human population would equal the mass of Earth, and in 6000 years the mass of the human population would equal the estimated mass of the observable universe[12] Although this would imply the invention of faster than light travel, necessary for humanity to spread throughout the universe as fast as population growth, even at lower growth rates these levels would still be reached in readily imaginable times. It is therefore difficult to conceive of a credible post scarcity scenario which does not also imply zero population growth or very low population growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity

[skaag]

It is my opinion that as cultures progress, become docile, and focus mostly on a satisfying career, population diminishes. There's no need to go far back in history, this is happening today in Japan:

http://current.com/items/89610631/ja...bot_nation.htm

I think this is a very important video to watch, for anyone who is interested in population studies, even though it originally tries to address a different subject of replacing humans with robots.

I give the rest of the world between 2 to 4 generations to reach that level of career investment and child-bearing neglect.

Especially noteworthy: around half way through the video one of the specialists interviewed says that even if all Japanese women have two children now, it will still not be enough to save the situation.