
World's 7 billionth person about to be born - narad
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2412108.ece
======
tokenadult
When I was a child in the 1960s, this news story was predicted to happen by
the turn of the last century. Population growth has slowed considerably in its
rate during my lifetime.

[http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&#...</a><p>Further
increase in population from this already large base is predicted for what is
predicted to be the rest of my lifetime, but it is now foreseeable that the
world will eventually reach a peak population,<p><a
href="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf"
rel="nofollow">http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-
Information/Press_Release_W...</a><p>and then decline in population over time,
as is already happening in many developed countries.

~~~
mrampton
Reminded me of the Hans Rosling Ted talk on global population:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_pop...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html)

"The world's population will grow to 9 billion over the next 50 years -- and
only by raising the living standards of the poorest can we check population
growth. This is the paradoxical answer that Hans Rosling unveils at TED@Cannes
using colorful new data display technology (you'll see)."

~~~
cpeterso
Phillip Longman spoke at the Long Now Foundation about the coming
_depopulation_ problem. Developed countries have fewer children (near or below
replacement rates) and increased life expectancies. So much of the world
population growth is from fewer deaths, not more births. This trend will pose
new economic challenges for health care and social security because a
shrinking workforce will be supporting a growing elderly population.

If families in developed countries continue to have just one child, few
children will have brothers, sisters, aunts, or uncles! In Phillip Longman's
talk, he says that some developed countries like France and Australia already
have subsidies and programs encouraging couples to have more children.

[http://longnow.org/seminars/02004/aug/13/the-depopulation-
pr...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02004/aug/13/the-depopulation-problem/)

~~~
Khroma
Though there's also a plus side. I assume that world consumption of resources
will go down, since one person not born in a developed country is equivalent
to probably 2+ not born in a developing country.

------
tghw
> and in all probability that birth will take place in China or India

While they are the most population-dense areas and are growing faster than
other places in the world, I'm pretty sure it's more likely that the 7
billionth person _won't_ be born in India or China.

~~~
burgerbrain
Which countries are currently birthing more people/day?

If none, then it could be said that China or India are more likely than any
other particular country.

Is the birth rate of China and India combined more than that of the rest of
the world? If so, then it's more likely that it will occur there than anywhere
else.

~~~
boredguy8
Burger, you're saying something different than the OP (and hence, different
than what tghw was criticizing). In "all probability" the location _won't_ be
China or India, as those two countries alone don't represent a substantial
majority of births.

So your point that those two have the highest birth rate isn't responsive to
tghw's point that those two alone don't represent the majority of new births.
So if we had to bet on "one country", a person would pick one of those two.
But when we're betting "India/China or somewhere else?" the smart money is on
"somewhere else".

~~~
burgerbrain
"Is the birth rate of China and India _combined more than that of the rest of
the world_? If so, then it's more likely that it will occur there than
anywhere else."

I'm asking two questions. The second, quoted here, _is_ saying the same thing
as the OP.

------
espeed
No thread on population growth is complete without a reference to Dr. Al
Bartlett's famous lecture, "Arithmetic, Population and Energy"
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU&list=PL63DAFC...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU&list=PL63DAFCD223C29352)
:-).

------
mainguy
So 7% of people who have EVER lived are alive right now.

~~~
etcet
I made 'an app for that': <http://etcet.net/thehumancounter/>

My count is at 6.57% but it also estimates us at 30M over the 7B mark.

~~~
simcop2387
Off topic, but according to your website the first human was born January
1.025 in year -50000. :)

~~~
burgerbrain
Fortunately everyone that was born before then is likely deceased, and not
likely to become offended at their suggested non-existence.

------
vondur
I remember the Bad Religion song "10 in 2010". I guess population growth has
been slowing down.

------
brianbreslin
whats the sustainable number our planet can theoretically deal with? (though i
know this is a loaded question).

~~~
rubashov
You'd have to work out the maximum theoretical food production without
phosphorus fertilizers or petrochemical insecticides, and without using
aquifers or artificial irrigation. Basically roll back the green revolution.
The world was bumping up against food production limits when the green
revolution happened in the 60s. But the green revolution is totally
unsustainable. The sustainable population is probably somewhere around a
pre-1960 number.

~~~
eelmeal
_...without..._

 _...petrochemical insecticides..._

Organic (CNHO) chemicals aren't in the slightest dependent on petroleum, it is
only a passing quirk of the early 21st-century economy that oil and natural
gas byproducts are the most common chemical feedstocks. CNHO atoms are
everywhere on earth, and they're not going anywhere (mass doesn't leave the
earth, for the most part). Basic organic chemistry building-blocks, e.g.
ethylene, are not much more difficult to obtain from biological matter (e.g.
ethanol) than from oil/gas. Organic chemistry -- insecticides, plastics,
pharma, what have you -- isn't going anywhere, and this is all a silly
misunderstanding from confused Malthusians.

 _...aquifers..._

 _...artificial irrigation..._

There's no theoretical limit to artificial irrigation (well there is, but it's
ludicrous). In refutation: nuclear or solar powered ocean desalination plants,
with aqueducts, large pipes, or underground canals piping freshwater inland --
thousands of miles if need be. Elementary, existing technology, and I think
not too far from economic feasibility even today. Desalination is already
economic (if not directly competitive with natural freshwater sources, when
they are available) -- lots of it in the Middle East, Southeast Asia.
Aqueducts are ancient technology.

 _...phosphorus fertilizers..._

Nothing stopping us from recycling phosphorus -- it's not like we're flinging
it off the earth into space. The whole earth is a closed cycle for chemicals
-- water, CNOH, trace minerals, all of them sustainable. Since the issue is
framed as "maximum theoretical", well, in the limit we can ion-exchange
phosphorus out of the seas -- the ultimate repository for "used" phosphorus.
(Although in the nearer term there's more simple resolutions, like preventing
runoff waste, recovery from sewers/rivers, mining new types of phosphorus
minerals, etc.)

 _But the green revolution is totally unsustainable._

Ignorance is totally unsustainable. Please conserve.

~~~
rubashov
Irrigation always builds up salt in the soil. Areas of California are falling
out of production for this reason, after a good 100 year run. Irrigation is
what turned much of the middle east into desert.

The rest of your points I guess boil down to needing infinite cheap energy.
Anything's possible with massive amounts of free power, I suppose. I wouldn't
bet on it.

~~~
onemoreact
Large areas of China, Egypt, ect have been under continuous irrigation for
thousands of years and they can still grow just fine. If California is having
issues with irrigation over what 100 years then it's a separate issue.

They probably do have issues due to the amount of rainfall vs. irrigation and
their crop rotation etc. But, it's not really an issue with irrigation just
their approach to irrigation. Desalination also gives you the option to have
much lower salinity than river water which should allow areas like California
to cope with this issue.

------
RexRollman
For some reason, when I think of human growing population, I always think back
to the Star Trek "The Mark of Gideon", which featured a world where
overpopulation is a real problem.

I am sure that is not realistic but I worry that the world could one day
become like that.

