

Earth Officially Home To 7 Billion Humans - inshane
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/24/207259/earth-officially-home-to-7-billion-humans

======
bdhe
Its also interesting to note how much the demographics of the world has
changed and will be changing over the next 40 yrs or so.

These are outdated links, but take note of the top 10 most populated countries
in 2050. The fact that Nigeria, Ethiopia and DRC are projected to enter the
top 10 list will lead to interesting consequences for Africa.

<http://www.photius.com/rankings/world2050_rank.html>

<http://www.kulzick.com/pop100.htm>

Also since independence in 1947, Pakistan's population has grown to 177
million today from around 30 million (a six-fold increase). And is estimated
to end up at a whopping 270 million over the next couple of decades.
Similarly, Nigeria is also witnessing a population explosion starting off with
around 55 million in 1971 and right now at ~150 million.

Edit: The UN has a nice website where one can get much more detailed
information about population projections.

<http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp>

------
biotech
Many people will say that humans are the exception, but I think it is
nonetheless interesting to look at this from an ecological point of view. A
common pattern of population growth for animals includes a period of
exponential growth (as we are currently seeing), which ends with an
"overshoot" where the population continues to grow past the "carrying
capacity" of the environment. The population then decreases (possibly due to
starvation or disease), and begins to cycle around the carrying capacity,
creating an equilibrium. If one believes that this is a reasonable model to
apply to the human population on Earth, the real question is: "What is the
carrying capacity of Earth?"

~~~
jerf
"If one believes that this is a reasonable model to apply to the human
population on Earth,"

It almost certainly isn't. The extremely strong propensity for rich countries
to have fewer-than-replacement children kills this model. Animal models have
no equivalent to this.

We're headed into uncharted territory with human population. Usually this is
supposed to be a sort of implicitly scary thing to say, but since the charted
territory here is "guaranteed major ecological catastrophe", it's net good
news. Disaster is not assured! (Of course, it's still on the table. It's
_always_ on the table.)

On the flip side, we're in thoroughly uncharted territory in terms of carrying
capacity as well. On the relevant timeframes (decades, minimum), nobody can
correctly predict what our technological carrying capacity will be. There's no
guarantee it will continue going up, but contrary to the doommongers there's
no guarantee it will stay static or go down significantly either; if in 40
years we've licked nuclear energy and cheap robots we could well be growing
huge amounts of food in robot-tended greenhouses stacked into skyscrapers,
powered by the nuclear energy, or growing meat in vats with chemical energy
more efficiently than going through the full biological cycle. And while that
may sound like sci-fi, those actually feel like _conservative_ extrapolations
of existing trends. (Just about the only prediction I won't buy is the one
where we make no further progress and everything stays the same but we keep
consuming resources at the same rate, but that's the one you hear most often.)

~~~
chad_oliver
I'm not a biologist, but surely the fewer-than-replacement birth rate could be
considered as just a new way for the population to drop to carrying capacity?
It may be a response unique to humans, but wouldn't the effect be the same?

~~~
afterburner
It's not a response to the carrying capacity of the planet/environment,
though. It's a response to the pressures and culture of human societies in
developed countries.

------
lukifer
The current conventional wisdom is that the birth rate is slowing in the
industrialized world, and so overpopulation is no longer a serious concern.
While this is the current demographic trend, I feel that such an assessment is
short-sighted.

Natural selection (and common sense) tells us that individuals and cultures
who value large families (Mormons, Catholics, etc.) will gradually out-
populate those which do not. And as people who desire many children begin to
make up a larger proportion of the population, it seems likely that
overpopulation could resume its exponential trajectory.

~~~
afterburner
Yet the culture of those "large family" groups will probably change if they
start to dominate, putting less emphasis on large families. The societal
impetus to having a large family could come from an insecurity about your
cultural block (not the individual impetus mind you, which can sometimes be
more important, eg. kids to take care of you in old age or extra kids to
overcome infant death). That clan insecurity starts to disappear when you
start to become the majority in whatever context you feel is appropriate to
consider.

------
jeffreymcmanus
I've seen people react at this figure in horror, as if there is some fixed
limit to the number of humans that earth could possibly support. But earth's
resource problems are really problems of distribution, not scarcity. And at
least one of those 7 billion will figure out how to enable the earth to
support 8 billion and more.

~~~
0x12
Whatever the limit is, there is a limit. Because there is a limit to the
earth. Whether that limit of sustainability is 2 or 50 billion is something we
haven't figured out yet but that there is a limit seems to be something you
can't around.

~~~
ars
Why is the limit on earth?

~~~
0x12
Because it just so happens that this is where we are.

Earth can only sustain so many people, and since we do not currently have a
viable way to get off this earth and/or to terraform other planets (hell, we
can't even agree on a common plug to use for household appliances) it looks
like it will remain that way for a while.

~~~
ars
Yah, but it will also take a while to reach the limit of the earth, by that
point we will hopefully be able to expand off of the earth.

------
andos
I'm sorry for ranting in a mildly off-topic fashion, but the visualizations
linked in the /. article are just horrible. A jumble of widgets with hardly a
caption, and no analysis. They even have those USPTO-style gauges. Data so
important deserved much, much better.

And I love the disclaimer:

 _The information contained in this web site is for entertainment and
information purposes only._

You wish, SAP.

Edit. And then, there's this:

    
    
        United States of America
        Total Population: 313,089,333
        % of Oceania Population: 90.08%
    

—sigh—

~~~
sp332
I was expecting Gapminder to have something useful, but as cool as it is, I
couldn't make anything really interesting out of the total world population.
[http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly...](http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2009$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=282;dataMax=119849$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=19;dataMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=)
But at least it's less "entertainment" and more straight-up data.

------
tokenadult
I was surprised not to see more mention in the Slashdot comments and the
comments here of projections that the United Nations has already done of world
population to the year 2300 under different assumptions.

[http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/Wor...](http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf)

Most projections show the world population reaching a peak a few decades from
now (while most HNers and Slashdotters are still alive) and then becoming
gradually less over the next two centuries.

------
zerostar07
Next milestone: back to 6 billion as the developing world moves to western
demographics

~~~
cydonian_monk
I'm not so sure. I agree we will eventually reach a point where the global
birth rate (and later population) goes down, but I don't think we're close to
it yet. I suspect we'll hit 8 or 9 Billion before we start to shrink back
again.

And if we continue to extend the average age, then we may never shrink in
numbers (barring a major catastrophe or mass-migration).

~~~
zerostar07
Interestingly that's what more or less the UN predicts, too [1]. My milestone
may take a few hundred years it seems

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population>

------
spodek
The best book and perspective I've read on population, the environment, the
economy, technology, and how they all overlap is Limits to Growth, the 30 year
update. It takes a systems approach to these related issues, not looking at
just one in isolation, though recognizing you have to make assumptions.

I'd love to talk to people about it but I've never spoken to anyone in person
who has read and understood it. I've read some commentary on the web, but most
of it is filled with politics and preconceived notions (often the case of any
discussion on these subjects) that detract from it.

Has anyone here read it? I blogged briefly about it here --
[http://joshuaspodek.com/the_best_book_on_the_environment_eco...](http://joshuaspodek.com/the_best_book_on_the_environment_economy_and_ecology).

The Amazon link -- [http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp/193...](http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp/193149858X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319568405&sr=8-1)

------
mcantor
It blew my mind when I truly realized that a couple having two kids does not
constitute a net increase in human population. What makes this amazing is
wondering where all of these couples having 3-or-more kids are.

~~~
ronnier
Not in the white regions of the world.

~~~
lupatus
Unless you are Amish.

Assuming they maintain the birthrate they've had for the past 100+ years (and
there is no reason to suspect otherwise), in 2150, the Amish run America[1].

What happens to global politics when a culture that eschews violence gains
control of the world's largest nuclear arsenal? What happens to transnational
industry and innovation when a culture that balks at accepting the latest
technological trends dominates the public arena? Additionally, the 21st
Century may be the high-point of multiculturalism in the US. In 2150, over
half the population of the USA may be of Swiss-German descent.

[1]I know the link seems dubious, but the math behind the projections looks
just as credible as the UN's projections. [http://www.mmo-
champion.com/threads/859411-Amish-population-...](http://www.mmo-
champion.com/threads/859411-Amish-population-growing-even-faster-than-thought)

------
maratd
May there be many more. Through our ingenuity, we have learned how to live
with less, much less. We continue to reduce the resources necessary to sustain
a single human being, while repairing the damage done in prior generations. On
top of everything, the increasing population is accelerating innovation. More
brilliant people are coming into the world every day and their numbers are
increasing, which increases the opportunities for collaboration exponentially.
Amazing times!

------
erikb
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/23/why-
popula...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/23/why-population-
growth-costs-the-earth-roger) <\- the article

------
libraryatnight
7 billion people, on one planet, all clumping off into groups and pulling in
different directions. I wonder how long and at what population point we
seriously, as almost a whole, understand functioning as a planet and as human
beings as opposed to screwing each other and raping our tiny blue dot.

------
melling
The problems that could be crowd-sourced with 7 billion people...

