World population to reach 6.5 billion

[herpguy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060224/sc_space/planetspopulationtohit65billionsaturday

A population milestone is about to be set on this jam-packed planet.

 

 

On Saturday, Feb. 25, at 7:16 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, the population here on this good Earth is projected to hit 6.5 billion people.

 

 

Along with this forecast, an analysis by the International Programs Center at the U.S. Census Bureau points to another factoid, Robert Bernstein of the Bureau's Public Information Center advised LiveScience. Mark this on your calendar: Some six years from now, on Oct. 18, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the Earth will be home to 7 billion folks.

 

 

These are estimates, of course, but clear trends emerge from the data behind them.

 

 

Population profile

 

 

A report issued by the Bureau in March 2004 noted that world population hit the 6-billion mark in June 1999. "This figure is over 3.5 times the size of the Earth's population at the beginning of the 20th century and roughly double its size in 1960," the study explained.

 

 

Even more striking is that the time required for the global population to grow from 5 billion to 6 billion—just a dozen years—was shorter than the interval between any of the previous billions.

 

 

On average, 4.4 people are born every second.

 

 

The population on Earth today is nearly four times the number in 1900 [graph]. Behind that phenomenal global increase is a vast gulf in birth and death rates among the world's countries. But according to population experts, this gulf is not a simple divide that perpetuates the status quo among the have and have-not nations.

 

 

Birth dearth

 

 

"What is worrisome about this demographic divide is not the differences among nations' population growth rates, but the disparities associated with these trends ... disparities in living standards, health, and economic prospects," explained Mary Kent, co-author along with Carl Haub, of a Population Reference Bureau report issued last month titled "Global Demographic Divide."

 

 

Kent, editor of the Population Bulletin, and Haub, a senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau, reported that news of declining population in Europe fueled concern about a global "birth dearth," but there is continuing population growth in developing countries. The question, they asked, is which demographic trend is the world facing?

 

 

"The reality is that both trends are occurring," Haub said. "The dramatic fertility decline during the 20th century coincided with improved health, access to family planning, economic development, and urbanization."

 

 

Kent and Haub also reported that most countries will experience population growth through 2050, as the world adds a projected 3 billion more people to the total.

 

 

Remarkably, despite the many new developments over the past 50 years, one fact looks very much the same, explained Kent and Haub: Populations are growing most rapidly where such growth can be afforded the least—an observation that has changed little over time, they said.

 

Wow, 6.5 billion people! What are we going to about overpopulation?

[bascule]

Wow, 6.5 billion people! What are we going to about overpopulation?

 

Evolve into posthumans

[Phi for All]

Wow, 6.5 billion people! What are we going to about overpopulation?

Terraform Mars!

[AzurePhoenix]

Start "must be licensed to reproduce" program and start up cannibalism as a two-fold plan of feeding selected persons to the starving! If you think I'm kidding you're dead wrong

[gcol]

This particular virus is seriously out of control. I wonder how much more dear old mother earth can take. She'll need an awful lot of antibiotic.

[cosine]

Start "must be licensed to reproduce[/b']" program and start up cannibalism as a two-fold plan of feeding selected persons to the starving! If you think I'm kidding you're dead wrong

Sounds like a modest proposal to me.

[Martin]

 

Wow' date=' 6.5 billion people! What are we going to about overpopulation?[/quote']

 

I dont know about this year or next, but in general I guess things like:

 

erosion of rights of individual

weakening of democracy---control by media empires

increase in *population* warfare

 

(in the past wars have often been directed towards specific goals, political control, trade access, dynastic succession, strategic territories and resources----what I mean by population war is more the genocide or ethnic cleansing sort where the war aim is simply to reduce a certain population---it has a simple *demographic* objective)

 

demographic war in the past has sometimes been along racial, tribal, or religious lines---so maybe that could happen again

 

epidemics of various diseases

SOMEONE ALREADY MENTIONED attempts by society to LICENSE REPRO

(that has been tried in china, I don't know how successfully---I suppose it will be tried in the future)

 

I am just thinking out loud. the question is what is likely to result from overpopulation.

 

I think there may be a tendency to change the way wars are fought. More along the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" lines and the way Israel has dealt with the Palestinian population (and its higher birthrate, presenting a demographic "threat"). Warfare is likely to become more BIOLOGICAL and might turn out to be harder on women and children than it has been in the past (which was already pretty bad). If the aim is to reduce the growth potential of the other population then different things have to be targeted.

 

I think we humans have made a mistake to let our population get as large as it has-----I think it threatens our ability to act collectively and constructively to solve problems----I think it undermines our highest values, anyway it does mine, maybe yours as well.

 

Maybe some new world religion will appear that places a value on birth control. Surprising things can always happen.

[Martin]

maybe the above post was too dismal, and froze the thread which was going along in a happier more jocular vein.

like the modest proposal about cannibalism---which is merely funny

 

one constructive suggestion I've read is to convert everybody to vegetarianism-----it takes so much less land, water, energy, fertilizer etc to feed us if we are lower on the foodchain

 

the trouble I see is that, if you look at history the only things that have been able to make rules about the really basic instinctive functions like EATING AND REPRODUCTION have been the RELIGIONS.

 

maybe I am wrong, but simple reason by itself---even combined with a secular legal system---does not look to me like it has the clout. In the past not much else besides religion has interfered with what you eat and with relations between the sexes

 

 

the other factor is the system of global institutions-----treaties, international law, supranational regulatory agencies, the UN, the IMF, things like that

the more international agencies are empowered and considered legitimate, the easier coping with a large population is likely to be----the easier it will be to avoid or resolve violent conflict

 

this is just my personal opinion, but if the planet is approaching a population/resources crunch I think it is shortsighted to undermine and wreck the web of global agreements and institutions-----a wise national policy would not aim for supremacy but for legitimized shared authority that buffers raw national interests. everybody has a stake in mechanisms that can resolve problems without resort to war.

 

Oh, another possible outcome of serious overpopulation that comes to mind is slavery.

 

extreme differences between rich and poor might result in the creation of two categories of persons with different legal rights where one type can be bought and sold

 

a SciFi "solution" might be the creation of a BOY PILL that a woman could take if she only wanted to have boy children----in some societies boy children are valued so much more that many women would probably take the pill if it were available------that would cut down on population growth without killing/sterilizing anybody or restricting people from having children

 

sorry if these posts paint too dismal a prospect----maybe someone else can lighten the conversation up again

[AzurePhoenix]

maybe the above post was too dismal' date=' and froze the thread which was going along in a happier more jocular vein.

like the modest proposal about cannibalism---which is merely funny[/quote'] Dammit, I'm serious. I've been preaching it for years. It IS the right way to go to actually accomplish anything. Is it funny? Sure, but that doesn't make it any less true. Take that how you will

[insane_alien]

Start "must be licensed to reproduce[/b']" program and start up cannibalism as a two-fold plan of feeding selected persons to the starving! If you think I'm kidding you're dead wrong

 

Your not AzurePhoenix! Your way too tame! IMPOSTER!

[gcol]

In the context of feeding this seething mass, a couple of extracts from my morning news paper:

 

"Military scientists are developing ways to harness the power of bacteria to to allow soldiers in remote battlefields to survive on a diet more suited to rabbits or cows...........But researchers are investigating ways in which beneficial bacteria could be added to the diet of soldiers, allowing them to survive for long periods away from food supplies by eating hedgerow leaves."

 

"These bacteria are now being investigated under a long-term programme funded by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), funded by the scientific research arm of the US Department of Defence."

 

So there you have it. For a full belly in times of food shortage, join the marines. It is rumoured that one grunt, asked for his opinion, replied "Moo".

[Martin]

In the context of feeding this seething mass' date=' a couple of extracts from my morning news paper:

 

"Military scientists are developing ways to harness the power of bacteria to to allow soldiers in remote battlefields to survive on a diet more suited to rabbits or cows...........But researchers are investigating ways in which beneficial bacteria could be added to the diet of soldiers, allowing them to survive for long periods away from food supplies by eating hedgerow leaves."

 

"These bacteria are now being investigated under a long-term programme funded by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), funded by the scientific research arm of the US Department of Defence."

 

So there you have it. For a full belly in times of food shortage, join the marines. It is rumoured that one grunt, asked for his opinion, replied "Moo".[/quote']

 

I was thinking about this yesterday actually---didn't know that DARPA was working on it. the key thing is to be able to break down cellulose into sugars, and then burn the sugar

 

humans could be "grazing animals"

 

what I had in mind to mention on this thread was not to supplement the gut bacteria (with some bacteria producing enzymes like cellulase that we do not) but to GENETICALLY MODIFY HUMANS so they just naturally can digest and utilize grass or other abundant leaf-stock.

 

like ruminants (e.g. cattle) or horses (which aren't ruminants but can still thrive on grass)

====================

 

none of these ideas solve the real problem------which is keeping human population in balance with the rest of life----so the earth stays a beautiful planet that is fun to live on, and doesnt get utterly trashed.

 

IMO, maybe it is obvious, the problem is not how many humans could you house and feed by turning the the earth into a gigantic beehive---taking nuclear power to the max and synthesizing food etc.

 

the population limits are not so purely MATERIAL they are more spiritual and aesthetic as well-----it's fun to have living oceans and other species and not be so crowded, it is psychologically healthy to have some open space and natural environments----if there arent too many people then there is automatically enough windpower to suppy their electricity-----overpopulation precludes nice choices and leads to destructive conflicts etc.

And that hasnt been PROVEN so it is merely what I suspect to be true AFAIK.

 

=======

so all these schemes to fix things so a much bigger human population could be provided with bare necessities----like let's start eating grass, or what Azure recommends----that is merely goofy ideas

 

the serious questions are about what is the most moral and humane way to for the human population to self-limit.

 

and what would be a nice target figure----nobody can say at this point AFAIK, we don't have the ethical, aesthetic, religious whatever EQUIPMENT in our heads to postulate a desirable target population level.

(for many people, thinking in a rigid traditional way, it is even a TABOO question to ask---it is a no-no even to ask the question---the traditional God is supposed to decide all that stuff, we arent supposed to)

 

Hey maybe we should have an informal poll about what a nice target level would be----for this planet----if the human population was able to self-regulate.

 

Taboos are meant to be broken, right:-)

[Martin]

I went and started a poll about what human population level do you think is a good fit for this planet.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18868

 

Please vote! I would very much like to know what you think.

 

I put it in the General Science forum because it has a lot of science and technology issues that relates to all or many branches of science (both hard science like biology and energy technology and resource management, and also socalled soft sciences). that seemed to be the most inclusive forum.

the answer depends to some extent on understanding physical impacts on the environment and what is physically or technically possible. it is also a moral/aesthetic problem but it is not MERELY moral and aesthetic

[JohnB]

Um, how about helping the Third World move away from subsistence farming so they can feed themselves?

 

I saw estimates some years ago (don't know how correct they were) that if the area under cultivation in the Third World was farmed using First World techniques it could feed some 35 billion people.

 

Just by getting some fresh seeds, Afghanistan has doubled it's potato crop per hectare, without really changing their farming techniques. Feeding the masses is possible.

[DV8 2XL]

I would recommend the book by John Brunner - Stand on Zanzibar for some interesting and strangely foresighted ideas on the subject.

 

Brunner deals with many different moral issues in the book, including subjects like war (with a bold anti-war message), A.I. but mostly population control and genetic engineering.

 

The book's name comes from a 1965 estimation that by 2010 the worlds population will be 7 billion people, but could still stand shoulder to shoulder on the island of Zanzibar

 

Thirty years on, Brunner's future is close enough to reality to have considerable power for the modern reader.