Population of world 'could grow to 15bn by 2100'

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

The United Nations will warn this week that the world's population could more than double to 15 billion by the end of this century, putting a catastrophic strain on the planet's resources unless urgent action is taken to curb growth rates, the Observer can reveal.

That figure is likely to shock many experts as it is far higher than many current estimates. A previous UN estimate had expected the world to have more than 10 billion people by 2100; currently, there are nearly 7 billion.

The new figure is contained in a landmark study by the United Nations Population Fund (Unfpa) that will be released this week. The report –The State of World Population 2011 – is being compiled to mark the expected moment this month when somewhere on Earth a person will be born who will take the current world population over the 7 billion mark, and will be released simultaneously in cities across the globe.

Some experts reacted with shock to the figure. Roger Martin, chairman of Population Matters, which campaigns on population control, said that the Earth was entering a dangerous new phase. "Our planet is approaching a perfect storm of population growth, climate change and peak oil," he said. "The planet is not actually sustaining 7 billion people."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/population-world-15bn-2100

[Warpy]

1. Global warming will take care of that, I'm afraid

as aquifers are depleted and we're left with really unpredictable rainfall to help us grow our food. Famine is going to start to be really widespread.

[nilram]

17. Exactly. "Could... But it won't."

Count me among the pessimists in that regard. If not global warming, then wars over water, food shortages, or pandemics. If big cities in developing countries (like Brazil and China) are following our (idiotic) lead, and providing infrastructure for people to drive cars, rather than infrastructure for high-speed, flexible mass transportation, then the're doomed to ... oh, screw it. 15 billion? What are they smoking?

[Warpy]

18. Look a little closer at Brazil

They've waged an interesting campaign against those huge families by putting nothing but one or two child families on their telenovelas, seen by rich and poor alike. Those things are so popular there that cabs often have small screens in the back seat so taxi commuters won't have to miss any of them.

The birth rate there is taking a dive.

Where we'll see the worst of it is south Asia and Africa and yes, there will be famines there.

[roguevalley]

23. the tonnage of refuse and waste coupled with depleted bodies

from hunger and pollution will cause a plague like this planet never saw before. Billions will die.

[Denninmi]

2. Yeah, I think we're heading the other way.

We're coming up on the big die off, due to a combination of factors, climate change, geopolitical factors, environmental degradation, loss of farmland to erosion and urbanization.

The current path is unsustainable.

[LiberalFighter]

3. What makes them think we will ever hit 15 billion?

Before that happens people will either cease to exist or at least find far fewer living than now.

[wordpix]

16. 7 billion, 9 billion, 15 billion, they're all a disaster

Everywhere you go on the planet, there are too many people destroying clean water, air, soil, degrading habitat.

We simply can't get a handle on all the problems without population control. And wars aren't the answer, either.

[PuffedMica]

4. We need to get off fossil fuel and switch to clean, renewable energy ASAP

When peak oil hits, 15,000,000,000 people will not make for happy company.

[wordpix]

13. +1 people should start imagining life w/out power from fossil fuels/nuke plants

Maybe they'd get serious about clean power then.

[Celefin]

38. First of all, we would need to get off consumer society

Otherwise, everything else is meaningless, including renewable energy.

Capitalistic consumer society demands growth, and growth demands energy.
'The markets' get all worried when growth dips beneath about 1.5%...
problem is, for every 1.5% of growth our energy consumption goes up by about 3%,
due the law of diminishing returns.
If you simply extrapolate this into the future, by 2070 you end up with roughly
70 times todays energy demand. There is absolutely no way renewables will deliver this.
There is also no way nuclear or fossil fuel will deliver this.
The population will continue to grow, for a while at least, and economic growth
will slow and turn negative. Widespread renewed poverty will increase population
growth for a little while longer until it all comes apart as resources run out.

We should be pouring resources into development of sustainable economic systems
and transition/adaptation processes towards a zero-growth, equitable society.
But that's pretty much the only thing you
-won't- find at any faculty of economics. There's no market for that.

So, yeah, we're headed for a crash and no technological fix will prevent it.

[Gregorian]

5. Since we can't discuss what to do about it, how can we logically change the growth?

That would be a horrible world. So why not begin talking about how to avoid it. The untouchable subject.

[the other one]

6. We will hit 6 billion before we hit 8 billion

And that right quick.

[LateTrade]

9. Did I misunderstand your post? We're on the verge of 7 billion now...

so you think a billion of us humans will die off soon?

Is THAT what you're saying?

[randome]

42. Think he's saying...

...that the die-off will occur before we hit 8 billion.

And I think I agree.

[GliderGuider]

44. I agree as well. I don't think we'll hit 8 billion. n/t

[GliderGuider]

43. It's an easy scenario to paint

The combination of an extended global economic decline (say a 20-30 year global depression) with the decline or even a plateau in agricultural productivity could easily lead to the loss of a billion in 20 years.

If birth rates fell by half and death rates doubled, we would end up with one billion fewer people in 20 years.

Economic hard times can cause fertility rates to plummet, as happened in Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed. At the same time, the loss of economic activity makes it very difficult to maintain complex infrastructure like modern health care systems. That causes the death rate to begin creeping up. Add the spread of malnutrition and famine due to problems with the global food supply, and you have a sure-fire recipe for declining population.

The probablility of this or something like it happening is vastly higher today than it was 30 years ago, and is climbing all the time.

[zalinda]

7. It is well known that women in poverty have more children.

The obvious solution, birth control for women in poverty and teaching them how to improve their economic outlook. There was a study some time ago that women in an Asian country (would give name of country, if I could remember it), started to have smaller families as their economic outlook improved. The improvement was caused by giving them birth control and explaining how to use it.

Back when our country was young, many women had large families because the kids were needed to help out on the farm. And, as medical intervention was very minimal, many siblings died within the family, so having large families was a necessity. This is probably happening in African areas where conditions are harsh and minimal medical attention is available.

Now, if we can just stop making celebrities of these women who are baby making machines, in this country. What is it, Nineteen and Counting? Why do they have a TV show? And, it looks like their kids are already on their way to outdo mommy and daddy.

zalinda

[alp227]

15. good question. Those reality shows must sell because most people don't understand

this population issue, and of course the religious pro-breeding/anti-birth control ideology sells too.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. I wonder if this is a sidelong suggestion that we are about to enter a worldwide depression.

Developed, prosperous nations have the opposite problem.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I doubt it. I expect we will see a large population crash before the end of this century.

As the article points out, things are already unsustainable as they are.

[shanti]

14. +1

humanity will never make it to 2100. it almost seems like TPTB are going for broke.

[randome]

46. Because TPTB want to wipe out humanity?

I think a few billion people are more responsible for the mess we're in than some some cabalistic society.

[LateTrade]

11. Given the beef, chicken, pork, and fish consumption of the almost 7 Bn now...

and the amount of drinkable water we will have as we pollute the fresh water supplies in the world.......

doubtful we will make it to 9 billion before we lose a couple billion to starvation and thirst.

Or we could clean up the fresh water sources, rely upon solar power, and eat an almost strickly vegetarian high protein, low fat diet, as do many healthy selected populations in the world today.

[stuntcat]

32. +1

100%

(edit- also welcome to DU :hi: )

[alp227]

34. well what about people living in rural infertile lands who NEED meat to survive?

what do we do about them?

[randome]

53. Relocate or die.

There is no other 'solution' other than to strictly limit the world's population through some sort of international lottery scheme.

[Odin2005]

12. Everything I've read has said that the population will peak at 9 Billion.

[Kablooie]

19. Maybe they figure we will have conquered aging by then.

So several billion of the 15 will be the super rich who could afford the treatment.
How delightful.

[glinda]

22. And the rich promote overpopulation and destruction of resources to help kill others off.

I have recently wondered if that is not what they are doing in hopes of saving themselves.

[MrSlayer]

20. Too many people, limited resources.

We're done as a species. It's only a matter of time.

[BlueIris]

21. Not buying it. Nature has her own harsh curative remedies for overpopulation,

including famine, disease and ecological meltdown. We're looking at a huge drop in population in the next ten years, which I think it will take a while to come back from.

[Johnson20]

27. And war. n/t

[GliderGuider]

45. Probably not war - it's not strong enough.

WWII caused about 10 million extra deaths a year for 6 years. We are giving birth to an extra 80 million peoople a year. We'd need eight wars, each with the savagery of WWII, raging simultaneously across the planet to cut our population gtrowth to 0.

Only famine and disease have the necessary lifting power to accomplish that, and even then only if it's coupled with a drastic drop in birth rates.

[stuntcat]

33. I'm hoping Disease will do it.

it could be non-violent, we'd have enough time to set the critters free. It will hurt and stuff but it's the best chance the rest of the animals have now, a disease that wipes us out fast.

I would say it'd be nice if a few million were left here to 'save Humanity' but I do not think they'd treat the planet any better.

[InvisibleTouch]

36. I am with you there!! n/t

[Nay]

24. Got news 4 U. "Big Dieoff by 2100" is more likely.

[The Stranger]

25. I always found it weird that when overpopulation is talked about, these weird pro-overpopulation

posters show up. They inveigh against any kind of population control, insisting that it is only a question of distribution and that there is plenty of "food," etc.

It is almost a transparent religious response -- the ancient tribes all encouraging their little nitwits to have more and more children and grow the tribe, etc.

[Arrowhead2k1]

26. It's about time to seriously look into colonizing the moon and other planets.

It's the only way for us to be able to keep growing.

[Johnson20]

28. Yeah Earth first!

We'll mine other planets later. :sarcasm:

[0rganism]

30. why do we need to "keep growing"?

By any measure, colonizing our moon will be an incredibly costly process, and we'll end up with some synthetic environment that supports a teensy fraction of our earthly population at a very high cost. As we move on to other planets (Mars seems to be the current fave) and moons (I've heard nice things about Titan) we'll face high costs and similarly low initial benefits.

But there's a bigger problem behind all this, called exponential growth. After a certain time, looks like about 85 years if the estimate in the OP is correct, our population will double. Steady exponential growth leads to fixed doubling periods. Clearly this is unsustainable.

Try this thought experiment. Imagine if tomorrow, a perfectly earth-like planet appeared in our solar system and we send over half our population to live on it next week. How long will that last us, assuming the current rates of exponential growth apply (and the settlers don't engage in extra breeding cos of all the brand-new extra space)? In 85 years, both planets will be just as full of humans as earth is now. In 180 years, both would have reached the 15 Billion mark, and our problem would then be twice as difficult as it is now, cos we have to find two more earth-like planets to cover the next doubling cycle.

Obviously, an earth-like planet isn't just going to appear out of the ether, and we're busy making our planet less earth-like every day, so we don't even have the 90 years of grace from the previous thought expderiment. We're on a real tight schedule now. Either we must find a way to curb our exponential population growth to a sustainable rate of 0% real quick-like, or eventually nature will curb our growth for us, using its tried and true methods of Famine, Pestilence, and War. But maybe that's the way we like it -- nasty, brutish, and short.

[Celefin]

37. Because our economic system demands growth

But the figure of 15 billion is nonsense.
There is simply not enough space to grow all the food required for that, farmland is already in short supply today.

Apart from that, the longer our life expectancy, the larger the number of old, unproductive people and therefore the larger
the demand for young people to produce the excess required to feed the aging population. In addition to that,
we can never cease to grow while we try to maintain a capitalistic system. Within it, lack of growth means misery,
as is currently on display for everyone to see.

Again, it equates to the attempt of running an exponential system within a confined space.
So your conclusion -nasty, brutish, and short- is most likely spot on.

[0rganism]

39. human population growth rate in 2009 was 1.1%

Assuming 7B humans now, and a 70/1.1 ~= 57yr doubling period, assuming that 1.1% rate holds we'd be at 14B by 2060. So the UN model is actually postulating a decline in the population growth rate, to around 0.8% this century.

Eventually we will max out our ability to feed people, perhaps well before 15B. If that's the case, we'll see a population plateau along with the 0% PGR a decade or so after reaching "carrying capacity". However, simply based on the current growth rate the 15B by 2100 figure doesn't seem too far off base.

[Celefin]

40. UN operates from the premise of further growth in agricultural productivity

I think the UN model is based on another UN-assumption, namely that there will be a second 'green revolution', boosting agricultural production massively. Sadly, this is one of the most unrealistic projects at the UN. 95% of the planet's available decent farmland is already under production and its quality is deteriorating due to erosion, salinization, nutrient depletion, pollution and climatic change. Even with (extremely unrealistic) complete elimination of any waste in production, there simply is not enough land to feed more than 10 billion people.

The next problem is that nitrogen fertilizer will get ever more expensive as it is extremely energy intensive to produce.
Additionally, at current consumption we will run out of phosphorous fertilizer within the next 30 years, all high quality phosphate rock deposits have already been depleted - the price has increased sevenfold over the last decade. The stuff that is left is usually laced with cadmium and other undesirable elements and difficult and expensive to refine.

The third problem with the 'green revolution' hope is that about a third of the soils in the tropics do not respond to fertilization because their clay minerals are unable to act as nutrient exchangers and storage. This simply means that any fertilizer applied which isn't taken up by plants immediately is leached away during the next few rainfall events. The only thing that works under these conditions is shifting cultivation with low production and long periods of fallows to regenerate soil organic matter.

Working in agro-ecology is somewhat depressing, really.

[GliderGuider]

41. One of the big complicating factors is climate change altering global rainfall patterns

Shifts in the monsoon patterns, along with floods and droughts - all brought on by AGW-influenced changes in the paths of the "Rivers in the Air" that apparently move most of the moisture around the earth:

Huge 'Rivers' of Water Vapor Found

Water that evaporates on the steamy Equator flows toward the Earth's poles in massive airborne "rivers" of vapor that can be equal in volume to the Amazon, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and NASA reported after analyzing satellite data.

Scientists have long known that warm, moist air from the Equator circulates toward the polar regions; some have even recorded curious streaks in high-altitude clouds at certain latitudes. Newell and his colleagues found discrete vapor flows over much longer distances at much lower altitudes, less than 10,000 feet.

There are usually five such rivers flowing at any one time in the Southern Hemisphere, and four or five in the Northern Hemisphere, they reported. Each river flows for at least 10 days before being succeeded by a new, nearby stream, they reported.

One river, which originated over Brazil and flowed over the south Atlantic, carried almost as much moisture as the Amazon River, they reported.

Combine the potential for shifting rainfall patterns with phosphorus shortages, increasing oil prices, declining agricultural soil depth and fertility, and dropping water tables in the aquifers used for irrigation - one is led to the conclusion that there is strong probability that we are on the threshold of an extended period of declining agricultural production world-wide.

The spread of famine and food shortages out of the impoverished underdeveloped world, creeping up the scale towards the developed nations, is a very real possibility.

[Celefin]

48. The perfect storm

...'that nobody could have foreseen'.

Thanks for your reply, completes the picture.

[randome]

47. The only solution is an international numbers game.

A lottery for reproductive rights. China already limits its population growth. The entire world needs to enter into some kind of similar arrangement.

It's either that or wipe ourselves out.

[Terry in Austin]

51. Colonizing planets -- "seriously"

To have any real effect on overpopulation, you'd need enough spaceships for a couple of billion passengers. Doesn't seem likely.

[NickB79]

52. At a cost of a million dollars per person or more, I doubt it

It would be like trying to empty a leaking ship with a Dixie cup.

[Doctor_J]

29. There is no way this planet can sustain that many people

this is crap science

[dudkos]

31. Based on global warming denial,,,,,,,

we'll never get even close!

[InvisibleTouch]

35. Paging Thomas Malthus and any available Horsemen! n/t

[GliderGuider]

49. Overpopulation, climate change and the "Free Rider" problem

This piece of writing began life as a Facebook note several months ago. It was triggered by a paper that I ran across in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The abstract pushed all my buttons regarding game theory, climate change, the tragedy of the commons etc. I had high hopes that it would describe a way around the "free rider problem" that is inherent in the "Prisoner's Dilemma" game. The difficulty of dealing with free riders may have kept us from achieving global consensus on action to reduce climate change, as many important nations wait for others to go first. So with high hopes I forked out $10 to download the full article.

Here is the abstract:

"Risk of collective failure provides an escape from the tragedy of the commons"

From group hunting to global warming, how to deal with collective action may be formulated in terms of a public goods game of cooperation. In most cases, contributions depend on the risk of future losses

We find that decisions within small groups under high risk and stringent requirements to success significantly raise the chances of coordinating actions and escaping the tragedy of the commons. Instead of large-scale endeavors involving most of the population, which as we argue, may be counterproductive to achieve cooperation, the joint combination of local agreements within groups that are small compared with the population at risk is prone to significantly raise the probability of success.

In addition, our model predicts that, if one takes into consideration that groups of different sizes are interwoven in complex networks of contacts, the chances for global coordination in an overall cooperating state are further enhanced.

The full paper turned out to be a bit of a disappointment. It uses formal game theory and lots of math and charts to prove the following proposition: "When everyone in a group agrees that a risk they face is so serious that they cannot afford the possibility of failure, they cooperate to address it." At that point I wanted my $10.00 back.

However, the paper did make it quite clear why we are failing to address so many major social and ecological problems at the level they need for a solution. The problems are well-known: overpopulation; climate change; alternative energy replacing coal and oil; food sovereignty; fresh water depletion; the decimation of ocean fish stocks - the whole litany of ecological, energy and economic problems we talk about every day. The fundamental obstacle to international cooperation is spelled out in the first part of the above proposition: When everyone in a group agrees that a risk they face is so serious that they cannot afford the possibility of failure...

We are faced with a set of situations where there is no basic agreement, let alone universal agreement, on any of the three points that clause contains: that there is a risk; that it's serious; and that we cannot afford the possibility of failure. Because there are individuals and nations who don't buy into one or more of those points, the requirement for cooperation is not met, and very little global action happens.

This situation presents the Kochs and American Enterprise Institutes of the world with a golden opportunity to achieve their corporatist goals. They can block change by merely convincing enough people that one or more of the points are false. In tragic contrast, those on this side of the fence need to convince pretty much everybody that they are all true before we will see a general mobilization toward a solution.

One clear illustration of this divide is around the issue of eliminating nuclear power once and for all. There is a massive groundswell of opinion throughout the world in favour of shutting it down. However, even on this site we can see that not everyone is convinced about the severity of the risk or the consequences of losing that fight. These forces, with the implicit support of the industry, drive wedges into the growing consensus, wedges that block high-level cooperative action.

Another clear example is of course the climate change battle. "Scientific" mouthpiece organizations sprinkle seeds of doubt on the real science, PR firms sow seeds of fear about job losses during a recession, political think-tanks give interviews talking about the risk to national economies in the face of growing international competition, and before you know it we have Cancun, Bali and Copenhagen. It doesn't matter how many of us know in our hearts and bones that this is an existential crisis for humanity, unless almost all of us get it, they win.

The similarity of the overpopulation debate to those two examples is obvious. However, population reduction faces a unique obstacle - it's not about science or technology, it's about children - our children. That adds a level of defensive emotional investment that is very difficult to overcome.

The task we face is clear - it's one of education and persuasion. In this fight we face an opponent who holds many of the winning cards - money, ownership of politicians and communications media, and most importantly - they don't need to "win", they just need to stop us from winning.

We need to demonstrate that we will not "go gentle into that good night", and we need to have faith that the accumulating weight of events will over time evolve the high-level consensus the world so urgently needs. Until that evolution is a little more mature, we must continue to fight the battles where they are already being won - in our own lives, our own living rooms, our own community centers ... and our own web sites.

[randome]

50. As long as climate strange affects someone else...

...it's not our problem. At least, I think that's the way governments -and people in general- think.

Until a catastrophe occurs and a few million people die, I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate. We always think the next disaster will occur somewhere else.