I did (before I responded originally). I don’t. It buys into too many of the assumptions that got us into this mess.
While researching the economic issues of a stable or declining population, I came across this [in Wikipedia]:
Since the 1970s, most metrics have provided evidence that the workings of the world economy produces results that exceed long-term limits to economic growth. According to the ecological footprint measure, earth’s carrying capacity—that is, earth’s long-term capacity to sustain human populations and consumption levels—was exceeded by some 20 percent in 1990. By 2015, this figure had increased to some 60 percent. In effect, humankind faces planetary overshoot-and-collapse.
The figures are less pessimistic than my own, but broadly consistent with my observations over more than half a century. The reference to the 1970s rang a bell. That bell was, of course, The Limits to Growth.
When that report came out, I was in my twenties. The very mention of limits provoked manic opposition. Those attitudes persist, it seems.
The projection might be questionable, but the data points are revealing.
The question is; how many can the planet sustain in the long term? My guess is about 2 billion.
Regrettably the data points are revealing. Convenient thousand-year intervals from 10000BCE to 0; dense thereafter? Signs of propaganda not data to me?
I am not particularly against your conclusions but based on this? You are doing yourself a grave disservice.
So in other words the graph is worthless. Why bring it up at all then? You are both weakening your argument and burning up whatever support you may otherwise have. I am no longer interested in following this thread - was that really your intention?
I drew attention to the weakness of your presenting that particular graph to support your argument as a kindness in hopes of preventing you making a bigger fool of yourself.
However on reflection regarding your response: No I definitely do not want to bully you into silence — rather, carry on!
I shall try not to laugh when somebody starts pulling up the many alternate population-projection graphs implying quite other conclusions to limitless growth — so easily located using this newfangled thing called the Internet.
To me, it looks like the answer to the first is ‘No’.
If you have a problem with the historical data used to compile that graph, then provide data that’s more consistent with your beliefs.
Below is a rough cut & paste from the Sources section of that graph.
WORLD POPULATION OVER 12000 YEARS (VARIOUS SOURCES (2016))
Variable description Total world population
Variable geographic coverage Global
Variable time span 10,000 years BCE to 2015 (plus projections by the UN until 2100)
Data published by The History Database of the Global Environment (HYDE) collected the data by earlier publications. For the ‘OurWorldInData’-series we used various sources: The data for the period before 1900 are taken from the History Database of the Global Environment (HYDE). The data for the World Population between 1900 and 1940 is taken from the UN puplication ‘The World at Six Billion’. The annual data for the World Population between 1950 and 2015 is taken from the UN’s World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. It is the series ‘Total Population - Both Sexes’ online available here.
Data publisher’s source HYDE aggregated estimates published in earlier publications. The series are named after these publications.
Link http://themasites.pbl.nl/tridion/en/themasites/hyde/basicdrivingfactors/population/index-2.html
Among others these are the original source:
McEvedy, Colin and Richard Jones, 1978, “Atlas of World Population History,” Facts on File, New York, pp. 342-351.
Durand, John D., 1974, “Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation,” University of Pennsylvania, Population Center, Analytical and Technical Reports, Number 10, table 2.
Haub, Carl, 1995, “How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?” Population Today, February, p. 5.
Thomlinson, Ralph, 1975, “Demographic Problems, Controversy Over Population Control,” Second Edition, Table 1.
United Nations, 1999, The World at Six Billion, Table 1, “World Population From” Year 0 to Stabilization, p. 5,
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), 2012, Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050.
Michael Kremer (1993) “Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990”, Quarterly Journal of Economics., August 1993, pp.681-716.
Cons: We’re the freakin’ Pirate Party and you want us to be telling people how many kids they can have, in a country that has birth rates below replacement level.
edit. The only “low scenario” I can imagine is ww3 v2.0. Humans breed like rabbits. And … worse than kangaroos we eat more than is produced. On a planetary scale …
… humans (on average) had used a years worth of planet resources on August 1st.
Declining birth rates and increased access to education. The access to quality food and water is only going to decrease which will drive infirtility higher. Who knows maybe sex robots will cause a massive decline in the birth rate. I think there are many factors which will come together to slow the population dramatically.
Welcome aboard @bjlimmmer. Always nice to have a fresh voice.
Sadly I have a far more pessimistic view of recent human habitation on this planet. Humans have raped the earth with little regard for habitat and I fear my grandchildren will witness the consequences.
My link above sums up the problem nicely … imho. Forget tomorrow. Today, if everyone was to have the same living standard we’d have to either halve the current population, or find another earth … every year.
Take a look at this chart, based on UN global data accumulated for as far back as 1800, up to 2018.
It takes a short while to load, then press to he play button to see how the average fertility rate converges over time to just under or around replacement level, as average income increases.
Basically, as the global population pulls out of extreme poverty, becomes educated, healthy and personal safety increases, birth rates drop dramatically.
For this result, it doesn’t even matter if your country focusses on wealth or health first. You end up in the same place on the graph.
Australia is a little red speck near the right.
We have a fertility rate below replacement levels.
We only grow via immigration.
Australian future population is an immigration question.
The world future population is an nation development question, specifically in relation to stability, elimination of extreme poverty, and education to support that.
It’s almost as if you’re trying to bully me into silence.
