World's population could plummet to 6 billion by the end of the century, study suggests

[admin]

A new model has predicted that Earth's population is likely to decrease in all scenarios across the next century and will peak nowhere near the 11 billion previously forecast.

World's population could plummet to 6 billion by the end of the century, study suggests : Read more

 

[YourConfusionAmusesMe]

Several models have forecast this demographic trend for more than ten years. Most economically and industrialized countries have fallen below the 2.1 children per female birth rate threshold needed to maintain population levels. Birth rates in the most impacted populations have declined to less than 1.4 children.

A shrinking world population may sound like a net positive for a planet facing human-induced environmental and climate problems. However, the negative economic impacts will likely cause *more* ecological issues and much *higher* carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions as less developed areas lose access to reliable sources of natural gas and resort to dirty, low-quality lignite coal or local wood for electricity production.

Sadly, the holy grail of renewables and green energy tech is beyond the reach of the developing world at the same time that their demand for energy to develop is growing logarithmically.

Some active resources include Peter Zeihan for in-depth analysis and geopolitical discussions related to demographic economics or PolyMatter on Nebula for elegant video summarizations.

 

[Jdd]

This is nothing new for the Club of Rome. a fascist, Malthusian organization which has been predicting human doom since its founding in 1972. In fact, if we were to undertake the development projects necessary to alleviate worldwide poverty and disease, we would find the world severely underpopulated and severely short of labor. It is a curious world when groups such as the Club and the WWF celebrate each panda born, yet deny the value of every new child, each of which is made in the image of God and thus has, under the right conditions, the possibility of becoming the next genius who may cure cancer, or become the next Beethoven, Shakespeare, or Einstein.

 

[cecilia fx]

As far as I'm concerned more girls getting educated and having fewer children (and being more in charge of their own lives) is always going to be a positive. Those educated girls will help solve whatever problems come up.

 

[Stephan Gunther]

This is nothing new for the Club of Rome. a fascist, Malthusian organization which has been predicting human doom since its founding in 1972. In fact, if we were to undertake the development projects necessary to alleviate worldwide poverty and disease, we would find the world severely underpopulated and severely short of labor. It is a curious world when groups such as the Club and the WWF celebrate each panda born, yet deny the value of every new child, each of which is made in the image of God and thus has, under the right conditions, the possibility of becoming the next genius who may cure cancer, or become the next Beethoven, Shakespeare, or Einstein.

No, the image of lord Ganesha is more of a human elephant hybrid.

 

[THM]

As far as I'm concerned more girls getting educated and having fewer children (and being more in charge of their own lives) is always going to be a positive. Those educated girls will help solve whatever problems come up.

Right on Ceciia Fx. I have noticed this in over twenty countries. In villages I have worked in, the women did NOT want more children but did not have the means (financial) to acquire birth control tools. Those with fewer children had a higher quality of life. They could school all their children and feed them better. In families with many children only some of the children went to school, due to lack of sufficient finances.

 

[THM]

The article's use of the word plummet is unfortunate. It would be correcting its current dangerous trajectory toward overpopulation and accelerated destruction of earth space.

 

[RodneyL]

Several models have forecast this demographic trend for more than ten years. Most economically and industrialized countries have fallen below the 2.1 children per female birth rate threshold needed to maintain population levels. Birth rates in the most impacted populations have declined to less than 1.4 children.

A shrinking world population may sound like a net positive for a planet facing human-induced environmental and climate problems. However, the negative economic impacts will likely cause *more* ecological issues and much *higher* carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions as less developed areas lose access to reliable sources of natural gas and resort to dirty, low-quality lignite coal or local wood for electricity production.

Sadly, the holy grail of renewables and green energy tech is beyond the reach of the developing world at the same time that their demand for energy to develop is growing logarithmically.

Some active resources include Peter Zeihan for in-depth analysis and geopolitical discussions related to demographic economics or PolyMatter on Nebula for elegant video summarizations.

Regarding less developed areas: You may want to take in account that in many of these countries, the impact of climate change is gonna be disastrous regardless. Looking at how things are going, many of these areas will become less and less habitable, due to drought and unlivable temperatures. And without access to what you call 'the holy grail of renewables and green energy tech', it will indeed only become worse and worse. Looking at it from a sociological point of view, this will likely increase the amount of local conflicts, both for essential resources and from increasing frustration against the local economical and political situation. Especially as local governments may either be unable (due to resources) or even unwilling (due to corruption), to properly do enough for their people, to handle the problems.

All this will exponentially increase the amount of migration in the future, from these areas to colder, probably safer and more developed areas. That of course also creates its own problems there (practical, political, sociological, etc.), but may at the same time decrease the needs and impact of the current less developed areas.