World Population Growth

[haakee]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain this idea more please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wealthy countries are already shrinking if you ignore immigration/emigration. Approximately 2.1 children are required per family to maintain a steady-sized human population in a first-world environment. Several wealthy countries (notably most of Europe, Japan, Canada, the U.S. and Australia) are already failing to reach this number meaning the countries with tighter immigration policies (Japan) are likely to experience population declines in the near future. Obligatory wikipedia reference

A United Nations report expects world population to begin to decrease naturally after 2075 after reaching a maximum of fewer than 10B people. (Although to be fair that is the median of their assumptions, on the high end population would continue to grow to 36B by 2300).

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Wealthy countries are already shrinking if you ignore immigration/emigration.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that absolutely can't be ignored, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
A United Nations report expects world population to begin to decrease naturally after 2075 after reaching a maximum of fewer than 10B people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I skimmed that, but did not see - what do they (or you) mean by "naturally"?

[haakee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealthy countries are already shrinking if you ignore immigration/emigration.



[/ QUOTE ]

But that absolutely can't be ignored, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fact 1: Rich countries already can't sustain their populations without immigration.

Fact 2: Poor countries are becoming rich countries.

Conclusion?

[ QUOTE ]
I skimmed that, but did not see - what do they (or you) mean by "naturally"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I used the term, not them. I mean that it will not happen due to disease or famine or war, but due to declining birth rates as the world becomes wealthier.

[Maulik]

"Fact 2: Poor countries are becoming rich countries."

Proof pls.

[NoMeansYes_]

I can't wait until 2300 when there are 36 BILLION PEOPLE. I'll be like, "back in my day there were only 6 billion people!" I'd also be 311.

[haakee]

[ QUOTE ]
Proof pls.


[/ QUOTE ]

According to the world bank, GNI per capita in high income countries was up 42% in real terms from 2000-2006 vs 70% per capita in low income countries. In the 3 most populous countries in the world other than the US (all poor countries in 2000), GNI per capita has grown 116% (China), 82% (India) and 141% (Indonesia). That's 2.6 billion poor people doubling up in 6 years. Even the 800 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have grown GNI at 70+% per capita over that time.

Do you think those countries are going to fall to sub-rich-world growth rates anytime soon? I don't.

Edited to add sub-Saharan Africa #s.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proof pls.


[/ QUOTE ]

According to the world bank, GNI per capita in high income countries was up 42% in real terms from 2000-2006 vs 70% per capita in low income countries. In the 3 most populous countries in the world other than the US (all poor countries in 2000), GNI per capita has grown 116% (China), 82% (India) and 141% (Indonesia). That's 2.6 billion poor people doubling up in 6 years. Even the 800 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have grown GNI at 70+% per capita over that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you start off with really small numbers it's easy to have astounding growth rates. To use these astounding growth rates as proof that poor countries are becoming rich countries is to commit the same error as population doomsdayers in the '70s and '80s. That is: assuming that recently observed trends will continue far into the future. The recent past can be a great predictor of the near future. Beyond that is anyone's guess. The fact is that these astounding growth trends inevitably run in to constraints.

[w_alloy]

Technology and world production are both growing much faster than world population. We have no clue how many humans the earth could support in X years. There is a ridiculous amount of unharnessed engergy and unused space out there (the largest state in the US has only half a million people still).

Who knows what technology will bring in the next hundred years. The singularity? Human uploads? Who the F knows. There are a lot of other problems the world will face that will be much worse than overpopulation and a dilution of evolutionary effects.

As far as "evolution" on earth is concerned, I think technology is replacing genetic evolution.

[manpower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proof pls.


[/ QUOTE ]

According to the world bank, GNI per capita in high income countries was up 42% in real terms from 2000-2006 vs 70% per capita in low income countries. In the 3 most populous countries in the world other than the US (all poor countries in 2000), GNI per capita has grown 116% (China), 82% (India) and 141% (Indonesia). That's 2.6 billion poor people doubling up in 6 years. Even the 800 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have grown GNI at 70+% per capita over that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you start off with really small numbers it's easy to have astounding growth rates. To use these astounding growth rates as proof that poor countries are becoming rich countries is to commit the same error as population doomsdayers in the '70s and '80s. That is: assuming that recently observed trends will continue far into the future. The recent past can be a great predictor of the near future. Beyond that is anyone's guess. The fact is that these astounding growth trends inevitably run in to constraints.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a little info on an idea called the Leapfrog effect. Basically it says that developing are going to have upward pressure on growth rates because they can skip using older, more inefficient technologies in favor of newer, better ones that have already been developed by the first world. Think: going straight to cell phones instead of having to build a wired infrastructure first.

But beyond that there's plenty more theory to support the high-growth ideas put forth. Comparative trade, cost of labor, marginal production, marginal return on capital, are just a few of the reasons why the world bank thinks these growth rates will continue.

But back to the main question: While birth rates are correlated with wealth, the real drivers behind falling birth rates are women's increasing ability to choose when to have a baby through contraception, abortion, gender equality and so on. Keep in mind that many governments are already addressing the population problem and are taking action to slow their own population growth, so we're seeing growth rate declines in Taiwan and other Asian economies where we otherwise wouldn't due to wealth alone. This is through the dissemination of relatively simple information such as, "here's how to not conceive and still have sex".

Start taking all this together with the evidence already provided and I don't see many long term outcomes where the population problem isn't pretty well understood and taken care of.

[Ship Ship McGipp]

Hardin wrote about this in the lifeboat ethics paper