World Population Growth

[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.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a ridiculous amount of unharnessed engergy and unused space out there

[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of statement scares me. There is a lot more to population growth than cubic footage. The ozone problem, for example, is related to population.

[wadea]

Natural selection is still at work. We humans may be so full of self-import that we think we have changed the rules to the game, but we haven't. The problem is that evolution is impossible to view over short time periods and, as such, one cannot view our actions today as particularly meaningful as pertains to evolution. The trees are blocking your view of the forest, so to speak. Eventually, the food supply or some other factor will limit human population growth. There's no reason to direct our own evolution - it will just happen.

For similar reasons, I think some efforts to rescue endangered species is somewhat ridiculous. The success of humans has changed the landscape. Some species have adapted well and some have not. And some others would have gone extinct regardless of human presence. Again, we are so full of self-importance that we think every consequence is a result of our own action. Even if it is true, we are a natural part of the world. Species that don't adapt don't continue. Deal with it.

[Maulik]

Is it my imagination or is wa's perspective selfish?

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
For similar reasons, I think some efforts to rescue endangered species is somewhat ridiculous. The success of humans has changed the landscape. Some species have adapted well and some have not. And some others would have gone extinct regardless of human presence. Again, we are so full of self-importance that we think every consequence is a result of our own action. Even if it is true, we are a natural part of the world. Species that don't adapt don't continue. Deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is same logical error that popped up a zillion times in the meat thread. The mere fact that we are sufficiently intelligent and industrialized to cause the extinction of a wide variety of plants and animals does not mean that such extinctions are part of the natural order of things and therefore no particular cause for concern.

[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.

[Catyoul]

[ QUOTE ]
If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels. This has already occured in parts of Europe (France is the key example).

[/ QUOTE ]
While it's true as a general rule and as pointed out by Jim14Qc, your choice of example is not very good as France is actually the second biggest counter-example in Europe with a fertility rate at about 1.98 children per woman (stable replacement being ~2.1). Almost any other choice in the European Union would have been good though, as those 2007 numbers show (source : CIA World Factbook) :

[ QUOTE ]
Ireland 1.86
United Kingdom 1.66
European Union 1.50
Germany 1.40
Italy 1.29
Spain 1.29
Czech Republic 1.22

[/ QUOTE ]

More on topic, exponential growth doesn't seem sustainable for obvious reasons but all indicators are showing the growth gets lower or even negative with the development of a country, auto-moderating the world population.

[DeuceKicker]

If you believe in evolution, then you should believe that it always operates "correctly." Our definition of what is 'fittest' may change, but the fittest are always going to survive.

A long time ago there were a bunch of wolves in the North American forests. They were trying to catch carribou, but were having a tough time keeping up. Then they sat down and said, let's evolve longer legs and tweak our lungs so we can lope for greater distances and catch more carribou. They got to work on that and were soon catching more carribou than they knew what to do with. As game became more scarce, wolf populations started dying out. With fewer wolves, the carribou rebounded. When the carribou population rose, the few wolves remaining found easy prey and their population increased... I think I'll call it the circle of life and write a song about it.

If humans use "artificial" means to support their populations, then eventually even those means will fail, leading to the collapse of the population. The few who are left will have an easier time maintaining numbers until the next big superbug proves who's really fittest

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jeff - There is a strong inverse correlation between income and population growth.

You might also want to read up on James Watson (the daddy of DNA) and his views on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that the OP would agree with Watson, or that you agree with Watson? I hope not.

Watson article on race

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a question for you. Lets just pretend the standardized IQ test is an accurate indicator of intelligence. And lets just pretend that the average IQ score for a negro (85) is half way between mental retardation (70) and the average for white people (100). Would you still find Watson racist? And lets just pretend that east Asians and Jews are higher than whites. Would you consider anyone that claims East Asians smarter than the average white as racist?

Just asking a hypothetical question to see how open ones mind is.