The world in 2050: Same size, a lot more people

  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Aug 30, 2015 7:32 AM GMT
    The world in 2050: Same size, a lot more people

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/africa/gallery/world-population-growth-2050-prb/index.html


    Estimates of population by 2050:

    10. Ethiopia 165m
    9. Democratic Republic of Congo 194m
    8. Bangladesh 202m
    7. Brazil 226m
    6. Pakistan 334m
    5. Indonesia 336m
    4. Nigeria 397m
    3. USA 398m
    2. China 1.366bn
    1. India 1.66bn
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Aug 30, 2015 7:39 AM GMT
    US Population 2014

    318.9m

    https://goo.gl/aekNq5

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=population%20of%20the%20united%20states


    79.1 million more people in the US by 2050.
  • 24hourguy

    Posts: 364

    Aug 30, 2015 12:47 PM GMT
    stop having babies!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 1:21 PM GMT
    I seriously wonder how it is that economic and political disaster areas like Bangladesh and Ethiopia can still manage to have stunning levels of population. I'm of the conclusion that massive infusions of foreign aid makes life just tolerable enough for masses of indigent people to spew out armies of kids doomed to the same life. I can't see this phenomenon being self-sustaining in the long run. The pressure from economic migrants is nothing today compared to what it will be like in 50 years.
  • aax_aax_aax

    Posts: 80

    Aug 30, 2015 1:25 PM GMT
    metta8 saidThe world in 2050: Same size, a lot more people

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/africa/gallery/world-population-growth-2050-prb/index.html


    Estimates of population by 2050:

    10. Ethiopia 165m
    9. Democratic Republic of Congo 194m
    8. Bangladesh 202m
    7. Brazil 226m
    6. Pakistan 334m
    5. Indonesia 336m
    4. Nigeria 397m
    3. USA 398m
    2. China 1.366bn
    1. India 1.66bn


    No EU there? So they predict also that EU will split? Or shrink its population drastically ;)
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Aug 30, 2015 2:37 PM GMT
    hell, I thought the Earth was over-populated with humans in 1975
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 3:26 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidhell, I thought the Earth was over-populated with humans in 1975


    I still remember being a little kid fascinated by the numbers moving on the world population clock at the World's Fair in the 1960s and I was thinking that must have been when the zero population growth movement began, so I just googled and found:

    "As a kid at the World's Fair in 1965, I missed seeing the big global population clock roll over from 2,999,999,999 to 3 billion - I was really disappointed."~~Bill Nye

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_population_growth
    The American sociologist and demographer Kingsley Davis is credited with coining the term[6][7] but it was used earlier by George Stolnitz, who stated that the concept of a stationary population dated back to 1693.[8] A mathematical description was given by James Mirrlees.[9]

    In the late 1960s ZPG became a prominent political movement in the U.S. and parts of Europe, with strong links to environmentalism and feminism. Yale University was a stronghold of the ZPG activists who believed “that a constantly increasing population is responsible for many of our problems: pollution, violence, loss of values and of individual privacy.”[10] Founding fathers of the movement were Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, and Thomas Eisner. Ehrlich stated: “The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children.”


    see also

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
    ...The policy was introduced in 1978 and enacted on September 18, 1980[5] to alleviate social, economic and environmental problems in China...

    ...Until the 1960s, the government encouraged families to have as many children as possible[15] because of Mao's belief that population growth empowered the country, preventing the emergence of family planning programs earlier in China's development.[16] The population grew from around 540 million in 1949 to 940 million in 1976.[17] Beginning in 1970, citizens were encouraged to marry at later ages and have only two children....
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Aug 30, 2015 3:33 PM GMT
    actually, I think every couple who has more than 2 children should be taxed annually for the extras

    say $2500 a year per kid - worldwide

    adoptions get an exemption (or a credit maybe)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 4:10 PM GMT
    I tentatively agree, there should be a tax on individuals who have more than one child. This is a crisis that isn't as inherently obvious to most people.

    In many countries, the idea is to have as many children as possible, because each child represents one more pair of hands to help with chores, tasks, and jobs, to help the rest of the family. The irony is, the more children, the more work needs to be done by the following generation to keep the family afloat, because the family is so much bigger.

    But the issue also has religious roots, with many religions actively opposing the notion of 'safe sex' by demonizing condoms, birth control, abortion and other means of preventing pregnancy. It isn't helping the problem of overpopulation.

    We're already exceeding our planet's biocapacity--the amount of life versus renewable natural resources--but there are people out there who don't care about that, because they believe for {reasons} that the Earth will look after itself, and that we humans are the most important, god-blessed thing on this planet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 5:29 PM GMT
    We're gonna need a bigger boat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 5:41 PM GMT
    The world will have ended by then. Jesus will have returned and we will be separated as would sheep and goats.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Aug 30, 2015 6:20 PM GMT
    so the US is going to add 60 million people without any real internal organic population growth?

    it think it's time to let the "unwashed masses" remain to better their own hell hole nations and severely limit immigration
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 6:26 PM GMT
    aax_aax_aax said
    metta8 saidThe world in 2050: Same size, a lot more people

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/africa/gallery/world-population-growth-2050-prb/index.html


    Estimates of population by 2050:

    10. Ethiopia 165m
    9. Democratic Republic of Congo 194m
    8. Bangladesh 202m
    7. Brazil 226m
    6. Pakistan 334m
    5. Indonesia 336m
    4. Nigeria 397m
    3. USA 398m
    2. China 1.366bn
    1. India 1.66bn


    No EU there? So they predict also that EU will split? Or shrink its population drastically ;)


    eu will stay the same as long as we will not be flooded with those illegal immigrants icon_rolleyes.gificon_lol.gif like we are now, they should really stop letting them inside
  • Crisistunity

    Posts: 109

    Aug 30, 2015 6:41 PM GMT
    Every time I see an add asking people for money to help starving children I think they shouldn't have been born at all.

    CM2b79jWEAAKLE8.jpg

    As to the world's population by 2050, all those projections of world population growth tend to miss because the unexpected happens.

    With the cultural (religious) tension that is going on right now, I find it hard to believe there's not going to be a really huge war in the next 35 years that would tear those predictions down.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Aug 30, 2015 7:12 PM GMT
    ^^

    and the wars just might be fought over: WATER
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 7:25 PM GMT
    Crisistunity saidEvery time I see an add asking people for money to help starving children I think they shouldn't have been born at all.

    CM2b79jWEAAKLE8.jpg

    As to the world's population by 2050, all those projections of world population growth tend to miss because the unexpected happens.

    With the cultural (religious) tension that is going on right now, I find it hard to believe there's not going to be a really huge war in the next 35 years that would tear those predictions down.

    Well, birth control is actually starting to become popular in some Islamic nations in the Middle East. Iran's birth rate has already fallen below replacement level.

    Perhaps African countries will catch up with the modern world in a couple of decades.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 7:41 PM GMT
    Crisistunity said
    With the cultural (religious) tension that is going on right now, I find it hard to believe there's not going to be a really huge war in the next 35 years that would tear those predictions down.


    I disagree. In spite of its increasing population (and attendant cultural and religious tensions), the world is becoming increasingly adept at avoiding inter-state conflicts (i.e. big wars) and deaths from wars generally.

    141209_Charts-numberofarmed.jpg.CROP.pro

    Pinker.jpg






  • Crisistunity

    Posts: 109

    Aug 30, 2015 7:58 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    Crisistunity said
    With the cultural (religious) tension that is going on right now, I find it hard to believe there's not going to be a really huge war in the next 35 years that would tear those predictions down.


    I disagree. In spite of its increasing population (and attendant cultural and religious tensions), the world is becoming increasingly adept at avoiding inter-state conflicts (i.e. big wars) and deaths from wars generally.

    141209_Charts-numberofarmed.jpg.CROP.pro

    Pinker.jpg



    If I meant inter-state wars I wouldn't have used the cultural/religious reference. The notion of state itself is falling apart.

    The huge war that is yet to come has already been declared against the Western way of life by the ISIS.

    It is not only wars projections fail to predict, they are based on a non-changing environment, not having in mind that new diseases may appear, natural disasters may happen, etcetera.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 8:37 PM GMT
    Crisistunity said
    The huge war that is yet to come has already been declared against the Western way of life by the ISIS.

    It is not only wars projections fail to predict, they are based on a non-changing environment, not having in mind that new diseases may appear, natural disasters may happen, etcetera.


    I think you are exaggerating the risk from ISIS. While they are an utterly repugnant and barbaric group, their ability to sustain their 'nation state' (let alone wage a huge war) remains very much in doubt. I think we are all agreed they need to be wiped off the face of the earth and I believe that will be achieved, without the need for any significantly wider conflict in that region. There may even have to be 'boots on the ground' at some point, but it certainly won't amount to anything larger in scale than Iraq or Afghanistan.

    But you are right in saying we never know what is around the corner. An asteroid might wipe us all out tomorrow: End of population growth.
  • Crisistunity

    Posts: 109

    Aug 30, 2015 9:14 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    I think you are exaggerating the risk from ISIS. While they are an utterly repugnant and barbaric group, their ability to sustain their 'nation state' (let alone wage a huge war) remains very much in doubt.

    Ex_Mil8 said
    I think we are all agreed they need to be wiped off the face of the earth and I believe that will be achieved, without the need for any significantly wider conflict in that region. There may even have to be 'boots on the ground' at some point, but it certainly won't amount to anything larger in scale than Iraq or Afghanistan.


    A massive terrorist attack does not depend on anyone's ability to sustain any «nation-state». The thing with ISIS is that it's not about borders, but about a religious view of the world that does not include discrepancies.

    Anyone anywhere could be planning some kind of attack in the name of ISIS without having even left his hometown in the other side of the world financed by their own private money.

    One does not need to be on «ISIS ground» to be killed by ISIS, attacks in Paris have shown us that.

    It is not a «regional» matter, but a cultural one.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    Crisistunity said
    A massive terrorist attack does not depend on anyone's ability to sustain any «nation-state». The thing with ISIS is that it's not about borders, but about a religious view of the world that does not include discrepancies.

    Anyone anywhere could be planning some kind of attack in the name of ISIS without having even left his hometown in the other side of the world financed by their own private money.

    One does not need to be on «ISIS ground» to be killed by ISIS, attacks in Paris have shown us that.

    It is not a «regional» matter, but a cultural one.



    Yes, but periodic terrorist attacks, while of course worrying (and devastating to those caught up in them), are not and never will be 'huge wars'. Lone wolf attacks have a very localized and limited effect. In fact, they are generally no worse than some kid going on the rampage with a gun in a high school. There has not been a major terror attack on US soil since 9/11, nor on British soil since 7/7/05. That isn't just down to good luck. Hundreds of leaders in the Islamist terrorist hierarchies have been eliminated and many planned attacks have been prevented. The West isn't helpless in the face of ISIS - far from it - and credit should go to our security services for the excellent intelligence and preventive work they are doing.
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Aug 30, 2015 11:34 PM GMT
    Part of the problem is the way society has been designed. If we stop the growth of the population entirely, how will the economy keep growing over the long term? The only way to keep things going is for things to keep growing. We need to eventually see if we can make society work without population growth. I don't think that we have figured that out yet.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Aug 31, 2015 5:55 AM GMT
    ^^

    Humans always have a choice Metta, but the vast majority of them are too lazy, ignorant and greedy to make the right one(s)