World population is growing 20 million people every 3 months

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Every country I have spent time in which would be considered 3rd world, has always amazed me by how seemingly happy large families are with 1/10000 of what the 1st world would consider the minimum needed to live and thrive. I've seen families living in hand built plywood shacks that are content and happy with 5-7 people living in a single room.

Humans adapt and thrive is extremely harsh conditions. Their happiness is rooted in the family unit which is generally much larger than in the 1st world.

I've spent alot of time in Indonesian and other asian countries and totally get what your saying..The real poverty I see in Asia is in the big cities like Manilla where its a western hybrid sort of setup, the islands and villages arent poor, they just don't have stuff, they have family, community and religion, I've seen those incredible smiles so many times.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Mike OReilly]

The rate of global population growth has been trending down since about 1970. Fertility rates correlate strongly with female empowerment (education, political power, etc.) and general wealth and education.

World Bank data

[daletournier]

Pew research group Asked whether or not the growing world population will be a major problem, 59% of Americans agreed it will strain the planet’s natural resources, while 82% of U.S.-based members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science said the same. Just 17% of AAAS scientists and 38% of Americans said population growth won’t be a problem because we will find a way to stretch natural resources.



Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[AiniA]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I don't Google my info.. I work by observation of life around me.. birth rates in the UK started declining about the time Maggie broke the back of the Unions and the erosion of Social Benefits began.. people stopped being paid to have kids, dental, optical and other previously free services were cut off.. free university education was ended.. children became uneconomical apart from the privileged classes.
Most in my generation for example stopped at 1 child as costs rose alarmingly.. house's that cost £3500 when I was 20 were 100,000 before I was 30 and today fetch 350,000+ and that's not in London where a 3 bed semi will set you back close on a million.
Then came the Minimum Wage which instead of raising 1/2 a million people to a living wage brought 10 times that many at least down to a subsistence wage.. this forced many families into the wife having to get a job to keep the roof over their heads..
Sorry.. just putting out the blue collar case.. well aware that many here are speaking from the white collar pulpit.. but your the minority who may sometimes notice the majority if you have to detour through a council housing estate..

Sometimes it is good to temper real life experience with some research. I found a very interesting site with historical data.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility/

I could not copy and paste the graph I wanted but it is labelled I.2. It indicates that the total fertility rate for the UK stayed relatively constant from 1541 to 1875 and then dropped dramatically from 4.9 in 1875 to 2.01 in 1928. It rose during the post-war/post-depression baby boom but only to 2.49 in 1964 (the birth control pill came on the market in 1960) before dropping to 1.73 in 1980. It has stayed close to this range since and is predicted to be around 1.9 in coming decades. In other words, the UK has followed the demographic transition model (one of the early countries to do).that other countries have also followed. You can add other countries to the graph to see how they did.

[daletournier]

This has been a great discussion and as result of it I've spend a couple of hours googling the topic. For those that say population growth is not a problem, thats not what I see, the fact is we actually don't know where this will go because weve never been here before. Population decrease certainly is a problem if it happens due to our non sustainable financial model, is population increasing a problem resource wise? Intuitively id say yes,Infinite growth in a finite world,mmmm. And yes we are no longer breeding as fast but we are certainly still breeding fast , of the three UN projections , which are just that projections we will be approx 10 trillion by 2050, thats up 2.5trillion from now, thats the median of their projections, if fertility dosent fall as projectioned it could easily be 11 trillion and 16 trillion by the end of the century, their projections not mine. As mentioned earlier they have changed their minds a number of times over the last 20 years as we have bred faster than they predicted, who knows it may even go backwards but it certainly isnt now, its just not increasing as fast as it was relative to population size.


Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

The chart and rate of increase is so steep now you cant really show it. No countries will do anything about it because. It is predicted that by 2050 fresh water will be a major crisis.
- bodies are needed for wars and protection of the realm.
- war is more prevalent when population becomes too dense.
- the higher the population, the cheaper the labor.


Parts of India and Bangledesh already show what the future beholds...

If the people who produced that graph think that 1 AD came after 1000AD, I wonder what else they got wrong.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Parts of India and Bangledesh already show what the future beholds...

That's what many "first world" cities looked like a hundred years ago. IOW, parts of India and Bangladesh show that many developing countries are still going through their growing pains, not what the future holds.

Invariably as standards of living increase, pollution such as you show decreases.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by daletournier

This has been a great discussion and as result of it I've spend a couple of hours googling the topic. For those that say population growth is not a problem, thats not what I see, the fact is we actually don't know where this will go because weve never been here before. Population decrease certainly is a problem if it happens due to our non sustainable financial model, is population increasing a problem resource wise? Intuitively id say yes,Infinite growth in a finite world,mmmm. And yes we are no longer breeding as fast but we are certainly still breeding fast , of the three UN projections , which are just that projections we will be approx 10 trillion by 2050, thats up 2.5trillion from now, thats the median of their projections, if fertility dosent fall as projectioned it could easily be 11 trillion and 16 trillion by the end of the century, their projections not mine. As mentioned earlier they have changed their minds a number of times over the last 20 years as we have bred faster than they predicted, who knows it may even go backwards but it certainly isnt now, its just not increasing as fast as it was relative to population size.


Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

trillion?

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by hoppy

trillion?

Whoops, lol.....I spend to much time looking at financial stuff, using the word billion was so yesterday as the talk is alwYs trillions now.

Re read what I wrote and insert billion where ever you see trillion.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sogin]

Originally Posted by hoppy

trillion?

+1

It is billion - not trillion. Eventually there will be a great die-off caused either by geological forcing, emergence of uncontrollable pathogens or by human behavior. It's just a matter of time.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sogin

+1

It is billion - not trillion. Eventually there will be a great die-off caused either by geological forcing, emergence of uncontrollable pathogens or by human behavior. It's just a matter of time.

True.. the 'Russia Rants' are getting louder so a few Nukes may be on the horizon..

[Mike OReilly]

Population numbers are definitely a huge global problem. But data currently predicts a peaking sometime around the mid-century, followed by a decline. It’s not great, but at least it is a problem which appears to show some light at the end of the tunnel.

Population in itself is not the problem. The problem is resource use. Lots of people mean lots of resource use, but so does high intensity of resource use. If Americans (and all developed nations) want to worry about global problems we should look at our consumption of global resources. Our contribution to the global resource-(over)use problem shows no sign of slowing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sogin

It is billion - not trillion. Eventually there will be a : great die-off caused either by geological forcing, emergence of uncontrollable pathogens or by human behavior. It's just a matter of time.

Imo reduction of the worlds population will be caused by human actions after a major CME event. Which will knock out many first world infrastructures.

[UAEguy]

Here is the data trap associated with assuming population growth will decrease because this trend has been seen in places like Europe. In order to achieve these trends, an economic situation that revolves around a high standard of living must exist which requires enormous resources and tremendously stable social support systems.

Depending on who you believe, it is said that the population of the United States would be in decline if it weren't for the directed efforts to increase immigration to support the aging population and tax base of the system. If the entire population of the planet had a standard of living equal to the US, it would require 4 Earths to maintain.

From BBC source: It has been suggested that if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average US citizen, four Earths would be needed to sustain them.

It has been recurring on social media at least since 2012, when science writer Tim De Chant produced this infographic illustrating how much land would be required if seven billion people lived like the populations of nine selected countries from Bangladesh to the United Arab Emirates.


As such, I would postulate that if the population of the planet is to have this UN predicted retrograde growth rate by 2050, it would require the accelerated advancement of every social economic system and government on the planet to the level of current 1st world, plus a few more planets just to sustain it.

Humans will kill one another for resources long before we get there. Then we will replenish and start all over again.

[Navicula]

Sources say that the planet can only produce food for 12 billion people, fresh water , food, and garbage are big problems.... you may want to invest in these sectors
Now Mother Nature really controls the planet and she sees us humans as a virus so it won't surprise me that Mother Nature will throw out a very big virus to wipe out a few billion people...
Till then I don't know ****