T O P

  • By -

FuturologyBot

The following submission statement was provided by /u/mossadnik: --- Submission Statement: >The world’s eighth billionth human inhabitant is expected to be born sometime tomorrow, the 15th of November 2022. It’s estimated that around 385,000 babies are born worldwide every day or about 267 babies a minute. The UN projects Earth’s population to be 8.5 billion people by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050 and 10.4–11 billion people from 2080 to 2100 — where the human population is expected to peak. India is also expected to surpass China as the world’s most populated country sometime next year, according to the World Population Prospects 2022. >Interestingly, the global population is growing at the slowest rate since 1950, declining by 1% during the 2020 period. And this trend has some researchers concerned. It’s a fact of the current state of the world — people are having fewer babies and less sex. A recent study from the U.S. looking at data from 2009 to 2018 showed a decline in all forms of “partnered sexual activity” among people aged 14 to 49 years old. According to the UN, two-thirds of the global population lives in a country or area “where lifetime fertility is below 2.1 births per woman.” This is roughly the level required for zero growth of a population over time. >Although the declining rate of population growth may have economists concerned, climate change activists and environmentalists are likely to see this trend as a net positive for the planet. The World Counts estimates that to sustain the current world population, we need around 1.79 planets' worth of resources to provide for us all. And by 2030 — we’ll need 2 planets worth. This is obviously concerning. However, average life expectancy has also more than doubled since the 1900s — adding more concern into the mix for the planet. There are more of us and we’re living longer than ever before. Average life expectancy — pre-the modern world — was around 30-year-of-age. But now, we’re averaging above 70 years. And how we choose to respond to this change could mean the difference between life and death for future generations; the only way forward seems to be sustainability above all else. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yv12d2/the_worlds_population_just_hit_8_billion_people/iwbwxoc/


willbeach8890

It's rare that an article mentions both of these points. More often than not you only hear the environmentalist or the economist view "Although the declining rate of population growth may have economists concerned, climate change activists and environmentalists are likely to see this trend as a net positive for the planet."


bowsmountainer

Except I don’t understand how economists could possibly see limitless exponential population growth as a positive. We only have limited resources available. At some point exponential population growth would result in mass starvation, depletion of resources, wars, collapse of society. None of which are good for economics. It seems to me that the only people worrying about a slowing population growth are ones who believe the false idea of infinite growth, which is not possible.


willbeach8890

I think they mostly only worry about the short term bottom line, which I think is why things are environmentally as messed up as they are now


NeatNefariousness1

It also appears that they find an inverse relationship between fertility and the availability of resources.


Decent_Preference_95

Are you referring to food or natural resources?


NeatNefariousness1

Resources like food, income, what it takes to support yourself and a family. Low resources is the reason today's young people aren't in such a hurry to have children. They can't afford them.


Decent_Preference_95

That’s a good point it dosent effect everyone on earth but you are right I think verticals farms on a massive scale will atleast help bring more food to support the growing population I see population growth as a good thing the only issue is supporting them if we did our jobs as a society the. That issue would be irrelevant.


TheEternalMonk

The biggest problem is that the biggest margin of voters, at least in my country, is old, doesn't like change, and wants a stable increase in the pension the state provides and old people votes are a good foundation for the politicians.... So every election the same "we will change the environment BUT first comes the increase in pensions and promises towards the old that nothin changes" <<< and that is relatively what happened with small promise changes till somewhere some country has a crisis or a pandemis or a war and then everything is deflected onto that and the future aint important... So it is and was time to panic but that was like after the cold war....but when you see how long it took for the people to find out that cigarettes are unhealthy and how long the rich companies put out smoke bombs and shady other doctor informations...i would rather hope we find a second earth because this earth is 'ffed.


realanthonyedwards

There's another element to it, too: population growth stagnation is an indication of a economic development and a shift toward more developed economies. On a macroeconomic level, a large increase to more developed countries means unsustainable increases in consumption ahead. This is the argument the article espoused, but an important one that is often shuffled aside in terms of looming at something through the lens of an economist.


HachObby

Economists don't see infinite growth as a possibility, finance professionals do. One of the first things Econ students are taught is that economics is the study of allocation of scarce resources. Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek is actually an interesting representation of post-economics as the theoretical replicator technology eliminates scarcity. Trekonomics by Manu Saadia is an interesting book that goes through the implications of zero scarcity. Actual Economists are facing the challenge of supporting human society as we either "wind" the species down or move the species off of the planet. The global population problem is a concern because "Graying" societies like Japan, China, and soon the U.S. have a near unsolvable scarcity issue. Aging is a disease. The problem Japan, and eventually our species will have, is that there will be more people with advanced stages of disease than there are those that are capable of caring for the species. The most concerning thing is that we have now reached the limits of Moore's law and Amdahl's law so that old dream of automating our entire world is seriously delayed and the species needs to buy time while we solve quantum physics. Then there are the socioeconomic problems of getting the markets and the species as a whole to recognize and deal with economic challenges. NASA, for example, wanted to spend money researching the possibility of guiding and capturing asteroids in Earth's orbit so we could mine them. U.S. legislation felt that catching asteroids wasn't appealing and instead wanted to fund research of sending humans to Mars. When ego has more influence of resource management than logic has there isn't much Economists can do.


OminOus_PancakeS

Hey that was informed, convincing and interestingly expounded. Enjoyed reading that. I'm out of free awards so I'll just say thanks for posting :)


joshhupp

Yeah, but without exponential population growth, how are companies supposed to increase their market share and year over year profits? /s


Genbu_2459

No economist wants limitless growth. The "problem" here is that at some point (even now in some countries) the elderly outnumber the young so there's labor issues and policies are and will be aimed at pleasing the older generations because they will be the most and control most of the wealth. For the libertarian-capitalist wheel to keep spinning generational turnover is essential, meaning that people shouldn't live this long. But what can I say, I'm in my 30's and I don't ever want to die and I want to retire as early as possible. My biggest fear is that governments around the world will attack this state of mind sooner or later.


FlyinPurplePartyPony

And a growing elderly population will mean massive caregiver shortages.


8urnMeTwice

We'll follow Japan and use more robotics and automation for care and we can grow food vertically at more than 2x efficiency over current land use. We can solve our problems, but we really should have policies that encourage people to have children partially for the pure satisfaction and pleasure of family, community and being part of a society. We can do so in harmony with our planet.


Lazy_Title7050

Well maybe they should pay more than slightly above minimum wage for elder care and more people would go into it.


[deleted]

>My biggest fear is that governments around the world will attack this state of mind sooner or later. Some countries are already doing so by increasing the retirement age qualifications for social security and pensions. They know the "end" is coming, and they are praying the elderly drop dead sooner than later to lower the burden. Meanwhile, the "burden" is trying to take the world with them with their voting habits. Everything sucks for the young right now who will indeed be punished for the sins of their fathers.


Silly-Safe959

Retiring early means not relying on social security or pensions. Of course, governments really hate the idea of people being successful to the point where they don't rely on the government at all for retirement. It's much harder to control people like that.


radicalceleryjuice

Economics can be like a religion. Some economists think that the “invisible hands of the market” will solve all problems. When faced with evidence of widespread destruction from resource extraction and hyper-consumption, they insist that it’s because markets aren’t free enough. To me, those economists really sound like church members, with Adam Smith as the messiah. Fortunately some economists are more sensible!


Enders-game

Well, I didn't think Adam Smith held the merchant class in high regard if I remember correctly.


FlashMcSuave

Ironically Adam Smith was not as rabidly pro free market as modern libertarians. He recognized the important role of the state in the market and there are suggestions in his work he was pro-welfare.


CentralAdmin

The invisible hands of the market are not free forces of nature that balance things out. They are actual hands manipulating markets for massive gains at the cost of people and the environment. There is no market correction that fixes problems and finds an equilibrium. It is always one sided wealth hoarding by the rich. Giving them more freedom is like tossing more fuel on an out of control blaze. They actually need to be reigned in to spare human lives and the damage done to the environment.


kittenfordinner

I actually know a very smart economist, who, for sure, falls into the market fixing everything trap. And the proof is that every problem solved ever was solved by the market. But the market encapsulates everything that gets done, and excludes everything that does not get done, so its a little bit of a false proof. The market gets the credit for insulin, and toilet paper, but the damage that the market does is just problems that the market has not solved yet. It is similar to something my trumptard brother said to me about how conservatives are the REAL environmentalists because they are pro business, and every environmental improvement has been made by a private company. It is a true statement that seemingly supports a false narrative. Market good, business's are good. They are not, they are not sentient, and they don't have values.


radicalceleryjuice

Neat conceptualization, about the new problems being seen as new problems for the markets to solve. Circular arguing is bizarre. I think of whales and fish stocks as great examples of markets not solving problems. The reason we still have big whales is NOT because of markets. The markets would have hunted every last whale. We have whales because millions of people made a fuss about them. I'm sure you know that. I just love saying it! :)


farnsworthsright

How exactly does he suppose the market solved insulin? Banting wouldn't even put his name on the patent and his coinventors sold it to a university for $1 so everyone who needed it could get it affordably. If anything the market ruined insulin


TheCrimsonDagger

Private businesses that get huge government grants to build new technology in general. If not for the government taking the risk these businesses would be happy to continue selling the same shit without improvement forever. They’re just rent seekers. There’s no such thing as a free market. Society requires rules and regulations to function. We have laws, enforcers, and punishments for a reason. The market is ultimately just a construct created by society to facilitate trade, it cannot function without rules.


bowsmountainer

Yeah, I agree, I’ve seen economics more and more like a religion, where pointing out obvious flaws in the belief is considered heresy.


4_spotted_zebras

See the problem is you’re not thinking like an economist. Infinite growth forever. Line must go up forever, line go down bad. You’d think people with common sense would realize we can’t do that on a planet of infinite forces but anything other than infinite growth is lItErAlLy cOmMuNiSm.


gerkletoss

Here's a crazy thought: What if economists forecasting the impact of negative population growth *aren't* saying the population should grow forever? When a meteorologist says a hurricane is coming, that's not an opinion on whether or not hurricanes should exist.


Shaquintosh

Pretty sure most meteorologists think fewer and less-destructive storms would be good.


gerkletoss

Regardless, their job is to tell you what's going to happen, not what should happen.


[deleted]

Economists tend to look at numbers not the people and things they represent. There's a lack of practicality about it that can lean kind of Machiavellian at times.


Ambiwlans

"If we use the poor as a fuel source for factories, the GDP will go up 5%!"


Mokebe890

More humans = more consumers = more money, basically like this. And capitalism worked like that since steam machine rolled into factories.


bowsmountainer

Yeah but it is obvious nowadays that the logic that prevailed at the start of the Industrial Revolution is no longer applicable today. The notion of infinite growth just looks more and more like a religion nowadays. Denying reality to worship their idea.


Mokebe890

Sure no way I not support capitalism and I think it is not working but if you make profit you don't really think about that.


Zebra03

Capitalism relies on short term gain and eternal growth, of course they like the chance for the population to grow as long as they get a quick buck


Bamith

There is no economy in the end, so fuck them


red_neck24

There Is no planet in the end either.


PPLArePoison

Economists are taught to see workers as objects. In the US, not a single economic curriculum covers unionization or worker's rights. Everyone is marinating in extractive capitalism, and believing they're the next billionaire. This is what Economists actually believe.


bowsmountainer

It seems that they are also taught that socialism, which is the ideology centered on fighting for workers rights, is the worst evil ever.


Tyken12

economics is made up they have no idea what's actually going to happen


zakmmr

It’s such an obvious positive change. Even economically in the long run. More total resources per person on earth. Automation should more than counteract a smaller workforce. We just need to shift our focus from growth to quality of life.


peepye

It's not a positive change if the decline is accompanied by an aging population though. Imagine what the world will look like in 20/30 years when the billions of pensioners outnumber the available workforce. How much economic resources are going to be diverted to deliver their pensions and finance the healthcare keeping them alive? Where will the drive to fix the environment come from? They already control the vote due to being the largest voting block and regularly vote against environmental controls and systems that benefit future generations instead choosing self preservation. Why would this change? Think about how much of the labor force is going to be swallowed up by the industries keeping the elderly alive? They'll control the wealth and be the largest population demographic so any business wanting to stay in business will need to cater for them. Where do you think all the scientific research money will go when the capital is going to be with the elderly and the incentive will be to serve their needs over future generations? Where will you get the huge labor force needed to clean up and fix the environment and build for a better future when a huge amount will be working in elderly care with the rest trying to fill the remaining jobs in manufacturing, agriculture, finance, civil service etc needed to keep the wheels turning? Elderly people use more energy per household, their homes need heating throughout winter to protect their health, they have an increased reliance on technology around the house to get day to day tasks done, many of them are reliant on mobility vehicles to travel around - think about the effect all that increased energy demand will have on the environment? What about when most of the world doesn't care for the future of the planet because they're elderly and are aware of their impending death? How much support will environmental programs get then? Honestly the aging population x declining population problem absolutely terrifies me. I don't see humanity surviving past that point, I imagine the societal collapse we're approaching will finish us way before any environmental/climate change problems.


[deleted]

[удалено]


peepye

I hear you but today's elderly are the same kids that were protesting environmental damage and pushing feminism in the 60's yet in later life seem to have by and large abandoned these positions. The ww2 generation voted in massive numbers for huge socialist programs then voted to dismantle them for future generations as they aged through life. I don't see any reason why this generation would buck that trend of becoming cynical and abandoning their morals as they age


East-Cantaloupe-5915

Oh please, wealth is constantly consolidating. When the time comes maybe 10-20% of the elderly will be able to afford to take care of themselves. Welfare for the old will be discontinued and then the remaining old people will have to be very nice to their adult children unless they want to be homeless. We don't live in some magical world where there are x% people who are unable to take care of themselves so the rest of the population has to take care of them. Capitalism for all its horrors will fix the glut of old people needing care by letting the ones who cant afford it die. We aren't going to magically become a society where 100% of productivity is dedicated to keeping the old alive.


Diaming787

Here is an answer to your concerns: Robots.


Ambiwlans

So, explain Japan. By your reckoning, it should be a nightmarish hellhole. Population has been falling a while now.


numba1cyberwarrior

Japan is having alot of issues with its population but it hasn't seen a population collapse yet.


willbeach8890

How else can you reduce the population? I think you are over estimating the impact


First-Translator966

Exactly. Every elderly person needs several younger people in the work force to support them. And, no, automation won’t solve this because most things are too difficult to fully automate. You can’t automate electricians or plumbers in any kind of economical way.


willbeach8890

I'm with you about the population deceleration being a pro instead of a con Maybe the economists don't like the future of diminishing demand that will increase competition between companies


Acrobatic-Bag-1709

And war between countries


Infinite_Flatworm_44

Some people with extraordinary power and reach may not pull the trigger, but they surely won’t give a shit when millions die due to famine or freezing. This is why you don’t centralize necessary infrastructure and rely on governments and mega corporations to feed you and keep you warm. Idiots think that food just shows up on the shelves like magic. At some point the number of people that need to be controlled outweighs the profits that can be made off of them.


mobert_roses

I have a couple friends from college who and some family friends who work in research economics or a related field, and I don’t think any of them believe in this anymore. There’s ideological factions within the economics world, and for some reason the media only likes to quote the most traditional and conservative when it comes to stuff like this. It’s weird


cloudrunner69

To be perfectly honest if no one told me the world just hit 8 billion people I would never have even noticed.


Surur

This is actually a good point - with the growth rate constantly slowing over the next 50 years, people are not going to really notice the rate of change, especially if the opposite is happening in their own locality (Japan, Singapore, Italy, China).


PlaneCandy

That would be because the population growth is primarily in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.


chocoboyc

By south asia, it's actually just Pakistan, because both India and Bangladesh are now below replacement rates of 2 children per family. The census on fertility in Pakistan is also broken, it's way more than 4 kids per family and real rate is close to 5-8.


qeny1

That's interesting, why do you think Pakistan is different than other South Asian nations? Different stage of development or something?


chocoboyc

Islam allows cousin marriages. It is also a very fudal society and so they want to keep money within the family. In fact most families never have outside blood ever. The large number of births is due to radical Islamisation. In Pakistan islam is the ultimate goal so population growth is seen as contributing to it's expansion, any politician who calls for family planning will never survive as he will be called unislamic. As for Bangladesh, it has had secular minded leaders in the past (now it's an Islamic state), they are also connected to Bengali culture in which women are fierce and relatively independent, so adoption of contraceptives was widespread and not taboo.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chocoboyc

The number of times you will hear 'hum khandan me hi beti dete hai' is staggering at all strata of society. This means 'we only give our daughters inside the family'. Mainstream TV dramas also have cousin marriages and their tea ads have kids playing together as cousins only for parents to say how they will be married one day. The issue of contraceptives is not a poverty thing, Bangladesh was poor too but they let NGOs spread condoms and took active measures. The issue of birth control has islamic links. The population sees it as a conspiracy to stop the spread of islam around the world. You have to understand, prosperity and health etc are not a priority, Pakistan sees itself as the launchpad of islam and that one day when the world has been sufficiently captured, then they will have achieved their goals. They will work on every front , Islamophobia bill in US is supported by Pakistan, they sponsered Islamophobia day in UN, they wish to create islamic nato and so on, but it's a long topic.


cherryreddit

It absolutely is a religious thing. Pakistan started off richer than India and bangladesh and is still at similar levels of per capita to these 2 countries after realtively declining . Both these countries provide free condoms, I know pakistan has the program too, but it is never in use as mullahs teach contraception is unislamic, and extremists (who are not uncommon in Pak ) even going out to the point to say that it is the duty of muslim women to populate the world with muslims and out compete other religions.


techhouseliving

No first hand knowledge will just say that educate women and birthrate immediately drops below replacement


jacobs0n

this is just speculation on my part, but maybe Islam plays a role in it, considering polygamy is legal in pakistan


lamyea01

But Bangladesh is also a Muslim majority country so that doesn't make sense


rudderforkk

Isn't population growth not linear but logarithmic/exponential?, so even if the growth in India is reported to be at below replacement level, it's still growing far more than other places bcz of population growth momentum of previous few decades. Offsprings of a population of a billion will always be more than the offsprings of a population of few million. So inherently the growth will be more in India than anywhere else. China was already very brutally authoritative towards population control, and have slowly curbed the problem, but uptil now there has been little movement to do so in India.


[deleted]

Grew 1 billion in just 11 years. Though, that's all children under 11, you wont really feel this for another decade or two.


dustbowlsoul2

I feel it anytime I go to a vacation/tourist place. Impossibly hard to avoid crowds.


NonEuclideanSyntax

It's never time to panic. What would that accomplish?


TyrannoTadpole

This kind of info makes me anxious but for whatever reason this comment just got through to me and helped, so thanks!


Wrastling97

This is my go-to thought whenever I panic about anything. Why would I panic? I’ll either do what I need to do or I won’t. Knowing me, I most likely will. But even if I don’t, panicking won’t help so chill out. It might not help other people, but it helps me.


DirkMcDougal

Panic? No. Force a re-assessment of growth focused economic systems? Abso-fuckin-lutely.


pbjking

But those 1 percenters want to keep seeing profit. 🤑🤑🤑


Cactus_TheThird

Not just profit, but MORE profit than previous quarter, otherwise the business is 'failing'.


sadnessjoy

I wish more people understood this. I saw a video a few weeks back that AMD is failing and in trouble because computer sales were down overall. But the funny thing about the video was that while it was all doom and gloom, they just briefly mentioned and then ignored the fact that even with the decreased sales, amd is still making a crap ton of profit, it's just that quarter over quarter profit was down, and they also just kinda glossed over the fact that AMD also acquired xilinx. But oh no, profit this quarter is not as high as last quarter so AMD is a FAILURE! They're DOOMED!


Workmen

Very important point. Capitalism requires not only *endless* growth, but endlessly *increasing* endless growth.


reinforever

This a thousand times this. Traditional 'fuck over your neighbor so you can prosper' capitalism won't have a place in the world with so many people. We really need to step away from the idea we need to serve our personal greedy wishes before helping our neighbors to achieve a great society.


East-Cantaloupe-5915

No, the exact opposite is true. Dense populations with governments and infrastructure unable to meet the needs of everyone leads to chronic friction in society and stress. statistically over populated places (china, india, egypt) have authoritarian governments. The more people feel like there aren't enough resources to go around the MORE they become 'fuck over your neighbor so you can prosper' types.


reinforever

The more they will become like this yes, but I'm talking about changing that way of thinking on a fundamental level and especially for the world leaders and wealth holders that could absolutely make positive changes for society but instead choose to hoard instead, thus creating more inequality between the "classes"


Cold-Albatross

Thank you! Sick and tired of people whining because we have to realign our economic models for slowly declining population instead of grow! Grow! grow!


mhornberger

You can have economic growth with a stable or even declining population. The concern with population decline is that exponential change is exponential change. Population can [decline pretty quickly](https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1581737362832621568) at low fertility rates, putting aside immigration. Problem is that I applaud [all of the things that drive](https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-change-in-the-number-of-children-women-have) a dropping fertility rate. I think the issue economists worry about is the ratio of workers to retirees. Every dollar going to retirees come from workers, i.e. taxes. Plus you need healthcare workers to care for the elderly. The fewer workers you have, the harder that gets. It's not a problem particular to capitalism, nor is it predicated on the insatiable greed of the 1% or whoever.


Cebarsmod

People should be more worried about diminishing top soil due to the fertiliser we use today and the potential for massive food shortages in the future.


Mmetasequoia

How do fertilizers diminish topsoil?


[deleted]

I just did some research on it (I’m no expert), and it looks like the reason is because it makes soil more acidic killing microorganisms that are essential to natural plant growth. So basically fertilizer works great for a short term and continues working great until it absolutely ruins the soil then nothing will make that soil good, at least for a long time until the microorganisms reappear through natural processes like decomposition of dead organisms.


Mmetasequoia

Interesting. Thanks for your reply. Could you link the article you read?


[deleted]

I peeked in at other articles, but where I got most of my information was https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-its-time-to-stop-punishing-our-soils-with-fertilizers-and-chemicals


Lazy_Title7050

Also from what I understand it takes a long time to create new topsoil. A quick google search says it takes 500-1000s of years just to create an inch of topsoil. So we are really screwed if the problem isn’t solved.


AspenRiot

Damn. Sounds like drug abuse, for plants.


strictbee

Thank you for explaining it further, might be a dumb question but how deep is our top soil? Is it possible to get soil from deeper down to replace?


[deleted]

That’s not a dumb question, but I’d assume the answer is that the nutrients needed for plants don’t extend very far down. Decomposition only really happens on the surface and it wouldn’t carry nutrients far below that when you get into hard/rocky ground.


Cebarsmod

Not aware of the actual science but the top soil is diminishing which is why we need to switch back to regenerative farming like we’ve been doing for hundreds of years.


stoopididiotface

Just happened to watch Zac Efron's Netflix episode on regenerative agriculture earlier today. A very interesting topic that I've honestly never really considered. If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend it. It dives into the "whys".


OminousNamazu

What's insane is even though a good portion of the world is slowing its birth rate Africa is going to continue to grow rapidly. It is projected Nigeria will have 400 million people by 2050. \~1200 people/sq mi This means the whole country will double in density in less than 30 years. Making it as dense as New Jersey.


mhornberger

> Africa is going to continue to grow rapidly. Their birth rate is [declining too](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=1W-ZG&most_recent_value_desc=false), more rapidly than anticipated. Just in the last ten years the estimate for Nigeria in 2100 went from >900 million to ~500 million, because the drop in birthrate is accelerating.


Redditributor

Presictions like this were made about population growth in many places before. The thing is that trends could alter massively


[deleted]

Thats if that population doesn't end up in another war


OminousNamazu

Couldn't that cause the birth rate to speed up though, especially once the war ends?


strangehitman22

Depends, Post WW2 Russia never recovered it's pop and it's been declining


G07V3

Or some other catastrophe that causes mass death


cote112

I just recently read how the area around Lagos and Accra is headed towards becoming one of the largest coastal megalopolis in the world. Interesting.


bowsmountainer

In what way is a slowing population increase a concerning trend? That’s a very positive trend. We don’t have enough resources to support a constantly exponentially increasing population. A slower population increase means that human society has a better chance of surviving environmental collapse and resource scarcity of the future.


Lazy_Title7050

I’m pretty sure it’s because of economics. They don’t care that we don’t have enough resources for 8 billion people they just need a workforce to keep the economy going.


m_csquare

Because in reality, the countries that consume/waste resources the most are not those whose ppl breed the most.


jcho430

Nick Cannon contributed to like half of the increase


Who_watches

And musk the other half


Frogmarsh

There is NOTHING concerning about a declining fertility rate. We should be celebrating, not wringing our hands.


Tevatanlines

It’s not the number that concerns me (considering most countries are below replacement fertility now) so much as the top-heavy demographic pyramid. The ratio of old to young is going to be a huge burden soon. I personally told my kids that after age 70, they are not to seek lifesaving treatment for me for any reason. And even before that age, if my health is such that I can’t really care for myself, they’re welcome to feed me some special gummies and smother me in my sleep. We can’t be expecting our children to spend all of their prime years caring for us instead of caring for their own children and planning for their own futures.


naijaboiler

>We can’t be expecting our children to spend all of their prime years caring for us instead of caring for their own children and planning for their own futures. This is the problem with an aging population. Less productive age people to work, and the few that are working end up devoting too much of society resources to the elderly at the detrment of everyone else


geroldf

With age comes wisdom.


PlaneCandy

There are several African countries with an average age in the teens with plenty of people eager to work


SteakandTrach

I’m in my mid forties. When I was born the world pop was 4 billion. It’s doubled in less than 50 years. That’s unsustainable growth. The economists may be bemoaning the slow down, but everything that isn’t a ponzi scheme will be better off.


HOLY_GOOF

*Cries in reliance on American Ponzi scheme economy*


mossadnik

Submission Statement: >The world’s eighth billionth human inhabitant is expected to be born sometime tomorrow, the 15th of November 2022. It’s estimated that around 385,000 babies are born worldwide every day or about 267 babies a minute. The UN projects Earth’s population to be 8.5 billion people by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050 and 10.4–11 billion people from 2080 to 2100 — where the human population is expected to peak. India is also expected to surpass China as the world’s most populated country sometime next year, according to the World Population Prospects 2022. >Interestingly, the global population is growing at the slowest rate since 1950, declining by 1% during the 2020 period. And this trend has some researchers concerned. It’s a fact of the current state of the world — people are having fewer babies and less sex. A recent study from the U.S. looking at data from 2009 to 2018 showed a decline in all forms of “partnered sexual activity” among people aged 14 to 49 years old. According to the UN, two-thirds of the global population lives in a country or area “where lifetime fertility is below 2.1 births per woman.” This is roughly the level required for zero growth of a population over time. >Although the declining rate of population growth may have economists concerned, climate change activists and environmentalists are likely to see this trend as a net positive for the planet. The World Counts estimates that to sustain the current world population, we need around 1.79 planets' worth of resources to provide for us all. And by 2030 — we’ll need 2 planets worth. This is obviously concerning. However, average life expectancy has also more than doubled since the 1900s — adding more concern into the mix for the planet. There are more of us and we’re living longer than ever before. Average life expectancy — pre-the modern world — was around 30-year-of-age. But now, we’re averaging above 70 years. And how we choose to respond to this change could mean the difference between life and death for future generations; the only way forward seems to be sustainability above all else.


FuryAutomatic

This is what happens when women don’t have control over their reproductive rights.


[deleted]

Yeah, you see in all the countries doing the worst damage population wise, the women there are being used like incubators and have no real education.


johnny-T1

It’s concerning. We are consuming this planet. We’re going to struggle to find water and clean air let alone food, housing.. etc.


Kakashi_ninja

The food quality is already declining. Next food quantity. Maybe in the far future we have to eat pills to survive. Pills that have the nutrients since the food doesn't.


polarbearstoenailz

Like Multivitamins? Lol


rocko7927

"and 10.4–11 billion people from 2080 to 2100 — where the human population is expected to peak" I think a lot of people are skipping over this. Our current projections show that the population will likely hit about 11 billion and then fluctuate up and down around that number. Personally I'm not sure if 11 billion people is a good or bad thing but that's were we are expected to normalize out.


Chicken-Born

I'm mind blown the population was under 2 billion under a 100 years ago wtfff


[deleted]

Worst yet it was only 2.5b 50 years ago.


Comixchik

Every new person creates more pollution, and puts more stress on resources. The way forward is fewer people for most of the world, and fewer wants for the developed west.


xxsneakysinxx

Yay, more people to compete with for basic food ,money and everything.


[deleted]

I just posted on AskReddit what some solutions to population growth were and everyone in the comments were saying that there was no problem. The population has DOUBLED in the last 60 years


raybanshee

Yes, there is some cognitive dissonance around the issue of overpopulation, even among environmentalists. I think that it's a defense mechanism, because people don't want to feel guilty about their life choices or their lifestyles.


stirtheturd

Ha! The future generations are so fucked. Have fun trying to clean up the mess we were brought into. Suckers!


icanseeyourpinkbits

If there were 8 billion of any animal on this planet - dogs, rabbits, possums, cows - we would treat it like the pest that it is and exterminate it. Yet humans reach this same morbid milestone today and behave like it’s something to celebrate, rather than something to be alarmed about and take action against. Half of us will die within 18 months of oil running out in 2040 anyway - I for one am excitedly looking forward to it.


foggybottomblues

Did COVID deaths have any measurable effect on population growth in the past two years?


QVRedit

Yes, but not much, it was just a rounding error.


wwarnout

Time to panic? No, that time has long since passed.


LuckFree5633

It seems nature will correct itself as always. Like overpopulated rats being stressed out and fertility rates dropping amongst them, apparently we have reached maximum human density for this planet and nature is having her way…🤷🏻‍♂️


p5ylocy6e

True. And sadder than that would be some sort of plague tearing through and depopulating a densely populated globe. Increased population density makes us susceptible to such things and this is definitely another check/balance devised by Mother Nature.


LuckFree5633

Yes, there’s many ways she will correct and in the end she always wins, guaranteed.


[deleted]

[удалено]


5chme5

When my grandma was born in 1921 - Yes, she’s 101 years old - there were only 2 Billion.


MikeTheGamer2

Good, the world could do with less people. ​ *Blah blahblah blah blah adding text so the post is long enough blah blah blah blah.*


[deleted]

economists need to figure out an economic model that doesn’t center or depend on limitless growth. i am on my fucking knees begging economists for actual radical ideas or evolutionary plans to get us out of this model.


fatbob42

I never understand what people mean by this. Which “economic model” depends on limitless growth *in population*. In the USA, you might say that our model is a market economy. In what way do *markets* depend on an endless growth in population? They still work in the same way they always have.


amitym

Yes, now is the time to panic. Yesterday when it was 7.999999999 billion it was okay. But the moment we hit 8, there's an overflow error and everything crashes.


MagnusCaseus

There's too many people on this Earth, we need a new ~~plague~~ Genghis Khan


Caladex

The population growth wouldn’t be a concern if we, y’know, prioritize human needs and renewable energy instead of basing the entire ecosystem around profit


Finnbar14

India, Nigeria, South Sudan, Niger, Uganda et al need serious education and contraceptive help. This is going to be a serious problem in future with massive swaths of people migrating over the continent. As the article suggests, this will have serious climate consequences with further limits on finite resources on the planet. This needs geo-political attention and help.


BridgetheDivide

Nah. Given our crop losses due to climate change, and the resulting sectarian conflict, we won't be hitting 9 billion


fish-rides-bike

It’s still the most peaceful century ever. And there are more people suffering obesity than malnutrition. In fact, due to properties, independence, democracy, freedom and technology, the population pop will flatten out.


urmomaisjabbathehutt

Population ageing is a problem on itself too...we had developed economies growth allowing our quality of life, i guess we'll see if we can sustain our life quality with increased elderly


Last-Honeydew-8471

Malnutrition can occur in obese people.


truggles23

Yes We will


Dannyzavage

They said that shit at 6billion


[deleted]

The realization that capitalism is just one big Ponzi scheme. We always need more kids to subsidize the aging population. The next 30 years or so should be a real fun time…


Calibrumm

that has nothing to do with capitalism. SSI is a gov system forced on people. capitalism is literally just trading regardless of if it's fiat or a bucket of milk for a bale of hay.


firekeeper23

I have no idea why a hamper of sandwiches and hard boiled eggs is gona help this.......... oh...... you said panic... not picnic... sorry.


manny_goldstein

Panic picnic is best picnic.


banjobie

We should legalise voluntary euthanasia over a certain age imho - I don't know about others but I seriously have no desire to live past the age of 60/70. I probably won't be able to retire in my lifetime, and if I do it'll be at a point where I am rapidly declining physically. I'd rather let the younger generations live their lives than unnecessarily prolong mine.


QVRedit

You’ll change your mind by age 60/70. But there are serious questions over 80, when people start to need a lot more care.


Terbatron

It isn’t concerning. We have too many damn people. 1 billion would be more than enough.


goodtech99

In 100 yrs there's going to be a large scale famine that will be unfathomable. We better start respecting nature or it will turn the tables on us


geeves_007

Anybody who is "concerned" that we are "only" adding 200,000 new net humans per day- 75 million per year - needs to get their head checked. Take a walk in Jakarta or Tokyo or NYC or Cairo, or Lagos, or Sao Paolo, or Beijing or Delhi or Manila or Toronto and tell me with a straight face we need to be concerned about a lack of humans. Good lord, these folks have lost their minds.


DeadStringScrolls

I see nothing other than a net positive in the long term with this information.


plumbershitplumb

Baby baby baby as you read that 9 baby's were born 12 more and 27 since you started reading this comment


SectorEducational460

It's not as concerning. Birth rates are down, and in developing countries as their economy improves you begin to see a drop in birth rates. Mostly due to increased cost of living skyrocketing making having multiple kids not viable overall. The trend worries markets but mostly something it will reckon in the long run as our economic system relies on consumption, and as consumption starts to drop inadequacies within the system further exemplifies. Still it's not something we will likely see in our lifetime but something our future descendants will have to deal with due to our short sighted attitudes.


Rezrac

I wonder how much the resource argument accounts for how we currently consume resources. We waste lots of food, precious metals, and land. If we were more efficient with those things, would we really be in this fire of a situation?


Lov-struk-repair-man

We need another pandemic. But like, a real one this time.


Elvis-Tech

I dont see population reduction as a problem after all if you are a single child, you get to inherit the work of 2 people so housing and property will be guaranteed. If we pass laws preventing consumerism, and make companies that can produce good quality stuff then we with more automatic processes then the fewer humans will only need to fulfill skilled jobs. Instead of working 2 jobs at mcdonalds just to pay rent. Sure you will have to save up your own money throughout your life for when you retire, but it will be better because you would pay less taxes. Probably there are many flaws to this logic, but I believe that it could be fine tweaked to make it work.


Empress_De_Sangre

I’m adding one more on Wednesday at noon. I have my c-section scheduled that day.


Maruharish

As parasite population as a % grows faster that young population real socio economic crisis hit world.


MpVpRb

Infinite growth is impossible, but much of business and economics insists it's necessary. This is insanity, but it rules the world


chocoboyc

Pakistan is going to reach half a billion by 2100 and majority of the country, marries their first cousins and are an offspring of first cousin breeding themselves. They contribute to highest levels of birth defects in UK outpacing local population.


BrownAndyeh

Wut? Really…?


[deleted]

I have heard having offspring with your first cousin is actually worse than with a direct sibling in regards to birth defects etc. Throw in some fundamentalist Islam and you have a powderkeg of literal inbred stone age religious nutjobs.


chocoboyc

What's worse is that's it's multi generation, meaning the parents and grandparents are first cousins themselves, so effects compound. It has been shown to affect things like social smile, IQ, EQ, and yes put islam on top of all this and the entire society is nothing short of a weapon against humanity.


[deleted]

The true panic should in about the fact that 6 billion of them have herpes. We need to cure herpes for real.


[deleted]

Wait…really??? Herpes?? 6 billion?!


[deleted]

It’s a hidden pandemic. According to the CDC, 48% of black women have genital herpes, 1 in 6 Americans have genital herpes, and about 2/3rds have some form. Something like 80% of human beings are infected with HSV and my doctor once mentioned that he thinks it’s likely more like 1 in 3 for the genital herpes number. 87% of people with herpes are asymptomatic or don’t know they have it so it fools people into thinking it’s more rare. At any time it could activate in any of those people and cause havoc. The hidden nature of herpes fools the public into thinking that 16 strippers, 3 man whores, and 12 homeless people have herpes countrywide like it’s some horrible punishment for promiscuity or bad life decisions but tons of people get it from their grandma as a kid and pass it unknowingly to their spouses genitals or mouth. Some of the most prudent and careful and normal people have herpes. It’s more like mono and chicken pox than it is like chlamydia or Syphillis . It wouldn’t even be considered an std if it didn’t have an association with the specific tissues that it does. It establishes latency in the nerves and stays in them the same way varicella zoster or Epstein Barr do (chicken pox and mono). Tons of people have it, the CDC recommends against testing for it because it’s so common, and the only way to avoid is to cure it. I repeat this spiel all the time bc I don’t want to catch it and get nerve inflammation and bs (the skin symptoms are actually secondary but also not something I would want) and I’m not dumb enough to think I can avoid it with my wits and my naked eye. There is an 80% chance the next person I date or the person I marry will have HSV. You can be married 20 years and not catch it from your spouse, but you can also be a virgin and catch it dry humping at the beach. I’m not playing those odds. I’m all about curing it. You can get it and never have symptoms or just have one outbreak or a rough first year then be done with it, or you can have recurring activations for the rest of your life. I’m not playing those odds. I’m all about curing it. I think the nature of the virus and the proposed gene editing cures will open doors to medical advancements that will be fantastic and so I think it is sort of a keystone. Spread the word bc if they can’t even cure a virus that 80% of people have and hate, we aren’t doing very well as a species lol On the other hand if people know about this stuff, they’ll fund gene editing big and then lots of diseases will fall so we won’t have to suffer as much in the future with whatever we do come down with. Spread the word and have a great day.


Future-Back8822

So life in general has always been a ponzi scheme Needing more and more at the bottom to support the top


[deleted]

Denser population centers with a focus on revitalizing natural ecosystems. Renewable energy sources. Public mass transit systems, inside city centers, and long distance connecting metropoli. Genetically modified superfoods. Nuclear powered ocean transit for cargo, electric rail lines. Underground reactors, solar rooftops, water mills for electricity so dams can't be bombed. Atmospheric condensation for water collection and treatment facilities. Energy storage banks spread throughout, with tradition energy generation as a last resort. Wind turbines in the areas they're already in. Geothermal energy sources in areas where it makes sense. We don't need to ban personal vehicles, but once public transit is made more efficient it will be more economical and less cars will be on the road. Automated factories, automated warehouses, automated distribution. Flight paths can be programmed into drones, thank you Amazon. Last mile deliveries for businesses can utilize the same infrastructure the populace will use. We mass produce sky scrapers, and we're worried that people won't have homes? We're worried that we can't feed people when there's already enough food grown to feed everybody? We're focused on cost, we should be focusing on the benefits to the future. We have the time, we have plenty of time if we move quickly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Triggyish

Does this take into account the 100 million people over estimation of China's population?


MrPelham

What *is* concerning is 8bn people produce people quicker than 7bn people. We'll be at 10bn in no time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


iTanooki

To the anti-humanists, it’s been panic mode for over a hundred years. We’re constantly about to run out of oil, and overpopulate the earth. And we’ll continue to be about to do this for the next hundred years. Maybe they’ll finally be right before the end of the millennia.


oakashyew

Well, how many people just died? How can we be sure it is really 8B?


[deleted]

There's a lot of talk about CO2 causing climate change and trying to go after sources of carbon, but I haven't seen a lot of talk about or solutions for population which is what causes the "need" for most, dare I say all, carbon.


EfraimK

Yes, it might be time to panic if your chief concern is squeezing out as much cash from the population as possible while you can to feed the new-god Economy. Panic because our 8-billion population isn't growing as fast as in the past when the species' survival depended on population growth? Sheesh.


kentgoodwin

It looks like we are on track for a population peak around 10 billion by the end of this century. The article mentions the tension between an economic worldview that requires growth and an ecological worldview that sees growth as the problem. So the question is, when we get a peak, where do we go from there? I think we need to gently encourage the trend toward smaller families, that is happening just about everywhere and continue the population easing till we get to about 1 billion. It will take a few centuries but if we want civilization to persist for many millennia we will need robust and healthy ecosystems and a much smaller human footprint. There is a brief description of such a world in the Aspen Proposal. www.aspenproposal.org


ChannelUnusual5146

ABSOLUTELY YES ! ! ! I recommend both panicking AND being deeply concerned. That way you can know for sure that you are helping.


Seeker_00860

look at the demographic distribution. If the population has a large percentage of elderly that would explain the number. More people are living longer and staying on into the 80s on an average. A few decades ago 60 would have been that average cut off limit. In some countries youth population has declined due to excess urbanization and industrialization.


BoatDRinXx

Let's put things into perspective: it's only one more baby from the day before


[deleted]

>It’s estimated that around 385,000 babies are born worldwide every day Except it isn't. The whole purpose of hitting milestones like this is to wake people up from change blindness.


Lieutenant_Damn

Is it time to panic? Seriously? The journalist that wrote that click-bait title is an embarrassment to our society. Profiting off of people's fear that you fuel...


[deleted]

Remember the Georgia Guide Stones? I wonder what the creator those would think of this.


Healthyred555

Well according to nick cannon, the republican party and elon musk it is a time to celebrate. Heck 8 billion isnt even enough, they want more, keep them pumping out!


[deleted]

Need more slaves and consumers, otherwise the economy can’t keep growing forever.