17 replies to this topic

[SpazzyMcGee]

FutureTimeline.net predicts by 2060 human population grow will slow, partly because of "vast numbers of deaths from starvation, drought and other adverse conditions". That reasoning may make sense at first glance, but modern evidence suggests the opposite is true. The regions with the worst living conditions are often the regions with the highest population growth.

One possible explanation is that family's in regions with a high infant mortality rate have to constantly produce children to ensure some of them make it into adulthood. Another, lesser possible contributor to this phenomena could be the increased value of family for people who have few other forms of self-fulfillment.

No doubt "adverse conditions" such as floods and famine can kill many many people, but such disasters often leave many more people destitute than they actually kill. I argue that such disasters create a net increase in the human population.

Most developed nations have low, zero, or even negative population growth. Simply imagine world where natural disasters and famine don't occur. The underdeveloped regions where famine and natural disasters do the most harm would develop more quickly, thereby curbing birth rates.

I believe FutureTimeline.net should remove "adverse conditions" from its reasoning for why human population growth will slow.

[GNR Rvolution]

Actually I believe that education has a massive part to play in population growth. Yes, on a purely animal level people recreate to ensue survival of the species, but I think that education and the subsequent rise in the standard of living conditions is the only way to reduce population growth in third world countries.

[Flatfingers]

I agree with SpazzyMcGee, up to a point. The available evididence suggests that a population growth rate at or below the replacement rate of 2.1 children is most closely linked to social stability and economic freedom. More developed nations have lower birthrates than socially and economically undeveloped nations.

It's not certain that this works in reverse -- we don't really know that a nation that, for whatever reason, becomes economically and socially broken would begin to see a considerably higher birth rate. There might be some disaster so bad that even repopulation seems pointless. (Zombie apocalypse, maybe?) This has happened before, notably in the Minoan and Egyptian civilizations, which were then absorbed into more energetic expanding civilizations.

That said, if the intent is to speculate that world population will start to decline, the best explanation would be that the developed nations of the world finally got over their mistaken reservations about modeling and supporting classical liberal values -- including democracy and capitalism -- around the world.

[SpazzyMcGee]

Actually I believe that education has a massive part to play in population growth. Yes, on a purely animal level people recreate to ensue survival of the species, but I think that education and the subsequent rise in the standard of living conditions is the only way to reduce population growth in third world countries.

Education is typically the explanation for lower population growth and if one were to have asked a few months ago what would be the best way to reduce the birthrate in a high birth rate region I would have said education, but why would education effect how many children a person has?

And what if a population was highly educated but also had a very high child mortality rate? What would a educated family do if their children were likely to die before the age of 18? The answer seems obvious to me. They would have as many kids as they could to make sure at least some of them would live. It wouldn't necessarily be a conscious decision. Couples wouldn't simply sit down at their table and come to a logical conclusion about how many children they should have to ensure their genetic material carries on. Basic human tendencies would cause them to have more kids. Humans aren't wired to cope with having kids and then not having kids for obvious evolutionary reasons. As you said, it's "animalistic".

Let's say Sweden was hit by a series of antibiotic resistant diseases that significantly increased child mortality rates. Most of Sweden is well educated. Do you believe the Swedish population would have a lot more children or do you believe they diminish until they were a fraction of their former size?

[GNR Rvolution]

At the end of the day there is no one single answer to this, as I said I think education has a massive part to play, but it is only one of many parameters. As mentioned, economic and political stability are vitally important, and medical advances are saving many more people than was done 50 years ago. People are also living longer, so the mortality rate from old age is getting progressively longer.

I agree that environmental events are not in themselves a trigger for population decline, as you mentioned if there is an outbreak of a fatal disease, assuming that it is not an extinction level event, the population would bloom once the pandemic had passed. However people in an educated society would not continue to have children once the population has reached a stable number, whereas I believe that in an uneducated and uninformed society would continue to have children past the point of sensibility.

Specifically when I mention education, what I specifically refering to is literacy amongst women, There is an almost direct correlation between literacy and fertility rates amongst women, although this is more of a indicator of other elements that are influencing this trend. What we do need to do is try and take control of this animalistic urge to procreate, it is leading us to an unsustainable situation, and the sooner we deal with it the better, but unfortunately unlike China there is no way a one child policy would ever pass into law into a democratic society, which means it is down to education to make people realise that they need to seriously consider their choices. It's a harsh thing to do, but better it is done now, by choice, than 30 or 40 years from now by enforcement.

[Zachemc2]

I always thought this was the case because the impoverished don't have much access to contraception.

[SpazzyMcGee]

Specifically when I mention education, what I specifically refering to is literacy amongst women, There is an almost direct correlation between literacy and fertility rates amongst women, although this is more of a indicator of other elements that are influencing this trend. What we do need to do is try and take control of this animalistic urge to procreate, it is leading us to an unsustainable situation, and the sooner we deal with it the better, but unfortunately unlike China there is no way a one child policy would ever pass into law into a democratic society, which means it is down to education to make people realise that they need to seriously consider their choices. It's a harsh thing to do, but better it is done now, by choice, than 30 or 40 years from now by enforcement.

The education of women decreasing birth rates makes a lot of sense. I don't believe we should say "education reduces birth rates" because that is 50% incorrect. What we should say is "education of women reduces birth rates", else the people we are saying this too will get the wrong idea... just a suggestion.

I agree that environmental events are not in themselves a trigger for population decline, as you mentioned if there is an outbreak of a fatal disease, assuming that it is not an extinction level event, the population would bloom once the pandemic had passed.

I was actually singling out the destruction of infrastructure; the destruction of human infrastructure i.e. the deaths of trained professionals in the case of disease. That destruction reduces the population's health services, food accessibility, and even education now that we have agreed on that point. Disasters may cause an initial loss of population, but loss of infrastructure will lead to many more births for the reasons already discussed. Therefor it doesn't make sense to predict natural disasters will be keeping a large portion of the world's population in check. That is what FutureTimeline.net says will happen, so it should be changed.

I always thought this was the case because the impoverished don't have much access to contraception.

Yes, that is one factor. One can't tell people to not have sex. The best one can do is provide contraceptives. Better infrastructure improves access to contraceptives thus disasters would reduce access to them.

[GNR Rvolution]

The education of women decreasing birth rates makes a lot of sense. I don't believe we should say "education reduces birth rates" because that is 50% incorrect. What we should say is "education of women reduces birth rates", else the people we are saying this too will get the wrong idea... just a suggestion.

As I mentioned previously education is one of many factors, and education is a benefit of a stable civilsation, although women's rights need to be adhered to for this to work. You are right of course, it makes no difference if men are edcuated but women are not, it is the female that needs education, and for that you need equality.

I was actually singling out the destruction of infrastructure; the destruction of human infrastructure i.e. the deaths of trained professionals in the case of disease. That destruction reduces the population's health services, food accessibility, and even education now that we have agreed on that point. Disasters may cause an initial loss of population, but loss of infrastructure will lead to many more births for the reasons already discussed. Therefor it doesn't make sense to predict natural disasters will be keeping a large portion of the world's population in check. That is what FutureTimeline.net says will happen, so it should be changed.

I'm not sure that loss of infrastructure would lead to an increase in population, if hospitals were wiped out would that not lead to an increase in mortality rate?

Yes, that is one factor. One can't tell people to not have sex. The best one can do is provide contraceptives. Better infrastructure improves access to contraceptives thus disasters would reduce access to them.

Access to contaceptives doesn't necessarily mean that people will use them. Look at the Catholic faith, under their laws contraception is prohibited.

[SpazzyMcGee]

I'm not sure that loss of infrastructure would lead to an increase in population, if hospitals were wiped out would that not lead to an increase in mortality rate?

Yes, and that is why the population would increase. Infant mortality rates go up with higher general mortality rates. Families will have more children to beat the odds. This is what I said in the original post. The loss of infrastructure that caused the increased mortality rate would independently cause a population increase as argued in my last post too.

Access to contaceptives doesn't necessarily mean that people will use them. Look at the Catholic faith, under their laws contraception is prohibited.

What is your point?

Better access to contraceptives equates to higher usage. It's as simple as that. :\

[GNR Rvolution]

I'm not sure that loss of infrastructure would lead to an increase in population, if hospitals were wiped out would that not lead to an increase in mortality rate?

Yes, and that is why the population would increase. Infant mortality rates go up with higher general mortality rates. Families will have more children to beat the odds. This is what I said in the original post. The loss of infrastructure that caused the increased mortality rate would independently cause a population increase as argued in my last post too.

It depends on if you are talking about a one-off loss of infrastructure, or a repeated loss / lack in the first place. I thought that you were refering to loss of infrastructure in a developed country, where the infrastructure can be replaced. In this case people are not going to start having children they would wait for the infrastructure to be rebuilt. But yes, where there is no infrastructure over a long period of time people will tend to procreate more to allow for a better chance of one or more child making it to adulthood.

Access to contaceptives doesn't necessarily mean that people will use them. Look at the Catholic faith, under their laws contraception is prohibited.

What is your point?

Better access to contraceptives equates to higher usage. It's as simple as that. :\

My point was simply that having a contraceptive available does not immediately equate to people using them. People have to be educated in their use, and some religious / political regimes do not allow their use. As another example there are certain islamic variants who do not permit the use of contraceptives. Indeed I'm not sure if it is still the case but certainly the use of contraceptives by women is banned in the Phillipines.

But just to clarify, I agree with you that the overall population variation is not dependent on localised natural disasters. Uplift of developing and third world countries will decrease the birth rate, as long as the infrastructure is in place, along with the availability and ability of contraception.

[SpazzyMcGee]

But just to clarify, I agree with you that the overall population variation is not dependent on localised natural disasters. Uplift of developing and third world countries will decrease the birth rate, as long as the infrastructure is in place, along with the availability and ability of contraception.

Okay. I was confused about your argument on contraceptives because I didn't see how it related to the thread's topic. I see now that you were just making a general statement about contraceptives.

Now that we see eye to eye, how do we get FutureTimeline.net to change their 21st century prediction?

By 2060, the world's population had begun to level off and plateau... due to the vast numbers of deaths from starvation, drought and other adverse conditions.

[GNR Rvolution]

Well, you need to find an article or articles that contradict the one posted with the statement that is postulated in the timeline, and put a request in to the admins. I'll have a look around and see what I can find...

[Logically Irrational]

One difference I think between localized disasters today and ones caused by global climate change in the future has to do with foreign aid. Famines or similar disasters today would be a lot worse if it wasn't for the outpouring of money and supplies from better off countries. Countries that have a surplus of food will be able to help countries that would otherwise be severely devastated. I'm not saying this always happens, but the way the world works today, America could not get away with not helping Haiti, a country just south of its coast.

In a global warming scenario, things would be different (taking the timeline as entirely fact just for argument's sake). I agree with what was said earlier about population increase after a disaster, but how would that work if a country is completely isolated. In an "every man for himself" scenario, which would be the case, especially along the equator if things get really bad, the growth of the population as described above wouldn't be able to keep up. I think that we can all agree that most countries have more people than they can sustain on their own, particularly desert nations (which would be many by the 2060s). Having more kids to support yourself won't work if there's really nothing to support yourself with, and having more kids because your previous ones are dying at a similar rate wouldn't produce population growth. When you factor in things like war and disease, population decline is the result. If the world's population is currently far above what can be sustained by our current methods, methods which will not improve in many countries if climate change gets worse, removing the things that allowed for this growth, like farmland and irrigation, or even social order (extreme case), will not result in an increased population.

I agree that if every country developed and there were no disasters, population would plateau. I also agree that if a good portion (but not all) of countries is affected by disasters they cannot overcome on their own, then population growth will result. But if that applies to the entire world, with the countries that experience such disasters today experiencing them to a much worse degree, the result will be the same as if there were no disasters at all: population plateau and decline.

[dustinshaw98]

Actually I believe that education has a massive part to play in population growth. Yes, on a purely animal level people recreate to ensue survival of the species, but I think that education and the subsequent rise in the standard of living conditions is the only way to reduce population growth in third world countries.

Actually I believe that education has a massive part to play in population growth. Yes, on a purely animal level people recreate to ensue survival of the species, but I think that education and the subsequent rise in the standard of living conditions is the only way to reduce population growth in third world countries.

I think reduction of population growth will never happen. We don't have the guts to do it. All human nature...

[Logically Irrational]

^^ But global population growth has been declining since the 60s...
http://www.census.go...orldgrgraph.php

It's also in human nature to not be dead and to not be packed into the world like sardines.

[GNR Rvolution]

Certainly in the UK the actual birthrate is now in a contraction phase, sitting at 1.9 children per couple, and the overall increase in population is actually due to immigration, without any immigration the population here would actually be decreasing.

[dustinshaw98]

^^ But global population growth has been declining since the 60s...
http://www.census.go...orldgrgraph.php

It's also in human nature to not be dead and to not be packed into the world like sardines.

^^ But global population growth has been declining since the 60s...
http://www.census.go...orldgrgraph.php

It's also in human nature to not be dead and to not be packed into the world like sardines.

Yes, but at some point, since land is finite, then the expansion will reach a certain limit.

[MarcusAurelius]

So far what I have read from this thread is that people are assuming population growth in the underdeveloped nations is a deliberate counter to high mortality rates. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having been to these countries in the past, society in these countries are stifled in cultural attitudes that are insanely remiss about birth control. They aren't rationally looking at anything in particular. Its common knowledge among scientist that living on lean times actually naturally raises the libido and instinct to engage in sexual activities. Coupled with the sheer ignorance and simple provincial thinking of these parts of the world, its no wonder this remains the uncontested reality for many impoverished nations. I can only surmise that the relentless march of education will change the problem one day.