It took a couple hundred thousand years for the population of Homo sapiens to rise to 2.5 billion. In my seven decade lifetime it has risen to 8 billion. Over three times as many people on the planet than when I first arrived!

I know everyone knows about the rapid rate of growth of people on the planet, but, geez, it's still mind-boggling to think about what has happened to the population just in my lifetime.

---

e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2022 12:35PM by Ted King.

then it's obviously your fault

Pretty much coincides with the advent of rock and roll...hmmm

---

Hurts like a bastid...

And the places that still have high fertility rates generate very little carbon, in fact the least on the planet. It's us low breeders who create most of the carbon emissions.

Point is, human population growth is not the cause of climate change, uncontrolled carbon emissions in the so-called developed world are.

This planet can handle billions of us, if only we'd behave.

for the longest time, I had in my mind that the population was 4-5B; I was surprised when it hit 6B - I had no idea we blew by 7B and are now at 8B.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2022 01:19PM by SDGuy.

This is pretty wild:
[www.abc.net.au]

This week, the world’s population ticks over a historic milestone. But in the next century, society will be reshaped dramatically — and soon we’ll hit a decline we’ll never reverse.

---

---

3.5 billion was the number I remember from elementary school. Back then, the buzz was we'd be at 10 billion (or was it 12 billion?) by the year 2000. We have actually slowed down from the days of Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb" The fertility rate is half of what it was when he wrote the book in 1968.

Quote
Acer
3.5 billion was the number I remember from elementary school. Back then, the buzz was we'd be at 10 billion (or was it 12 billion?) by the year 2000. We have actually slowed down from the days of Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb" The fertility rate is half of what it was when he wrote the book in 1968.

Yeah, the reproductive rate is going down on a worldwide basis. I recently read that there are more children alive today than there will for the foreseeable future. I don't know why but that gave me a funny feeling. There's no doubt that the trend is a good thing for future people in general, it just feels a little funny to have grown up with the population going up and up and up seemingly so rapidly and now coming to an inflection point.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Lemon Drop
And the places that still have high fertility rates generate very little carbon, in fact the least on the planet.

Not entirely true. One of the greatest carbon producers is agriculture via fertilizer production and mechanized farming. The population explosion blew past the limits of natural fertilizers decades ago. The current human population requires synthetic carbon-based fertilizers (and pesticides) to keep yields sufficient for survival.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
Lemon Drop
Point is, human population growth is not the cause of climate change, uncontrolled carbon emissions in the so-called developed world are.

Halve the population (of first, second and third world) and halve the carbon emissions.

Quote
Lemon Drop
This planet can handle billions of us, if only we'd behave.

Any signs THAT'S going to happen? Any time soon?

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Lemon Drop
Point is, human population growth is not the cause of climate change, uncontrolled carbon emissions in the so-called developed world are.

Halve the population (of first, second and third world) and halve the carbon emissions.

Quote
Lemon Drop
This planet can handle billions of us, if only we'd behave.

Any signs THAT'S going to happen? Any time soon?

The highly industrialized world ( I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now) generates most of the carbon emissions. In fact just 3 countries, China, the US, and India, are responsible for 50% of the world's carbon emissions. And there are huge per capita differences with the much smaller US population using two or three times more per capita than China or India.

So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions. We need to focus on reducing emissions in heavy carbon generating nations. The poor nations are victims of our consumer habits, not the cause.

[www.worldometers.info]

Quote
davester

Quote
Lemon Drop
And the places that still have high fertility rates generate very little carbon, in fact the least on the planet.

Not entirely true. One of the greatest carbon producers is agriculture via fertilizer production and mechanized farming. The population explosion blew past the limits of natural fertilizers decades ago. The current human population requires synthetic carbon-based fertilizers (and pesticides) to keep yields sufficient for survival.

Yes agribusiness as practiced now is terrible, but synthetic fertilizers are not the only answer to feeding the planet.

Fertilizer prices have been soaring in 2022 and farmers globally are seeking more environmentally friendly and cost effective options.

We really don't have to destroy the planet to sustain human life.

Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable?

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable?

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

It IS math, but that is not the correct answer.
As explained above.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2022 05:42PM by Lemon Drop.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable?

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Not correct. the countries that emit the most are industrialized countries, who are far ahead of more agrarian societies, for obvious reasons. Further, people who live in cities emit less per capita than those in suburban and rural (industrialized) areas, again for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, all of the top emitters, per capita, are in the Middle East: Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, SA, Oman, etc. USA is #9 on this list, but Canada is #8.

---

Hurts like a bastid...

As if it would be so much easier to cut the population in half than to behave better. Neither is likely based on history, but behaving better (better tech, etc.) is more likely than halving population. Plus, I have faith that half the population could actually increase emissions by living even larger.

Quote
kj
As if it would be so much easier to cut the population in half than to behave better.

I think that's been tried already

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable?

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Not correct. the countries that emit the most are industrialized countries, who are far ahead of more agrarian societies, for obvious reasons. Further, people who live in cities emit less per capita than those in suburban and rural (industrialized) areas, again for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, all of the top emitters, per capita, are in the Middle East: Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, SA, Oman, etc. USA is #9 on this list, but Canada is #8.

Also, it would depend which half. If that half were to be all from poor countries, it wouldn't help at all.

Quote
kj

Quote
mrbigstuff

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable?

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Not correct. the countries that emit the most are industrialized countries, who are far ahead of more agrarian societies, for obvious reasons. Further, people who live in cities emit less per capita than those in suburban and rural (industrialized) areas, again for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, all of the top emitters, per capita, are in the Middle East: Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, SA, Oman, etc. USA is #9 on this list, but Canada is #8.

Also, it would depend which half. If that half were to be all from poor countries, it wouldn't help at all.

Exactly.

Focus on cutting the carbon. The population is only going to grow, and the growth isn't the problem at this stage.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
deusxmac
It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It IS math, but that is not the correct answer.
As explained above.

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

Here's the math...

Say all current carbon emissions are represented by the number 100,000.

50%* is created by 10 "A"s - 50,000 - the big polluters.
30%* is crated by 10 "B"s - 30,000.
20%* is created by 10 "C"s- 20,000.

Halve each of those groups; with each, still practicing the types of pollution activities:
5 "A"s crate 25,000
5 "B"s create 15,000
5 "C"s create 10,00

All emissions now 50,000; half what it was.

Alternately...

50%* is created by 6 "A"s - 50,000.
30%* is crated by 20 "B"s - 30,000.
20%* is created by 40 "C"s - 20,000.

Halve each of those groups; ; with each, still practicing the same types of pollution activities:
3 "A"s crate 25,000
10"B"s create 15,000
20 "C"s create 10,00

All emissions, again, now 50,000; half what it was.

*Use any percentages you like that add up to 100%

There is no good reason to assume a reduction in population would act equally on all groups of people. Plus it assumes people who currently have little access to resources will continue to have similar access. Your model does not reflect reality. If it did it would obviously hold true, but it doesn’t.

Edit: Half the current population of the world could easily use several times the energy currently used if they were as resource intensive as we are in the US. Therefore population control is not an adequate way to address the problem. We absolutely have to produce and use energy differently.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2022 01:34PM by kj.

50%* is created by 10 "A"s - 50,000 - the big polluters.
30%* is crated by 10 "B"s - 30,000.
20%* is created by 10 "C"s- 20,000.

Halve each of those groups; with each, still practicing the types of pollution activities:
5 "A"s crate 25,000
5 "B"s create 15,000
5 "C"s create 10,00

All emissions now 50,000; half what it was.

Alternately...

50%* is created by 6 "A"s - 50,000.
30%* is crated by 20 "B"s - 30,000.
20%* is created by 40 "C"s - 20,000.

Halve each of those groups; ; with each, still practicing the same types of pollution activities:
3 "A"s crate 25,000
10"B"s create 15,000
20 "C"s create 10,00

people are not objects, such as automobiles, for instance. in that case, perhaps dividing by two, there would be a nearly halving of emissions (notwithstanding the necessary infrastructure that would not be halved, but whatever, for the sake of argument). people have different habits, desires, and goals; a very unstructured group that does not lend itself to metrics very well.

---

Hurts like a bastid...