by BOB IRVINE
With global population numbers due to stabilise in the next 50 years, the human geographical footprint should be our biggest environmental concern. I’m assuming here that every extra square meter of the earth humans need will result eventually in a square meter of natural habitat being compromised in some way.
TABLE 1. POPULATION OF THE WORLD AND REGIONS, 2017, 2030, 2050 AND 2100,
ACCORDING TO THE MEDIUM-VARIANT PROJECTION
There is a good discussion of Global Population Demographics at;
| https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf |
It is important that we look at global population demographics when discussing the big environmental issues. According to the UN, population in nearly all non-African countries will either be steady or shrinking by about 2050. Africa has a young population and will follow this trend sometime early in the 22nd century.
According to Matt Ridley, Kazakhstan is the only country in the world that does not have falling birth rates.
There are many reasons given for this population stabilisation. Greater trade and consequent specialisation have played an enormous part in this transition, largely driven by the internet and cheaper travel. Higher immigration levels lead to more contact between cultures which always leads to more commercial contact and trade. Higher living standards have been driven by trade, free enterprise, responsive democratic government and cheap energy. After an initial jump in population these higher living standards have resulted in lower birth rates and neutral or negative growth in population. Feedbacks, in fact, will have stabilised population at a new level.
Higher living standards and lower population growth rates are now directly linked, particularly in developing countries.
Agricultural technology has advanced to the point where it should be possible to feed the eventual stable human population without expanding our agricultural footprint too much.
The UN apparently cares about habitat loss and human encroachment on wilderness areas yet promotes the use of intermittent energy sources. Not only will these expensive energy sources increase our energy costs, reducing living standards and putting upward pressure on population growth, they will also significantly increase our environmental footprint.
According to Bjorn Lomborg, “to replace a 1-hectare gas fired power plant, society needs 73 hectares of solar panels, 239 hectares of on-shore wind turbines or an unbelievable 6000 hectares of biomass.”. It is lucky for our environment that the take up of these intermittent energy sources will be limited by their cost. Common sense seems to have had little impact to date.
All the indications are that humans, after an enormous 300-year disruption and consequent population increase, will once again be living in a stable ecosystem by the end of this century. This time, however, there will be no continents to discover and cultural differences will likely have been softened by contact.
What will this mean for our society and how we organise ourselves?
Recommended reading; The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.
not sure how much to put into this report, they pretty much have all of the growth happening in Africa, seems unlikely to me. Africa has serious resource issues. This seems like guess work to me and not a lot of actual investigation.
“Africa has serious resource issues.”
The problem of Africa is not low nutrition. Africa has malnutrition.
The greens LOVE low nutrition foods. For others.
https://www.google.com/search?q=malnutrition&oq=malnutrition+&aqs=chrome.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&ei=D8QHXYP1BsOIrwSsy7PIBA&q=low+nutrition+foods&oq=Low+nutrit&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
Apparently we cannot predict climate but we CAN predict population growth with 100% certainty and there are at least a dozen versions of “certainty” here. Skepticism and reality belong only to that one does not choose to believe, never to their chosen “fundamental religious beliefs” nor their totally accurate predictions in areas they want to be true. How can one be a skeptic stating we cannot predict climate and then state we can somehow predict population? Only with fantasy and denial….
Because we can’t predict climate, we can’t predict anything?
Science deniers minds can make all kinds assumptions about everything. Like always.
Or maybe we know much more about humans than climate. Climate is chaotic and nonlinear system, and human is not. You know, when a boy meets girl…
I´m not saying this prediction of population is somehow more accurate than any other. To me it´s “lets see”.
We can predict weather few days, with good luck. We can not predict weather (climate) hundreds of years. Models are only tools, and only one of them is almost close. Other, hundreds, are off the scale, high.
So, calling this “fantasy and denial”, is proof of your lack of braincapacity to compaire these, totally different issues as they are at same equal level. They are not.
These things are not just YES or NO. Propability to this population prediction to be true, or close, is much higher than climatemodels – 1 vision to be anywhere on this planet. So, shame on you!
Planar thinking.
Humans affect large areas vertically and horizontally.
Where humans are unable to spread out, they build vertically. Humans drain swamps, fill bays, inlets and ocean shallows, fill valleys with reservoirs, aquaculture, build wind farms, etc. etc.
Make that cubic meter and I’m more inclined to agree.
Fail-safe recipe for population control.
1) raise living standards
2) increase access to education for women.
All else follows from those two.
End of story. Wealth (energy aviailability) is directly correlated to smaller families. Ten years ago when I moved to Panama, 4-9 children was normal. Some families had up to 16. Ten years later, 2-3 kids max. What happened? Consumer credit, new cars, big screens, travel, education costs. Try piling 9 kids in a car for a weekend outing. Not to mention the hotel and restaurant bills.
So, to slow population growth, get them as much cheap energy as fast as possible. Once wealth reaches the “no more kids” point, population stops growing. A smaller population uses less energy forever.
Yes. With rising wealth, taking care of environment also rise. Winwin.
Planned Population to relieve Mother Gaia’s “burden”. It’s Her right.
History has taught us a simple lesson. More wealth brings better health and better health brings smaller families.
It is that simple.
Now the kicker for those Green thinkers, more wealth always requires more reliable cheap energy. If the COGS really do want to improve the condition of the environment in which “real people” live they need to get on board either the nuclear electricity revolution, or back the fossil fuel known technologies, both work really well unlike wind turbines and solar power which works some of the time only.
If the world has limited to non-Africa there would be no problem.
Africa is the problem. There are currently 1.2 billion people in Africa of which 600 million do not have access to electricity. There is predicted to be 2.5 billion people living in Africa in 2050.
Throwing aid at the African problem has not worked.
https://www.populationconnection.org/africa-globaldev/
So how and why do fertility rates vary across the globe? Currently, many regions throughout the world maintain total fertility rates at or below replacement level, or 2.0.
The U.S., for example, has a fertility rate of about 1.76, which implies that the average woman will have that many children. Canada’s fertility rate is 1.6, Spain’s is 1.5, South Korea’s is 1.24, Japan’s is 1.46, Chile’s is 1.75.
In contrast, Malawi’s fertility rate is 5.05 births per woman, Tanzania’s is estimated to be 4.9, Niger’s is 6.62, Burundi’s is 6.04, Mali’s is 5.96. Africa’s overall population is set to reach three times that of Europe by 2050. And, if UN forecasts remain true, sub-Saharan Africa will have four billion people in 2100.
https://qz.com/africa/1016790/more-than-half-of-the-worlds-population-growth-will-be-in-africa-by-2050/
More than half of the world’s population growth will be in Africa by 2050
Africa will account for the highest population spurt with an additional 1.3 billion people on the continent, a new UN population report shows.
Much of Africa’s population boom will come from Nigeria, currently the world’s 7th most populous country. By 2050, the report predicts, Nigeria will become the world’s third largest country by population, becoming one of the six nations projected to have a population of over 300 million.
Arithmetic Population and Energy – FULL LENGTH
Africa will never reach 4 billion people unless it stabilizes and modernizes. As long as it continues to be ruled by warlords, they will just keep killing each other. One would think that countries would over time stabilize, but then look at Iran and North Korea – they seem to be able to continue to exist no matter how brutal the governments are to their own people.
South America is another example of progress that keeps reversing itself – but they at least seem to be making progress in some areas. In 80 more years maybe they will finally achieve more stability.
Highly developed western societies would actually be shrinking in population if it were not for wholesale immigration (legal and otherwise). These societies appear to be reaching a decline in culture as they disintegrate from within (political correctness is a symptom of this). As they tilt towards socialism, they will lose their influence and eventually ability to generate a high GNP.
The population prediction from 2050 to 2100 seems very suspect, with the population of Africa increasing by 1.94 billion people (nearly 77%) in 50 years, while that of the rest of the world decreases by 528 million people.
Such a massive population increase in Africa would put tremendous strain on that continent’s resources, particularly since most of the northern half of Africa is uninhabitable desert (the Sahara). If Africa’s population actually increased that fast, most Africans would live in poverty, and this would encourage emigration from Africa to less densely populated areas, particularly Europe and the Americas.
Most AI researchers are predicting human level artificial general intelligence within 10-20 years, with superintelligence to follow soon after. All predictions about trends, environmental, economic and social problems fail at that point as the resultant changes and development in tech will be so vast. Given that short time line the only big issue the human race should be worrying about is if we can survive the rise of AI.
“With global population numbers due to stabilise in the next 50 years” ?
Going from 7.5B to 11.2B (50% increase) in 80 years is hardly “stable.”
If I read one more Op Ed writer opining on the need for higher birth rates in order to (a) pay for retirement for people my age (Baby Boomer), or (b) grow the economy, I shall write a strongly-worded Letter to the Editor! Where will we get the fresh water? and more to the point, who will pay for the retirement of all those new souls?
Both sides (every side?) of the climate debate should be firmly in favor of negative population growth. I’ll be dead by 2,050 (I plan to buy a motorcycle if I live to 85), but I morn for my grand children.
>> (50% increase) in 80 years is hardly “stable.”
Much of that increase comes from improved longevity. Extra old people don’t add to the birthrate. Thus, the population can be stabilizing and increasing at the same time.
“I’m assuming here that every extra square meter of the earth humans need will result eventually in a square meter of natural habitat being compromised in some way.” So that we move from occupying 3% of the earth to 4.5 % and somehow you see that as a problem. Get or of you arm chair and or city and drive around a bit start on the lowest southern most point of the US and drive as far north as you can get in Alaska, then tell me how we are filling up the earth. Better yet ride a bike, that will give you a real feel how vast the world really is. If you really want a challenge get a boat and sail around the at the south 40s. That really empty and deadly.
I am suppose to be concerned that presently human occupy 3% percent of the earth surface and somehow we are a threat to the earth and all thing on it if we occupy 4.5 %. Juat maybe when we get to 11 billion people we will have a larger biomass than ants.