[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 60 KB, 640x447, World-Population-Growth-2050.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2040322 No.2040322 [Reply] [Original]

How many people does /sci/ think we can support on earth? Obviously the population can't keep increasing indefinitely, even if we became some sort of von Neumann machines we'd eventually run out of matter. What will put a cap on the population and where will it stop?

Current world population: 6,697,254,041
Current world population growth: 1.2%
Doubling time: ln(2) / 1.2% = 57.7623 years

2068 population: 13394508082
2126 population: 26789016164
2184 population: 53578032328
2242 population: 107156064656
2300 population: 214312129312
2358 population: 428624258624
2416 population: 857248517248
2880 population: 2.1945562 × 10^14
3112 population: 3.51128992 × 10^15
4040 population: 2.30115896 × 10^20
5084 population: 6.03235014 × 10^25
6128 population: 1.5813444 × 10^31

Just for comparison 1.992 x 10^30 population means we've converted every kilogram in the solar system into a human.

>> No.2040334
File: 10 KB, 340x234, what.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2040334

>>2040322
>Doesn't understand war
>Doesn't understand large scale disease

>> No.2040349

>>2040334
>doesn't understand war and disease are taken into account for population growth figures

If you think some new nasty plague that we can't cure with 21st century biotechnology will wipe out billions or some devastating war will bring us to near extinction why didn't you just say so?

>> No.2040367
File: 18 KB, 379x214, okwiththis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2040367

Increasing population just means massive pressure to expand.

Take the metal oxides on mars and use them to make starships. The human race expands outward in every direction, a Divine Plague upon the heathen cosmos, spreading the light of reason to the stars, for the glory of Holy Terra.

>> No.2040376

What model are you using? Malthus? My thesis is on pop growth. Also CIA is listing pop growth rate at 1.4% as the median of their current data.

>> No.2040378

>5084 population: 6.03235014 × 10^25

> 60 trillion trillion spics and niggers
> mfw

>> No.2040386

>>2040349
Actually, no they aren't for pop growth numbers. All demographers know their projections are highly inaccurate, and frequently express that they aren't predictions. Typically the variables used in projections are: crude death rate, crude birth rate, net migration rate, and total population. Except for like the UN and shit, I haven't been able to get a view of their models, but they take into account decreasing bithrates in africa and such.

>> No.2040439

>>2040376
World Bank says 1.2%, 1.4% would only shorten doubling time to 49.51 years making the numbers even more ridiculous.

>>2040367Increasing population just means massive pressure to expand.

While I like your youthful optimism, you'd first need some sort of energy source capable of sending massive numbers of humans to other stars. We don't even have anything theoretical that is capable of that.

Even if that is overcome, the Milky Way even with dark matter is only 1.15536 × 10^42 kg which at current growth means 1 human per kg of the galaxy in a surprisingly small amount of time by planetary standards.

>> No.2040546

>>2040439
Yeah, World Bank is optimistic about an increase in contraceptive usage in Africa. The US, not so much.

To be honest though, your model is off. You're citing optimistic data, yet 2068 is far higher than anything I've seen that's not hugely flawed.

It seems you're using Malthus's idea of doubling time, which is grossly inaccurate.

Again, my thesis is in pop growth.

>> No.2040547

Typically as populations increase so does productivity. When productivity increases so does the standard of living. When standard of living increases infant death rates decrease. When infant death rates decrease, historically the number of children per family decreases.
so, We're ok on overpopulating

>> No.2040594

>>2040547
Ummm, no sir. Go on iTunes U. The Yale prof does a good job of explaining how pop works. Bascially:

Phase 1: High BR, High DR
Phase 2: High BR, Falling DR
Phase 3. Falling Br, Falling DR

The majority of countries are in Phase 2. We are not okay. Already we're exhausting the fish population. We're running out of fucking fish!

>> No.2040609

The population is predicted to start decreasing a lot by 2050. Bascially the baby boomers will die off, people have much less kids now. We have plenty of room and resources until then.

>> No.2040625

>>2040609
Again, no. Falling fish population, only 5% of undeveloped arable land, et al. We're fucked. And the pop growth rate won't decrease.

>> No.2040637

>>2040322
Current carrying capacity of the Earth is about 11 billion people.

We could exceed K to about 13 bln for a little while before some serious shit started to happen.

I've done a lot of population dynamics research btw.

>> No.2040638

Well exceeding 20 billion, I'd say.

>> No.2040644

>>2040625
>And the pop growth rate won't decrease.
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong

>> No.2040657

>>2040594
Clearly you and I are arguing the same thing from a different perspective. You see this as a problem. I see it as a chance to push the 2nd Phasers a level up

>> No.2040656

what we should do is stop developing methods to keep people older. its just not right.

>> No.2040660

>>2040637
My thesis is in it. K? Logistics model? Really? Go back to your intro demographics class.

Also
>China now has only 0.08 hectare (ha) of cropland per capita, compared to the worldwide average of 0.27 ha per capita and the 0.5 ha per capita considered minimal for the diverse diet currently available to residents of the United States and Europe. Nearly one-third of the world's cropland has been abandoned during the past 40 years because erosion makes it unproductive.

18 billion, really?

>> No.2040663

>>2040656

> its just not right.

according to what?

>> No.2040667

>>2040657
You can't, socio-religious factors discourage that. For example, my friend is a Hasidic Jew, he said everyone he knows aims for at least 5 kids. My gf is paki, all her cousins (girls) want 4 or 5 kids at least. Her mom nearly had a nervous breakdown when she couldn't have more than 3. All these examples are here in the US, not in a Phase 2 country.

>> No.2040669

>>2040660
um... no

2 degrees + published in this shit

>> No.2040671

>>2040547
That's based on highly outdated models, most of the labor of past was in production (food, raw materials, and goods) or services however with constant technological advancement automation is/will become dominant in those areas. And research and development doesn't directly benefit nearly as much from having a larger workforce.

>> No.2040676

>>2040669
Really? I'm surprised you haven't been run out for such liberal estimates. Feel free to link your articles. I only have access to JSTORE at home though.

>> No.2040695
File: 40 KB, 211x203, 1265837576011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2040695

>>2040676
>Feel free to link your articles.

>> No.2040697

>>2040676

>JSTOR

JSTOR sucks ass.

>> No.2040702

I don't care OP
I just don't care

>> No.2040721

>>2040697
>what I'm really saying is that none of my articles are on JSTOR

Go ahead and link them to another large resource. I'll be hitting the library tomorrow, where I have open access to most large databases.

>> No.2040736
File: 83 KB, 479x358, OrbitGirl13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2040736

>>2040367
My face when Man is the endless hordes of flesh and metal that the heroic species of the universe must unite together with to end.

>> No.2040745

College anon fag here, I promise to rapidshit any articles that are referenced in this thread, so go ahead please.

>> No.2040747

>>2040745
Oh shit, thanks anon!

>> No.2040751

>>2040663
oh well there was a thread before on /sci/ saying evolution doesn't like organisms growing old.

basically old people keep forcing their ideas on to us where it is not accepted into society.

like the imperial system, and industries failing to adapt to the internet

>> No.2040764

>>2040747
Knowledge should be free bro.

>> No.2040769

>>2040751
That's a matter of education, they weren't taught that things change but that the world is 'this way'.

As far as business models go that's just greed, they don't want to expend money or manpower to change and will quite often bad mouth other models (not just new models).

>> No.2040777

>>2040769
No, evolution doesn't like old people because they suck up resources without passing on their genes. They can't have any more kids, so they should just die off.

>> No.2040780

BREAKING NEWS: MANKIND IS A VIRUS THAT KEEPS MULTIPLYING TILL IT ENDS ITSELF

no really... didn't we know that already?

>> No.2040783

>>2040764
Amen, but I don't think this guy's actually published. Probably just frontin on front st.

>> No.2040800

Protip: The nations with the highest population growth are nations with the highest child mortality rate. Poor families without much food naturally have a lot of children because they know they might lose several of them. The key to stopping population growth is ending world hunger and poverty.

>> No.2040848

>>2040800Poor families without much food naturally have a lot of children because they know they might lose several of them. The key to stopping population growth is ending world hunger and poverty.

Giving them food doesn't work because reducing the infant mortality just results in higher population growth. What we should be doing is paying people in undeveloped nations to undergo surgical sterilization.

>> No.2040852

What do we need all those people for anyway?
Couldn't we just do as good as a species with, like, one tenth of the population we currently have?

>> No.2040858

>>2040852
As good a species at what? The universe doesn't care if there are any humans at all.

>> No.2040870

>>2040848
Check the numbers yourself. High infant mortality rates mean high population growth rates. As soon as a region gets enough food and medical care population growth goes down. Deal with it.

>> No.2040871

>>2040667My gf is paki, all her cousins (girls) want 4 or 5 kids at least.

You should tell your gf's cousins that a vagina is not a type of machine gun.

>> No.2040874

>>2040858
>As good a species at what?
That's the question, we don't even have decided on a purpose. Mankinds currently is just a festering tumor. Pathetic really.

>> No.2040878

Peak is estimated to be 9 billion around 2050 last I heard.

>> No.2040883

>>2040870 As soon as a region gets enough food and medical care population growth goes down.

That only applies to nations developed enough culturally and economically that people decide to use family planning. Muslims and Hispanic Catholics in developed nations do not have smaller population growth.

>> No.2040890

>>2040874
I don't see you coming up with any sort of purpose for humanity. In fairness, the entire concept of purpose is a human invention and will die with us.

>> No.2040897

>>2040890
so let's just kill off mankind and be done with it

>> No.2040902

>>2040871

Well if they're upper class and educated then good I hope they have more kids

We have too many stupid people reproducing but not enough smart people, this is super true for white people

We ought to get our shit together or we're gonna get taken over

>> No.2040917

>>2040883
Not just Muslims and Hispanics but:

Blacks
Asians
Low income Whites
Hasidic Jews
and Mormons

Am I missing anyone?

>> No.2040926

>>2040902
Did you miss the part where his gf is a paki?

>> No.2040937

>>2040883
>That only applies to nations developed enough culturally and economically that people decide to use family planning
WRONG! A there are exceptions but the typical developing country poverty stricken "household" won't have too many kids if they don't need to simply because they know they can't support them. Humans are wired to make babies at any cost, even if it means being poor their entire lives, which is why they have a tonne of kids if they think they will lose a few. As soon as the health of their children is assured they have 2 or 3 and stop there. Exceptions are usually because of the religion of the region, damn Catholics are like freaking rabbits no matter their economic status.

>> No.2040943

>>2040926
My gf who graduated valedictorian from HS and started as a sophomore at a tier 1 university? Yeah, she's a paki, what about it?

>> No.2041030

I would say you should be more concerned with increasing the standard of living of those already on Earth than overpopulation. Firstly, improving the standard of living may lower population growth. Secondly, modelling systems as complicated as human population are extremely difficult, as malthus has shown, so it may be a non-issue, while the suffering of those living today is definitely there.

>> No.2041033

I'd say 6 million.

>> No.2041042

>>2040937
You're over thinking it... they're not thinking about lofty (and retarded) goals like passing on their seed to future generations. They're either trying to find some kind of happiness in anyway they can or killing time by fucking (like animals) not understanding that it is by their actions that their children starve and die.

>> No.2041101

>>2040926

He's probably American

In UK they do Pakis have problems, bu that's because they imported shit Pakis that weren't educated.

America has a very rigorous immigration policy, only the best get in, unless you're mexican.

Pakis along with Indians (same group in statistics) have the highest average income, education, etc... In America.

>> No.2041111

NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES ARE GONNA RUN OUT

helloooo? hasn't anyone taken account of the lack of renewable resources quickly dwindling? and that no governments are doing anything quick enough to.... ugh.. fuck this. I'm going back to /b/

>> No.2041140

>>2041111
Yes we know. Our way of life is fucked and there's nothing anyone could do to prevent this even if people cared enough to try.

>> No.2041688

One child policy should be adopted globally, otherwise humanity will not survive another 150 years.

>> No.2041725

People living in bad conditions have lots of children, because few of them survive. Population is stable so far. When the conditions of people improve, lots of children that would otherwise die will live and again reproduce - population explosion is a result. It takes one or few generations for people to change their cultural mindset of having lots of children, even tough it is no longer needed.

This lagging of cultural mindset behind what is actually needed for stable population is the reason for population explosion of the poor.