Read the link it said in relation to future growth [it is likely] not it is fact
It after all is one groups theory, you will be aware not every groups findings are taken on board by all
EG Climate change the man made part of it
Will the social reasons for less growth your side predicts include less developed countrys
How do you measure how many can live in those countrys
Yes do not underestimate me I understand what you are selling just not buying it

Belly,

i can't quite make sense of what you are trying to say. My 'side' ?! The fact IS, old fellow, that annual birth numbers have been declining rapidly since about 2000, mainly as developing countries expand their middle classes, particularly in relation to the position of, and opportunities for women. So there will never gain be runaway births on a world scale, if there ever was.

So the issue is the MAINTENANCE of population already existing, through longer lives: instead of dying at birth, or at thirty five from childbirth, or at fifty five from over-work or preventable disease, people can expect to live far longer. i.e. they're there, they exist and will continue to exist, while more babies (no more than before) keep being born. Put the two together and you get rising populations - UNTIL natural ageing catches up and people start dying at eighty instead of fifty - but sooner or later, must die.

So there will be a sort of Second Demographic Transition - where the situation changes from relatively high birth and death rates (say in 1950), to a situation of relatively high birth rates and declining death rates (between 2000 and the last five or ten years), to a situation of low birth rates and low death rates (from about now for the next forty or fifty years), to a situation of very low birth rates and increasing death rates (after about 2080).

A demographer could plot these processes and changes NOW, it isn't some bullsh!t 'projection': most of the people involved, you and me etc., already exist, and sooner or later, must cease to exist. While we exist, we add to the population, and when we regretfully cease to exist, you and me, the population will decline accordingly.

Let's be clear: there is no longer any runaway birth rates - on the world stage, birth numbers are levelling off as one country after another goes into negative population growth - since improving life expectancies has reached such limits as for it to be increased by medical advances only slowly. Sleep easy.

Joe

What should be made quite clear and understood -
it's not the number of people on the planet -
but the number of consumers and the scale
and nature of their consumption.

Foxy,

And both are increasing. We are nowhere near reaching the finite limits of almost any raw material, there is plenty of almost everything (i.e. minerals) still in the ground.

With developments in plant breeding and soil improvements going on all the time, and improvements in agricultural technology, we certainly haven't reached the limits of agricultural production.

I'm puzzled why there is this new hysteria about population - and its surrogates, i.e. not enough resources, not enough food, etc. The proportion of the world's population living in absolute poverty - while the world's population has doubled since 1950 - has halved since 1950. The proportion of the world's population which is middle-class has much more than doubled.

There is vastly more food being produced than in 1950. Hence so much of it is diverted from human consumption to animal consumption which, in turn, provides far more meat in world diets than ever before.

And if anything, one accompanying factor of the world's current stagnant economic growth is a relative saturation of that middle-class with consumer goods. I'm not saying one factor causes that stagnation but it accompanies it. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

Joe

Loud mouth I see your truth understand your thoughts but still hold mine
Reluctant to do this but will, birth rates in some living here are much higher than others
Bob Carr, good man branded racist for telling the truth is worth reading
Let us not forget my thread about this subject claims some parts are over populate now
And a truth in my view it is getting worse in those places
OK no level playing field corporate greed of multi nationals do help that take place
Wars filthy self serving dictators too
But never the less no matter the reason it remains my view some parts of the world are over populated'
Too if we do not set targets one day our numbers will be double today's

Belly,

Oy. Birth rates are really not the main cause of population growth any more, populations growing older and not dying as early as before, are. Certainly births in any number kick up a population, but on a world scale, we are nearly at the point when the annual number of births stays the same, even as the population still grows (or at least not so much of it dies off). Births are no longer the issue. There have to BE births of course, otherwise there would soon be nobody here but us old farts, but it's just not a problem.

Yes, parts of the world can seem overpopulated, Bangla Desh for example, especially those ghastly refugee camps for the poor bloody Rohingya - but that's not really a population issue, but an issue to do with political repression and Buddhist brutality in Burma and the need to flee into Bangla Desh.

But the most populated areas of, say, Africa, are usually the most productive - Burundi and Rwanda and Malawi, for example. That's why those areas are so popular. Otherwise Africa is barely half as populated as Europe.

Are you claiming that India or China are over-populated ?

Population density depends on a host of factors, especially the climate, soil, technology, skills of the people, degree of manufacturing industry, mix of agriculture and manufacturing and services etc. And meanwhile, technology, production techniques, types of crops, transport costs, etc., are always improving. And given the slow-down in birth numbers, there is probably no limit from now on in how much population the world can support in improving conditions, it depends on the mix of factors.

Cheers,

Joe