World's population will stop growing in 2050: Study

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I am not so sure(optimistic) about this study nevertheless, here it is. Unless they know something that we dont know based on some of the 'population control theories' discussed on ATS, I am not so sure how it will ever reduce. Certainly Russia & Japan has a decreasing population issue but I'm not sure about other nations. Its not the case where men/women are gay/lesbians and do not produce their own offsprings or large number of troubled marriages where they end up in divorce without producing offsprings. Its generally the socio economic conditions (Not so sure about certain percentage of US population where it doesnt matter what the socio economic conditions are as long as the 'handouts' keep coming) that drive the decision to produce offsprings (more than 1 or 2) IMO.

There were topics on one side on ATS and other internet outlets discussing how certain fanatics/radicals believe that the only way to thrive their religion (Islam) is to multiply and conquer. And now we have some poindexters base their studies on few mathematical models/algorithms. Pretty interesting nevertheless since UN also provided some data and feedback on this particular study. Any specific plans being laid out by UN for the next century for certain continents/countries? Just curious.


Washington, Apr 5 (ANI): Global population data spanning the years from 1900 to 2010 have enabled researchers to predict that the number of people on Earth will stabilise around the middle of the century, a report has said.

The results, obtained with a model used by a research team from the Autonomous University of Madrid, coincide with the UN's downward forecasts.

According to United Nations' estimates, the world population in 2100 will be within a range between 15.8 billion people according to the highest estimates, high fertility variant- and 6.2 billion according to the lowest, low fertility variant, a figure that stands below the current 7 billion.

A mathematical model developed by a team from the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM) and the CEU-San Pablo University, both from Spain, seems to confirm the lower estimate, in addition to a standstill and even a slight drop in the number of people on Earth by the mid-21st century.

LINK




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
According to the UN and everyone else the worlds population is and has been shrinking for some time now.

Studies like this make sure it will never pick back up due to over population paranoia.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Yes it appears to be stabilizing... any time now and it should flatten out.


I wonder how long it took them to develop their mathematical model.

Anyone here know when the population of a species typically stops increasing?

When that species becomes so numerous there's simply not enough resources to sustain them.
edit on 5/4/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Ever since both couple started working crazy, the kids stopped coming.

Who knows maybe it is a good thing, if their materialistic life is more important, then they should not have any kids.


i will at least have 1 kid before i die. To see what my genes are capable of. A second chance!
edit on 4/5/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
According to the UN and everyone else the worlds population is and has been shrinking for some time now.

Studies like this make sure it will never pick back up due to over population paranoia.



The world population is shrinking is it?

Here's a big graph for you!

Google World Population



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
A late april 1st ??



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


well it makes sense that at some point we would hit the carrying capacity that the earth can support. Though new technology does increase food and water resources.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Does anyone know where I can find the actual paper for this thesis/data? What were their variables in this study?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForwardDrift
Does anyone know where I can find the actual paper for this thesis/data? What were their variables in this study?

Well like most news articles, a link to the paper isn't provided. I was interested to take a look at is as well but can't be bothered searching the internet. If you end up finding it let us know because I want to see exactly how they came up with such numbers. It has something to do with sigmoid functions... they think the population curve will act like a sigmoid curve, a fairly ridiculous idea if you ask me (although maybe not so ridiculous if they're actually basing it on the theory that we'll run out of resources).

EDIT: here's an interesting little page concerning plant growth:

During the initial stage, i.e., during the lag phase, the rate of plant growth is slow. Rate of growth then increases rapidly during the exponential phase. After some time the growth rate slowly decreases due to limitation of nutrients. This phase constitutes the stationary phase.



The curve obtained by plotting growth and time is called a growth curve. It is a typical sigmoid or S- shaped curve.


There you have it folks. We're like plants, sucking up all the nutrients.
edit on 5/4/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForwardDrift
Does anyone know where I can find the actual paper for this thesis/data? What were their variables in this study?
Here is the university website which is in spanish. There are research centers. Sorry I dont know spanish

LINK
edit on 5-4-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 
They're also not including in the studies as per how much land is still available for cultivation and/or the efficient use of resources/cultivation methods/inflation etc etc. However theoretically, if the modern science can increase the lifespan due to technology, then certainly the rate of population will grow to the point where it might reach a point where the amount of crops produced naturally will not be able to meet the pace no matter even if all the corners of the land is utilized to cultivate. This is once again if you base it on the equation.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


Hmm, thanks anyway guys.

I'm not familiar with the mathematics/statistics of the model, so I won't comment on whether their method was valid. I'm more curious as to how many and what types of input they put into their calculations. I mean, you would have to consider thousands of thousands of potential variables. Everything from the potential spread of diseases (acute and chronic), to climate changes, food production and loss, fertility rates, birth rates, ongoing (and potential conflicts), water availability, energy availability and so on... Not only would you need to know their current data, but also where they are projected to be and the millions of different ways these variables could all interact and counteract. This doesn't include unknown things like individual human choices in political, cultural and economic decision making. Nor does it include technological innovations in key areas related to longevity and population. I find it a little unbelievable that they were able to really reduce all of that uncertainty into a mathematical model. But, hey maybe they did.
edit on 5-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey9438
reply to post by hp1229
 


well it makes sense that at some point we would hit the carrying capacity that the earth can support. Though new technology does increase food and water resources.


We are so far from that its not even comprehensible. We still have the sea to colonize as well as underground as well as the air and that's not including space.

The world, if managed properly, could easily handle ten times the amount of people we have.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


well I did mention new technology but I did not think about increasing the space to grow and inhabit so it owuld be hard to tell what the overall population would be.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey9438
reply to post by Hopechest
 


well I did mention new technology but I did not think about increasing the space to grow and inhabit so it owuld be hard to tell what the overall population would be.


Actually if the world all worked together we could easily farm enough plants and animals and fish and find enough room for an indefinite expansion of the human race.

If push came to shove, we do have the technology to start building colonies on the moon as well as food up there. Might not be the most ideal solution at this point but it is possible.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by grey9438
reply to post by Hopechest
 


well I did mention new technology but I did not think about increasing the space to grow and inhabit so it owuld be hard to tell what the overall population would be.


Actually if the world all worked together we could easily farm enough plants and animals and fish and find enough room for an indefinite expansion of the human race.

If push came to shove, we do have the technology to start building colonies on the moon as well as food up there. Might not be the most ideal solution at this point but it is possible.


This could be true, but I would only resist having this opinion, because food and water is not the only limiting factor (when talking about modern civilization). Concerning modern civilization, I would argue some precious metal or oil/gas would be the limiting factor to societies prosperity. We would be sort of amiss, if were to go without oil powering our economy or making key society supporting items (medicine, plastic, etc). So, yes that might be true if always we relied upon was food. But there are other factors to consider. I also admit that some of these factors contribute (rather than alleviate) environmental issues that impede proper Earth management on our part. But I would also argue that we don't even really need to "grow" or expand our population any more than we have, now. We have enough people and a fast enough rate of innovation to achieve space colonization or any other sci-fi ambition. Really, we just need to start prioritizing and collaborating more meaningfully between state actors on important projects.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ForwardDrift
 


You are correct on everything you said. I was simply taking a look at the limit of what is possible. Certainly it wouldn't be ideal but in a worse case scenario it is something that we could work out.

I imagine the earth has a built in population control anyways, the same it has for all other species that outgrow their limits. If we get to populated I imagine a deadly virus or series of natural disasters will knock us back into place.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
While I couldn't find the updated version (2013) as I would have to pay for that here, I did manage to find the working version of the paper (2011), which contains some of the equations/theory. Perhaps someone more familiar with statistics and mathematical models can elaborate a little more.

Here is the pdf for the working paper: Working Paper


Maybe I'm wrong, but I still just see a mathematical model based on available biomass to human fertility rates. I don't see any consideration for other factors, is this an accurate perception on my part or no? And if so, I questions the validity of using such a model....



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 
Agree completely. Its all about efficiently management. But unfortunately that will remain an illusion forever it seems.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForwardDrift
While I couldn't find the updated version (2013) as I would have to pay for that here, I did manage to find the working version of the paper (2011), which contains some of the equations/theory. Perhaps someone more familiar with statistics and mathematical models can elaborate a little more.

Here is the pdf for the working paper: Working Paper


Maybe I'm wrong, but I still just see a mathematical model based on available biomass to human fertility rates. I don't see any consideration for other factors, is this an accurate perception on my part or no? And if so, I questions the validity of using such a model....
Excellent job. Thanks for posting the supporting links. Star for you.
edit on 5-4-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join