Population Growth Been Going Down Since 1960s?

It seems to me that population growth has been falling since the 1960s, so why do the mainstream media keep stating that it is out of control and that we are overpopulated?

I have been checking the stats and it seems to have been falling overall since the 1960s.

I note that the UK in recent years has risen at the expense of poland, this seems directly related to the immigration policies of the UK government.

Are we becomming too over populated, because according to these stats we will be in negative decline in the next couple of decades. I believe that in the 1960s mass immunisations and vaccinations have driven the population growth down. Indeed, more and more people are no not fertile and connot have children.

Population Statistics,

Depends upon where you live surely? The global population has exploded over the past 100 years rather than dropped.

Edit to add:

My bad, just seen you mentioned population growth slowing rather than population. However, i thought we had a baby boom over the last couple of years - that suggests population is rising again.......

reply to post by TheMindWar


Maybe it's just because I'm just getting to that age where myself and people I grew up with are now thinking about kids but it seems to be in the water here. Since roughly 2008 everyone I know seems to be getting pregnant, some more than once in that time. My kids class is going to see an explosion in attendance (when she gets that far) and we live in a very small town. My facebook is nothing but family and friends and almost all of the statuses are about being pregnant, newborns, what the toddlers are doing ect.
I did read an article about how births dropped last year (can't find the link at the moment) but whoever is looking at the numbers must be looking somewhere else because here I know for fact there is no humanly possible way it is down in this community.

Surely as each offspring has an higher chance of surviving the less you need to have to continue the species which is why in poorer countries with higher child mortality rates have more just to cover the fact that its almost a guarantee that possibly most will die

reply to post by Flavian


Yes, I am talking about the growth stats. We can clearly see that it has dropped from 2% to 1% over 40 years, this indicates that it will be negative over the next few decades. If depopulation agenda also goes ahead we run the risk of extinction imo.

I know that white Americans population is in decline but mexicans, blacks and most of the rest of the world population is exploding www.nytimes.com...

the population is increasing but it's rate of increase is slowing down. however, now that we have such extreme numbers even the slower rate of growth isn't helping. there are just too many people. extinction due to slowing population growth isn't what you should worry about. extinction is likely to happen but not because we aren't having enough babies.

I am fully with member TheMindWar on this one.


Here is Has Rosling showing that everyone is living longer, much longer.






And here he is showing the reproductive rates are going down, way down.





Combined, the result is this.
For quite a while things will appear crowded and overpopulated.
Then people will notice everyone is old,
and by then it is too late.


David Grouchy

And here is a trailer for a documentary,
that brings it all together.
It looks bleak.


David Grouchy

the romans in the time of Julius Ceasar,
were totally preoccupied by the fear
that they were not producing enough children.

here is the entire 52 minute documentary on YouTube
YouTube: Demographic Winter

reply to post by TheMindWar


Actual numbers have been rising, but the growth rate has been falling. ...and yes, we're looking at a future population with the majority being ailing and/or elderly, and the minority young and healthy.

Originally posted by soficrow

Actual numbers have been rising, but the growth rate has been falling. ...and yes, we're looking at a future population with the majority being ailing and/or elderly, and the minority young and healthy.

It kind of reminds me of that movie "The children of Men."

In 2027, in a chaotic world in which humans can no longer procreate, a former activist agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea, where her child's birth may help scientists save the future of humankind.

And as the videos above show.... someone .... knows about this.

Why this information hasn't been made public,
and the elderly are being threatend with loss of benifits and austerity instead,
just seems cruel to me. Heartless even.


David Grouchy

Population growth rate will of course have to go down as the population increases, because otherwise there would be an exponential growth that the Earth and all the things on it could not sustain.

Your thread is misleading and it seems you didn't even understand the message in the chart...

reply to post by boncho

Population growth rate will of course have to go down as the population increases

?!?

That's not at all true! .....Most people think the population is increasing because the growth rate is rising, which is inaccurate.

You're right that if the growth rate had continued to go up, then we'd have a huge problem, but it didn't and the problem is being misrepresented.

reply to post by soficrowThat's not at all true! .....Most people think the population is increasing because the growth rate is rising, which is inaccurate.



Um. The chart that was linked in the OP showed the growth rate going down.


Population rate has been steadily increasing for a good long time now. The growth rate, as in (increasing population growth over time) of course could not increase indefinitely because the numbers would grow exponentially.

ex.

Actual Population

(0 year) 3,500,000,000
(1 year) 7,000,000,000
(2 years) 7,600,000,000
(3 years) 8,000,000,000

Take this for example, the baseline year (0) to year 1, population growth doubled, but the following years would be minuscule. Although still having a larger number of people.

If the growth rate were maintained from year 0-1 into following years, the population would be closer to 28 billion by year 3. This would be an example of increasing population, but declining growth rate....

reply to post by boncho

The growth rate, as in (increasing population growth over time) of course could not increase indefinitely because the numbers would grow exponentially.

Yes, the numbers would grow exponentially, but that's not why the rate is not increasing. In fact, The "Population Bomb" warnings of the 1960's and 70's were based on exponential growth, which didn't happen - in part due to the rising infertility rate.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by soficrowThat's not at all true! .....Most people think the population is increasing because the growth rate is rising, which is inaccurate.

 

Um. The chart that was linked in the OP showed the growth rate going down.


Population rate has been steadily increasing for a good long time now. The growth rate, as in (increasing population growth over time) of course could not increase indefinitely because the numbers would grow exponentially.

ex.

Actual Population

(0 year) 3,500,000,000
(1 year) 7,000,000,000
(2 years) 7,600,000,000
(3 years) 8,000,000,000

Take this for example, the baseline year (0) to year 1, population growth doubled, but the following years would be minuscule. Although still having a larger number of people.

If the growth rate were maintained from year 0-1 into following years, the population would be closer to 28 billion by year 3. This would be an example of increasing population, but declining growth rate....

edit on 4-1-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

exactly!! if we kept a regular growth rate... everyone had babies... we'd be on top of each other by now.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by boncho

 

The growth rate, as in (increasing population growth over time) of course could not increase indefinitely because the numbers would grow exponentially.

Yes, the numbers would grow exponentially, but that's not why the rate is not increasing. In fact, The "Population Bomb" warnings of the 1960's and 70's were based on exponential growth, which didn't happen - in part due to the rising infertility rate.

edit on 4/1/12 by soficrow because: clarity

So it had nothing to do with tax credits and other incentives for having babies shortly after the second world war? Of course it did. Where you will find the decline is in the more developed nations, which has become a standard. The largest booms are in the undeveloped nations that are reaping some technological, agricultural advantages without the proper limiting factors for growth. Be it social or material.

Infertility rates are usually anywhere from 5-15%. Even at 15%, that does not mean 15% less babies. Out of that 15% you would have to extrapolate who would have had children in the first place, and then take how many of the infertile who adopted, to figure out a number that actually impacted the growth rate. Being that when there is a demand for adoption or surrogates, someone will fill it.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by TheMindWar

 

Actual numbers have been rising, but the growth rate has been falling. ...and yes, we're looking at a future population with the majority being ailing and/or elderly, and the minority young and healthy.

Unfortunately this is inevitable unless a) we kill off everyone when they reach 40 (ala Logan's Run) or b) we continue to have an ever increasing growth rate. Neither being desireable.

It's largely a consequence of improved health and medical care - we're getting harder and harder to kill so we go on living longer and longer.

Eventually a new equilibrium will be reached, but its inevitable that at some point we will have to deal with a majority elderly population - if not in our generation then the next or the next (and every generation we delay it will mean the total of elderly people will be higher).

If we'd cut population growth 50 years ago, we'd have passed that period by now. But folk do insist on breeding. Shows just how much like rabbits (or sheep) humans are .....

Lower population growth rate still means that population is INCREASING exponentialy, but the exponent is decreasing in time. Population growth rate is somehow meaningless statistics, tough. It is influenced by demographic history and immigration. Fertility rate is a better measurement, and as you can see, it depends very strongly on what region are we talking about:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Are we becomming too over populated, because according to these stats we will be in negative decline in the next couple of decades.

Meaningless question, unless you specify what region "we" means. Earth as a whole is both overpopulated and underpopulated and everything in between.

UN predictions for future population:

upload.wikimedia.org...

reply to post by boncho


Delightfully circular.

As I said, the declining fertility rate is ONE factor leading to the declining fertility rate - similarly, numerous factors contributed to rising fertility rates.

If you are suggesting that government policies and other 'synthetic' interventions are used as social engineering mechanisms to manipulate human fertility, of course I agree. At the same time, I would conclude that some of the more direct and physical mechanisms spiralled out of control, and resulted in an infertility epidemic in humans as well as animals.

Remember this one?

MEN: You are being chemically castrated.