Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...should we find a way to reduce consumption/input and waste/output,
(or reduce) our current population or even larger would be sustainable.
It's not some sort of either/or situation. We need to do it from BOTH ends.
A) reduce our overall total (raw) population numbers (eg target the US at ~220Million)
B) reduce the overall consumption and waste below what that 220M used in the past
First question: at what rate will the world population shrink in the next century? (1)....(Today the total figures are about 8 Billion).
Second: how can the UN, (or anyone else) predict how planet earth and the human kind will look in 100, 200, 1000 years from today? Or what the human population numbers will be in the year 2525?(2)....
All we can say with certainty is that currently the planet is OVERPOPULATED, a situation unsustainable in the long run (irrespective of climate change).(3)...
(1)... We don't really know. The math indicates that it WILL shrink because there are not enough babies being born to sustain the population. Not only that, but the fertility rate has been falling for a long time. It is only now getting below 2.0 world wide and that's the point at which population declines.
(2)... 2525? ... Not even in the discussion. But demographers certainly can tell you what the population may look like in 50 years, and it is not what the UN has been telling you. By the year 2070, the population decline will be well under way, although no one knows how fast it will accelerate.
(3)... I don't know that we can say that. There is no world food shortage and no fuel shortage, although I realize the overpopulation meme is very common. Most people believe the earth is overpopulated; I do not think the evidence supports that view. In the long scheme of things it won't matter one bit if anyone thought the earth was overpopulated at today's numbers. We will be decreasing.
The drivers for a decreasing fertility rate are the (1) emancipation of women where they are able to have lives and careers outside of career motherhood, and (2) the urbanization of families as they move into cities where large numbers of children mean large portions of real estate, which is very expensive.
Remember: In 1919 women could not even vote. That same year only 40% of the US population lived in urban settings; today that figure is 80%.
Last edited by Listener2307; 07-21-2021 at 10:00 PM..
In 1919 women could not even vote. That same year only 40% of the US population lived in urban settings; today that figure is 80%.
Actually urban population was 51% in 1920. It was 40% in the year 1900. There were a lot of immigrants from southern Europe during those two decades, and they mostly settled in cities.
Actually urban population was 51% in 1920. It was 40% in the year 1900. There were a lot of immigrants from southern Europe during those two decades, and they mostly settled in cities.
urban% year rural%
80.7% 2010 19.3%
79.0% 2000 21.0%
75.2% 1990 24.8%
73.7% 1980 26.3%
73.6% 1970 26.4%
69.9% 1960 30.1%
64.0% 1950 36.0%
56.5% 1940 43.5%
56.1% 1930 43.9%
51.2% 1920 48.8%
45.6% 1910 54.4%
39.6% 1900 60.4%
urban year rural (millions of people)
249.3 2010 59.5
222.4 2000 59.1
187.1 1990 61.7
167.1 1980 59.5
149.6 1970 53.6
125.3 1960 54.1
96.8 1950 54.5
74.7 1940 57.5
69.2 1930 54.0
54.3 1920 51.8
42.1 1910 50.2
30.2 1900 46.0
The trend is clear and it is not just in America. People all over the world - yes, including Africa - are leaving their rural towns and becoming urbanites. And when they become urbanites they stop having large families.
Interesting that the actual number of rural dwellers has not changed since 1980, even though US population has increased 46%, from 225M to 330M. And really, it has not changed much since 1940.
While I wouldn't dispute that increasing education and urbanization are contributory factors in reduced fertility, they are certainly not the only ones, and maybe not even the biggest.
In the last four decades, the male sperm count has fallen by 50%. Postponing pregnancy also creates problems. Over age thirty a woman's available egg count decreases significantly, and the incidence of miscarriage increases. Combined, these factors have a significant impact.
A decrease in sperm count is associated with increased exposure to some chemicals such as pesticides, phthalates, bisphenols, and more. These same chemicals can also affect the reproductive capabilities of a male in utero.
Animal studies suggest these problems can be reversed, but it's a multi-generational process.
Interesting that the actual number of rural dwellers has not changed since 1980, even though US population has increased 46%, from 225M to 330M. And really, it has not changed much since 1940.
Yes, it is not all of America that is exploding in population, it is the roughly 3% of the land considered "urban" that is exploding in population.
Elon Musk made some comments about population decline, which is being called population collapse in some circles. I think it may come to a collapse in some countries, but not here in America.
Quote:
Population collapse is potentially the greatest risk to the future of civilization
There is a link to a WSJ article, but you have to subscribe to WSJ to read it all...
WSJ links decline to Covid 19, but public available fertility figures show it goes back a lot further than that. It does point out that the raw number of births in America peaked in 2007.
The experts say, "No."
In fact, they point out that the fertility rate (average number of children born to each woman) has been falling for a very long time. Women fought for - and won - the right to own property, the right to vote, for equal wages, and for equal status. And as they won, the fertility rate decreased.
Women do not elect to become childless because they cannot afford to raise children; they elect to become childless because there is a better life for them with fewer or no children.
Anything less than an average of 2.1 means population decrease. And nearly every country in the world is now at less than 2.1.
Gather 6 couple-friends around the dinner table. Do you count 13 children among those couples? .... No? Then you are not unusual, because we can't, either.
So it is happening and will continue. The question is, "What will the world be like in 100 years?..... How about 150?"
Interesting. As quality of life goes up, birth rates decline. And having kids is very expensive but I guess it always has been that way.
Interesting. As quality of life goes up, birth rates decline.
I am just not sure what to think.
1) Forget about RATES altogether... focus on the RAW numbers involved.
2) Think about where the saturation point of too many people lies.
3) Think about how many decades ago we passed that mark.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The trend is clear and it is not just in America. People all over the world - yes, including Africa - are leaving their rural towns and becoming urbanites. And when they become urbanites they stop having large families.