87 replies to this topic

[forever freedom]

I was looking for some hope about how the future was going to look like and how i could find ways to radically extend my lifespan. Then i stumbled across this website. God bless google.

[singular_me]

the overpopulation threat is made up by the powers-that-be... hundred years of life span will rightfully address the matters... who will be then in the hurry to have kids. It is already noticeable that the poor has more kids, because of his need to ensure his survival.

Plus right now there are plenty of spaces on earth. people concentrate around the big cities because cities drives money. but once we really enter the era of nanotech, this will also put things into place.

Of course masses will have to understand the inherent problem with power. Truth is not profitable, simple... hence wealth and domination are products of "mind manipulation" .

Technology is going to dematerialize this world - this is my prediction. Man is a spiritual creature above all, but first he has to master materialism. That is his karma.


http://www.singularityawareness.net

Edited by singular_me, 09 December 2007 - 08:09 PM.

[Boondock]

A very interesting thread, and a very important topic. It's been a couple of years since anyone has contributed anything, so I thought I'd chip in with a few points.

1. The overpopulation issue is at the same time a resource issue - they're two sides of the same coin. The only reason a population goes "over" its limits is because it begins to run out of readily available resources.

2. At current levels of technology, with current projected rises in population, we do face a problem. Cheap oil sources have peaked or will peak soon, many marine stocks are depleted to the point that they're unfishable, freshwater sources are limited and at least a cause for concern. Arable land is OK, but is set to experience a squeeze in the coming years.

3. Climate change must be taken into account in any analysis of this. It's almost undeniable that some degree of warming now will happen, and that this will have a net negative effect on crop production and freshwater sources (although some countries will benefit). If climate change becomes severe, the problems will of course be much greater.

4. The argument that "there have been fears before, and we are still OK" is a fallacy. You have to judge each situation on its own circumstances. The fact that previous population scares were misplaced does not mean that all population scares are so misplaced.

5. There are two solutions to the problem. One is to improve our technologies, the other is to reduce population. Reducing population in underdeveloped countries is very difficult, although it can be done (as China showed). It's unlikely that developing nations will be pressured into reducing their populations, and some for religious reasons will simply refuse to do so. Technological solutions are our best way out of a problem, although they're always somewhat speculative until they come into production, and not something you can "bet on".

6. Technologies are unlikely to solve all resource problems, and in my view very unlikely to solve the climate change problem - which will have a huge effect on global populations.

7. We do face a problem, and if not in the next 10 years then in the next 50 we will begin to see effects of overpopulation and signifcant climate change. The countries which are poor now will be affected most, while the OECD, and probably India and China (if high growth sustains) will likely get by.

[VictorBjoerk]

A comment on the overpopulation problem....

What an issue it is with overpopulation, when aging is cured there won't be any more kids. and that's perfectly fine, why should one replace A with B? people who disagree with that seriously need to work on a nursing home and watch old people screaming in pain dying of age-related disease. If you in a future scenario wouldn't accept to stop having kids in favor of living infinitely, then you are not an immortalist.

when aging is cured we have a few options (assuming we don't move into space)

1. Let people choose between dying of aging and having kids or get rejuvenated and sterilized

This won't be a good idea because when the people who had chosen kids instead of life get old and sick they won't accept their earlier choice. They will still do everything to get rejuvenation therapies. Human rights activists will make a huge hassle when cancer victims etc are denied therapies. So this is not going to work.

2. Rejuvenate people but put a limit of how long they are allowed to live so people can continue procreating and replacing each other.

This obviously is madness, actively killing people to leave room for others is so wrong that it doesn't need to be discussed further.

3. Forced sterilization

It simply doesn't matter. Regardless how horrible and tyrannic it sounds, continuing having aging is still millions of time worse. However I don't think it would be possible to do IRL. This is the only thing that doesn't involve letting people die. To me it wouldn't matter, life is more important than kids.



Kids are funny and I understand people having them, however what is not funny is to have them on behalf of letting old people die in agony, which would be the case if we continued having the "generational change" despite having access to real anti-aging treatments. (the world is already overpopulated and NO I don't want to live in a cage together with 100 billions of other people underground, I want a good ecosystem, fresh air and beautiful forests to walk and ride horses in)

So in conclusion let's face it, we can't have continued procreation in an age-less society, (assuming we don't move into other solar systems) but that won't happen until long long long after aging has been cured.

If anyone agrees/disagrees please comment

[bacopa]

A comment on the overpopulation problem....

What an issue it is with overpopulation, when aging is cured there won't be any more kids. and that's perfectly fine, why should one replace A with B? people who disagree with that seriously need to work on a nursing home and watch old people screaming in pain dying of age-related disease. If you in a future scenario wouldn't accept to stop having kids in favor of living infinitely, then you are not an immortalist.

when aging is cured we have a few options (assuming we don't move into space)

1. Let people choose between dying of aging and having kids or get rejuvenated and sterilized

This won't be a good idea because when the people who had chosen kids instead of life get old and sick they won't accept their earlier choice. They will still do everything to get rejuvenation therapies. Human rights activists will make a huge hassle when cancer victims etc are denied therapies. So this is not going to work.

2. Rejuvenate people but put a limit of how long they are allowed to live so people can continue procreating and replacing each other.

This obviously is madness, actively killing people to leave room for others is so wrong that it doesn't need to be discussed further.

3. Forced sterilization

It simply doesn't matter. Regardless how horrible and tyrannic it sounds, continuing having aging is still millions of time worse. However I don't think it would be possible to do IRL. This is the only thing that doesn't involve letting people die. To me it wouldn't matter, life is more important than kids.



Kids are funny and I understand people having them, however what is not funny is to have them on behalf of letting old people die in agony, which would be the case if we continued having the "generational change" despite having access to real anti-aging treatments. (the world is already overpopulated and NO I don't want to live in a cage together with 100 billions of other people underground, I want a good ecosystem, fresh air and beautiful forests to walk and ride horses in)

So in conclusion let's face it, we can't have continued procreation in an age-less society, (assuming we don't move into other solar systems) but that won't happen until long long long after aging has been cured.

If anyone agrees/disagrees please comment

I came to the same conclusion as you which is simply we can't have more than say one kid if we really plan on living indefinitely. The colonization of space won't happen for a really really long time as you said, and that is truly a shame. How do the really long lived tortoises do it? I suppose they don't breed as quickly as humans

[marainein]

I came to the same conclusion as you which is simply we can't have more than say one kid if we really plan on living indefinitely. The colonization of space won't happen for a really really long time as you said, and that is truly a shame. How do the really long lived tortoises do it? I suppose they don't breed as quickly as humans

Actually we can't even have a single kid each, if we want to live indefinitely (think about it: if I have a kid, then they have a kid, then they have a kid, etc, and none of us die, the population is going to keep increasing). Birth rate has to equal death rate for population stability. There'd still be some death, so some people could have children - maybe there'd be a queue you'd have to join to do that. But if there were a lot of people wanting to have kids and the death rate was very low, it could be a very long wait.

Re: forced sterilization - one of the serendipitous side effects of Aubrey de Grey's anti-cancer treatment in SENS is that it will leave rejuvenated people infertile and unable to have children without the aid of a clinic - which will make enforcement of the 'rejuvenate or reproduce but not both' thing a lot easier.

[niner]

What an issue it is with overpopulation, when aging is cured there won't be any more kids. and that's perfectly fine, why should one replace A with B? people who disagree with that seriously need to work on a nursing home and watch old people screaming in pain dying of age-related disease. If you in a future scenario wouldn't accept to stop having kids in favor of living infinitely, then you are not an immortalist.

There's another option besides not reproducing and screaming in pain. Death could be painless. If the nursing home or hospice is doing its job right, these days pain can be controlled pretty well. Honestly, we have some really nutty ideas about death; we would never put an animal through the kind of suffering that we regularly impose on doomed humans. If the entire world were brought up to the economic and educational level of the most developed countries today, we could expect population to begin to fall rather than rise. People in modern societies seem to naturally choose to reproduce at something below the replacement rate. Obviously, as people start living longer, the "replacement rate" will change, and at some point reproduction may outstrip it. The quesion is: how fast will these changes occur? Meanwhile, some number of people may well choose not to live forever. At this point in time, we have no idea how many people will choose to stop living at some point in their extremely long lives. People will still die due to accidents, murder, or perhaps even rare diseases. I don't think that overpopulation is the biggest problem that immortalism faces.

[kurdishfella]

Maybe it is possible to put something in the food or water that makes people less horny or more in certain countries with declining population.

[AlephNull]

Maybe it is possible to put something in the food or water that makes people less horny or more in certain countries with declining population.

 

Yeah, microplastics that inhibit testosterone production, seed oils, corn syrup, and refined carbohydrates that are shoe-horned into processed foods that are supernormative and therefore addictive, which result in obesity, diabetes and early death.

 

We already live in that world.

[Mind]

Under-population looks like more of a threat right now than over-population.

[adamh]

Under-population looks like more of a threat right now than over-population.

 

That is actually the case. We have heard for so long that the world is overpopulated and that leads to pollution and scarce resources and that we are going to run out some day. Yet in recent years it has come out that the birth rate just about everywhere is lower than the replacement rate and populations are starting to fall. The illegals sneaking in might turn out to be a good thing one day

 

China is losing population, one estimate is that they have dropped from 1.4 billion to just about 1B. Their one child policy came back and bit them in the ass. Japan has had a shrinking and aging population for years. Russia is mostly empty land. Will the last person left please turn out the lights?

[pamojja]

Yet in recent years it has come out that the birth rate just about everywhere is lower than the replacement rate and populations are starting to fall.

 

Can't agree with this western/northerners -centric view. Where immigrants indeed keep the economy rolling. But far from that, from a global perspective. Where only a slow-down of population growth is apparent:

Year 	Population 	Yearly growth 		Density
		         %	 Number	       (pop/km2)
 				
1951	2,543,130,380 	1,75	43,808,223 	17
1952	2,590,270,899 	1,85	47,140,519 	17
1953	2,640,278,797 	1,93	50,007,898 	18
1954	2,691,979,339 	1,96	51,700,542 	18
1955	2,746,072,141 	2,01	54,092,802 	18
1956	2,801,002,631 	2	54,930,490 	19
1957	2,857,866,857 	2,03	56,864,226 	19
1958	2,916,108,097 	2,04	58,241,240 	20
1959	2,970,292,188 	1,86	54,184,091 	20
1960	3,019,233,434 	1,65	48,941,246 	20
1961	3,068,370,609 	1,63	49,137,175 	21
1962	3,126,686,743 	1,9	58,316,134 	21
1963	3,195,779,247 	2,21	69,092,504 	21
1964	3,267,212,338 	2,24	71,433,091 	22
1965	3,337,111,983 	2,14	69,899,645 	22
1966	3,406,417,036 	2,08	69,305,053 	23
1967	3,475,448,166 	2,03	69,031,130 	23
1968	3,546,810,808 	2,05	71,362,642 	24
1969	3,620,655,275 	2,08	73,844,467 	24
1970	3,695,390,336 	2,06	74,735,061 	25
1971	3,770,163,092 	2,02	74,772,756 	25
1972	3,844,800,885 	1,98	74,637,793 	26
1973	3,920,251,504 	1,96	75,450,619 	26
1974	3,995,517,077 	1,92	75,265,573 	27
1975	4,069,437,231 	1,85	73,920,154 	27
1976	4,142,505,882 	1,8	73,068,651 	28
1977	4,215,772,490 	1,77	73,266,608 	28
1978	4,289,657,708 	1,75	73,885,218 	29
1979	4,365,582,871 	1,77	75,925,163 	29
1980	4,444,007,706 	1,8	78,424,835 	30
1981	4,524,627,658 	1,81	80,619,952 	30
1982	4,607,984,871 	1,84	83,357,213 	31
1983	4,691,884,238 	1,82	83,899,367 	32
1984	4,775,836,074 	1,79	83,951,836 	32
1985	4,861,730,613 	1,8	85,894,539 	33
1986	4,950,063,339 	1,82	88,332,726 	33
1987	5,040,984,495 	1,84	90,921,156 	34
1988	5,132,293,974 	1,81	91,309,479 	34
1989	5,223,704,308 	1,78	91,410,334 	35
1990	5,316,175,862 	1,77	92,471,554 	36
1991	5,406,245,867 	1,69	90,070,005 	36
1992	5,492,686,093 	1,6	86,440,226 	37
1993	5,577,433,523 	1,54	84,747,430 	37
1994	5,660,727,993 	1,49	83,294,470 	38
1995	5,743,219,454 	1,46	82,491,461 	39
1996	5,825,145,298 	1,43	81,925,844 	39
1997	5,906,481,261 	1,4	81,335,963 	40
1998	5,987,312,480 	1,37	80,831,219 	40
1999	6,067,758,458 	1,34	80,445,978 	41
2000	6,148,898,975 	1,34	81,140,517 	41
2001	6,230,746,982 	1,33	81,848,007 	42
2002	6,312,407,360 	1,31	81,660,378 	42
2003	6,393,898,365 	1,29	81,491,005 	43
2004	6,475,751,478 	1,28	81,853,113 	43
2005	6,558,176,119 	1,27	82,424,641 	44
2006	6,641,416,218 	1,27	83,240,099 	45
2007	6,725,948,544 	1,27	84,532,326 	45
2008	6,811,597,272 	1,27	85,648,728 	46
2009	6,898,305,908 	1,27	86,708,636 	46
2010	6,985,603,105 	1,27	87,297,197 	47
2011	7,073,125,425 	1,25	87,522,320 	47
2012	7,161,697,921 	1,25	88,572,496 	48
2013	7,250,593,370 	1,24	88,895,449 	49
2014	7,339,013,419 	1,22	88,420,049 	49
2015	7,426,597,537 	1,19	87,584,118 	50
2016	7,513,474,238 	1,17	86,876,701 	50
2017	7,599,822,404 	1,15	86,348,166 	51
1951	2.543.130.380	1,75	43.808.223	17
1952	2.590.270.899	1,85	47.140.519	17
1953	2.640.278.797	1,93	50.007.898	18
1954	2.691.979.339	1,96	51.700.542	18
1955	2.746.072.141	2,01	54.092.802	18
1956	2.801.002.631	2	54.930.490	19
1957	2.857.866.857	2,03	56.864.226	19
1958	2.916.108.097	2,04	58.241.240	20
1959	2.970.292.188	1,86	54.184.091	20
1960	3.019.233.434	1,65	48.941.246	20
1961	3.068.370.609	1,63	49.137.175	21
1962	3.126.686.743	1,9	58.316.134	21
1963	3.195.779.247	2,21	69.092.504	21
1964	3.267.212.338	2,24	71.433.091	22
1965	3.337.111.983	2,14	69.899.645	22
1966	3.406.417.036	2,08	69.305.053	23
1967	3.475.448.166	2,03	69.031.130	23
1968	3.546.810.808	2,05	71.362.642	24
1969	3.620.655.275	2,08	73.844.467	24
1970	3.695.390.336	2,06	74.735.061	25
1971	3.770.163.092	2,02	74.772.756	25
1972	3.844.800.885	1,98	74.637.793	26
1973	3.920.251.504	1,96	75.450.619	26
1974	3.995.517.077	1,92	75.265.573	27
1975	4.069.437.231	1,85	73.920.154	27
1976	4.142.505.882	1,8	73.068.651	28
1977	4.215.772.490	1,77	73.266.608	28
1978	4.289.657.708	1,75	73.885.218	29
1979	4.365.582.871	1,77	75.925.163	29
1980	4.444.007.706	1,8	78.424.835	30
1981	4.524.627.658	1,81	80.619.952	30
1982	4.607.984.871	1,84	83.357.213	31
1983	4.691.884.238	1,82	83.899.367	32
1984	4.775.836.074	1,79	83.951.836	32
1985	4.861.730.613	1,8	85.894.539	33
1986	4.950.063.339	1,82	88.332.726	33
1987	5.040.984.495	1,84	90.921.156	34
1988	5.132.293.974	1,81	91.309.479	34
1989	5.223.704.308	1,78	91.410.334	35
1990	5.316.175.862	1,77	92.471.554	36
1991	5.406.245.867	1,69	90.070.005	36
1992	5.492.686.093	1,6	86.440.226	37
1993	5.577.433.523	1,54	84.747.430	37
1994	5.660.727.993	1,49	83.294.470	38
1995	5.743.219.454	1,46	82.491.461	39
1996	5.825.145.298	1,43	81.925.844	39
1997	5.906.481.261	1,4	81.335.963	40
1998	5.987.312.480	1,37	80.831.219	40
1999	6.067.758.458	1,34	80.445.978	41
2000	6.148.898.975	1,34	81.140.517	41
2001	6.230.746.982	1,33	81.848.007	42
2002	6.312.407.360	1,31	81.660.378	42
2003	6.393.898.365	1,29	81.491.005	43
2004	6.475.751.478	1,28	81.853.113	43
2005	6.558.176.119	1,27	82.424.641	44
2006	6.641.416.218	1,27	83.240.099	45
2007	6.725.948.544	1,27	84.532.326	45
2008	6.811.597.272	1,27	85.648.728	46
2009	6.898.305.908	1,27	86.708.636	46
2010	6.985.603.105	1,27	87.297.197	47
2011	7.073.125.425	1,25	87.522.320	47
2012	7.161.697.921	1,25	88.572.496	48
2013	7.250.593.370	1,24	88.895.449	49
2014	7.339.013.419	1,22	88.420.049	49
2015	7.426.597.537	1,19	87.584.118	50
2016	7.513.474.238	1,17	86.876.701	50
2017	7.599.822.404	1,15	86.348.166	51
2018	7.683.789.828	1,1	83.967.424	52
2019	7.764.951.032	1,06	81.161.204	52
2020	7.840.952.880	0,98	76.001.848	53
2021	7.909.295.151	0,87	68.342.271	53
2022	7.975.105.156	0,83	65.810.005	54
2023	8.045.311.447	0,88	70.206.291	54

 

 

[adamh]

What you don't seem to understand is that it takes quite a while for the population to go down after the birth rate drops below the replacement rate. It does not take place immediately, people have to die first and there will still be some births. Those number, if true, do not deny that. You gave no link to where you got that in the first place. You

 like lists of numbers? Take a look at these numbers

 

You will see that world birth rate is given as 18 births per 1000 per year which is about 1.8%, far below the replacement rate of 2.1%

 

https://worldpopulat...rate-by-country

 

"The birth rate is the number of live births per 1,000 people in a population over a specific period of time (typically a year). Birth rate is closely intertwined with total fertility rate, which tracks the average number of c that women in a given country give birth to during their childbearing years. The birth rate varies drastically by country. The average global birth rate was 18.5 births per 1,000 people in 2019, lower than in 2007 and 2012"

 

That difference is only about 3.4 births per 1000 but that over a period of years will eventually mean no more humans if it does not go up

[pamojja]

What you don't seem to understand is that it takes quite a while for the population to go down after the birth rate drops below the replacement rate. It does not take place immediately, people have to die first and there will still be some births. Those number, if true, do not deny that. You gave no link to where you got that in the first place.

 
The numbers are from wikipedia's world population growth page. The estimate of variance how fast the population will go down again is naturally very vast: Most optimistic is in 2050 only, which would reach a 'low' of about 7.3 billion in 2100. Same as in 2014. Until then, much more serious dangers are pressing.
 
 419px-Human_population_since_1800.png   79.92KB   0 downloads
By Bdm25 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wiki...?curid=89215845
 

We have heard for so long that the world is overpopulated and that leads to pollution and scarce resources and that we are going to run out some day.

 
There was an illustrating TV documentation (Arte), which compared the use of scare resources between an intentionally childless couple in Milan, and a family of 20 members in Ethiopia close to the Sahel. The childless Milan couple wasted as many resources before they had breakfast in not even 1 day, then the family of 20 members in 1 year!

 

Therefore, education is the cause for declining populations. Lack of basic education for the growth we still will have for a long time. The social security concomitant with education is the real cause for childlessness, and overuse of scarce resources.
 

You  like lists of numbers?

 

In this case I had the particular interest of the overall impact of the corona pandemic, and their countermeasures afterward:

Year 	Population 	Yearly growth 		Density	 Diff. to proceeding year	
		         %	Number	(pop/km2)	 %	Number
 						
2018	7.683.789.828	1,1	83.967.424	52	-0,05	-2.380.742
2019	7.764.951.032	1,06	81.161.204	52	-0,04	-2.806.220
2020	7.840.952.880	0,98	76.001.848	53	-0,08	-5.159.356
2021	7.909.295.151	0,87	68.342.271	53	-0,11	-7.659.577
2022	7.975.105.156	0,83	65.810.005	54	-0,04	-2.532.266
2023	8.045.311.447	0,88	70.206.291	54	0,05	4.396.286

Corona itself wasn't as bad as the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union and a decline of -0,09% in 1992 (most here would have cheered). The countermeasures, like the vaccines, were. But by 2023 we see an interesting rebound-effect, so often happening with natures self-organizing systems.

 

[pamojja]

 Therefore, education is the cause for declining populations.

 

In one developmental project in Ethiopia, only the correlation of small self-sustainable plots, child abundance (thought of as the security of old age), childhood-malnutrition, ... and as final consequence impoverishment, along with family planning is taught, and birth rates halved already.

Edited by pamojja, 31 August 2024 - 11:18 AM.

[adamh]

I very much doubt the wikipedia data since anyone can edit it. Wikipedia has never been considered a reliable source of information. The fact is that the world birth rate is 18.5 per thousand and in 2021 it was 18.07. That puts the lie to any source claiming that almost every country is seeing population growth. You can't have both a sub-replacement birth rate and an increasing population. Its simply not possible. That's like saying you spend more that you earn but your bank account keeps going up. 

 

https://www.cryptoho...google_vignette

[pamojja]

I very much doubt the wikipedia data since anyone can edit it.

 

The source of these yearly numbers on Wikipedia is Worldometer: https://www.worldome...lation-by-year/

 

Which gives as its source: From 1950 to current year: elaboration of data by United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2024 Revision. (Medium-fertility variant).

 

I understand that you distrust the United Nations too.
 

[adamh]

That is not the united nations website you gave. Its a site run by a small number of people.

 

What it comes down to is either those kooky sites are wrong or the world birth rate is incorrect. I  have seen birth data on a number of sites. No one says the birth rate is above 21/1000 except a couple places like pakistan and nigeria.

 

https://www.zerohedg...ulous-countries

 

"Birth rates are falling in the six most populated countries in the world, though at different speeds."

 

They say that china has a rate right now of 7.6 per 1000 and they are the most populous country on earth. USA the rate is 11.1. The world birth rate is 18.5 which is below replacement. You can't get around that fact

[pamojja]

That is not the united nations website you gave

 

The source of Worldometer is the United Nations website.

 

Which gives as its source: From 1950 to current year: elaboration of data by United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2024 Revision. (Medium-fertility variant).

 

As url: https://population.un.org/wpp/
 

[pamojja]

They say that china has a rate right now of 7.6 per 1000 and they are the most populous country on earth. USA the rate is 11.1. The world birth rate is 18.5 which is below replacement. You can't get around that fact

 

China has been overtaken by India. In the last 30 years its population grew by half a billion to now well over 1.4. Half a billion of its people, all below 30 years of age.

 

From your zero hedge article:

 

The Global Decline in Fertility Rates

 

Fertility rates are declining in most places. According to the UN, in 1990, the average number of births per woman globally was 3.2. By 2019, this had fallen to 2.5 births per woman; by 2050, it is expected to decline further to 2.2 births.

 

Notably, a fertility level of 2.1 births per woman is necessary to avoid a national population decline over the long run

 

 

Your article is in agreement with the most optimistic projection on wikipedia. If the per woman birth rate declines after 2050 below 2,1 - below replacement rate - only from then onward world population will decline. By then we are 9-10 billion, and approximately 7 billion by 2100.

Edited by pamojja, 02 September 2024 - 11:50 AM.

[pamojja]

The United Nations Population Division projects world population to reach 11.2 billion by the end of the 21st century. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projects that the global population will peak in 2064 at 9.73 billion and decline to 8.89 billion in 2100. ^[6] A 2014 study in Science concludes that the global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, with a 70% chance of continued growth into the 22nd century.^[36][37] The German Foundation for World Population reported in December 2019 that the global human population grows by 2.6 people every second, and could reach 8 billion by 2023.^[38][39]

 

Below are the references on wikipedia. If you have newer sources, please post
 

6. Vollset, Stein Emil; Goren, Emily; Yuan, Chun-Wei; Cao, Jackie; Smith, Amanda E.; Hsiao, Thomas; Bisignano, Catherine; Azhar, Gulrez S.; Castro, Emma; Chalek, Julian; Dolgert, Andrew J.; Frank, Tahvi; Fukutaki, Kai; Hay, Simon I.; Lozano, Rafael; Mokdad, Ali H.; Nandakumar, Vishnu; Pierce, Maxwell; Pletcher, Martin; Robalik, Toshana; Steuben, Krista M.; Wunrow, Han Yong; Zlavog, Bianca S.; Murray, Christopher J L. (14 July 2020). "Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study". Lancet (pdf). 396 (10258): 1285–1306. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2. PMC 7561721. PMID 32679112.

 

36. Deaton, Angus (2013). The Great Escape. Health, wealth, and the origins of inequality. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. pp. 91–93. ISBN 978-0-691-15354-4. McKeown's views, updated to modern circumstances, are still important today in debates between those who think that health is primarily determined by medical discoveries and medical treatment and those who look to the background social conditions of life.

 

37. Association of Public Health Epidemiologists in Ontario Archived 22 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine

 

38. Reece, Jane; Urry, Lisa; Cain, Michael; Wasserman, Steven; Minorsky, Peter; Jackson, Robert (2014). Campbell Biology. Pearson.

 

39. Stewart, James; Clegg, Daniel (2012). Brief Applied Calculus. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

 

[adamh]

We seem to have a difference on opinion on basic facts between some UN agency and the rest of the worlds authorities. You pick of course the outliers including wikipedia and that obscure agency. I have given several sources that show the real world birth rate is 18.5 and in recent years it was even lower. I will give even more sources

 

https://www.macrotre...orld/birth-rate

 

Chart and table of the World birth rate from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

• The current birth rate for World in 2024 is 17.299 births per 1000 people, a 0.94% decline from 2023.
• The birth rate for World in 2023 was 17.464 births per 1000 people, a 1.15% decline from 2022.
• The birth rate for World in 2022 was 17.668 births per 1000 people, a 1.15% decline from 2021.
• The birth rate for World in 2021 was 17.873 births per 1000 people, a 1.13% decline from 2020.

 

https://www.cia.gov/...eld/birth-rate/

 

World

18.1 births/1,000 population (2020 est.)

 

You claim that india has now a population of 1.4B and has surged in recent years. However the zerohedge article stated that india has a birthrate of 16 which contradicts your statement

 

All we can conclude is that some kooky un agency is putting out false numbers and they are used by wikipedia. However, all other sources say the world birthrate is 18.5 and has been lower in recent years. One or the other must be false and evidence shows that the un report which sparked all that false information is where it came from. Other sources which I have provided several contradict your statement about world population growing. If either the world is out of step or that un article which you rely on and which wikipedia relies on is likely the false one because of the bulk of evidence the other way

 

 

 

 

[pamojja]

You claim that india has now a population of 1.4B and has surged in recent years. However the zerohedge article stated that india has a birthrate of 16 which contradicts your statement

 

There is no contradiction between the population decline after 2050 predicted by all others, and your zerohedge article. Again the introductory excerpt, which clearly states population will decline only somewhere after 2050. Otherwise, your zerohedge article would contradict itself:

 

 The Global Decline in Fertility Rates

 

Fertility rates are declining in most places. According to the UN, in 1990, the average number of births per woman globally was 3.2. By 2019, this had fallen to 2.5 births per woman; by 2050, it is expected to decline further to 2.2 births.

 

Notably, a fertility level of 2.1 births per woman is necessary to avoid a national population decline over the long run

 
These are the words in your zerohedge article.

[adamh]

The article is a bit contradictory in parts. However, there is agreement that the birth rate is below the replacement rate and that means population is falling now.

[pamojja]

 However, there is agreement that the birth rate is below the replacement rate and that means population is falling now.

 

Not at all! It only states fertility rates are falling in many countries. But nowhere that worldwide it would already be below the replacement rate.
 

 Mortality.png   25.2KB   0 downloads

 

How you came to the strange conclusion, that a mortality rate of 8.1% would be above the 17,4% birthrate in 2024? Its nowhere in your article.

[albedo]

I would recommend in general the writings of Prof. John K. Davis, in particular his nice book quoted in this short article on the WEF site:

https://www.weforum....der-the-ethics/

I normally use it when confronted with not well elaborated criticisms (while having a respectful attitude if you wish to win people to our case and in politics)

Edited by albedo, 06 September 2024 - 02:21 PM.

[adamh]

"How you came to the strange conclusion, tha"t a mortality rate of 8.1% would be above the 17,4% birthrate in 2024? Its nowhere in your article."

 

I never said that. You love to dispute but your facts are made up. I see no point in responding to you further. 

Edited by adamh, 08 September 2024 - 09:08 PM.