4 ms·
> Of course there are growth and population limits, and we are close to them. No science agrees with this. All the models suggest there is a huge amount of la
by austincheney 5y ago
> Of course there are growth and population limits, and we are close to them.
No science agrees with this. All the models suggest there is a huge amount of land and resources available for a massive rise in population, but population models suggest humans will tap out at about 9 billion due to declining fertility just about everywhere except Nigeria.
Because there is no alignment between resource production and population growth rates local effects continue to impose the greatest limitations just like with other animals. For example humans are really good at finding food. An efficient international network to distribute food further solves that problem, but if a population in a given locale exceeds the capacity of that local to distribute food people will starve despite food availability and human capabilities.
If, as an economic aside, wolves hunt all the rabbits in a given location wolves will starve even if there are other food options and wolves can travel hundreds of miles. That is because a population density in a single location is invariably tied to the food capabilities of that location and changes take additional effort at expenses otherwise not necessary. When those wolves starve in the given locale that has no bearing on the world total wolf population, which is likely regular and stable. Humans have the same limitations due to population densities.
- giantg2 5y agoA lot higher than 9 billion https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population "No science agrees with this" Sources? Using your wolves example, people can move to locations that are more developed and have the infrastructure for more food distribution. The main problem is that most people are so far removed from their food sources that they don't really think about whether there will be enough for their kids. You could have people starving to death, or something wolves dont have - global conflict.
- austincheney 5y agoAccording to your article 9 billion is still a safe estimate: The world population is projected to reach 8.5 billion in 2030, and to increase further to 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. As with any type of projection, there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding these latest population projections. These figures are based on the medium projection variant, which assumes a decline of fertility for countries where large families are still prevalent, as well as a slight increase of fertility in several countries with fewer than two children per woman on average. Survival prospects are also projected to improve in all countries.
- giantg2 5y agoDo you have any sources to support your claim? The quote you give says this is the medium estimate. We would have to know the low and high to know if your estimate is "safe".
- austincheney 5y agoI would have to look up source just the same as you. It just comes from various things I have read over the years.
- giantg2 5y agoCan you show that source. I don't see one.
- blooalien 5y ago> "Using your wolves example, people can move to locations that are more developed and have the infrastructure for more food distribution." This assumes that people can move to such locations. We live in a society where most "developed" nations will on one day happily accept and try to help refugees from terrible situations, and on another day will shoot those same refugees at the border and call them "invaders". And then there's the simple issue of many such people in dire need of leaving their current home simply being unable to at all. Undertaking the travel necessary to attempt to reach a "more developed" nation would be a death sentence in and of itself for some (for varying reasons).