6 ms·
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Pakistan's population in 2050 will be closer to 37 million than to 370 million.
by hh3k0 4y ago
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Pakistan's population in 2050 will be closer to 37 million than to 370 million.
- rr888 4y agoNukes?
- o_m 4y agoThe population of a country peaks a few years after it has gotten developed. As in low child mortality, high educated population, etc.
- CydeWeys 4y agoWhat countries do you think this is true of? Even, say, France is still growing. Let alone the US.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- meowtimemania 4y agoAre those countries growing with birth rates alone? I thought immigration was what was helping the populations stay stable
- highwaylights 4y agoUS birth rate: 1.70 France birth rate: 1.87 Japan birth rate: 1.36 Pakistan birth rate: 3.45 So Pakistan, unlike many more developed countries, has a birth rate higher than the replacement rate, but significantly lower than it’s 1950 to 2000 highs over 6 - and trending downwards. The population would be expected to drop precipitously, but not soon.
- Gibbon1 4y agoI think Mexico's fertility rate was around 6 in 1975. And is now 2.10 or something. Basically Pakistan is 20 years behind Mexico demographically. Mexico will probably peak in 30 years. Not sure about Pakistan because a Pakistan of 500 million doesn't seem sustainable.
- acchow 4y agoYour logic is not sound. As long as birth rate remains above the replacement rate, population will not drop. Pakistan's birth rate has fallen significantly (but still above the replacement rate), so you will expect population growth to plummet, but not the population number itself
- highwaylights 4y agoMy point is that the current trajectory would soon make the birth rate below the replacement rate.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoThe population in most western countries are rising because of births + immigration. If just looking at births alone, then most of these countries would see declining populations.
- miohtama 4y agoThere is not simply enough food and energy
- throwaway111555 4y ago"Too little, too late" to decimate it with the nukes (
- okaram 4y agoCurrent pop is 220M, already closer to 370 ... I can see it not growing much, but not decreasing.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoClimate change caused deaths. Famine, heat, draught, etc.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoThis sounds extreme, but it's not as extreme as everyone seems to think. 200M is closer to 37M (+163M) than 370M (-170M). OP is saying a 10% decrease is more likely than the population staying even. I disagree - but not as wildly as I would if OP was saying that the population is likely to actually be close to 37M. 200M is quite far from 37M... It's just that 370M is even farther...
- oefnak 4y agoI find it more logical think of orders of magnitude, so to compare numbers by dividing them; with 100 sitting between 10 and 1000. Then 200 is a lot closer to 370 than to 37.
- As_You_Wish 4y agoI'm going to not go on a limb and say that by 2050, the entire population of the world will be closer to 37 million than 370 million. Mark my words. 100% think this. That's my futurology projection.