4 ms·

The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. This drives people like the autho

The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. This drives people like the author of the article mad, because they think we should do something to prevent that.

lukas099 3y ago
> The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century Source? I thought it was expected to stabilize around 10B or so
- pixl97 3y ago
  Source UN Population to 2300 https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_2002_world_population_to_2300.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve... Now the issue is both OP and you are taking one of the trend lines rather than looking at the projection spread. Ops seems slightly off as the UN numbers are showing 10B max and 7.4B min.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lukas099 3y ago
    You're looking at the graph that ends in 2050. Estimates for 2100 (from Fig. 6) ================================ - High: 14.0B - Med: 9.1B - Low: 5.5B
synecdoche 3y ago
> The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. I agree. So where is the problem? Replacement is a problem in many parts of the world on the other hand.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Alternative 1: we achieve 6 billion in 2300 because we cannot sustain 7 billion Alternative 2: we achieve 5 billion in 2300 because we chose to The quality of life in alternative 2 is higher because we're not right up against constraints that limit us. People feel more secure because there's less contention over resources, they're more likely to take risks like trying new ways of doing things, etc. There's a greater potential for discovery. So the problem is that if we let nature force us into Alternative 1, we're in for a worse time than we otherwise would be.

lukas099 3y ago

> The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century Source? I thought it was expected to stabilize around 10B or so

pixl97 3y ago
Source UN Population to 2300 https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_2002_world_population_to_2300.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve... Now the issue is both OP and you are taking one of the trend lines rather than looking at the projection spread. Ops seems slightly off as the UN numbers are showing 10B max and 7.4B min.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lukas099 3y ago
  You're looking at the graph that ends in 2050. Estimates for 2100 (from Fig. 6) ================================ - High: 14.0B - Med: 9.1B - Low: 5.5B

synecdoche 3y ago

> The global population is projected to go down to 6 billion by the end of the century, without any coercion or policy changes. I agree. So where is the problem? Replacement is a problem in many parts of the world on the other hand.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Alternative 1: we achieve 6 billion in 2300 because we cannot sustain 7 billion Alternative 2: we achieve 5 billion in 2300 because we chose to The quality of life in alternative 2 is higher because we're not right up against constraints that limit us. People feel more secure because there's less contention over resources, they're more likely to take risks like trying new ways of doing things, etc. There's a greater potential for discovery. So the problem is that if we let nature force us into Alternative 1, we're in for a worse time than we otherwise would be.